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.

 

BIG NEWS- Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent'

page: 19
120
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
One thing that will be interesting to see is which one will end up with a nail in their coffin after this investigation, Obama or Arpaio?

Somehow I don't think its going to end up good for Arpaio.




posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight
reply to post by trysts
 
CNN made it sound like a sick joke this morning so the rest of the MSM is probably going to do the same.........in turn the people will act like it is a joke as well.

people are waking up, but it is indeed slow.



As they should. This is a joke. Every news agency knows this is a joke. I think the Obama camp shoud sue Arpaio and crew for slander. Lets get that ball rolling .



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Obama hasn't spent millions to keep his records private. More BS.


The request for release of his records were part of the many questioning his eligibility.
In particular, his records were asked for in filed discovery motions.

Do I need to list the lawsuits that questioning his eligibility?

He may not have spent his own millions fighting, but he spent somebody's millions.

It would be a real shame if his attorneys were paid with tax dollars.
I don't know if they were or they were not paid by the people, butt these lawsuits definitely cost attorney fees.

You are doing nothing but spouting talking points.

More BS. Stop with the BS.
edit on 18/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)


The records that were asked for are private by default. If the issue was being brought up in discovery as part of a lawsuit to challenge his eligibility, the court would have no standing to even consider it because determination of eligibility is not even remotely within the court's jurisdiction.

And this whole "millions spent" issue has been beat into the ground, explained, and beat into the ground again. If you wish to get a bit more accurate than just the "millions spent," you can. The records are out there saying EXACTLY how much the Obama campaign has spent on legal representation, at least from 2007 to 2010.

But hey, why dont you go ask McCain why HIS campaign spent upwards of a million on legal representation during the run-up and election time?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Starchildren
 


Exciting News! HE HAS COME FORWARD!

He managed to get the State of Hawaii to release his birth certificate!!!!!

It's on the internet!

It's your lucky day!!!!!


You know what Obama needs right now? More than anything else in the world? Something big to divert all of the attention away from this.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
In case you couldn't make it through that website:

in 1968 "9" = "unknown or not stated"

in 1961 "9" = " other, non-white"

Joe was using the codes from 1968... not 1961... because Joe's an idiot.



So, longlostbrother, why do you think they chose option "9 = other, non-white" over the available code of "2 = Negro"?
edit on 18-7-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by merkaba93
 


Apparently you think that only long standing members can have a valid opinion. So what if that poster just registered. What does that have to do with his post or his opinion? I am a long time member and I think I've made my opinion very clear on this subject. What do you have to say to me ?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Here comes crazy Joe again, shouting "It's fake!!!" from the highest mountains, yet he is not taken seriously except by conspiracy nuts and racists. Why is that? Could it possibly be that him and his...erm.."cold case posse" have absolutely no authority or proof of any of their claims? I'm talking about actual proof, not what they deem as being proof.

Oh sheriff Joe, it must really suck that you have a blackie as a commander in chief, doesn't it? What sucks even more is he is about to get 4 more years!



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
If you feel so inclined; please read what The Department of Health in Hawaii has to say about President Obama and his birth there.

hawaii.gov...

To me all the proof that is needed is on the above website.



edit on 18-7-2012 by caladonea because: add more



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057

As they should. This is a joke. Every news agency knows this is a joke. I think the Obama camp shoud sue Arpaio and crew for slander. Lets get that ball rolling .


Hopefully they do.

In order to prove and win a slander suit, they must prove what Arpaio said is factually incorrect.

And by prove, I don't mean laughing off questions about it like Obama's spokesperson does, but I mean present actual physical proof that what Arpaio said is indeed untruthful.

Obama will never file that suit, because he knows know he cannot win.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by flashtrum
 


No, there doesn't need to be any evidence of an impeachment. After all, there's no evidence to prove Obama's a Kenyan, so there doesn't need to be evidence for an impeachment.

Nobody cares about honor, dignity, honesty and law. it's all about getting Obama and all those brown people any dirty way they can.



There doesn't need to be evidence of impeachment in order to impeach someone? Hmm. You made the statement "well if they didn't impeach Bush" suggesting that Congress should have impeached Bush and I am asking you on what grounds? Because he was unpopular? I'm really not getting what you are trying to say other than you subtly playing the race card (brown people any dirty way they can?). I could care less if Obama was fuchsia or pewter. He's dangerous, he's ill-equipped, his supporters are turning on him, and for good reason.

So again, I am going to assume you understand what impeachment is, and asked the question why would Busch have qualified for such a measure? Did anyone go after Condy Rice? No, because she's not considered to be one of them. Sickening.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpig221


Oh sheriff Joe, it must really suck that you have a blackie as a commander in chief, doesn't it? What sucks even more is he is about to get 4 more years!


Obama as commander in chief has zero authority over Arpaio.

Just thought you should know that.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Why would I know or care?

A better question is why would Joe lie about what 9 meant? Call a press conference and then, once again, lie?

Why would he lie and say that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution is meaningless (And why would you also say that... it's a mystery)...

Any answers?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Joe is lying because he's trying to distract people from the fact that tomorrow will begin a federal civil rights case against him. He is trying to move the masses to put pressure on the Feds to end the case.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
And just to remind people:



Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude thatpersons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


[taps nose]



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Anyone in Hawaii and a genealogy buff?

I am not a "birther" but once you claim to be born somewhere else and then claim to be born another, for convenience, influence or other reasons then at some point you're gonna have to put your money where your mouth is. That is why so many people "won't let this go" or are "whipping a dead dog" something is not right. 2+2 doesn't = 3.

So, we all agree that we don't have access to see the micro film birth certificate.

Ok.

Genealogy buffs know what I am getting at.

Do some digging.

Go to where the original copies of directories, vital stats.

Search his mothers college year books bulletins, see where she was.

Look at his mothers marriage certificate. Look at the divorce papers...........

Do the digging.

True Genealogist have some awesome skills. They know how to find someone whom doesn't think they leave a paper trail. Everyone leaves some information somewhere. I would respect their opinions.

Let's find out the truth, whatever it is.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



The records that were asked for are private by default.


Correct. I have already stated this exact same thing in response to one of you deathers making some kind of argument about an executive order and his college and medical records.


If the issue was being brought up in discovery as part of a lawsuit to challenge his eligibility, the court would have no standing to even consider it because determination of eligibility is not even remotely within the court's jurisdiction.


And yet it was still requested in Drake v. Obama.

Barry's lawyers would have to file a motion to dismiss if this was requested because if not, then a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs questioning his eligibility would be entered.

The point of every lawsuit was to question his eligibility.

Judges have allowed the argument.
It matters not that his records are private, they can still be requested.
And if I am not mistaken, they were originally requested under the freedom of information act.

Lawsuits have went forward.
If they had not then we would not be having this debate.

And either Barry, the taxpayers, or some mystery party paid the attorney fees.
I doubt very seriously if any of them did this pro-bono.
edit on 18/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Why would I know or care?


You don't think it's a little odd that someone would enter "non-white, other" over "negro" when both were available options in the code book?


A better question is why would Joe lie about what 9 meant? Call a press conference and then, once again, lie?


Joe gave information from the codebook he was using and he represented those codes correctly. I would imagine that his investigators used the 1968 codebook as a reference because (according to your link) half of the 1961 codebook was missing information at all.


Why would he lie and say that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution is meaningless (And why would you also say that... it's a mystery)...


I have no idea what you're talking about on this one.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


It won't be Obama, but that's because Joe is going to jail soon...



His deputies failed to investigate or conducted only the sketchiest of inquiries into hundreds of sex crimes between 2005 and 2007, investigations by Arizona law enforcement agencies have shown. Many of those cases involved molested children.


www.nytimes.com...
edit on 18-7-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by XeroOne
Funny, I don't remember anyone checking George Bush's birth certificate.


Governor Bush was never elected president. He forced his way into office and promptly dropped the ball on our biggest domestic attack ever. We didn't impeach that guy. Why impeach Obama?




top topics



 
120
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join