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: 12
33
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Under what duress she and Barack surrendered their licenses or did not renew them is not certain, but it could be to avoid something.


Because there is a yearly fee along with it.
There is no good reason to keep paying for it when you will be busy for at least 4 years doing other things.
All of this crap is sooooooooooo frickin' easy to find out and I really have a hard time believing anyone as smart as you who has been on this site as long as you have is genuinely ignorant about this.




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 


Are you implying Romney has had an investigation by a Sheriff and his posse which proves without a doubt now his Selective Service and Birth Certificate are forgery/frauds?
Didn't think so..
Aloha.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 
I am not a birther or a conservative.I don't give a damn about any of that, unless somthing concrete comes up that is unexpected.

I just want to know about the "man" himself, you know life style, likes dislikes, the reason he went to a church with a very ...outspoken minster. Why he voted present almost every time instead of making a stand, which leads us to not knowing what he thinks about issues. What he has done with his entire life, these kind of things that we don't know.

I have friends who some would consider questionable also, not like I'm claiming I am perfect. I just know them since I was in kindergerten, so we really know eachother, that kind of thing.

There are no data about most of his life, so how can I be swayed to vote for him if I don't know his story?

I know mit was a business man, that has had a lot of publiclly available data about him for almost his entire life, like most people, is he perfect? Hell no he isn't, but at laest the voters know where he stands, from past data.

My position is, the only things we know about obama are campain promises, which aren't anything, as politicians say anything that's popular on the campaign trail. Well that's not entirely accurate, we know he won't close gitmo like he promised, we know he has not intention of balancing the budget, we know he has no intention of reducing either .gov spending or the size of the .gov.

other than that though, I don't feel like I know the man, at all, and he has been POTUS for 4 years.WTF?

We all knew Bush was a douche, we saw it, in his past records, and in his personal behavior.

We don't know obama at all. I just want to, as he is the POTUS.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hanyak69
Bush had to release his college transcipts and military record so why doesn't obama?


Obama is hiding something he thinks is bad enoooogh to either lose him the election or get him into legal tgrouble. The one thing I can think of is claiming to be a foreign exchange student to reap the lower tuition rates and less competative entry requirements for grades. I don't care what his grades were 40 years ago. We just want some truth.

As for a military record - I'll accpet the draft card (if he even did that) since he obviously lacked the patritoism to volenteer to serve in the forces of the nation whose Solider's Sailors, Airmen and Marines have to bite thier lips and salute his cowardly ass every time he wants to roll out to a base for a photo op as thier commander in chief.

Here is a pro tip for you Ozombiebots - (Having been called a birther here like 10 times think I'm entritleted to one or two slurs) when Bush came to an event for the troops he was genuine as was the support of the troops for him. I watched the man cry at walter reid bedside of a young man with no legs...

I left active duty in 2011 there was an event and we had to order Soldiers to fill the seats, order them to clap at certain times and even laugh. Literallly holding signs in the rear of the room to get any reaction. It reminded me of a bad rendetion of a 50's game show.

Also, when Bush wrote a letter to a spouse or mother for the loss of thier son he didn't use auto-pen or a stamp becuse he couldn't seem to tear himself away from the Rapper du jour performing in the WH that evening.

If you want to lead the most powerful military in the world at least know what a corpsman is and how to pronounce it.

Personally, my assessment of his leadership ability based on years evaluating the performance of Junior Company Grade Officers - I'd give him mid range marks he doesn't take responsibility for his actions - he deflects and justifies his units failures on the previous leader and almost to the end of his term of command. Good and motivating speaker he can go on forever and manage to say....nothing...

This man has the keys to the missile codes .......Awesome Go Obomination.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


I certainly understand that.
You could start here.

You might also read his first book and/or maybe his second book...he's writing a third that is more about his daughters that he plans to donate all proceeds from to a charity that is dedicated to helping Afghanistan war vets and their families.

If you Google his speeches over the years, you will find out much about his character and any interviews that you can find on line will give you a very good idea of what he is about, too.

He's very consistent...it is obvious to me that he is not putting up a front because true consistency is impossible to fake...and he's not at all mysterious in WHO he is as far as character...his personal details other than vital statistics are not obscured, either...if you are looking to get to know the man who is President, you might try to do it through other than your usual sources...

If you get to the other side of those suggestions...then you can find out about how is handling the Presidency through the documentation available online related to that job...and him doing it. It is all freely available because of the Freedom of Information act and nothing tells the story of a person's political goals like the official documents connected to them while in office. Official, of course, in this case, means '.gov' websites...first hand information rather than second hand opinions that are not yours at all. Form your own!

There is not as much of that kind of info available in regard to Mitt Romney but there is enough to get a good idea of him, too...as far as whether or not he would be a good President and if he is qualified for the job. He seems to me to be a very sincere and even sweet man in some ways and I have softened on him quite a bit since seriously undertaking to find out about him as well as Obama.

This will be my first year to vote, ever, and I do feel that I am an informed voter and I will be confident when I cast my vote that I at least informed myself well enough to know my reasons for voting for one instead of the other. It may not be what someone else would vote based on, but as you seem to know...it is simply about me making my own choice...and being as informed as possible about what that choice might mean in the four years afterward.


(If you'd like some more links to maybe start from or to get an idea on some search terms, I can help with that...I think the biography.com article will help a lot with that, though)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 


Do you even bother to read stuff you don't selectively want to? Prez Clinton kept his license active. Didn't that link I provided have an entire description of that event when they impeached him?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 





You might also read his first book and/or maybe his second book


You mean the books his ghost writer domestic terrorist Bill Ayers wrote for him, which it turns out is a great deal fabricated.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
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.


That didn't start until 1986, I think. Check the ssa.gov website...

I remember I had to apply for mine in person at the Federal Building here in town....I was like 14 maybe...looking forward to getting an after school job.

Obama is 7 years older than I am...you'd have to know at what age and at what SS office he got his number issued to be able to tell anything about it...but I doubt any of those listed are really his.

His father had the exact same name as he did and his father also went to Harvard.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by backtolife
 


This has been discussed ad nauseum, here and everywhere else too. People keep saying that anyone born in the US is eligible to be President.
I hope this to be the last time I revisit this because I get tired trying to explain it to people who refuse to listen.


The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.


Indeed, as depicted in Dinesh D’Souza’s and John Sullivan’s new documentary film, “2016: Obama’s America,” the framers were also anticipating that adverse if not evil foreign influences could infest our body politic later in the nation’s history, such as has occurred with our current president, who identifies with his Kenyan, anti-neocolonialist, socialist, Muslim father. Obama’s father of his same name not only despised the United States (particularly after he was deported, having been here illegally on an expired student visa) but, consistent with his Islamic roots, also Israel, Jews and Christians in general.

www.wnd.com...

Ok now go back to your willful ignoring of the obvious.

Good day or night to you and namaste



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Under what duress she and Barack surrendered their licenses or did not renew them is not certain, but it could be to avoid something.


Because there is a yearly fee along with it.
There is no good reason to keep paying for it when you will be busy for at least 4 years doing other things.
All of this crap is sooooooooooo frickin' easy to find out and I really have a hard time believing anyone as smart as you who has been on this site as long as you have is genuinely ignorant about this.



Hmmm you know you just inspired me with a theory that perhaps they decided they no longer needed their law licenses because a)they figured that martial law would be imposed before barack leaves office and they would be permanent residents of the WH or b)they knew that they would have plenty of money from the various ghost written book deals, and she could probably get that board job at the hospital back after she stops telling everyone what to eat(and now they have that sweet money coming in from the nasty BP oil spill which he likely got from insider trading info.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

As I stated I don't so much question the birth location (I remain ambivalent on the matter) as his parentage. I doubt his mother knows and Barrack Sr. happened to be just one of many possible men.


And why is it you think this?
Why do you keep bringing it up?
As much as you'd like to believe it...and perhaps convince others...I do not think Barack's mother was a whore and I think you are bordering on either slander or libel or both with your repeated inferences to promiscuity, etc.


I also believe that at some point ole Barry (or at least his parents claimed he was so he could attend school there) claimed to be an Indonesian Citizen; however, if he traveled and resided there before the age of 18 that would not make him a dual citizen.


His mother and father got married 6 months before he was born...his father left them to study at Harvard...since that is why he was here from Kenya in the first place...when Barack was a toddler. His mother then married another foreign exchange student from Indonesia and they moved there at some point afterward...but she sent her son back to his grandparents in Hawaii when he was 10 because she felt the situation there wasn't safe for some reason. I can't recall the details for sure and if you can't even stir yourself to find out these things that you otherwise just choose to speculate and 'believe' according to your own imagination, then I certainly don't feel the need to provide you with exact details.

You would just throw back some ridiculous reason for not accepting them as valid, anyway...you like your own BHO mythos so much better, anyway as I am realizing.

I think it is reprehensible to make unwarranted comments about anyone's mother...especially someone whom you do not know...but about whom you could easily inform yourself with just a few basic facts with even less energy than you devote to this idiocy.

I wonder if you would say these things to Mr. Obama if you met him at the corner store or the neighborhood pub...not that it is likely but then again...it isn't at all impossible, either.

Even you should have the basic common sense to know not to talk about someone else's mother that way. No matter who they are.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by wascurious
 


McCain released an untouched BC,


No, he never did.


at best obama's is fraudulent.


That is your opinion which so far seems rather invalid according to the state of Hawaii. I will go with them.


Bush had to release his college transcipts and military record so why doesn't obama?


He had to? To whom?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DABIGRAGU
reply to post by wascurious
 


Are you implying Romney has had an investigation by a Sheriff and his posse which proves without a doubt now his Selective Service and Birth Certificate are forgery/frauds?
Didn't think so..
Aloha.


No but that has not happened to Obama either.
Why do birthers say things that anyone can just check and find out is not true?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by backtolife
 


This has been discussed ad nauseum, here and everywhere else too. People keep saying that anyone born in the US is eligible to be President.
I hope this to be the last time I revisit this because I get tired trying to explain it to people who refuse to listen.


The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.


Indeed, as depicted in Dinesh D’Souza’s and John Sullivan’s new documentary film, “2016: Obama’s America,” the framers were also anticipating that adverse if not evil foreign influences could infest our body politic later in the nation’s history, such as has occurred with our current president, who identifies with his Kenyan, anti-neocolonialist, socialist, Muslim father. Obama’s father of his same name not only despised the United States (particularly after he was deported, having been here illegally on an expired student visa) but, consistent with his Islamic roots, also Israel, Jews and Christians in general.

www.wnd.com...

Ok now go back to your willful ignoring of the obvious.

Good day or night to you and namaste


Here, instead of quoting a political propaganda site, find the court case that overturned Ankeny, which says:



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.


If it's so obvious, then surely this was overturned.

This is just another case of you wilfully spreading political propaganda (i.e. lies) as it suits your agenda.

No court has EVER found that a citizen had to have to citizen parents, ever.

You certainly can't provide any evidence (other than WND and other Birther websites - ha!) that agrees with this fantasy... whereas I CAN provide multiple ACTUAL COURT CASES that disagree with you.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


The problem with wong Kim Ark is that the case was to show that he was citizen, not that he had eligiblity as POTUS. I've known people who kept saying this, and I know that they knew it was a sleight of hand but they don't care as long as they can bluff people.

ok here goes one last time and then I'm done and you can go on with your willfully ignoring things.


Believing or wishing does not make something so. “Native born” means born on U.S. soil. “Natural born” means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. If the Founding Fathers had meant “native born,” they would have written that in the U.S. Constitution. Words have meanings, and the Founding Fathers certainly knew, spoke, and wrote the language better than do most Americans today.
There are many historical documents that support the term “natural born” as meaning “born of two citizen parents.” But even if one chooses to “believe” something else, one cannot explain the text of the U.S. Constitution if “natural born” means nothing more than “native born.”

The Constitution states:

”No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The above text makes no sense if natural born means nothing more than born on U.S. soil. If that is what one believes, the text could have been simplified to:

”No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

In other words, the grandfather clause (“or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”) would have served no purpose! There would have been no need to include the grandfather clause had the Founding Fathers thought that merely having been born on U.S. soil makes one a natural born citizen!

Because the term natural born citizen means “born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents,” the grandfather clause had to be included in the Constitution because in 1789 there were no natural born citizens who were also 35 years old! Without the grandfather clause, the new nation would have to wait decades before any natural born citizens would turn 35 and become eligible to serve as president. Thus, the grandfather clause was included in order to ensure that there could be presidents until the day came when presidential candidates could meet the natural born citizen and the age and residency requirements. The simple truth is that the Founding Fathers did not want anyone like Obama to become president,



www.colony14.net...
edit on 11-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Guess what? I've decided to post the ultimate birther debunker site so you can just go directly to it and start using it here to argue with birthers.....go ahead... indulge yourself.

www.thefogbow.com...
edit on 11-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by wascurious
 


Do you even bother to read stuff you don't selectively want to? Prez Clinton kept his license active. Didn't that link I provided have an entire description of that event when they impeached him?


What was the difference between Clinton and the Obama's law licenses?
Do you bother to read?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by wascurious
 


Do you even bother to read stuff you don't selectively want to? Prez Clinton kept his license active. Didn't that link I provided have an entire description of that event when they impeached him?


What was the difference between Clinton and the Obama's law licenses?
Do you bother to read?


The difference is that Clinton renewed it even though he became President.

Actually I never even knew that till today. This is why discussions like this are so valuable. I think I learn more by the stimulation of dialogue which gives me ideas for searching.
edit on 11-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish


The only this I have to say regarding this report is that anyone who would grant any motion made by Orly Taitz is not deserving to have the term "Honorable" used in their introduction.


My question is why does ANYONE take her cases anymore? I mean my god....

She is a useless woman who brings fraudulent claims with no real evidence to back them up.
edit on 11-9-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

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)


apparently you have no clue who employs the President
the president works for the American people if I'm correct that would make just about any American citizen his employer. Now how was that illegal again



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join