Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mike Zullo: 'We Have Evidence Not Made Public Yet' That Goes BEYOND Reasonable Doubt

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Can I just get something cleared up really quick?

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of these. Not about weather or not Obama is a citizen, just what is actually being presented...I'm so confused. Please, help me ATS, you're my only hope.

1. People claimed Obama is not a citizen

2. The Executive Office released a PDF of his BC

3. Cold Case Posse says it's fake because (maybe other reasons as well) they could move a stamp around on the digital copy, like a photoshop layer. BCs that they scanned could not be manipulated in such a way.

Questions:
1. Did the administration ever make public the actual, paper BC filed in Hawaii, or allow the Cold Case Posse to examine it?

2. Have other presidents been made to submit a paper BC for examination?




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by darkbake
Why go to all the trouble to pick someone to be President who wasn't born here? That just leaves one more thing to cover up. What's the reason, then?


Well, they did pick someone who was born here..... the problem to a lot of people is he had a black father!.


Ha ha that is a good way to look at it. I was just going along with the theory of his birth certificate being fake and also assuming that the people that chose him to run for President knew this was the case, and that's how I came up with this question.
edit on 28-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroReady
Questions:
1. Did the administration ever make public the actual, paper BC filed in Hawaii, or allow the Cold Case Posse to examine it?


Yes they did, and why would Hawaii allow the Cold Cream Posers to examine a private document?


2. Have other presidents been made to submit a paper BC for examination?


No previous President has showed their birth certificate whilst in office. The constitution does not even state you need a BC to be president.

This whole birther argument is not about any bit of paper Obama shows, birthers just refuse to accept that he is the legal president. Remember, they have lost every silly court case they have tried, nearly 200 of them, and courts have declared Obama is a natural born citizen.

Remember, Poor Orly taitz is STILL unable to issue a proper subpoenato Obama!
edit on 28-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by atlasastro
 


And no, political ideologies do not exist in reality, they only exist in our heads.
So then communism doesn't kill people then does it. It either exists and you can blame it on killing people, or it doesn't exist. Exactly like Birther evidence. It either exits or it doesn't.


So actually I wasn't calling you a Commie, I was disagreeing that Communism is a real actual object that can be proven scientifically. Only books about it, people who believe in it, etc, are real.
I didn't say that Communism is an object, I said it exists.

Science does deal with communism, its called Social Science. Scince we cannot see inside the brain to look at the material of though( because it is actually the brain tissue, and you cannot see actual thoughts or ideas as material) the study of what humans do and how they behave is the alternative. An arm of the social science is Political Science which can and does study Political Philosophy.
Communism is a political philosophy.

So, ummm, yeah. Communism exists, it is a real aspect of our reality, you can study it, read about it and observe its effects. Unlike Birther evidence, which does not exist.
I think the sciences, all of them, would agree with the above assessment.

Thanks for replying to my post Impregnator.




edit on 29/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeroReady
 





Questions:
1. Did the administration ever make public the actual, paper BC filed in Hawaii, or allow the Cold Case Posse to examine it?


In 2008 campaign invited interested media to come to their offices in Chicago to examine the birth certificate in response to rumors that the President's middle name was Muhammad. Only one media organization did so. They took photos front and back and from various angles and lighting conditions.

Born in the USA

That is the 2008 publication of the images of the standard (the so-called 'short form') Hawai'ian Birth Certificate which Obama requested in 2007. This document was also scanned and published on the Campaign's web site. This form is the standard birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii.

In 2011, the President asked the State of Hawaii to do invoke their discretion and produce a non-standard birth certificate (the so-called "long form). Hawai'i assented and the resultant document was presented to the White House press gallery. At that presentation, Savannah Guthrie saw, felt, and photographed the physical document.

Savannah Guthrie photos

I hope that helps answer your question.



2. Have other presidents been made to submit a paper BC for examination?


Short answer no.

Longer answer, Eisenhower didn't even have a registered BC until he was seriously considering running for President. His younger brother (!) swore as to the birth event details (how would he know ws he there? what do you mean that the younger brother wasn't present)?

Apparently, Jimmy Carter was the first president born in a hospital.

I hope that answers your question.
edit on 29/1/2013 by rnaa because: (no reason given)
edit on 29/1/2013 by rnaa because: (no reason given)
edit on 29/1/2013 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Okay, I am avidly against Obama for many reasons, however his Birth Certificate is not one of them, and I call complete and utter BS on this.

Waiting for an opportune moment



If they had a shred of evidence much less evidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt it would have been presented as soon as they had it.

The man has done, and is doing enough to show that the well being of the American people and the security, and prosperity of the country are not on his agenda. The more people keep latching on to this stupid BC idea, the less they do for their cause.

Instead of letting morons get voted into office and then going on your computer and make up anything you can to try and invent a reason to get rid of him I have a new, and novel idea...Vote!

Obama only recieved votes from about 30% of Americans as I recall. That was still enough to keep him in office. Why? Because people are too lazy to lift their asses up out of their computer chairs long enough to be bothered to go out and vote.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I'll wager if the truth comes out, it will show he IS an American Citizen, but that he has far more troubling things in his past then citizenship to be concerned about.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
I'll wager if the truth comes out, it will show he IS an American Citizen,


the truth IS out, he is a natural born citizen, as declared by courts....



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


The truth is not out, as there's no Frank Marshall Davis mentioned.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
as there's no Frank Marshall Davis mentioned.


WTF has he got to do with Obama?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
I'll wager if the truth comes out, it will show he IS an American Citizen, but that he has far more troubling things in his past then citizenship to be concerned about.


As pointed out by someone else the truth about his citizenship is out.

As far as troubling things from his past, they are already out too. They were there in 2008, and 2012 for everyone to see but he was elected anyway. I think that Obama was a poor choice for a leader of this country, but he is here, and not going anywhere until after the 2016 election. Though it is waning, I still hold a little hope that the American people will be better informed, and less lazy come then. Maybe we will do better in choosing a leader that will uphold the constitution, and turn the government on it's ear. We shot ourselves in the foot in two straight election by not giving Paul a better look, but his son is looking very promising right now.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
I'll wager if the truth comes out, it will show he IS an American Citizen,


the truth IS out, he is a natural born citizen, as declared by courts....


Really? Exactly what court declared that?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
Really? Exactly what court declared that?


Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana...

Funny how birthers only get their information from birther sites, and of course birther sites do not show information that destroys their conspiracy....



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Helious
Really? Exactly what court declared that?


Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana...

Funny how birthers only get their information from birther sites, and of course birther sites do not show information that destroys their conspiracy....


This case in fact was an appeal to an original case that was dismissed. It was dismissed because the plaintiffs were not able to show cause and it was concluded the case did not have merit to be heard. At no time did this court or the first court the case originated in EVER make a ruling as to whether Obama actually was a natural born citizen.

What they did do is show that the individuals acting pro se were ill prepared to show cause to compel the court to hear the case and issue a ruling. There is a huge difference.




The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate. 11 For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint.


Failure to show cause and dismissing a case is quite different than issuing a ruling on it. I guess if you weren't so busy googling irrelevant court rulings from fringe birthers you would see that.


Have a look for yourself
edit on 1-2-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 




This case in fact was an appeal to an original case that was dismissed. It was dismissed because the plaintiffs were not able to show cause and it was concluded the case did not have merit to be heard.


Yes, sort of.



At no time did this court or the first court the case originated in EVER make a ruling as to whether Obama actually was a natural born citizen.


Wrong. Completely, utterly, blindingly, wrong.


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.


That quote is from the text of the Ankeny decision that YOU linked to. It is unequivocal. ANYONE (i.e. INCLUDING President Obama) who is "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."

That statement is part of the JUSTIFICATION for finding the plaintiff's case without merit. You are right that the case doesn't name President Obama specifically in that part of the decision. It only describes the class of persons who are "born within the borders of the United States" as being included in the class of persons who are "natural born Citizens". Obama was "born within the borders of the United States", so he is therefore in the class of "natural born Citizens". End of story.

The Judge is not saying that the plaintiff's didn't prepare their case well enough; he is saying that their entire premise is wrong, and without merit. The Judge went through a length review of the law demonstrating that this is settled law, and the plaintiffs case is wrong - not defective - wrong. Without merit. The circumstances of Obama's birth make him a natural born citizen, that is settled law for over 100 years, and there is no argument worth hearing on the matter.

If Ankeny is so darn defective as a judgement, why wasn't it appealed to the Supreme Court? Perhaps because if the Supremes decided to hear the case, it would have been affirmed (and everybody knew it), and then you would have a precedent that defeats your argument. Since the whole Obama birther thing is just a stalking horse for the attack on the Natural Born Citizens who happen to have undocumented parents, such a SCOTUS decision would be a disaster for 'your' side.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Helious
 




This case in fact was an appeal to an original case that was dismissed. It was dismissed because the plaintiffs were not able to show cause and it was concluded the case did not have merit to be heard.


Yes, sort of.



At no time did this court or the first court the case originated in EVER make a ruling as to whether Obama actually was a natural born citizen.


Wrong. Completely, utterly, blindingly, wrong.


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.


That quote is from the text of the Ankeny decision that YOU linked to. It is unequivocal. ANYONE (i.e. INCLUDING President Obama) who is "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."

That statement is part of the JUSTIFICATION for finding the plaintiff's case without merit. You are right that the case doesn't name President Obama specifically in that part of the decision. It only describes the class of persons who are "born within the borders of the United States" as being included in the class of persons who are "natural born Citizens". Obama was "born within the borders of the United States", so he is therefore in the class of "natural born Citizens". End of story.

The Judge is not saying that the plaintiff's didn't prepare their case well enough; he is saying that their entire premise is wrong, and without merit. The Judge went through a length review of the law demonstrating that this is settled law, and the plaintiffs case is wrong - not defective - wrong. Without merit. The circumstances of Obama's birth make him a natural born citizen, that is settled law for over 100 years, and there is no argument worth hearing on the matter.

If Ankeny is so darn defective as a judgement, why wasn't it appealed to the Supreme Court? Perhaps because if the Supremes decided to hear the case, it would have been affirmed (and everybody knew it), and then you would have a precedent that defeats your argument. Since the whole Obama birther thing is just a stalking horse for the attack on the Natural Born Citizens who happen to have undocumented parents, such a SCOTUS decision would be a disaster for 'your' side.




I think what he's getting at is that no court has taken up the issue and specifically declared Obama to be a natural born citizen. Technically he is right, because no case about it has ever made it that far. But yeah, you're right, too - Obama IS a natural born citizen, as determined by previous court determinations.

Peeps, if you're gonna hate on Obama, at least do it for a valid reason. Sheesh.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Their "case' has failed every time it has been before court



The citizens do NOT pick the President of the United States. The Electoral College picks the PResident.
The Courts have been dismissing ALL the cases on the grounds that the citizens who brought the matter to court had NO STANDING.

Only the Electoral College could EVER bring the matter to court.

THEY are the only ones who pick the US PResident....NOT the people.

Read what alllll the Judges said in their grounds for dismissing the case. ALL have been "NO GROUNDS".

Citizens don't pick the PResident. It's a REPUBLIC....NOT a Democracy.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
YAWN! Even if it was found Obama was born in Soviet Union it wont change a thing. The same people who voted him into office would vote to strike down the birth laws. The majority of Americans have spoken twice now that they want Obama as their president. This entire thing just doesnt matter.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius

Originally posted by hellobruce

Their "case' has failed every time it has been before court



The citizens do NOT pick the President of the United States. The Electoral College picks the PResident.
The Courts have been dismissing ALL the cases on the grounds that the citizens who brought the matter to court had NO STANDING.

Only the Electoral College could EVER bring the matter to court.

THEY are the only ones who pick the US PResident....NOT the people.

Read what alllll the Judges said in their grounds for dismissing the case. ALL have been "NO GROUNDS".

Citizens don't pick the PResident. It's a REPUBLIC....NOT a Democracy.


Nay, the Electoral College serves no function past the election.

The House and Senate are really the only bodies that can have any meaningful effect on a sitting President. The President does not technically have blanket immunity to criminal charges, the court couldnt really do anything about it even if he was convicted.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Not sure if this has been mentioned, with the great minds here on ATS.

Your are Born unto your father, not thy mother. (right?)
there is a big difference between natural born citizenship and being awarded citizenship for being born in the States.(right?)
I've been struggling with this for a while.. seem like no one cares in the legal system/secret service??

typing that word..."secret service"..makes my head spin





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join