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.

 

BIG NEWS- Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent'

page: 52
120
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


This is sooooooo wrong in so many different ways... makes the head spin how silly this is...


How am I wrong.

I am quoting US code.

I am quoting US supreme court decisions.

I am quoting the US Constitution.

How exactly am I wrong.

Maybe your head is spinning because you are being confronted with the fact that you have been lied to your entire life.




posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Except that you claim that English Common law has been overturned everywhere in the Nation, which means that there can be no civil rights because the Constitution's BoR draws on English Common law to further define how civil rights are applied.

So much for your theory.



Then please explain to me how the Bill of Rights gives us civil rights if they only applied as limitations to the federal government and citizens were State Citizens and not US citizens.

You seem to love this fantasy of yours but when confronted with SCOTUS decisions that directly contradict what you are saying you can only reply with more gobbledy-gook meaningless nothingness.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


en.wikipedia.org...(Bill_of_Rights)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


There's two forms of law in the US, state and federal.

If you break a federal law you will be charged with a federal crime.

What the bill of rights did, was protect the people from the federal government, but... after the courts determined that the states were not actually bound by the bill of rights the courts have incorporated the bill of rights at a state level, meaning you have those rights at a state and local level.

The only reason someone would be confused by this is if they've been listening to BS freeman nonsense for too long.
edit on 22-7-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


I don't have to. The onus is on you because you're the one making the claims that Obama can't be citizen of the United States.

Which is something you can't do because all you do is use sophistry to twist any law into supporting your wrongful view.

But why am I bothering? You're so close-minded you can't understand how wrong you are.

That's the thing about you birthers, is you love to dominate these discussions with wrongful big walls of texts and try to drown out anybody you can.

Then when somebody does respond in a respectful manner you yell and scream at them that they know nothing.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Note:

Let's not get personal.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming
 


Watch the video...


Didn't you watch it?
I find it really strange that you cannot tell me what is in your video.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 





International [law] states that citizenship is bestowed upon individuals by location, the nation of their birth.


No it doesn't, it differs from country to country.



And the united States was NOT a nation. The federalist paper no. 39 will explain this to you if you doubt me.


It doesn't say that and it's not a legally binding document.

Non-citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights:
theshalomcenter.org...
en.wikipedia.org...




Due to the 14th Amendment, all citizens of the United States are so by being a citizen of this District of Columbia. The local government in DC is Congress.


- Not even vaguely true



Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution grants the U.S. Congress "exclusive jurisdiction" over the city. The District did not have an elected municipal government until the passage of the 1973 Home Rule Act. The Act devolved certain Congressional powers to a local government administered by an elected mayor, currently Vincent C. Gray, and the thirteen-member Council of the District of Columbia. However, Congress retains the right to review and overturn laws created by the council and intervene in local affairs.[160] Each of the city's eight wards elects a single member of the council and four at-large members represent the District as a whole. The council chair is also elected at-large.[161] There are 37 Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) elected by small neighborhood districts. ANCs traditionally wield a great deal of influence and the city government routinely takes their suggestions into careful consideration.[162]


en.wikipedia.org...


And on and on...



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming
 


I did not say that. However if part of his Job Description requires him to be a natural-born citizen, I would like to see sufficient proof as his employer.

But we have established that you are not his employer. You cannot direct him, fire him, or even contact him.
It is a cute notion "Hey he works for us" but that is not how it works.
Logistically what are you suggesting?
Presidents must go door to door with BC in hand?
How the hell is anyone going to prove they are qualified to state what they are even looking at again?

Does YOUR employer not ask for those same credentials? Yes they do.

Not really.
My employer has never seen any of my ID.
Neither has any of the people I work with on a daily basis.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Now let's get the meat of this fact.

The 14th Amendment was written for one reason and one reason only.

It was written to give the freed slaves citizenship.

And this citizenship was 2nd class and only contained law given inalienable rights and not God given unalienable rights.
(I would look up the difference in unalienable and inalienable if I were you)

The cold hard truth is that this second class citizenship was created for any non white person in the continental US.

When the founding fathers wrote the US constitution and they wrote that only natural born US Citizens could be president, they were talking about white people.

This is not a pleasant part of our history and the only defense that you have is to pull out the race card, but this is the truth and I am about to show you this.
It is written into the US Code.

If you want to call me a racist, then you need to call your Congressman and call him a racist too because he swore to uphold the laws and this is one of them.


All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

link to source

This is the US code people.

If the 14th Amendment was not created to establish a 2nd class citizenship for blacks with law given rights and not God given rights, then why does the US code state, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that all persons whose citizenship is under the jurisdiction of the US shall have all the same rights as white citizens.

We have already seen that civil rights by federal law are given by law and not God...

And it says this very thing in the Constitution.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

link to source

Like the founding fathers or not, when they said that all men were created equal, they meant white men.

When they made stipulations for natural born citizens, they meant white men.

And this has been proven by the US code which states that 14th Amendments citizens are given rights by law that are as equal as possible to white citizens.

They didn't need to give these rights to white citizens because they already had them.

That is not a racist statement; that is a historical legal reality. Sometimes a historical legal reality may bruise our modern conscience and sensibilities, but the fact that we may feel bruised and angry does not change what the men who wrote the document meant when they wrote the words.

Say whatever you may wish; this is the truth.

It is an unfortunate truth that does not resonate with modern sensibilities, but it will hopefully show you that an understanding of our history is paramount and without it we are prone to spout mindless erroneous statements that contain no historical validity.

Peace out.

You wanted to see the law and here you go.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


That is the wierdest reading of law I have ever seen.

Certainly when 42 USC § 1981 was passed in 1866 the intention of defining the rights as "the same as white people" indicated that previously they did not have those rights - the black codes were passed despite many people understanding the constitution to apply to blacks jsut as much as whites.

And it was the 13th amendment that abolished slavery - not the 14th!


But how the 14th amendment makes blacks 2nd class citizens is beyond me. It contains no different provisions for anyone - and subsequent "Jim Crow" laws and similar were created to exploit a gap in it that the SCOTUS of hte time allowed - not because hte amendment itself created 2 classes of citizen.

apart from that....so what?

Aru you saying that Obama can't be president because blacks are 2nd class citizens still??



edit on 22-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


What I am saying is that when the requirements for President were written by the founding fathers a Citizen was a white male whose citizenship was solely tied to his state.

These requirements have not been changed.

As far as I know. the US Constitution as it is worded is still binding.

And when laws are written and a judge interprets those laws, the intent of the writer is paramount.

It is simply not possible to argue that a natural born citizen can be anything other than a white male, if we are using the intent of the founding fathers to interpret meaning.

I don't know any other possible way to look at this.

I am not saying that this is right.
I am not saying that this is moral.
But what I am saying is that this is the law.

In the code that I mentioned it states that all persons under US jurisdiction are endowed by law with the same rights as white citizens.

The reason that it says this is because whites were the only ones considered able to obtain citizenship.

And a person, by LEGAL definition, is not exclusively black.


A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

link to source

Then, under persons we have designations, which according to the previous legal meaning, is considered relative to rank in society.

legal definition of artificial person.

Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons.

link to source

legal definition of a natural person.

As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association ; but it is said that this restrictive signi- fication is not necessarily inherent in tbe word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.

link to source

These designations did not exist prior to the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment was used to establish artificial personhood for corporations and any natural person can also be recognized by their artificial person.

That is why Veritas has pointed out untold times that our BC lists our "names" in all caps.

This all caps name is an artificial person.

An artificial person can NOT be a natural born Citizen as intended by the founding fathers who created the designation natural born Citizen.
Artificial persons did not exist at the time it was created.
edit on 22/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Not all BCs are all caps, that's total BS.

JUST GOOGLE US BIRTH CERTIFICATE

That claim like all freeman claims is nonsense.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Not all BCs are all caps, that's total BS.

JUST GOOGLE US BIRTH CERTIFICATE

That claim like all freeman claims is nonsense.


I do not deny that not all BC's are all caps.

AT one time, nearly all BC's were hand written.

What a BC does is entitle you to entrance into the Social Security program

Initially social security was voluntary.
But no longer. Children are mandated to receive a social security card before leaving the hospital.
Social security gave birth to the artificial person by way of the 14th amendment.

Look at your social security card.

It is in all caps.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

What a BC does is entitle you to entrance into the Social Security program

Initially social security was voluntary.



it was never voluntary


www.ssa.gov...

More freeman BS.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Sadly to me you now represent the very worst of US politics - racist AND ignorant


A moderator just warned you a few posts above not to get personal, and you just refuse to get the message.


Masqua
Note:

Let's not get personal.


You are the kind of poster that gets long time members like me, who have managed, just barely, to maintain a membership here- banned.

Do you people not understand that we don't care about your judgement on other posters? We care about quality info.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Oh god you are buying into all that freeman crap!!


But at least yuo are honest - you think Obama is not entitled to be POTUS because he is Black. You can say you are not racist all yuo want - but saying race is hte reason he can't be POTUS, as you have, shows that yuo have no idea what racism is.


This is a logical fallacy.

You are using argument ad hominem.
I am quoting you source documents and US code.
If you think that the US Code is racist then write your congressman.


However yuo also fail on anotehr significant point - while the intention of the founding fathers may be important it is NOT the law. The LAW is what is written down. The 14th amendment says that all peole have the same rights and privileges as white people do - which means that the US Congress overruled the intentions of the founding fathers in this respect, and made black people equal under the LAW.


Wrong.
The 14th Amendment did not modify the intent of the writers of the Constitution.

No criminal voted on by the people or in a black robe can change the original intent of the founding fathers.

I fully expected the race card gambit and I am not surprised that you were the first to pull it out.

Our rights, according to the Constitution are not given by law but by our creator.
US Code gives, as much as law allows, rights to those who willingly oblige the 14th Amendment and all non-white persons.
Read the law.


Sadly to me you now represent the very worst of US politics - racist AND ignorant


This is a sign of desperation.
edit on 22/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Thank you.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges


However yuo also fail on anotehr significant point - while the intention of the founding fathers may be important it is NOT the law. The LAW is what is written down. The 14th amendment says that all peole have the same rights and privileges as white people do - which means that the US Congress overruled the intentions of the founding fathers in this respect, and made black people equal under the LAW.


Wrong.
The 14th Amendment did not modify the intent of the writers of the Constitution.


I didn't say it did - can you not read??


I said it changed what the LAW is - it overruled the intent - of course it did not change it.

Sheesh!


edit on 22-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join