Obama's Kenyan birth records discovered in British National Archives

reply to post by yeahright


Read Ankeny.

It SPECIFICALLY states what an NBC for the purposes of President are.

It's related SPECIFICALLY to that very question.

A higher court rejected any attempt for it to be appealed.

Unless That was just a few years ago, but the ruling was based on Wong, which itself pretty clearly spells out what an NBC is.

There is NO confusion, except amongst birthers.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


As the saying goes, if I can't understand you, it's your fault.

As for the number of people that come to say ATS to deny conspiracies, it's because we come here for TRUTH, not fun lies.

I don't come here for entertainment, but to learn and discuss things.

If that means endlessly shooting down liars and trolls, so be it.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Last I checked by the way, I was speaking plain English. As far as I know I use correct grammar and punctuation for the most part. I don't initially read over my posts I just type them in a kind of free-write. However, I can usually spot any errors and know how to correct them. I'm not sure why you wouldn't be able to understand me unless you had comprehension problems due to some illness, or English isn't your primary language, etc.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


You've engaged in behaviour that I would consider both trolling and dishonest. I know I'm not the only one who thinks that.

You may disagree, but ... we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't ACTUALLY think you're open to any ideas or information that challenges your ideology, for whatever reason.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


This is fairly incomprehensible, especially as a response to my post.

There has been nobody blinded by the Government who is controlled by the same Bankers who own the Media? What???

reply to post by longlostbrother


How is that in any way difficult to understand? I'm sorry had to answer this little bit. The Government is corrupt; anybody who attempts to deny this is delusional. You can not say they are the angels and saviors of us, because it just isn't plain true. They are owned by the international bankers, who own the Federal Reserve, that loans them their money on interest that contributes to our national debt. These are the same people who own the media corporations that have REVOLUTIONIZED propaganda...

I don't know why you can't understand this. They have lied to and manipulated everybody. You say that I am not open to anything that challenges my ideology or beliefs, however what do you think that this is about?! You are the one who is not open to anything that challenges your beliefs of the government and when confronted with evidence contrary you are not prepared to admit it could be true. You stick to what they tell you; which were it true they would never tell you. I do challenge my ideology and beliefs because I was once just like you. Then I woke up and realized that free people with rights should not have to apply for a 'hunting license' or a 'drivers license' or a 'gun license'. Reasoning behind a Driver's License is so that people are certified road safe, for no accidents. However if they get into an accident they must go to court. This is no different than Common law, however this is all statutory. Under common law you are free to do as you wish as long as you do not cause damage to persons or property, and maintain your god given rights. You have a God given right to travel. As long as you do not crash into any cars and maintain the rules of the road, you are still following Common Law, and therefore are not required to have a license. Look up what a license is in a law dictionary. It's permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal.. It's illegal to get married? It's illegal to own a gun, but what about the Second Amendment? It's illegal to hunt? It's illegal to fish? Do you not see where this is going? As for Guns legality, it's all under common law. As long as you do not cause damage to persons or property with it, you can not be tried. If you go out and shoot somebody that is cause to persecute under common law.

Resume thread. Peace out.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


No one once has said their angels. If you are saying I said that, you're being dishonest.

I actually think your Freeman lark is propaganda, for a known confidence scheme, which is why some of the founders are in jail. You absolutely refuse to engage in that discussion honestly. Instead you repeatedly, as you have here, mischaracterised what I and others said, and ignored repeated attempts to get you to engage with facts that you didn't like.

The common law nonsense you are trying to push is inaccurate. You can NOT show cases where it has prevailed in court, no matter how many times you've been asked, asked, whereas I showed you multiple times where it has failed, and has resulted in fines for people that tried it, for wasting the courts time.

You can believe lies if you like, but if you come onto a public forum and spread them around, expect to be called on them.

If you lie and don't actually engage with people in honest discussions, expect to be labelled a troll.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Show me proof that Howard Freeman hasn't paid taxes since 1990.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


That's not proof.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


In fact, prove Howard Freeman even exists.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Wrong. It defines Common Law just as I presented it to you. Way to cherry pick what information you want. Apparently only you all's links are the only ones with credibility. Yeah that's not biased at all.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


No it doesn't.

It provides a wrong explanation and definition of a lot of stuff and is clearly just freeman propaganda.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Prove that you exist, other than some entity on a computer. I could give you all what my name was told to me as Ryan Patrick McCloud (because I could care less, heck what's privacy if you aren't doing anything wrong?), but I do not KNOW my name. I was told my name, just like I was told when I was born, and all the stories about the tooth-fairy, santa clause, and etc.

Neither you nor I were an eye-ball witness to our birth and or name. What make it your name because somebody else gives it to you? I didn't choose that name. It's the name given to me. Who else had their names given to them? The slaves.

So how can I prove that the entity such as Ryan Patrick McCloud exists when I never witnessed his birth? I was told that's who I was; but that's not who I AM.

edit on 25-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

So the one Freeman success you can point to is a fictional character.

Sweet.

"bu-bu-but you honour, it worked for Homer Simpson"

This is the sort of dishonest behaviour I'm talking about.

If you HONESTLY are basing your life on the beliefs of someone who probably never existed, and who'd successes are probably just made up propaganda, then I feel sorry for you... but, I doubt you are.

reply to post by NeoVain


Why would Kenyan records be transferred to the UK? Just because of the administration change in 1963? Doesn't make sense. This sort of stuff is strictly for your home-grown US loony-birds.