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.

 

Corsi To File Criminal Charges Against White House Over Obama Birth Certificate

page: 17
35
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Yes, there is Native Born and Natural Born. That is the whole point here. It says right in Article II you must be NATURAL BORN. Then right in the Wong Kim suit it even distinguishes between who can serve as a member of Congress and who can serve as President.


Sorry, where exactly is the term "native born" used ANYWHERE in US case law as a definition of US citizenship?


To my knowledge, after Barry came back to the States after attending grade school in Indonesia, he did not go through any naturalization process.

Why would he? He was already an American citizen.


But on Fight The Smears, it was admitted that Barry was under British jurisdiction at the time of his birth,...

And where in the Constitution or in US Code does it say that anyone with dual citizenship (one being US obviously) *cannot* be POTUS - just show us the exact quote if you would.


...he admits he was a Kenyan citizen.

Huh?


Interestingly, the kenyan Parliament made it a new law that Barry is eligible to be President of Kenya.

Why is that interesting? Who really cares what Kenya does - it has no effect on Obama's citizenship.

You better re-read Wong Van Ark - it doesn't seem to support a single thing you say...
www.law.cornell.edu...




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
3rd eye:


What other interpretation have you heard of this? That anyone can be POTUS? please no YOU give it up. Show me where the 14th says it clarifies who can be POTUS.


Precisely my point. It does NOT specify that parents must be US citizens, neither does Article II. YOU made the case that they MUST because that was YOUR interpretation of what the founding fathers *must* have meant. Unfortunately, the Constitution does NOT specify this, and while US Code IS more specific (if you'd JUST bother to read it), but it still doesn't help your case.

Please show me where I suggested that ANYONE could be POTUS? If you'll just re-read my comments - you'll *clearly* note that I said there are only two kinds of citizens - "naturalized" (can't be President) and Natural Born (can be President)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Give this a damn rest already and let's move on to something more constructive please for the sake of this nation, God and humanity as a whole.

This has been disproven a million times, there are roughly like 100,000 posts alone proving this claim to be false.'

Any person born in any of the following locations is eligible to be POTUS!

Territories *
Possession Abbreviation
ALABAMA AL
ALASKA AK
AMERICAN SAMOA AS *
ARIZONA AZ
ARKANSAS AR
CALIFORNIA CA
COLORADO CO
CONNECTICUT CT
DELAWARE DE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DC
FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA FM *
FLORIDA FL
GEORGIA GA
GUAM GU *
HAWAII HI
IDAHO ID
ILLINOIS IL
INDIANA IN
IOWA IA
KANSAS KS
KENTUCKY KY
LOUISIANA LA
MAINE ME
MARSHALL ISLANDS MH *
MARYLAND MD
MASSACHUSETTS MA
MICHIGAN MI
MINNESOTA MN
MISSISSIPPI MS
MISSOURI MO
MONTANA MT
NEBRASKA NE
NEVADA NV
NEW HAMPSHIRE NH
NEW JERSEY NJ
NEW MEXICO NM
NEW YORK NY
NORTH CAROLINA NC
NORTH DAKOTA ND
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS MP *
OHIO OH
OKLAHOMA OK
OREGON OR
PALAU PW*
PENNSYLVANIA PA
PUERTO RICO PR *
RHODE ISLAND RI
SOUTH CAROLINA SC
SOUTH DAKOTA SD
TENNESSEE TN
TEXAS TX
UTAH UT
VERMONT VT
VIRGIN ISLANDS VI *
VIRGINIA VA
WASHINGTON WA
WEST VIRGINIA WV
WISCONSIN WI
WYOMING WY

Military "State" Abbreviation
Armed Forces Africa AE
Armed Forces Americas AA
(except Canada)
Armed Forces Canada AE
Armed Forces Europe AE
Armed Forces Middle East AE
Armed Forces Pacific AP
edit on 26-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You are wrong. You keep insisting that a person only need be a citizen at birth and not a natural born citizen to be POTUS.
Nowhere did I say this, much less ‘insist.’


You are asserting also by logical conclusion that all persons born in the US are eligible to be POTUS even if their parents are not citizens, and that they only need be domiciled in the States. But again that is the 14th amendment requirement for citizenship.
The problem is that your need to believe Obama must be ineligible has made you incapable of comprehending simple concepts.

You keep saying the Court only ruled Ark was a citizen, not a natural born citizen because, you say, the Court didn’t specifically said he was a natural born citizen. You fail to understand why Ark was a natural born citizen because you haven’t read the opinion of the Court, and your understanding of it, or lack thereof, is based on what birther blogs told you.

In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court, noting the term wasn’t defined anywhere in the Constitution, ruled that it must be interpreted in light of what was known to the Framers, which was an approach, already taken previously by the Court in numerous other cases.

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States contemplates only two sources of citizenship: birth and naturalization. One, then, becomes a citizen by virtue of birth or through naturalization. Natural born, being a qualifier of citizen, must, therefore, refer to at least one of these two groups of citizens.

At the time, Chinese citizens, and their children, were prohibited from becoming citizens by statute. So how do you think the Court could even rule Ark was a citizen? Because the Court ruled there was a principle that, being at odds with a statute enacted by Congress, but incorporated in and emanating from the Constitution, meant that it trumped that statute, for there can be no law contrary to the Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

And by that principle of birthright citizenship Ark was a citizen of the United States from birth and his citizenship couldn’t be stripped from him by statute.

That principle also said the children of aliens, unless they were foreign diplomats or enemy soldiers, were natural born citizens.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "legality," "obedience," "faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual ... and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects ... but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King.

Ark’s parents weren’t diplomats and they weren’t soldiers.


All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.


The requirement of the natural born clause in Article II states unquivocally that a person needs to be born in the country of citizen parents.
This interpretation of the requirement is entirely of your own making, based on what you have read on birther blogs, and has no basis whatsoever in US jurisprudence.

Article II Section 1 cl. 5 says one must be a natural born citizen. You claim this means having two citizen parents. The Supreme Court and other courts in the United States — as I have shown — disagree. Your opinion, and those of bloggers that you have provided as the supporting sources for your position, in contrast to these, are inauthoritative, and, ultimately, inconsequential.

You are free to pretend Wong Kim Ark doesn’t say what it does, just as some people are free to pretend Roe v. Wade doesn’t say what it does. But at the end of the day, everyone born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a natural born citizen, and abortion is legal.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


After a bit of research it looks like there are only two kinds of citizens. Naturalized, who required some sort of legal action outside of birth to become a citizen, and natural born citizen, whose birth within the US or it's territories makes them a citizen without requiring anything else. Native born citizen isn't really recognized here in the US as it's redundant. Japan does use that term though.

This would make Barack Obama a natural born citizen as he was born here and he'd also be native born if we used that term as his mother was a US citizen.

Then there are state government officials who have attested to his natural born citizenship as seen at www.msnbc.msn.com... .

I actually hope that Orly Taitz gets her day in court with the actual document and that this gets her disbarred and censured and through whatever karma brings, she reaps what she sows.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by arriana
 

Because he doesn't have a real one....I guess that would be obvious though....

Oh, there is a real one.
last I heard, 3 individuals hold
that info in a secure vault.
This is how they can make
Obama dance to their tunes.

Political Blackmail



Exactly. This is the most serious consequence of this whole issue and why it MUST be resolved definitively - not by a corrupt Judge brushing it aside, but by forensic evidence from an unbiased team of experts and a proper judicial process.

Can you imagine the blackmail that will be going on if he is, as I believe, hiding his real origins?

I've been wondering recently whether this may be the reason why he was allowed to be President by the puppeteers. They would have complete and total control over him, more so even than was the case with previous presidents. And since this is the last leg of their push to set up a global dictatorship, the real birth certificate is their added 'leverage'.

The issue could not be more serious for a country and I simply cannot understand how so many people dismiss this issue so flippantly.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
the president should have no rights whatsoever to have the ability to hide anything about himself or his past, therefore we the people will have honest and true disclosure on our government representatives to ensure "somewhat" no criminal or saboteur have access to our state secrets and nuclear capabilities, and to have the knowledge to make the right choices when we vote


this subject needs to be clearly defined in the constitution where it cannot be questioned EVER



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
what really amazes me is the fact that Obama is a lawyer.

he has held public offices before becoming POTUS.

he had to get a SS number (at least once).


he had to get a drivers license in more than one state (at least once).

he went to more than one school.

he went to more than one college.

he had numerous jobs.

he was (is) a member of the BAR.

i can't accept that he got all those things without one time showing a birth certificate !!!


so where are all those copies and/or "verifications" by all those "authorities ????


how long did he take to produce proof THEN ??



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
"""They know things that the White House doesn't want the American people finding out about. """

India now knows things about America the White House doesn't want the American people to know. There's a reason Obama flew to India in a hurry with his armada.

It pertains to the data found by India's lunar satellite. China and Japan know too.

The White House is likely paying Trillions to keep those countries quiet about what they found up there. It's a even bigger scandal than Barry Soetoro's fake birth certificate.


Hi, can you define what you mean about Obama flying to India in a hurry? Where do you get the information that this visit hadn't been scheduled many months in advance?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Proof?'
What we need is authentic verifieable Proof that this guy was born in the US.
Why are so many of you so willing to just let this slide?

Why are you so demanding of proof of a negative?

I just read somewhere that Arnold has ruined his chance to run for Prez.
Now how could this idea ever come up?
It is so well known that he was born in Austira!

Would the Obama case have been used as a precedent?
Would you all be OK with that?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by anumohi
 


So the President must relinquish all rights to privacy when he becomes the President? That doesn't sound like the America I learned about and live in right now. Regardless of his position he is still a citizen of the United States (regardless of what misgivings are out there), and he is afforded all the rights that citizens enjoy and respect. Granted, I know there are some exceptions, but overall, the right to his privacy should stay intact unless he deems it public knowledge and releases it himself.

In my opinion, this is another glass house with all kinds of people willing to throw stones.

What will satisfy EVERYONE regarding his legitimacy for President? Do you have to hold the original certificate in your hand? CAN you be satisfied regarding his legitimacy?

Is this the most important argument you can make about the current political situation?

If he were to be found illegitimate, what do you think the repercussions would be regarding the laws he has signed into existence?
edit on 26-5-2011 by grahag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   



Apologies, but that really is close minded, none of your first 3 or four presidents could have stood for office if that was the case - please use some sense.



Apologies, but this is not about being open or closed minded, it is about being Constitutionally accurate. "Your" first Presidents....blah blah blah, you are obviously not a US Citizen and think you know more than you do.


edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


I know a little more than you I think purely because you keep coming up with ever more frantic ways of trying to prove things to match your opinion rather than accepting facts are facts. I can understand your're fanatic, but frankly, it's just sad to watch.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
After a bit of research it looks like there are only two kinds of citizens. Naturalized, who required some sort of legal action outside of birth to become a citizen, and natural born citizen, whose birth within the US or it's territories makes them a citizen without requiring anything else.
Entirely correct. This is how the Court explained it in Wong Kim Ark

Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.


Native born citizen isn't really recognized here in the US as it's redundant.
Native born and natural born were used interchangeably. You can see many of examples of that throughout Wong Kim Ark itself.


Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says: "Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent." ...

"The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle." Binney on Alienigenæ, 14, 20; 2 Amer. Law. Reg. 199, 203. ...

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States. ...

These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. ...

In 1869, Attorney General Hoar gave to Mr. Fish, the Secretary of State, an opinion that children born and domiciled abroad, whose fathers were native-born citizens of the United States ...

In the courts of the United States in the Ninth Circuit, it has been uniformly held, in a series of opinions delivered by Mr. Justice Field, Judge Sawyer, Judge Deady, Judge Hanford and Judge Morrow, that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor of China, is a native-born citizen of the United States.


Japan does use that term though. This would make Barack Obama a natural born citizen as he was born here and he'd also be native born if we used that term as his mother was a US citizen.
I’m unaware of Japan’s citizenship laws but I believe they don’t observe the birthright citizenship principle. Children of aliens born in Japan are not entitled to citizenship.

They most likely use the native-born term to differentiate between those born as citizens and naturalized citizens.


I actually hope that Orly Taitz gets her day in court with the actual document and that this gets her disbarred and censured and through whatever karma brings, she reaps what she sows.
But then we’d lose a huge source of entertainment and laughs



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen


Exactly. This is the most serious consequence of this whole issue and why it MUST be resolved definitively - not by a corrupt Judge brushing it aside, but by forensic evidence from an unbiased team of experts and a proper judicial process.


You know, wcitizen, you're an interesting character. Let me tell you why, and bear with me while I pick on you, if you will, afterwards I think you will see the connection and why I think what you have to say in this thread has almost no credibility.

Countless times, within this thread, factual supporting evidence has been presented with respect to law, with respect to constitutionality and IT'S law, with respect to the citizenship process and procedure, with respect to the differences between those SPECULATING that the Birth Certificate may be a fraud simply because of image file layers (
).

You speak of "definitiveness" and of "Judges" and of "forensic evidence", all of which intimates a very high level of ensuring accuracy and fact, yet I want to point out something very peculiar about your character.

Amidst all of this "NEEDING ABSOLUTE PROOF" of the Birth Certificate, look at your response in this thread entitled The Illuminati has been after me since my childhood. What the hell do I do?.

The beginning of that thread starts like this:



First of all, I'm a twenty year old female. My initials are M.M.M., and I was born in 1990.
Ever since I was a kid I was administered to a more casual stype of Monarch Programming that involves trauma based treatment that expliots mental disassociation.


To which your FIRST and opening statement is this:




I believe you and my heart goes out to you.


Sight unseen you believe her, with nothing to follow-up, question her, attempt to discern the accuracy of this girl, but immediately take it on HER WORD that this has happened to her.

With that in mind, why are you harping so vehemently within an issue that DOES have empirical evidence to support Obama's citizenship? Which has shown a track record of service TO THIS COUNTRY. Which HAS shown a track record as an accomplished law professional during the course of which a valid Birth Certificate would have NEEDED to have been shown at some point..... but in that other thread, "hats off to you girly, I believe you, you are right, and by gosh, my heart goes out to you"....

Please help me to understand why the flip-flop type attitude? Or is it because you may simply want to push an agenda and use whats most easily available to you? Like, making things up?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


Normally I'm against calling people out by name on something like this, but because it goes against his credibility of requiring belief and proof in his other threads, I'm curious about the answer as well.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1
3rd eye:


What other interpretation have you heard of this? That anyone can be POTUS? please no YOU give it up. Show me where the 14th says it clarifies who can be POTUS.


Precisely my point. It does NOT specify that parents must be US citizens, neither does Article II. YOU made the case that they MUST because that was YOUR interpretation of what the founding fathers *must* have meant. Unfortunately, the Constitution does NOT specify this, and while US Code IS more specific (if you'd JUST bother to read it), but it still doesn't help your case.

Please show me where I suggested that ANYONE could be POTUS? If you'll just re-read my comments - you'll *clearly* note that I said there are only two kinds of citizens - "naturalized" (can't be President) and Natural Born (can be President)






naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com...



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by wcitizen


Exactly. This is the most serious consequence of this whole issue and why it MUST be resolved definitively - not by a corrupt Judge brushing it aside, but by forensic evidence from an unbiased team of experts and a proper judicial process.


You know, wcitizen, you're an interesting character. Let me tell you why, and bear with me while I pick on you, if you will, afterwards I think you will see the connection and why I think what you have to say in this thread has almost no credibility.

Countless times, within this thread, factual supporting evidence has been presented with respect to law, with respect to constitutionality and IT'S law, with respect to the citizenship process and procedure, with respect to the differences between those SPECULATING that the Birth Certificate may be a fraud simply because of image file layers (
).

You speak of "definitiveness" and of "Judges" and of "forensic evidence", all of which intimates a very high level of ensuring accuracy and fact, yet I want to point out something very peculiar about your character.

Amidst all of this "NEEDING ABSOLUTE PROOF" of the Birth Certificate, look at your response in this thread entitled The Illuminati has been after me since my childhood. What the hell do I do?.

The beginning of that thread starts like this:



First of all, I'm a twenty year old female. My initials are M.M.M., and I was born in 1990.
Ever since I was a kid I was administered to a more casual stype of Monarch Programming that involves trauma based treatment that expliots mental disassociation.


To which your FIRST and opening statement is this:




I believe you and my heart goes out to you.


Sight unseen you believe her, with nothing to follow-up, question her, attempt to discern the accuracy of this girl, but immediately take it on HER WORD that this has happened to her.

With that in mind, why are you harping so vehemently within an issue that DOES have empirical evidence to support Obama's citizenship? Which has shown a track record of service TO THIS COUNTRY. Which HAS shown a track record as an accomplished law professional during the course of which a valid Birth Certificate would have NEEDED to have been shown at some point..... but in that other thread, "hats off to you girly, I believe you, you are right, and by gosh, my heart goes out to you"....

Please help me to understand why the flip-flop type attitude? Or is it because you may simply want to push an agenda and use whats most easily available to you? Like, making things up?



Should I be flattered at such interest? I'm really not.

I'm not 'harping on' about anything, nor do I appreciate that kind of derogatory rhetoric.

Yes, I believed that person. That happens in life, you know. In fact it's quite common, lol. Initially I believe most people when what they say is plausible, and they sound sincere and my internal bs alarm isn't going off..

I don't believe Obama. He is not a man of integrity, imo. Far fromi it. Once someone has told lies I am very cautious about believing anything they say. Liars tend to lie again and again, imo, and he has told many. Apart from that he represents a government which is corrupt to its core, which is also known to lie repeatedly, and he works for a faction which uses doublespeak, intentional double meanings in the rhetoric they use, who are masters of deception with no conscience, and who care only about amassing more wealth at the expense of the people, and subjugating them more and more at any price.

If it offends you that I believe one person and not another, well - c'est la vie. Frankly, that's your problem not mine.




edit on 26-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by userid1
3rd eye:


What other interpretation have you heard of this? That anyone can be POTUS? please no YOU give it up. Show me where the 14th says it clarifies who can be POTUS.


Precisely my point. It does NOT specify that parents must be US citizens, neither does Article II. YOU made the case that they MUST because that was YOUR interpretation of what the founding fathers *must* have meant. Unfortunately, the Constitution does NOT specify this, and while US Code IS more specific (if you'd JUST bother to read it), but it still doesn't help your case.

Please show me where I suggested that ANYONE could be POTUS? If you'll just re-read my comments - you'll *clearly* note that I said there are only two kinds of citizens - "naturalized" (can't be President) and Natural Born (can be President)






naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com...


So... You have to have NATURALIZED parents to be a natural born citizen? That means we all have to have immigrant parents that were naturalized in order to be natural born citizens!

While I know where you're going with that, the speech of one man on the floor of the house does not make law or define terms. In the end, if there is a dispute regarding the verbiage, then it'll be decided in court and it has been.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ShakaDoodle
 

3,000 years from now, when they find the lost records of this time and era, they most likely will say that this was still the age of the caveman, and most likely will say this group of humans invented the wheel...if they only new it was the 21century.

I feel so sorry for Jesus Christ if this is what he died for, but I guess that’s why he died for your sins, I honestly will say a prayer for 46% of the ats posters.

Atleast you get to take comedycentral off your cable list and save money now.

No 'laffy taffy' it is not funny, can you imagine the type of parents they are, and how they are raising there kids to such filth, rage, and disgusting despicable rhetoric.

Your correct Great Immortal,i know god is shaking his head right about now..just looking at the mortals in shame and disgust.

Look immortal; we do not want to hear about all this real BS crap. They were programmed from the age of five on up, get over it! They have been listing to their fathers, mothers, grandparents, uncles friends and aunts every since they was young, leave my programmed alex jones teapirates of the 21century alone. They will never change, it wasn’t in the program as hole immortelles.

You no immortal, you want to talk some real shtt, you want to…‘keep it real’

Those parents that taught them were born in the 50s or 40s…you following me.
Those same parents that taught them, their parents were born in 1910 to the 30s.

So you can imagine, you democrat loving obama idiot, how much hate has been programmed in their heads since young…your not going to win,and they will never fold to the likes of reality.

YEEEEEE HAAWWWWW lmaf, you see lil mortal 527', this site is about stars immortelles, its all about fitting in, you need to fit in and right a thread on why obamas birth certificate is a fake so you can get 100 plus star with 200 flags, this....this my friend is what this site is about, its not about logical thinking, loll immortal! This is a conspiracy site ! This ..is …'SPARTA’ lmaf

?

?

?

Well immortal ?

Hes not saying nothing.

This is not cool.

leave Immortal alone,he had a bad day !

ooook

This is the saddest day of my life,the day when the great immortal gemini didnt have one thing to say...i feel like gah !

Because they are right.

Over 500 years of hate passed down from generation to generation-over and over again-programmed like a computer chip in the brain-just down load it to my child and there it is-over and over again-from generation to generation.

SHUT UP AND STOP CRYING LIKE A MORTAL!

Yea get over it ! immortal is a cry baby immortal is a cry baby,lmaf...WE WILL ALWAYS WIN IMMORTAL 666
YEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAWWWWWWWWWW.




This is not a funny moment laffy taffy...idiot !

yea whos side are you on



your so not cool laffy,i wish you would stop.

...Im laughing because despite on that...rhetoric that immortal was spewing all over the place, the country still elected a black president, so the generation thing and the 'over and over 'again thing really doesn’t matter at this point in time...might have got deleted or something on the way to the 70s babies or something;, Gosh immortal your getting old, like you told me immortal, as long as God is living then there is hope and we will always win,

DAMN IT LAFFY TAFFY DO YOU NOT NO WHAT TODAY IS !

Umm no.

ITS BE NICE TO A 'MORTAL DAY' TODAY..AND YOU JUST BLEW IT FOR THEM..GEE THANKS!!!!!!

but i..

gee thanks laffy,do you no how hard that was for the immoratal to swtch to unreality and to embrace mortal ignorance.

you laugh to much,he should fire you?

idiot,didnt you get the sript ?

but i...

judas'

sorry
edit on 26-5-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2011 by Immortalgemini527 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com...


This was specifically addressed this just 3 pages back (page 14 if your abacus is broken). Do you not read what people post in reply? Or do you think that our attention span is as short as yours?



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join