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

Originally posted by SunLife
Not sure if this has been mentioned, with the great minds here on ATS.

Your are Born unto your father, not thy mother. (right?)

Wrong!

there is a big difference between natural born citizenship and being awarded citizenship for being born in the States.(right?)

Wrong! again

I've been struggling with this for a while..

Why are you struggling? The law says Obama is a natural born citizen....

seem like no one cares in the legal system

What makes you claim that, the law states Obama is a natural born citizen....

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

Then why type it, and what has it got to do with anything?

reply to post by rnaa

Wrong. Completely, utterly, blindingly, wrong.

No I'm not. The court issued a statement before deciding that the lower court was correct is dismissing the case. What was the statement that you call a ruling?

That a person born inside the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen? Shocking!

Please show me one court case where the people who present the the case of citizenship of Obama has been granted status to do so that has gone to court and a judge has presented a RULING on that citizenship.

You can't, it doesn't exist, no one has shown they have cause or standing to compel any court to hear the case thus far. It's that simple. Departing statements or findings by the court do not constitute a ruling. They just don't.

Now, you could argue the birther issue with me all day but to tell you the truth, I could honestly care less, I have much bigger problems with this administration than his birth certificate, I just don't like when people make statements that are completely and totally false, like saying a court has ruled on this specific issue, they haven't, no court has and to say so is blatant lie.

Destiny shall not be impeded.

Try as you may, you'll never stop him from fulfilling destiny.

reply to post by Helious

No I'm not. The court issued a statement before deciding that the lower court was correct is dismissing the case. What was the statement that you call a ruling?

I know this is hard for you to understand. It is after all 7th grade civics, but...

The Ankeny court said that the plaintiffs case was without merit because it is well settled law that people born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens. The plaintiffs case was specifically about deciding whether Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. The Court explained why people who are born in the USA are NBC. Obama is born in the USA. Therefore Obama is NBC.

The Ankeny court most definitely found that Obama (and everyone else born in the USA) is a Natural Born Citizen. They did not say the words "Obama is NBC", they said everyone born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. They made a GENERAL ruling, capable of being used as a PRECIDENT, not a specific ruling.

The plaintiffs case is without merit and unworthy of wasting courts time on because of that - there is NOTHING unique about the Presidents birth circumstances that is not covered by existing settled law. NOTHING. NADA. ZIP.

You are simply wrong.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Helious

 

No I'm not. The court issued a statement before deciding that the lower court was correct is dismissing the case. What was the statement that you call a ruling?

I know this is hard for you to understand. It is after all 7th grade civics, but...

The Ankeny court said that the plaintiffs case was without merit because it is well settled law that people born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens. The plaintiffs case was specifically about deciding whether Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. The Court explained why people who are born in the USA are NBC. Obama is born in the USA. Therefore Obama is NBC.

The Ankeny court most definitely found that Obama (and everyone else born in the USA) is a Natural Born Citizen. They did not say the words "Obama is NBC", they said everyone born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. They made a GENERAL ruling, capable of being used as a PRECIDENT, not a specific ruling.

The plaintiffs case is without merit and unworthy of wasting courts time on because of that - there is NOTHING unique about the Presidents birth circumstances that is not covered by existing settled law. NOTHING. NADA. ZIP.

You are simply wrong.

Explain this to me in 7th grade civics language then. The arguments and court cases trying to be brought forth claim Obama was not born within the boundaries of United States! More over, I think everyone would agree before this revelation that those born inside the United States are citizens and I don't think any ground breaking presidents were set that day. So exactly what did this accomplish? Don't bother, the answer is nothing except you trying to feel smart by arguing semantics and implying I was sleeping through 7th grade.

The plaintiffs case is without merit and unworthy of wasting courts time on because of that - there is NOTHING unique about the Presidents birth circumstances that is not covered by existing settled law. NOTHING. NADA. ZIP.

Wrong, the plaintiffs that brought the case did not have the required material to show standing. If somebody else filed and was found to have standing and the case was heard, they could present all evidence pertaining to that and a ruling would be made based on that evidence.

Continuing to try and say that this case proved a court ruled Obama a natural born citizen is going to make you look bad because any way you try and spin it, it's a lie.

reply to post by Helious

Explain this to me in 7th grade civics language then. The arguments and court cases trying to be brought forth claim Obama was not born within the boundaries of United States!

Fine: 7th grade civics lesson:

"Class, there are 50 States that make up the United States. Hawai'i became the 50th state on August 21, 1959. Interestingly, almost 2 years later, on August 4, 1961, Barack Hussein Obama was born in the "Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children" in the City of Honolulu, the state captial of Hawai'i. Barack grew up to become the 44th President of the United States.

It is important to notice, Class, that, as a State, Hawai'i is self-evidently within the boundaries of the United States and since Barack Obama was born there, and since his parents were with in the jurisdiction of the United States (meaning they were not Diplomats and were not part of an invading army), Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.

Now class, there are some people who think that Obama's father, who was a British/Kenyan subject, not a U.S. Citizen, was not under the jurisdiction of the United States. They believe that this prevents the child from being subject to the 14th amendment, and is therefore not a Natural Born Citizen. Carried further than the issue of the specific details of President Obama's birth situation, these folks hope to cast doubt on the citizenship of the children of undocumented immigrants, the so-called 'anchor-babies'. That argument is not viable, however, and those who espouse it are trying to visit the "sins of the father on the child".

The bottom line, class, is that the word "jurisdiction" means "subject to the laws thereof". Obama Senior was clearly subject to the laws of the United States, as was his mother. They were both liable for small things like parking tickets, and big things like taxes. Obama Sr. was subject to the laws of the United States while in the country on a student visa, and was required to observe the limits and duties that visa placed on him.

Wrong, the plaintiffs that brought the case did not have the required material to show standing.

Although most of the 190 odd failed birther cases were stillborn due to lack of standing, Ankeny v. Daniels, was not. The judge decided the case on the merits of the case and found that there were none (merits that is).

You can continue to run around with your fingers in your ears shouting 'na na na na na na' as much as you like it won't change the facts which are written in clear English in the case report to which you linked. As always, you are welcome to your own opinion but you cannot make up your own private facts. I have read the entire findings several times, and cannot even find the word "standing" mentioned. Perhaps you could point me to it.

Ok, I stared the OP. Not because I think it is all truth, but because it is fun.....

What do people think would happen? Do you think they are going to pull a Armstrong on the President and say your last 4 years never happened? It doesn't matter in the least any more...

But I do love the continued effort....

reply to post by hellobruce


Morning,
Before I begin on this fine Sunday Morning... plz, save me some time and allow me to ask you this..while I sip on my coffee.

what type of proof will it take for you to concede; that you are born unto your father?

or better yet; prove the statement wrong..umm with fact and not with "conjecture"

You make the claim. Burden of proof is on you. So sip your coffee away and we'll see?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Jut because nothing is real doesn't mean everything is fake.

You don't need to know the truth to know the lies. But you sure can't point to lies and call it truth.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You make the claim. Burden of proof is on you. So sip your coffee away and we'll see?

Ok seeing as you pick up the where hellobruce left off: before we begin, I am not going to hi jacked here into 100 different directions when you don't agree with the material presented before you. Ill submit then the burden will be on the reader. Period. Agreed? we will start off with small examples.

let start with this little tease.
in most all cases you get your last name from whom?
a) Mother
b) Merriam Webster
c) Father

Also, The Father is the Head of the Family.

Do you concur?
-------

Whelp, As I was preparing my information for this topic, I may have to concede before I even get started.

so I will cut to the chase:
As the bottom line to the argument is Natural and Naturalized born citizenship for qualification for president.
constitution.org...
And I can see right off I am in over my head here. Not that I am or other are completely wrong but I know I am Not articulate enough to hold this argument. I belive it worth the time spend to study and learn so us little people dont get dumb downed to the point we Americans are NOT bamboozled



--------

Most of the confusion over the eligibility of John McCain seems to stem from the mistaken notion that "citizen at birth" has the same meaning as "natural born citizen". The meaning is not the same. A naturalization statute can make a person a citizen at birth, but that does not make him "natural born".

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

These first two correspond to "natural born". The rest are all "naturalized by statute". The Code lumps both into the same section, which is not uncommon. Don't look to the U.S. Code for subtle distinctions. It is not, in general, the law. It is evidence of the law. The Code is derived from the statutes by an office in the House of Representatives, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, established for that purpose. They don't include all the statutes, and don't always get it right.

8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(23) naturalization defined
(a)(23) The term ''naturalization'' means the conferring of nationality [NOT "citizenship" or "U.S. citizenship", but "nationality", which means "U.S. national"] of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
here is a nice excerpt from this above link:

Thanks for the important thread.

1. imho, the globalist oligarchy bought and paid for Senators and Congress critters have known the truth for a long time.

2. They also know that their orders are to support . . . the Marxist Kenyan Traitor-in-Chief pathological narcissist and pathological liar at all costs.

3. The oligarchy may yet make a scapegoat out of the Kenyan for doing exactly what they ordered him to do--destroy as much of the USA as possible . . . at a very manipulative and opportune time vis a vis their larger goals. Until then, they will prop him up every way they have to.

4. Prayers for the good Sheriff. And for all Sheriffs who are a last ditch finger in the dike of our freedoms.

so has it been made public yet ?

don't forget to log on to the website and click on a banner ad !!!!

reply to post by SunLife

Ok seeing as you pick up the where hellobruce left off: before we begin, I am not going to hi jacked here into 100 different directions when you don't agree with the material presented before you. Ill submit then the burden will be on the reader. Period. Agreed? we will start off with small examples.

let start with this little tease.
in most all cases you get your last name from whom?
a) Mother
b) Merriam Webster
c) Father

Also, The Father is the Head of the Family.

Do you concur?

That is all irrelevant.

Who has the womb?

In the Jewish tradition, and others, it is recognized that you can only ever be CERTAIN who the mother is; 'Jewishness' follows the mother. This is, in part, explains the lengths men go in some societies to keep 'their' women away from any other men; even to the point of imprisonment.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by SunLife

 

Ok seeing as you pick up the where hellobruce left off: before we begin, I am not going to hi jacked here into 100 different directions when you don't agree with the material presented before you. Ill submit then the burden will be on the reader. Period. Agreed? we will start off with small examples.

let start with this little tease.
in most all cases you get your last name from whom?
a) Mother
b) Merriam Webster
c) Father

Also, The Father is the Head of the Family.

Do you concur?

That is all irrelevant.

Who has the womb?

In the Jewish tradition, and others, it is recognized that you can only ever be CERTAIN who the mother is; 'Jewishness' follows the mother. This is, in part, explains the lengths men go in some societies to keep 'their' women away from any other men; even to the point of imprisonment.

this part I can argue... if you want to continue this else where.

reply to post by SunLife


There is no need to to draw this out. Simply cite the law or court decision that states nationality is determined only by the father's nationality. I and others can cite laws and court decisions that state one only needs to be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen. If you cannot do the same to back up your claim you are wrong. It is as simple as that.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I edited the above post ^

but it is far from simple

Originally posted by SunLife
Also, The Father is the Head of the Family.

Do you concur?

Not always, it depends.

As the bottom line to the argument is Natural and Naturalized born citizenship for qualification for president.

And as Obama was born in the USA he is a natural born citizen.

So just when is their evidence going to be produced - you would think before Obama was sworn in would have been a good time, but no, they wait, and wait...... I suppose real soon now!