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.
Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by jerryznv
OK you lost me....propaganda?
There was a trial in NJ about O's eligibility to be on the ballot...his lawyer said his bc being forged has no baring on his place on the ballot.
reply to post by spoor
Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation. Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel's, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States. Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group.
Originally posted by spoor
Originally posted by timetothink
His lawyer admitted he is not "natural born" according to constitution but that it doesn't matter because he is already on the ballot...
We are in the twilight zone...right?
Only because you keep making up things she never even said...
Why do you keep doing that?
It looks like birthers are getting desperate!edit on 14-4-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)
She argued that it was not relevant to being placed on the ballot whether Mr. Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” where he was born, and whether he was born to U.S. citizen parents. She said that no law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.
Originally posted by timetothink
Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization.
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;
Hill conceded this point after Apuzzo tried to call Brian Wilcox, an expert document analyst. He was ready to show that no one could rely on the PDF file as a substitute for a hard-copy long-form birth certificate. But Judge Masin said at once that neither he nor Secretary of State Kim Guadagno had ever seen a birth certificate, whether on paper, as a PDF file, or on the Internet. He told Apuzzo that calling Wilcox would be “premature.”
Then Masin turned to Hill and asked her directly:
[color=gold]Is it your legal position that the document on the Internet is irrelevant to this case?
Hill replied, “Yes.” Masin then asked:
[color=gold]And indeed you concede that Mr. Obama has not produced an alleged birth certificate to the Secretary of State.
Hill at first said, “It has been released nationally,” but then admitted that she did not know personally that Obama had given any such document to the Secretary of State, nor did she intend giving such a document to the court today. But she also argued, after Judge Masin asked her repeatedly, that Obama need not produce any evidence at all.
Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
i]reply to post by xuenchen
Thanks for posting. If I was Secretary of State, I'd be ashamed to sign a document that spelled endorsing "indorsing" twice.
Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by jerryznv
If you cant be civil....
Then dont ask me questions...you are the one who is lost in this thread
Originally posted by Human_Alien
To the dead brain:
She argued that it was not relevant to being placed on the ballot whether Mr. Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” where he was born, and whether he was born to U.S. citizen parents. She said that no law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.
Why wouldn't her retort be: "We already PRODUCED the evidence" ??
Go on.
Keep supporting this liar. This fraud. This man who is running this country down the toilet and who PROMISED transparency. The ONLY thing that's transparent is his inability to do what is asked.
He works for us. We're his bosses.
The minion.....ya know, the schleps who are scrounging up money to buy $4.10 gasoline and $3.00 heads of lettuce.
He has to answer to us! (while he doesn't take a pay cut like a decent president SHOULD do right now)
Well written...seems legit...what are the chances of this being a campaign push? Just saying...thing are heating up in the Republican race...maybe this could be underground propaganda! I am no Obama supporter...and I would love to see him go...but I have to consider this might be something other than what is seems to be!
reply to post by jerryznv The trial did happen and that was the lawyers defense, still no word on the decision from the judge.
This is the first of this I have heard....do you have a link? I am talking about this being propaganda from the republican party...I wasn't aware of an trial about that!
Originally posted by xuenchen
And indeed you concede that Mr. Obama has not produced an alleged birth certificate to the Secretary of State.
Originally posted by xuenchen
If this is true, it will be Obama's big G-U-L-P on his way back to 7-11 !!!
Originally posted by timetothink
Answered you without being rude...see how that is done?
Originally posted by Shoonra
I notice that nobody has actually provided her exact words regarding the internet image of the Obama b/c.
Originally posted by Bigfoot12714
Does anyone think it may be dangerous to remove this president with all the racial tension in our country right now? This could be the tipping point...