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: 18
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
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)


as a natural born citizen i have no rights privately what so ever, any time the FBI, US Marshals, homeland security, NCIC, or any other government bureau wants to dig and expose me they will, at will.

as far as any elected official i cant see why they would ever need to hide anything unless they clearly have something to hide, just as obama has said himself, well he needs to be a man of his words and step up to the plate, or get off the pot and resign...his first mistake was ever opening his mouth and now he needs to put up or shut up

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




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by anumohi
 


The rule has to apply to everyone who is a citizen. If you're a citizen, you have rights. Those rights aren't as sure as they used to be, but they need to stand for everyone.

As far as government transparency, I'm right there with you in regards to government dealings. I think that all government business needs to be "on the books" and there shouldn't be anything even close to a closed door session when the people who are representing me are doing business. Outside of business, they can have as much privacy as I enjoy.

And It's not about what they have to hide. That argument goes for citizens as well. With this patriot act crap thats happening it appears that the government is extending their reach a bit more.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by anumohi
 


The rule has to apply to everyone who is a citizen. If you're a citizen, you have rights. Those rights aren't as sure as they used to be, but they need to stand for everyone.

As far as government transparency, I'm right there with you in regards to government dealings. I think that all government business needs to be "on the books" and there shouldn't be anything even close to a closed door session when the people who are representing me are doing business. Outside of business, they can have as much privacy as I enjoy.

And It's not about what they have to hide. That argument goes for citizens as well. With this patriot act crap thats happening it appears that the government is extending their reach a bit more.


a bit more


lets use the term overstepping and out of bounds, these people are enemies of the people and cannot be controlled on any level



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

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.


Where do you people come off with such inflammatory nonsense.
It is sick how people keep twisting around such an easy concept. The Pro obama crowd keep referring to the case of Wong Kim Ark as if it was intended to prove his eligibility to be POTUS. That is clearly explained in Leo Donofrio's blog. He is an attorney who has filed suit against Obama and that is why I am pointing to his material. Frankly I think you and a couple others here are just determined to do the support-Obama thing come what may, and use the stuff you've heard from the liberal blogs. I've heard it ad nauseum.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Here is more on the case of Donofrio


On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.
Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason. (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of "standing", but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.

While raising it as an ancillary issue, Plaintiff in this case didn't rely upon questioning Obama‘s birth certificate as the core Constitutional dilemma. Rather, he alleges that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth.





Leo Donofrio's case, "Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407," regarding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level. The case has been "distributed for conference."


Leo Donofrio, one of the top three experts on eligibility law, has a ton of interesting stuff on his blog, here's an example:


The Obama administration quietly changed the language in The Foreign Affairs Manual in August 2009 to expand the holding of Wong Kim Ark, declaring children of illegal immigrants (as well as tourists and students) to be 14th Amendment citizens.
They changed the language from:

"Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally;"

To:

"All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth."


Those are vastly different statements. The rational discussion of the two prior administrations was replaced by the desperate (to protect) Obama administration on August 21, 2009. While the prior edition of the manual went only so far as to state that persons born to illegal immigrant parents on US soil were "considered" to be US citizens, Obama’s scrubbed edition has struck the limited holding of Wong Kim Ark and replaced it with his own opinion which unequivocally declares the children of illegal immigrants (as well as tourists and students) to be 14th Amendment citizens.



www.theobamafile.com...



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
More of Donofrio


naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com... -by-former-attorney-general-jeremiah-black/

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.

Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:
“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”


Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation. We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign. This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth. Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.
Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.

edit on 27-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Leo Donofrio, one of the top three experts on eligibility law, has a ton of interesting stuff on his blog, here's an example:



Is "ton of interesting stuff" one of those big professional lawyer terms? I am really not sure how to quantify it because I sure ain't no lawyer or nothin'. I also have to ask who decides and how you become "one of the top three experts on eligibility law. What are the qualifications? Who is the committee that decides? Has anyone seen their birth certificates? Anyway, I really think that the birthers need to have a national conference. Get together and decided unanimously what is credible and what is not.


Originally posted by xyankee
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


common, do you really think that a blog or website compares to a publisher? If he was to do that no one would get the information. What would he do advertise his blog and expect to be taken seriously?

edit on 27-5-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
More Donofrio
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com... -by-former-attorney-general-jeremiah-black/


Obama supporters cling to a desperate argument. They claim that another country’s nationality laws should not have any bearing in the US. But this is clearly false. In a previous article entitled, “The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality“, I highlighted an official letter from Secretary of State Lansing to Senator Dodge wherein Lansing educated the Senator regarding the requirement of citizen parents so that children born here not be subject to foreign military duty.
If a child is born in the US to a father who owes allegiance to a foreign power, that child also owes allegiance to that foreign power. This was always our law. It was US law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at the time Obama was born, and it is US law today. Nothing has changed.
Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom. I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears. Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US. Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother.
/ex]

ed. Your post contains a clear falsehood. Nowhere in the US Code is “natural born citizen” defined. The code does not include the words “natural born” in any section. It simply defines those who would be nationals and “citizens” of the US. There is no statute defining nbc. Furthermore, every other route to citizenship is defined in the US Code except nbc. For example, the US Code says nothing about persons born in the US to parents who are citizens because such persons do not need the code or the 14th Amendment to define their route to citizenship… it is natural born and therefore self evident. The Constitution makes a distinction between those eligible for Senator and Representative – citizens – and those eligible for President – natural born citizens. – Leo

edit on 27-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


I'm not even going to give your comment any merit. It's just whining about nothing.
edit on 27-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


I'm not even going to give your comment any merit. It's just whining about nothing.
edit on 27-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


You do not really ever answer any questions but you always take the time to reply. I am reading the blog by the way and it certainly does not seem like this guy has any motive other than helping his country.

Please stand up and be heard by donating to pay this fraudulent sanction. The links provided in my last two blogs include much of the filed pleadings and relevant opinions. Read them. Then ask yourself: Is any of this “utterly frivolous”?


I really love the four "donate" buttons just on the front page. In case you forget to send this guy money, you know, to run his blog and stuff.

He is a lawyer. If he has been fraudulently sanctioned, then he does not need my money or your money to fight that. Unless every judge in the country is part of the coverup in which case going to court at all would seem pretty pointless.

You do not seem to be able to handle direct questions or opposing facts so I thought maybe I would try asking a simple question. How do you quantify "tons of stuff?" I guess when I read something from professional writers, I expect some level of intelligence.
edit on 27-5-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


More on Leo Donofrio.

I am the author of internet cult phenomenon "ONELOVESTORY", written under the alias BURNWEED. In 1994 I was at a low point in my life, a failed law career led to me being a singer in a failed rock band inspired by the 89/90 Manchester Rock/Rave explosion.
In 1994 my band broke up and I was in a bad way ...
... In 1998 I realized I was The Paraclete and that my purpose was to prophecy the return of the Messiah. The angels led me to one ALLAN(Reni)WREN, reclusive drummer of The Stone Roses. Needless to say I never had a chance of getting ONELOVESTORY or my music any press as they all thought I was insane and trying to ride on the shoulders of another band's dream as a charlatan.
... Bizarre as this may sound, it's all true and has been documented in Usenet newsgroup alt.music.stone-roses since 1996.


He sounds stable.


The relationship I had with Marci`a literally almost killed me. I was an emotional wreck. I couldn't accept it when she left me. I harassed her like a f------g psycho a------e. I scared her by following her around, tailing her in my car and sneaking around campus. I would come up to her and scream and yell trying to make her see what she did to me. I did what every a------e does ... I tried things like rubbing glass into my hands and burning myself in front of her.


I like your guy more and more already.


I graduated law school in June 1990 and took a job at a law firm in New Jersey. I moved home with my parents I began taking magic mushrooms and going to the Melody. Mat was playing all Manchester stuff every Friday night and the music was incredible but the Roses were the best. Listening to them on Mushrooms put me in LaLa land and I've been there ever since....once I heard them on Ecstasy I was looking down on Heaven which was far below. I still use mushrooms and Marijuana occasionally. I do not tell anyone ever that they have to use them to get in touch with their spirit. I like them and that is that. I took Ecstasy on my own, and I f------g got addicted to it. I didn't get addicted to it on a daily basis, but i was on it every week for a couple of years.


I am sure this has had no effect on his brain. I will remember this next time a birther goes on about the brain damaged weed smoking liberals.

Where have we met this guy before anyway?


After President Obama was elected, Leo trotted out this article again, renaming it "The Grand Jury Is The Fourth Branch of Government". It was promptly republished at The Right Side of Life blog and the Citizen Wells blog (although, curiously, Leo himself removed the article from his own blog, Natural Born Citizen.


Oh...this guy.

Even when I was a birther I knew this whole deal was crazy.

These articles inspired a number of birthers to convene their own grand juries, completely outside the American justice system, in order to "indict" President Obama on charges such as fraud and treason. The first Fake Grand Jury was held on March 28, 2009. Shortly thereafter, an American living in Shanghai, China (Bob Campbell) formed the American Grand Jury (now defunct), and began indicting the President of the United States in online chat rooms.


How did that all work out anyway?

Blog


More importantly though.
Ankey Kruse V Governor of Indiana

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs‟ complaint.


In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to determine a person‟s eligibility to become President in issuing the “Certificate of Ascertainment” “officially appoint[ing] the electors” who cast the State of Indiana‟s votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of the United States (“President”). Transcript at 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible “to be appointed „Elector in Chief‟ in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2‟s prohibition that no United States Senator currently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State,” and (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”


So how did it all turn out?


Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”


noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”


So can you respond to this or will you dismiss this with another excuse?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


That was a side issue, as I have seen those photos and wondered if anyone here at ATS has declared those photos to be photoshopped. It is thought that they may have been taken by FMD who was a friend of Stanley's parents at the time.


You mean it was completely off topic and actually not related to even the idea in any way shape or form? Is that what you meant to say? That is what it was and you seem pretty honest so I am guessing that is what you meant to say. Here you sit and tell people you will not respond because you do not appreciate what they add and all you do is try to distract from one topic to another, over and over again. You talk about Frank Marshall Davis and nude pictures of Obama's mom for no reason and when you are asked how it relates, you get snippy. I never did anything to you other than ask questions or supply a rebuttal. On a personal level I have been completely neutral. Some birthers should get over their attitude and try talking to people that do not agree with them unless your goal is to have as few people buying into your story as possible by the next election. The way you come across does more to alienate than anything else.

I am honestly trying to help you out because I know exactly what made me go from birther to this.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Are your arguments going to continually cite birther blogs which in turn cite other birther blogs or opinion articles and not law? The fact of the matter is that the Constitution definition was loose and has been interpreted by congress many different ways, most recently as the resolution resulting in McCain's eligibilty. Furthermore it is out the courts hands to declare a President ineligible only congress can do that.
edit on 25-5-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Well, one of them was Leo Donofrio, one of the attorneys filing birther lawsuits.


Which you can read all about on his blog.
Basically anything on blogspot or wordpress is gospel truth while every judge in the country, congress, the state of Hawaii, the executive branch, and according to Corsi - every other world government is lying to you. I really hope you at least understand why sometimes birther arguments are met with the attitudes they are.

You have to remember that you are the ones seeking change. You are the ones that need to win people over to your side.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

what , because you used the same Wong Kim case that all the members of Politijab used in their pro Obama blog?

And again, Wong Kim was about citizenship but does not establish Natural Born Citizen. It uses the 14th amendment and not the Article II of the Constitution.

And again, the 14th Amendment was to allow for blacks to be citizens, but it does not override the Article II declaration of Natural Born eligibility for POTUS

www.usconstitution.net...
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Remember how you just quoted John Bingham?

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Syyth007
 


Well, I'll tell you what, the Wong Kim Ark establishes citizenship as per the 14th Amendment. You want the 14th to somehow replace the Natural Born clause of Article II of the Constitution. Article II states that the person must have citizen parents.


I get sick of asking this but I really want to be fair and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Do you say things that are not true because you just did not bother to do the research or do you not care what the truth is?
Here is a link to article 2 USConstitution.net and I do not see what you claim it says. I could be wrong. I just have a feeling you would rather ignore or obfuscate than admit you might be wrong. So if I am wrong, please correct me. If you are wrong, please show us that you have some integrity and are sincerely just trying to find out the truth.
edit on 27-5-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


So to sum up your character in your own words -
You made a character judgment on Obama and decided he was not trustworthy. You feel he lied to you and lost credibility and is not to be trusted on many things.
You believe a complete stranger online that began with "Hi, I am a 20 year old female" just because you do.

Did I get that right?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen


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


It in all honesty was not interest, I saw the thread and decided to read through it the same day it had been created. I always tend to read threads that look outlandish to me so I couldn't resist to be honest. When I saw that you had posted that, I remembered you being in a couple of these threads bashing Obama and thought to myself 'hmmmm thats quite the change up from pure belief to demanding empirical evidence'.

However, you can feel flattered if you like haha.


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


It's not deragotory, not the term....only if you take it as such. I will absolutely make a COMPLETE admission that I am harping on the fact that so many are not viewing evidence and using critical thinking skills, but instead jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon du jour. And, as long as I continue to see that happen, I will KEEP on harping on it. So, if it IS derogatory, then I am equally derogatory about myself as anyone else.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Leo Donofrio, one of the top three experts on eligibility law, has a ton of interesting stuff on his blog, here's an example:
How many eligibility cases have those ‘experts’ won? How many courts have accepted any of the claims those ‘experts’ have presented? Zero. How can you argue with that kind of expertise huh?

ThirdEyeofHorus has yet to provide a single authoritative source in support of his position. He cites no cases, no laws, no regulations.

All he provides are opinions on birther blogs and now, apparently, the opinions of “eligibility law experts,” whose claims have been entirely and consistently rejected by every court they’ve presented their cases to.

Our side of the argument has pointed to Supreme Court cases, cases in other US courts and US law. All of this ThirdEyeofHorus dismisses because, according to him, it’s stuff “you've heard from the liberal blogs.”

And birthers expect to be taken seriously...



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   


Where's that birth certificate book? Corsi book makes bestsellers list at Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Publisher's Weekly



WASHINGTON – Jerome Corsi's "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President" has made the trifecta of bestsellers lists this week – USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Publisher's Weekly. The New York Times list has not yet been released. In its first week in release, the WND Book reached No. 8 on the Wall Street Journal non-fiction list. On USA Today's list,the book scored at 26 overall in the combined rankings of fiction and non-fiction. And, on the Publisher's Weekly bestsellers list, the book came in at No. 9 among non-fiction. (Story continues below) The book topped out at No. 1 at Amazon nearly a month ago in pre-release and is still hovering in the top 50 overall.


Thought everyone would like to know that "Where's the Birth Certificate?" is increasing sales. This is great news as the more people become aware of the facts and evidence surrounding the qualifications of Soetoro/Obama's presidency, the sooner we'll see some positive results on this issue.

For the full story, please see - www.wnd.com...



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ShakaDoodle
 


Dune was a bestseller too.

Thankfully only a tiny margin of Americans take in fiction as reality.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join