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

reply to post by kyviecaldges


That's exactly why he was placed on the New Jersey ballot...

However common sense stuff like this they have no idea what to make of it. So they act as if it is entirely trivial. The only reason he would place himself on the New Jersey ballot is exactly so he won't have to provide a Birth Certificate; Just like his SSN were from Connecticut where nobody except for medical reasons and taxes can request it..

It's all a coincidence I suppose though.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming

 

Except none of them have even been to court. They just report in interviews on MSNBC; "We've reviewed the necessary documentation and can conclude that Obama was born in the State of Hawaii."

As far as I know; The Ortiz cat or whatever his name was the Judge simply threw the case out on account of the matter itself. As I have stated, becoming President is a Job Application, and We The People are the employers. If we demand you show us a Birth Certificate before we elect someone we know nothing about; you show us a Birth Certificate. If we demand to see your tax returns so we know whether you are a product of the Banksters; you show us a damn tax return.

You are leaping to a conclusion that just isnt correct. I understand what you are wanting, and I cant say that I disagree with the sentiment about being the person hiring the President to his job. But this isnt about how we feel, its about what the law states right now. Running for President isnt a job application, and we are not his employer. By all means, bust your arse to get the law changed for the future, there's nothing wrong with that. But in this case, the argument of being his employer just doesnt work.

reply to post by flyswatter


But does it not? If we did not hire/elect him; he would not be where he is.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Difference is that I'm not pretending to explain why they wont do this or that. I dont have an explanation for everything, neither do you. Nobody does. What I said about this is factually correct - Hawaii said he was born there, and they said that his BC is valid. Be it pro-Obama or anti-Obama, those two things are not disputable.

I dont know how it would go down if they were in court. At this point, all I know is that they dont have to go to court with it if they choose not to, because there is no requirement for it.

That is it.

They won't do it.

It has not been PROVEN that he is legit.

He has won on a technicality.

If only the other deathers could be so honest and just come to grips with the fact that he has NOT been proven to be natural born.
Everyone keeps pointing to Hawaii, but what they are saying is totally meaningless.

I will tell you what they can do to satisfy this whole charade of Barry's and NOT have to testify.

All they have to do is provide the court with a certified copy of his long form BC.

THAT IS IT.

It is so freaking easy and yet they refuse to do it.

WHY????????

Oh snap, because they don't have to.

I love how people so willingly bow down to the wishes of Big Brother.
People are questioning his legitimacy and ALL Barry and Hawaii has to do is provide a certified copy of his BC and no one will do it.

The easiest and most direct solution.

Let me repeat that.

The easiest and most direct solution.

And Barry has his lawyers running people in circles.
What a freaking joke.
If you can't see it, then too bad.
You get the government that you deserve.

edit on 22/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

They dont provide it because they dont have to, but the reason that they dont have to is because of privacy laws in place that specifically forbid it.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter

 

But does it not? If we did not hire/elect him; he would not be where he is.

Like I said, I see exactly what you are saying. But the fact is still as it was stated before - there is nothing that requires it, nothing that says we are his employers, nothing that says he has to show us all his BC.

I have NO problem at all with a law that would require such things - I think it would be a good thing. But for now, that law does not exist.

reply to post by flyswatter

They dont provide it because they dont have to, but the reason that they dont have to is because of privacy laws in place that specifically forbid it.

Do you not see how completely absurd this argument is?

If you get pulled over by the police and they want to see your proof of insurance and you don't have it, is it easier to simply go into court and show the judge your proof if insurance or is it easier to hire a lawyer to fight the case and prove that you have a common law right to travel that is protected by sovereign privacy and proof of insurance is not needed?

Because you can make that argument.

It will cost you a stupid amount of money and you need to prove that your driver's license obligation to meet state statutory driving code is an adhesion contract and you are seeking relief in the form of a nullified contract.

Yes you can make this argument.

And it is no different than what Barry and his lawyers are doing.

All he has to do is provide a certified long form BC.

We have to do it when we get a job.
Why should the privacy laws protect him and not me?

It does not make sense.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by habitforming

 

Huh?
Lying about what?

The play stupid defense.
Funny.

If you are going to accuse me of lying about something you are going to have to be able to say what that is.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming

 

Show me where they did.

You claimed they refused to.
You have to back up your claim.
You know that though I am sure.
I am waiting.

reply to post by habitforming


You claimed they did.

Back up your claim.

As for my side; Did you miss the video that Kyvie posted on the last page about how Hawaiian officials said they neither had to testify under oath or provide the certificate? Or did it just slip past the conveniency of your mouse wheel?

No worries.. Here it is just for you.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming

 

I assure you; I have looked further into it than you, and can conclude that having a Birth Certificate makes you nothing but INELIGIBLE for President.

So Ronald Reagan was ineligible to be president?
Everyone with a birth certificate is ineligible?
Sure, that makes sense.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming

 

Check what post I am replying to..

I did and it was me asking you to prove your claim again.

I can rebut you all day; however unlike you I probably don't get paid to do it.

Too bad you can only do so with fantasies and lies.
Like this one about me getting paid.
How much do I make to have an opinion?
Who pays for yours?

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by habitforming

 

Show me where anyone refused to.

In court in New Jersey.

I do not want to see your video. I want to see court documents from that case backing up exactly what you say.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter

 

But does it not? If we did not hire/elect him; he would not be where he is.

Try ordering your employee to mow your lawn and let me know how it goes.
See if you can fire him if you want.
Report back.

reply to post by habitforming


I said probably. And no the comment I replied to was when you you picked an issue with

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by spoor

 

BECAUSE BY INSINUATING OBAMA HAS A BIRTH CERTIFICATE; YOU ARE INSINUATING HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!!!

Can you really be that dense or obtuse? You quite literally shot yourself in the face with that remark.

Which is NOTHING remotely close to saying that having a birth certificate makes you natural born.

Where are you getting hung up here?
I am a resident of NY state as can be proven by my driver's license.
That does not mean I am saying that having a DL makes you a citizen of NY state.

As for your comment about Ronald Reagan, I love how you failed to see his name isn't in all caps...

Nor were his parents. Can you say the same for your birth certificate or your parents? No you can not, because that is not how birth certificates are made. Capitis deminutio maxima; go learn about it.

www.safeguardourconstitution.com...

Reagan's birth certificate clearly not in all caps.

Also refer to this

progressive-southerner.blogspot.com...

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Apples and Oranges. Obama has not been pulled over. Legally he is not required to produce his birth certificate to anyone. If I were pulled over and the cop demanded something he had no right to demand, yes it would be easier to let a pro bono lawyer go to court for me over that rather than have me jump through hoops no one has to any time the wim comes along.

reply to post by habitforming


Well of course you can; he's your employee. That's why McDonalds and other fast food restaurants and chains can make workers do so under dangerous conditions. Like cleaning out hot fry boxes and getting 3rd degree burns.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming

 

You claimed they did.

When did I claim that?
I am pretty sure you are making that up.
If you really believe the crap you are saying, why not just prove it instead of making up # I said and then asking me to prove that?

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
As for my side; Did you miss the video that Kyvie posted on the last page about how Hawaiian officials said they neither had to testify under oath or provide the certificate? Or did it just slip past the conveniency of your mouse wheel?

I am not watching your video either. Sounds like you have them telling the truth. They do not have to.
Quite different from refused to.
I want to see court documents showing where and when they REFUSED.
Anything else is just a distraction at this point.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Reagan's birth certificate clearly not in all caps.

Sorry but I have to go laugh this one off for a while.

reply to post by habitforming


By saying that they didn't refuse to testify under oath, you are inferring that they did testify. Please prove that. You have passed over the video that shows they did refuse so twice; and continue asking for proof. If that isn't; then what more do you require?