Arpaio Obama probe finds 'national security threat'

reply to post by longlostbrother

Why are the INS records missing for the week Obama supposedly flew into Hawaii with his mother? The only missing information for the entire decade so far.

This is one of those classic Sheriff Joe LIES.

The Claim is wrong and nonsensical for many reasons, here's one, you can go rad the rest yourself:

That is one of my favorite red herrings. Inbound passengers from Kenya would have gone through New York, not Honolulu. Of course they won't find him there.

Not only that but for the entire year ending July '62, there was EXACTLY ZERO US Citizen arrivals from Kenya in all of the United States. ZERO. So Stanley Dunham Obama didn't give birth in Kenya and bring her new born future President with her.

I doesn't matter whether there is microfiche with the details of every arrival or not; the summary statistics explicitly rule it out.

Born in Africa crushed under the weight of complexity

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by badgerpit

 

I repeat I have no problem with you seeking answers. I have a problem with you refusing answers. The bottom line is that Obama was born in Hawai'i in 1961. That fact that you don't know how MCP compression works in a scanner hardware/software combination is irrelevant to the FACT that the State of Hawai'i has officially confirmed that he was born in Honolulu in 1961 at least a dozen times. No bit chasing is going to change that fact. It is TRUTH.

I also have a problem with nit-picking over trivial stuff about a PDF and you apparently aren't worried in the least about Romney's refusal to release his tax returns, a practice initiated by his father, and an actually relevant picture on the integrity of a man who is openly owned body and soul by Wall Street. And if you are so hung up on scanning compression artifacts in PDF documents, why aren't you asking the same questions about Romney's VOID Birth Certificate PDF?

So ask all the questions you want, but be prepared to accept answers that don't fit with you preconceived notions. And if your intentions are truly what you claim above, then you had better examine all the other candidates just as minutely and skeptically.

If you don't do that you are the worst kind of liar: a hypocrite.

I try to exit this dispute with you on level ground and you respond by throwing insults? You stay classy rnaa.

Once again I find you assuming how my thought process works, and once again you are completely wrong. I do not refuse answers just to refuse answers, I always consider the source first. You think that because the state or government OFFICIALLY says something, then it is game over? You are the perfect citizen for these guys. Wise up.

You cannot go throwing around the word 'fact' so carelessly. Historically, what we have known to have been 'fact', a lot of times turns out not to be the way we interpret things today. This is as true today as it ever was. You only think you know that Obama was born in Hawaii because you were told so and you chose to believe it. You have zero actual knowledge. This is true about everything, of course, but in this case not everyone agrees on the 'facts'. I don't see the nation dividing itself over a dispute if the sky is blue or not. Reason? It's conclusive, we can all agree to this except maybe for the occasional color blinded trouble-maker. What you have been calling a fact is actually a truth, and truth is not the same as fact. You seem intelligent enough to know.

Where on Earth did you get the notion that I do or don't care about Romney's tax return? As I have stated before, I am not associated with any party nor will I ever be. In case you are missing the big picture, the game is rigged. The democrat and republican lines are imaginary and are only for us peasants to indulge in as yet another means to keep us divided, and thus controlled. I have as much faith in Romney's morality as I do in Obama's or any major policy maker for that matter. It is a cesspool in DC and to trust any of them on their word is about as foolish a thing as I can imagine.

We either move forward together or we stay divided and conquered. Is this a truth or fact?

reply to post by badgerpit

I try to exit this dispute with you on level ground and you respond by throwing insults? You stay classy rnaa.

Once again I find you assuming how my thought process works, and once again you are completely wrong.

I do not refuse answers just to refuse answers, I always consider the source first.

I can only go by what you have said in your own posts. You have said exactly how your thought process works: if you don't get an answer that agrees with your preconceived bias, you reject it.

You think that because the state or government OFFICIALLY says something, then it is game over? You are the perfect citizen for these guys. Wise up.

The sole purpose of State Vital Statistics offices is to maintain those vital statistics so we don't have to have these kind of disputes. There is no higher authority, if they say Obama was born in Hawai'i, then Obama was born in Hawai'i.

Could they be lying? Of course they could. So could the State of Michigan be lying about Romney and me. So could your State be lying about you. If they are lying there is no way on Earth that you are going to find out about it by examining the bit sequence of a document scanned to PDF or even the actual paper certificate, and you don't get to accuse anyone of fraud without proof. The fact that somebody doesn't like Obama is not evidence of fraud by Obama, and especially not evidence of fraud by Hawai'ian State officials. The fact that you don't trust officialdom is also not evidence that those officials have committed fraud.

You don't get to go on fishing expeditions because your only evidence is that somebody has a funny name, the wrong color skin, is a member of the wrong political party, or is simply in a position of power. You need evidence.

You cannot go throwing around the word 'fact' so carelessly. Historically, what we have known to have been 'fact', a lot of times turns out not to be the way we interpret things today. This is as true today as it ever was.

I am not throwing around the word 'fact' carelessly. This is not a debate about spontaneous generation or a flat earth. This is a discussion about the professionalism and integrity of the officials our society, yours and mine, have entrusted with the maintenance of Vital Statistic FACTS. Where and when a birth took place is a fact that does not change depending on advancing knowledge. The event was recorded and stored for future reference. It is a FACT, and will not change whether you agree that the PDF is 'genuine' or not.

You only think you know that Obama was born in Hawaii because you were told so and you chose to believe it. You have zero actual knowledge. This is true about everything, of course, but in this case not everyone agrees on the 'facts'.

You are exactly right and this is exactly why the State Offices of Vital Statistics and the Birth Certificate system was developed in the United States in the early 1900's. I was not present at Obama's birth, but his mother and the attending physicians were and they attested to the facts of the birth and recorded those details with the State Vital Statistics.

I know that Obama was born in Honolulu because his mother and the attending physician TOLD ME so. Do you understand that? I have been TOLD DIRECTLY by the people who witnessed Obama's birth, his mother and the attending physician, via the records entrusted to the State of Hawai'i for safe keeping. Zero degrees of separation.

I don't see the nation dividing itself over a dispute if the sky is blue or not. Reason? It's conclusive, we can all agree to this except maybe for the occasional color blinded trouble-maker.

So you haven't been paying attention to the Cold Case Posse investigation at all have you? Their stock in trade is denying that the sky is blue.

What you have been calling a fact is actually a truth, and truth is not the same as fact. You seem intelligent enough to know.

You have it backward. Facts are true, or they are not facts. Not all truth is fact.

Where on Earth did you get the notion that I do or don't care about Romney's tax return? As I have stated before, I am not associated with any party nor will I ever be. In case you are missing the big picture, the game is rigged. The democrat and republican lines are imaginary and are only for us peasants to indulge in as yet another means to keep us divided, and thus controlled. I have as much faith in Romney's morality as I do in Obama's or any major policy maker for that matter. It is a cesspool in DC and to trust any of them on their word is about as foolish a thing as I can imagine.

I apologize for misunderstanding. Can you point me to any threads where you have discussed Romney's short comings? I don't want to make that mistake again.

It's amazing how many birthers get on their soapbox and demand apologies, until they're proven wrong... after that they just disappear from threads...

Hello everyone it's my first post here on ats, i created an account becaused i was appalled by the answers on this thread and thank you for your courrageous stance badger pit againt ignorance, seriously most people come here and say all this thing has been debunked, you know trump did that birthers lawsuit bla la bla, ive been looking at the facts and forget what youve seen everywhere, that investigation is real and that guy is fraudulent, long lost brothers created is account n 18 of july so he is probaly from the obama truth teams just look for yourself at these 2 facts that make obama a fraud, they try to attack the messengers, call them birthers, attack sheriff arpaio 3 letters LOL from canada sheeps,

1- Selective service card has 80 stamped as the year but official government stamp in 1980 had 4 numbers and it was 1980, so this document is a forgery with no legal authority ( they used 08 from 2008 and they inverted the numbers)

2 - long form birth certificate at the race of father iit says 9 as in unchecked so i was suposed to be blank ( number was used for government stats ) but it says african which was not used as a race identifier before 1989 nearly 28 years after, in 1961 negro was used.

theres alot more proofs, ive been reading the thread twice and it looks like peops deny without looking at facts because obama has alot of charm or they are connected to him in some emotionnal fashion, btw he dosnt give a # that you are lack or white ... I dont care bush or obama , they are the same elite and they have the same policies

Thanks for your bright answers

Seriously

Originally posted by FirewalkerZ
but it says african which was not used as a race identifier before 1989 nearly 28 years after, in 1961 negro was used.

More birther lies, as Obama's father was an African from Africa, why would he use the term negro?

theres alot more proofs

More proof? How about showing some proof!

it looks like peops deny without looking at facts

True, birthers are not at all interested in facts, as the claim about negro shows!

reply to post by spoor


Wait a minute reread my post plz i said african was never used on GOVERNMENT documents i never said anything else, plz read correctly and you said nothing about selective service and still attack messenger go back to sleep sheep and go watch the 2 conference from zullo and arpaio + full interview at infowars sorry mate might hurt your obama sheep feelings

reply to post by spoor


Seriously im talking about government documents facts dont post here if you want to sa birthers or to deny the factual evidence

I said government never used the word african on a birth certificate before 1989 and they say this one is a 1961, still you see a pattern of denial, attack the messengr, use emotionnal attacks,

Propaganda from edward bernays is a good book

Originally posted by FirewalkerZ
Wait a minute reread my post plz i said african was never used on GOVERNMENT documents

All because you said it does not make it true. Why would the government not call someone from Africa a African? You do realise the father could put what he wanted to there...

watch the 2 conference from zullo and arpaio

I have, and had a good laugh as virtually nothing they said was true!

Your Obama Derangement Syndrome is showing!

Originally posted by FirewalkerZ
I said government never used the word african on a birth certificate before 1989

What is your source for that silly claim? Or did you just get it from a birther website?

reply to post by spoor


Ohh sorry you are a liar, you never gave a look at those 2 press conference, infact it's government manuals that tells you those thing you are very ignorant and i dont want to lose anymore time with a sheep like you go back to ufo

Source government : ftp.cdc.gov...

You can see that african american as a classification race was even added in 1997 you coudnlt put those words n a valid us government document, now can we please go back to a serious discussion about evidence plz, cuz we have some kids calling peops birthers because they are somehow emotionnally linked to mr obama and still they still wait the hope and change, im sure every morning you say yes we can infront of the mirror

He dosnt give a # about you sorry

Originally posted by FirewalkerZ
You can see that african american as a classification race was even added in 1997 you coudnlt put those words n a valid us government document,

And you are still wrong....

Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama’s father’s race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.

www.factcheck.org...

and
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So your claim is just false. Again.

Seriously Sheriff Joe? Of course he is gonna come up with a bucket of crazy. Do you ever stop and do any critical thinking for yourself? I have to ask because you never post anything without any thoughts behind it. So I have to wonder if you stop to reflect on what you read and then follow up the accuracy on your or if you just accept anything Fox News and Brietbart tell the truth is.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Oh yeah thx for giving me link to non existant denials, in government documents you would NEVER put what the person tell you to write, you just write black or white etc... African american was a legal word on,y a lot later on so stop with your soros funded and obama truth tesm website dude what dont you get in : obama dont give a # about you lol is it hard to understand it went to la time washingtn post everything and still your trying to prove its not real

Sure, arpaio is not credible and obama the newcomer that get elected instantly president without accomplishing nothing and you find that normal right ? You 2 are sad sheep but fortunately there are people who break the matrix here, obama lovere GET OUT OF THAT THREAD

Originally posted by FirewalkerZ
African american was a legal word on

What are you babbling about now? Where is African American even mentioned on the birth certificate, and why would someone born in Africa call themselves an African American?

More truther quality research, I see!

reply to post by FirewalkerZ

Hello everyone it's my first post here on ats,

Welcome FirewalkerZ. I hope you have an educational experience. The ATS Motto is "Deny Ignorance".

Please understand that one of the ATS rules is that you don't 'cross post' the same message on multiple threads.

I have given you exhaustive answers to these specific questions in the other thread where you addressed them to me directly. Kindly review those answers and take them on board before repeating them again.

reply to post by FirewalkerZ

Wait a minute reread my post plz i said african was never used on GOVERNMENT documents i never said anything else, plz read correctly and you said nothing about selective service and still attack messenger go back to sleep sheep and go watch the 2 conference from zullo and arpaio + full interview at infowars sorry mate might hurt your obama sheep feelings

In that other thread you opened by accusing me of making hateful and emotional posts. Kindly review your language in your above quoted repsonse to spoor for hate and emotion.

reply to post by FirewalkerZ

Ohh sorry you are a liar, you never gave a look at those 2 press conference, infact it's government manuals that tells you those thing you are very ignorant and i dont want to lose anymore time with a sheep like you go back to ufo

Source government : ftp.cdc.gov...

You can see that african american as a classification race was even added in 1997 you coudnlt put those words n a valid us government document

Once again, please review your language for its 'hatefull and emotional' content.

This document FROM 1961 demonstrates that you are wrong. This is the document that instructs the data entry clerks how to encode the data on the form. For your information the Father's and Mother's race fields are self reported. They are what the Father and Mother say they are, not what the Government says they are. One example lists "Hawaiian Fil Port Sp" as the race of the Mother. The Father and Mother can put down anything they want in this field (yes there are apparently examples of people specifying 'Martian' - in North Carolina or somewhere, not Hawai'i). The encoding scheme simply tries to categorize the parents' own descriptions into meaningful statistical categories. Nothing more.

Coding and Punching Geographic and Personal Particulars for Births Occurring in 1961

That is the document that the Arpaio/Zullo/Corsi Posse said they had but didn't. They lied to you. They used the 1968 instructions, not the 1961 instructions. THEY LIED TO YOU. In 1961, code '9' meant 'other non-white' which is EXACTLY what would be expected. Not 'Negro'. Not 'not specified'.

Also, the document is an Hawai'ian Birth Certificate, not a US Government document of any kind. So your bald assertions that Federal Documents wouldn't allow the term 'African' is not only false, it is irrelevant.