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.

 

Hawaii to Arizona "Prove You Need It"

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
WHY are all his scholastic records SEALED?


I just checked and found out your scholastic records are also sealed - so why did you seal them, and what are you hiding?




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
If I was Bennett I would be quite tempted to tell Hawaii to do their own research on the law that gives him the authority to determine eligibility


No, I think Bennett and his birther constituents need to do researching, especially on the full faith and credit clause. Since they seem to not accept the authenticity of both birth certificates, given the verifications of Hawaiian authorities regarding records, they clearly need to learn about how the law works.


We have a problem with the vetting in this country.


No we don't. Birthers have a problem with the fact their demands aren't been met. It really isn't anybody elses problem.


It should be done by the candidate's political party when they announce their nomination and the findings should be given to the SOS (or whoever determines eligibility) in every state.


Which will conflict with the full faith and credit clause, and will cause a mess every election year. One state SOS may refuse to accept the documents and verifications from other states for whatever reason (political, personal) and you've got a conflict on the full faith and credit clause.


Certified birth certificates should be a requirement.


I actually don't have a problem with presidential candidates being required to present birth certificates to congress, not individual states. So long as we are including both long form and short form birth certificates as well, and we respect the legal processes of concerned states over those particular birth certificates.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC

Originally posted by BlueStatePatriot

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
That BC he released is an admitted fake. Even his lawyer admitted as much in front of SCOTUS.


And you are helping get Obama re-elected.

Don't you see how you are only hurting yourself?

We liberals are happy you are helping Obama get re-elected.
edit on 19-5-2012 by BlueStatePatriot because: (no reason given)


You might get happy he gets re-elected, will you be as happy when your rights are COMPLETELY stripped, and this is a communist country??


Wow, all of our rights? That is pretty ambitious. How the hell is congress and the SCOTUS going to let Obama take away all of our rights?
How is he going to turn us into a communist country in 4 years? By bailing out more banks?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by daddio
WHY are all his scholastic records SEALED?


I just checked and found out your scholastic records are also sealed - so why did you seal them, and what are you hiding?




Really, that is all that you have!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really. Another communist on ATS I see. Really, you can come up with nothing else to defend this idiot?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Autumnal
 


Yup, therefore making the banks INDEBITED to the govt...see how it works



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by Autumnal
 


Yup, therefore making the banks INDEBITED to the govt...see how it works



Dude, please try to add some substance and content if you are going to even bother posting to me. Either you do not understand Communism or reality as it stands today.

Now I actually asked a question.
Got an answer or are you just pulling that stuff out of your wazoo?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
ATS really should place all birther threads into the hoax threads.

You think Hilary Clinton and then later the Republican party didn't investigate this before the election? Really??

This reminds me of swift boat veterans for truth!! I bet its funded by the koch brothers!!


You forget that the birther movement is so much smarter than anyone else. Of course the GOP and the Democratic candidates all vetted each other during the course of the 2008 elections. You won't convince a birther of it though.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


With no budget there is no surplus with that national debit there is no surplus

Deal.,


More often than not, the Federal Government has operated under a series of continuing resolutions, rather than an actual budget. Either way, there is absolutely nothing about the budget that is enforceable. It's simply a guideline.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueStatePatriot
 


You're right. The birther argument is quite silly. Especially since the GOP could discuss the REAL issues, and attack Obama for helping to bankrupt and sink this country. The GOP needs to prioritize.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Yes, we do have a problem in vetting. When did anyone see Obama's alleged birth certificate? After he won the election. Too late.



No, I think Bennett and his birther constituents need to do researching, especially on the full faith and credit clause. Since they seem to not accept the authenticity of both birth certificates, given the verifications of Hawaiian authorities regarding records, they clearly need to learn about how the law works.



I meant that is it very nervy of Hawaii to say we need the see the copy of your state law that gives you (SOS) the authority to determine eligibility for POTUS candidates. All they have to do is read in on his government webpage. It took me a minute to find it. They are just red taping this with duct tape to be a pain in the rear.

If a federal court makes these statements about the issue, it's time for you reality deniers to wake up:
libertylegalfoundation.org...


“The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”

“The issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the Presidency is certainly substantial.”

“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial.’”

“It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”





I actually don't have a problem with presidential candidates being required to present birth certificates to congress, not individual states. So long as we are including both long form and short form birth certificates as well, and we respect the legal processes of concerned states over those particular birth certificates.



Congress does not vet the President, don't you think the Secretary of State in each state who job is make sure the candidates are eligible to run in their state is should be allowed to see this?




One state SOS may refuse to accept the documents and verifications from other states


I did not suggest that the states do this. The political party is to vet the candidate and share it findings with the states SOS.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
We are never going to get a straight answer on this unless enough states will leave him off the ballot such that he will lose re-election.

Since he has no possibility of winning in AZ, he does not care.

The answer we have been given, is the "virtual forgery" of the authentic document which may or may not exist.

When questioned, they just refer back to the same unacceptable answer as before, an endless loop.

We already showed ya....

No ya didn't...

YES WE DID

NO YOU DID NOT

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Leaving you off the ballot

Go ahead, BIRTHER!

Fraudulent foreign student

Oh, that hurt.

I saw nekkid pictures of yo moma on the internet

Im gunna pound you!

Like playtime on the kindergarten playground...



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawika
We are never going to get a straight answer on this unless enough states will leave him off the ballot such that he will lose re-election.

Since he has no possibility of winning in AZ, he does not care.

The answer we have been given, is the "virtual forgery" of the authentic document which may or may not exist.

When questioned, they just refer back to the same unacceptable answer as before, an endless loop.

We already showed ya....

No ya didn't...

YES WE DID

NO YOU DID NOT

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Leaving you off the ballot

Go ahead, BIRTHER!

Fraudulent foreign student

Oh, that hurt.

I saw nekkid pictures of yo moma on the internet

Im gunna pound you!

Like playtime on the kindergarten playground...


I hope he is defiant to the end, I am tired of this GOP bullying on
the matter.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Yeah that's totally it. Everyone's a racist in your eyes, eh?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Well, if he gives the straight answer, he gets fired.

If he says nothing, he might keep his job.

Easy to see why he does what he does.

Hard to believe we put up with it...

Matters not, no one can save us now.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Yes, we do have a problem in vetting.


We don't. Birthers are making Obama's eligibility a problem, this doesn't automatically translate to there being a general problem.


When did anyone see Obama's alleged birth certificate?


Obama released a short form Hawaiian birth certificate during his campaign, verified by Hawaiian officials, in 2008. He released his long form (which I believe was unnecessary) in 2011, again verified by Hawaiian officials.



I meant that is it very nervy of Hawaii to say we need the see the copy of your state law that gives you (SOS) the authority to determine eligibility for POTUS candidates.


Nervy? I say they are right on the money. It's not the authority of the Arizonan SOS to verify the eligibility of the president, or the authenticity of Hawaiian birth certificates. He doesn't have that authority, period. He knows this.

Don't rely too much on Bennett taken this much further, there will only be so much he will do to appeal to a certain segment of his constituents. Right now he is just keeping face up until election time.


If a federal court makes these statements about the issue, it's time for you reality deniers to wake up:
libertylegalfoundation.org...


We're not discussing about whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen even if he was born on U.S, which is the topic of the source you linked me. We're discussing whether Obama has proven that he was born on U.S soil. The 'two parent' natural born citizenship rule is another matter all together, so I don't know why you attempt to derail discussion away from the core topic at hand, Obama's birth in Hawaii.

There are also numerous courts that had already defined what natural born citizenship is, the latest being that of the last lawsuit in Georgia. I don't have a problem with the supreme court reclarifying natural born citizenship, but they will go right back to the Wong Kim Ark court case that birthers don't like listening to.



Congress does not vet the President,


How do you know this? Are you a member of congress? Do you have special access to the vetting process? Or are you just assuming they don't? Regardless, the constitution specifically leaves the concerns over presidential eligibility to that of Congress and the Electoral college.


don't you think the Secretary of State in each state who job is make sure the candidates are eligible to run in their state is should be allowed to see this?


I already explained this to you, hopefully you will actually read the second time I explain this to you. You cannot have a system where by the eligibility of the president has to be verified by every state. It will lead to conflict with the good faith and credit clause and a messy election process. Let me give you an example.

A presidential candidate from California wants to be on the ballot in Arizona. The presidential candidate has already presented a birth certificate, verified by the Californian health department. The Arizona SOS refuses to accept the authenticity of the birth certificate and refuses to believe verification from Californian officials, mostly at the request of his constituents. Arizona is breaking the good faith and credit clause as they are not respecting the records and legal processes in other states.

Essentially any state SOS can manipulate the election process for political purposes by simply refusing, without much effort, presidential candidates wanting to be on the ballot. The kind of system you propose only serves to corrupt the election process, but this is what birthers want in Obama's case, so it's not all that surprising.



I did not suggest that the states do this. The political party is to vet the candidate and share it findings with the states SOS.


Yes you are suggesting this. Essentially you're leaving the final decision to the State SOS to decide whether or not the candidate is eligible, and that SOS can simply refuse to believe the findings and verifications from other State officials. If you're not leaving the decision to State SOS, then I really have to wonder what's the point of proposing what you're proposing? What's the difference? Hawaii has already verified Obama's birth on Hawaiian soil and the authenticity of his birth certificate, so? If you're not leaving the final say to individual states, what is the point??

edit on 21-5-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by LDragonFire
ATS really should place all birther threads into the hoax threads.

You think Hilary Clinton and then later the Republican party didn't investigate this before the election? Really??

This reminds me of swift boat veterans for truth!! I bet its funded by the koch brothers!!


You forget that the birther movement is so much smarter than anyone else. Of course the GOP and the Democratic candidates all vetted each other during the course of the 2008 elections. You won't convince a birther of it though.


Birthers have a special kind of genius. Most of them that I talk to plan on voting for president. All of them present theories that require everyone else on the ballot to be in on it. So these geniuses think they will boot Obama out of office by voting for someone that is helping Obama keep this huge secret.

Special, very special.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
That BC he released is an admitted fake. Even his lawyer admitted as much in front of SCOTUS.


Wow...see, this is how lies and propaganda are created.

This "fact" you report was already proven a hoax here on ATS.

Yet you willingly repeat the lie.

What more, look at how many people starred that post.

Deny ignorance right??

Add Darth Muerte to the list of people on ATS who willingly lie and have no honor or credibility in my eyes.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


No, let him tell his lie. Each person that stars it is worse than he. He is trying to push the lie that the Supreme Court has been told by Obama's lawyer that Obama is not eligible to be president and the Supreme Court apparently did not care at all.

Yet...the birthers cannot wait for this to get to court!



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoReaper4
reply to post by paradox
 


Yeah that's totally it. Everyone's a racist in your eyes, eh?


No only the racists who claim Obama was born in Kenya because of the color of his skin



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





Obama released a short form Hawaiian birth certificate during his campaign, verified by Hawaiian officials, in 2008. He released his long form (which I believe was unnecessary) in 2011, again verified by Hawaiian officials.



He released a short form to FactCheck which was examined and certified by a PhD in Political Philosophy and a MA in English Literature. Not exactly high end document experts. But then a second different looking short form was released by the Obama Campaign some time later.

Then the pdf on WhiteHouse.gov which is also a bit suspect as was a composite construction. And rather go through all the layers bit. The easiest thing to find suspect is that it was digitally transfered to the "security paper grid" And notice the curl leading to the spine of the bound record book? Why is that text on a flat plane instead of following the curl? That was all the looking I had to do to see it was digitally manipulated. Well that and know that if should have been transfered to microfiche and a white text on a black background direct print copy would be the easiest "proof" to obtain...yet we have not seen that as of yet.

Of course the information presented on all these copies is the same. And the information could be true or it could be made up entirely. And that is the whole point of the so called Birther Movement...no one has publicly seen that information, nothing has honestly collaborated the information presented that hasn't been found suspect in some degree, so no one knows if what is presented is the lie or the truth.

Are there political motivations to the repeated requests to see the information. Yes, pretty sure there are with some people. But stop and think about this for just a minute. Nixon was condemned and brought up on impeachment charges over the Watergate break in. Nixon didn't pick the lock and the most damning "evidence" was 18 minutes of blank tape.

Bill Clinton was up on impeachment proceedings and even was voted by the House to be impeached over publicly lying about his involvement with Lewinsky.

And here we have Obama, who's response to public requests to prove his eligibility has been three suspect birth certificates.

You may ask yourself what is the common denominator in all three cases? Hilary was around for all three of them. She sat on the prosecution for Nixon (and was released of drafting a bad brief), was the First Lady for Clinton and is now Obama's Secretary of State. If Obama is ever brought up on impeachment charges...third time has got to be the charm for her, right?

edit on 21-5-2012 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join