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: 9
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by micpsi
 


I personally agree with you, and think that the Constitution spells it out pretty clearly


Where does the Constitution spell it out 'pretty clearly'? Quote the exact section please. I've already quoted the part which says 'natural born citizen', and you can see for yourself that it does not define this term.

So please, tell me where the Constitution 'spells it out pretty clearly' in a way that supports your view.




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by godembryo
First off, I believe the sheriff and his crew are absolutely correct; Obama's birth certificate stuff is obviously fake.


How can they declare a document they have never even seen a fake?


Why our legal system does not deal with that I do not know.


They have dealt with it.. every single birther court case has failed.


Our Constitution requires only a "natural born" citizen may serve as President.


well, Obama IS a natural born citizen!



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
to defend the Constitution (remember that piece of paper?), which - whether you like it or not - says that a presidential candidate must be a natural-born citizen, that is, born of TWO American parents.


Exactly which constitution states that? It appears the "constitution you want to defend is NOT the US constitution, as that does not state what you claim!



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Released versions all have photoshop elements,


They are not Obama's birth certificate....


The better path is the non-natural born citizen one, but even though this is fairly clear in the Constitution


Where does the constitution state what a natural born citizen is?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


The Constitution never once defines natural born citizenship. That means it is left up to the courts to do it. This was first done in Lynch v. Clarke where it was found that birthright citizenship is equivalent to natural born citizenship. In Perkins v. Elg the court even explicitly states that a person born in the US is eligible to become President even if they are raised in a different country. Every case I have seen agrees with the definition presented in Lynch v. Clarke. If you have any cases that disagree with this feel free to present them.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by flyswatter
 



You state that the birth certificate is obviously fake, in the very first paragraph of your post. You can prove this right?


Released versions all have photoshop elements, but then, they are digital images, so just resizing could give such elements. I think the birth certificate is a poor angle though. Birth announcements were in the microfiche archives of the papers, so kind of reinforces the point he was born in Hawaii, no? The better path is the non-natural born citizen one, but even though this is fairly clear in the Constitution, there are other interpretations for the definition, and these interpretations are what allow Obama to fit the criteria.


You're correct, resizing can introduce some of those elements into a document. So can simply digitizing it in the first place. I'm just soooooo sick and tired of people claiming "it was created with Photoshop because it has layers" when the fact is that they simply dont understand the technology at all. I am a government contractor, but my direct employer is the largest home imaging manufacturer in the world, and I have 10+ years of first hand experience with all sorts of printers, scanners, copiers, digital senders, both on the hardware and software side.

As far as the definition of natural born citizen in the constitution, I disagree that it is clearly spelled out. It has been explained over and over again, by both keyboard warriors and constitutional scholars alike, that being born on US soil and having a parent that is a citizen of the United States is more than enough for a person to be considered a natural born citizen. The problem with the confusion is that I dont believe the Supreme Court has ever taken up a case that has required it to define it in any sort of clearer terms. In the specific case of Obama, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to even look into the matter.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 



Where does the Constitution spell it out 'pretty clearly'? Quote the exact section please. I've already quoted the part which says 'natural born citizen', and you can see for yourself that it does not define this term.

So please, tell me where the Constitution 'spells it out pretty clearly' in a way that supports your view.


Because of the distinctive use of the two different terms “natural born citizen” and “citizen,” in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a citizen.”

You have to look at the original purpose of the amendment....

To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Congress had no intention and no authority to make everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.


“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.”


John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

As I said before though, it's really all a moot point, as NOBODY wants to deal with the aftermath of it, especially when there can be other interpretations of natural born citizen. I should clarify that the INTENT of what is a natural born citizen is pretty clear in the Constitution, when taken in context. The specifics though, will always be debated, but the spirit of it is clarified through context.

NOBODY is really going to go through with ousting Obama under this angle...nor really should they. It would set some very dangerous precedents (and may even cause us to go back and examine previous Presidents and their agreements, acts, etc.) Can you imagine that mess? Sometimes, we just have to push on, and simply be vigilant in the future (which I think any nominating committee will be now, after all this birther mess).



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by knightsofhonor
how can he not be a US citizen if his mother was a US citizen?
Doesnt that automatically make the child a US citizen?


yes, yes it does....but, that doesn't matter to these racist lunatics...you see, that's what's call an actual fact, there is no way to spin that...so...they ignore it.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   


Text Not this again. I can imagine that the mental gymnastics on that link must be of Olympic proportions. I think we've gone over all the evidence on this site. And I find the birther arguments lacking.
reply to post by grey580
 


How in the world can you make a statement such as you have without demeaning yourself? You mean to tell me that this issue has been settled with truth? You have all the facts? You sound just like the Warren commission who was as fraudulent as any investigation could possibly be. This matter will be proven in time and you just might be one of those with egg on his face. That is if you are a he.

I doubt very much that you have weighed all the evidence from both camps and in fact I doubt very much that you understand the magnitude of this investigation. I know that I have not and I doubt that many people have. I also doubt that you realize that your very free republic hinges upon subjects such as you call birthers. All of this with the assumption that you are American of course. If you are an American then it does not become you as one who enjoys the perks of this republic to be so course and vulgar and light minded towards your fellow Americans. Instead of calling names and being so condescending share your knowledge so that some of us can be educated.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Even on the long shot that it's true at this point I don't think proving his ineligibility would be good thing. I mean early in the first term maybe 'cause you know if they could of proved it very well I think even those who voted for hi would have been, although frustrated, glad that a usurper had been prevented.

But now if they somehow legally proved it and got rid of him I don't know if I'd want to be around for the amount of S that would HTF.

Prove it now and I call setup on both sides (or the shadowy 3rd side?) from the beginning just to, possibly catastrophically, destabilize the country.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by knightsofhonor
how can he not be a US citizen if his mother was a US citizen?
Doesnt that automatically make the child a US citizen?


yes, yes it does....but, that doesn't matter to these racist lunatics...you see, that's what's call an actual fact, there is no way to spin that...so...they ignore it.


Irrelevant. The debate, in case you haven't been following, is whether Obama is a natural born citizen.

Furthermore, and quite ironically, ad hominems, such as calling those with whom you disagree, "racist lunatics", expose your lack of ability to debate "an actual fact"... as you so eloquently put it.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   


Text yes, yes it does....but, that doesn't matter to these racist lunatics...you see, that's what's call an actual fact, there is no way to spin that...so...they ignore it.
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Quote --
Two Presidents have served unconstitutionally

Chester Arthur – 1881-1885 – While Arthur himself was "native" born on American soil, he neglected to mention that his natural birth father was not an American citizen at the time of Chester's birth. Arthur was elected as Vice President and almost immediately became President when Garfield passed away shortly after being elected President. It was not learned that Arthur was not a natural born citizen until after he left office.

Barack Hussein Obama II – 2009 – Obama is the second individual to serve as President in violation of the US Constitution. Obama did not conceal the fact that he was not a natural born citizen, claiming throughout his life to be the natural born biological son of a foreign father from Kenya. His father was at no time in his life, a citizen of the United States. Obama has stated this repeatedly.

But he has also dodged the issue by using the term "citizen" in place of the term "natural born citizen" when responding to queries. He has intentionally misled Americans and the press by running from the term natural born citizen - because he knows that he cannot meet this requirement for office.

As the country of the fathers is the country of the sons, by natural bloodline birth right, Barack Obama II was born the natural born citizen of his father’s country, Kenya.

His mother was a young American citizen, and this has led to great confusion as 14th Amendment naturalization laws make it possible for a mother to confer citizenship, even if the mother is not a U.S. citizen, by simply delivering a baby on U.S. soil, often referred to as anchor babies.

Via man-made statutes, a mother can confer citizenship in the United States. However, only a natural born citizen of the United States can hold the offices of President or Vice President in the United States.

Based in natural law, the laws of nature and the Law of Nations treaty, only the biological father can confer natural born citizenship rights. 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.

Without being a natural born citizen of the United States, you cannot serve as president or vice president, according to the U.S. Constitution.

This is not a matter of discrimination over race, nationality or gender. It is a matter of national security and a clear cut effort to avert all possibilities of a foreign agent with loyalties to any foreign entities or foreign entanglements, from holding the most powerful position in America, the office of Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.

Some are very concerned with this reality while others couldn’t care less what the U.S. Constitution says or means. But if the most important constitutional office in our land does not matter, I submit to you that nothing in the Constitution matters and none of it can be upheld, protected or preserved.

Of course, the American people can change these requirements at any time, but only via constitutional amendment. Laws and statutes do not alter the constitution. In fact, if they are at odds with the constitution, they are "unconstitutional" laws or statutes and are void.

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.

On this basis, Barack Hussein Obama II cannot be president of the United States and everything that bears his signature during the unconstitutional term is void as if it never happened.

As our nation has never been here before, there is no clear path and opinions vary on how to best address the matter of a sitting unconstitutional president and the people surrounding the president who made it possible.

However, allowing a usurpation of the U.S. Constitution to stand once known, is to fail to uphold, protect, defend and preserve the very foundations of freedom and liberty, as well as the rule of constitutional law.

We are either a nation self-governed by laws, or we are a lawless nation. There is no in-between…

JB Williams
Co-Founder
www.PatriotsUnion.org...
www.ThePatriotsNews.com...

Unquote --

I hope that the above article will help you to understand the problem with this POTUS. It has nothing to do with skin color and it does not reflect your truthfulness in this matter.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
As far as I'm concerned 90% of our "elected" officials are foreign citizens. IE. They don't represent the interests of this country and it's people...

So what difference does it make? Until a massive awakening happens who cares what "foreigner" is taking orders from the global financial elite?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by Magister
Michell has said he is from Kenya.
Barry has said he is from Kenya.
Barry's Granny said he is from Kenya.
Kenyans say he is from Kenya.
Harvard says he is from Kenya.


Bollocks.< br />

Natural born citezens are born on US soil.


Proof please. Once you've done that you can explain why John McCain is a US citizen despite being born outside the USA.
edit on 3/6/13 by Sankari because: added url...


Because both of John McCain's parents were American citizens and John mcCain was born in Panama while his father was serving in the United states Military.....therefore that makes him a natural born citizen...Hope that helps.

pax



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 



Proof please. If it's beyond dispute, why has it been disputed—and refuted?

there are plenty of threads on the topic going over the obvious photoshop job. these include layers existing on a scanned document, and a single scanned document having both solid black lettering and 256 grey-scale. these things are not feasible without photoshop manipulation.

it hasn't been refuted, it's as plain as day. you can download the image yourself, see the layers and two different color schemes on different letters in the same document.

what you CAN do, is deny it and act like no proof has been given. that's ok. i've seen your posts in this thread and others; it is clear that you do not care about what is true.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

go over this also
www.vectorpub.com...
i'm expecting your complete debunk.

i have already stated that i could care less the origin of his birth, it has nothing to do with a person's potential leadership abilities, but forging documents is a different story.
edit on 4-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


So you'd just rather we listen to this guy instead of anyone else? This isnt to say he's an idiot or anything, but his opinion is obviously in conflict with that of those charged with interpreting the Constitution, and with those that would be charged with beginning any official action towards the President.

Contrary to what he says and believes, the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen". As recently as 2011, a Congressional Research Report stated the term "natural born citizen" would mean "a person who is entitled to US citizenship by birth or at birth, either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abros to US-citizen parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for US citizenship at birth. Such term, however, would not include a person who is not a US citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an alien required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a US citizen".



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by doryinaz
 


Might I suggest you call Darrel Issa.
He seems to be big on investigations these days.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Sankari
 



Proof please. If it's beyond dispute, why has it been disputed—and refuted?

there are plenty of threads on the topic going over the obvious photoshop job. these include layers existing on a scanned document, and a single scanned document having both solid black lettering and 256 grey-scale. these things are not feasible without photoshop manipulation.

it hasn't been refuted, it's as plain as day. you can download the image yourself, see the layers and two different color schemes on different letters in the same document.

what you CAN do, is deny it and act like no proof has been given. that's ok. i've seen your posts in this thread and others; it is clear that you do not care about what is true.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

go over this also
www.vectorpub.com...
i'm expecting your complete debunk.

i have already stated that i could care less the origin of his birth, it has nothing to do with a person's potential leadership abilities, but forging documents is a different story.
edit on 4-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)


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.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by doryinaz
 


Might I suggest you call Darrel Issa.
He seems to be big on investigations these days.


that's all the republicans are going to do for the next 2, probably 4 years. there is no other problem in America that demands any attention other than investigating Obama...I mean isn't that what the taxpayers want done? isn't that why republicans voted for them?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
sigh



Not this again. I can imagine that the mental gymnastics on that link must be of Olympic proportions.
I think we've gone over all the evidence on this site. And I find the birther arguments lacking.


Then you have never taken a close look at the LFBC. It is still on the official website or even better download it:
www.whitehouse.gov...

I could give you a pencil, an ink pen and a felt tip marker and have you sign your name 10,000 times on typing paper. I can guarantee you 100% that those pages could be scanned and saved as PDF files an Not ONE Single Time will you be able to zoom to 600% and have every pixel of your signature be solid black. There are twelve year old kids out there that could make a much more convincing fake.

It's only a dead horse because nobody gives a d@mn. Having that thing on the official file server all this time is the biggest FU that could be given the American people.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join