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.

 

Obamagate Begins

page: 10
27
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by imsuchaniceguy

How many times do I need to ask for any proof or even evidence that he was born anywhere but Hawaii??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


Well, this is a conspiracy website and we seen alot of discrepancies coming from BO.

I guess his Kenyan relatives are a pack of liars saying he was born there. Their word can't be considered proof. After all, they are related to him and he's given us ample proof that all his transparency promises were just more deception.

For some reason Obama would rather hire a slew of lawyers paying loads of money for them to defend him in a multitude of litigation instead of plucking down the $15 for a copy of his birth certificate. Seem logical, right?

Let's just relax and enjoy this nice little video about the Social Security number(s) he been using. It raises some serious credibility questions...or maybe you would like to just keep on believing in the change we are seeing is actually for our good. God, it looks like my worst nightmare.

www.youtube.com...

If not. I hope you enjoy the Kool Aid you've poured for yourself.




posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by imsuchaniceguy

Originally posted by dooper

. You do know that he is president right? You have the electoral college as well as everyone who ran against him. They are all more clever than you and none of them are questioning it. So what does that tell you?


I can't speak for Dooper but yes I acknowledge that technically, Obama is POTUS...

But in response to your question, it tells me IMO that there are many in this country who are of the opinion that just because a man who happens to have more melanin in his skin than some and has a "silver tongue" with the miraculous ability to "assuage the masses" can provide some sort of "B.S." national "panacea" for many folks who harbor a deeply ingrained programmed "guilt" because of a deplorable time in this nation's history when dark skinned people were treated in a deplorable fashion.

I never owned ANY SLAVES!

I don't go around OPPRESSING people!

I FEEL ZERO GUILT FOR THE "PLIGHT" OF DEAD PEOPLE WHOM I NEVER WRONGED!

Why can't our President just provide the damn "original copy" of his B.C. and lay this thing to rest???????????????????????????

I don't like feeling this much doubt in the validity of our President's citizenship!!!

I was raised to respect the office of the President regardless of his "party affiliation" even if I disagree with certain policy choices that the man chooses to make!

Feel FREE to cast pathetic "flames" my way....

My soul has ever been and shall evermore be resilient to the "things of man"

bring it, if ya got it...........................................



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by imsuchaniceguy
 

Umm....You do realize that quoting Wiki as a source is about as good as you starting your own blog and linking to it.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
because he's linking to conservative blogs that don't like Obama and want him to not be the president, that they know what the Founding Fathers really meant, EVEN THOUGH they didn't give the definition, he thinks he's proved the point.

This only proves that you DON'T read posts and links or have reading comprehension problems because since when are court rulings and declarations by Congress considered conservative blogs.


Just for you so you don't miss it again:
Relevant Court Cases: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark & Perkins v. Elg
www.richw.org...

Look here for further education:
www.theobamafile.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Lol, WhatTheory. If this is what you want to do, is bring up old case law about natural-born citizens, fine by me.

There's an even older case then Wong Kim Ark.

Lynch v. Clark (1844)

For those of you who don't know about this case, here is the short version of it.

Julia Lynch, born in 1819, was born in New York City to alien parents. That same year, they returned to their home country, Ireland, and resided there afterwards.

In this case, the court agreed that she was a citizen of the United State, but that wasn't as far as they went.

Vice-Chancellor Lewis Hasley Sandford, the judge who presided over the case, stated SHE WAS a natural-born citizen.

This is a quote that came from the In Re Look Tin Sing case:


In that case one Julia Lynch, born in York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Lol, WhatTheory.

Laughing does not make you correct.



If this is what you want to do, is bring up old case law about natural-born citizens, fine by me.

There's an even older case then Wong Kim Ark.

Umm...why would you go by older rulings when the courts have more recent precedent.
Silly Obama lover.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
A. Who said laughing makes me right? I laugh at your ignorance. Lol!

B. That would be true, in most cases, except this one, seeing that the definition of a natural-born citizen is not clear. It hasn't been made clear in any law case. Wong Kim Ark did not prove it for you, WhatTheory.

And that was only due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts, not because of him being a natural-born citizen alone, like Lynch.

WhatTheory, you can't change the definition to what you want. Whether or not it now becomes clear because of what is happen, maybe it will.

Though, if it does, let me tell you this: it'll be placed that only one parent has to be an American citizen, not both of them.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
I laugh at your ignorance.

That's what I'm talking about.

You keep proving my point that your ignorance is astounding.



WhatTheory, you can't change the definition to what you want.

I'm not changing anything. Apparently you lack the ability to understand what you are reading.


If you want to go down the 1 parent route, even though both parents must be citizens, it would be the father that decides status.
Defining natural born


Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Dude, all of your sources are from conservative blogs! Not one source you've used comes from a non-partisan website! Every website you've shown us in all of the threads have been from blogs and websites that don't want Obama as the president!

And your source states what senators thought at the time, not what was law.

So, your point is without merit.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Dude, all of your sources are from conservative blogs! Not one source you've used comes from a non-partisan website! Every website you've shown us in all of the threads have been from blogs and websites that don't want Obama as the president!

Ok, now you are just making stuff up because you cannot come to grips that your Messiah is not eligible to be President.

Plus it proves that you read nothing that other people post. Pathetic and sad.

Either that or you really do have a reading comprehension problem.


So, your point is without merit.

No, your OPINION is without merit.

I really think you are intentionally not accepting the truth because your brain cannot comprehend the reality of this situation.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Am I? Am I making it up? Or are you only able to pull material from websites that believe Obama's not the president? You've been pulling information from blogs, which is not a good way for information to be retrieved.

And I am right, aren't I? It was the senator's opinion of what a natural-born citizen meant, not what was law. So, why did it matter for you to post it up? This wasn't some case law. It was a senator's opinion.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Am I? Am I making it up?

Yes, you are wrong.
How many times do I have to say it. Geesh!


Or are you only able to pull material from websites that believe Obama's not the president?

The link I posted in my previous post had nothing to do with Obama so again, YES, you are wrong and clearly not reading or comprehending anything.



You've been pulling information from blogs, which is not a good way for information to be retrieved.

Some were blogs with links directly proving what they are saying and links directly to court rulings and links directly to official government sites.

Again, you are wrong and only proving that you are not reading and following links. Either that or you really do have reading comprehension problems.


And I am right, aren't I?[

Umm...you aren't as I just stated above.


It was the senator's opinion of what a natural-born citizen meant, not what was law. So, why did it matter for you to post it up? This wasn't some case law. It was a senator's opinion.

Not true! You keep embarrassing yourself by not understand what you are reading. First of all, the link you are refering to mentioned most of Congress and NOT just one senator's opinion. Secondly, IF you would even bother to read the entire article instead of just one paragraph, you will see that is the truth and backed up by actual quotes.

I'm done with you because it's apparent you will not read anything or have trouble with comprehension. Either way, I'm tired of beating a dead horse.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Dude, I could care less if quotes are involved. Having quotes of his opinion, of the opinions of most of congress from the middle of the 1800's means absolutely nothing. It's still an opinion.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Dude, I could care less

Dude, Dude, who are you? A surfer?

Perhaps that is your problem. You don't care.


Having quotes of his opinion, of the opinions of most of congress from the middle of the 1800's means absolutely nothing. It's still an opinion.

You keep proving that you did not read the entire article. You just don't get it.
** SIGH **

Ok, I'm done with you. There is no hope with even having a conversation because you refuse to read.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Stop quoting a few words from one of my sentences and making fun of it... Just stay on topic about the debate, not about the fact I used the word "dude."

Come on...

And I read the article. It's still an opinion of the congressmen at that time, and it's still an opinion to this date.

There is no clear definition. You said so yourself. As such, you can't fill in what the definition is.

[edit on 25/7/09 by Mak Manto]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
There is no clear definition. You said so yourself. As such, you can't fill in what the definition is.

It is clear. The problem is that it's clear in different ways to different people. I believe all the links I provided prove he is not eligible because either the father must be a citizen or both parents must be a citizen.

You read the same material and believe differently. It's all interpretation.

I guess this will not be resolved here on ATS until the supreme court rules on the definition and makes it perfectly clear. All they are going to do is interpret the same material. I guess Congress could step in and create some legislation to define it or we could go through the process to amend the Constitution.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Finally, we can agree on something.

The Supreme Court must come in and apply a definition to what being a natural-born citizen is. The debate will not stop until it happens




top topics



 
27
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join