Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill

reply to post by userid1

Are you talking about the legitimate long form received by Mr. Wisch on March 15, 2011? If that is the one, please blow it up - the date at the bottom clearly reads March 15, 2011 not 2001. The point of the article is simply highlighting a real BC from a fake as presented by Barry. If you're talking about some other one - please correct me. Thanks.

reply to post by ShakaDoodle


Take the image in the link *I* supplied - import it into MS picture viewer, increase image to 400% and tell me the last two digits of the year look even remotely similar.

reply to post by userid1


The one you supplied looks like 2001, but the one from this link looks like 2011. I don't know what to think about this. The article says she wasn't able to obtain one and then they just print these out without saying how they got them. It's pretty weird. Both the one dated 2004 and the one dated 2011 have the date and registrar stamp clearly OUTSIDE the actual certificate... not on the back, where the DOH says they currently place the stamps and where the stamps are on Obama's certificate.

I'd love to look into this more and will try to find time today.

But Miki Booth was at one time running for Congress and it seems she's a Tea Party Republican in the state of Oklahoma. That doesn't give her any points as far as sincerity in my book. There seems to be a conflict of interest, but I'll look more into it as I can.

This article asks where the raised seal is on Obama's certificate, so they're either outright lying or know nothing about the issue.
.

Originally posted by The Old American
Of course I'm not going to argue that. Only someone irrational and clinically insane would ...

You said the Arizona bill “just puts into state law what the Constitution allows for,” and now you responded saying it is “irrational and clinically insane” to suggest a “baptismal or circumcision certificate” is a more acceptable proof of citizenship than a short form birth certificate or a US passport.

If that is the case — and I obviously agree — and, as you claimed, the Arizona bill is really about “putting into state law what the Constitution” asks for, why doesn’t it accept short form birth certificates and US passports then?

What I said, paraphrasing, was that at least they're giving an out for someone that doesn't have a long-form.

By asking for documentation that you recognized is less reliable than other official state and US documents.

The fact that I won't vote for him has nothing to do with his birth. It has to do with his life.

My point was that it’s obvious at this point that some people will never be satisfied, regardless of what Obama or Hawaii discloses or releases. Since for official and legal purposes the certificate Obama has presented is adequate, and the majority of people think this birther conspiracy is nonsense, those that are not convinced are certainly free to demonstrate that suspicion by not voting for him.

Originally posted by userid1
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Thanks for that link...great link and recent.

The first is that the original so-called "long form" birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a "record of live birth" — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice.

The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.

Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records.

She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist


Bud, you don't deserve the energy for a full rebuttal, but, as far as when you self-destructed, it was when you started questioning whether Obama was really "black". good lord man..good lord.

Miki Booth Twitter Comments. (I think it's Twitter, correct if wrong)

Source

Reply by Miki Booth on April 8, 2011 at 8:53am
Hawai'i birth certificates DO NOT have a box for religion but we all know he's a muslim.
...
Reply by Miki Booth on April 8, 2011 at 8:51am
Trump still doesn't have it right. Obama is NOT an Article II, Section 1 natural born citizen. He is a usurper and needs to be perp walked out of the White House. I pray for that day.

In the meantime Trump is a champion.
...
Reply by Miki Booth on April 6, 2011 at 4:50pm
BO/BS is not eligible six ways to Sunday not eligible.
...
Reply by Miki Booth on April 6, 2011 at 4:38pm

The Kapiolani birth certificate DOES NOT include a place for religion. Trump was misled if he thinks so. Barry Soetero's Indonesian school record does have his religion stated as muslim. He never renounced his Indonesian citizenship. He is still hiding his lies, fraud, and traitorous actions. He does NOT HAVE A KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

For images of REAL Hawaii birth CERTIFICATES "google" Miki Booth and read WND's "Oklahoma Firecracker"

It's good to finally see Darla Dawald is finally realizing maybe I was right about this all along. But it took someone like Trump to bring legitimacy to the question, "Where's the Birth Certificate?"

So she's a flaming birther, complete with lies of Obama's supposed Indonesian citizenship and being a Muslim and the "evil plot to destroy the country from within". She's old school.

I still can't explain the birth certificates, supposedly dated 2004 and 2011, but since she doesn't say a WORD about them or explain how she got them, I'm very skeptical. I'm not even sure they are from her. And I would NOT put it past the Daily Mail to manufacture them. Not saying that's what happened, but I sure would like to hear HER input about them.
.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by userid1

 

The one you supplied looks like 2001, but the one from this link looks like 2011. I don't know what to think about this. The article says she wasn't able to obtain one and then they just print these out without saying how they got them. It's pretty weird. Both the one dated 2004 and the one dated 2011 have the date and registrar stamp clearly OUTSIDE the actual certificate... not on the back, where the DOH says they currently place the stamps and where the stamps are on Obama's certificate.

.

edit on 4/20/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Yes, I had run across this example as well, but I was hoping that a dedicated "Birther" would bring it up - but oh well. Please take my example and yours and run them both through MS Office picture manager (or any other decent photo software) and increase the the magnification to around 400%.

1 - Notice anything interesting? They really don't look the same do they, but the documents seem identical otherwise.

2 - Please notice the bottom border of the one and five (15) in the date between the two. Notice that on my example they are equal or very close to it. But on your example the five is noticeably lower than the one?


To be honest, my example looks like a first attempt alteration, and yours looks like the finished product. It was nice of the person supplying these images to give us both to compare with each other. Somebody's been photoshopping

Originally posted by userid1
I was hoping that a dedicated "Birther" would bring it up - but oh well.

I'm a dedicated "truther". Does that qualify?

2 - Please notice the bottom border of the one and five (15) in the date between the two. Notice that on my example they are equal or very close to it. But on your example the five is noticeably lower than the one?

This can be explained by the resolution of the documents. The one that clearly says 2011 is 612x800 pixels and the other one is 344x450 pixels. Comparing the two jpegs is really impossible. It's the same thing with looking at Obama's CoLB on the Internet. discrepancies are everywhere, but can be explained by different scanners, sizes, photo software, etc.

I know I'm not a birther, but it's important to be equally critical about any evidence that is brought up in this argument. I was very critical of the Obama certificate when it first came out, and I joined in the 'movement' to determine whether or not it was real. I zoomed in and compared and I was meticulous about what I found. And I came to the conclusion that NO ONE can verify a jpg document as real or fake over the internet. Looking at pixels and misshapen text in a file is a fruitless endeavor, IMO.

However, I do notice that the purported 2011 document:

1. Has no apparent raised seal
2. Mother's Race is : Hawaiian/Chinese/Korean/German/English/Portuguese but "African" is not a race?
3. I don't even see a space for a doctor's signature.

Yet birthers are willing to accept this jpg like it's the freaking Holy Grail, without ANY checking it out AT ALL.

I may not know whether or not this is real, but birthers know it's real and PROOF, without ANY of the scrutiny that they focused on Obama's COLB. That tells me all I need to know. They don't care about the truth. That's the difference between "birthers" and "truthers".
.

"I have the president's certificate right here. It's certified, it's got a certification number. It's got the registrar of the state signed. It's got a seal on it. And it says 'this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding,'" said GMA host George Stephanopoulos, showing her a piece of paper.


"Well, then that should settle it," Bachmann responded, adding later that "as long as someone introduces it I guess it's over."


"I take the president at his word and I think - again I would have no problem and apparently the president wouldn't either," she said. "Introduce that, we're done. Move on."

source

How's that TEA party working for ya?

reply to post by Sinnthia


Shame, you lost Bachmann but gained Charlie Sheen

Charlie Sheen for President?

During his performance in Washington, DC, Sheen made jokes about polls that show him above Obama and Palin if he ran for president. Are people having fun with the pollsters now? It seems many people in the United States prefer joking around about politics than taking the upcoming election seriously.

During a recent show Sheen joked about what his political platform would include, noting that he’d legalize weed and make Gaddafi marry his ex wives, notes Politico. Leave it to Sheen to use politics as a way to be crass about his exes.

He is currently in a custody dispute over the children with his most recent wife. You would think for the sake of his children that Sheen would leave his former wives out of his comedy routine.

Sheen's recent show also made some comments about arresting members of the Internal Revenue Service. Sheen might want to stop the jokes about the Internal Revenue Service before they decide to audit him.

Charlie Sheen Compares himself to President Obama


President Obama has been under attack from the “birther” movement lately. When joking about a run for president, Sheen said “For starters, I was born here, how about that? And I got proof. Nothing photo shopped about my birth certificate,” reports Politico.

link

"Why don't you take the birthers more seriously?"

The worst thing any politician can do right now is to protect the status quo.

reply to post by tyson



That line. Right there.

Originally posted by backinblack
Gee Sin you talk your role seriously..
Now you answer for others..

I am so sorry. Please U2U me a list of who I am allowed to respond to and who I am not allowed to respond to on this open forum.

I've seen the rules...
You tell me why it couldn't be done if someone wanted to..
Seems easy to me..

How about you post those rules and explain why you think it is so easy. No blogs, only official Hawaiian state dept. links please. I have seen the rules too and they explicitly state that the COLB must list the ACTUAL place of birth. If it says Honolulu, that is the place of birth. You are going to have to show me what you claim is true.

I do not understand why birthers expect everyone to just accept their suspicions all while at the same time expecting people to just believe whatever they claim.

Originally posted by backinblack
You want people to come forward and admit they committed fraud??
I don't see that happening...

So you are claiming it is easy to do even though you have never seen nor have even one example yourself of it having ever been done? Or are you confused because you had last said you "seen the rules and it seems easy" so if it is easy according to the rules, then it is not fraud.

Either way, how can you even try to push this without being able to demonstrate that it ever happened even once?

Originally posted by backinblack
You want people to come forward and admit they committed fraud??
I don't see that happening...

Oh dear.

Originally posted by backinblack
I've seen the rules...
You tell me why it couldn't be done if someone wanted to..
Seems easy to me..

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by The Old American
but the bill just puts into state law what the Constitution allows for. It certainly isn't unconstitutional.

/TOA

Can you please show me where the constitution outlines baptimsal and circumcision certificates as proof of citizenship as well as any wording allowing any 1 state to have different eligibilty requirements from the other 49?

No, because there isn't any such requirements, as I suspect you know. But there is a requirement for the POTUS to be a natural-born citizen.. At least Az. was willing to accept another form of proof other than a long-form birth certificate. Looks to me like they were practically bending over backward to make it easy. Do you think it's too much to ask the prospective leader of our country to provide some sort of proof of that small qualification?

Obama has proven he was born in Hawaii. Just because you cannot accept that does not mean the world should stop for you. The claim was that this bill is just allowing for the constitution to be upheld, it is not. It grants federal powers to one person in a state and trumps the constitutional requirements for presidency by attempting to set up guidelines seperate from the other 49 states. Talking in circles is not working on me.

Originally posted by The Old American
When I applied for a passport I was required to provide a long-form birth certificate. I find it hard to believe that the same wouldn't be required to run the country. But the way things are run, I can believe they would accept magic beans.

When I applied for a passport, I was required to provide a short form birth certificate as that is the only type I can get in my state. I find it hard to believe you do not understand the difference between Texas and other states.

Edit to add: I live in Texas. Arizona may not have a long-form.

/TOA

edit on 19-4-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)

They no longer issue a long form and good of you to acknowledge states have different rules. Hawaii is not Texas.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I only wish they were also screaming he is a reptilian...that would make me ever so happy...meh, can't win em all.

Well...there is this

Is Obama a genetically engineered Alien/Human Hybrid ???,

reply to post by userid1


It appears to me that the POSt&Fail has 'scrubbed' their images on these two links. Both seem to have the photoshopped version.

I'll have to have a look to see if anyone kept a copy of the original, because I didn't.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by tungus

 

Gov has a point.. there should have been a bipartisan panel created to judge the candidates..

I agree. But. were her hands tied?

Could she have signed the bill Then made such a bipartisan panel ? If so then we can see where her reasons and loyalty really do lie.

reply to post by userid1


Sorry - maybe I'm missing something or maybe the links are taking me somewhere different, but in both certificates like BenevolentHeretic has posted, all I can see are clearly 2004 & 2011 as stated. I don't see any detectable alterations.