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.

 

Federal Judge Grants Temporary Petition To Remove Obama From Ballot

page: 10
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I'm settling this debate once and for all:



SEE?!?! Obama is clearly a Hawaiian native people!




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


I am not sure how you did that but you made it look like my post was the other guys. That is not correct and please fix ASAP for me.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
[Obama's Cert was ONLY questioned by political propagandists, such as yourself. Never by any legitimate authority. The state that issued it has vouched for it, and for the courts, thanks to the US Constitution, that's enough.

There's no requirement for US citizenship in Obama's case, other than being born in the US, and no law at all against dual citizens being President. Obviously.

The only reason you're repeating this garbage is to try and score political points. The law, and he facts, are all very clear.

Defending your lies is just a way to keep your propaganda alive.

Sad.


OMG! What is sad is YOU! never in my life have I witnessed such ignorant surety in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are flat out WRONG! In many quarters, this is a reflection of embracing IGNORANCE!


You stated "There's no requirement for US citizenship in Obama's case, other than being born in the US, and no law at all against dual citizens being President. Obviously. "

Try reading Article II of the US Constitution. Then read minor v. happersett. There is clearly more than just a law. It was ensconced in the FOUNDING DOCUMENT of this nation - the Constitution... OBVIOUSLY!



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Orly must have passed the California State Bar or she can not be considered for "DISBARMENT" in the State of California, and yes Michelle was able to practice law, but now CANNOT. Under what duress she and Barack surrendered their licenses or did not renew them is not certain, but it could be to avoid something.


Lawyers let their license lapse for very compelling reasons, often to avoid or escape censure or outright criminal charges. As an example, Bill Clinton kept active his law license even when he became president. In 2000 the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct called for Clinton’s disbarment, saying he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. In January 2001 Clinton reached an agreement under which he was ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to Arkansas state’s bar officials and his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years. The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him. Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court in October 2001, and, facing disbarment from that court, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November


fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Or it could be that a young white woman fell in love with a black African man in 1961 and had a baby by him as an unwed mother.

He is the first POTUS who was not born in wedlock.

SO WHAT?


Well... just maybe...:
If women had the same rights then, that they have today, we might be talking about aliens from outer space instead of the possible alien that became the President of the United States.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


How would I score political points with this? I am only interested in protecting this great Nation from infiltration by foreign agents working against our sovereign interests.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


Are you an American ? If you answered yes please tell me who issued you your social security number?
I was married back in 1982 but never changed my name with the social security people. The last time my liscence was due for renewal the DMV sent me a letter saying that my ID did not match my name and I had to get the issue fixed before I could get a new liscence. ( since 9/11 its been tougher) I had to get documentation from the state I was married in and provide that to SS before they would change the name on my card. That was just for a name change so I think they are pretty on the ball for what they do. SS is not run by the Disney company.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
xyzd
edit on 10-9-2012 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunderheart
I pose a question to the Trusters,
can you explain away why Obama's social security number fail e-verify?
This is the ONE thing about Obama's background that I truly have a problem with.


What in heck is e verify? Can I verify my SS# there?



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by spleenika
 


Social security numbers are numbered by where you live when you apply for a number. All the ones starting with 0 suggest that this person applied in the north east. NY or Conn is my guess. I got mine in NY and it starts 073 my hubby also starts with a zero as do both of my sons that were born in NY but my last son was born in Virginia and we applied for his number here so his starts with a 2.
These two numbers you provide suggest an application that was made in the north east.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by HermitShip
 


Your father needs to be an American in order for you to run for President? Was George Washingtons father an american? Was John Adams father? Was Andrew Jacksons?

You have to be a citizen. Not your parents.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepresident
I'm sure Hillary and Bill Clinton were too stupid to expose Obama's
alleged Kenyen birth place during the Democratic primaries







Correct! Them or any other opponent. Why isnt Romney on this band wagon ? Or any other person from the Republican party ? Oh yeah, because its already been decided.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


The first three numbers are what are called area numbers they say that this ss number was issued in the north east that is all. They are issued by state and not in numerical order. They actually run north east to south west with the lowest numbers in the north east and the highest numbers in the west. I am 073 and that is New York state.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by spleenika
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


Did you know it is actually illegal to use E-verify on someone who is not a direct employee of yours?

Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain information from Social Security under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both.

Link

So what I would like to know, is who supposedly ran this check? And also, how did they acquire the supposed legitimate social security number for the president? As far as I know the number is not public record. Answer those questions, and there will be a reason to answer your question.
edit on 9/9/2012 by spleenika because: (no reason given)

evade the topic much?

You know you can follow along the approved path and just use the words: "nonsense"; "crazy"; "nutcase"; and then pullout the the big guns with the heavy hitter "RACISTS" more often.

Oh yeah as long as I am throwing you a few pointers: Try harder to feign moral outrage ! You know the "offended victim" card! You are not quite convincing enough...


Following the above steps: maintains the outward appearances of a "discussion"and steals the"moral high ground"at the same time!!.
Now you just look like you are obviously deflecting the topic.

"Who did that? thats' "illegal"!( kinda Nancy like falsifying the ballot certification for her superman candidate?)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


Doesn't the president technically work for the people? I think any tax payer is entitled to look up someone on the taxpayers dollar...

...wait unless he doesn't work for the taxpayer...hmmmm



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drala

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by spleenika
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


Did you know it is actually illegal to use E-verify on someone who is not a direct employee of yours?

Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain information from Social Security under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both.

Link

So what I would like to know, is who supposedly ran this check? And also, how did they acquire the supposed legitimate social security number for the president? As far as I know the number is not public record. Answer those questions, and there will be a reason to answer your question.
edit on 9/9/2012 by spleenika because: (no reason given)

evade the topic much?

You know you can follow along the approved path and just use the words: "nonsense"; "crazy"; "nutcase"; and then pullout the the big guns with the heavy hitter "RACISTS" more often.

Oh yeah as long as I am throwing you a few pointers: Try harder to feign moral outrage ! You know the "offended victim" card! You are not quite convincing enough...


Following the above steps: maintains the outward appearances of a "discussion"and steals the"moral high ground"at the same time!!.
Now you just look like you are obviously deflecting the topic.

"Who did that? thats' "illegal"!( kinda Nancy like falsifying the ballot certification for her superman candidate?)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


Doesn't the president technically work for the people? I think any tax payer is entitled to look up someone on the taxpayers dollar...

...wait unless he doesn't work for the taxpayer...hmmmm



I am starting to tire of people calling others racist, just because they ask questions about the President's background.
It is rather startling actually, that the so-called elite and intelligent Dems, cannot have a conversation with you, without resorting to name calling.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Close, very close. Actually the first three numbers are area numbers and it states where you lived when you first applied for a card not where you were born. It so happens that most people get a SS number when they are born so it goes with the state they were born in. It used to be that you didnt apply for a number until you were 18 and working but now you need it on tax returns for all dependants so that is why babies now get SS numbers.
This number was never meant to be anything but a way to keep track of your donations to the account but now it is used as identification on credit applications . It was never meant to be an ID card.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Right. A judge who would negate the law because it would be an inconvenience to the country???? Oh please. If there was a leg to stand on they would have to act on it but the fact is they dont have a leg to stand on. But know that if they did, there would be no choice but to act on it. They couldnt let it be as that would also be a crime.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


If your parents want to claim you as a dependant you have to have a social security within the first year of life. A child cannot be listed as a dependant and a parent cannot get a tax credit for that child without a social security number . Most parents are applying for that number right after the birth so they can have it at tax time.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   


OMG! What is sad is YOU! never in my life have I witnessed such ignorant surety in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are flat out WRONG! In many quarters, this is a reflection of embracing IGNORANCE!


You stated "There's no requirement for US citizenship in Obama's case, other than being born in the US, and no law at all against dual citizens being President. Obviously. "

Try reading Article II of the US Constitution. Then read minor v. happersett. There is clearly more than just a law. It was ensconced in the FOUNDING DOCUMENT of this nation - the Constitution... OBVIOUSLY!


There is indeed what can only be described as a 'fringe' school of opinion that in order for a child to be a natural born citizen the child needs to have had two parents who were US citizens at the time of the child's birth. This view has been pushed hard by eligibility challenge lawyers such as Appuzzo, Denofrio, Van Irion and Klayman.

However settled law is quite clearly that anyone at all born on US soil to any parents at all is a NBC. Every single court to have so far heard cases from lawyers such as those mentioned above presenting the fringe theory that two citizen parents are required has rejected the argument.

Minor v Happersett does not actually determine that two citizen parents are required and the courts have already spelled out very clearly to all those lawyers mentioned above that M v H does not determine that. That line of argument is dead in the water. Every single court to have so far heard that argument has rejected it. On Friday last week yet another appeal court ruled that Appuzzo's two citizen parent theory holds no water and his appeal was rejected.

Sure there is an argument to be made that the law "ought to be" that two citizen parents are required and there is room for lots of differing opinion on that score. However as things stand as far as the US courts go, it is not a matter of opinion. It is settled law and settled interpretation of the Constitution that birth in USA to any parents makes you a NBC. To overcome that you are going to need a constitutional amendment, not a silly game of playing with words to try to pretend that Minor v Happerssett means something other than or more than what it actually says. All that does is gain the birther lawyers more money from the mug punters who fund their tilting at windmills. Some judges have started to apply sanctions on these guys who keep repeating the same two citizen parent requirement argument that several courts have already rejected as these lawyers, if they somehow didn't know before, should now know that the argument is frivolous and unwinnable.

As regards dual citizenship there is in fact no constitutional disbarrment against a dual citizen being a candidate or being President, indeed many candidates and several Presidents have had an entitlement to dual citizenship. Many people have entitlements to dual citizenship via parents and grandparents and via the citizenship laws of foreign countries, in many cases they do not even realise they have this entitlement. US laws determine who can be President not the actions or laws of other nations. If North korea tomorrow declared that all US citizens were also hence forth entitled to North Korean citizenship and you were correct about dual citizenship disbarring anyone from the Presidency no US citizen at all would be eligible. In any case there isn't a shred of evidence that Obama has dual citizenship. Any entitements he had to Brit/Kenya citizenship expired long ago.
edit on 10-9-2012 by backtolife because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by backtolife because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2012 by backtolife because: tidying up mistypes

edit on 10-9-2012 by backtolife because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
As regards Susan Daniels, her investigative report is shoddy and has more holes than a colander. It has been submitted as evdience by Orly Taitz before several courts all of whom have considered it unpersuasive and/or irrelevant to eligibility which it for sure is not.

It seems she got fed up with Orly's failures and lodged her own ballot challenge case in Ohio. Surprise Surprise, the judge dismissed the case last week. You can see the ruling here at this link....

www.scribd.com...

Just for the record, Obama's ss number became public because his own people accidentally forgot to redact the ss number when they first posted images of his tax returns on the WH website. Several people noted it before the WH noticed their mistake and redacted it.

Orly Taitz and others then plastered the number all over the net. It would not be surprising if under the circumstances the SSA then either issued him with a new number or programmed their e-verify systems not to respond to enquiries made concerning that number thereafter.

Obama has been using that number for all his tax returns. If it's not his the tax people would have been on it like a rat down a drainpipe. If you don't believe me try submitting your tax return with even one digit in your ss number changed next year, or using a relative's number, and see what happens. The entire premise is absurd. There's not even a believable motive. Susan Daniels has evidenced nothing other than that she is either incompetent or a hater who will distort info to support that hate. Let her come up with the name of the person that the ss number does belong to (if not Obama) and there just might be something to talk about. Until then this is all just utter nonsense.


edit on 10-9-2012 by backtolife because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join