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 hidden birth certificate now exposed

page: 34
126
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Oh very well said!




posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 

hmmmm, too lazy to follow your own postings on the same page ??
yeah, for an obamabot, i should've guessed as much.

well, out of courtesy, just this once ... your question was

care to show us where that is stated in US law, or the US constitution
now, you have the answer, deal with it.

no court has made any such decision (or you'd link it) and your empty, unsourced rhetoric isn't even entertaining. have a nice weekend.


You are not Obama's employer

funny, i never received that memo ... got a copy ?
edit on 12-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 

uh, you'd be mistaken, i have nothing prove, Obama does.
and in the meantime, why don't you less than qualified folk let the 'lawyers' argue the details.
the rest of us will prepare to perform our duty as needed.

clearly, Obama is scared or he wouldn't have EO'd lifetime secret service protection for himself and his cuz, Dubya.
you know, those who have nothing to fear ....... blah, blah, blah.
edit on 12-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
no court has made any such decision


As I said, birther blogs do not tell you about this, as it destroys their credibility.


ANKENY v GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA - APPEALS COURT OPINION - 11120903
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents
AZ - 2012-03-07 - Allen v Obama C20121317 - ORDER Dismissing Complaint
and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitutionand thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark , 169 U.S. 649, 702-03(1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV);
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana , 916 N.E.2d 678,684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett ,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise
Charles Tisdale v. Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney (D.C. Cir. 15-June-2012
On January 17, 2012, Charles Tisdale of Virginia brought a civil action before the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In the suit, Tisdale alleged that Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul each had a non-citizen parent, and therefore should be barred from the November 6, 2012, presidential ballot in Virginia. An amicus brief was filed in support of the Plaintiff by attorney Mario Apuzzo. District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., dismissed the suit with prejudice because the Plaintiff "does not to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Judge Gibney explained: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."


Read them and weep. So as you can see, courts have ruled that Obama is a natural born US citizen, thus he has been and will be the legal president



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
uh, you'd be mistaken, i have nothing prove, Obama does.


And he has proved it, many times. But you will probably ignore them again as they destroy your conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 

oy'vie ... until you learn how to interpret such a decision, please, leave it to the professionals, eh ?

that decision is irrelevant and has been proven such over and over and over again.
got anything relevant ?

we could argue the Minor v Happersett decision also but again, they're both arguments not relevant to the facts or decisive about the status of "natural born citizen".


oh and btw, the several books i linked aren't blogs.
if you care to discuss their content, it's certainly relevant, but, you better have a copy, first.
(copyrights and all)
[and notice, i didn't even include Corsi's in the listing]

either way, i'm not here to dispute facts or fiction.
i posted a newsworthy update ... i'm done here.
have a nice weekend.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
until you learn how to interpret such a decision, please, leave it to the professionals, eh ?


I have, and if you had bothered to check you would have seen the professionals are the ones who proved Obama was a natural born citizen, and that is the reason those birther court cases were thrown out!

Remember, Obama has been the legal president for 4 years, and will shortly start his 2nd 4 year term as the President....


that decision is irrelevant


Which one? So any court case that shows Obama is a natural born citizen is irrelevant to you....


and has been proven such over and over and over again.


yes, proven Obama is a natural born citizen, as those court cases show! But as they destroy your silly conspiracy theory, you must ignore them!


we could argue the Minor v Happersett decision also but again, they're both arguments not relevant to the facts or decisive about the status of "natural born citizen".


Not relevent because it shows Obama is a natural born citizen.... right, so you think that for some weird reason any court decision that shows Obama is a natural born citizen is irrelevant....


either way, i'm not here to dispute facts or fiction.


all you post is fiction, no facts at all!
edit on 13-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 

hahahahahaha, poor form in application doesn't equal a 'decision based on merit', nice try.

and yes, Ark is irrelevant.
been there, done that ages ago.

how could i forget ??
it's been a horrible experience.
one that i couldn't wash away if i tried.


any court case that shows Obama is a natural born citizen is irrelevant

when one is actually decided (instead of dismissed) it will then be relevant



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
when one is actually decided (instead of dismissed) it will then be relevant


Some of the cases I listed WERE DECIDED.... so they are relevant, Obama is a natural born citizen!

And there is nothing any birther can do about that fact!


and yes, Ark is irrelevant. been there, done that ages ago.

how could i forget ??
it's been a horrible experience. one that i couldn't wash away if i tried.


Yes, I understand how a court case that sets a precedent that Obama is a natural born citizen could be horrible for some people, we have another court showing Obama is the legal President, and some people wish they could just wash that precedent away!
edit on 13-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I said, clearly, more than once, that Obama demanded McCain verify his eligibility


You have said things in this thread that are just not true, so why should you be believed over that....


which is what Obama states that he himself should not have to do.


Except of course Obama has shown his BC's, but this is not about any bit of paper Obama shows, it is his colour. Birthers may deny that, but funny how the first black president somehow must show all these documents, when no previous president had to....


Look it up. The whole McCain eligibility thing was all over the news.

No, he has shown online scans of alleged documents. NOT the same thing. Do you understand the difference between a piece of actual paper and an online scan?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by hellobruce
 

hmmmm, where do any of those provide evidence that BHO (any of them), posted or provided that image ??

yes, you are ... got anything substantial ?

you'll be waiting awhile as i don't participate in fence matches
- besides, this isn't about any other POTUS.

no other POTUS had a high ranking member of the Muslim Brotherhood for a father.
no other sitting POTUS had a questionable origin.
and no other POTUS refused when asked.
oh, and to the best of my knowledge, no other POTUS utilized a multitude of names on legal documents or a variety of social security numbers.

aside from that, the Constitution doesn't have to, a higher authority already has.


All of your points are good ones, but you won't convince some people. Someone could come up with a home movie of the birth, in the actual location, and a thousand witnesses, and they would still claim it was all lies, and (of course) racist.

The man isn't using the name he used while attending a Muslim school in Indonesia. There are people that claim no baby lived in the house where he supposed was in Hawaii (close neighbors). The man funds the Muslim Brotherhood NOW, with OUR tax dollars. Every single person he looked up to (according to HIM) was a radical, anti-American sort. He even misstated when he was supposed to be born. April 19, 2009, he stated that he was born three months before the Bay of Pigs invasion, which would place his birth in January of that year, not August, as his online-only paperwork shows. In response to Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Obama stated, “I’m grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.” That invasion was in April of 1961. He uses a SSN that was numbered as those from Connecticut. SINCE all the uproar over that, the Social Security Administration has done away with that system. At the time that number was issued, though, the system was in place. Claims by the SSA that this "doesn't mean anything" are simply ridiculous. The system was in place, and no valid explanation has ever been offered as to why he would have a number from Connecticut. People that attended the schools he supposedly did never heard of him. There seems to be a huge shortage of people from his past.

Gee, and some people can't figure out why some of us ask questions.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
The one thing you're forgetting about is that, due to a technicality John McCain WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. When the constitution was written, the idea of military members serving in foreign countries and having families (i'm sure the founding fathers would have passed out from laughter if women in the military was mentioned) wasn't considered and therefore provisions weren't included. Since there was a very grey area in McCain's situation he was granted natural born status. You're asking for mountains of evidence for someone who was born in the USA and has provided proof of such but you somehow think it's weird that clarification was asked for someone who was 100% definitely born in a foreign country?

P.S. If the birthers have such a strong case, why is 90% of their "evidence" bold faced lies? We're living in a time where a citizen of the soviet union is actually given credibility (by the more delusional members of the population) while attacking the democratically elected POTUS. McCarthy must be spinning in his grave.


No, McCain is, in fact, a natural born citizen. Same as MANY people that I personally know, born on a military base (US soil) in a foreign country. McCain offered all that was requested to show his eligibility. Obama refuses to allow anyone to inspect the actual documents (again, online scans do NOT count). If he had nothing to hide, he would have gone into court with the first case that came up, shown the papers, had them verified, and closed the whole business. Instead, he refused. Over and over again. When someone tries that hard to conceal things, there is always a reason.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Let me ask you this - what would it take to convince you beyond the shadow of a doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I don't have my original birth certificate. On the occasion that I needed an official birth certificate, I got it from my state (I went to the state office building in a city near me -- there are several in Pennsylvania). They have records confirming where and when I was born, and they issued me a brand-new (and official) birth certificate.

The President could do the same, because the state of Hawaii has a record of where and when he was born. Are you telling me that since I don't have my original birth certificate that somehow I can't prove I am a natural-born citizen?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Alot of people were calling him the anti-christ too.

What would he have to do to disprove that?

What if someone claimed he was a unicorn? What would he have to do to make you feel safe he isnt a unicorn?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


No. Please stop and do some basic, simple, research.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Let me ask you this - what would it take to convince you beyond the shadow of a doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii?


The fact that the number on the second birth certificate isn't in the order it should be means that document isn't valid. Many other things also point to that. The first document was also shown to be false. People that worked around those actual records in Hawaii said he didn't have any there. A close neighbor stated that there was no baby at the home he supposedly lived in. A Kenyan ambassador stated (already mentioned this before) that his birthplace in Kenya was already well known. He made a comment that he was born three months before the bay of Pigs invasion, which would put his birthdate in January, not August, of 1961.

What would it take? Valid, verified (by skeptics) documents, presented in court, would be a good start. Beyond that, at this stage, it would take a lot. Everything we see so far says something about his past isn't as we are being told. Maybe where he was born, maybe when, maybe something else. Something is off, though. Something is hidden. There are too many questions. I have never known ANYONE that had such a hidden past, so few people that seem to have known them at school, or wherever. The best reports from his past are those at the Muslim school he attended, that claim he was a good student of Islam. College? Scarcity of people from there! That is so unlikely. I have people form when I attended high school, over 30 YEARS ago, that still remember me. People I have not seen since then, and I wasn't in the "popular" crowd. Just an average student, average kid. Why do so many from the same classes he's said to have attended in college have no memory of him being there?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Let me stop you right there. He did NOT attend a Muslim school. He attended a PUBLIC school in Indonesia.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


You're wasting your breath. Expecting a birther not to lie is like expecting the sun not to rise. Everything that has been proven to been a lie is still evidence and everything that has been proven to be true in a court of law "doesn't count".



new topics




 
126
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join