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: 35
122
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Let's see....is Obama still on the Georgia ballot???


www.sos.ga.gov...


List of Candidates on the March 6, 2012 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama



Why yes....yes he is.


At least it got moved to skunk works....although it should be in hoax because it is completely false information.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
Whatbis unethical about requiring our president to be natural born


Nothing, and as Obama is a naturally born citizen he is the legal POTUS



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Thread Starter:

Shame on you for creating this b***s*** thread.

Thanks for the entertainment.

edit on 27-1-2012 by btyoung21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ArchPlayer
 


All at taxpayer expense, of course. No doubt with some expensive, tacky clothing shopping tossed in for good measure!

So....where are all the people that wanted to impeach Bush for going to war WITH Congressional approval, that say nothing about the many impeachable offenses this guy has committed?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Well, the POTUS had his chance to set things straight in the court of law, but he could not be bothered to even show up. Once again, the President could have snuffed out the birther agenda and retain electoral votes that may make a difference. It could be possible that other states may file suite as well. This could be a disaster for the President. His ego and arrogance will be his folly.
But can we really be surprised? His actions have not shown that he is interested in what the American people think. In fact, his politics appear adversarial towards the American people: economy, respect for congress, TSA, NDAA. I for one think he has strengthened the positions of the birther movement. Way to go Obama...er Soetoro..uh Mr. President!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
that say nothing about the many impeachable offenses this guy has committed?


As Obama has not committed any impeachable offences what are you on about?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 




native born yes....a citizen yes....natural born, eligible for presidency no.


Please check which end of the alimentary canal you are talking out of.

reply to post by timetothink
 




BOTH parents must be us citizens at time the candidate is BORN........like a broken record because no one can read.


We can read just fine. You are wrong. Period. Even your buddy Vattel says so. Read book 1 paragraph 214 (or my post above).



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat
Well, the POTUS had his chance to set things straight in the court of law, but he could not be bothered to even show up. Once again, the President could have snuffed out the birther agenda and retain electoral votes that may make a difference. It could be possible that other states may file suite as well. This could be a disaster for the President. His ego and arrogance will be his folly.
But can we really be surprised? His actions have not shown that he is interested in what the American people think. In fact, his politics appear adversarial towards the American people: economy, respect for congress, TSA, NDAA. I for one think he has strengthened the positions of the birther movement. Way to go Obama...er Soetoro..uh Mr. President!


By showing up, he would give credibility to the claim.

He did right by ignoring it...by ignoring it...it's hardly news at all. If he would have went, that is all the news would have been today.

I suspect the judge will rule in favor of Obama and Obama will stay on the ballot...and by him ignoring it and not going will make that judgement all the more impactful. On the other hand...let's say the judge is nuts and rules against him...by not going he can brush it off as it being non-important in the first place...file an appeal and move on.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
You guys, you guys, this is tearing our country apart! It's time to STAND BY YOUR PRESIDENT no matter what, or else you're UN-AMERICAN! Remember that? Late 2000? Except that wasn't conspiracy theory that was an actual stolen election right in front of your eyes, with a president who was appointed by the Supreme Court. No PDF skills needed. No questionable birth certificate. Just good ol' fashion election stealing followed by a manufactured 10 year war. The truth was right in front of you. But yeah... Obama, he's guy to go after. The other dude is old news... and besides that was Un-American to fight against... this is justice.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 




Still To lazy to read the facts huh


Which facts? These from your hero?:

This is from your hero: De Vattel : The Law of Nations book 1



§ 214. Naturalization.(58)

A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.


What does he mean 'other states'? Clearly, his general discussion is about about a certain subset of states - and that subset of states does not include England (or Poland for that matter), and he thus contrasts his general discussion with that of other examples where it works differently.

I ask again. Where did the Founding Fathers get their ideas from, the British law that they grew up with and were trained in, or a Prussian born, Swiss civil servant writing about the Swiss law in French?
edit on 27/1/2012 by rnaa because: correct markup

edit on 27/1/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ajniss
I think thats not right even though i hate obama its telling people who not to vote for shame on you judge


Actually, is IS right, under the law. People cannot vote for whoever they want, whether that person qualifies for the job or not. There are rules in place for this, and they are there for a reason. The business about natural born citizens is to protect the country from being lead by someone with an allegiance to some other country, over this one. This is to protect the nation.

If he's eligible, then he should have gone to court YEARS AGO, shown the documents, so they could be examined by professionals, and closed the matter. That he will not do this is quite telling. As HE said,
"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide." - Barack Obama

Get it? According to his own words, he's hiding something.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:02 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.
reply to post by spoor
 



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
You guys, you guys, this is tearing our country apart! It's time to STAND BY YOUR PRESIDENT no matter what, or else you're UN-AMERICAN! Remember that? Late 2000? Except that wasn't conspiracy theory that was an actual stolen election right in front of your eyes, with a president who was appointed by the Supreme Court. No PDF skills needed. No questionable birth certificate. Just good ol' fashion election stealing followed by a manufactured 10 year war. The truth was right in front of you. But yeah... Obama, he's guy to go after. The other dude is old news... and besides that was Un-American to fight against... this is justice.


One, people are standing for the Constitution, NOT for one person, that may be ineligible. To not do this would tear the nation apart.

Two, the 200 election was NOT stolen. I lived in Florida in 2000. I saw, on the evening news, local news, DAILY reports of Democratic ballot counters trying to hide or destroy ballots for Bush, or lie about how many they had counted. They even tried tossing out tons of military votes. In the end, the results STILL showed that Bush won. Gore could not accept this, and wanted ANOTHER recount. At that point, the Supreme Court stepped in and said, enough! THAT is what actually happened.

Three, Congress approved the wars. Unlike with your guy, who went, with NO Congressional approval, into Libya.

I am not "standing by" someone that breaks the law, and thinks they are above it.


"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide." - Barack Obama



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


If he's eligible, then he should have gone to court YEARS AGO, shown the documents, so they could be examined by professionals, and closed the matter. That he will not do this is quite telling. As HE said,
"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide." - Barack Obama

Get it? According to his own words, he's hiding something.


For the eleventeenth time: this is not about his birth certificate or social security card, these were provided, verified and the issue settled LONG AGO. This lawsuit is about the meaning of "natural-born citizen." The issue comes about because his father was not a US citizen. Obama has always said this. There is nothing for him to show, or say, or prove. It's in his autobiography published before he even started his campaign and has never been in dispute. This is a matter of constitutional language/interpretation, brought about because the birther nonsense failed and this is the last resort for the extreme right-wing who knows they have no-one in the GOP field right now that can win this november.

There's your conspriracy. Not as sexy, but has the benefit of being true. Dang activist judges!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


That's naturalization not natural born.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
that say nothing about the many impeachable offenses this guy has committed?


As Obama has not committed any impeachable offences what are you on about?


Want to bet?

First, read here - 50 impeachable offenses

I found articles on some of these, and other issues, ALL OVER the internet. Check my list -

2006 - Obama visits Kenya, and campaigns for his cousin.

September 2008 - Obama meets with Iraqi leaders, and asks why they won't delay an agreement until after the elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington. This delay tactic occurred while he campaigned to withdraw troops early.

November 2008 - Obama's illegal alien aunt given special dispensation to stay in US. As of May 2010, she wins her case to stay in the US, living off the taxpayers.

March 2009 - Obama Justice Department tells California federal court that it isn't allowed to carry out its own order, regarding the release of documents pertaining to a wiretapping case.

May 2009 - Obama takes over major portions of the US automotive industry.

June 2009 - Obama illegally fires CNCS IG, whose position is protected from interference by WH political appointees.

April 2010 - Obama defies Congressional subpoenas to release witness statements and other documents related to the Ft. Hood shooting.

June 2010 - Obama plans to defy court order and reimpose drilling moratorium.

June 2010 - Obama government involved in illegally influencing the Kenyan Constitution, using influences from the UN and Planned Parenthood.

June 2010 - Obama Justice Department ordered not to pursue charges against a New Black Panther Party member for clear voter intimidation.

April 2011 - Obama orders government contractors to disclose political donations.

May 2011 - Obama's auto pen signs law.

June 2011 - Obama takes us into an illegal war in Libya, with no Congressinal approval.

June 2011 - Obama Justice Department states that they can withhold information from a federal judge.

July 2011 - Obama defies the 2009 defunding of ACORN by giving them tens of thousands of dollars in "grants" to “combat housing and lending discrimination.”

August 2011 - Obama's illegal alien uncle is arested for drunk driving. This man held a "valid" social security number despite being ordered to be deported back to Kenya.

October 2011 - Obama refuses to turn over documents related to the bankrupt Solyndra firm.

October 2011 - AG under Obama tld to refuse to enforce federal laws, such as DOMA and various immigration laws. ICE officers are ordered to commit a federal felony, and not arrest any illegals that have been previously arrested, deported, and whom then re-enter the US illegally. Also, they were told not to arrest illegals that are fugitives from court ordered deportation.

October 2011 - Obama administration appeals judge's ruling that visitor logs held by the Secret Service are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

October 2011 - Obama signs Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that would allow foreign nations to demand ISPs remove web content with no legal oversight. As of January 2012, the White House have a petition to force the Senate to confirm the treaty.

October 2011 - Obama sues three states - Alabama, Arizona, and South Carolina, telling the states they are not allowed to enforce fedeal immigration laws.

November 2011 - Obama again uses auto pen to sign law.

November 2011 - Obama's Commission on Civil Rights votes to investigate states for "violating the civil rights" of illegal aliens.

January 2011 - Court declares portions of Obamacare unconstitutional. White House declares that "implementation will continue".

January 2012 - Obama defies Congress with "recess appointments" when Senate is not in recess.

January 2012 - Obama defies subpoena to appear in court in Georgia, over his eligibility to run on the presidential ticket.

Now, do some research.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
If he's eligible, then he should have gone to court YEARS AGO, shown the documents, so they could be examined by professionals, and closed the matter.


he did exactly what every previous president did - funny how you never whined about them....



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by D7777
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)


Check the information in a post of mine just above this. He's done far more than we are supposed to notice. The items I listed, you can locate easily. Search using his name, and things like "defies subpoena", "defies court order", "Illegal acts", etc.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I found articles on some of these, and other issues, ALL OVER the internet. Check my list


Except that they are not impeachable....



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by D7777
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)


Check the information in a post of mine just above this. He's done far more than we are supposed to notice. The items I listed, you can locate easily. Search using his name, and things like "defies subpoena", "defies court order", "Illegal acts", etc.


The fact that people were asleep to Bush and suddenly calling for impeachment of Obama tells me people don't really care as much about constitution as they think they do. They simply hate who they hate for whatever their reasons are for noticing. If there was consistency it would be a different story.



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join