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.

 

CNN places Obamas eligibility in Primetime Spotlight! Cooper vs. Lt Col Larkin (who wins?)

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
It's clear to me that Mr. Lakin isn't that great of a speaker...


It appears he falls a tad short in the logic and reasoning category as well.



and he is being taken advantage of because of that.


He was give an open platform to speak to a GLOBAL audience, I don't agree he is being taken advantage of. It is HIS case of his own doing.

Oddly, he was not in uniform nor does his attorney appear to be military. What is up with that?

^^^^^^ETA: Never mind.

A noted civilian California trial lawyer has now been hired to be LTC Lakin's lead counsel. It is expected these fees and costs will exceed $500,000 and therefore it is essential that LTC Lakin's supporters come to his aid NOW.


Source

Time is running out. Donate today! $500K


[edit on 8-5-2010 by kinda kurious]




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


That's the title of the aritlce/new piece. I thought we had to put that up as is. I added the cooper/Larkin after the title.

Thats all. I didn't say I agree with the title.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


substance you mean made up crapola?

what exactly are you getting at impeach the pres?
i think hes a screw up but he is our elected president we voted remember he was gonna save the world now that our choice has backfired we ve started feeding off the notion that he somehow isnt an american citizen ?

if we want him out we need real reasons supported by real facts.

?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


evidence isnt in the eye of the beholder its essence is fact undisputed. much of your arguement is personal opinion and supported by opinion not fact?

anyone can list cherry picked so called evidence ?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 



whats wrong with KoolAid?

You have been drinking neocon brand 9/11 koolaid for years, could it be that you dont like Obama koolaid because its black?

I think most of the WORLD would agree.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by samhouston1886
 


No, because I believe the course the POTUS is taking is not the one I support and I think the policies he is utilizing to accomplish his agenda(s) is hurting our country in way that it may take decades to recover.

I am against the corrupt tactics that he enodorsed, supprted and encouraged that enable him to force an unwanted and unneeded Health Care Reform upon us-that is gong to be decided on as unconstitutional anyway.

He has proven himself not as a leader but as a devider-which I believe will be his downfall-starting November 3, 2010. Actually it has alreay begun with the wins of Senate seats in Vir, N.J & Mass. You just don't see it yet.

The good news is that over time I think people who are willing to be honest with themselves and admit that they fell for one of the the biggest politcal shams in US history-the election of Barack Obama.

When that happens, hopefully prior to Nov 2012, a new day will begin-that will be brighter-for me.

You now, the only people I see bringing up Obama's skin color is the Left? What up with that? I don't have to not like him because of his skin color (Im not racist), the is plenty of his policies for me not to like him.

Nice try. Bye. You can hit the ignore tab as I am you as I will not stand for racist accuations, Sir.

Edit to add: I don't care what the rest of the World thinks (which I think you are incorrect in your statement). Only the USA people I am concerned about.

[edit on 5/8/2010 by anon72]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


That's the title of the aritlce/new piece. I thought we had to put that up as is. I added the cooper/Larkin after the title.

Thats all. I didn't say I agree with the title.


I'm a tad confused. There is ONLY 1 LINK in your OP:

www.wnd.com...

CNN places eligibility in primetime spotlight



Thread title = CNN places Obamas eligibility in Primetime Spotlight! Cooper vs. Lt Col Larkin (who wins?)

So are you claiming YOU didn't add the who wins? I've seen others accuse you of such tactics, but never witnessed it first hand.
Say it ain't so.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72


Looking at these SHORT form Certificates of Birth. How can his name of Barak Obama II be on the form as it is when he didn't change he name from the Barry one until later in his life? WTH?
[edit on 5/8/2010 by anon72]


This question alone speaks volumes as to your qualifications to debate the issue.

His Birth Certificate states his given name at the time of his birth.

Barry is a name he was known by in school for a brief while....Think Dick/Richard, Sally/Sarah, Ted/Theodore Molly/Mary Betsy/Elizabeth Bob/Robert etc. etc. or any American with an unusual sounding first name that went by a simpler name ...Are they all guilty of adopting an alias?

These OPs are a drain on folks IQ.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

The only evidentiary evidence required at the time of Obama's birth was a sworn testiomy.


Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii.

Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it.


Can you provide a link to a COLB that shows another state as the birthplace?


You are repeating a lie.

check your facts.

Provide sources and links.

Janice Okubo, Hawaii Department of Health.


“If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.

washingtonindependent.com...

Furthermore the law that birthers like to refer to allowing children born out of state to obtain a birth certificate was enacted in 1982, 19 years after President Obama was born...

See the law here...notice the L. 1982 at the bottom of the paragraph? that is when it was enacted.

www.capitol.hawaii.gov...

So the certificate MUST show the actual place of birth regardless of whether they were born someplace else and the law allowing a certificate for non-Hawaiin born child wasn't passed until 19 years after President Obama was born.

All of this has been debunked Ad Nuaseum... I am simply searching for my postings from past threads on ATS...

See why it gets frustrating? It has all been covered before. At this stage it is just repeating the same facts over and over in the face of folks repeating the same lies.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 11-5-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 11-5-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Kudos to you. This is precisely what ATS is about. Not lame opinions, Referenced facts.
I watched the interview last night. Infuriating ! As the attorney stated, this could be cleared up tonight. Unfortunately OB would rather a Military doctor be hung out to dry vs doing the right thing.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

link


Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii.


DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR OWN LINK???

IT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM.

It is from 1911 and specifically states the neccessary evidence for those seeking a certificate WHO WERE BORN IN HAWAII...including sworn testimony of witnesses and affadavits...

I am done with the loony bin for a while...

[edit on 11-5-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 11-5-2010 by maybereal11]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join