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.

 

Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes

page: 25
31
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Point: Was Barack Obama born in Kenya? NOOOOO!!!!!


Actually, the answer is UNKNOOOOOOOOOOOWN!!!! Berg has alleged that he was not born in Hawaii, the birth certificate provided does not prove otherwise, as it does not list the hospital and attending physician. I am assuming that Berg has provided sufficient proof to the court to proceed with the case. I'm a Obama supporter, but the Constitution comes before any candidate, including my own. And this needs to be settled BEFORE the general election. Once you start ignoring the Constitution, we might as well use it for kindling for a bonfire. Too many of us have fought and died to preserve it, including myself. NO ONE is above that document. It is the cornerstone of this nation, and if you remove the cornerstone, the entire building will crumble. What's next, free speech? The right to bear arms? The right to vote? Where do you draw the line? HERE! NO FURTHER!!! THE LINE IS DRAWN HERE!!!




posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


You're right, I'm very frustrated. You need to go ask a lawyer, because I'm afraid that's the only type of person who can prove your error in this interpretation. I give up!

ED- Subsection (a) by the way, is you, John Q. Citizen, and it is that subsection that makes you a natural born citizen!

[edit on 18-10-2008 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Okay. Give up if you must. "At birth" does not mean "Natural-born citizen". "At birth is a time reference. No matter where one would use the phrase "At birth", it would be interpreted as a time reference.

"At birth, the nurse records the time of birth." Simple as that or any other usage. It would always refer to a time period.

Why would you think that it means "natural-born citizen"?

How can you read that sentence the way that you do? It's so wrong, I don't know where to begin.

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:"

What if the statement read:

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at death:

Then what would you think?!



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


Here's another. What if the statement read?

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States natural-born citizens:"

Clearly that wouldn't make sense to anybody.



[edit on 18-10-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


Go read this, in it's entirety from top to bottom, then come back and talk to me. It is very clear on the subject.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Areal51
 


ED- Subsection (a) by the way, is you, John Q. Citizen, and it is that subsection that makes you a natural born citizen!



Well, that is an assumption!

The problem, friend, is that US CODE: Title 8, 1401 is being misused to reference and define what "natural-born citizenship" means. That is not the purpose of the code. It's sole purpose is to define who shall be nationals and citizens.

The "natural-born" stuff is all an assumption. And not even the Constitution defines the meaning of the phrase. That is why there are questions about the term -- what it means to persons born outside the US to at least one parent that has US citizenship. And the 14th Amendment doesn't make matters any easier.

The endeavor is not beating a dead horse. It's tackling a quite lively subject. The biggest hurdle is the question that arises from Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution:


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.
www.usconstitution.net...

What does that highlighted portion mean? No one knows for sure because there are no laws that address the first half. The second half of the highlighted portion is addressed by subsection A of US CODE: Title 8, 1401. The first half is an enigma.



[edit on 18-10-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I addressed that in my previous post.

See above.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Who is this 'Berg'???

Let's expand this concept....we've seen the 'bush' administration spend eight years wiping their butts with the Constitution already....

But, nevertheless....we MUST try to comport to the Constitution of the USA, at least for this election of 2008.

AND, to attempt to restore its values, and principles.

Because, without trying to be too 'emphatic'.....we DO NOT NEED any religion in this Country of ours.

Odd that our Nation was Founded on the expression of religious intolerance, as SOME of our early inhabitants, from England, wished to divorce themselves from the predominant religion and culture of that era....yet, now two centuries later, the 'Powers That Be' wish to impose the same sort of cultural oppression that was the basis of our 'secession' in the first place!!!

I hope I've expressed myself correctly....it is sometimes difficult, in a writen forum, to make an opinon known as well as it could be simply explained, face-to-face.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


Then you miss the point. US Code, Title 8, Section 1401 is what defines who is a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is someone who is born a citizen of the United States. A 'naturalized' citizen is someone who becomes a citizen after the time of their birth.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Berg is the plantiff in a suit in US District court alleging that Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States. He is also the source of the claim that is the title of this thread.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Okay..lets review..
Obama was born in Hawaii, which made him a citizen of the USA.
Obama's Mother married an Indonesian, & they moved to Indonesia.
Obama's step father adopted him. WHY????????
Because the law in Indonesia stated that only INDONESIAN CITZENS could go to PUBLIC schools. The law in Indonesia ALSO STATED that one could NOT HAVE DUEL CITIZENSHIP.
Barak Obama was adopted (name changed to Barry Soetoro)so he could become an Indonesian citizen, because THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY HE COULD HAVE GONE TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL, THAT WAS THE LAW.
HE HAD TO DENOUNCE HIS USA CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT HAVE DUEL CITIZENSHIP IN INDONESIA AND ATTEND INDONESIA PUBLIC SCHOOL. LOOK UP THE LAWS THERE.
Barack Obama became an INDONESIAN CITIZEN.
Duel citizenship was NOT allowed.
Duel citizenship IS ALLOWED IN THE USA,
BUT NOT IF your running for PRESIDENT of the United States.
READ THRU THIS LINK..half way down gives the laws, year of law in Indonesia, and how it pertains to marriages, children and school.
Its NOT that Obama was never a USA citizen. Its that he BECAME AN INDONESIAN CITIZEN...
Barry Soetoro attended Basuki School, a PUBLIC school in Indonesia.
www.kabar-irian.com...
Article 2 Section 1 states that an American Citizen must be born here and have no loyalty to any other country. He is not eligible to be President if he is a duel citizen. He needs to prove that he did not become a citizen of Indonesia or that he renounced his citizenship.
Will this be the thing that brings Senator Obama down.




[edit on 18-10-2008 by MissysWorld]

[edit on 18-10-2008 by MissysWorld]

[edit on 18-10-2008 by MissysWorld]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Areal51
 

Then you miss the point. US Code, Title 8, Section 1401 is what defines who is a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is someone who is born a citizen of the United States. A 'naturalized' citizen is someone who becomes a citizen after the time of their birth.


I don't miss the point. None of this: "A natural born citizen is someone who is born a citizen of the United States. A 'naturalized' citizen is someone who becomes a citizen after the time of their birth" is expressed in US Code, Title 8, Section 1401.

Show me where natural-born citizen has been defined within US Law, such you have expressed. Can you do that in no uncertain terms?

The other thing is that the Constitution doesn't refer to US Code, Title 8, Section 1401, nor does US Code, Title 8, Section 1401 refer to the Constitution. US Code, Title 8, Section 1401 stands on its own and is presumed to be a statute that is not unconstitutional. A person with grounds and standing can challenge any law as unconstitutional before the US Supreme Court.

The main point is that, one should not assume that statutes refer to terms, meanings, or things that are not specified, unless aided by precedent and legal opinion. US CODE: Title 8, 1427 refers to who shall be naturalized.

What I want to know is what statute specifically refers to who shall be natural-born citizens. Do you know of any precedents accompanied by legal opinion that says that US Code, Title 8, Section 1401 also refers to natural-born citizens? I'd accept that.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


Fine, then show me any precedent and legal opinion that is contrary to my position. Otherwise, we are in a circular arguement, and I'm tired of playing, quite frankly.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
The only time that natural-born citizenship status is a question is if one decides to run for POTUS. But even then Article 2, Section 1 refers to both natural born citizens and citizens of the United States. Why is that? Why is a choice given?

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States..."

Clearly there's a choice, and I argue that John McCain is one reason why the choice exists.

I'd also argue that if one is a citizen of the United States, that natural-born status is irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MissysWorld
Okay..lets review..
Obama was born in Hawaii, which made him a citizen of the USA.
Obama's Mother married an Indonesian, & they moved to Indonesia.
Obama's step father adopted him. WHY????????
Because the law in Indonesia stated that only INDONESIAN CITZENS could go to PUBLIC schools. The law in Indonesia ALSO STATED that one could NOT HAVE DUEL CITIZENSHIP.
Barak Obama was adopted (name changed to Barry Soetoro)so he could become an Indonesian citizen, because THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY HE COULD HAVE GONE TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL, THAT WAS THE LAW.
HE HAD TO DENOUNCE HIS USA CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT HAVE DUEL CITIZENSHIP IN INDONESIA AND ATTEND INDONESIA PUBLIC SCHOOL. LOOK UP THE LAWS THERE.
Barack Obama became an INDONESIAN CITIZEN.
Duel citizenship was NOT allowed.
Duel citizenship IS ALLOWED IN THE USA,
BUT NOT IF your running for PRESIDENT of the United States.
READ THRU THIS LINK..half way down gives the laws, year of law in Indonesia, and how it pertains to marriages, children and school.
Its NOT that Obama was never a USA citizen. Its that he BECAME AN INDONESIAN CITIZEN...
Barry Soetoro attended Basuki School, a PUBLIC school in Indonesia.
www.kabar-irian.com...
Article 2 Section 1 states that an American Citizen must be born here and have no loyalty to any other country. He is not eligible to be President if he is a duel citizen. He needs to prove that he did not become a citizen of Indonesia or that he renounced his citizenship.
Will this be the thing that brings Senator Obama down.




[edit on 18-10-2008 by MissysWorld]

[edit on 18-10-2008 by MissysWorld]

[edit on 18-10-2008 by MissysWorld]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Well, if you're tired, then be tired. I'm arguing from the standpoint of what exists, not from what I wish to exist. I'm not arguing whether I think that McCain is qualified. I'm simply arguing from the perspective that common usage of natural-born seems to refer to persons born within the borders of the United States. (A point that I've already linked to.) And that because McCain clearly was not born within US borders, that his status wouldn't meet that definition, but rather another and lawful definition of citizenship (US Code, Title 8, Section 1401). That being a statutory citizen presumably would not prohibit him from running for POTUS.

However, if the case were taken to court we really wouldn't know what to expect for the simple fact that there are no precedents dealing with someone who would be POTUS that were not dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs.

I haven't seen "natural-born citizen" expressed in law other than the US Constitution. But I have seen under the law who shall be nationals and citizens. And also laws referring to those who shall be naturalized. So I leave it at that.


[edit on 18-10-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Don't be surprised if we find out after the election that Obama was still an Indonesian citizen when the Hawaiian birth cert was conveniently printed out?

Here is an interesting vid:



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


The last time I checked, the certificate of live birth is not an actual birth certificate. If you don't believe me, get your own certificate of live birth and try to apply for a new pass port. They will turn you down and ask you to return with an original copy of your birth certificate, and that is where the problem with Obama is. He won't provide an original copy of his birth certificate.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


Not only are they not saying anything about this, they are ignoring the fact that the Americans are being hypnotised by him as well.

He, by blood, is the closer blood line to King David of the contenders, so has no reason to hypnotise the American nation anyway.

We are in a world of hurt and there is no easy way out.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by MartinCesa
 


Take the senseless fear mongering elsewhere. You've been hypnotized by those who say that American's have been hypnotized by Obama. And now your're trying to hypnotize others.

Obama's astrological sign is Leo. Of course he has something in common kings.


If you're living in a world of hurt, it's your own damn fault. The blame falls equally on all shoulders.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Plain and simple. If he is not eligible to be President then he must step aside. If it is proven that he is not eligible alot of issues can come into play also and he knows it.
Whether you like him or not is a non issue. This needs to be opened up and the truth be told. We've got enough problems to be dealt with, this can't be allowed to become another one.
Either he opens the record for all to see or he needs to step aside.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join