Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent'

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by spoor

 

Were you under a rock......
Link

No picture of McCains certificate... so where is it?

reply to post by spoor


Ever hear of google?
Here, right on wiki.
Are you going to apologize for calling another member a liar eroniously?

Originally posted by TKDRL
Ever here of google?
Here, right on wiki.
Are you going to apologize for calling another member a liar eroniously?]

ever heard of reading the text with it? That is not his bc....

voices.washingtonpost.com...

reply to post by spoor


Nowhere in that article does it state such a thing......
Here, this copy is better anyways.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by spoor

 

Nowhere in that article does it state such a thing......
Here, this copy is better anyways.

edit on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:25:03 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Says it right here

As I reported earlier, the McCain campaign has declined to publicly release the senator's birth certificate.

Why do you need to lie so much to win your arguments here?

Originally posted by Screwed
reply to post by rnaa

 

You are coming off as someone who has a little too much invested in getting the rest of us to believe that the Obama birth certificate scandal is not worth investigating.

423 birther threads on ATS started by birthers and rnaa is the one trying too hard.

reply to post by habitforming


Calling me a liar now
Get a clue.......
It was obtained here through the courts. Now are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by habitforming

 

Calling me a liar now

No. I am calling you a liar again.

Get a clue.......
It was obtained here through the courts. Now are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?

As soon as you point out where the birth certificate is in that link.

Actually, I guess you have to explain how I did not just prove you lied. You said the article said no such thing and I posted the article saying exactly that thing.
Where is your apology?

reply to post by habitforming


Are you serious dude.....
Scroll down

Stop trolling.
Your article was written 05/20/2008
The BC was released through the courts 7/21/08
In case it wasn't obvious enough for you.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by habitforming

 

Are you serious dude.....
Scroll down

Stop trolling.
Your article was written 05/20/2008
The BC was released through the courts 7/21/08
In case it wasn't obvious enough for you.

edit on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:21:18 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Are you asking me if I am serious?
Don't even get me started on the layers in that PDF.

reply to post by TKDRL

Calling me a liar now Get a clue....... It was obtained here through the courts. Now are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?

McCain has NOT released his Birth Certificate. That document is a complete forgery. And it has been shown to be a forgery since at least 2009. That is at least 3 years. So who has been living under a rock?

It existed before the Hollander case, and it had been thoroughly demonstrated to be a forgery before the Hollander case. It is unclear whether Mr. Hollander who sued pro se, understood that it was a forgery at the time, but there is absolutely no doubt about it today.

A better image can be found here... John McCain’s fake birth certificate... along with a complete dissection and dismissal of any possible reality associated with it.

Another article about it here: The Birth Certificate is a Forgery!

By the way, McCain has explicitly denied that this document is a copy of his birth certificate. The forgery asserts Hollander's claim that McCain was born in Panama outside the Canal Zone. McCain is known to have been born on Coco Solo Naval Air Station. And that is just for starters.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by habitforming

 

Are you serious dude.....
Scroll down

Still kinda waiting on that apology,
Dude.

reply to post by rnaa


S.R. 511 - A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. - April 10th, 2008

Sponsors of the Bill -

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Source

Legal and Constitutional scholars have said that there is little chance that McCain would be declared anything other than a natural-born citizen. The Supreme Court has held that the children of military and Foreign Service personnel stationed abroad are considered natural-born.

next......

reply to post by Xcathdra

next......

next what? Do you have a point?

McCain was born overseas, there is no question about that and there is no question that there is a technical gray area surrounding his eligibility. Your quote even points that out.

The Constitution gives the task of determining eligibility to the Congress at the time the Electoral College vote is certified. Congressional rule provide that objections must be raised, in writing, by at least one Congressman and at least one Senator. Congress, including rivals Clinton and Obama issued a non-binding resolution to the effect that they considered McCain a Natural Born Citizen.

This is perfectly reasonable, fair, and part of the Constitutional responsibilities assigned to Congress and Congress alone. The resolution was non-binding, not law. It did not change the fact that there is still a technical gray area about Natural Born Citizenship and overseas birth. What it did was serve notice that they were not going to accept a challenge to his eligibility based on that doubt should McCain win the Electoral College Vote. It effectively removed that possible arguing point from the campaign rhetoric.

By the way, there wasn't much discussion about it before the vote. There were certainly no hearings. no testimony, and no examination of a Birth Certificate.

The fake birth certificate Hollander "came up with" seeks to put his birth in Colon, Panama, instead of the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Canal Zone. Those are two completely different situations, and have different consequences for the determination of Natural Born Citizenship. Congress has declared that for the purposes of Citizenship, the Canal Zone is treated as American Soil if the parents are Citizens. Therefore born in the Canal Zone is born on American soil for McCain. On the other hand, born in Panama but not in the Canal Zone is not born on American soil, and while this circumstance would still grant him citizenship because of his American parents, it can be argued that it is citizenship granted by law and therefore 'naturalization' even if it is automatic and at birth. This is fodder for endless argument and that is exactly what Hollander was trying to promote. There is still an argument about McCain, but it is not where near as strong as it would be were he actually born in Colon.

Bottom line is that McCain, by the acknowledged location of his birth is in a small but real gray area when it comes to Natural Born Citizenship. No one has made any effective attempt to force him to release his birth certificate, because it wouldn't tell us anything we don't already know; and he has not done it off his own bat. A forged document purporting to McCain's Birth Certificate, pathetically easy to debunk via incorrect information and mixed typewritten and computer generated fonts, has been repudiated by McCain himself.

next...

reply to post by rnaa


Uhm yeah... I posted the info to move the conversation back to being on topic. Eligibility is not set by Congress, but the US Constution. The initial waiver in terms of citizenship and natural born was in place to account for those colonists who just won a revolution against the mother country. Those people were not natural born as they were British subjects.

I fail to understand how McCain and his background have anything to do with the topic, aside from the obvious diversion people use when they can't counter the facts.

So much for Hope and Change and a transparent government. I hope like hell Obama does not get reelected... I know I am not going to be voting for him.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Uhm yeah... I posted the info to move the conversation back to being on topic.

Arguing McCain is on topic? What was your point?

Eligibility is not set by Congress, but the US Constution.

Correct.

The Constitution defines the eligibility rules AND the Constitution gives Congress the role of ensuring those eligibility rules are followed.

The initial waiver in terms of citizenship and natural born was in place to account for those colonists who just won a revolution against the mother country. Those people were not natural born as they were British subjects.

Most of them were Natural Born Citizens, as they had been born in one of the one or the other of the original 13 States. At birth they were British Subjects, of course, but they were born in Virginia, or New York, or where ever and even though the 'national government' changed, the State Governments did not, and under the Articles of Confederation, people were citizens of the various States first and citizens of the United States only incidentally. When the Constitution was formed, citizens of the various States became first and foremost citizens of the United States.

The initial waiver, as you call it, was designed to embrace those naturalized citizens who had participated in the formation of the new country. People like Alexander Hamilton, who was born in Jamaica and naturalized in New York. You might think of it as a veterans benefit, it was felt that it would be unfair to deny ability to be President to people who had fought to create the country.

I fail to understand how McCain and his background have anything to do with the topic, aside from the obvious diversion people use when they can't counter the facts.

Then why did you continue it? What was your point?

So much for Hope and Change and a transparent government. I hope like hell Obama does not get reelected... I know I am not going to be voting for him.

And that is off topic isn't it?

It is obvious that you won't be voting for him. But I want to remind you that it is un-American to be a sore loser. If you lose at the ballot box it is unproductive to simmer with hate for four years. View his performance with your eyes open and be watchful, by all means. Call him out when he stumbles, but please don't shriek every time he scratches his behind.

As for transparency, he made two specific promises: to bring the wars into the open budget, and to insist that text of bills be published on the internet before he signs them.

The first he has succeeded at and is now excoriated for it, even while folks like you continue to berate him for lack of transparency. Bush ran the wars 'off the sheet' meaning there was no scrutiny over the war spending and it wasn't calculated as Federal Debt. Now that Obama has put it up front, and it is part of the debt, you blame the debt rise on Obama not Bush. In fact there is seven years of Bush debt that is was hidden from you.

The other promise he has had mixed results about. And while folks continue to bleat about transparency, I have never seen one, not one, person complain that this bill or that bill wasn't published.

Transparency in Government has nothing to do with examining the pixel count on a PDF. Insisting on maintaining the exact same privacy rules for the personal records of a President as for the personal records of every other American citizen is likewise not Governmental 'non-transparency', it is the fundamental glue that holds this country together: the rule of law.

Data entry codes penciled onto a document for statistics gathering, whether correctly coded or not, do not change the facts on the document and certainly do not make the document 'definitely fraudulent'.

reply to post by rnaa


Seriously ive been reading your hatefull post rnaa and it became clear to me that your mastered the emotionnal attacks and the straight propaganda that is being used to manipulate everyone everyday half truths and everything your probably part of the obama truth team plus that let me ask you a question

You are in australia why in hell are you defending obama for, he took office with 9-10 trillion debt now it's almost 16 and nothing has changed, i think it's time for you the break the matrix and to become a man, just start with those 2 specific evidence, dont try to bring me anything premade

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.

If your a trained scientist you should understand that if you don't use the proper words on a scientific report it's not valid, it's the same thing with government documents you have to use the valid stamps and words otherwise it's not valid easy to understand right ? There are alot of evidence to support this claim, dont you understand that you could be arrested if your using a forged document, if you go to college they ask for your certificate i mean this whole thing is crazy, so we have an unknown individual holding the office of president the most powerfull man in the world, he is obviously a puppet like george bush was, they are part of the same elite and they are all criminal, and btw obama dosnt give a # about blacks or white, hes bad for everyone so lets forget the hope and change thing

reply to post by FirewalkerZ

Seriously ive been reading your hatefull post rnaa and it became clear to me that your mastered the emotionnal attacks and the straight propaganda that is being used to manipulate everyone everyday half truths and everything your probably part of the obama truth team plus that let me ask you a question

Please reconsider your words. "Hatefull"? "Emotional"? What did I say that you interpreted as either? By my reckoning the closest I got to either was saying that it was un-American to be a sore loser and full of hate. That is neither hateful or emotional, it is the simple truth.

You are in australia why in hell are you defending obama for,

I am not defending President Obama in any way. I am defending truth. The ATS motto is "Deny Ignorance"; that is what I am doing. Obama can and does speak for himself, he doesn't need my help to defend his record or his actions. Fabricating and spreading idiotic lies about anybody is a cancer on society that is getting out of control. Fighting lies about someone is not the same as defending someone.

I am in Australia because I live here. I am a 'Natural Born American Citizen' if you must know.

he took office with 9-10 trillion debt now it's almost 16 and nothing has changed,

On the contrary, lots has changed. For a start, Obama's job stimulus stopped Bush's job hemorrhage and [url=http://zfacts.com/node/446]in record time. Even the stock market thinks Obama's [url=http://zfacts.com/node/318]job stimulus is great.

i think it's time for you the break the matrix and to become a man, just start with those 2 specific evidence, dont try to bring me anything premade

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)

Not sure what you mean by "don't try to bring me anything premade". Do you mean I have to somehow invent new evidence that debunks this claim from whole cloth? Sorry, I don't make things up like the folks you seem to be listening to.

The most obvious answer is that the stamp that was used had a worn out slug that didn't take the ink very well and the postal clerk didn't pay much attention to getting it perfect. Have a look at the image again (on any of your favorite sites). Do you see any other poorly inked characters? Is the stamp perfect in every other way except for this one "problem"? The fact is that the only things on that stamp that are clearly visible is the part of the stamp that changes fairly frequently - the month, the day, and the two characters of the year. The missing '19' is meaningless, the date is absolutely known. There is nothing to indicate fraud.

Why would the BUSH Administration forge a Selective Service Registration for Senator Obama?


(additional commentary added after the initial post)

You are suggesting that a forger in the year 2008 could find a date stamp from the correct Post Office, manufacture a forged SS registration form, smuggle it into the Selective Service files and computer, get the Bush Administration to release it in response to a FOIA request, but they couldn't go on eBay to find the rubber year stamp for 19xx? Really? They are perfect in every way except for the easiest part of the whole caper?

Continued on next post for reply to 2nd question; I am running out of space.

reply to post by FirewalkerZ

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 )

The Federal Statistics coding specification from 1961 says '9' in the race field means "other, non-white". The Arpaio/Zullo/Corsi people are knowingly and fraudulently using the 1968 specification and telling you that it is the 1961 spec.

Even one of the most die hard 'birther' bloggers, Ladysforest,, has called them on this after she was able to obtain the ACTUAL coding specification for 1961. The AZC Posse are liars and frauds, there is no other way to put it. That is not hateful or emotional, that is demonstrated fact.

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

The race designation you refer to was NOT chosen from some sort of official list. The description was then, and is today, 100% "self description". That means that Obama Sr. (or Stanley Ann on his behalf) described himself as "African". Which is how Africans described themselves in 1961. "Negro" is an American term, Obama Sr. was not American, he would not use that term.

If you look at the link to Ladysforest blog above, you will find the actual coding document. Find page 11. Item 3 specifies how to code Obama's race. It says if the Parent's describe themselves as any of a number of terms like 'colored' or 'African-American' or several others ('African' is not specifically listed, but the intent is clear)
AND the parent is born in the United States, THEN code '2' for Negro; BUT if the parents is born OUTSIDE the United States, THEN code '9' for 'Other, Non-white'.

Not only is the code '9' absolutely correct, but the instructions for encoding the information explicitly describe a situation where the field does not have one of your supposedly limited set of permissible race identifiers.

If your a trained scientist you should understand that if you don't use the proper words on a scientific report it's not valid,

That is simply not true. A scientific report is not a magic spell that has to be reproduced exactly. Scientific validity doesn't depend on using 'the right words'. Understanding may be reduced, and the whole point of a scientific report is to communicate understanding, but that doesn't make it invalid, just poorly written.

it's the same thing with government documents you have to use the valid stamps and words otherwise it's not valid easy to understand right ?

Government docs aren't magic spells either. The purpose is communication, an imperfect date stamp does not invalidate a document. If the date can be read and not confused with another date, that is all that is important.

There are alot of evidence to support this claim

There is zero evidence to support the claim that either his birth certificate or selected service registration is fraudulent. ZERO. There are a lot of speculative accusations and impossible scenarios, but ZERO evidence for any of it.

dont you understand that you could be arrested if your using a forged document,

Maybe, but there is no forged document (except the one that show McCain born in Panama and Obama in Kenya). And you should try and understand this fordery identification test from Squeeky at the 'Birther Think Tank'

if you go to college they ask for your certificate i mean this whole thing is crazy, so we have an unknown individual holding the office of president the most powerfull man in the world, he is obviously a puppet like george bush was, they are part of the same elite and they are all criminal, and btw obama dosnt give a # about blacks or white, hes bad for everyone so lets forget the hope and change thing

Who is being hateful and emotional now?