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.

 

Take a wild ride with me down a rabbit hole - Barack Obama was never President

page: 10
54
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
BTW, when John Roberts was sworn in as Chief Justice, his Oath was concluded with a recitation of the words, "So help me God." No question/religious test.

I thought that was interesting.

Link


His choice to affirm derivation of power. No harm done.




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I feel that on its face it was an unconstitutional Oath, but have no problem agreeing to disagree on this point.




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I feel that on its face it was an unconstitutional Oath, but have no problem agreeing to disagree on this point.



Indeed. Lawyers could definitely be found on both sides of this question for good reason.

Have fun!



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
BTW, when John Roberts was sworn in as Chief Justice, his Oath was concluded with a recitation of the words, "So help me God." No question/religious test.

I thought that was interesting.

Link


His choice to affirm derivation of power. No harm done.


He didn't affirm his Oath because he was not asked to affirm it. Roberts took a lawfully administered Oath.
edit on 20-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


MotherMayEye, because of your revelations, my volume will be turned up and my ears will be sharp.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
BTW, when John Roberts was sworn in as Chief Justice, his Oath was concluded with a recitation of the words, "So help me God." No question/religious test.

I thought that was interesting.

Link


His choice to affirm derivation of power. No harm done.


He didn't affirm his Oath because he was not asked to affirm it. Roberts took a legally administered Oath.


He doesn't have to stay mute at the end of the Oath. What's the Constitutional time limit before one can speak again after an oath? I don't think there is one.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
BTW, when John Roberts was sworn in as Chief Justice, his Oath was concluded with a recitation of the words, "So help me God." No question/religious test.

I thought that was interesting.

Link


His choice to affirm derivation of power. No harm done.


He didn't affirm his Oath because he was not asked to affirm it. Roberts took a legally administered Oath.


He doesn't have to stay mute at the end of the Oath. What's the Constitutional time limit before one can speak again after an oath? I don't think there is one.


I'm not sure what you mean by that question?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I mean that after an oath is administered, someone can say, "So help me God".

That's not part of the oath. It's a voluntary affirmation of the derivation of power.

Therefore, it's simply a non-legally binding statement.

For someone to raise the question is a test if the one who is asked feels that it is a test. If they do not, then it is called, "conversation".

The oath itself would have to be in contradiction to itself or the Constitution in order for it to be in question.

For example, if my wife says, "Will you love me forever?" I answer, "Yes." That's the answer.

If she says, "So help you God?" She is not asking for further promise. She is asking for me to derive my power from God to uphold my promise.

I can choose to affirm that I will derive my power from God, or not.

But the legally binding answer, "Yes" cannot be undone. It is said.

She may choose to derive her security through an affirmation of the power which she believes gives me the ability to hold the promise, but she cannot say that I didn't promise when I, in fact, did.

So she may feel that my promise is not secure, or she may not feel that way. That doesn't change the answer.



edit on 1/20/2017 by TarzanBeta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I mean that after an oath is administered, someone can say, "So help me God".


Below is the affidavit stating Obama’s wishes and Chief Justice Roberts’ intent:

link

Obama requested the Oath to be concluded with the phrase -- for all legal purposes, the answer to Roberts' question concluded the Oath...

...even though Roberts said, in the affidavit, that he intended to prompt Obama to say the words after the Oath was concluded.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So, Obama wanted his oath to include affirmation.

He did just that. So he was legally bound by his request to derive power from God.

Therefore, Roberts certainly admitted no test. Obama declared before the oath his intent.

This works against the foundation of your argument, not for it.

But I submit that to "conclude with" means that There is both a period and a continuation of speech.

Wife:. "Will you love me forever?"

Me: "Yes."

Wife: "So help you God?"

Me: "So help me God."

So I validate the "Yes" in this case according to my own wishes.

I fail to see how my answer, "Yes", is void if I conclude my answer with affirmation as a part of my promise or thereafter, as opposed to not concluding it with further affirmation at all, whether during or after.

"Yes" means "Yes".


edit on 1/20/2017 by TarzanBeta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So, Obama wanted his oath to include affirmation.

He did just that. So he was legally bound by his request to derive power from God.




Obama's wish was to recite the phrase to conclude the Oath. Roberts put it in the form of a question requiring affirmation.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Pence's Oath--

Justice Thomas: "So help me God."
Pence: "So help me God."




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Pence's Oath--

Justice Thomas: "So help me God."
Pence: "So help me God."



They finally got it right !!




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The only one who seems to get it wrong is Roberts!

(And ONLY with Obama.)


edit on 20-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
AMAZING!

Chief Justice Roberts: "So help ME God.”
Trump: "So help me God."

So interesting.

YEP. I’d say Roberts intended Obama’s oaths to be different — unlawfully administered — and there’s really no way to argue that it was just a meaningless stylistic difference on Roberts’ part.

Link to Trump's Oath

edit on 20-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
FOUR times Roberts delivered that line as a question to Obama.

But not to Trump.
edit on 20-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
BTW, when John Roberts was sworn in as Chief Justice, his Oath was concluded with a recitation of the words, "So help me God." No question/religious test.

I thought that was interesting.

Link


His choice to affirm derivation of power. No harm done.


When a president-elect wants to affirm their Oath, the justice has them repeat, "I, (name), do solemnly affirm..."
Link to Wiki

It's not affirmed with a religious test at the end.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This is my first post on ATS for a long while.

Why here, why now…?

I’ll get to that in a minute.

Yesterday morning I got an email from a friend I hadn’t heard from in almost a year asking if I’d learned anything new from the Arpaio/Zullo investigation or anything else at all related to the Obama birth certificate issue.

I did watch the “final” MCSO/CCP December news conference, but I didn’t really learn anything I didn’t already know. I suppose the revelation of the existence of the FORLAB report interested me the most.

Before I go further – full disclosure. I have no doubt that the .pdf of the digital copy of Obama’s purported Certificate of Live Birth released 27 April 2011 and posted to the White House website is a constructed document.

I have worked in AutoCAD and digital reprographics for 25 years. I know a manipulated document when I see one.

On 27 April 2011, within minutes of the .pdf being uploaded to the White House server, I opened it in Illustrator and Photoshop. Quite frankly, I was shocked. No scanner, software glitch, transfer error, or any other mechanism could have created the anomalies in that .pdf.

I am NOT a “birther”. I do not necessarily think Obama was born in Kenya or anywhere other than Hawai’i. I have no idea where he was born or who his parents were because his Certificate of Live Birth is a fabricated document.

Fast-forward to right now…

I thought I would do a little ATS’ing today before responding to my friend’s email just to see what the ATS Super-Sleuths here had turned up recently, and was so very pleased to find the research done by MotherMayEye.

I have dozens of pages saved that I will review over the weekend, but between the revelation of the debossed seal on another MME thread, and the “oath” discrepancy detailed in this thread, a dormant curiosity I have ignored for too long has been awakened.

So, MME – WELL DONE!



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

Thanks! I appreciate that!

(Personally, I think the long form birth certificate pdf was specifically crafted and released to distract people from the revelation about the seal on the short form. )

Thank you, again, though! It all still matters to me.



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I don't know if this has been posted yet, but there's a professor at University of Hawaii, Dr. David Keanu Sai, who says Hawaii was never a state to begin with. He said on coast to coast with George Noory that the birther people are right, however they're going about it the wrong way. The Kingdom of Hawaii was illegally made a state. In 1893 the Hawaiian Kingdom was overthrown by US troops, and is now an occupied territory. He went on to explain how Hawaii was illegally made a state, and went into detail.

Dr. David Keanu Sai

Heres the link to the Coast to Coast interview if you want to listen-- the Feb 13th show

"Independant Hawaii"

edit on 23-2-2017 by C84K2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2017 by C84K2 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
54
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join