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.

 

New Evidence Emerges On Obama's Background!!!

page: 12
109
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Obama thus far kept 105 of his promises, compromised on 35 promises and broke 16:


Sorry, but 16 lies are still 16 lies.


And just
on the OP! S & F

Last, we have the usual "shoot the messenger" defenses of obama being used here when the OP is quoting high ranking people from the Chicago School of Law.

Come on, this is a conspiracy theory website. Are some really not able to see a possible conspiracy in this information?

Maybe obama being a so-called "manchurian candidate" (now a manchurian president) is not that far from reality. After all, SOMEONE had to make all this possible for obama ...

[edit on 4/6/2010 by centurion1211]




posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

He did make that famous statement. I will close Gitmo by Jan.22,2010 and you can take that to the bank. OOPS!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Oh my GOD, a polititian lied, this never happens. I really doubt these lies will have any impact on my country, not like the last liar we "elected".



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Obama thus far kept 105 of his promises, compromised on 35 promises and broke 16:


Sorry, but 16 lies are still 16 lies.



[edit on 4/6/2010 by centurion1211]


because no president before obama has ever lied about anything to succeed in some way.

oh and because every single plan in the world happens exactly as so, obama just doesn't know how


seriously, LOL.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Friends.
The truth doesn't matter to some people. The agenda is SO strong and SO blinded, that no matter how many facts and reputable sources you present, it's NOT going to matter. All you do by continuing to post here is keep the thread, the madness, the ignorance and the trolls alive.

These people think that Obama himself, instead of the political system of the past 50 years, is somehow responsible for all that our country is going through right now. They think that in a little over a year, one man has completely brought down our government because he hasn't released his college papers or some such trivial BS. How logical is that? What makes you think logic will appeal to them? Anyone who believes that is hopeless. HOPELESS in the face of facts. I know it seems logical that facts would matter, but they CLEARLY do not.

Remember the definition of insanity and ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish. Remember the quote about arguing with morons. Ask yourself how likely it is that even one of these people will suddenly say, "You know... you're right. This source is worse than WND and I refuse to believe it." What are the odds?

After 11 pages, this thread has twisted around and covered all the silly rumors that were started to put doubt in people's minds in the first place. The information in this thread is over 2 years old! If people haven't looked at it with a critical mind by now, they're not going to! I PROMISE.

Ignorance Reigns Here



Now I'm going to go and remove this thread from MyATS (again) and refuse to continue to feed it.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
They are all puppets or Manchurian Candidates. We know this because they will just take out the President if they (TPTB) do not like what he is doing, like they did with Kennedy. So, this should be no surprise that Obama isn't who he says he is.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I'm not an Obama supporter by any means. I want to make that very clear. This story has no credibility in my mind. The 1st problem is the facts are based on a blog with unnamed sources. Red Flag right there. And I'm sure people will say that the faculty was afraid to give their names. But in all honesty if the government wished to fid out who they were it would simply be a matter of aqquiring the information from the blogger.

The bar complaint. I have no idea if the allegation is true or fabricated. Neither does anyone else. Most attorneys recieve a bar complaint at some point. He resigned his law lisense how long after recieving the complaint? It's not uncommon for people running for political office to give up their legal liscense.

I don't see a lot of substantial evidence here. I think there is a lot more elsewhere.

www.nytimes.com...

Now I didn't read anywhere in anything that publication was a prerequisite. From what I could tell there are numerous editors who were not published prior to assuming the job.

What bothers me is that there are facts that cast doubt on this president. But they are clouded by ridiculous claims. Which is one reason they aren't covered in any media.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 

Who did you vote for?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 

www.wnd.com...



WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
Officer questioning eligibility faces new threats from Army
'You could be sentenced to dismissal, confinement'


The statement released by Hemenway noted Lakin is being supported by "hundreds" of people who have donated to his legal defense fund. He announced his refusal to obey orders after unsuccessfully following channels to get the same verification from the president that the officer has been required to provide throughout his 18-year military career.

The website also notes that the "counseling" document wasn't completely accurate. It's not "native-born" that is in question for Obama; it is the constitutionally mandated "natural born citizen."

Although the term is not defined in the Constitution, legal scholars believe it is best understood to mean a U.S. child of U.S. citizen parents.

WND has reported that the controversy raises the prospect that the government ultimately may not want to pursue a prosecution because a defense attorney could demand in court proof that the orders are issued by an eligible president.

Even participants in a forum on the left-leaning Huffington Post website seemed to agree in part.

"Freakin' Brilliant!" said one. "They can't court-martial him [without] the defense getting the judge to order the the (sic) birth-certificate be produced! Either Obama will have to produce or they can't prosecute. Genius."


CHARLES EVANS HUGHES’S FATHER WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT, JUST AS OBAMA’S WAS; THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS, HE LOST
www.thepostemail.com...



During his presidential campaign, Hughes’s eligibility for the presidency was questioned because his father remained a British citizen. Breckenridge Long, an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR, examined the issue in an article entitled “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?” Published in the “Chicago Legal News,” Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916, the article begins:


If Breckenridge Long was correct that the citizenship of a father determines that of the son, then Obama was never eligible to run, much less serve, as president. Long uncannily raised the three major factors which preclude Obama from being a “natural born Citizen”:

* his father was not a naturalized citizen of the United States before Obama’s birth;
* Obama had been taken to Indonesia and reportedly made a citizen of that country;
* on his campaign website, Obama admitted to having been born with dual citizenship.

Obama’s actual birthplace and original citizenship remain unknown.

Is Obama a “natural born Citizen”? If not, why was he allowed to seek the presidency? What were the influences at work in promoting a candidate with so many challenges to the “natural born Citizen” requirement? Have foreign powers seized control of our government, the possibility of which had been predicted by Alexander Hamilton?

If so, why has Congress allowed that to happen? Why will the courts not order discovery about Obama’s citizenship status?




[edit on 093030p://bTuesday2010 by Stormdancer777]

[edit on 093030p://bTuesday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Emilymary
 


Please show me proof that he ever officially changed his name to Barry Soetoro...if you can't...why should anyone have to show you proof that he ever changed his name back??? That is just backwards logic.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Obama's first act as President was EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 banning release of any of his records. What does that tell you?

www.freerepublic.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Emilymary
 


Please show me proof that he ever officially changed his name to Barry Soetoro...if you can't...why should anyone have to show you proof that he ever changed his name back??? That is just backwards logic.

If he never legally changed his name from his present one......

The years that he used 'the other name' he was operating under an ALIAS?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I did not vote for Obama or the other nut. But please explain something to me. How does information I posted from the ATTORNEY REGISTRATION & DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS not count as evidence. I posted it because right off everyone said the blog was lies and they hadn't even checked out the info in the blog. I didn't know what was true and what wasn't. I do know now that neither Barack or Michelle are authorized to practice law in Illinois.
I also believe in order to break the Rep. and Dem. stranglehold on this country we have to point out what we believe to be wrong with the current party in office. In order to do that we must be able to get along and not accuse each other of hatred.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EndtheFed
 


Originally posted by EndtheFed
Obama's first act as President was EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 banning release of any of his records. What does that tell you?

www.freerepublic.com...


'Scuse me? Looks Just like:Executive Order 13233 (Bush) en.wikipedia.org...
and Executive Order 12667.(Reagan) en.wikipedia.org...

Also to add. ANY 'Executive Order' an be reversed by a 2/3 Congressional vote OR succeding President. The E.O. makes it MORE DIFFICULT to mask info:


In Obama's remarks on Wednesday morning, he said that, "Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law.


SOURCE

And BTW, the NARA (National Archives) wouldn't necessarily have his birth certificate, college transcripts and so forth if they are not of historical significance.

Please stop spreading DISINFO.


[edit on 6-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Where is waldo?

Obama the invisible student at Columbia University?


One possibility is that he was out of the country in Pakistan--for what purpose nobody knows. The other is that Obama's time at Columbia was one of convenience, that is, to provide work of interest to the political science department in exchange for a degree:

So I am confident that Obama was working for something when he was in NY in 81-83. And whatever that something is, it (a) has some pull with the Columbia political science department, and (b) doesn't want this story to become news. And I am pretty confident that something relates, in some sense or part, to the New York radical community. Wouldn't you say this might be a bit larger, more stratified, complex and socially elite than, say, the local bowling club, Renne Faire, or what have you?

Because I am 100% sure that if Barack Obama was in a bunch of political-science classes at Columbia in 1981-83, he would have been widely noticed and remembered. If only because of his unusual name and unusual looks. A poli-sci program is not a civil-engineering department: it attracts people who are interested in people. And a Barack Obama who was not interested in school would not have gotten good grades - as I suspect he didn't at Occidental, either, where he is remembered as a party animal and soi-disant revolutionary. Not exactly the invisible man, in other words.

The 'New York radical community' indeed. Obama has admitted that during his college career he intentionally sought out and spent time with those who were considered Leftwing radicals. Bill Ayers is one who keeps popping up at every interval in Obama's history.

Thus, the question arises as to the purpose for which Columbia University allegedly granted a rather bogus degree to someone who did not attend class.


the question arises as to the purpose for which Columbia University allegedly granted a rather bogus degree to someone who did not attend class

www.examiner.com...


this quote caught my eye,



So I am confident that Obama was working for something when he was in NY in 81-83. And whatever that something is, it (a) has some pull with the Columbia political science department, and (b) doesn't want this story to become news


The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, that some group of individuals helped promote Obama into power.


[edit on 103030p://bTuesday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Come on people really!!!!???? Yes the President of the United States is a BLACK man. Get over it, move on, and go on about your lives.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, that some group of individuals helped promote Obama into power.


Thanks for pointing that out. All the evidence is circumstantial.

Rather than empirical for example. Nice neocon blog source btw.


Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something.

Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.


Emphasis bolded by me. SOURCE

Just because he didn't have the spoon-fed luxury of a rich poppy and family history of nefarious ties to world domination, I'd say he done allright considering his meager, humble beginnings.


[edit on 6-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



Because I am 100% sure that if Barack Obama was in a bunch of political-science classes at Columbia in 1981-83, he would have been widely noticed and remembered.



Well it must be true with that rock solid logic.


Just believe everything that reassures your position...don't let silly little facts and logic get in your way.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
So, is this going to get him thrown out of office? Does this discovery change anything whatsoever??? Is this one of those things that makes you feel vindicated for every negative thought you've conjured about this human being??? ---and remember, HE IS A HUMAN BEING WHO IS STILL WORTHY OF YOUR RESPECT.

For those out there reading this stuff. Yep, you're right. Obama is a fascist, imperialist scum bag. We already know this. Yes, he's passing laws that you don't agree with. Yeah, he's in it for himself and is making money for the machine.

Aren't you all used to this by now??? Obama is doing nothing different that what we've seen done for the past 30 or more years. He's implementing policies that favor globalization, corporatism, and fascism. For all of you out there calling him a socialist, you need to wake up and see the bigger picture. Regardless, all of your revelations about Obama's history serves to do nothing constructive whatsoever. It doesn't matter how many times he lied, or who doctored his history, he's here to stay at least for the next 3 years. Get used to it. The reason why all of you are throwing fits is because you guys still somehow believe in the two party system, and that, if you had gotten McCain, things would somehow be different. Wrong Again.

The reason why we have only two parties to vote from is to provide the illusion of democracy while monopolizing the two party system for those who have been handpicked to be our leaders by the corporations who control them. Had McCain won, we'd be witnessing the same phenomenon right now with hardly any variation whatsoever. Educate yourselves on real politics and quit bellyaching about something that isn't going to change.

Much love to all...



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 
Sorry.
A man telling lies to get elected does not garner MY respect.




top topics



 
109
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join