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.

 

Loretta Fuddy Death - Obama Birth Certificate. - New evidence

page: 23
50
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

butterdezillion
reply to post by hellobruce
 


I said "legally qualified". Do the citizens of the United States have a right to be given legal proof that the Commander-in-Chief for their sons and daughters is legally qualified to hold that position?


Yes, and they have been given that proof - however some people refuse to accept any proof that shows Obama is the legal POTUS
edit on 20-3-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


In order for your argument to hold any weight. The audience has to believe the proof given was actually proof. Which I, as well as most others on this thread do not. That is why this is being discussed. The initial "evidence" provided was fraudulent. In order to try and protect their necks and the fraudulent info, loose ends are being tied up. That is the basis of this thread...whether it's wrong or not, it's worth investigating.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


What is the legal avenue for full due process on the legal question of the Commander-in-Chief's eligibility to that position? What is the legal route for the citizens of the United States to have the due process of legal evidentiary standards and cross-examination applied to this legal issue? When has any "legal proof" been evaluated under the Federal Rules of Evidence and with the due process of full cross-examination and authentication required?



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

butterdezillion
What is the legal avenue for full due process on the legal question of the Commander-in-Chief's eligibility to that position?


Exactly the same as every previous President - funny how some people refuse to accept that he is the legal President, so they make up all sorts of nonsense. Also the people do know that Obama is legible - remember, they voted him in twice!

Obama has shown more proof than any previous President. You had no problem with them, so what is different about Obama.... let us have a look at pictures of all Presidents....

oh, the answer is obvious!

The due process is does he meet the requirements to be president? Some people like to ignore these requirements and just claim Obama is not eligible.


Article Two, Section 1 of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


natural born citizen? - check, Obama is one (as a court has even declared)

Obama is over 35? - check

Lived in USA for 14 years? Check, Obama has done that.

That is the requirement, and Obama meets all 3 so he is eligible, and was voted and won the Presidential election.

What birthers ignore is nowhere does it state a Presidential candidate even needs a birth certificate, or a SSN etc. or that he has to personally show this to everyone.
edit on 21-3-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

freakjive
The initial "evidence" provided was fraudulent.


No it was not - as the 200 failed court cases have shown. No real expert has even examined the evidence, and also no expert would declare a document that they have not even seen a fake!



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


You're not answering the question. When has Obama's alleged proof of eligibility been subjected to the Federal Rules of Evidence and the due process of cross-examination? When were the citizens of the United States of America given that due process, to know that the Commander-in-Chief for our sons and daughters is legally qualified to hold that position?



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


When has Obama ever submitted any of his citizenship records as proof of eligibility, in any court case?



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

butterdezillion
You're not answering the question.


yes I am, you are refusing to accept the answer....


When has Obama's alleged proof of eligibility been subjected to the Federal Rules of Evidence and the due process of cross-examination?


Please show where any Presidents proof of eligibility has been subjected to those rules, and also state where in the constitution it states they must be....


When were the citizens of the United States of America given that due process, to know that the Commander-in-Chief for our sons and daughters is legally qualified to hold that position?


Exactly the same as it was done for every previous President... why ignore that?



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

butterdezillion
When has Obama ever submitted any of his citizenship records as proof of eligibility, in any court case?


When it was required of him - please show us in which court case he did not submit them when he was required to do...



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


It was required of him in Georgia, by Judge Malihi. What legal evidence did he present for Malihi? How did the citizens of the United States of America get due process in Georgia - to have the evidence presented , subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence and cross-examination?

When was legal evidence required of any other alleged President pursuant to legal action and/or a judge's order, and the "President" refused to give the evidence?

But you don't believe that the citizens of the United States of America should be allowed to get LEGAL PROOF - due process, including the rules of evidence and the ability to cross-examine the evidence set forth - do you? You agree with the judges who all said it is nobody's frickin' business, don't you? The Americans who send their sons and daughters into the line of fire aren't supposed to have ANY way to know those sons and daughters are being sent by a qualified Commander-in-Chief, are they, bruce? It's perfectlly fine with you if judges tell all of us that it's none of our frickin' business, isn't it, bruce? These gold-star parents - you'd spit in their faces just like these judges have, wouldn't you, bruce?

Sick.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   

butterdezillion
It was required of him in Georgia, by Judge Malihi.


No it was not, Nellie.


What legal evidence did he present for Malihi?


He sent Mr M. T. Chair, with all the evidence that was needed from him.


How did the citizens of the United States of America get due process in Georgia - to have the evidence presented , subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence and cross-examination?


By having a hearing, presided over by Judge Malihi.


When was legal evidence required of any other alleged President pursuant to legal action and/or a judge's order, and the "President" refused to give the evidence?


You agree with the judges who all said it is nobody's frickin' business,


Except the judges never said that - remember Judge Malihi?


Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request.


So those opposing Obama presented their "evidence" and the Judge then considered all the evidence and stated:


By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.



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. See


So in fact Taitz etc. had no evidence of any value - their "expert" was not even a proper court accepted expert!


None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court 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.


They had no worthwhile evidence, just made up birther crap!


allegiance." Id. at 685. The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens,
regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Id. at 688. This Court finds the decision
and analysis of Arkeny persuasive.



For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, CONCLUSION President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).


The court confirms Obama is a natural born US citizen.... and is eligible as a candidate.


The Americans who send their sons and daughters into the line of fire aren't supposed to have ANY way to know those sons and daughters are being sent by a qualified Commander-in-Chief


They know he is qualified to be Commander in Chief is that he is the legally elected POTUS.


Sick.


Yes, the attacks on Obama and those pushing the birther nonsense after 200 failed court cases certainly are sick.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


What legal evidence did Obama present, subject to the federal rules of evidence and to cross-examination?

Answer the question.

That Malihi (or any of the other judges) bent over to service Obama and flip off America is irrelevant. Disgusting, but irrelevant to the question I asked you. Your evasion serves the same purpose and is just as disgusting.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   

butterdezillion
What legal evidence did Obama present, subject to the federal rules of evidence and to cross-examination?


He presented all the evidence that he needed to - remember, he won!


Answer the question.


I have answered the question, Nellie, just you refuse to accept the answer!


That Malihi (or any of the other judges) bent over to service Obama and flip off America is irrelevant.


All the judges simply followed the law - the fact that silly birthers do not like the law, or the fact that they have lost every single court case they have attempted.... and the reason birthers lose every single court case they attempt is they do not have any evidence, only made up silly stories!


Disgusting,


yes, it is disgusting how some people refuse to accept the reality that Obama is the legal POTUS, and was elected twice!



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Also noted - you didn't disagree with what I suggested: that it is perfectly fine WITH YOU if American citizens are deprived of their right to LEGAL proof that their sons and daughters sent in harm's way are sent by somebody qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

Life is cheap, and honor is cheap, to you.

You don't deserve to shine the shoes of these gold-star families, and neither does any person who took an oath to the US Constitution only to take a leak on it in full view of everyone.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   

butterdezillion
if American citizens are deprived of their right to LEGAL proof that their sons and daughters sent in harm's way are sent by somebody qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.


Except they are NOT deprived of that proof - why claim that they are? What proof did any previous POTUS show? None of them even showed their BC's, yet Obama has shown his.... Obama met all the requirements to be eligible to be elected POTUS, and he was elected twice - but some people do not like the fact that he was elected, so make up all kinds of silly stories.


Life is cheap, and honor is cheap, to you.


What are you babbling about now Nellie?

Birthers seem to think that they can demand someone show them any personal records they want to see.
edit on 22-3-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


You're still not answering the question. Obama has been legally challenged over 200 times (according to your own boast), to produce LEGAL evidence of his qualifications. That is over 200 more times than any other "President" in the history of the US. Of course the others didn't show legal proof; nobody else's eligibility was ever challenged in court. The others produced legal documentation in court zero out of zero court cases. They provided documentation 100% of the times that they were legally challenged to do so.

Obama was challenged to present his proof over 200 times. In how many of those 200+ cases did he present LEGAL evidence that was subject to the federal rules of evidence and to cross-examination? That's the question you've been asked, and I think you've refused to answer at least 3 times now. Three strikes, you're out.

To even get a lawful paycheck in the US he is supposed to be required to submit 2 forms of proof of eligibility to work in the US - for citizens the proof required is very specific, including certified long-form birth certificate, social security documentation, etc. He hasn't done that. He hasn't even proven himself qualified to get a paycheck - much less to tell our sons and daughters which of our allies they are supposed to fight a war to depose and replace with Obama's Islamist buddies who've sworn to destroy America. This guy couldn't legally walk beans in the state of Nebraska - yet he holds the nuclear football!

Our military families deserve better than that. Every person who died to preserve this nation and its Constitution deserves better than that. In turning their backs on this, Americans are spitting on the graves of every man and woman who gave their life for this country.

And that makes me sick to my stomach.

Three strikes, you're out. You won't answer the questions; your words are a total waste of time for anybody who cares about truth or about this country.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   

butterdezillion
You're still not answering the question.


Yes I am... again, you do not like the answer.


Obama has been legally challenged over 200 times (according to your own boast), to produce LEGAL evidence of his qualifications.


And in every single court case the birthers have failed - as they have no actual evidence, just silly made up stories.


That is over 200 more times than any other "President" in the history of the US.


Wrong again! Also remember Obama is the first black President.... and why ignore the previous Presidential challenges?


nobody else's eligibility was ever challenged in court.


Wrong again, why are you ignoring reality and the previous election court cases ?


In how many of those 200+ cases did he present LEGAL evidence that was subject to the federal rules of evidence and to cross-examination?


As many times and as much evidence as he needed to do, as he won every single one of those 200 court cases on the evidence that was presented it shows he presented enough evidence....


That's the question you've been asked, and I think you've refused to answer at least 3 times now.


Wrong again, I have answered you, but you refuse to accept the answer is it does not fit your reality!


To even get a lawful paycheck in the US he is supposed to be required to submit 2 forms of proof of eligibility to work in the US - for citizens the proof required is very specific, including certified long-form birth certificate, social security documentation, etc. He hasn't done that.


How do you know he has not done it? Please show us that information from every previous President.... of course you are unable to, as it is just something you made up!


He hasn't even proven himself qualified to get a paycheck


Yes he has - which is why he gets paid. Now all because you have not seen that information, just the same as you have not seen that information for every previous President does not mean it does not exist.


You won't answer the questions;


Wrong again, you just refuse to accept the answers and reality!


for anybody who cares about truth or about this country.


Very funny, a birther claiming they care about truth!!!



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


I'm not going to waste my time on you. Since you won't answer the question, I will.

Barack Obama has never submitted ANY legal proof of eligibility subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence and cross-examination, because not one stinkin' judge in this country will acknowledge the right of every US citizen to have legal proof that the man who sends our sons and daughters off to fight in wars is legally qualified for that role.

Instead we're supposed to trust the shuysters in the political parties who nobody can charge with crimes except the politically-chosen federal or state attorneys general who have to schmooze up to those shuysters to get their jobs in the first place.

IOW, there is no due process. There is no right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. There is no clear conscience for any of our military people or their families. There's just politics.

(spit)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

butterdezillion
Barack Obama has never submitted ANY legal proof of eligibility subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence and cross-examination,


Still wrong, he has, which is why birthers have lost every single court case they have attempted.


Instead we're supposed to trust the shuysters in the political parties who nobody can charge with crimes except the politically-chosen federal or state attorneys general who have to schmooze up to those shuysters to get their jobs in the first place.


Funny how you had no problem with that process for every previous President, but as soon as the first black President is elected somehow the process must be wrong!


There is no right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Yes there is, but petitioning the government whining how a black man was elected President will get you nowhere, as he was elected the same way every previous President was elected - a process you had no problem with until Obama was elected1


There's just politics.


Yes, and which resulted in Obama being legally elected your President!



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join