O' bama is not NATURAL born. It is clear. Only a fortnight now...., page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 04:35 AM by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by WhatTheory



Wouldn't it be a better idea to actually read the laws on citizenship, than make assumptions base on what "some say"?

The whole birther thing is like that, a bunch of people way too gullible for their own good believing there's a bigfoot in the freezer. You're making fools out of yourselves.



reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 05:00 AM by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by WhatTheory



Then you would know that the law states that parents do NOT need to be citizens for their US born child to be a 'natural born citizen'. When this thread gets to the 15th or 16th page and this fact has been proven over and over, maybe then you'll admit that you're the one having a little comprehension problem, and you did indeed make a fool of yourself.


reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 07:05 AM by Southern Guardian
Lie.

Nowhere in the constitution does it state that both parents must be US citizens, infact the constitution only mentions "natural born citizenship" once when it defines eligibility for the presidency. It doesnt directly define natural born citizenship however it does clearly state that the presidency is a birth right, those born on US soil.

Many birthers have time and time again referenced their evidence from WND and Israeli insider, rightwing propaganda websites. The issue of the birthers is that they continously fail to reference in the constitution or among the statutory (federal) laws where it clearly states that both parents must be citizens in order for children born on soil to be natural born.

The only time where the constitution and the laws clearly state that both parents must be citizens is in the case when children are born off US soil, something birthers are yet to prove in Obamas case.

So until the birthers prove constitutionally that Obama is ineligible, that is the laws directly from the constitution, not a personal definition from a fringe website, not a personal definition from a politician, they are dead in the water.

The birther campaign is already dead, but on multiple accounts birthers try to revive it. At the end of the day their claims are always exposed as false and as always the campaign dies to be brought back to life with another hollow claim. Dont pay too much attention to the bluffing.

Whats interesting is the hypocrisy. They complain about the lack of evidence of eligibility despite whats been presented, yet they readily take in what some blogger claims or what some individual claims with no evidence what so. They complain about how "bias factchecker is" and yet they expect us to take them seriously when they reference WND or the Israeli insider, obvious fringe websites. The hypocrisy of it all.

SG


[edit on 31-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 07:25 AM by Hazelnut
reply to post by Southern Guardian



Southern Guardian, you are an enigma. I'm confused about which sources are legitimate and which are propaganda tools. I sincerely do NOT want to be mislead, misguided or ignorant of the real facts regarding - - - - anything. However, it seems to me that there are no credible, factual, reliable sources of information that everyone can easily access. Other than the Constitution which has and continues to be debated, there are no "factually reliable" external sources that one can rely on for pure unadulterated truths.

So, which ones do you recommend for people like me who do not wish to be labeled with a brand of "truther", "birther", "nutjob", "whackjob", etc.?

The Constitution and its amendments themselves are not even free of misunderstanding and manipulation by parties whose purpose is to further a larger agenda. Perhaps a few of those agendas are beneficial and just, perhaps not.

The whole issue has become one of division. Where is the common ground that we can come together, discuss our theories, questions, fears, facts and fantasies without becoming subject to ridicule, humiliation, derision, and rudeness?

You have made a practice on ATS of being very vocal and authoritative. In that regard, I appeal to you. Please give me the sources that you consider ethical, unbiased and factual. And, one more thing. I'm a trained legal assistant, not a legal scholar. Please speak in laymans terms for those whose educations did not include legaleeze.


reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 08:23 AM by genius/idoit
reply to post by Southern Guardian


13 posts prior by what theory,isn't that a reliable source?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 10 days ago with 59 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 9 days ago with 11 member flags
ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 8 days ago with 11 member flags
There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 9 days ago with 10 member flags
White House pressure on Gulf oil leak figures
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags