Barack Obama Is Qualified To Be President... Isn't He? (by Jim Marrs)

page: 4
179
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by danx
 



just understand that for a Court (the SCOTUS especially) to hear it, the case has to have merit.


I agree, but the court has to look at it to decide if it has merit. Correct me if I am wrong, but how many of these cases about the BC has been thrown out as frivilous? I have yet to hear of any.

Catch up later tonight, got to work.




posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
If all of this BC conspiracy is in fact fomented by the New World Order advocates, then it means that alot of the people who filed lawsuit in court about Obama BC are peons of the NWO and probably takes orders from them.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by danx
He hasn’t broken any laws or violated the Constitution yet, since he’s not the President.

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea if there are 'intent to commit fraud' type laws, or if he signed official goverment paperwork saying that he was eligible ... etc etc

I have no idea.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by captiva
 


Nope, it would go to VP Joe Biden.

It goes,
VP, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, then Secretary of State.




[edit on 9-12-2008 by OrganizedChaos]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by danx
He hasn’t broken any laws or violated the Constitution yet, since he’s not the President.


Actually, if he is proven to be an illegal alien, as Berg seems to think, or even a non-natural born citizen, he is already a criminal for attempting to defraud the American people by running for President. Regardless of whether he was properly vetted or not.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
The way I read Marrs' article, the law does not automatically give citizenship to the child if the father is not an American citizen and the mother is. But instead of denying citizenship in this case, it looks to the mother and says "Okay, if the mother is a citizen and has lived in the U.S. for 10 years, 5 of which must be after the age of 16, then citizenship can be passed on", and at the time of his birth she didn't meet that requirement to pass on U.S. citizenship.


Marr's article does give that impression, which is an indication of how little truth it conveys.

The fact is, two illegal 13 year old immigrants can parachute into America, give birth the moment they hit the ground, and that child is an American citizen.

I expect you have been hearing complaints for years about this fact.

So there is no problem about the son of an American citizen and a legal immigrant, born in Hawaii in 1961, being a natural born citizen, because he was a citizen the moment he popped out without needing any law to make him so.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
What's clear is that you lack an open mind and simply want the "troublemakers" to go away. I would guess this is how you, personally, deal with problems in your life - you simply ignore them until they go away or you threaten or belittle those that bring problems to your attention until they do go away.


Are you a psychologist? I hope not...



If you had bothered to read Marrs' article, you would see (...)


If you had bothered to read all the other threads that address this you would see that I’ve written often about this matter and all my posts and conclusions have been made based on the actual law.



Fact is, you cannot answer these questions without some kind of snippy reply. Or you would revert to "partisan agendas" and write it off as more loonie-ism.


Fact is all of those questions are conjectures and your assumptions. And most of those things you say there isn’t even any shred of evidence from any of them.

When did I “revert to partisan agendas”? Please point it out.



The people like us who question the powers that be on behalf of the Constitution are the ones who show consistently that we love this country, not those like you who simply want the problem to go away so you can put 8 years of Bush behind you as quickly as possible.


Yes, I’m unpatriotic because I don’t agree with you. I’m also anti-American because instead of accepting all these theories presented in blogs and shady websites I decided to look at the actual lawsuits arguments and analyze them in light of the actual laws.



[edit on 9-12-2008 by danx]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganizedChaos
Nope, it goes to Joe Biden.


Sept 11, 2008 (US World and News Report)

"Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified that I am to be vice president of the United States of America - let’s get that straight.”

Wonder if he'd resign and let her have a straight shot?

He's a kind of down to earth guy. He just might.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Wow,
now that's a scary thought!




posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea if there are 'intent to commit fraud' type laws, or if he signed official goverment paperwork saying that he was eligible ... etc etc

I have no idea.


Then perhaps you should get an idea, learn about the law, instead of saying he’s guilty already?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Well balanced post Jim


The most disturbing part about this is the deafening silence you hear from the MSM on the subject.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by sos37
What's clear is that you lack an open mind and simply want the "troublemakers" to go away. I would guess this is how you, personally, deal with problems in your life - you simply ignore them until they go away or you threaten or belittle those that bring problems to your attention until they do go away.


Are you a psychologist? I hope not...



If you had bothered to read Marrs' article, you would see (...)


If you had bothered to read all the other threads that address this you would see that I’ve written often about this matter and all my posts and conclusions have been made based on the actual law.


1. Why would a Hawaii judge seal the birth certificate under orders that specifically "no one in the press" has access to them?
2. Why post sheriffs to the building where they are stored that are instructed to brush off questions about the birth certificate?
3. Why spend time filing motions to dismiss instead of filing motions answering the charges filed by Berg as simply "untrue"?
4. How was Jerome Corsi's paperwork that they filled out the same day "lost" by officials and why during his 4.5 hours of incarceration was he not allowed access to a phone or other communication device?
5. Since a California Judge has ruled that the plaintiff's filing suit there DO have standing, why hasn't Obama responded to the charges filed in that suit?


Fact is, you cannot answer these questions without some kind of snippy reply. Or you would revert to "partisan agendas" and write it off as more loonie-ism.


Fact is all of those questions are conjectures and your assumptions. And most of those things you say there isn’t even any shred of evidence from any of them.

When did I “revert to partisan agendas”? Please point it out.



The people like us who question the powers that be on behalf of the Constitution are the ones who show consistently that we love this country, not those like you who simply want the problem to go away so you can put 8 years of Bush behind you as quickly as possible.


Yes, I’m unpatriotic because I don’t agree with you. I’m also anti-American because instead of accepting all these theories presented in blogs and shady websites I decided to look at the actual lawsuits arguments and analyze them in light of the actual laws.


Oh I've read your threads. You are an unrelenting left-winger if I ever saw one. The fact is you cannot refute any of what Jim Marrs said in his article. He's done the homework and clearly you haven't. You're going on blind partisanship.

I'll believe what Marrs has to say any day over you.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Actually, if he is proven to be an illegal alien, as Berg seems to think, or even a non-natural born citizen, he is already a criminal for attempting to defraud the American people by running for President. Regardless of whether he was properly vetted or not.


What Mr. Berg thinks and what in reality something really is, are two completely different things.

Also, illegal aliens aren’t US citizens. For a person to be a Senator he is required to be a Senator for at least 9 years. If somehow someone has forgot to check that is he even a citizen, it didn’t start with the Presidential election and Dick Cheney must have egg on his face, since he sworn into office an illegal alien...



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by sos37
The way I read Marrs' article, the law does not automatically give citizenship to the child if the father is not an American citizen and the mother is. But instead of denying citizenship in this case, it looks to the mother and says "Okay, if the mother is a citizen and has lived in the U.S. for 10 years, 5 of which must be after the age of 16, then citizenship can be passed on", and at the time of his birth she didn't meet that requirement to pass on U.S. citizenship.


Marr's article does give that impression, which is an indication of how little truth it conveys.

The fact is, two illegal 13 year old immigrants can parachute into America, give birth the moment they hit the ground, and that child is an American citizen.

I expect you have been hearing complaints for years about this fact.

So there is no problem about the son of an American citizen and a legal immigrant, born in Hawaii in 1961, being a natural born citizen, because he was a citizen the moment he popped out without needing any law to make him so.


That might be the law now, but what about back when Obama was born? Obviously it's changed with the passage of time.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganizedChaos
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Wow,
now that's a scary thought!



Let me clarify that last post. She probably is more qualified, I'm just not sure where her loyalties lie.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by danx
Then perhaps you should get an idea, learn about the law, instead of saying he’s guilty already?


I just re-read the last four pages and in no place did I say that absolutely Obama was guilty of breaking the law of the Constitution. No where.

I said IF he isn't eligible, then it's important to know because of the laws of the Constitution. I also said he was acting cagey .. which he is. That isn't saying that he is guilty of breaking the laws of the Constitution - that' describing his actions as I see them.

Perhaps YOU should get a clue.


edited immediately to fix quote

[edit on 12/9/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
For a person to be a Senator he is required to be a Senator for at least 9 years.


Good one!


[edit on 9-12-2008 by OrganizedChaos]

[edit on 9-12-2008 by OrganizedChaos]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganizedChaos
She probably is more qualified, I'm just not sure where her loyalties lie.


With herself. As with all politicians.
She's definately qualified to be Secretary of State.
(I thought Richardson would have been better)
She's also qualified to be POTUS. She could do either job.
But her loyalties? As all politicians - with herself.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 



This has been the issue that I have been debating and all I get is that the parties are responsible for verifying elegibility. I don't buy it.'


Your right! What dose the “parties” have to with being natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States?

PEOPLE! This is about the law not being enforce on a candid that has ran for the Presidency and won!

Dose it say somewhere in the Constitution that all person running for Presidency DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW PROOF HE OR SHE IS A CITIZEN?

We have to ask why is the Constitution been ignored, why is the Supreme Court ignoring the Constitution? Something stinks and I am stating to smell an evil agenda.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Oh I've read your threads. You are an unrelenting left-winger if I ever saw one.


Hehe you’re one funny guy, I’ll give you that.



The fact is you cannot refute any of what Jim Marrs said in his article. He's done the homework and clearly you haven't.


Mr. Marrs hasn’t come up with any theory of his own. This post of his simply sums up all the theories that are out there about this whole thing, and me and others have addressed many of them on other threads.

I understand you might have not read them, or even if you did you still think we were completely wrong. It wouldn’t surprise me, since you already made up your mind that Obama cannot be a “natural born” US citizen.



You're going on blind partisanship.


Again with the partisanship.. Please point out an example of my partisanship please.





top topics
 
179
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join