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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 8
49
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: derfreebie
As far as wherever he's from, his real birth father was a British
subject at the time; and his mother was not yet 19. Read the law.


How about you read the constitution?


No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


President Obama satisfied all those criteria, hence he is the legal POTUS.

Despite what a few people want!


ask Loretta Cuddy


Who?




posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 05:21 AM
link   
The law works however those in power want it to work. Just look at Hillary for example, completely untouchable regardless of the fact she has clearly broken some fairly serious laws. She's even still running for President like none of it happened. The real issue here is those in government trying to integrate religion with the government. It's not surprising this is happening since the vast majority of politicians are religious and so is the overall U.S. population.

Consider that the motto of the United States was "E. Pluribus Unum" for for 174 years before Congress changed it to "In God We Trust" in 1956. Consider that the original Pledge of Allegiance did not include the worlds "Under God" until they were added by Congress 62 years later in 1954. Consider that for almost 100 years paper money did not have the words "In God We Trust" printed on it, that was added in 1957.

The agenda here is to blur the line between state and church, which creates an "exclusive club" type of culture within the government. Simply look at how nations such as Israel get special treatment from the U.S., Jewish beliefs have a very strong influence on the West, Judaism is essentially the grandfather of all Abrahamic religion, so it doesn't really matter what exactly religion people in the government believe.

But if you don't believe in anything then your chances of becoming a successful politician are extremely small. Of course religious people will probably have very little issues with anything I have just said, but for atheists and agnostic people like myself it really does feel like being led by people who believe in fairy tales and use their crazy beliefs to justify massive amounts of destruction and death around the world.
edit on 20/10/2016 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Dude don't try and come with the "if that's all you have" card lol. THAT is what's telling here.

You can't wrap your mind around "so help me god" is not part of the oath. It never has been. And the oath is laid out, in exact phrasing and order, and any words said before or after the words dictated by the constitution are not part of the oath. It doesn't matter how much you try to twist facts or change facts or ignore facts, nothing can change that. Probably why you've gone to some length to ignore the fact I keep repeating, and instead keep pushing your inferences and opinions as something substantive.

I know it's tough to admit your idea is wildly, wildly inaccurate and off base and, bluntly, wrong. But this is turning into something ludicrous now.

Deny ignorance and all that.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce


ask Loretta Cuddy


Who?


I believe he meant Loretta Fuddy, the woman who drowned after a plane crash.
She was also a member of the Subud cult.

edit on 20-10-2016 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yup, relevant thread.

But no, nothing odd there.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Actually, I am more intrigued by what book Michelle is holding in his 2013 ceremony while he swears his oath because it is not prefaced by "place your hand on the bible". It had a heavy add-on type protective cover on it making rather thin for any version of the Bible. He wasn't asked to place his hand anywhere in his first 2009 swearing in. Surely had a bible been there he or chief justice Roberts would have mentioned it, no??



I have an answer for you. The book used was reportedly the Robinson Family Bible (Michelle's family Bible). Here is a close up (it's tucked into an unzipped cover):




posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Neat theory, but irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, he was POTUS. Even if they were able to conclusively prove he didn't take the oath the correct way, they wouldn't remove his policies, and undo anything he did as President. Oaths are just words. In the future, I have a feeling we won't use such silly ways to seal a binding agreement of any kind. Does saying words at a wedding promising you'll do this and that and the other, keep people from cheating on their spouse, beating them or in fact.. accomplish anything? No. They are just words. I prefer a good ol' contract written in legal language that whereupon you sign your name, you have agreed to the contents of that agreement.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

God is being used in the nonspecific tense. He's saying "So help you (whoever your) god (may be)?"

Not "so help you (Christian) god?"



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: StookieWilliams




Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in the specific case, as a notary public.

AND

The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.


Torcaso v. Watkins
edit on 22-10-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: StookieWilliams




Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in the specific case, as a notary public.

AND

The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.


Torcaso v. Watkins


Apples and oranges. Maryland used to require a declarative statement affirming belief in God. Obama wasn't required to state that he believes in God as part of either a) the Oath or b) a requirement of taking office.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

'God' as an actual entity is invoked in the statement, "So help me God." The phrase, "So help me God," is an acknowledgement of a belief in God. That is why it is entirely left to the discretion of the president-elect whether to state the phrase, or not.

It is unprecedented for a Justice to deliver the phrase as a question requiring affirmation and an invocation of 'God.'

Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion. But if you feel you have simply closed the book on the debate with your opinion, you're wrong.



edit on 24-10-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Shamrock6

'God' as an actual entity is invoked in the statement, "So help me God." The phrase, "So help me God," is an acknowledgement of a belief in God. That is why it is entirely left to the discretion of the president-elect whether to state the phrase, or not.

It is unprecedented for a Justice to deliver the phrase as a question requiring affirmation and an invocation of 'God.'

Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion. But if you feel you have simply closed the book on the debate with your opinion, you're wrong.




The book was never opened. Your opinion the oath includes an interrogative about God is just that: an opinion. The fact remains that the oath is the oath. Nothing before the oath, nor after the oath, changes the oath. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. You're not entitled to change facts, or substitute your opinion for fact, when actual facts don't support it.
edit on 24-10-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The fact remains that the oath is the oath. Nothing before the oath, nor after the oath, changes the oath. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. You're not entitled to change facts, or substitute your opinion for fact, when actual facts don't support it.


Again, the facts support that the oath WAS CONCLUDED WITH Obama's answer to Justice Roberts question. I think you are missing this point.

Obama specifically requested the Oath be concluded with the phrase, "So help me God." And that is entirely within his discretion. He is permitted tack on the words, "So help me God" to the actual Oath.

Again, here is the affidavit stating Obama's intent:



Justice Roberts stated his intent was to "prompt" Obama to say "So help me God," AFTER THE OATH WAS CONCLUDED.

But which one gets the final say on how Obama's Oaths were actually concluded?

OBAMA.

Regardless of what Roberts said he intended, it's not up for him to say the question & answer came after the Oath.

The phrase, "So help me God," is a voluntary statement that nearly every president has made when opting to "SWEAR" as opposed to "AFFIRM."

Had Obama said, "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly AFFIRM..." then he would have already affirmed his Oath. But he opted SWEAR instead, "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly SWEAR...,' and conclude with the phrase "So help me God."


edit on 24-10-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The affadavit also shows Roberts' intent, not just Obama's. It's not my problem Roberts' stated intent conflicts with your opinion.

Nor is it my problem that the process to amend the Constitution, and thus include "so help you God" as part of the Oath as opposed to being a phrase after the Oath, was not followed, therefore making your entire assertion that it's part of the Oath null and void.

Nor is it my problem that you can't accept the fact that the Oath is, has been, and remains, a specific set of words in a specific order, and that Obama could have "wished" to conclude the oath, insert into the oath, precede the oath, with any set of words he wanted to set, it doesn't change the fact that Roberts conducted the oath in the manner required by the Constitution.

Nor is it my problem that you have somehow determined that because Roberts flubbed the oath and it was retaken to be sure that it was official somehow means that it actually isn't official except it is for the purposes of rendering a religious test.

Again, your opinions do not rise above actual facts. You are choosing to interpret what Obama wanted done as somehow taking precedence over what Roberts actually did, and what actually happened. Probably because what actually happened was exactly what's required by the Constitution, which blows your opinion out of the water.

I'm sure you'll have more opinion to throw at me but I'll save us some time. When you have something factual, not opinion based, about how the Oath was improperly given, lemme know. And that means that the Oath, as specified in the Constitution, was improperly delivered. Not words were said after it, or before it, or a week later, or a year later. You don't get to decide at what point the Oath is concluded, the Constitution does that.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The fatal flaw in the OP is that God is just as much physical as he is religious. So, the test was as much a physics test as it was a religious one. God has always been and continues to be a part of philosophies of origins of matter and forces of the universe. So, to pigeon-hole God into the category of religion is a logical fallacy as much as it is a logical argument.

Religion is about a supernatural way of life... or put another way a method of thinking and living based on paranormal phenomenon. But to allege that God is supernatural is a faith-based statement. Actually God is theory of nature and a theory of the forces of physics at least as much as a set of beliefs and traditions based on paranormal phenomenon.

God is both natural and supernatural, equally. So, while god is religious, God is equally so not religious at all. So, a question pertaining to God is as non-religious as it is religious. God is not so much of a religious philosophy in specific, as God is a broad and general philosophy involved in many topics in philosophy, for example epistemology.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The affadavit also shows Roberts' intent, not just Obama's. It's not my problem Roberts' stated intent conflicts with your opinion.



Roberts' intent has ZERO legal weight. It was entirely up to Obama. Only Obama's intent matters. He has the last and only say.

I just showed you that FACT. It's not my opinion, it is fact.

It is also fact, and not my opinion, that "So help me God," is an optional phrase that may be ADDED to the end of the Oath, IF the president-elect so chooses. And nearly every President has chosen to CONCLUDE THE OATH WITH THE PHRASE, "So help me God."



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Also, go back and rewatch Obama's Oaths. Was his right hand still raised when Justice Roberts asked the question and he answered?

Yes. Yes it was.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: fractal5
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The fatal flaw in the OP is that God is just as much physical as he is religious.


The fatal flaw with your argument is that 'God' is not physical, in any way, and I don't share your view of 'God' and what 'God' means, at all. In this case, 'God' is an uppercase pronoun referring to an 'entity' that some people believe exists.

I have the freedom to not share your view.

Wow.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: fractal5
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The fatal flaw in the OP is that God is just as much physical as he is religious.


The fatal flaw with your argument is that 'God' is not physical, in any way, and I don't share your view of 'God' and what 'God' means, at all. In this case, 'God' is an uppercase pronoun referring to an 'entity' that some people believe exists.

I have the freedom to not share your view.

Wow.
Neither of our views matter in politics. Its the supreme court's opinion that matters, and they love to discover new creative ways of creatively interpreting words, and proudly and creatively pretend words don't exist at all for convenience.

You claim to know a lot about God, but the fact is none of us, especially atheists, have any ideas about God at all. So, how would they know if God is religious or not? According to one dictionary God is "the creator and ruler of the universe.". Creating a universe is not religious at all. Video game designers do it all the time and we don't consider it a religious experience. Creation is an engineering experience. And ruling is political. So if you go by the dictionary, God is political and engineering. But not religious.

If we want to be fair, words mean what they say and say what they mean. "God" does not have any universal meaning at all and so the default is the dictionary. Your personal definition is the more religious ones which are not definition #1, but the religious ones like definition #2 and below. I don't think that for a controversial topic its appropriate to use anything but definition #1 in dictionaries in any court case.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join