It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AZ Birther Bill accepts Circumcision Certificate even though it is not a legal document.

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
It's also funny to point out that liberals thought this bill was racist but now it will help ensure that candidates are not natural born Americans.


Who thought this law was going to be racist?
That was the papers please law you are thinking of but this one does have a wink and a nod attatched to it. A very 'not exactly like us' kinda feel but I think you are confused.




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by aptness
 


Seems like no matter what you just won't believe what the republicans are saying, maybe you're racist against white people.


Republicans = white people?

Good to know for future reference. Thanks!



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
I may be totally misssing it.........

but im failing to see ANYWHERE where it says you have to "describe" your penis......


Apparently you are totally missing it. When you have to explain to someone how much skin you have on your penis, you are describing it. Offering up a circumcision certificate goes a long way to describe v-neck or turtle-neck.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
I may be totally misssing it.........

but im failing to see ANYWHERE where it says you have to "describe" your penis......


Apparently you are totally missing it. When you have to explain to someone how much skin you have on your penis, you are describing it. Offering up a circumcision certificate goes a long way to describe v-neck or turtle-neck.


Well to be fair that's only a small detail of description and wouldn't do much in a police line up..
I could think of plenty more...



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Thank you..
So Obama doesn't need to worry about penis pics..
He can just show his Long Form as proof..


Actually it is even easier than that. He can just use his short form like he did the last time.
2nd.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
Why would the DOH have a circumcision document on file instead of their certificate?
Thanks for demonstrating the extreme irony of this thread.

Anti-birthers say that nobody needs to see the birth certificate, because whatever source document the Hawaii DOH has on file is good enough for them, they don't need to see it.

And yet when Arizona tries to pin down what source documents are acceptable, people start criticizing the decision on what documents to allow/disallow.

This thread is really making the birther's case that the source document is important. It DOES matter what they have on file, that they are basing the short form on. That's what birthers are saying, and that's the message in the OP, we can't just accept any old thing, the source document matters. So why are some people so sure the source document is fine, without having seen it?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by backinblack
Thank you..
So Obama doesn't need to worry about penis pics..
He can just show his Long Form as proof..


Actually it is even easier than that. He can just use his short form like he did the last time.
2nd.


Am I reading this wrong??

States that the affidavit must contain the following:

Ø Certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate including at least:

· Date and place of birth.

· Name of the hospital and attending physician, if applicable.

· Signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

Ø Sworn statement that identifies the candidate’s places of residence in the United States for fourteen years.

· Allows a presidential candidate to attach two or more of the following documents, if they do not have a long form birth certificate, if the candidate swears to the validity and authenticity of the documents, and if the documents contain enough information for the SOS to determine if the candidate meets the Constitutional requirements for office:

www.azleg.gov...

As you say, he has access to a Long Form so That's what he must show..



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


The department of vital records would hold the birth certificates I would guess.


Jesus, do you guys look at ANY posted links? Or do you just put on blinders and hum loudly as you scan the posts? You don't have to guess. The Hawaii Department of Health keeps Vital Records.



Why couldn't the governor find it? My guess would be because it is either on lockdown or doesn't exist.


Again, you don't have to guess. All you have to do is READ. Let me make it short and simple for you since I've answered this question SPECIFICALLY for you and you apparently missed it.

The State Attorney told the governor "NO-NO".
Hawaii Statute 338-18 forbids it.

See this post for links to ignore: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 4/18/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Is there a Long Form BC on file in Hawaii or not??
Simple yes or no please..


Yes.
Simple enough?


Thank you..
So Obama doesn't need to worry about penis pics..
He can just show his Long Form as proof..


No, he can't. Guess you missed it first time around:
www.msnbc.msn.com...


"It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody," he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated "certification of live birth" form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Great link. It's got all the info right there.



But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of "vital records," including an original "record of live birth" — even to the individual whose birth it records.


Obama cannot get a copy of his long form. If he's not circumcised, or doesn't have the proof of that, I guess he's SOL for getting on the AZ ballot.

I still don't understand how circumcision (or baptism, for that matter) proves citizenship.
Must one be baptized to be president now? Two religious documents being required by Arizona... Man! Those AZ legislators are really on the ball!


.
edit on 4/18/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 





Apparently you are totally missing it. When you have to explain to someone how much skin you have on your penis, you are describing it. Offering up a circumcision certificate goes a long way to describe v-neck or turtle-neck.


Wrong offering up a circumcision record is NOT the same as describing your penis..........more language from the inflamitory liberal left......

not that i think this whole thing is anyhing but idiotic.

point is the left accuses the right all the time of using inflammatory language to incite............

and then what do we see here:?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl
No, he can't. Guess you missed it first time around:
www.msnbc.msn.com...


"It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody," he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said.
State laws don't make provisions for a lot of things, that doesn't mean they aren't done every day. Do you really think state law would specify each and every instance where a photocopy could be made? And Okubo worked for the DOH and offered to provide the vital record, I'd say a DOH spokesperson is a better source of information about what the DOH would do than a 3rd party:

the.honoluluadvertiser.com...


Okubo said, "If someone from Obama's campaign gave us permission in person and presented some kind of verification that he or she was Obama's designee, we could release the vital record."
Isn't that a more reliable source?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by aptness
Why would the DOH have a circumcision document on file instead of their certificate?
Thanks for demonstrating the extreme irony of this thread.
The only thing it demonstraste is that you think the Department of Health, instead of their own certificate, could have a circumcision certificate.

I mean, even by the most absurd birther theories — e.g. Obama was born in Kenya and they registered his birth late in Hawaii through affidavits from the grandparents — it contemplates nothing but an existing DOH birth certificate on file, but with ‘shady’ information, as per the birthers.

You’re taking it into another level.


Anti-birthers say that nobody needs to see the birth certificate, because whatever source document the Hawaii DOH has on file is good enough for them, they don't need to see it.
What reasonable people are saying is Obama already presented his birth certificate. That’s the birth certificate. That’s what the state of Hawaii issues, and it’s what the state of Hawaii says “for all purposes is the same as the original.”

You don’t want to accept it? Don’t. Unfortunately, however, for the state of Arizona, it is bound by the Constitution and whatever the state of Hawaii says is a birth certificate, Arizona has to accept.


And yet when Arizona tries to pin down what source documents are acceptable, people start criticizing the decision on what documents to allow/disallow.
The bill is doing no such thing. Circumcision or baptismal records are not “source documents.”

The Arizona bill is requesting those documents, to determine Presidential candidate’s qualifications, in lieu of a primary source of proof of citizenship — a birth certificate — and Arizona is saying they can define what birth certificate they will accept.


This thread is really making the birther's case that the source document is important. It DOES matter what they have on file, that they are basing the short form on.
The “source document” and what “they are basing the short form on” is the Department of Health’s own certificate.

If you honestly believe they could have a circumcision certificate, or any other document, as their “source document” then, regardless of how much you deny being a birther, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to understand these beliefs of yours.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



I have a question about this. Why do you keep associating circumcision with only Jewish men? I know MANY men who are circumcised and not Jewish. Is it that only Jewish people get the certificate? I'm just confused and would appreciate a clarification.


Circumcision is a religious rite of religious passage in the Jewish faith hence the circumcision certificate like the Christian baptismal certificate. If Obama were in fact Jewish he would have the circumcision certificate signed by the Mohel.

The main topic of this bizarre and irrelevant thread was supposed to be about the Circumcision Certificate as accepted in a STATE law. Hence my mention of Obama NOT being Jewish. Whether the man has been snipped or not is a moot point. It does not apply to Obama. No need for anyone to worry.

If Arizona wants to accept the certificate in the absence of any other documents, that is their right to do so.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
If you honestly believe they could have a circumcision certificate, or any other document, as their “source document” then, regardless of how much you deny being a birther, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to understand these beliefs of yours.
I don't know what they have.

What I find difficult to understand is your belief that what they have is fine when you don't know what it is/haven't seen it.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
the.honoluluadvertiser.com...


Okubo said, "If someone from Obama's campaign gave us permission in person and presented some kind of verification that he or she was Obama's designee, we could release the vital record."


Isn't that a more reliable source?


Firstly, do you think a newspaper staff writer is "more accurate" than the Dept of Health itself - about the Dept of Health's policies and procedures?

Secondly, you seem to be inferring that they are talking about the long form. I see no such indication. Read your entire source article. They only talk about "the birth certificate" and the "vital record". Not the long form or the original record.



Obama in March posted a copy of his birth certificate on his Web site, www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate, to prove that he was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu.


This proves that the "birth certificate" in this article is referring to the short form, because that's what Obama posted on his fight the smears site.
.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Obama`s mum was a jew so he will no doubt be snipped. So perhaps its a way to let him still be in power. Because he may not have the long birth form. But he may still have the snipped form, so he will pass with out showing any other docs.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


So, this would cover only male Jews who happen to have kept their certificate. And a baptism record would only cover those who were baptized and have a document about it. (I was baptized in the Baptist church and don't have a certificate). And neither of these documents are proof of citizenship, mush less Natural-born citizenship. And these two documents are only going to be held by Jews or Christians...

So, AZ has the right to DENY the short form BC and accept the above documents instead... Are you OK with that?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Am I reading this wrong??
As you say, he has access to a Long Form so That's what he must show..


Apparently. This is a bill, not a law. Big difference. AZ cannot pass a law stating you must be 37 in order to be eligible for the presidential ballot either. It might help a great deal to familiarize yourself with bills and laws in the US, despite what Eric Cantor tried to tell you a few weeks ago.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What I find difficult to understand is your belief that what they have is fine when you don't know what it is/haven't seen it.


I haven't seen my husband's long form BC, but I believe it's there.
I don't really understand gravity, but I know it's there and I believe it.
I haven't seen the wind, but I know and believe that it's there.

Because I see evidence of them.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health described the document and I believe her. I have NO reason not to believe her. The evidence is OVERWHELMING. I don't have to see this one document to believe it's there.



She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join