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's Birth Certificate, Elections, Web-bot and Martial Law

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Hi everyone,
I have been studying this scenarios carefully over the last few months like most of you have.

I believe that the Web-bot program, through Half-Past Human, indicates that there will be mass confusion around election time. People will wander around wondering what happened. Cliff stated this and other comparable phreases.

Colin Powell states that something will happen aroud Jan. 22. Right after the election around the time of the swearing in.

Biden states that Obama will be tested. He also states that he will need support from people although some of the ideas will be somewhat unpopular.

The Police are preparing for Civil Unrest around election time.

The Birth Certificate Issue does appear to be moving forward. I have seen no evidence that the lawsuit was dismissed. I have seen the PDF of the summary judgement. It appears that Obama has been ruled against and the DNC has been ordered to cease all activity in support for Obama having been proven to the court that Obama is not a US citizen. Unless the judge reversed the Order, it still stands. The fact that it is not signed means nothing. The Original is never scanned, they just upload the document itself, as it appears in print. It's a digital copy but not a scan. I don't think any of these Internet Orders you can look up are ever signed. Only when someone uploads the Original scan of the Original Document that was signed.

In other words, as I see it, Obama is screwed.

If this is the case, and I am correct, then there will be a MASS CIVIL UNREST after the election or shortly before.

I will be the first to tell you that if the President Orders a crackdown scenario in this country, and the people KNOW FOR A FACT that he is NOT THE REAL PRESIDENT, they will NOT FOLLOW ORDERS, and this will create CHAOS.

Is this what they have planned?




posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Is that misquoted Powell thing been released as some talking point somewhere? Why does this same exact bunk scenario based on the most ridiculous arguments keep getting posted every day?

Why are people all worried about possible scenarios given our currrent problems anyway? Is knowing this going to help? No.

Instead, maybe try understanding the systems that are bad, and understanding your constitutional rights. Things that are actually useful during declines.

I'm sorry, but if web bots, quotes taken out of context and paranoia are your defense to the things going on, you're pretty much screwed.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Is that misquoted Powell thing been released as some talking point somewhere? Why does this same exact bunk scenario based on the most ridiculous arguments keep getting posted every day?

Why are people all worried about possible scenarios given our currrent problems anyway? Is knowing this going to help? No.

Instead, maybe try understanding the systems that are bad, and understanding your constitutional rights. Things that are actually useful during declines.

I'm sorry, but if web bots, quotes taken out of context and paranoia are your defense to the things going on, you're pretty much screwed.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by badmedia]


"Theres going to be a crisis which will come along on the 21st, 22nd of January which we don't even know about right now!"

www.rense.com...

I guess you didn't hear this huh?

You are either intentionally misleading people or you are completely fooled, yourself.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthwarrior7
I have seen the PDF of the summary judgement. It appears that Obama has been ruled against and the DNC has been ordered to cease all activity in support for Obama having been proven to the court that Obama is not a US citizen.


Can you please provide a link to this?



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by truthwarrior7
 


As I said, you took the quote out of context. The date given is the first 2 days Obama would be in office. It was Brokaw who asking about those days, and Powell merely gave the response you see.

He was asked - what if on the 21st or 22nd the phone rings and they need your help etc. And then he replied there is always some crisis going on in government.

From that point, people have been putting up the out of context quote the entire time as "proof" something is going to happen, when clearly he was saying nothing of the sort.

This is like the 4th time I've ended up posting this same explanation to different people. It's amazing.

Times are crazy and confusing, who knows what's going to happen. But we gotta think more logically than web bots and quotes taken out of context as information.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by obsolete

Originally posted by truthwarrior7
I have seen the PDF of the summary judgement. It appears that Obama has been ruled against and the DNC has been ordered to cease all activity in support for Obama having been proven to the court that Obama is not a US citizen.


Can you please provide a link to this?


docs.justia.com...:2008cv04083/281573/27/



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I don't know what is going to happen. The Berg lawsuit has been dismissed, but there are lawsuits in several other states.

I predict that after an Obama loss the MSM will loose all credibility and you will see them tank. The web will be the go too source for news from that point on.

I'm still out on the riots though, don't know if those are going to happen or not.

The web-bot has been right on somethings but also wrong though too. So I don't know. I can think of several scenarios that could create mass confusion after the elections.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Just to clarify, the Judge has not signed the summary judgement at this time. The document you saw was one that Berg drew up for the Judge's signature, which is common for lawyers to do when petitioning the court for such a judgement.

ED. to add-

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Where did you hear that the case was dismissed? Source please.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by truthwarrior7
 


As I said, you took the quote out of context. The date given is the first 2 days Obama would be in office. It was Brokaw who asking about those days, and Powell merely gave the response you see.

He was asked - what if on the 21st or 22nd the phone rings and they need your help etc. And then he replied there is always some crisis going on in government.

From that point, people have been putting up the out of context quote the entire time as "proof" something is going to happen, when clearly he was saying nothing of the sort.

This is like the 4th time I've ended up posting this same explanation to different people. It's amazing.

Times are crazy and confusing, who knows what's going to happen. But we gotta think more logically than web bots and quotes taken out of context as information.


Hey badmedia.....Do you represent the Bad Media or something?
You DID NOT listen to the recording or watch the video. You are now misquoting Colin Powell as well as myself.

Watch the whole video or leave the discussion, since you are not contributing to it by lying and misrepresenting the truth. What is your motive and agenda?

[edit on 25-10-2008 by truthwarrior7]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthwarrior7

docs.justia.com...:2008cv04083/281573/27/


I'm sorry, this does not support what you stated. This is a motion submitted by the Plaintiff. There has been no judgment according to the document you have linked.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthwarrior7
Hey badmedia.....Do you represent the Bad Media or something?
You DID NOT listen to the recording or watch the video. You are now misquoting Colin Powell as well as myself.

Watch the whole video or leave the discussion, since you are not contributing to it by lying and misrepresenting the truth. What is your motive and agenda?


Here's the video. Like I said, brokaw mentions the date first. Your version starts at the 27 second mark.

My agenda is to point out ignorance and try to make sense of things in a logical and helpful manner. Assuming because I disagree with you, I have some agenda against you is even more ridiculous thinking.

Even if you assume the warning is true, how is the information useful? What is going to happen? Who is he trying to warn? How are individuals going to use this information to save lives?

It's nothing more than fear mongering based on quotes taken out of context.



[edit on 25-10-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Just to clarify, the Judge has not signed the summary judgement at this time. The document you saw was one that Berg drew up for the Judge's signature, which is common for lawyers to do when petitioning the court for such a judgement.

ED. to add-

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Where did you hear that the case was dismissed? Source please.




[edit on 25-10-2008 by JaxonRoberts]


You are completely WRONG, Jaxonroberts,
The Order you are reading is NEVER submitted by an attorney for the judges signature. That is a COURT ORDER. A attorney cannot write up and submit a document like that. He is not allowed to do that. That Document comes from the court. If you tell me otherwise, it's like telling an adult the tooth fairy exists. I have studied law for about 15 years, and I can tell you with full confidence 100% that the document you read above, the Order on the Motion for Summary Judgement is a COURT ORDER, not an attorney filing. The Request for Summary Judgement is the Attorney's Document. The Paperwork that displays the words GRANTED after Summary Judgement are NOT an attorney's filings. Those words are reserved for the court.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


You're doing it again, Bad Media, your misrepresenting things. Watch at 30 seconds and then through 33 seconds. You purposely did not get to the part i'm talking about. Again, I ask what is your motive and agenda?



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthwarrior7
You are completely WRONG, Jaxonroberts,
The Order you are reading is NEVER submitted by an attorney for the judges signature. That is a COURT ORDER. A attorney cannot write up and submit a document like that. He is not allowed to do that. That Document comes from the court. If you tell me otherwise, it's like telling an adult the tooth fairy exists. I have studied law for about 15 years, and I can tell you with full confidence 100% that the document you read above, the Order on the Motion for Summary Judgement is a COURT ORDER, not an attorney filing. The Request for Summary Judgement is the Attorney's Document. The Paperwork that displays the words GRANTED after Summary Judgement are NOT an attorney's filings. Those words are reserved for the court.


You studied law for 15 years and you don't even know it has to be signed by the judge to be what you claim it is? Tell me, how is it a legal document without a signature based on your 15 years of studying law?



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by obsolete

Originally posted by truthwarrior7

docs.justia.com...:2008cv04083/281573/27/


I'm sorry, this does not support what you stated. This is a motion submitted by the Plaintiff. There has been no judgment according to the document you have linked.


No obsolete, your completely WRONG!!!

That is not a Plantiff's Motion. That is a Court Order!!! If you can't read English or Law, then don't try, and then try to tell me what it says.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthwarrior7
reply to post by badmedia
 


You're doing it again, Bad Media, your misrepresenting things. Watch at 30 seconds and then through 33 seconds. You purposely did not get to the part i'm talking about. Again, I ask what is your motive and agenda?


To put things into context means to take the entire conversation in consideration. Which means to include the question he was asked. So that you can understand what he is responding too. Teh clip I gave has what you mention in it.

Why is the question asked to him not to be considered in it? And do you really think saying someone has an agenda is really effective in proving your point or debating?

No wonder you have -3000 points.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by truthwarrior7
You are completely WRONG, Jaxonroberts,
The Order you are reading is NEVER submitted by an attorney for the judges signature. That is a COURT ORDER. A attorney cannot write up and submit a document like that. He is not allowed to do that. That Document comes from the court. If you tell me otherwise, it's like telling an adult the tooth fairy exists. I have studied law for about 15 years, and I can tell you with full confidence 100% that the document you read above, the Order on the Motion for Summary Judgement is a COURT ORDER, not an attorney filing. The Request for Summary Judgement is the Attorney's Document. The Paperwork that displays the words GRANTED after Summary Judgement are NOT an attorney's filings. Those words are reserved for the court.


You studied law for 15 years and you don't even know it has to be signed by the judge to be what you claim it is? Tell me, how is it a legal document without a signature based on your 15 years of studying law?


I already stated, Mr.. Disinformation, that original signature documents are not uploaded to the net. Those are digital reproductions before the signature goes on. They are printed and signed, and then you have the original, the original is not posted digitially.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by truthwarrior7
reply to post by badmedia
 


You're doing it again, Bad Media, your misrepresenting things. Watch at 30 seconds and then through 33 seconds. You purposely did not get to the part i'm talking about. Again, I ask what is your motive and agenda?


To put things into context means to take the entire conversation in consideration. Which means to include the question he was asked. So that you can understand what he is responding too. Teh clip I gave has what you mention in it.

Why is the question asked to him not to be considered in it? And do you really think saying someone has an agenda is really effective in proving your point or debating?

No wonder you have -3000 points.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by badmedia]


The original question has NOTHING to do with the CRISIS that Colin Powell was talking about. Did you read....."that we don't even know about yet"....???

If you can't read, what are you doing on the internet? Shouldn't you be in school?

My -3000 points is after the fact that I had over 50,000 positive points on an account and was kicked off for talking about a "sensitive subject" that ATS does not allow you to know about. My -3000 points is better than all your bullcrap youve spewed so far. You have not contributed at all, only as a devils advocate to oppose my post. Your a troll and not a very good one either.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by truthwarrior7]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   


[I already stated, Mr.. Disinformation, that original signature documents are not uploaded to the net. Those are digital reproductions before the signature goes on. They are printed and signed, and then you have the original, the original is not posted digitially.


Then you just have the papers that have been drawn up as the other person said, and do not have a legal court order, or any proof of a legal court order.

While on this topic. If either of the parents of the baby are US citizens, I'm pretty sure the baby is automatically a US citizen, no matter where they are actually born. I don't know for sure, think I'll see if I can check up on that. Does anyone know about that?



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
i keep getting 404, file not found and cannot see the document.

I've been so intrigued by this subject, if this is true, the Dems are trying to undermine our constitution.......



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join