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: 20
120
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

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


Here's proof:




abcnews.go.com...

But who cares.

It's all about getting Obama.




posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
To me, I dont know if it fake or altered or whatever. I just believe the GOP party would have pursued this if it were worth pursuing. Because they have not, it just says from a logical stand-point that its not worth it or can never be proved.

If it were a "sure thing" the GOP would have used used it as a primary political tool.

Sheriff Joe on the other hand is a washed up old guy who uses these press tactics to take the spotlight off one of many many many lawsuits he has pending like the federal investigation into racial profiling.

All he does is cost us here in Arizona millions in tax payer money to pay off his lawsuits because he himself never operates inside the law.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Could it be because he wasn't a "negro?" He had a white mother and a black father. By definition he is non-white but at the same time he isn't exactly black either.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined

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.


Riiiiiight... so some internet nerds figure out how the codes changed in the 60s in about 12 hours and Joe and his possee couldn't, after months, even though there was a website detailing it... since March.

Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

As for the thing you didn't understand, maybe google it and learn a little bit about the US constitution.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd


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


Obama will never file that suit because he is the President and has bigger things to worry about other than meaningless crazy Joe.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


The proper term is actually called mulatto. Which also refers to mixed Mexican/Anglo.Native American mixed nationality as well.

NOTE: I do NOT know if mulatto is considered a racist term these days, if it is I apologize for using it.


edit on 18-7-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 





The term is not commonly used anymore and is generally considered archaic because of its association with slavery and colonial and racial oppression; accepted modern terms include "mixed" and "biracial."


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
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)


His lawyers filing the dismissals and such were paid from the Obama campaign and reelection funds set aside for legal representation. That has been public knowledge for a long time now, but many (not necessarily saying YOU, but many) have ignored this fact.

And as far as the FOIA act goes ... there is no freedom to have this information, so being denied access was the right thing to do. I wish I could recall what exact case it was that the court finally said that there is no legal authority for the court to get this information, and no authority for them to have any part in determining presidential eligibility.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Nah, he only has to be white if he's a Democrat. If he's a republican, it's ok. .... not sure why.... probably something to do with the mindset they inherited from their slave-owning ancestors or something and whether they were put in the fields or in the house


The right winged racists that hate him just because of his skin color are easy to see through




the racism is peeving me off so I better go elsewhere for a while...
edit on 18-7-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)


That's probably an excellent idea. To call someone a racist because they have conservative values is really not cool, dude. I dislike Obama for the same reason I disliked Jimmy Carter. But by your argument I "hate" Jimmy Carter and it must be for some other reason than politics. I guess I "hate" him because he was from the South, Not sure, you makes these arguments for me apparently. Too many people are falling for this nonsense.

Exhibit A, the Tea Party - say what you want about it now but it grew out of middle-class Americans being fed up with paying higher and higher taxes and the government not being held accountable for their spending. But because a huge amount of spending is tied to entitlements, and because many minorities rely on entitlements, the argument was made that this movement was racist. It is simply the most illogical conclusion one could come to and actually weakens whatever argument you have. The whispers of Obama's citizenship are from his own doing or at least from his handlers. No one went back in time to 1991 and forged a literary pamphlet to say he was born in Kenya. He may have done it because it was true, or maybe he did it because he thought at the time it would make him look more appealing as an author and a world traveler and as someone who came here and made a name for himself. Personally I think the fact that it took so long for the White House to react to this, and for the state of Hawaii to react to this, that something doesn't smell right. But that gives you ZERO right to label me something I am not.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
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)


His lawyers filing the dismissals and such were paid from the Obama campaign and reelection funds set aside for legal representation. That has been public knowledge for a long time now, but many (not necessarily saying YOU, but many) have ignored this fact.

And as far as the FOIA act goes ... there is no freedom to have this information, so being denied access was the right thing to do. I wish I could recall what exact case it was that the court finally said that there is no legal authority for the court to get this information, and no authority for them to have any part in determining presidential eligibility.



Sorry, but you need to show proof of that...

watch:

His lawyers weren't paid to file those dismissals.

And how much were they paid, for what?

Go on, show your work if your going to make the claims.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd


Obama as commander in chief has zero authority over Arpaio.

Just thought you should know that.


Sorry, just used to referring to him as my commander in chief lol

I never said he has authority over Arpaio. Just that Arpaio is nuts.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


I'm familiar with the term. Like you though I'm not sure about the PCness of it in this day age and I didn't want the point of my post to be ignored because people were upset I said something offensive.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Could it be because he wasn't a "negro?" He had a white mother and a black father. By definition he is non-white but at the same time he isn't exactly black either.



There is no space on the long form birth certificate for the race of the child.

You can only list race under both of the parents.

So, how could the term "non-white, other" be referring to Obama at all?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


I think his reference to that was in regards to the claim that Obama has spent millions to keep his records sealed. The number comes from Obama's campaign finance reports. In them Obama has set aside X amount of dollars for legal fees. For whatever reason birthers assumed that all this was going to keeping his past hidden even though all candidates have large amounts of money set aside for legal fees.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 





Riiiiiight... so some internet nerds figure out how the codes changed in the 60s in about 12 hours and Joe and his possee couldn't, after months, even though there was a website detailing it... since March.


What do you mean some internet nerds figured it out?

Your linked article clearly states that a lot of the information from the 1961 codebook was completely missing.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
There's an old saying be careful of what you wish for - most birthers want him gone, Kenyan or not. The problem is he doesnt just leave every single thing he has done is questioned and possibly invalidated - maybe the birthers really like wars in places they will never visit ? - there's a power vacuum and usually the nastiest ahole rises up to claim it when that happens and most importantly all the other countries get to laugh at us.

Yea your egos win the country loses.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


ding ding ding!



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Oh, back in March, that was the case, but since then:

www.obamaconspiracy.org...

Found, digitized and uploaded a few hours after Joe went and lied to the media...

see page 6/12



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
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)


His lawyers filing the dismissals and such were paid from the Obama campaign and reelection funds set aside for legal representation. That has been public knowledge for a long time now, but many (not necessarily saying YOU, but many) have ignored this fact.

And as far as the FOIA act goes ... there is no freedom to have this information, so being denied access was the right thing to do. I wish I could recall what exact case it was that the court finally said that there is no legal authority for the court to get this information, and no authority for them to have any part in determining presidential eligibility.



Sorry, but you need to show proof of that...

watch:

His lawyers weren't paid to file those dismissals.

And how much were they paid, for what?

Go on, show your work if your going to make the claims.


I dont have the primary link that I saved for where I found the information before (different computer, sorry). But here's some information about it from elsewhere:

FEC records on Obama campaign spending:
query.nictusa.com...
These records show transactions with the law firm that handles their legal representation - Perkins Coie

Here are the three specific cases where it was on Obama and his legal team to arrange a response, and they did. Obama's personal attorney also represented on at least one of these cases:
tesibria.typepad.com...

I am at work at this moment and dont have the time to go searching right now. But you can use information readily available in multiple threads on ATS, and the information above, to keep you occupied and reading about it until your eyes bleed.

Now, as far as exactly what they were paid for, you will find that much of that probably wont ever be available to you. Attorney client privilege still applies, even with someone of Obama's status.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
A little of topic, but...

Am I the only one that thought it was laughable that Obama is demanding Romney release his tax records? Why is it alright for him to claim he has privacy and doesn't have to release his records,


You mean his long form birth certificate? Obama already did this, and birthers believe it to be fake, which leads us back to this conference. Now if you're going to claim that you meant Obama's "college records" or such, they have absolutely no relevence as to whether or not he war born on Hawaiian soil.



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join