Major General says president's eligibility needs proof

page: 16
32
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
1) Clue Number one = When first asked for his vaulted BC, Obama claimed it was lost.



READ HIS BOOK!
Obama claimed in his memoir Dreams from my Father that he had in his possession a copy of his original birth certificate.


A copy of his original birth certificate isn't the same as "his vaulted BC", now is it?

I understand now that you misspoke.




I am not going to give you evidence. What I am giving you is clues to establish motive for supressing evidence.


Ah, so this is like a novel? Sounds fun! Keep it coming





Evidence you and I both know would prove he is guilty of fraud.
You know it and
I know it


Please don't speak for me. I don't know that he is guilty of fraud and neither do you, for that matter.

You might suspect or believe he's guilty of something, either way I do not share those concerns or views, so please don't speak for me. Thank you.




It ever occur to you WHY this law was enacted in the firsr place??
Here Ill help you.
It's because SO MANY PEOPLE WERE USING IT TO GET CITIZENSHIP VIA SPURIOUS MEANS!


I'm sorry but that makes no sense. The statute enacted in 1982 allows for people to get citizenship via more spurious means, not the other way around.

Anyway, when Obama was registered it wasn't possibly to having him legally registered as being born in Hawaii if he wasn't. That was an hypothesis some of these blogs and other sites put forward, and it's not true.

Want to argue that they registered him illegally? Sure go ahead, but we're back at square one: where is the evidence?




My parents took an ad out in the Rolling Meadows News Paper to announce my birth but we had moved to another state. They did that for the same reason Obama's parents probably did.


You either didn't read this part of my post, or you're knowingly spreading more lies.

Obama's parents didn't took out an ad. The birth announcements in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser at the time came directly from the Department of Health. In fact at the top of the column this information is displayed (Health Bureau Statistics) as seen here.

But let's play along with your theory for a moment. Here's the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser's birth announcement policy:


IMPORTANT: You must attach a photocopy of your baby's official state-issued birth certificate; we cannot print your announcement without it.


Going by this theory it gives even more credence to the idea that on his original birth record he has Honolulu as his birth place.


[edit on 28-2-2009 by converge]




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I am sorry, but I think this is a "dead horse" and really should stop being beaten! All the paperwork was released at the very begining. And even if some weird conspiracy is true and he was put in anyway, he is not leaving. So I think we should concentrate on a future with this president and not really worry about the citizenship issue that really is going nowhere. Just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sueloujo

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by sueloujo
reply to post by pteridine
 


All what documentation apart from his certification of birth?
when all the following are missing?

Occidental College records - not released.
Columbia Thesis paper - not available, locked down by faculty.
Harvard College records - not released, locked down by faculty.
Selective Service Registration - not released.
Medical records - not released (only a one-page report).
Illinois State Senate schedule - 'not available.'
Law practice client list - not released.
Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - not released.
Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth - not released.
Harvard Law Review articles published - None.
University of Chicago scholarly articles - None.
Record of Baptism-- Not released or 'not available.'
Illinois State Senate records--'not available.


As I remember, none of the above list has anything to do with eligibility to be President. His birth location seems to be the point of the discussion and the state of Hawaii has provided the required certificate. The newspaper published the notice of his birth in the vital statistics section. It would appear that the natural citizenship requirements have been met.


Err ..if you care to actually read the list at least two of the above list would clarify the point in question. The others would actually be proof of name changes, adoption and lots of other unanswered questions relevent to his past.


You err... once again. They may clarify the point in question. They would also be irrelevant as any listings of birth place on other records are not legally admissible. The Hawaiian birth certificate is all that is legally necessary. His past is apparently not open to voyeurs and has been locked down. He can release it as he sees fit or not.

He is the President.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by hosta420
 


YES.....McCain was born in Panama.

Imagine, IF he had been elected....well, I seriously doubt there'd be this much 'chatter'.....because, it seems.....only the 'right wing' wish to complain about the 'other' guy.....

The democratic party tend to have a bit more class......


And a short memory too, it seems.

nenothtu out



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
It's the duty of all military officers to defend the constitution, and uphold it as well. If they're not going behind closed doors and reviewing recent events and the constitution, they're not abiding by the oath they took.

I would hope they do this regardless of political party, race, or gender.

If officers are not defending the constitution, they're not fulfilling their primary role.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dbriefed
It's the duty of all military officers to defend the constitution, and uphold it as well. If they're not going behind closed doors and reviewing recent events and the constitution, they're not abiding by the oath they took.

I would hope they do this regardless of political party, race, or gender.

If officers are not defending the constitution, they're not fulfilling their primary role.


Officers are also forbidden to speak out against the President of The United States, no matter what their political affiliation might be. Faliure to do so can and most likely will result in them being decommisioned and seperated from service.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Yeah, you'll find proof under the slimy rocky next to you. Who cares where Obama was born?....like that makes a freakin' difference!


Makes all the difference in the world.Swearing to uphold a legal document which one is violating at that very instant strikes me as... inconsistent.

Mr. Obama's recent violation of the Constitution in usurping the authority of the Commerce dept by taking over the Census, with the stated intention of estimating the population rather than a direct head count (also a violation of the Constitution) does not appear to be a promising way for a self-identified "Constitutional Scholar" to begin a career in which he took an oath to uphold and defend said Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Neither does it convince me that the gentleman has scruples against violating the document.

It DOES, however, seem to be a wonderous way of fudging voter districts in one's own favor. Might be why the founders inserted that bit into the Constitution to begin with, eh?

nenothtu out



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


"Officers are also forbidden to speak out against the President of The United States"

Under what? John Adam's Sedition Laws? - Please cite the regulations that forbid this course of action.

*But if Obama isn't eligible to be the President, then the soldier isn't speaking out against the President - He is 'speaking out' again an impostor and a usurper; An 'Enemy Domestic', which he is sworn to defend against.

No matter.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


i cant understand how requiring proof of elegability is a threat to democracy.
wouldn't a prez with another agenda be a bigger threat?
barry is shreading this country at the seams,and its only been a month.
what you obaga supporters fail to realize is how far he could try to go in four more years. if he gets to do what he wants,he will economically and socially kill this country. work it out...multiply this carnage by 48 months .


the only thing you obamatrons have failed to do is explain to me what the problem is in his provingwho and what he really is.
this is in our constitution.
if you don't like our constitution,as many of us do,for quite apparent reasons,feel free to go to any country where there is a dictator.we don't want one,especially one who disregards our laws.

but i keep forgetting,you have found the only honest politician alive, so we should just forget about his legality,and give him a free ride,at our expense.
do you follow the news,and ever research this man? his actions,his conduct,and who he is friends with? watch the stock market when he speaks? who he was appointed,or should say annointed to serve the messiah?
what do you think Bush was laughing at when he left the white house for the last time?
i'll bet it was "you think you had it bad with me?...roflmao"

oh and i know its all bs,whatever "they"say about HIM. and there is no way that he could slip thru. well check out the 21st president,chester a. arthur. he was a british subject,and no one knew until he was out of office.

besides,what are you afraid of? if he's legit,you have nothing to worry about.
NOW LET HIM PROVE IT. PERIOD.

and one other little question. if he's not elegable HOW DO YOU UNDO WHAT A MEGLOMANIAC DOES IN FOUR YEARS?
ALL I HAVE SEEN FROM HIM IS HIS OWN AGENDA,AND SPENDING,SPENDING,SPENDING.
what if he brings the US to civil war? how do you fix it?
he owes us the proof,and there is no debate about that. IT IS THE LAW.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
This "controversy" is nothing but window dressing these active and retired military officers are merely being used as dupes they are keeping this alive because it's in TPTB's interests as I have said they have already chose him to be President all this does is maintain the illusion of the "two party system."We have not been a republic for years now,guys the oligarchs call the tune and the puppets dance.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Ok people, again, the document from the Indonisian school that you claim proves Obama is an Indonisian citizen and not an American one, SAYS HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII! SO again, come up with another reason besides you hate black people. Maybe discuss his policies? Not about where he was born, since it was Hawaii.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


Yes, that is what the laws are now. With the law you have to look at what it said when he was born and when he was in Indonesia, not what it says now. Many laws were vastly different in 1961 than they are now. Not all the laws that have been changed were retroactive to include 1961. And the courts may very well decide that Indonesian law is relevant if any of the cases actually get heard.



Originally posted by Southern Guardian
No he wasnt and could not have been according to Indonesian and US laws at the time.


Some people say he was, others say he wasn't. Either way Article 13 that I quoted isn't dependent upon him being adopted or being in Indonesia for 6 years. It's dependent on his mother being naturalized, but I don't know if she was or not.



I think perhaps you and Converge may be under the impression that I am arguing that he lost citizenship. I am not. I am just attempting to show why the claims in the lawsuits have been made. This is the angle they are arguing from, and while I don't agree with them, I'm trying to look at it from all sides here just as I have done in every thread about this topic.

We could sit here all day and debate back and forth, but none of us can honestly say we know all the facts unless one of us is Obama himself. I know I'm not, and I highly doubt anyone else here is. And ultimately that is my point. None of us know all the facts about the situation so none of us know the full truth. Yet another reason why I wish the courts would hear a case so that the whole matter can be settled once and for all.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Yes, that is what the laws are now. With the law you have to look at what it said when he was born and when he was in Indonesia, not what it says now. Many laws were vastly different in 1961 than they are now. Not all the laws that have been changed were retroactive to include 1961.


Yes you are completely correct, we have to look at what the law was in 1961. The law that was in place at the time of Obama's birth was the INA of 1952.

Regarding the matter of loss of nationality, it said the exact same thing as does the INA now, with only a minor difference: the INA now establishes the age of maturity at 18, in 1961 it was 21.


SEC. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturaliza­tion, shall lose his nationality by—

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person : Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday

source (PDF source)





I think perhaps you and Converge may be under the impression that I am arguing that he lost citizenship. I am not. I am just attempting to show why the claims in the lawsuits have been made. This is the angle they are arguing from, and while I don't agree with them, I'm trying to look at it from all sides here just as I have done in every thread about this topic.


Your personal belief on this matter is honestly not very important. I'm not contesting your personal beliefs, I'm contesting the laws and arguments you have been putting forward, whether you believe in them is not very relevant to the discussion right now.

Perhaps it's difficult for you to determine if we think you personally believe in this theory or not, because you keep arguing this theory might have something to it.

But I think it's clear by now, looking at current and the law that was in place at the time, that it doesn't.




None of us know all the facts about the situation so none of us know the full truth. Yet another reason why I wish the courts would hear a case so that the whole matter can be settled once and for all.


I don't agree with that point of view.

Just because we and the people who are asking to see his original birth certificate don't know all the facts (as it's obvious by now) or even the law, doesn't mean their request is reasonable or makes sense. It has, in fact, the adverse effect: it hurts their case.

Curiosity is not a valid legal argument.


[edit on 1-3-2009 by converge]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by converge
I don't agree with that point of view.

Just because we and the people who are asking to see his original birth certificate don't know all the facts (as it's obvious by now) or even the law, doesn't mean their request is reasonable or makes sense. It has, in fact, the adverse effect: it hurts their case.

Curiosity is not a valid legal argument.


I didn't expect you would.


Those who have filed the lawsuits have put a lot more time into looking at the laws than either of us, and as far as I am aware none of them have participated in a thread here at ATS. The judges that have dismissed have done so because of lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction, not because those who filed were ignorant of the laws. That in itself should tell you that while they may think it's worth looking into, they just aren't legally able to decide the case and those who have had cases dismissed aren't legally able to bring suit on the matter. None of them as far as I am aware have been dismissed as being frivolous or as being mere curiosity. None of them have been filed out of mere curiosity, and I doubt much would have been made of it here had none of those lawsuits been filed to begin with.

Demanding that the Constitution and the laws of our country be upheld is not curiosity and that is what many are doing. That is entirely reasonable, though some would have us believe otherwise. When it comes to wanting the Constitution and laws upheld, I agree with them regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Those who have filed the lawsuits have put a lot more time into looking at the laws than either of us


Jenna,
you have - at times - gone to great lengths to criticize me for assuming what you think but can you honestly say that those who filed the lawsuits have put more time into looking at the laws than either of us?

Maybe you should be talking about you exclusively when making those kind of statements.

I'm not saying that I have put more thought into looking at the laws that some of these people, because quite honestly none of us can make that assessment unless we personally know those people.

One thing I'll tell you however is that from reading Berg's lawsuit it is quite apparent that he didn't put as much thought looking into the laws as he should have. Here's a good demonstration how Berg failed to cite the right laws to support his argument, or even the right Immigration and Nationality Act that would apply to Obama.

Did I put more thought into looking at the laws than Berg? I don't know, but apparently he either didn't put any or he's simply a bad attorney.




The judges that have dismissed have done so because of lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction, not because those who filed were ignorant of the laws.


Not so sure that would be the case with Berg's lawsuit.

In any case, and in regards to the cases in the Supreme Court, I don't think you can make that assessment because the lawsuits that have been dismissed have been dismissed without any comments.




None of them as far as I am aware have been dismissed as being frivolous or as being mere curiosity.


Again, maybe you haven't looked at Berg's lawsuit.


We therefore find that Plaintiff’s attempt to use these statutes to gain standing to pursue his Natural Born Citizen Clause claim are frivolous and not worthy of discussion. - Judge Surrick's opinion (source)



U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg's request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday. ...

Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion." source





None of them have been filed out of mere curiosity


Once more I don't see how you can know the motives for all of these lawsuits. I don't reject the possibility of many, or the majority of them being filed based on honest (or at least legally sound) motives, but you can't say that they all have with any level of certainty.




and I doubt much would have been made of it here had none of those lawsuits been filed to begin with.


Well Berg's lawsuit was the first one, and received the most attention from the media at the time, and apparently his lawsuit is a mess.

I don't think we should evaluate the validity of something based on the amount of attention it receives.




That is entirely reasonable, though some would have us believe otherwise.


It would be entirely reasonable if Obama had never presented any proof of citizenship, but he has.

Whether some people are personally comfortable with the proof of citizenship he has presented, that is another matter, but that in itself is not a Constitutional requirement.


[edit on 1-3-2009 by converge]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Why are so many people attacking Obama via his COB when the courts and congress say it is fine? However, he is disqualified because he was an Indonesian citizen holding an Indonesian passport according to the Constitution. Can he hold dual citizenship and be POTUS...no. Will it make any difference...no. The real question then is how could he and or what choices did we have?

You had a choice, Hillery or Obama, you chose Obama. Then you had a choice of McCain or Obama and you chose Obama. You got who you wanted and just because you now have second thoughts you bring up arguments against him. Frankly he has to be better than either of the other two options.

Hillery would have sold us out in the first 5 seconds or less and McCain would have seized out leaving us with Palin and that would have been just great...not.

Though I can side with the general and his point of view, they should be going after the Indonesian citizen passport part, change of name to hide the fact and not the COB. As long as people want to bark up the COB tree nothing will change. But that still doesn't address the constitutional part as to how he could be POTUS legally.

People need to educate themselves as to what happened in 1933 with FDR declaring the United States of America bankrupt and there after spelling and calling it THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, they are not the same thing. If you don't think spelling matters, might I suggest Blacks Law dictionary, you will be unpleasantly surprised. Then in 1938 with Supreme Court case Erie Vs Tomlikins and how it effected all constitutional cases prior to 1933 and all cases from 1938 thereafter. You then just might figure out how Obama a US and Indonesian citizen can be POTUS. If you want to find out how deep the rabbit hole goes, you will need to go back to 1860. You won't be happy with what you find out and what they never told you in school.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


People have a right to question authority however they wish, just as you have a right to defend it however you wish.
But to label a large portion of the population racist and sore losers, shows your character.
I dont support what this retired general is saying, but I also dont support the percentage of voters that voted, and havent gave a hoot what OB has been saying and doing since the election. He has went back on his promises several times already.

You people will keep defending him if only to protect your own intelligence. Sortof like middle Amercia and Bush. Same old song and dance. Nothing new here move along



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pstrron
Why are so many people attacking Obama via his COB when the courts and congress say it is fine? However, he is disqualified because he was an Indonesian citizen holding an Indonesian passport according to the Constitution. Can he hold dual citizenship and be POTUS...no.


The Constitution speaks nothing of dual citizenship. The requirement in the Constitution is that a person must be a natural born citizen.

Nowhere in the Constitution, or US law, natural born citizen is defined. And as far as I know the Supreme Court never had to rule on a dual citizenship situation regarding the status of natural born citizen.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I have just one question after reading all of this?

If the Federal Courts (on the district level) and the Supreme Court are not in a position to hear this because of jurisdiction, then who would be hypothetically? The last time I checked the Supreme Court was the highest court outside of Congress impeaching.

Makes you wonder if the office itself needs some revision if it's that much above the law.

(And no I am not siding with either side on this argument, I'm just curious in a hypothetical situation where the proof was clear and evident and made public)



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by converge
 




Nowhere in the Constitution, or US law, natural born citizen is defined. And as far as I know the Supreme Court never had to rule on a dual citizenship situation regarding the status of natural born citizen.


I agree with you there but the question then remains, did he give up his US citizenship to gain an Indonesian citizenship or did Indonesia consider him Indonesian by blood? I do not remember a what age he held the Indonesian passport but if it was after the age of 18 he was no longer a US citizen as the US does not allow duel citizenship unless its a special case. The issue is really not an easy issue to settle without letting the cat out of the bag so to speak.

Does the American public really want to know...not really as the truth of the matter leads to areas and places they don't want to go. In the long run it just might be best to let sleeping dogs lay undisturbed than to wake it and find you have a rottweiler on your hands.





 
32
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join