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.

 

Update! Officer challenging Obama's eligibility can't see evidence

page: 18
25
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael
Now your calling me a birther?? Just like the other young lady aren't you. So quick to select everybody into a group and bash them. Your a Nazi too!! Congrats! I'll quit reading the rest of your posts now.


I would love to see one post that shows BH has any Nazi tendancies whatsoever.

You, on the other hand?

Originally posted by Raphael
Otherwise Obama WOULD have been born in the USA.


Are clearly a birther. An angry, insulting, confused birther.




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by soleprobe
Like ALL online "conspiracy" or "grassroots" discussion forums... the overwhelming majority of the usernames defend the establishment if there is damaging information that could take it down overnight. If too many Americans found out the truth about Obama this would not only topple the democrats but the entire political syndicate in Washington. I will never believe that people on ATS actually believe Obama was born in Hawaii.


I'm back in the UK after a week's holiday in the US, I even saw the Obama speech at Laborfest in Milwaukee, and I've got to say, the state of debate over in your country is even worse than I thought!

Now being a journalist, I've gotten very good at filtering the wheat from the chaff so to speak in stories and you sir are making some very strong claims here without backing any of them. As such, I'll give you a chance to give some solid proof here that President Obama was not born in the US, or for that matter anything else that can bring down the "political syndicate" as you call it.

You say that you won't ever believe that people here believe Obama was born in Hawai'i, show us why we shouldn't or stay your case.

I spent a week hearing hearsay and from-the-gut opinion that was so blatantly false that it made me question the critical thinking abilities of the American people.

Prove to me you are not quickly becoming a nation of reactionary idiots or grow up already.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael
I have a problem with a coverup thats taken place along with strong arm tactics of stopping anyone who wants to find out anything.


What coverup?

And as a strong Libertarian and Constitutionalist, you surely don't agree that we have the right to poke and prod into the private papers of another US citizen just to see what kind of dirt we can find... do you? What kind of Libertarian completely disregards the privacy of other citizens???



WHy not just come forward and say "I was working for the CIA and was born overseas."


Maybe because NEITHER are TRUE!
Why would he say things that aren't true?


In a free democracy when people believe someone has deceived them, they go to court.


I'm sorry, you can't take someone to court over a "belief". You have to have some evidence.


If Obama has nothing to hide why not go to court? it just doesn't make any sense unless theres something to hide..


Spoken like a true Libertarian! ... NOT! I'm embarrassed for you to call yourself a Constitutionalist.



It's about keeping with the laws and the constitution,


Oh, please! I'm beginning to doubt that you've read it! Exactly what has Obama done that violates the Constitution?



Now your calling me a birther??


In this very post, you said: Why not just come forward and say "I was working for the CIA and was born overseas." I call them as I see them.


Your a Nazi too!!


Hey, you're the one yelling "Aufmachen!" to Obama... not me.


[edit on 9/7/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
REMINDER!!!

Please discuss the topic and not each other.
Please read the following :

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

Mod Note: Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic

Mod Note: "What's with the anger on ATS?"


[edit on Tue Sep 7 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


WND ????

Seriously?

By their record of credibility I estimate 10% of this story is accurate.

Link me to the court proceedings please.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


His mother was a American that makes him an American no matter where he is born.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 





His mother was a American that makes him an American no matter where he is born.


The factoid you assert applies only to persons born outside the United States and does not make those persons 'Natural Born Citizens'.

The 14th Amendment applies to persons born with in the United States, and does indeed make those persons 'Natural Born Citizens'.

Obama was born in Honolulu. That makes him a 'Natural Born Citizen' no matter who his parents are, where they came from, how long they were resident in the United States, or what their citizenship status is. The only exception to this is if the parents were on official diplomatic assignment from their own foreign government.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Oh, please! I'm beginning to doubt that you've read it! Exactly what has Obama done that violates the Constitution?

Slightly off topic sorry.

I think chairing the UN security council is a no no as far as the constitution is concerned? Perhaps you can enlighten me on your view, I'm sure heading a foreign body is all part and parcel of the constitution and I have been misled by crackpots who claim otherwise. Let me know cause it seems that in your view Obama can do no wrong and you seem quite forceful in your approach.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titan Uranus
I think chairing the UN security council is a no no as far as the constitution is concerned?


Exactly what part/section of the constitution is that against? I cannot find it, so how about you tell us all.

Or is that just another birther lie?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Article 1, Section 9: ...No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

I guess if congress says its ok then its ok. Also some may argue that the UN is not a foreign state. Not gonna ride this one. LoL Dereks, your infallible god lives to ride another day.

Just a question, do you really think that the ones in control in washington want to solve the problems we face today or do you see that they are the cause?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titan Uranus
I think chairing the UN security council is a no no as far as the constitution is concerned?


Article 1, Section 9 says:


topics.law.cornell.edu...
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.


Notice the last little bit there: "from any king, prince, or foreign state". The UN is not a king, prince, or foreign state. So, no. It's not a "no, no."

Did you actually look up the text or did you just regurgitate something you'd read on a blog? Clearly the latter since you didn't even post the appropriate text or know your position.

This is just another rumor being repeated on the Internet by people who don't know what they're talking about to discredit Obama. These little pieces of disinfo are around every corner and pile onto the birther cause when all the birther claims about his eligibility dry up.

And it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with where he was born.


Let me know cause it seems that in your view Obama can do no wrong and you seem quite forceful in your approach.


Obama can and has done PLENTY wrong in my view. Just because I bring facts to the table about his eligibility doesn't mean I think he's perfect. I've had MANY complaints about him and posted them on ATS.

This is another thing that happens in these threads. When the eligibility issue dries up, people start accusing others of 'worshiping Obama' or something. I'm not going to link to all the places where I've criticized him or disagreed with him, but his position on gun control, the wars, the buyouts and bailouts have all brought HIGH criticism from me.

But I do believe he is eligible and that's the subject we're discussing here. So, you're again, mistaken. It's not true that I think Obama can do no wrong.

And yes, I guess you could say that I am 'forceful' in my approach. It's not personal. The truth is very important to me and the Constitution is even more so. I am 'forceful' because I am frustrated at the disinfo that people just pick up and believe without checking it out. I believe in digging to find the TRUTH, no matter which side it comes down on. I do, however strive to stay within the T&C of ATS.

So me a favor. Next time you post, do some research and find the text you're referring to and have a look at both sides of the issue before you make up your mind about what you believe. This could have EASILY been checked out by doing a simple search on ATS: Here's the Thread. The 11th post on that page brings light to the situation. There are probably more ATS posts as well.

Take a minute to find the truth. You deserve to have the truth.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titan Uranus
Article 1, Section 9: ...No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.


Well, the UN is NOT a King, Prince or foreign State, so that does apply in this case.

So it looks like it is just something you did make up, just like all your other birther lies!



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


So it looks like it is just something you did make up, just like all your other birther lies!

Remind me what are my other birther lies?

LOL I'm an outsider in the birther debate. I guess my mistrust for the president and the people that control him make me lean towards things that are unfavourable to him. I honestly don't think it matters if he was born in the U.S. or not, foriegn interests would control anyone that replaces him. I guess I also enjoy seeing obama fanboys getting all defensive in a protective lover kind of way as you seem to display.

Do you have Obama posters on you're ceiling to give you ... well, you know, inspiration?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
An officer disobeyed direct, lawful orders. It is that simple.

There is no reason to bring President Obama into the action. The President didn't even issue the orders. That would be the command structure within the Pentagon. That's why this is an asinine defense.

The guy's an idiot, now he will be punished big time. He will lose his rank and his retirement. Just over trying to make a stupid political statement and less than 15 minutes of fame.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by xyankee
nope! I was referring to the pice of # that refuses to prove where he was born!


You cannot be talking about Obama, the proper POTUS, as he has already proved where he was born, so who are you talking about then?


Haha. Proved? Haha.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by xyankee
nope! I was referring to the pice of # that refuses to prove where he was born!


You cannot be talking about Obama, the proper POTUS, as he has already proved where he was born, so who are you talking about then?


Haha. Proved? Haha.


If Obama has not provided sufficient evidence in your eyes then where does tha leave the last 43 presidents? Where their long forms? Where are their official state confirmations of birth?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Friends, have you found that all your Birther theories have already been debunked hundreds nay thousands of times already?

Tired of the ridicule, the scoffing, the pointing and laughing as you walk down the street?

Well I whatukno aren't here to help...






posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Yep, the mod text box again. So that must mean there is a good reason for me to use it.

...

No, I think I will keep this one short as opposed to the long bit of text I just deleted and just say this instead:


    The greatest delusion here is that if you truly feel that the system has become corrupted, that the means for correcting that corruption can and will come from within that same corrupted system.


Seriously, it is like being surprised that your child was molested when a known pedophile opens a daycare center and you sent them there because the rates were cheap and there was an opening.

The absolute and only way the system has any chance whatsoever of being corrected is to eliminate everyone that is currently and has previously been involved in the system, and once the house has been cleaned then you can start over and try to keep it clean.

I consider myself to be a Constitutionalist. And quite a few agree that I am, but even I recognize that a few Amendments need to be overturned.

On the BC issue, et al... The defensive of "I (or he) could show you everything and it wouldn't stop (or be enough)" isn't a legitimate defense, it is enabling that which is being obfuscated and muddied for whatever reasons. And it is exactly that, that has raised my ire and suspicion regarding Obama.

The comment of wouldn't Hilary have brought it out if she knew or suspected something was up? How many participants are aware that Hilary was involved in the Nixon Impeachment proceedings? That is known history, but I didn't hear anyone other than myself mention that little factoid. And for those that like the rest of the story, she was removed from the prosecution over her legal brief that was so over zealous in preventing Nixon from having legal representation that it removed Congress's ability to impeach him in the first place.

And when I say the system is corrupted...how many times did you hear Rush crow about young Hilary's involvement with Nixon during the primary? You would think that he would have been non-stop on that for weeks. Not a peep. Anyone wonder why?



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
The comment of wouldn't Hilary have brought it out if she knew or suspected something was up? How many participants are aware that Hilary was involved in the Nixon Impeachment proceedings?


Well its a moot of an arguement then is it not? Hillary and many government officials are in on this 40 year conspiracy, both parties are bad, we're all doomed to the New World order, Obama is CIA, Obama uses hypnotic powers, Clinton killed some people back in the 90's, Bush snr is the leader of the NWO, Reagan is a reptillian, Cheney is a Reptillian, this conspiracy goes down to the governments before us, shall I go on? And you seeing Obama's long form will do what again? Obama being born in Kenya will change what? With this kind of deep seeded conspiracy mentality (that continiously changes by year mind you) how on earth are you to single out the birth conspiracy of all? It makes absolutely no sense, let alone Clinton being involved in the Nixon trials proves absolutely nothing as to Obama's eligibility.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 



On the BC issue, et al... The defensive of "I (or he) could show you everything and it wouldn't stop (or be enough)" isn't a legitimate defense, it is enabling that which is being obfuscated and muddied for whatever reasons. And it is exactly that, that has raised my ire and suspicion regarding Obama.


Bravo! I think this statement explains how many feel about this issue. Obama, the legal eagle, knows exactly what he is doing. He is feeding the movement so that he and his followers can continue to have an enemy to publicly belittle at every opportunity. Classic political move. Unfortunately, it is a move that will backfire. Obama is in deep and his poll numbers prove it. Obama, the lawyer, knows that he can easily make all of this go away and yet he chooses not to. Sadly for him, once this issue goes away, he will no longer be able to ridicule all of the "crazy birthers" In reality, this is no longer a birther movement it is just another truther movement.

The truth will set you free Barry.

Additionally, if you examine the blatant obfuscation in this manner and apply it to an ordinary criminal investigation scenario (not involving the POTUS) the investigators would be all over it in effort to get to the truth. This would raise suspicion in any investigative mind and if it was ignored, someone would get fired.

edit to add:
Obama is pulling the strings regarding all of the rumors that are surrounding him right now.
The Muslim issue: Even the die hard talking heads on MSNBC think he should just joind a DC Church to put this issue to rest.
The BC issue has multiple angles: Kenya?, his biological father?, his parents were never married (no records)? His mothers behavior and whereabouts?
The funding of his Harvard Education by a certain Saudi?

Rumors a plenty. Rumors that will easily go away if Obama simply coughs up a few records...
Oh well... The truth is out their and Obama is the one that will have to answer to his own children someday.


edit on 17-9-2010 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join