Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

page: 15
66
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
Image that, a new thread on ATS stating a judge is considering ruling Obama's name will not be allowed to be on the Georgia ballot. This following his and his legal counsel's failure to show up in court.

WTH - Annee stated numerous times on this thread this Natural Born Citizen suit was a constitutional issue and had nothing to do with Obama! Why the heck then is this judge trying to punish Obama!

Annee was so certain and I don't mind saying pretty righteous about this fact. To me it doesn't even matter if the ballot issue is true, if the judge is even considering it, it confirms my feeling all along that this suit was always all about Obama.






Use your Google-Fu young one. There has been no ruling by the judge. President Obama is still on the ballot. Annee is correct; this is an issue of constitutional semantics/language (I.E., do you need one or two citizen parents to be considered "natural-born"?]. It's about Obama, because of the people whom brought the lawsuit.... but, ultimately this is an issue of constitutionjal semantic clarity and will have to be decided by the supreme court. Such a decision will take a while to happen (imo). After the 2012 election, so the haters will just have to beat 'em fair-and-square.

Sorry 'bout their luck. [/quote

Well well well someone cannot read. I didn't say there was a ruling. I said the judge is considering leaving him off the ballot. Old one. I also have stated in previous posts this so called constitutional issue has more to do with Obama than the constitution.

Ironic how in one paragraph you state, this is a constitutional issue and Annee is right. (Read her post, she states, "This has nothing to do with Obama.". Then right after that you say, "it's about Obama.". Are you reading this stuff off of a TelePrompTer.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats

Well well well someone cannot read. I didn't say there was a ruling. I said the judge is considering leaving him off the ballot. Old one.


Considering it? Because, that's the case in front of him, no? Yeah, I got that.



I also have stated in previous posts this so called constitutional issue has more to do with Obama than the constitution.

Ironic how in one paragraph you state, this is a constitutional issue and Annee is right. (Read her post, she states, "This has nothing to do with Obama.". Then right after that you say, "it's about Obama.". Are you reading this stuff off of a TelePrompTer.


Cute. I said, after the ellipses (which you omitted, weird that) that it was only about him in-so-much as they used him as the "natural-born" example, but at the end of the day, such elaborations/clarifications of the constitution will have to be handeled by the supreme court and will only happen (if only for logistic/time purposes/constraints) after the election... ergo, ultimately not about Obama. I realize that hurts, but it's true. Time will tell and you can apologize or rationalize at that future date when you see I'm/Annee is right.

Have a wonderful day.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Rren
 


No future date needed here. The facts speak for themselves. Go back and read my post. I stated this suit was a backdoor assault on Obama. That this was just another angle to prove he cannot be CIC. Since the birth certificate issue was not sticking.

Annee and I guess you too now by proxy still want to state this has nothing to do with Obama.....okay

Then you acknowledge that Obama's NBC is being questioned. Hey if talking on a forum doesn't work out for you Iraq is looking for a new spokesman to inform the world the enemy is no where in sight, as tanks are rolling behind him.

You too have a wonderful life what's left. Because if you are referring to me as young one, you must be about 80!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
reply to post by Rren
 


{...} I stated this suit was a backdoor assault on Obama. That this was just another angle to prove he cannot be CIC. Since the birth certificate issue was not sticking.


Mea Culpa. No disagreement there. Simply stating that it wont work... if only for logistical reasons (wont work period, imo, but that's enough)


Annee and I guess you too now by proxy still want to state this has nothing to do with Obama.....okay


Well sure. My point was simply that you can't make constitutional decisions/changes/clarification in any sort of short order (cant speak for Ammee - dont know him/her) like would be necessary to take Obama off the ballot. Surely any competent lawyer (I assume those involved qualify) already knows this.


Then you acknowledge that Obama's NBC is being questioned. Hey if talking on a forum doesn't work out for you Iraq is looking for a new spokesman to inform the world the enemy is no where in sight, as tanks are rolling behind him.


You're funny, I'll give you that.


You too have a wonderful life what's left. Because if you are referring to me as young one, you must be about 80!


Not quite; was doing my Yoda impression, Old Man. Better?

Regards.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Rren
 


Thank you for the clarification. I will agree with your final rebuttal.

Glad you enjoyed my humor.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
(cant speak for Ammee - dont know him/her)


That would be me in my Avatar.

I try to stick with logic - - not emotions and mass hysteria.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
reply to post by Rren
 


Thank you for the clarification. I will agree with your final rebuttal.

Glad you enjoyed my humor.



I very much did, sir and apologize for my misunderstanding what you said/wrote.... gosh dang internets and WHY WONT THESE KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!



Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Rren
(cant speak for Ammee - dont know him/her)


That would be me in my Avatar.

I try to stick with logic - - not emotions and mass hysteria.


Me too, or, atleast I try; I like your style... sorry about the name typo.


Regards.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Me too, or, at least I try; I like your style... sorry about the name typo..


No prob.

Is your Avatar Pratchett related?
edit on 27-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Not intentionally, 'tis the World Turtle which is, of course, a feature of Discoworld and many other myths/stories throughout time. I just like it, and got AshleyD to add the ATS logo and size it for me a couple years back... been rocking it ever since

edit on Fri Jan 27 2012 by Rren because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   


Natural-Born Citizen Defined One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced. Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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)) Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well: Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862)) Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters the allegiance of anyone but only an act of the person acting per written law can alter the allegiance owed.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Peel away the multiple layers, you obviously haven't watch experts pick it apart as I have. Look for it, I'm sure someone has posted the vids of multiple experts on the web. Good luck.
Peace



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Loved your reply! At this poin I'm with you as far as stopping the bleeding! I just hope he doesn't do 10x as much damage before he's out of office. I couldn't believe after his speech earlier in the week people are back on his band wagon again, or should I say, drank his cool-aid. We are in for a world of hurt if he's re-elected, then again I'm leaning more and more on the side of the people that feel our presidents are merely puppets anymore.
Would love to know your thoughts on that.
You're a great writer by the way. Have a terrific week!
PMNORLANDO



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by PMNOrlando
Peel away the multiple layers


A birth certificate does not have multiple layers, so exactly what are you on about?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by PMNOrlando

Yes, I agree that all Presidents are puppets to the true rulers of society, but that then begs the question: Who are the true rulers?

If there were one group of elite, this world would have run quite differently than it has. One singular goal is accomplished by logical steps. But this very action evidences that such is not the case. Why would any single group send one puppet to perform a goal, then send another to stop it? That is illogical and certainly not the hallmark of an elite class.

That's why I believe in a societal Illuminati as opposed to a singular Illuminati. Just as in any society, there would be personal ambition and the resulting chess game to try and accumulate more than one's neighbors. Different families would be in an actual competition, a'la the Highlander series: In the end, there can only be one.

What we are seeing here is one small low-powered group using their puppet to attack a well-established group's puppet. In between, you and I are the pawns that this battle is being fought over. Will Obama's socialist/progressive policies control every aspect of out lives? Or will the already-profitable status quo in Georgia be maintained?

Either way, we lose and one of them will win.

But still, until the country is completely gone and all freedoms are memories told by old men around a fire to young men with disbelief in their eyes, I will cling to what little hope I have left and vote for those who seem to be the biggest thorn in the sides of those who would pull their strings... that includes those demonized by the media and those falsely accused and railroaded. They are the most dangerous to those in true control, and therefore my best chance to stave off the inevitable for a short time longer.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


All I can say is AMEN to your post. Just recently found out about the Bilderberger group, and all the families involved. Such a wicked web when you peel away the layers of the power in the world.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by PMNOrlando
Peel away the multiple layers


A birth certificate does not have multiple layers, so exactly what are you on about?


You're right that a birth certificate does not and should not have multiple layers. Visit this link tells you a little bit about what I'm talking about.

www.nationalreview.com...

After reading this article please watch this video and then I don't think you'll be confused about what I meant about layers.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by PMNOrlando
You're right that a birth certificate does not and should not have multiple layers


obama's birthcertificates do not have multiple layers....


I don't think you'll be confused about what I meant about layers.


You are in fact very confused, none of those so called experts have even seen or touched Obama's birth certificates....
why do you keep ignoring that fact?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Ok you win. Um hello, the White House released it online. It's their .p.d.f
You have an answer for everything don't you. You're great with the one liners.
You drank too much of th Obama juice apparently. And I bet you think he's having a stellar term in office too?
And deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
Is this Jay Carney, oh wait, sorry, couldn't be.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor
You are in fact very confused, none of those so called experts have even seen or touched Obama's birth certificates....

why do you keep ignoring that fact?


Thank you. I am so sick of hearing about these "experts".

I do computer graphics. And I know - - there is NO WAY - - I mean ZERO - - to make any judgement or determination of a copied document online.

#1 the resolution is too low.

#2 equipment vs equipment. No machine is identical to another. There will always be variances.

Only a certified document examiner with access to the original - - - could make a qualified determination.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PMNOrlando
Ok you win. Um hello, the White House released it online. It's their .p.d.f


The PDF that is online is NOT the birth certificate....

Funny how birthers do not know that!





top topics
 
66
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join