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 Has [not] Ruled, Obama [not] Off Of Ballot In Georgia! (erroneous news report)

page: 33
122
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


to be considered a citizen and to be eligible for president are two different things. read my above post. READ




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
For those of you saying Obama not showing up to court is like him saying he is above the law need to sit back and grab a nice cup of reality check.
1. Do you honestly think our presidents should have to drop everything and run to every silly court hearing? People try to sue presidents for everything. (Yes, quite a few should be in jail right now) I am gonna sue Obama because my taxes went up. He better be in court.
2. If Obama was not eligible to be president the Republicans would have made sure he wasn't elected.
3. This is old news. This same thing has already happened in many of the other states and was dismissed each time because there was no ground to stand on.
4. Would you honestly rather have a Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorium, or Mitt Romney in office?
5. Scary thought but all three would probably consider taking Sarah Palin as a running mate. ( They may not think she can run the country but she may be able to follow along beside the new president.)

So, if Obama is taken off of a ballot can another democrat be put on it?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Natural born citizen is a subset of citizen - the difference has been explained to you - try to understand it.


You are actually correct there.

The only thing is, there is, in America anyway, exactly one other subset of citizen, and that is "naturalized citizen".

Together, "natural born citizen" and "naturalized citizen" make up 100% of all citizens in the United States of America.



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

Originally posted by MikeNitro94
If no one is above the law, then I guess a lot of you wouldn't mind seeing George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell get some serious arrest warrants tossed their way for the lies that got us into the Iraq War. You righties are all reaction. How much energy did you put into whether or not George Bush stole the Florida elections? I bet your still trying to find the truth about that. Obama is the President of the United States, he doesn't have to show up in some state courthouse to answer anything. You must know that from the 911 Commission's interviews of the Bush Regime, where they were done in private with no official recording of what questions were asked or answered. Don't be so lopsided in your hatred of of Obama or the U.S. Government. You all support Republican elected officials unquestioningly. And I don't want to hear the nonsense that it's not Obama, it's the Federal Government as a whole. It's B.S. You hate this man for whatever reasons Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh tell you to hate him for. Clean up your own house before you go with your broom sticks and mop bucket mobs to the Democrats house. Theirs a lot of money bag Republicans who get away with murder and don't get a peep of scrutiny from you guys! Get it together righties.


What do you mean "if no one is above the law"? are you saying that because those other assholes got away with what they did that Mr Obama should get away too? Are you saying two wrongs make a right?

You have it wrong sir. The message is that a judge, (not some backwoods dude) ordered Obama to attend court to defend himself. The fact that Obama had ample time to do so but decided not to do it and decided to do what any other person would have gone to jail for is the fact that he is the one who made the decision of who can vote for him. Get it?....... no? Read further......

Neither the "backwoods" judge, the "southern dude" that made the case nor the "racist" system in place made this decision. The fact is that Obama made the decision of who can vote for him by not showing up for court like any other normal citizen would do (and indeed is legally obligated to do and same goes for the president).

No one is above the law and the day that anyone is above our law is the day that we as a people have failed to our selves and our children as true freedom loving people, we have failed our parents and our grand parents by way of letting our selves be taken over and ruled by a dictator that is above our law.

The only person that can be above our law would be a dictator. Is Obama a dictator?

Do you have a problem with what I just typed? Do you not like something I just typed? Do you disagree with something I just typed? Well then feel free (while you still have the chance) to speak your mind in a reply to this post at your earliest convenience .

-Alien



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink

       In conclusion, P.A. Madison draws attention to Rep. John A. Bingham’s (OH) comments about Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes. Rep. Bingham is the author behind the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
       
       “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))
       
       P.A. Madison provides context to Bingham’s definition.
       
       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. To be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
www.worldandi.com...

       E. de Vattel’s Law of Nations (1758). "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.”



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
The fact is that Obama made the decision of who can vote for him by not showing up for court like any other normal citizen would do (and indeed is legally obligated to do and same goes for the president).


Showing up for what?

What exactly is Obama supposed to show up in person for - - to defend.

Please make sense.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrlqban
[

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the
nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never
doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens
became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural born
citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Minor v. Happersett


A selective quote - that particular case quite specifically did NOT consider whether others were or were not NBC's - the court's decision can be read here, and the relevant bit, which comes immediately after the bit you quoted, is:


Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.


So that case which is oft quoted as debarring Obama does no such thing - anyone saying it does is either ignorant or a liar.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by D7777
 





2. If Obama was not eligible to be president the Republicans would have made sure he wasn't elected.


I'm not so sure I agree about this point. I had a feeling in 08 that Republicans weren't putting that much into the election cycle. McCain is one of the most liberal of Repubs. Some people call it "moderate" and others call it "RINO".
I personally feel that Romney is the "Establishment" pick. But Rick Santorum won the debate in Florida tonight and even some of the news people were grudgingly admitting it, but they were still careful to place Romney as continuing to be the front runner.
It takes a bit of conspiracy theory thinking to realize that the insiders are CFR and in GLobalist thinking it really doesn't matter in the long run.
People I know say that we are getting to socialism via the short train y through Democrats and the long train through Republicans.
Another acquaintance of mine called Romney a "Stealth Progressive". Sounds about right to me which is why I'm always amused at liberals trashing him. He tried to justify his Romneycare tonight. That is why I have a hard time believing he truly intends to repeal Obamacare.
When Bush ran against Kerry, both Skull and Bones, it just was so telling.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
This is a state that prosecutes a mother for letting her 10 year old son get a tattoo honoring his dead brother, who he was a witness to his murder.

This is a state that prosecutes pregnant women who miscarry if they cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that they did not cause the miscarriage, no matter at what part of the term she is in.

The idiots have taken control of the ship people, and they are refusing to acknowledge there is a iceberg in front.

This is not a good sign, and could be a way for southern states to go old school and secede from the union again.

What's next from Georgia, a reintroduction to slavery?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I also say that the mods should fix the title of this thread, they seriously conflict with the source. He did not in fact rule at all.:

OP - Title "Judge Has Ruled, Secretary Of State Agrees, Obama Off Of Ballot In Georgia!!!!!!"

"a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November."

I also have problems with the motives of the story in many ways but this one was funny - As you can see It's a really small court room with lots of vacant seats and the filled seats are all occupied by old people and most certainly anti-obama :

"Thursday's hearing was held before a packed courtroom with almost every seat taken -- except for those at the defendant's table facing the judge."

I wondered how long it would take the birthers to get a yet another post on the front page...so tired.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mrlqban
 





The 14th ammendment confers CITIZENSHIP to anyone born in the soil who are subject to the jurisdiction.of the U.S. But no Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment confers natural born citizenship status to everyone born and subject to the jurisdiction.

Yes it has. See Wong Kim Ark.



Even the Citizenship and inmigration services recognizes a distinction between "native born' (born in the soil), natural born, and naturalized citizens.


No it doesn't. It has an administrative function to go through when a child, born overseas to citizen parents, returns to the U.S. That is all. Such a child may, under U.S. Law, reject U.S. citizenship when he/she comes of age, as long as that does not result in a stateless condition, of course.

There is, it is true, an academic debate about whether such a child is "natural born" (because citizenship is automatic at birth), or "naturalized" (because although it is automatic at birth, it relies on a Congressional act). But there is no debate that such a child is either natural born or naturalized, there is no third class of citizenship, every citizen, repeat: every citizen, is one or the other.




The U.S. government, although, it does not currently enforce it, has never recognize dual citizenship at birth.


The U.S. Government has no interest in what other countries claim. It isn't that it doesn't recognize dual citizenship, it is that, to the U.S. Government it is only U.S. Citizenship that matters.



Either you owe full allegiance to this country, or you don't. Even the 14th amendment founders drafted the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase as to mean full and complete allegiance.


The "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase means subject to the judicial system, the laws, and has only a vague, very distant, similarity to allegiance. It the 14th amendment authors meant "allegiance", they would have said "allegiance". The Civil Rights Law of 1866 (I think that was the year) that the 14th Amendment replaced did use the word "allegiance" but the authors of the amendment realized that that was the wrong word.

Examples of people, on the soil in America, who would be considered out side of the jurisdiction of the United States are Diplomats (who have diplomatic immunity), invading Armies (who are, by their very nature, outside the law of the land, essentially making their own law), and at the time, reservation Indians who were not taxed (these folks are no longer outside the jurisdiction and are natural born citizens just like everyone else born in America).



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
The fact is that Obama made the decision of who can vote for him by not showing up for court like any other normal citizen would do (and indeed is legally obligated to do and same goes for the president).


Showing up for what?

What exactly is Obama supposed to show up in person for - - to defend.

Please make sense.


Read this....www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 1/27/2012 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
For a site that boasts about "denying ignorance" it is amazing that the majority of members seem to support conservative kool-aid drinking, ghost of marx-fearing propaganda. Obama is nowhere near being a socialist. His healthcare scam is the same insurance company serving garbage that Romney proposed. Obama is not a socialist or is anywhere near spousing comunist doctrines. The man is a corporatist! He has furthered the neocon plans all along. The proof is in his actions not words.

Actually, "Deny ignorance" my foot. The majority of conservative members on ats and other conspiracy forums are talking point repeaters. No facts just propaganda on and on. After all that has been done by politicians and corporations from vietnam until today, how can you still fall for the republicrat garbage? You think that elections actually matter at all? Are you mostly ignorant, intellectualy lazy or controlled by the media's message of fear? Wtf?!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
The fact is that Obama made the decision of who can vote for him by not showing up for court like any other normal citizen would do (and indeed is legally obligated to do and same goes for the president).


Showing up for what?

What exactly is Obama supposed to show up in person for - - to defend.

Please make sense.


Read this....


I said make sense. Obama doesn't have to prove anything.

Who is and who is not a Natural Born citizen - - - has nothing to do with Obama.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 




Here is the single-handed most important fact that you will ever need to answer your question. Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data


And "Here is the single-handed most important fact that you will ever need to" know why that might be true:

Because Bush ran two sets of books, and the cost of running two wars was not counted. Then Obama fulfilled his campaign promise to be 'transparent' and restored the costs of the war to the budget. Which, while making it look bad on "his" balance sheet, was at least honest and open.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I think thats not right even though i hate obama its telling people who not to vote for shame on you judge



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 

Yes, and I believe that in his letter back to President Obama's attorney he attempts to address this. So, apparently, that sentence had its intended effect?


edit on 1/27/2012 by ~Lucidity because: typo...grrr



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


I think they tried to discredit him and failed. After that I think they may have given up. And I don't know if I would consider McCain anything but a fool. He just flip flops the way his lobbyists tell him to.

Coincidence a judge finally rules this way after all this time?
I personally don't think so. Republicans may be embarrassed right now and
don't want the public paying attention to their primaries.


edit on 27-1-2012 by D7777 because: (no reason given)



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


Actually watched this streaming this morning. Not only did he not show, in violation of the court order, he didn't even send his attorney! Tons of evidence presented, and no way the judge could rule any other way. Hope a lot more states follow suit!

What really gets to me is that I can't locate one single mainstream article or news report, save one Arizona paper, about this business. The rest are trying to ignore it.

If you want to be really outraged, do a search for his name, plus things like "defies court order", "defies subpoena", "illegal acts", etc. TONS of stuff that's been done. Any other president that tried a tenth of that would have been impeached and jailed by now.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


No offense but look back in history. There are plenty of presidents and vice presidents who have done far worse than him.

And the story has been picked up. Check the Washington Post.
The story really is not as big as people are making it out to be. Not yet anyway.
edit on 27-1-2012 by D7777 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join