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: 7
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Sorry if you didn't get the memo but it matters not what anyone thinks or what evidence they have. Obama was placed in office not by the people but by the Electoral College and they had already decided before the vote who would be the winner. Not to mention the courts have ruled he's OK and will not go against his presidency. The game is rigged people, YOU LOOSE.

The white paper in 96 slotted Hillery as senator of NY in 01 and then POTUS in 08, however Obama was slotted to loose the D-nomination but had the peoples heart and a guaranteed win even without the EC, so a slight change of plan. Since both parties candidate belong to the Trilateral Commission, CFR or both, they are guaranteed to get there puppet. And you think he is going to be ousted by this? This horse was dead before it ever started.




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
But parents are. Parents must be either born here or naturalized. We are not talking just about citizenship but about eligibility for POTUS.


Funny how the courts disagree with you - but I am sure you know the law much better than they do....



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
But parents are. Parents must be either born here or naturalized. We are not talking just about citizenship but about eligibility for POTUS.


Funny how the courts disagree with you - but I am sure you know the law much better than they do....


Same old erroneous argument. Don't mix up the requirement for citizenship with requirement for POTUS eligibility. People who are pro Obama continuously do this for obfuscation.
Intrestingly, I read that Obama had a manual referring to Wong Kim Ark changed


The Obama administration quietly changed the language in The Foreign Affairs Manual in August 2009 to expand the holding of Wong Kim Ark, declaring children of illegal immigrants (as well as tourists and students) to be 14th Amendment citizens.


www.theobamafile.com...

Another interesting item is the fact that Congress has tried to change the eligibility requirements for POTUS. If the courts already disagreed with my position, then why would Congress go out of it's way to try to change the requirement?


There were eight attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for president to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy, according to a new video.


June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended to “permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.”



Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.


www.wnd.com...

Want to explain?

And of course, no court will take the cases of Obama's BC, so where are all the opinions of the court you are referring to?

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 4-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Same old erroneous argument. Don't mix up the requirement for citizenship with requirement for POTUS eligibility


you are the one doing that - remember, there are only 2 types of US citizen, naturally born or naturalised.


I read that Obama had a manual referring to Wong Kim Ark changed


You read wrong, That decision was handed down by the Supreme Court.


Another interesting item is the fact that Congress has tried to change the eligibility requirements for POTUS.


That was to get Arnie eligible.... and it was NOT Congress, but a member.


then why would Congress go out of it's way to try to change the requirement?


It was not congress, and the people pushing it wanted to get a non natural born citizen in. Obama is a natural born citizen, so he needed nothing changed.


And of course, no court will take the cases of Obama's BC,


Another birther lie, courts have taken the cases, but they failed, just like every other birther case.
edit on 4-6-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 





Another birther lie, courts have taken the cases, but they failed, just like every other birther case.


What court has heard any Obama case?

Perhaps you thought that a court refusing to hear a case is the same as taking the case and declaring the complainants wrong. I suspect that is what it is.




It was not congress, and the people pushing it wanted to get a non natural born citizen in.


Senator Claire McCaskill is not a member of Congress? So what you are saying is that Obama is natural born but McCain wasn't and therefore the bill was only for McCain and not for Obama? Are you kidding me? You really thing Obama as a Senator did not mean to become President someday and that he would deliberately push for Senator McCain, a Republican?
So then who is and who is not a natural born person?


“The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty,” she wrote.


www.wnd.com...

The above statement makes very clear that there is a difference between natural born and naturalized.
edit on 4-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Perhaps you thought that a court refusing to hear a case is the same as taking the case and declaring the complainants wrong.


What are you babbling about? You make no sense. Plenty of court cases has heard the evidence, and then they were ruled upon - all against the birthers.
edit on 4-6-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Perhaps you thought that a court refusing to hear a case is the same as taking the case and declaring the complainants wrong.


What are you babbling about? You make no sense. Plenty of court cases has heard the evidence, and then they were ruled upon - all against the birthers.
edit on 4-6-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

No, you are flat out wrong. No court has taken any birther case on the issue of Obama's eligibility.
If you can find a court which has ruled on it, please post it here. If not, then my statement stands. Again, you have mixed up the fact that courts refuse to hear the case on merit with a court ruling on a case.
You might like to know that Elena Kagan was personally involved in some of these cases, and she should have recused herself as a candidate for the Supreme Court.
Anyway, here is what Leo Donofrio, an attorney, says about the Wong Kim Ark case


This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States. The “holding”, which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the “dicta“, which is not considered legal precedent. While the dicta makes it appear as if Justice Gray believed all persons born on US soil (except children of foreign dignitaries or enemies of the US) were US citizens under the 14th Amendment, the actual holding of the court is limited to “the single question” of whether the children of aliens who have a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States” are 14th Amendment citizens.
The holding does not specifically grant 14th Amendment citizenship to persons born in the US of illegal aliens, or even of those here temporarily (tourists and students).


ed. WKA actually states that WKA was not a natural born citizen… if you read Gray’s opinion you should look for the part where he uses a quote to state that the child of an alien is “as much a citizen” and the natural born child of a citizen. He states both children are citizens but only one is natural born. And no, Alex has not solicited me for an interview but I would do that interview if asked.- Leo


naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com... olding-of-wong-kim-ark/

stuff on Elena Kagan

www.sodahead.com... 74207/?link=ibaf&q=elena%20kagan%20%20and%20obama%20birth%20certificatewww.supremecourt.gov.../docketfiles/09-8857.htm

Hope that helps you understand.

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



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
No, you are flat out wrong. No court has taken any birther case on the issue of Obama's eligibility.


Oh dear, it looks like you have done zero research. Why do you ignore the case when Obama and his attorneys did not even bother to turn up and the birthers case was so bad they lost to a empty table....

www.dailykos.com...

So Taitz and her fellow attorneys presented their best arguments without challenge from the defense, and requested a summary judgment on the merits. And the Court's judgment: the plaintiffs have no case and no credible evidence, and there is no law to support their claims. Judgment for the defendant, represented only by an empty table, on the merits. Or in this case, utter lack thereof.

www.scribd.com...


If you can find a court which has ruled on it, please post it here


See above. There are many more also.


Again, you have mixed up the fact that courts refuse to hear the case on merit with a court ruling on a case.


You are the one confused, many court cases have been heard, and every time the judge ruled against the birthers. Birthers have lost every single court case and appeal they have tried, over 200 of them. They have won zero, due to the fact they have nothing but lies.


You might like to know that Elena Kagan was personally involved in some of these cases


Care to list them....
edit on 4-6-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



Court cases fought: 201

Birther wins: 0
Opposing side wins: 201





posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GR1ill3d
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



Court cases fought: 201

Birther wins: 0
Opposing side wins: 201



Very accurate and funny description of birthers and their court cases!



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


the judgement: THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO CASE.

What this means is that the case was not tried and therefore no ruling has been made that Obama is or is not natural born.

oh dear you don't know what you are talking about.
So sowwy. Try again.
I'm really not trying to be mean, so I hope you don't take it that way.
edit on 4-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by hellobruce
 


the judgement: THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO CASE.

What this means is that the case was not tried and therefore no ruling has been made that Obama is or is not natural born.

oh dear you don't know what you are talking about.
So sowwy. Try again.


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





Originally posted by hellobruce
Oh dear, it looks like you have done zero research. Why do you ignore the case when Obama and his attorneys did not even bother to turn up and the birthers case was so bad they lost to a empty table....




they lost to a empty table....



edit on 6/4/1313 by GR1ill3d because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
What this means is that the case was not tried and therefore no ruling has been made that Obama is or is not natural born.


Wrong again, The judge ruled

The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations. 3 Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts


Poor Orly, as TWLITWW she had no clue at all how to qualify or tender experts.


None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, theCourt finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive. 5


The birthers had nothing.... the judge looked at the birthers evidence and it was worthless.


For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President BarackObama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen


The court declared Obama was a natural born citizen. So why do you lie and claim "no ruling has been made that Obama is or is not natural born. "


President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b). SO ORDERED, February d , 2012


Birthers lost the court case as their "evidence" was worthless.

Funny how you try and twist the facts and claim the court did not try the case.
edit on 4-6-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GR1ill3d
 


lol. Just because Obama and his lawyers didn't show up doesn't mean Obama won the case, nor does it still mean he is eligible, nor does it mean that any case has been tried and a ruling passed down that Obama is eligible. It just means the case didn't have what the court believed to be merit.
But again, did you bother to read the part where Elena Kagan, Obama's own Supreme Court nominee was involved in cases involving Obama. She was the solicitor general and her name is on the case. I posted the Supreme Court docket page.
Repeat after me

Conflict of Interest



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by GR1ill3d
 


lol. Just because Obama and his lawyers didn't show up doesn't mean Obama won the case, nor does it still mean he is eligible, nor does it mean that any case has been tried and a ruling passed down that Obama is eligible. It just means the case didn't have what the court believed to be merit.
But again, did you bother to read the part where Elena Kagan, Obama's own Supreme Court nominee was involved in cases involving Obama. She was the solicitor general and her name is on the case. I posted the Supreme Court docket page.
Repeat after me

Conflict of Interest




By "Eligible" do you mean to be the president of the US? Cause if he isn't eligible, then me and 311 million others are on some seriously good drugs.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Just because Obama and his lawyers didn't show up doesn't mean Obama won the case,


They did not have to turn up, as poor Orly had nothing too back her silly claims up


nor does it still mean he is eligible,


You must have missed the bit where the judge said he was eligible, so here it is again

President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b). SO ORDERED, February d , 2012

www.scribd.com...


nor does it mean that any case has been tried and a ruling passed down that Obama is eligible.


You have so much hatred for Obama you refuse to accept reality, Obama won and was shown to be eligible!

Repeat after me

Obama won the court case and was shown to be eligible.
Obama won the court case and was shown to be eligible.
Obama won the court case and was shown to be eligible.
Obama won the court case and was shown to be eligible.

Nothing you do or say will change that fact, that:
Obama won the court case and was shown to be eligible.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Alright I concede. You have me on that one.

However, the court dismissed the case on the grounds that the witnesses testifying were not certified as experts in birth records.
Also mentioned on the scribd document is another reference to Wong Kim Ark, and it is stated even there that Wong Kim Ark's parents were alien, therefore they declared him a citizen, but the natural born still means that the parents must be citizens.




The

Wong Kim Ark

Court extensively examined the common law of England in its decision and concluded that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to alien parents,became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.

8





www.scribd.com...

alien parents

so Wong Kim Ark is citizen but not eligible for POTUS
edit on 4-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
It states that Obama is eligible under Georgia law because he is a candidate as certified by the DNC, not because he is natural born.


Oh dear, why are you telling lies about what the judge actually said? Remember when he stated


For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President BarackObama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen


The judge stated Obama was a natural born citizen, why do you deny that?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
I'm not sure if this was placed here or not, bu here is the conference.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join