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.

 

Mike Zullo and Joe Arpaio prove Obama's birth certificate, social security number, and selective se

page: 12
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by eisegesis
 


lol.
You're right.

But it's the same way in many of the mars threads on this site. Hey look everyone there's a rat on mars. Here's the proof.

And you look at the picture and say that's a rock.

In their head they believe they see a rat. For whatever reason they see and believe it.

And I look at this conspiracy about Obama's birth. And my mind cringes at the level of conspiracy that would have to be in place in order for this to work. And I just can't wrap my head around it.
I can't.




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


If you really want to get into natural born citizens you need to look at a scotus case.

en.wikipedia.org...


United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by flyswatter
 


If you really want to get into natural born citizens you need to look at a scotus case.

en.wikipedia.org...


United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.


Yeah, pretty familiar with that. I just try not to use it as a crutch, because the argument can easily be made without mentioning it. The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue of defining "natural born citizen", which is unfortunate.

Although ... if we wanted to go purely on case law, the Ark case would certainly be the one most often referred to.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by eisegesis
If enough babies cry out loud together in the same room, they can accomplish great tasks...

Some "debunkers" take themselves WAY too seriously. They are just as emotionally charged as the rest of them. When threads like this pop up with some new members, so do the same old cavalry so they can lasso the head and steer it into the ground.

What ever happened to open debate? Some posters need to relax a little bit with the ridicule, mocking and name calling, it's such poor taste even if you are right. If what you're saying is true, then why should you have to cram it down people throats?

The same people that call this accusation false and unimportant are ALSO just as ever present and passionate about disproving it.

Beating a dead horse? Just let the people have their cake.


edit on 4-6-2013 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)


Why should "debunkers" be any more or less passionate about their belief than the "birthers" that are speaking their mind? A majority of what is going on in this thread is very civil, with some of it being very educating. Just because I dont agree with the thoughts that Obama is ineligible does not mean I do not respect the people who do agree with it, and in most cases, I see the same kind of respect coming from their side of things.


Well said.

I guess we will have our disagreements about what is civil. There are techniques being used here...not just a comparison of notes.

My opinion simply doesn't apply to you then.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seede
Law of Nations treaty, only the biological father can confer natural born citizenship rights.


Wrong actually, where is that stated in the constitution?

When did the USA sign this "law of nations Treaty"?

Which other nations signed it?


Without a U.S. citizen father at the time of birth, the son (or daughter) cannot be a natural born citizen in the United States.


So you are saying that the US court that declared Obama a natural born citizen is wrong, as some "treaty" the USA is supposed to have signed says otherwise?
So other countries can decide USA law?


Some are very concerned with this reality while others couldn’t care less what the U.S. Constitution says or means


The ones that couldn't care less what the constitution states are the birthers....


There is no constitutional amendment as of today which has either altered the requirements for office, or redefined natural born citizen. So Article II requirements stand as the law of the land.


Thus Obama is the qualified POTUS....


I hope that the above article will help you to understand the problem with this POTUS.


Yes, some people hate the fact that Obama is the legal POTUS, so make all sorts of crap up.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



The fact that the document has layers does not at all prove that the document is a fake. Anyone claiming this is simply ignorant of the facts of how the technology works. The OCR option being turned on, either via the PC or the MFP used to digitize the document, can cause every issue that you have mentioned above. The simple resizing of a document can also cause some of that. So where is the conclusive proof of the document being a fake? I'd love to see it.

if you had read what i posted, you'd see that all of the issues you listed are addressed, and by someone who owns two companies who specialize in such things.

yeahh...you didn't click the links, did you? no wonder you're unable to see the proof, you gotta click on the link!



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
there are plenty of threads on the topic going over the obvious photoshop job.


But none of them are of the birth certificate....



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by CornShucker
 


I'm not ridiculing the guy.

--snipped for space--

I look at it this and how deep the rabbit hole of conspiracy goes and I'm like. I can't see a bottom to it.
It's madness


Gotta go for now. The grand-kids are coming up for a weenie roast.

Thanks for a cordial conversation. I'll probably not be able to find what I'm looking for about the COLB tonight. It is a curious little anomaly...



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Oops you're right the Natural Born Clause just says one has to be natural born. The obfuscation comes with the definition of it, which isn't in the Constitution. So some people argue that it just means you have to be born in the country. But if that were so then any person from any foreign country could come here, have children here as citizens, and not owe allegiance to the US. For instance, a soviet spy could come here then, have a child, and bring the child up hating America and all it stands for.
This is the reason why Vattel's Law of Nations is considered by many to be the best definition of natural born as the Founding Fathers would have wished to protect the country from foreign corruption.

Please see the 2008 Senate resolution using the same definition as Vattel
www.govtrack.us...

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.


The resolution also references the first Congress.
It appears that McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone and so they passed a resolution that his citizen parents conferred citizenship. So that was about location, but the citizen parents conferred citizenship.
The arguments against Barack are that he may have been born in Kenya and only one parent was a US citizen, or that even if he was born in Kenya, his father Barack Sr was a British citizen under the British Nationality Act and therefore owed allegiance to the British Crown.

Anyway, here is the Vattel statement


An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (original French title: Le Droit du gens), stating that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens", was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[29] as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[30]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoninMD
‎1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is ‘African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used at that time?


Oh dear, here we have more made up crap. Please show us where the word African-American appears on Obama's birth certificaate.... You obviously have not even looked at it!nt


except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963


Wrong again, it was called Kenya...


3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.


Exactly the same as the Nordyke twins BC.... so again you are wrong.

so all you have done is cut and pasted from a birther site, believing the lies there.
edit on 4-6-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Isn't it crazy how just reading a person's words can make you cringe? It is a reminder to how sensitive we all are.

What's funny is usually right after I cringe, I start huffing and puffing, slamming my pointer finger into the reply button and belting out some, "YOU KNOW WHAT?!?!?!?!" kind of stuff.

When I'm done, I sit back and re-read what I wrote. Since becoming more calm as time went by typing, I then realized how different I would have wrote my post if I did it after I calmed down rather than in the heat of the moment.

Sorry, not preaching to you. Some people should take a lesson.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Bruce, to clarify what I was trying to say, that the natural born clause in Article II states that to be eligible for POTUS, the person must be born in the country of citizen parents.


It does? Exactly which chapter/verse/section states that?

Or is that something else you just made up?


so that if the natural born clause says citizen parents


Where does that clause state that?


This is why people were saying in the Citizen Wells webpage that the judge had made a mistake.


So some random knows more than the US courts?


The fact is, had there been nothing to change they wouldn't have had to try.


They wanted it changed so people like Arnie could run, Obama was already eligible as he is a natural born citizen.

Why do you make things up, like claiming the natural born clause in Article II even mentions parents?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by research100

Originally posted by Magister
To all the "this has been debunked" 'ers out there, could you provide details please?

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. The US owned the canal remember? If it were determined that this did not constitute "natural born" then he would be disqualified.

Most of the court cases were dismissed for "lack of standing" or technicalities.

Zullo and his team are LEO's. This is the first time (at least that I know of) that LEO's are investigating.


HOW ABOUT DETAILS FROM THE AIRLINE ARCHIVES

Honolulu Hawaii to Los Angeles California: 2558 miles
Los Angeles California to New York, New York: 2444 miles
New York, New York to Gander Bay Canada: 1116 miles
Gander Bay Canada to London England: 2344 miles
London England to Cairo Egypt: 2180 miles
Cairo Egypt to Nairobi Kenya: 2194 miles
Total Distance: 12,836 miles

there was no direct flight...this would have taken at least 2 airlines and 3 days to fly there. so his mom went to her regular dr appointments and on a whim took this arduous 3 day almost 13,000 miles trip and had her baby in a strange 3rd world primitive hospital surround by strange drs and personnel.

Assuming that Barack Sr and Anna got a free 2558 mile canoe ride from Honolulu to Los Angeles, this brings the total cost of our round-trip fares from Hawaii to Nairobi and back to an underestimated cost of $958.00 for one person and $1,916.00 for two tickets. Adjusting for inflation, $1,916.00 in 1961 would be equivalent to $13,000.00 in 2005.

how did they pay for this when they were living on student loans?

But throwing all logic to the wind, and assuming that Barack Sr & Ann actually did fly into Nairobi Embakasi Airport, again, why would the expectant couple proceed to travel east 300 miles to Mombasa, instead of traveling west 250 miles to Barack Obama Sr's' hometown of Nyang'oma in Nyanza Province? If the couple were in Kenya at the time of Barack, II's birth, the most likely place for them to visit was Barack Sr's hometown — and not Mombasa.

So, let's assume that Barack Obama, Sr and Ann traveled to the the small village where Barack Sr. grew up — Nyang'oma, located inland near Lake Victoria. With the city of Nairobi 250 miles away, why would Barack Sr. and his wife Ann then travel 550 miles to the coast of Kenya, to have Barack, Jr. born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital of Mombasa? If you peruse a map of Kenya, you will see that traveling from Nyang'oma to Mombasa, a person will pass through Nairobi, the Capital of Kenya.

But Barack, Sr. and Ann Dunham didn't even need to travel 250 miles to find a hospital in Nairobi, because 37 miles to the east in Kisumu, the Aga Khan Hospital has been operating since 1957.

"The idea that his heavily pregnant mother (flying is not at all fun for pregnant women) would get on an early 707 and fly at great expense to some foreign country is ridiculous . . . Do you know how many different flights she would have had to take to get to Kenya in 1961? Honolulu to California, California to the East Coast, the East Coast (refueling at Gander Bay, Canada) to London, London to maybe Cairo, Cairo to Nairobi. How much would that have cost? And then you would be stuck having your baby in Africa rather than in a modern American hospital in Honolulu. Or you could go the other way around the world — it’s about the same distance either way. Kenya and Hawaii are more or less on the opposite sides of the globe, almost as far apart as two places can be. This is a very silly idea."

you CANNOT explain away the logistics

www.calldrmatt.com...


edit on 4-6-2013 by research100 because: SPELLING


Excellent.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter
 



The fact that the document has layers does not at all prove that the document is a fake. Anyone claiming this is simply ignorant of the facts of how the technology works. The OCR option being turned on, either via the PC or the MFP used to digitize the document, can cause every issue that you have mentioned above. The simple resizing of a document can also cause some of that. So where is the conclusive proof of the document being a fake? I'd love to see it.

if you had read what i posted, you'd see that all of the issues you listed are addressed, and by someone who owns two companies who specialize in such things.

yeahh...you didn't click the links, did you? no wonder you're unable to see the proof, you gotta click on the link!


As someone dating back to the days of the IBM Selectric buiness typewriters, I know a bit myself. Like you, my knowledge of the abnormalities with both the COLB & the LFBC come from someone who has been working in print since about the time I graduated high school.

Gotta go for tonight. But it's been an entertaining afternoon & I'll see everyone again tomorrow.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by flyswatter
 


If you really want to get into natural born citizens you need to look at a scotus case.

en.wikipedia.org...


United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.


Yes, exactly, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which still leaves room for differentiation between natural born and native born, which the INS recognizes as different categories from naturalization.

The fact that he was even challenged at all as a US citizen, much less a natural born citizen, on the basis of his parents being alien, should be telling. Now people who are Obama supporters want to extend this to mean that nobody who was born here should be challenged for eligibility. And if that were so, why does the Constitution delineate a difference between eligibility for Congress and eligibility for POTUS if there were not a difference between native born and natural born.
Here is the qualification for Representative


Clause 2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen.

law.onecle.com...

Why doesn't it say 7 years a Natural born citizen? Did they just think it was too redundant, or is it different from eligibility as POTUS?
edit on 4-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Edit: Post removed. Hand slipped on keyboard.
edit on 4-6-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
[Here is the qualification for Representative


Clause 2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen.

law.onecle.com...

Why doesn't it say 7 years a Natural born citizen? Did they just think it was too redundant, or is it different from eligibility as POTUS?


It's different - there is no requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to be a representative - a naturalized citizen is allowed to hold that office.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
or is it different from eligibility as POTUS?


It is different, only the President has to be a natural born citizen, like Obama is.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


It finally dawned on my awhile back why they ran John McCain against Obama. McCain was hardly the popular first choice for the nominee. Too old, too whacky, too extreme even for many Republicans. It was because he was born outside of the CONUS.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 





They wanted it changed so people like Arnie could run, Obama was already eligible as he is a natural born citizen.


As I said, it doesn't matter who they tried to change it for. They have tried to change the ruling. Obama tried to change it for McCain, and he had two citizen parents, so why wasn't two citizen parents enough? The resolution for McCain states very clearly the same language as Vattel, and the change for McCain was to declare the base in the Panama Canal Zone to be under the jurisdiction of the US.
In Obama's case he had one citizen parent and one possibly under British sovereignty. This is the reason for the focus on the country of birth, which some claim to be Kenya, and why the focus is on the authenticity of the birth certificate. On the other hand, atty Leo Donofrio says that his country of birth didn't matter so much as the citizenship of his father.
One can then question why Senator Obama would want to support a resolution affirming someone clearly his opponent in the next Presidential election to be eligible when his birthplace is in question as conferring citizenship rights.
Maybe that was the price paid for support of the Elites.

Of course the whole thing could just be settled if they would admit he may be the love child of Frank Marshall Davis and Stanley Ann.


But then again, even so, they could have arranged the marriage to Barack Sr to cover for an illegitimate pregnancy to an underage mom with a card carrying communist. And a very pregnant Stanley Ann still could have traveled to Kenya, had the baby there, and still covering all the tracks, grandmommy could put the ad in the paper announcing the birth and also registering the birth at Kapiolani hospital without the actual presence of Stanley Ann and baby.
Take your pick
edit on 4-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join