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.

 

Proof of a DNC Conspiracy to Elect an Ineligible Obama

page: 11
137
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Thank you Jdub. It was not for me but for the group so comparisons can be made.

It looks the same except no time stamp by the state.




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


Did you even read what you posted?

Obama is not a natural born citizen. He may be a native born citizen but he's not a natural born citizen.

It's a fact that Obama had Kenyan citizenship at birth and he was a citizen of Britain.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama's birth.

Your quote says this:


In 1964, the Supreme Court seemed to say, without deciding, that "natural born" meant born inside the United States. In an opinion on an unrelated issue, the court observed, "The rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. In 1964, the Supreme Court seemed to say, without deciding, that "natural born" meant born inside the United States. In an opinion on an unrelated issue, the court observed, "The rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President." But that language is not legally binding, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on what "natural born" means.


The Courts even drew a distinction between native born and a natural born citizen. It said:

The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President.

Obama is a native born citizen not a natural born citizen.

Natural born citizen means a person born with two parents who were united states citizens.

The Founders would have just said citizens if it meant just anybody. They also had to grandfather themselves in because they were not natural born citizens.

It's clear Obama was born a citizen of Kenya and a subject of Britain at birth. He also took on citizenship in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro and that's why he switched his name to Barack Obama and his Passport and Indonesia adoption records are sealed.

Barry Soetoro would have to become a naturalized citizen.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Great Thread....my only hope would be that they nullify all previous canidates and appoint Ron Paul POTUS....ok, never happen...but a guy can wish can't he.
The thing about all of this that has me wondering is in June 08, they accounced that there would be this BIG CRUSHING BLOW to the Obama camp....it was rumored it was secret info on him that would destroy his campaign.....well we never heard a word about it there after....no big crushing blow...the only thing we heard was how McCain was not going to use anything negitive against Obama....I always wondered why?
I think that McCain got the briefing about what the real deal of the presidentcy was and just flat out refused to comply and sunk his election bid. Remember how Sarah was going gangbusters and then just stopped and started being a jackass.....doing stupid interviews and saying absolutely idiotic things. It all seemed to be a set up from October to the election.....that is just my thoughts on the matter....I personally didn't vote for either one of them...ok, you guess it I voted for Ron Paul.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by theonlyrusty
 
Oh, come now. You have obviously not done any travel to third world nations such as Kenya. Probably a midwife, not a 'doctor'. And if a doctor, then not eligible to be anything other than a nurses assistant in the US. And that midwife would most certainly be interested in getting some, a lot, of American cash...




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The clock is ticking. I have to wonder how much time Baraq has left before his full expose, then trial and imprisonment. The only thing that could change that is an event so big, that we would forget American politics for awhile. Like a major terrorist attack, or an incoming wandering star...



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by liveandlearn
reply to post by Shadowflux
 


I have an R in my name and I happen to write them two different ways and they both happen to be just like that P was written.


Ditto.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Obama was born in Hawaii ---> Natural born citizen. Can you read?

Do you think it's fun making up "facts" as you go? Where in the Constitution does it say both parents need be US citizens for their kid to be a natural born citizen? Please show me the passage. Do you pull this stuff out of thin air or other smelly places?

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Nichiren]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Would you guys PLEASE stop talking about whether Obama is a natural born citizen in this thread? :shk:

I mean yeah, it's related, but ok, we get it. Yeah we know that's an issue. But is it the right issue for THIS thread? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have a billion other threads to discuss that in.

Now more than ever in this thread we need evidence. And that means writing your state election boards to obtain the copy of your state's official certificate of eligibility received from the DNC.

THANK YOU seriously to all who are really about helping here. Even you BH (sorry I lost it there, but ya done pissed me off!).

One thing I find rather fascinating already here is that Hawaii, the very state of contention on the BC issue, apparently received the copy with the clause. My question is, did they really? Or is it that they are so aware of the issue from constant questions from thousands of people on the matter, they have already been told to deliver the copy with the clause, when they may have really received the copy without the clause?

In the sister thread, someone pointed out that it is state law that that the candidate be constitutionally eligible. And so in one way it makes sense that they would receive the one with the clause. But right there that makes this all the much more worse. Because if we discover that the DNC actually went to the trouble of researching individual state's laws to find out which ones require it and which ones don't, then what does THAT say about what is really going on here? My GOD! They are trying to reduce their exposure to suits, best they can?

Jesus. Just how deep does this rabbit hole go? What if we discover that every other state besides Hawaii got the one without the clause????

Then what?

I gotta admit- this is turning out to be quite the curious situation. KEEP THOSE DNC CERTIFICATES COMING FOLKS!!!!

[edit on Sun Sep 13th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Just a thought. I think someone should figure out if the document with the eligibility clause is legally binding or if anyone can be perjured over it. Where is it being used? Who was it submitted to? Is it possible they signed it but knew that it was just a dummy contract to be thrown around if people got suspicious? I mean I could create a contract right here in my house and if there's nobody that can enforce it or sue me or perjure me, it's a meaningless contract. Maybe it's only legal if they send it out to the states or something. Just something to look into. I'm not big into the whole Obama controversy, but I am interested in knowing the truth.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


Thats why I asked,wasent sure. I knew someone here would know. That is why this is such a great site.

As for the topic, I don't think its gonna make a difference.I feel we will be in a Revolution before the next election at the rate of bs comming down from Whore/White House.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I wonder how these documents would compare to documents that the RNC filed for Bush/Cheney in 2000/2004? That would pretty much sum it up wouldn't it? The Bush/Cheney papers would show whether or not it is valid that those words have to be put on the submissions to the states.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


Obama is not a natural born citizen and this will be my last post on the subject since people don't want to discuss related issues to the topic of this thread. Every thread has a discussion of related issues, but I digress.


Obama...

is not a "natural born citizen" because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject. To be a natural born citizen, a person's parents must BOTH be citizens of the United States of America. Further, that person must be born in the United States.

is a "citizen" because his mother was an American citizen. There are question about his birthplace and whether he was naturalized after his period of time as an Indonesian citizen.

may be a "native born citizen" -- a child born in the United States of foreign (non-citizen) parents. He will have to release his birth certificate, which he hasn't, to ascertain this status.


This is a discussion by Senator Patrick Leahy and Michael Chertoff:


It was during the bill's hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:

"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen," said Leahy. "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate."

At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff replied.

"That is mine, too," said Leahy.


www.theobamafile.com...

You can also look up court cases:

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Perkins v. Elg,
307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168

Obama was born and some stay still is a British citizen at birth. There's no way the Founders wanted a British citizen or a duel citizen to be President. They were British citizens and they had to grandfather themselves into the Constitution to be eligible to be President.

Obama then changed his name to Barry Soetoro when he was adopted and he became a citizen of Indonesia. He most likely travelled the world as Barry Soetoro a citizen of Indonesia and this is why his Indonesian adoption records are sealed and his Passports.

Barry Soetoro is the President of the United States right now. A citizen of Indonesia. There's no record that Barry Soetoro legally became Barack Obama. Barry Soetoro would have had to become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Instead he just dropped the name Barry Soetoro and took up the name Barack Obama. There's no legal person named Barack Obama because Barack Obama became Barry Soetoro when he was adopted in Indonesia.

All this is relevant to the topic because there had to be a reason why they would doctor the document. They didn't do this in a vacuum. But like I said, this will be my last post on this thread because I can't add to the subject as to wether it's forged or real because I don't know. I can add to the topic as to why Pelosi and the DNC would forge these documents.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by nocensorshipplease
I have personally never felt he was eligible to be our president. This does not surprise me nor does it surprise me that the democrats would stoop to any level to get a person of choice elected.


Then why didn't Hillary jump all over this and use it to get herself elected? Did she spend all that money just to help fool you all? Why didn't McCaine go after any of this? I wish I could accept bets on whether or not this story will lead to anything real.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


When you get all of your news from Fox and Redstate, you tend to spread falsehoods and outright lies. Your entire post is a wonderful example. Thank you.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
THANK YOU seriously to all who are really about helping here. Even you BH (sorry I lost it there, but ya done pissed me off!).


Likewise. When I told my husband that you told me "you'd better back off", he laughed uproariously, knowing how I would respond to that from you. Coming from most people, I'd blow it off. But I got pissed, because I was just asking questions that I think need to be looked at:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who received this document? Is it from one of the states? He (the blogger) just casually mentions that the original wasn't received by any states (How does he know this?) but that he just happens to have a copy of it... Why? Where did he get it? Where did he get the one with the received stamp? Don't you wonder these things?


I think it's important to ASK these questions. We are getting the answer to some of them, but didn't have them at that time.



One thing I find rather fascinating already here is that Hawaii, the very state of contention on the BC issue, apparently received the copy with the clause. My question is, did they really? Or is it that they are so aware of the issue from constant questions from thousands of people on the matter, they have already been told to deliver the copy with the clause, when they may have really received the copy without the clause?


For this to be true, the Hawaii DNC AND the National DNC would have to be in on it. It's possible, certainly, but we're getting a pretty wide range of people who would have to know, have to keep their mouths shut, and have to disregard the founding document of our country, the Constitution. It sounds like you're trying to make the story fit your suspicions.

Hawaii Response

Read the first page carefully:



Hawaii Revised Statutes 11-113



(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
...
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;




Because if we discover that the DNC actually went to the trouble of researching individual state's laws to find out which ones require it and which ones don't, then what does THAT say about what is really going on here?


It could be that they have a list of states that require it and a list of states that don't, as well as any added signatures (as one form has already shown) or specialty additions that any states require. I don't find this suspicious at all. Election Committees have been doing this for many years. They don't have to do the research every year.

I have already informed Matrix Rising that British citizenship law is irrelevant to US citizenship law. We don't check all other country's laws and take them into account when ascribing citizenship, natural-born or otherwise, to our citizens. We have our own set of laws. That's just how it works. A person cannot be made to abide by the conflicting laws of two countries. In Britain, the Nationality Act applies to Obama. So, should he want to relocate to Britain, he would have an advantage as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But to the US, it matters NOT ONE BIT.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

One thing I find rather fascinating already here is that Hawaii, the very state of contention on the BC issue, apparently received the copy with the clause. My question is, did they really? Or is it that they are so aware of the issue from constant questions from thousands of people on the matter, they have already been told to deliver the copy with the clause, when they may have really received the copy without the clause?

[edit on Sun Sep 13th 2009 by TrueAmerican]


You are paranoid and jumping the gun. Do you realize how many people would have to be in on this thing? Why don't you let the facts (and that's no the gibberish that you make up) surface first? Then you can distort the facts as you like to fit your political agenda. Oh wait, we already have the Hawaii document, but the State's officials are all lying to cover Obama



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
While searching for stuff, I found South Carolina's Response, complete with a requirement that the Certification must contain a statement saying that the candidate meets the legal requirements. It doesn't, however, specifically mention the Constitutional qualifications, as Hawaii's Response does.

South Carolina Code of Laws 7-13-350



Political parties nominating candidates by primary or convention must verify the qualifications of those candidates prior to certification to the authority charged by law with preparing the ballot. The written certification required by this section must contain a statement that each candidate certified meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he has filed.


This seems to me to be a conflict. South Carolina requires a statement of qualifications, but the DNC Certification TO South Carolina does not contain it in the form of the Constitutional language... UNLESS, the word "duly" encompasses the idea that the candidate is qualified; that he is properly nominated. But I don't put any credence in that idea at all.

Still searching for stuff.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Here is the Texas Election Code It seems to contain the same verbiage but doesn't say it has to be in writing.


SUBCHAPTER B. PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Sec. 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:

(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:
(A) the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president;
and
(B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates
nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of
presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and

(3) the party is:
(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make
its nominations by primary election; or
(B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general
election ballot under Chapter 181.


edit to add that both Democratic and Republican candidates missed the deadline in 2008. I don't know how that was resolved.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by liveandlearn]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm


I'm sure they filed these exactly as they were supposed to. Give me a break. The people filing papers for the President are going to make a mistake? I don't think so.

You don't 'think so'? How quaint. I would have said the same thing about an illegal alien being able to run for president, or even congress. Berther? Berther Butt, one of the Butt sisters. For your info, there are about a dozen lawsuits still being heard nationwide, about that issue. And the Kenyan has already spent over a million dollars to prevent the evidence from being released. Course, he has nothing to hide, right? Come on, one plus one equals two. Furthermore, every piece of legislation he signs, is being held up and contested in court, because he is not president. Once he is exposed, and he will be, every act and appointment he has ever made as president will be null and void. Kaput. Do over. And he stands to be imprisoned, and deported.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
This is the 2007 statement that Barack Obama signed, swearing that he's a natural born citizen and meets the qualifications outlined in the Constitution. Not that it makes any difference in the subject of the thread, but I hadn't seen this before and wanted to post it here.

From Arizona




new topics

top topics



 
137
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join