Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Sonya610
reply to post by MissysWorld

 

Interesting video! Thanks for posting it.

Though of course even if he is not a natural born U.S. Citizen, and even if that means that an Obama presidency would violate the U.S. Constitution, it seems his supporters wouldn't care in the least!

He is ABOVE all that piddly Constitutional stuff!

Right, if it were proven that he is an illegal alien, and is therefore not eligible to be president, I think there would be absolute chaos in the cities. Maybe that's what the marshal law plans were for all along.

reply to post by Alxandro


And John McCain was born in Panama. So what difference does that make? Forgive me for not having a link but this year a law was passed to allow citizens born on foreign soil to be eligible to run for president.

Apparently, congress overwhelmingly passed this law to make John McCain eligible to run for the presidency.
link

reply to post by epiphonie1


Forgive me if I am wrong but I believe the one who really pressed for that law to be passed was Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Originally posted by epiphonie1
reply to post by Alxandro

 

And John McCain was born in Panama. So what difference does that make? Forgive me for not having a link but this year a law was passed to allow citizens born on foreign soil to be eligible to run for president.

Apparently, congress overwhelmingly passed this law to make John McCain eligible to run for the presidency.
link

You cannot compare the McCain situation to the Obama situation, because, like I and others have said, Obama's mother was not old enough to pass on her citizenship, according to U.S. federal law in 1961. So, if he were born outside of the U.S., the only citizenship he would have would have been of the country he was born in. He would have had NO LEGAL right to U.S. citizenship!!! AND THIS, is the October Surprise!!!!

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by epiphonie1

 

Forgive me if I am wrong but I believe the one who really pressed for that law to be passed was Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I don't think the law would apply to Arnold because he didn't have American parents. The law would simply make it so that babies born to Americans that have their babies elsewhere in the world, can legally become president.

It seems absolutely idiotic anyway that the children of military stationed overseas, would not be eligible for the office of president, just because of where they were physically born. As long as they are citizens via their parents, I don't see a big deal here.


[edit on 14-10-2008 by Ron Paul Girl]

Ya know...the longer people drag this B.S. out, the more pathetic they look.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Hahaha, well im from australia, and I got heaps of mates from there. Still nothing has arrived. Lol

reply to post by epiphonie1


Both of McCain's parents were citizens and his father was on active duty, which is a different set of circumstances. When one or both parents are overseas on official business, the infant is classified as 'natural born'. In Obama's case, this is different. Then there is the whole Indonesian citizenship issue. Congress cannot pass a law that circumvents the Constitution.

Originally posted by DarthChrisious
Ya know...the longer people drag this B.S. out, the more pathetic they look.

I personally cannot stand Obama or McCain. What we're talking about here is a possible violation of the constitution, and anytime the constitution is ignored, I'm annoyed.

reply to post by Ron Paul Girl


reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Wrong. For there to be an issue, there has to be an argument. A basic (very basic) argument must contain two things:

-An Issue
-Support

There is no support, therefore there is no argument, therefore there is no issue.

If someone provides some legitimate support, we'll talk.

*Edit:

And also, Congress can circumvent the Constitution. They pass amendments to do just that.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by epiphonie1
reply to post by Alxandro

 

And John McCain was born in Panama. So what difference does that make? Forgive me for not having a link but this year a law was passed to allow citizens born on foreign soil to be eligible to run for president.

Apparently, congress overwhelmingly passed this law to make John McCain eligible to run for the presidency.
link

John McCains dad was stationed in Panama as a Navy Officer. His mother is also an American citizen. When a child is born to parents serving over seas they are considered citizens automatically if they were born in an American run hospital, ie on a military base or American own soil. If he was born in a Panama run hospital he will be considered an American citizen as long as an American run hospital is notified of the birth and types out a birth certificate with a doctors signature acknowledging the birth. So to correct you. A child born to a service member abroad who is acting out an order will always be considered an American citizen, unless the mother is of foreign descent and is not married to the soldier(then the male soldier would have to either marry or obtain full custody of the child) and wants the child to be a citizen of her foreign country.

reply to post by Sublime620


What the hell is that supposed to mean??????? There is no issue, because under US Code Title 8 Section 1401 and the US constitution, McCain is clearly a 'natural born citizen. If there was an issue, McCain would have been stopped cold months ago as he did provide a complete long form birth certificate. Next time could you please try to be more vague.

ED. to address your ED.- No they cannot. I suggest reading the Constitution. It is very specific in the requirements to modify it, and Congress does not have that power, not even close!

[edit on 14-10-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Process of Amendments

Article Five describes the process necessary to amend the Constitution. It establishes two methods of proposing amendments: by Congress or by a national convention requested by the states. Under the first method, Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum, not necessarily of the entire body) of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Under the second method, two-thirds of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments. To date, only the first method (proposal by Congress) has been used.

But that's neither here nor there, I was just responding to that one comment you made.

I never accused McCain of not being able to run, I have only been here to ward off the untrue, unbacked statements about Obama's legitimacy.

Originally posted by Sonya610

Uhhh...the LAWSUIT is real, is it not?

I can't believe you said close the thread. Wow. Yeah let's just censor all criticism! Let's just ban anyone that questions the TRUE SAVIOR.

Sheesh.

Wow, lol. Looks like someone needs to back off and learn how to read a thread title. Also- FYI- it is no ones job in this thread to prove his granny didn't say those things. There is not one ounce of proof that she did, there isn't even a proper source, the source that is stated to prove she said those things doesn't mention such a quote anywhere. The burden of proof is on those who want to claim this woman said he was born in Kenya with out any evidence that she said those things.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


OK....now, JR....we can close down this ridiculous thread....or, at least, since we don't have the 'power' to close a thread, we can let it die....by ignoring it.

Senator Obama has CERTAINLY been 'vetted' enough....sheesh, over two years in the Senate and THEN about 20 months in the campaign???

Senator McCain has ALSO been 'vetted' enough....Yes, we know about Sen. McCain's service.....every American can acknowedge that John McCain bravely went to Vietnam....whilst George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney and Donald Runmsfeld and Karl Rove found ways to avoid that particular 'call-up'.

Thing is....Senator Obama "Avoided" service in Vietnam because....well....HE WAS TOO YOUNG!!!!

I avoided Vietnam, for the same silly reason....seems that the requirement to enroll in the SSS expired just shortly before my 18th birthday....lucky me!

Unlucky for about 60,000 others, though!

I do NOT write this to make light of the losses, of that era. I just wish to point out the hyprocrisy of, GWBush, Dick Cheney (dick cheney before he 'dicks' you....my favorite saying) --- Donny "Rummy" and Karl "turdblossom" Rove.....they ALL escaped Vietnam because of "excepionalist" influences....due to their familial status.

Did this stray off-topic, by my hand?? NO!!!

I see thread, its very genesis, as part of a dirty campaign, an under-handed campaign, by desperate people, to hopefully influence a vote....a vote that is a mere 3 weeks away.

My approach, to counter the arguement....as I saw it, was tit-for-tat.

Since we seem to only be getting out to about three dozen ATS members, at any one time...seems a particularly vapid ploy. But, worth a try, nonetheless.

reply to post by Sublime620


Article 5 of the Constitution states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Source.

Congress can only propose amendments to the Constitution by a 2/3 majority, but it still needs to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

If you are refering to the possible Indonesian citizenship, then there are documents that state that. So to use your analogy, there is an issue and support. As I have stated before, if he wins this, I intend to vote for him, but the Constitution comes first, no matter how qualified I feel the candidate is.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Right, so it is basically proposed and brought into light by Congress. Bills are also passed by Congress and the President has a choice to veto or not. There are always checks and balances, but most everything starts with Congress.

Not sure what you are arguing with me about.

reply to post by weedwhacker


One, what the blue hell does this have to do with Vietnam??? I have yet to read a single post on this thread where that was even mentioned! Secondly, as far as the vetting process goes, a member of the Senate is not required to be a 'natural born citizen' as the office of the President requires:

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

US Constitution Section 3

This is not an attempt to smear anyone on my part. It is an attempt to defend the Constitution! I don't care which party a candidate belongs to, if their candidacy violates the Constitution, they must not be allowed to run. There has been enough shredding of the Constitution lately!!!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Yeah, but what are you really arguing about? Who's violating the Constitution? I'm not sure where you are going with all this?