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.

 

Obama Administration says Trump is not eligible to run for office or other candidates who agree

page: 7
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Do you have any legal document that proves your point? I don't see the definition of "class" anywhere in that code (although I haven't completely looked, yet), but please note that the paragraph say "... any aliens OR class of aliens ...," so it can be any aliens (plural) or a class of aliens...basically for any reason that can be spun to be seen as detrimental to our interests.

I don't think that the current evidence there could be embedded terrorists in these groups of refugees would take much spinning in order for him to be able to bar Syrian refugees entry until the vetting system was made better.

I don't think that your implied point holds up as far as the totality of the code goes.




posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Amazing how many people honestly believe the 'Establishment' is afraid of the voters and Trump. The Establishment is Congress -- they do the spending and are beholden to their global masters profiting from diverting America's resources. The two parties are in cahoots, they run Congress together. Trump is doing exactly as he has been instructed. It's been obvious for years that Trump is a provocateur and political operative.

He's going to break from republicans and run as an independent to split the conservative vote. Sure, it'll appear he was forced out, but it's a scam.

What is it about Trump's record that convinces people he has any political convictions let alone strong political convictions?

Is it that he switched parties SEVEN times in 15 years? Is it that he once supported universal healthcare? is it that he was pro-choice his entire life until recently? Is it that he once proposed the highest tax on the wealthiest Americans to pay off the national debt in one year and now he says he jumps through every tax loophole to avoid paying higher taxes? Is it that he's a longtime friend of the Clintons or that he once called himself 'Obamas biggest cheerleader?' Or that the Washington Post reported five Clinton and Trump aides claim they witnessed a conversation where Bill encouraged Trump to run as a republican candidate? Is it Trump's record with the Reform Party, in 2000, when he floated a run & then left the party in shambles when Jesse Ventura was asked to resign for making incendiary comments in Playboy? Is it his constant condemnation of the GOP and the regular display of a complete lack of party loyalty? Is it his alienation of hispanic voters after Bush barely won Florida (and the general election) by 537 votes?

How can ALL of that be waved away because of the crap he currently says?

I honestly don't get all the wishful thinking.



edit on 9-12-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: matafuchs

*sigh* The comment is just a point meaning that if Trump thinks that he has the power to do that, he doesn't understand the limitations of the presidency.

Ironic, coming from the current administration, isn't it?



I am not sure why that would be ironic.


Your comment is ironic.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The WH talking about who is or isn`t eligible,funny isn`t it?Obama is ineligible because he is a Keynesian!



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Perhaps this admin didn't even realize some of the most Progressive Democrat Potus have used this to deny immigration whenever they saw fit.
It also seems as though this admin saw this in reverse and deemed it to mean that it allows them to arbitrarily accept as many refugees from wherever
edit on 9-12-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: matafuchs

Obama must be holding a grudge since Trump had called him out on his birth certificate


I have a different perspective on why Trump suddenly took up that issue and successfully got Obama to release his long form after he refused to do so, for years, and even allowed a soldier to spend a year in prison rather than release it.

Trump covered Obama's butt.

At the time Trump decided Obama's eligibility deeply mattered to him (even though he has said nothing about Rubio, Cruz, or Jindal), I had just written an open records request to the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) for a copy of the seal photographed on the back of Obama's short form, by Factcheck.

The HDOH responded they did not maintain that seal. Obama's short form bears a seal debossment and the HDOH stated their official seal is an embossment and that they don't maintain any official seal debossments. The Hawaii vital records regulations confirm this and mandate a raised seal embossment must be used to certify all copies of vital records.

And…that information bore other fruit. It became apparent that when Obama first released his short form in 2008, there were a handful of people posing as birthers who posted Hawaii BCs online which ironically 'corroborated' that Obama's short form was authentic, by comparison, and bore the official HDOH seal.

The stories behind those birther-posers are interesting. For example, one poser originally posted his alleged sister's Hawaiian BC on Stormfront, presumably to plug the idea that birthers are racist.

Another was a Freeper and the sister to the Tech Leader behind the Trust the Vote project. He led the building of the voter registration system used by Rock the Vote and a number of states.

At the time, I administered a blog and had a decent sized readership. When I reported on all of the aforementioned, suddenly Trump appeared in the media with a great interest in seeing Obama's long form. Obviously, 'birthers' went starry-eyed and truly believed that Trump would expose Obama.

But he didn't. He just paved the way for Obama to release his long form (with an indistinct seal) in a funky pdf. Ever since then, all eyes have been on that long form and birthers have been consumed with proving it's fake based on pixels and layers and blah, blah, blah -- things that aren't actually relevant to whether the hard copy is legally certified or not.

Perspective is everything in the instance of Trump's fleeting interest in Obama's eligibility. Trump covered Obama's butt from my view -- he is a provocateur and a political operative.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Indigo5

Do you have any legal document that proves your point?


Yes. the United States Constitution



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...


Whilst you will claim the constitution applies to US citizens, the larger truth is that it is a document that restrains the behavior and policy of government officials and what laws they may pass.

Put another way...Foreigners seeking to immigrate here are not US citizens and not granted constitutional protections equal to a US citizen..

BUT...Congress...Sure are US citizens and required to uphold the constitution...and the US Constitution is crystal clear on what it permits and does not permit Congress to do...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You see, this is not about banning a religion either. They want to stop the flow of Muslim immigrants of who some could be dangerous. The plan would be to stop VISA's or entry from countries that may harbor them. Similar to the Rand Paul suggestion that was voted down 10--89.

Jimmy Carter enacted the same principle when he stopped all Iranian Visas. In all actuality this is worse than specifying a religion as you are deny ANYONE no matter their religion. He also gave an ultimatum that all Iranian students had one month to register locally or be deported. Over 15,000 were forced to leave the country. He did this with the Nationality Act of 1952. A law created by Democrats mind you.

Classifying Iranians as a group is closer to racism than classifying people by a racist supremacist ideology that calls for the mass murder and enslavement of non-Muslims, as ISIS is doing today.

So, why is everyone calling Trump Hitler? He is invoking a law that has not only need used but was also implmented by those who are his biggest critics.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Indigo5

Do you have any legal document that proves your point?


Yes. the United States Constitution



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...


Whilst you will claim the constitution applies to US citizens, the larger truth is that it is a document that restrains the behavior and policy of government officials and what laws they may pass.

Put another way...Foreigners seeking to immigrate here are not US citizens and not granted constitutional protections equal to a US citizen..

BUT...Congress...Sure are US citizens and required to uphold the constitution...and the US Constitution is crystal clear on what it permits and does not permit Congress to do...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Yah and we will see if this or future admin decide to override the Constitution by allowing Sharia to function in our court system.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
So, why is everyone calling Trump Hitler? He is invoking a law that has not only need used but was also implmented by those who are his biggest critics.



Because, right now, the elite are profiting from a War on Terror by making Muslims the scapegoat AND they are profiting from democratic spending policies by making Christians the scapegoat.

The agenda is maximized by making the religious-right the bad guy bigots who hate Muslims.

The two-parties are solidly on board with the plan.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sunwolf
The WH talking about who is or isn`t eligible,funny isn`t it?Obama is ineligible because he is a Keynesian!
. Was that a Freudian slip of sorts or did you
Mean Kenyan ?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

Yes. the United States Constitution



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...



No, that is not what that part of the first amendment means, nor is that an appropriate argument as to the "why" behind Trump's statement--and even if religion was his main driver behind the scenes, it could be easily argued that a valid concern about embedded terrorists, as shown by recent world events, was the on-paper reasoning behind halting these refugees' entry...and that would stand on its own merit, IMO.


Whilst you will claim the constitution applies to US citizens, the larger truth is that it is a document that restrains the behavior and policy of government officials and what laws they may pass.


When did I say anything about to whom the constitution applies?

And I know the original design was to limit the size and powers of government...that's why it's so short, and that's why the tenth amendment was passed, to give all powers not listed in the constitution to the states. Why you assume that I don't know that is beyond me.


Put another way...Foreigners seeking to immigrate here are not US citizens and not granted constitutional protections equal to a US citizen.


Actually, it has been declared that non-citizens do have constitutional protections, as is declared in the 14th amendment.


BUT...Congress...Sure are US citizens and required to uphold the constitution...and the US Constitution is crystal clear on what it permits and does not permit Congress to do...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...



What is crystal clear is this: (A) The quoted U.S. code concerns presidential action, not congressional action, and (B) a presidential proclamation made within the law stating that certain aliens cannot enter the U.S. because it is deemed detrimental to our interests is neither a law that establishes a state-sponsored religion nor does it stop them from exercising their religion--they just can't do it in the U.S. because of a different reason for which they're being barred from entry.

Your logic is flawed on this one.
edit on 9-12-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: TheBulk
Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the US didn't he?


Sure did.

CARTER BANNED IRANIANS FROM COMING TO US DURING HOSTAGE CRISIS

I wonder why people aren't calling him a NAZI like Trump.

Oh yeah because he's got a D by his name.


Because Iranian is a NATIONALALITY...

Muslim is a RELIGION

And America doesn't discriminate on religion...freedom of religion and all..

Trump opposes the constitution of the United State...He is not qualified for office.


Not a single solitary vote has been cast anywhere in the Nation.

Our Country let's people like David Duke run for President.

Our you so frightened of Trump (who hasn't received a single vote) he should be disqualified ?

What does disqualified even mean ? Show me in history anyone disqualified for thoughts.

Relax, he hasn't won yet...


Oh you are confused...I am not saying he CANT RUN...I am saying he is NOT QUALIFIED to run.

Do you actually think the Whitehouse was making some legal, constitutional declaration and that the Justice Department was going to shut down his campaign or something????

They simply said what most rational people think...His opposition to Freedom of Religion and proposed policy of abolishing Freedom of Religion in the USA disqualifies him to be President...as in disqualifies him in the minds of most sane people.
Awwwe Nancy pelosi herself vetted and qualified the Kenyan Muslim with ties to radical domestic terrorists, mentors of the card carrying communist type, and communists like van jones and Valerie Jarrett and no wonder they accuse trump of being in eligible. Like I said it's humorous but tragic all at once.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sorry it was more rhetorical when I asked about the comparison. You are right though that behind closed doors theey are all on board. It was shown with R Paul was voted down 10-89...



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Sunwolf
The WH talking about who is or isn`t eligible,funny isn`t it?Obama is ineligible because he is a Keynesian!
. Was that a Freudian slip of sorts or did you
Mean Kenyan ?





No,I meant Keynesian as opposed to Rothbard.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

The fact that you said hillary OR sanders pretty much tells us you haven't been paying attention. hillary is already the democratic chosen one.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You make some very good points with your post. I guess it's no big deal for the current admin to pretend they hate a progressive posing as a republican just as long as it doesn't hurt Bernie sanders chance of winning the WH for comm.... I mean social democracy.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sunwolf

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Sunwolf
The WH talking about who is or isn`t eligible,funny isn`t it?Obama is ineligible because he is a Keynesian!
. Was that a Freudian slip of sorts or did you
Mean Kenyan ?





No,I meant Keynesian as opposed to Rothbard.
Ok sure ill take that as well.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Yes Muslims do practice sharia regardless if they are extremist or moderate and regardless what country they reside in. I believe that even when taking the citizenship oath they mean to practice it over the Constitution whenever possible.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sorry it was more rhetorical when I asked about the comparison. You are right though that behind closed doors theey are all on board. It was shown with R Paul was voted down 10-89...


Ah...Sorry, I should have realized it is a rhetorical question because the answer is soooo obvious.




edit on 9-12-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join