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.

 

Subpoena Filed in D.C. Court for Hawaii Director of Health to Produce the ORIGINAL typewritten BC!

page: 8
55
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Congress never met to discuss Obama's qualifications. So he was not vetted. There was no resolution brought forward by the Dems or Republicans at all.
I think that there should be a vetting process so this can never happen again.




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
Congress never met to discuss Obama's qualifications. So he was not vetted. There was no resolution brought forward by the Dems or Republicans at all.
Congress also never met to discuss if Obama is human. There was also no resolution saying Obama is human.

Per your logic, only those whose eligibility is questionable are vetted, by “meetings to discuss their qualifications” and resolutions.

If you stop for a moment, if you can, thinking about Obama, and imagine someone else in the same scenario you will realize how absurd that proposition is.

Candidate A presents his birth certificate months before the election. Congress say nothing. Some media outlets question the eligibility of his opponent, Candidate B, who was admittedly born outside the United States. Candidate B doesn’t show his birth certificate to anyone. Congress adopts a resolution stating Candidate B is eligible. Congress says nothing about Candidate A. Candidate A wins election. Congress certifies election without objection.

Your conclusion: Candidate B was vetted and is eligible. Candidate A? Not vetted and possibly ineligible.



edit on 25-5-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pseudonaut

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

In any case, the judge will probably be overruled by someone somewhere.
Isn't that always how this goes?


Yes, and that's how it's supposed to go. Our entire political system is set up with a system of checks and balances, so that things like this can be squashed like the nonsense they are.


Our system had checks and balances in the 1800's.....that was about it..

not so much anymore



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Your scenario of candidate A & B seems accurate. I maintain that since McCain was the subject of a resolution from Congress confirming his eligibility that he was vetted. Since we have determined that there are no written standards, this process was sufficient.

Obama was not vetted as far as his birth place was concerned. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in Congress chose to make an issue out of it. There were no House or Senate discussions at all.
Failure to vet means to me that he was not vetted. If the Congress did not investigate the circumstances of Obama's birthplace and confirm that he was eligible, then I conclude that he was not vetted.

Bush, Clinton & Reagan were also not vetted, because there was no question put forward about their eligibility to run for President. Should they? Yes in my opinion. I don't see this as a complicated matter. Congress needs to adopt a comprehensive vetting process to ensure that any candidate for President is constitutionally qualified. They should follow the lead of the states that are already considering such a process.

A Bipartisan committee that has the authorization to examine any and all vital documents should be formed. Never again should such an issue divide this country.

Obama could make this happen if he chose to do so.


edit on 5/25/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment

edit on 5/25/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
Your conclusion: Candidate B was vetted and is eligible. Candidate A? Not vetted and possibly ineligible.



edit on 25-5-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)


If Congress considers the place of Obama's birth and passes a resolution confirming his eligibility I would agree that he was vetted. McCain is eligible as long as no fraud regarding his birth place is found to have occurred.

Obama remains eligible as long as no fraud regarding his birth place is proven. So far no solid proof has been submitted. If it ever surfaces for any candidat, regardless of party affiliation, I would expect Congress to revoke their eligibility and face whatever legal repercussion result from it.

I feel that if people don't believe Obama is a natural born citizen, we should stand back and let them prove it. No one should stand in their way and hinder their attempts to do so. If Obama or any other candidate has nothing to hide, he should welcome such an examination.


edit on 5/25/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment

edit on 5/25/2011 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
If the Congress did not investigate the circumstances of Obama's birthplace and confirm that he was eligible, then I conclude that he was not vetted.
But Congress didn’t investigate McCain’s birth place, did they? They merely accepted his word, because McCain didn’t disclose his birth certificate.


Congress needs to adopt a comprehensive vetting process to ensure that any candidate for President is constitutionally qualified.
OK and what exactly constitutes this Congressional process you are proposing? What would they hypothetically do?


They should follow the lead of the states that are already considering such a process.
And none have succeeded. And all of those bills are most likely unconstitutional.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
But Congress didn’t investigate McCain’s birth place, did they? They merely accepted his word, because McCain didn’t disclose his birth certificate.
They chose not to request it...that is their prerogative. I wish they would have so that there would not be an issue about it now.


OK and what exactly constitutes this Congressional process you are proposing? What would they hypothetically do?
Well, just brainstorming here; For starters they could examine all necessary official records that may have a bearing on the constitutional qualifications. If it says he must be 45 years old, they should verify the date of his birth.....ect. I think you understand.


And none have succeeded. And all of those bills are most likely unconstitutional.
I agree. That is why I think it needs to be done in Congress and not just on the State level.

I think the office of President is far too important to allow anyone to occupy it without a proper and official verification that they meet all constitutional requirements. The vetting needs to come from a bilateral committee rather than only ones own party.

There will always be doubt that the person in office is qualified, based on his experience or political views, but there is no reason that we can't ensure that there is no doubt about his basic eligibility.
edit on 5/25/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Getting back to the op> does an original typewritten bc even exist? I have heard it claimed that only scans of the original document exist.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Did you happen to notice that the issuer of the subpoena is Orly Taitz?


Did you notice that Orly Taitz was reporting that a supoena was issued?


No, her signature is on document as the issuer of the subpoena. Look at the PDF. Second page, last line. Along with her address and phone number which, if you ask me, is a silly thing to release on the internet.


At this point in time, I don't care if Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya or even on Mars. He's proven himself to be a worthless POTUS and needs to go.


By what standard, exactly? I understand that he's not a Reoublican, and that he's not blindingly white, but I'm stumped as to what other grievances people have against him - or at least, what grievances htye have that make him worse than any prior president.


If it be by chance that he is found to be a fraud, we can only hope he'll escape to France where we can't touch him and he can't never leave. Now this would be funny.


What's with the gallophobia? At any rate, we've had what now, nearly three years of birthies barking up every tree they can find, with absolutely nothing discovered except reams of evidence that contradicts their base presumptions. Which is of course, ignored.

The horse is dead. It was probabkly dead when these guys showed up.
edit on 25/5/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Anyone who looks at the evidence should be able to see that something is really wrong with the situation.
I don't know where Obama was born, but I do know that the BC released on the White House website is a complete forgery.

With all that said, the only thing that could end this is pressure from the people in high places that would like to see Obama stay in office, because the evidence speaks for itself.

And just an FYI. I'm keeping screen names from everyone who has belittled those who keep attempting to tell you that the BC is fake, and it will be a glorious day when not only is Obama ousted, but you who know who you are will have your screen names plastered under a picture of *something satirical and insulting perhaps.*

Now don't get me wrong. I don't mean those who have analyzed the evidence and interpreted it differently. I am referring to those who either do not address the evidence at all, or only some of the evidence; as well as those who do not understand how to interpret the evidence so they just assume it doesn't exist. This may be the majority, but something tells me that the majority have not even taken the time to review the actual evidence against Obama.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
when I said read the book get the facts
i guess I mistakenly assumed you could read
my bad


You should really calm down. You are not helping us out here.


Originally posted by Danbones
doesn't matter
jerome courci's book slays the issue
read it
.....or not

Obama's a fraud
fraud is the way we role in amerika these days

Everyone and their mother is getting what they want from him at the expense of the Amerikan poepl because they all know..and blaikmail is the way its is done on DC

Remember the TARP bailout?
90 percent against

pay up rubes



edit on 25-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


Do you realize how many things you spelled incorrectly aside from America which I assume was on purpose? It just looks bad to criticize someone else' ability to read just for fun when you misspell so many things. Don't give us the ugly face. Let them wear it.

I ordered the book and I am pretty excited about getting it but I am afraid I will not really have time to site and read it cover to cover and check out the claims. I want to believe but I have to do my due diligence I suppose. You are just about the only person I have seen here that has read the book. Is there any particular chapter you suggest I could skip to that really puts all the facts out on display?

Remember, you catch more flies with honey. Play nice and bullies get bored and go away.
edit on 26-5-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


Let me tell you what you need to know about Corsi's book.

It's written by Jerome Corsi. If the name doesn't ring any bells, this is the guy who pretended to be a Vietnam vet, so he could pretend that he served on a boat with John Kerry, so that he could pretend to have seen the wonds John Kerry received, so that he could pretend that John Kerry did not "deserve" his Purple Hearts. When in fact Jerome Corsi's sole involvement in the war was to, while on deferral, write a litter to congress decrying the fact that Vietnam veterans were active in Democratic politics. Corsi's claims were never verified, and all evidence regarding them points to the exact opposite of his claims.

So, here's Jerome Corsi again, and what's he going? He's writing a book in an attempt to de-legitimatize a Democrat. While this is not surprising to anyone who's even vaguely aware of Jerome Corsi - he's been an activist for the GOP since the 70's, is a paid columnist for the right-wing website WorldNetDaily, and has written two books, both with the intent of undermining a democratic politician. I would say he's had a one-note career, but he also bilked 20 Minnesotans out of $1.2 million in what appears to have been investment fraud.

Now, I just want to say, I haven't read this particular book of his. So, hey, maybe it's completely awesome and filled with irreputable facts. All I'm saying is that, the dude has done nothing but lie, and like heinously to people for the last forty years, and has done so with two considerations - the success of GOP politicians and the enrichment of Jerome and Monica Corsi. By the track record of this guy, I think you might want to save the breathlessness. I'm afraid it's already too late for the $30 you spent; you could have bought a nice set of dress socks with htat money.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


I know what vetted means. "Properly vetted" I guess, depends on ones point of view. What are the standards for a candidate to be properly vetted? If I am wrong I would like to be educated.

This may be the subject of a different thread. Feel free to U2 me if you like. I can always learn something new.


There are none, thus the questions that do arise.
Back to your original point.

Originally posted by Sparky63
Exactly....So this issue is not whether both parents were born stateside as you said in your post. At least I have never heard anyone claim it to be so.

I have. Immaculated1 has. A more useless argument to make I have yet to see than this.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The implication is that both parents must be American citizens. What part of that do you not understand? What part of Barry's father not being American citizen, EVER, do you not understand. McCain was born in Panama while it was under US Jurisdiction. Kenya was never under US jurisdiction, but under British jurisdiction.

There is another birther making that argument you claim to have never heard. Now I gave you two examples and you dismissed the first. Why? Just admit, some people are in fact making that argument. It seems like a silly thing to argue about.
edit on 25-5-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)


How can my argument be useless when the whole point of the resolution for McCain is that he has two citizen parents but was born outside of the United States. The resolution was to resolve where McCain was born. Obama on the other hand, if he was born in Hi, his issue is his father's nationality. If the resolution for Mccain went through, then it opens things up to being born outside the US, but within it's jurisdiction, which is really a 14th Amendment argument. Why wouldn't Obama go for that resolution when it can set a precedent for his own eligilibity. I think it was to set a precedent for the 14th Amendment and not the Natural Born Clause in Article II. Then it wouldn't matter if only one person was a US citizen, because Barry knows that under the natural born clause his father was never a US citizen, thus making him ineligible.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by aptness
 


Congress never met to discuss Obama's qualifications. So he was not vetted. There was no resolution brought forward by the Dems or Republicans at all.
I think that there should be a vetting process so this can never happen again.



Nancy Pelosi vetted him and you know what that means I'm sure. It is apparently the responsibility of the nominating party to certify their nominee's eligibility, which Nancy did, so if she knew Obama was not eligible at the time she signed it, then she can be held accountable. If she did not know, then how could she claim to have properly vetted him? Considering Corsi had already published his first book and all these lawsuits were starting up before the election, she has no real excuse other than ignoring the evidence. If Obama presented her with the fake short form BC, she probably should have gotten the long form.
edit on 26-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syyth007
Ok.. So EVERY post by a "birther" is going to completely ignore the fact that the OP posted a purposely misleading thread title? It's ok for you to be deceptive and lie, but SOMETHING has to be wrong with the BC, right? Based on what? Things you make up in your head?

I'm just waiting for someone to now post something about Obama's grandmother, and/or sister, then maybe make some claim about Obama spending millions of tax payer money to "hide" his records. Do any of you actually care about Truth, or do you just want to serve your own Agenda? Do you HONESTLY believe your own lies? Do you justify lieing, and being deceptive in order to "exspose" a lie? Can you comprehend the hypocricy or the irony of those actions? Accusing someone of being deceptive and lieing, all the while trying to support your stance with lies, and deceptive wording?

I'm honestly trying to understand your mindset, but I just can't do it. I don't know how someone can lie to themselves, and seemingly believe it. It boggles the mind that someone can be so... willfully ignorant.



To attribute the motive 'deliberately' to the OP is your own invention, not to mention your accusation of lying. Have you ever heard of someone making a genuine mistake? If not, you will learn what it means when the truth about the bc becomes publick knowledge.

The mindse you're trying to understandt is one of people genuinely trying to find the truth amidst the sea of lies spewed by this government - so don't bother trying, you won't be able to understand that mindset. It's very different from the current mob rule which you support. It will be too much of a stretch for you.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syyth007
Ok.. So EVERY post by a "birther" is going to completely ignore the fact that the OP posted a purposely misleading thread title? It's ok for you to be deceptive and lie, but SOMETHING has to be wrong with the BC, right? Based on what? Things you make up in your head?

I'm just waiting for someone to now post something about Obama's grandmother, and/or sister, then maybe make some claim about Obama spending millions of tax payer money to "hide" his records. Do any of you actually care about Truth, or do you just want to serve your own Agenda? Do you HONESTLY believe your own lies? Do you justify lieing, and being deceptive in order to "exspose" a lie? Can you comprehend the hypocricy or the irony of those actions? Accusing someone of being deceptive and lieing, all the while trying to support your stance with lies, and deceptive wording?

I'm honestly trying to understand your mindset, but I just can't do it. I don't know how someone can lie to themselves, and seemingly believe it. It boggles the mind that someone can be so... willfully ignorant.



To attribute the motive 'deliberately' to the OP is your own invention, not to mention your accusation of lying. Have you ever heard of someone making a genuine mistake? If not, you will learn what it means when the truth about the bc becomes publick knowledge.

The mindse you're trying to understandt is one of people genuinely trying to find the truth amidst the sea of lies spewed by this government - so don't bother trying, you won't be able to understand that mindset. It's very different from the current mob rule which you support. It will be too much of a stretch for you.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by Syyth007
Ok.. So EVERY post by a "birther" is going to completely ignore the fact that the OP posted a purposely misleading thread title? It's ok for you to be deceptive and lie, but SOMETHING has to be wrong with the BC, right? Based on what? Things you make up in your head?

I'm just waiting for someone to now post something about Obama's grandmother, and/or sister, then maybe make some claim about Obama spending millions of tax payer money to "hide" his records. Do any of you actually care about Truth, or do you just want to serve your own Agenda? Do you HONESTLY believe your own lies? Do you justify lieing, and being deceptive in order to "exspose" a lie? Can you comprehend the hypocricy or the irony of those actions? Accusing someone of being deceptive and lieing, all the while trying to support your stance with lies, and deceptive wording?

I'm honestly trying to understand your mindset, but I just can't do it. I don't know how someone can lie to themselves, and seemingly believe it. It boggles the mind that someone can be so... willfully ignorant.



To attribute the motive 'deliberately' to the OP is your own invention, not to mention your accusation of lying. Have you ever heard of someone making a genuine mistake? If not, you will learn what it means when the truth about the bc becomes publick knowledge.

The mindse you're trying to understandt is one of people genuinely trying to find the truth amidst the sea of lies spewed by this government - so don't bother trying, you won't be able to understand that mindset. It's very different from the current mob rule which you support. It will be too much of a stretch for you.


Well, the title was originally "Judge files Subpoena..." despite, well, the fact that the artivcle never mentions a judge filing a subpoena, and the subpoena itself was most certainly not filed by a judge. Whether or not this was a "mistake" on TrueAmerica's part, I can't really say - I lack the eerie mind powers claimed by some ATS posters. But I can say he's not a person I've come to expect honesty and integrity out of; this isn't his first try, after all.

Second, the title itself is still false. A subpoena can only be filed by a judge. Orly Taitz is about as far from being a judge as I am from being a burlesque dancer - no, wait, further (I have a feather boa, for some inexplicable reason.) Thus she cannot file a subpoena, and so a subpoena was not filed. Further as it is a demand for official documentation, it would be a subpoena against the Hawai'i Department of Health's offices, not the director personally.

Put bluntly the premise of this thread is stupid, and the OP is engaging in a lie, even if we grant he may be doing so unintentionally.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Fox,

Further proving my point of a lack of a thinking brain or original thought in the entire group.

Anyone can petition the court for anything they seek but the petition must first be filed with the Clerk who puts it on the schedule where they contact the entity the item is being sought from and they confirm a date and then a date is set. When the date occurs the petitioner and the entity the item is being sought from both goes before the Judge to seek the petition where the Judge asks both their reasons and to justify the reason and after that the Judge then decides weather or not to grant or deny the request. If granted the Judge then would petition the Hawal'l Dept Of Health for the info. It is obvious that none of them know a thing about procedure. The party that was decided against then retains the right to take the matter up with a higher court.

You are subpoenaed to appear before court and petition the court for a release of documents hence how any Freedom Of Information Act requests are petitioned usually in Federal court.

Not only does the op have no clue what proper procedure is but lacks the intelligence to get the terminology correct.
edit on 26-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Nevermind his birth cert, Obama's not even sure what year it is at the moment! On Tuesday he signed at guest book at Westminster Abbey in the UK and even though he asked what date is was ( and was correctly told 24th ) he proceeded to put it down as 24th May 2008!! 3 years out!!!

news.sky.com...

Maybe the guy just has a problem with dates and places? May explain his birth cert issues and next it will be "Did I say Bin Laden was killed on May 2nd 2010?? Duh! I meant May 2nd 2002"


Sorry to go off thread a bit!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by kurio
 


He's got so much on his plate now that to get the date wrong on one little item is so insignificant it's not even funny.




top topics



 
55
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join