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.

 

Judge Denies Obama Motion To Quash Subpoena

page: 5
71
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Sorry, Spoor, but Obama hasn't even given an explanation for the ONE social security number that he actually uses. Do you have a link denying that it was a number issued from the state of Connecticut?




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Just more political farce to keep the small-minded occupied while the man behind the curtain empties your wallet, all with your permission. Does anyone actually believe ANYTHING would really be different if Obama was never elected? Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter, they both have very similar motivations, and I can surely tell you our nation's welfare isn't one of them. Most are being willingly manipulated, to attack some perceived enemy that does not exist, sort of like the American version of the Colosseum games. I am not an Obama supporter, but I'm sure some one will scream "liberal" or try to make some stupid pun using a political leader's name, or some other clever tripe they read on a blog, and will simply regurgitate the talking points they were told to repeat.

Nothing will change as long as there is a loooooong line of lemmings to follow some political establishment, to keep in lock-step with those they think they identify with, but in reality, are being manipulated toward an agenda that hurts the "average" American rather then help. We need less bickering, and more working together, but fighting plays into our more dark, primal side. It makes people feel "good" to think they are fighting the "enemy". But it's all smoke and mirrors. It's really sad to watch this happen, year after year, the same people falling for the same BS, over and over again.
edit on 21-1-2012 by Syyth007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
and remember that's NOT the same as the legally binding resolution that was passed in the case of John McCain.


The resolution on Mccain was not legally binding....
thomas.loc.gov...:S.RES.511:

What is your source to say it is?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Neo, isn't that the long form and not the short form that they're showing?

The original document that Obama released in 2008 doesn't list a hospital.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
Do you have a link denying that it was a number issued from the state of Connecticut?


What makes you think the state of issue has anything to do with whom it was issued to?


The Area Number, the first three digits, is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1973, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the office code in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be in the area where the applicant lived,

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   


Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by NeoVain

1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is ‘African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used at that time?

2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in ” Kenya , East Africa “. This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the ” British East Africa Protectorate.”

3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital “. This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?


Those statements are just not true, also have a look at the name on the Nordyke twins birth certificate....

www.snopes.com...


Or explain how he can have 39 different social security numbers


Again, not true
arthurgoldwag.wordpress.com...


That first link is not working, and the second one is hardlly proof that the 39 social security numbers is untrue. A blog with someone claiming there are other obamas as proof really? You don´t think a scrotland yard detective would be able to know if it was another guy or not?
edit on 21-1-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Sorry, your link didn't open up in it's entirety, but there's this. If your document showed something different, let me know.

Senate Resolution 511

www.govtrack.us...






edit on 21-1-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Neo, isn't that the long form and not the short form that they're showing?

The original document that Obama released in 2008 doesn't list a hospital.



If that was the long form, and you claim the long form had the twins name as hospital... How can there be 2 different long forms? Which one is correct? How can a birth certificate change over time?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


So you really think the men in black broke into 2 different newspaper offices.
Then they manipulated microfiche or microfilm that's possibly decades old.
And inserted into that decades old microwhatever Obama's birth announcement?

Do you realize how absurd that sounds?
And IMO I don't think they are good enough to pull something like that off.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 


It certainly could of been.
However this wasn't.
There's a separate section of the news paper that holds those sorts of things.
These birth announcements are not put in there by relatives. But by the state.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by 46ACE
 


So you really think the men in black broke into 2 different newspaper offices.
Then they manipulated microfiche or microfilm that's possibly decades old.
And inserted into that decades old microwhatever Obama's birth announcement?

Do you realize how absurd that sounds?
And IMO I don't think they are good enough to pull something like that off.


Have you seen the physical paper and performed a carbon-14 dating on it, or just seen the photoshopped .jpg?

That is something that needs to be answered first.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Nana2
 


Negative. I've been over this before.
These are the announcements done by the state.

Family announcements are done in a different section of the paper.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


OK, so this says that Obama didn't necessarily have to live in Connecticut to get a Connecticut number, but he still would have had to go to a Connecticut SS office to get that number. Why was that? Why didn't he get one in Hawaii before he went off to college?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
Obama's birth announcement?.

You do realize that the birth announcements are NOT proof of US birth, right?
You do realize that the birth announcements list an address that Obama never lived at, right?
You do realize that there was no requirement of proof of US birth for those, that anyone could have put them in the paper for any reason ... like people wanting to be sure that their kid got US citizenship and all the perks thereof ... right?


Originally posted by grey580
These birth announcements are not put in there by relatives. But by the state.

NOW they are .. but not back then in Hawaii.

edit on 1/21/2012 by FlyersFan because: to add second set of comments



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Well, this is certainly interesting. I seriously doubt, however, that Obama will be required to personally appear in court. Not that I believe any of the birther crap in the first place. I will say he has been awfully cagey about this stuff (sealing his records? Whaaa?) But I believe him to be a citizen, even if he was born in Kenya. His mother was an American citizen, and from what I understand if one parent is American, the child is American.



Originally posted by baphomet420
if you are going to hate someone, at least have a good and valid reason... there are tons of reason to hate or love obama, but for some reason, the ones that choose to hate, hate for reasons that are simply not true...


Whoa, there buddy. I, and many others, choose to hate him for his continued murders of the citizens of sovereign nations solely for the reason that they happen to be standing on his oil. Those reasons are not only absolutely true they are the only reason I need to absolutely hate him. You may love him for that, but sane people don't.

/TOA



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


I don't understand what you're saying. The forms of the Nordyke twins are identical to the long form that Obama released. I don't know what you mean by 2 different long forms.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


No and I'm not willing to go that far down the rabbit hole of infinite madness.
At this rate we are wandering into tin foil hat territory.
And that's a little too crazy for me.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by kawika
 


It certainly could of been.
However this wasn't.
There's a separate section of the news paper that holds those sorts of things.
These birth announcements are not put in there by relatives. But by the state.


That's correct. The DOH gives the information to the newspapers, but the information the DOH had was given by the relatives, not the hospital. Go back and read prior posts.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Negative.
Everything that i've seen points to those announcements being issued by the state and not family members.
You can do a search on the web about this or read my original thread that I posted some pages ago.

Barring modification after the fact. Those birth announcements are IMO more evidence that back up the fact that he was born in Hawaii.

At this point the whole argument is just silly IMO.
We are getting into tin foil hat territory.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


If you want to believe that having one American parent is all that is required, so be it. Let's change the wording to reflect that.

In my opinion, if it only takes one American parent to make you a U.S. citizen for life, regardless of whether or not you took on dual citizenship elsewhere (Indonesia), I say we need to also change any other laws that would allow that person foreign aid or scholarships into college.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join