Obama Birth Certificate Rears Its Head - Again, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 09:45 AM by Primordial
I don't comment much here but I do read quite a bit... I've been following this BC thing for some time and just wanted to comment on a few things.

I've seen numerous times someone quote the laws regarding citizenship as they stand today. Do people not read the threads they are responding to?
It has been posted numerous times in numerous threads and websites discussing the matter... the laws at the time of Obamas birth were different than they are today. If he was born in Kenya, the laws at that time would mean he would not be a natural born citizen, in fact he wouldn't have been a citizen at all. Also his birth certificate has not been released. A Certificate of Live Birth is not the same. I don't know how many times I've seen these two points made.


The thing that really gets to me is his refusal to provide the proof asked of him. It is not a privacy issue as he has allegedly given the information that is contained on his birth certificate to the public. He is just not believed. If he has already divulged the information how can he now claim it's a privacy issue.

This also causes me concern:
"Obama's lawyers in these motions, argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, etc.) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC. They say revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and the above mentioned risk that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.” "

What 'defined and serious injury' and 'particularly serious embarrassment' could possibly be revealed by providing basic documentation such as a birth certificate or citizenship papers? (other than revealing lies) Was he born as a woman? Was he raised by hyenas in Africa? Is his real last name Bush? What could it be?

If I apply for a job, any job, and fail to provide proof of qualifications upon request I fully expect to not get the job. Why should the job as President of the US not be held to the same simple standard.

His refusal to show the actual piece of paper while claiming to publicly give the information allegedly contained on it negates his claim to privacy as the information is no longer private, unless he is telling us lies.

The claims are not all circumstantial as said by some. There is supposedly an eyewitness to his birth in Kenya. I've seen laws quoted that seem to support both sides depending on which paragraph is quoted. Regarding the Indonesia school question, I've seen laws that seem to say the parent can't renounce the citizenship of a child and others that say the child's citizenship follows the guardians. Sorry, not a lawyer.. let them fight it out.

What it comes down to for me, and I suspect most who question his natural born status is this... People who are telling the truth don't hire teams of lawyers to hide information that would exonerate them of the charges being made. Even if there has not been a formal legal order to produce the documents yet, why wait. If he merely said 'here you go, here's my birth certificate' (not cert of live birth) when the question first came up it would have avoided this whole mess.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 09:48 AM by hotrodturbo7
reply to post by SpencerJ


I stand corrected.

That terminology fits the description in my head alot better.

Also remember the (Franklin?) quote:

"A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner."


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 10:49 AM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Tinkabit
[Amen to your thoughtful post. As voters we must prove WHO we are, candidates should abide by the laws of our land.The constitution is much more than a document, it is our credo as a nation & has served us well for 230+ years.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 11:26 AM by danx
Originally posted by slicobacon
Let me know if I'm wrong here guys, but if someone was born in Germany on a US facility to American parents they are still considered natrual born.


It has nothing to do being born in US facilities. Military bases abroad are ruled by SOFAs (Status of Forces Agreement). Bases abroad are extra-legal jurisdictions and are not subject to civil law.

From the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual:
Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.


Title 8 Section 1401 of the US Code rules who is a citizen of the US at birth. These are the requirements that matter. Not US facilities.

But, in your example, under current law, yes - a child born to American parents in Germany would be a "natural born" citizen, provided a few requirements (such as that at least one of the parents had residence in the US prior to the child's birth -Section 1401(c)).


McCain was born in Panama but was elgible because it was a US facility and his American parents were stationed there.


Again, having been born in a US facility abroad does not influence the citizenship a newborn might get.

In John McCain's case I'm convinced he is not a "natural born" citizen because when he was born, the Act (of 1934) that ruled the laws of citizenship were as follow:
Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child.


Why is the declared language important? In the case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 of 1898, the Supreme Court stated that,
The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,' contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only, birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law.


There are only two ways to be a citizen, either at birth (widely understood as "natural born" citizen) or through naturalization.

The Supreme Court, in the same case, explained what naturalization is and how it is done:
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case (...) of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.


In 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act was introduced, and contemplated persons born in the Panama Canal Zone, in Section 303 (Title 8 Section 1403 of US Code):
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.


A provision was created in the Act to specifically contemplate persons born in the Canal Zone, and it declare them - or in other words, naturalize them - through legislation as US citizens.

This provision alone shows that people born in the Panama Canal Zone until then, weren't contemplated in US code and weren't 'protected' under the 14th Amendment either, otherwise the provision would be useless.

Since John McCain was born in 1936 (effectively on or after February 26, 1904) and on a Military base - which are not 'protected' under the 14th Amendment - his citizenship comes from Section 303(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (legislation).

Since according to the Supreme Court there are only two ways you can become a citizen, McCain's citizenship wasn't at birth, but rather, from naturalization ("by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens").

The conclusion is that John McCain is not a "natural born" citizen.

It is quite unfair, since under current US Code, the exact same situation would have granted him now the status of "natural born" citizen, as it's clear in Title 8 Section 1401(c) of US Code:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (...)
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;





[edit on 3-12-2008 by danx]


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 11:47 AM by Kailassa
Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by riggs2099


Obviously you didn't learn anything about our Constitution. Only the POTUS must be natural born. Folks who immigrated to the US and have taken citizenship may hoild any office BUT the POTUS!
Zindo


Almost.

It's implied in the constitution that the vice-president must also be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old who has lived at least 14 years in the U.S..

One problem is that "natural born" is not defined by the constitution or by American law. John McCain is arguably not a natural born citizen by the most commonly held definition, yet it would have been stupid to disqualify him as a potential president on those grounds. Which is why Congress passed a (legally non-binding) resolution to have him declared a natural born citizen.

I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court uses the Obama case as a chance to decide on this thorny issue.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 12:22 PM by slicobacon
reply to post by danx


Hey Danx - Thanks for the research! I appreciate ya!

So I guess my friends son born in Okinawa in 1990 will be elgible for POTUS for the 2028 election!


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 12:44 PM by theindependentjournal
reply to post by Mikey84


The copy of the Birth Certificate he has released has been debunked as faked by several document experts, they found that it was pieced together with many different BC's. for instance the border on his is the wrong border for his supposed year of birth. the border was for some years after his year. other things were also found by those document experts and they have publicly stated it is a fake so this is where many are coming from. If these experts can testify in courts on documents then heir opinions of this document should be taken into account. I have not seen one document expert say it is NOT forged or faked to date, although some may exist I haven't seen it. If some exist I would take their view into account also so if anyone has one please advise...

Like I have said, I think this is a setup for Arnold and not really about Barrack, although it could turn out badly for Barrack but that too could be the plan. A constitutional crisis before he takes office, what do they do? who takes the office? McCain, Biden, does Bush Cheney keep it, hold another election, does Hillary get the nomination then as the second runner up. There are many questions that could come from this if it is proven to be false BC...

I still think the PTB set this up and are playing the people for fools either way, they either are trying to circumvent the constitution or they are trying to make it look like they are circumventing it for whatever reason they have...


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 12:56 PM by maybereal11
I have followed this BS on ATS for a year now.

The reason there are so many threads on this topic is because everytime these claims are disproven...the posters wait for or create a new thread and continue as if they haven't seen clear evidence to the contrary.

To those that decry that Obama supporters shout "racism" and other emotional responses when posters question his eligibility...

I have endeavored not to accuse folks questioning his citizenship as having alterior motives or agendas, BUT when thread after thread you see the same posters recycling arguments that they have seen debunked the question does linger...why do they continue claiming things they know not to be true?

For the record...There is tons of archival material about Obama including full autobiographies, archived newspaper announcements of his birth in Hawaii, Interviews with students, friends and family.

He was NOT born in Kenya. His Grandmother did not say so, neither did the Kenyan Ambassador. FYI the Grandmother that passed away wasn't the one that is being claimed said this. No conspiracy there.

The Certificate of Live birth is the same that any Hawaiin citizen would recieve when requesting their birth certificate. A BC issued by a hospital is NOT valid in courts or as official ID it is a token. The COB that he has presented is the most valid form of birth confirmation our government offers citizens and it was publically vouched for directly by the Government of Hawaii...

Go ask your local registrars office for your "actual" birth certificate. They will issue you a BC or COB depending on the state, complete with a seal and signature from the registrars office. Just like Obama. It's good for passports, security clearances and every other purpose.

Well I am not going to repeat myself in every thread. If there is anyone who sternly believes there is SPECIFIC evidence showing him not to be a citizen. State it in clear terms and I will respond with clear objective evidence.

Please no opinion pieces or unsubstantiated blog junk.

Otherwise I call BS to the whole "there are scary questions about this man" line of propaganda.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:12 PM by danx
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
A constitutional crisis before he takes office, what do they do? who takes the office? McCain, Biden, does Bush Cheney keep it, hold another election, does Hillary get the nomination then as the second runner up. There are many questions that could come from this if it is proven to be false BC...


There would be no Constitutional crisis, as this situation is contemplated by Section 3 of the 20th Amendment:
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.


Vice-President elect Biden would act as President, until a President shall have qualified.



reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:17 PM by ConservativeJack
Originally posted by maybereal11
I have followed this BS on ATS for a year now.

The reason there are so many threads on this topic is because everytime these claims are disproven...the posters wait for or create a new thread and continue as if they haven't seen clear evidence to the contrary.

To those that decry that Obama supporters shout "racism" and other emotional responses when posters question his eligibility...

I have endeavored not to accuse folks questioning his citizenship as having alterior motives or agendas, BUT when thread after thread you see the same posters recycling arguments that they have seen debunked the question does linger...why do they continue claiming things they know not to be true?

For the record...There is tons of archival material about Obama including full autobiographies, archived newspaper announcements of his birth in Hawaii, Interviews with students, friends and family.

He was NOT born in Kenya. His Grandmother did not say so, neither did the Kenyan Ambassador. FYI the Grandmother that passed away wasn't the one that is being claimed said this. No conspiracy there.

The Certificate of Live birth is the same that any Hawaiin citizen would recieve when requesting their birth certificate. A BC issued by a hospital is NOT valid in courts or as official ID it is a token. The COB that he has presented is the most valid form of birth confirmation our government offers citizens and it was publically vouched for directly by the Government of Hawaii...

Go ask your local registrars office for your "actual" birth certificate. They will issue you a BC or COB depending on the state, complete with a seal and signature from the registrars office. Just like Obama. It's good for passports, security clearances and every other purpose.

Well I am not going to repeat myself in every thread. If there is anyone who sternly believes there is SPECIFIC evidence showing him not to be a citizen. State it in clear terms and I will respond with clear objective evidence.

Please no opinion pieces or unsubstantiated blog junk.

Otherwise I call BS to the whole "there are scary questions about this man" line of propaganda.





hey nice post man

but, the problem is that nobody will read your post. the people who think obama is born in Kenya are not going to change their position EVER. They will believe it to the day they die.

There's a term for when you post something on the internet, you always try to defend the position that you took in the post, and you won't stop defending the position until you've "won" in your mind.

These Obama conspiracies are only going to get deeper, bigger, and more elaborate.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:18 PM by theindependentjournal
reply to post by danx


Now you're opening a can of worms my friend, the 14th amendment was never ratified according to the constitution and is illegal in its wording. The 14th amendment tries to make everyone born in one of the Republics/Nations of the U.S. a citizen of two entities. Dual citizenship puts one in rebellion of either the U.S. or the State but most assuredly to the Nation that the person was born in.

Te common misconception is that the U.S. is a nation, it is NOT! It is a Union of 50 Nation States you are a State National of the State you were born in which is to say the Republic you were born in. This is why the 14th is called the "RED AMENDMENT" read it all and see what it says about voting and taking away representation from those that are not citizens of the U.S. or in rebellion...

There is a book and a website that covers this very intently and deeply but is way beyond the legal knowledge of most Americans but it is available Here. This thread will go out of control if we start talking about the 14th amendment, we need to stick to the original content of the Constitution mostly Section 3 I believe. But then most Americans have never read the Constitution, and most people think they are federal Citizens and State citizens which automatically puts them in rebellion to their Nation. There is a difference also in the Corporate U.S. and the Corporate STATES as opposed to the Republics of the united States of America, notice the u in united is lower case. The upper case version is the corporate fiction of a nation. Go back to the Civil War as it is called but more accurately the "war between the States" and tell me where the United States Troops fought, you will not find any. They were all State/Republic troops and identified as such, I.E. North Carolina's 3rd infantry or the Maine's 3rd.

The 14th amendment many believe freed the slaves, which is absolutely untrue and not correct in law, it made us all slaves, well all that didn't declare their Nationality as laid out in U.S. Code.

A federal Judge named Judge Fox said in a ruling that the 13th, 14h, 15th, and 16th amendments were not ratified correctly and that they violated the Original 13th amendment to boot.

Bet most of you didn't know that the federal constitution had 2 13th amendments, not your fault though the public schools have brainwashed you into being a good citizen and not a good American. If the original 13th was in place nearly everyone in federal govt would be BARRED from serving their posts...

The Supremes actually wear two hats in the Court, one is the De Jure at and the other is the De Facto hat. The only constitutionally lawful one is the De Jure hat. the 14th amendment gave us the De Facto govt's which are the governments in fact, which are the Corporate governments we all see today. Several States have both such as Colorado. We have a De Jure Governor and a De Facto Governor this also applies to the RUMP Congresses. As a State National one is not bound to the duties of a U.S. Citizen nor the De Facto States Rump Congresses.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^



On why America is in denial and Ron Paul will not be elected
  Posted 17 days ago with 21 member flags
Study says racists and conservatives are dumb
  Posted 7 days ago with 16 member flags
Is ‘anti-Canadianism’ the new ‘anti-Americanism?’
  Posted 16 days ago with 8 member flags
Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"
  Posted 14 days ago with 7 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 17 hours ago, 119 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 13 hours ago, 102 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 11 hours ago, 66 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 7 hours ago, 60 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 15 hours ago, 50 replies