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.

 

Obama's Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul his presidency.

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I will comment from small European country's point of view so...

why does it matter if Obama cheated in some way or not?
what will happen if he did?

you will get rid of him and get new Clinton, Bush, Obama...... Same crap different people.
All presidents are chosen by elites not by people, all presidents (not just US but world) do as banking elites tell them.

When Obama was chosen lots of people here thought - WTF USA has black democrat as a president? We used to say "when pigs fly" but translated in our language " when USA have black president" - no racism just we thought pigs would fly first. i thought he would bring new turn in world policies, he would be "people's black" president, he would bring something drastic and new.



As i see it from here, he didn't bring anything.

Same politics just wrapped in different paper, same wars, new wars, same using of people, bailing out money banking elites but taking away people's homes....

Same crap only different doll to amuse people.

So what if Obama cheated? You think next one will be better? To become president you must obey.
Next elections will be new action dolls to chose from. To amuse you for 4 years and then you can buy new collection. Barbie's for adults.

Only revolution will bring changes

btw. why didn't you search that thoroughly G.W Bush career. I can't imagine that moron didn't cheated some way in his presidential career.

edit for being senile


edit on 20-6-2011 by Dinamo because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2011 by Dinamo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
was there not a law passed or at least spoke about being passed to allow non-citizens of the US to run and be eleceted for president? around the time Arnie ran as govoner?? so does it matter if he is acitizen or not? and if its ok for arnie, why not obama
edit on 20-6-2011 by GonzoSinister because: typeo's



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GonzoSinister
was there not a law passed or at least spoke about being passed to allow non-citizens of the US to run and be eleceted for president? around the time Arnie ran as govoner?? so does it matter if he is acitizen or not? and if its ok for arnie, why not obama
edit on 20-6-2011 by GonzoSinister because: typeo's


State laws for non U.S. born-citizens are different than Federal laws. Anrie was made eligible for state govt, not federal.

And to the poster above you- It does matter to the people. We have laws for a reason. If we open up the door to arbitrarily changing laws and policies, we will not be the country we created 235 years ago. If President Obama lied to get into office, he does not deserve to be in office. Whether the people actually have any say in who we get handed to us, and who we are we are swayed to vote for is a real concern, but we are still working on the premise that we are a free and democratic country.
edit on 20-6-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by GonzoSinister
was there not a law passed or at least spoke about being passed to allow non-citizens of the US to run and be eleceted for president? around the time Arnie ran as govoner?? so does it matter if he is acitizen or not? and if its ok for arnie, why not obama
edit on 20-6-2011 by GonzoSinister because: typeo's


State laws for non U.S. born-citizens are different than Federal laws. Anrie was made eligible for state govt, not federal.

And to the poster above you- It does matter to the people. We have laws for a reason. If we open up the door to arbitrarily changing laws and policies, we will not be the country we created 235 years ago. If President Obama lied to get into office, he does not deserve to be in office. Whether the people actually have any say in who we get handed to us, and who we are we are swayed to vote for is a real concern, but we are still working on the premise that we are a free and democratic country.
edit on 20-6-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)



Thanks for the clarification, im a UK citizen so not totally up to date with the inns and out of state/federal laws.

Curiously would the descisions "made" by obama be any better if it was hillary clinton that made them as she is a US citizen? i understand the fact you were possibly lied to about the origins of Obama when you (if you did) vote for him but surley you voted for his promises, rather than his backround (ethnic,religous etc.) ? im sure you appreacite your government (much like mine) will always lie to you as it There best interests not yours that matter... and it has been for many many many years.

thats really a Question to all the American on here not just the poster.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by muse7
Yeah, I'm going to believe that Obama somehow made everything up about his background and managed to get past the CIA, FBI and all the other bureaus that look into whether or not a president is eligible.

Because after all, Obama is just a product of the NWO and he was groomed since he was a kid in the 70's to become the President of the U.S. in 2008 in order to destroy it.

Oh yeah they also knew he was going to win the election too!

Seriously


Point of clarification: Neither the FBI and certainly not the CIA nor any other bureau, department, or entity looks "into whether or not a president is eligible".

Here's a little exercise for everyone - see if you can find who is responsible for vetting a presidential candidate's eligibility in terms of Constitutional requirements, for running for POTUS.

Trick question. The answer is, it doesn't exist. People assume some entity somewhere is watching out for something like that but the fact is, there is no authority anywhere responsible for vetting a candidate for eligibility.


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



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I will revisit my original query, back on this thread, page one.

Why have we never seen the 'brilliant' intellectual, BHO's, college transcripts? Did he ever take an economics class? Does he under how banking 'works?' Did he ever study the US Constitution? The media still supports 'as the smartest man EVER to sit in the Oval Office' a man who cannot offer up a simple toast, to the Queen of England, OFF TOTUS. Its RAAACIST to ask his school bacground (did he receive scholarship as an English speaking foreign national--ie better opportunities as an 'Indonesian citizen' than as a US resident?)

His "paper trial" of literary works (unfulfilled literary contracts til the move to the 'neighborhood' of that prolific wordsmith, Bill Ayers). Everything must be taken at face value; don't question anything or the race card will hit you hard.

As a Country, and as Americans, we have been so played.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 





Trick question. The answer is, it doesn't exist. People assume some entity somewhere is watching out for something like that but the fact is, there is no authority anywhere responsible for vetting a candidate for eligibility.


Actually you are quite wrong on that. The several states election boards are supposed to vet the candidates to make sure they are eligible before they are on the ballots.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by hawkiye
 


No, you misunderstand. Whatever happens in one state by that board has no bearing on what happens in any other state. There is no universal, national vetting for candidates for President. It's a national office, the eligibility requirements are enumerated in the Constitution.

Show me any source anywhere that verifies the responsible party for vetting a president nationally for eligibility.

At the time the Electoral College casts votes for the presidency, each state delegation indicates they're voting in accordance with the law. The horses are well out of the corral by then.

Who, during the election cycle, vets the presidential candidates for eligibility? Show me a link, or any source, that grants anyone national authority to do that. The Constitutional requirements aren't state specific. You can't be Constitutionally ineligible in one state and eligible in another.


Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.


The requirements are the same in all 50 states. If you're Constitutionally eligible in one, you're eligible in all. Who vets the candidates for those specific Constitutional requirements?

Officially, nobody.


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





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



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glinda
Why have we never seen the 'brilliant' intellectual, BHO's, college transcripts?


Exactly the same reason you have not seen past Presidents - nor have we seen yours - so what are you hiding?

At least this is now in the proper forum - hoax!
edit on 20-6-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Actually, you can find the transcripts of GWB, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter even Richard Nixon's undergrad study at Duke...on line. Oddly...none of those former Presidents (R and D) ever claimed 'transparency' then had their background (educational, Passport, medical records) 'sealed.' As to my college transcripts...well...as I hold no office, affect no policy (other than my one little vote--I am not a member of ACORN) and can not send any US Troops or assets around the planet, my educational records are moot. As are yours.

Brilliance claimed...should be brilliance shown. And it hasn't been...either in official records/transcripts or off TOTUS comments.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glinda

Actually, you can find the transcripts of GWB, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter even Richard Nixon's undergrad study at Duke...on line.


So how about showing us where they are online then....



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 





No, you misunderstand. Whatever happens in one state by that board has no bearing on what happens in any other state. There is no universal, national vetting for candidates for President. It's a national office, the eligibility requirements are enumerated in the Constitution.


I didn't misunderstand anything. The several states are in charge they created the federal government they are in charge of electing it's officers etc. there is no need for a national authority each state is responsible for vetting any candidate for local or national office on it's ballot. If they had all done there job obama would have never got on the states ballots. The federal election commission only monitors campaign finance violations. There is no federal election commission for eligibility it is left up to the states as it should be. So your premise is flawed that there has never been any means of checking eligibility. There always has been and it has always been with the individual states. Just because they have failed to do so does not mean there is no means for doing it. AZ is already proposing new legislation to make sure candidates prove eligibility for thier ballot.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Hi.
Will someone point me to where this topic has been proven a hoax?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by loveguy
Will someone point me to where this topic has been proven a hoax?

Thanks in advance.


www.snopes.com...

You're welcome.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by hawkiye
 


If you go back to the original post I was addressing along this particular conversational line, you'll see my premise all along was that there is no Federal department, function, obligation, or mandate to vet candidates for POTUS. I never said it wasn't possible. I said there's nothing happening nationally to ensure candidates were eligible for the office.

What I was attempting to address was this misconception that seems to be prevalent that somehow that all magically happens by some federal watchdog who makes sure presidential candidates are eligible to run. All kinds of things can be done. It doesn't mean they are. To suggest his eligibility shouldn't be questioned because he was vetted is massively incorrect. Let's say a candidate is passed for eligibility by Iowa. Does that make him (or her) vetted and eligible anywhere else? Of course not. Do all 50 states do this? No, they do not.

How many do? How do they do it? At what point in the process do they do it; when a candidate is announced, or prior to the primary/caucus in that state? Or after the convention but prior to the national election? Where is the authority for any state to rule on any Constitutional criterion for eligibility?

No, the only way for this to be done legally and effectively is at the national level, because only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution. And before that could even be done, there needs to be a clear legal understanding about what is meant by a term like "natural born". At this point, there isn't. Not a legal definition for "natural born", and not a national vetting for presidential candidates' Constitutional eligibility.

Further info re states and vetting for POTUS available here. To save some time, no it isn't happening at the state level, either.


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

edit on 6/22/2011 by yeahright because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
29
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join