Okay...Obama was not born in the US...so what?

So every law he passes is invalid. Oh, no big deal, huh?

Oh, and every command he gives is not official or governmental. No big deal, huh?

Every thing he says then is basically irrelevant until he tries to exert power. When he does, everything he does is CRIMINAL! Oh, no big deal huh?



[edit on 16-10-2009 by nwodeath]

if you think going against the constitution is ok then you sir are a terrorist and i hope you are hassled by the nsa

many good people who believe in our constitution and support it have been hassled for much much less

if you think there is no big deal with violating our constitution, then there is nothing to say, there is no reasoning with that type of logic

our constitution was made for a reason, it was made to protect us from everything we are being attacked by today

everything responsible for any problems we are facing today are mainly the direct result of not obeying our constitution

anyone with knowledge of history and politics can see that

anyone with a level of intelligence can see the dangers of not adhering to our constitution, or enforcing the constitution selectively



if obama was not born in the us and that is proven, everyone involved should receive the death penalty instantly, no if ands or buts

the only thing that should be done before they are put to death is to make sure we find out each and every person involved in allowing that to happen

and whether its 10 people or a million people anyone responsible for going against our constitution should face the most dire consequences, especially when going against our constitution has such dire consequences for the american public


simply put traitors get the death penalty, and if obama is proven to be born outside the us, him and everyone involved are the worst traitors imaginable

they will make Benedict arnold look like santa claus

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Dramey]

Originally posted by Doc Tesla
okay your right. its only a small problem. fine presidents dont need to be born in the united states.

Protesting, no one does that anymore. lets just remove that one too. guns are dangerous lets just edit that rule too.

You do not move the stones a house is built on.

Excellent work using a "slippery slope" argument to make your point. You have just provided everyone with a perfect example of a fallacious argument. This is not an acceptable form of logic and is a divisive technique used when a suitable argument cannot be formed.

reply to post by Dramey


False accusations of treason, are themselves, treason, citizen. Please verify your accusation of treason immediately, thank you for your cooperation.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Dramey

 

False accusations of treason, are themselves, treason, citizen. Please verify your accusation of treason immediately, thank you for your cooperation.

Besides your opinion, where do you quote this source from for this? I have never heard before, that accusations of treason, are treasonous. That's silliness to the extreme.

Lawless is unhealthy! We have laws in the US that we enforce.

Another factor about Obama being an apostate of Islam is that he has deliberately left the back door open to our country for Islamic loyalty who will come in and destroy. Part of the 7 phase plan that started with the 911 Awakening.

reply to post by nwodeath

Besides your opinion, where do you quote this source from for this? I have never heard before, that accusations of treason, are treasonous. That's silliness to the extreme.

Article IV Section 782 United New World Order Constitution/ Punishments and treason subsection F

[edit on 10/16/2009 by whatukno]

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


each piece of the constitution being slowly taken away is not something you should be ok with if you are a patriot. we were founded on these beliefs, and each time someone disreguards the constitution as not being "fitting" to the country of america it only adds to driving us into socialism, the very thing the constitution was made to protect against....if you dont like freedom or the constitution, im sure there;s a socialist regime glad to take u in, go to france or something....

Originally posted by chrisd250
each piece of the constitution being slowly taken away is not something you should be ok with if you are a patriot. we were founded on these beliefs, and each time someone disreguards the constitution as not being "fitting" to the country of america it only adds to driving us into socialism, the very thing the constitution was made to protect against....if you dont like freedom or the constitution, im sure there;s a socialist regime glad to take u in, go to france or something....

You have just described hegemony. The increase of lessening of choices for the population. Slowly things are chipped away and narrowed so we lose our variety and freedom to choose. And that is what gives the government more power.
Now the US government will give us many choices because we are a free market society. Other governments will want to limit us and control in order to build their strength. Good reason to protect our lifestyle in the West!

[edit on 16-10-2009 by JJay55]

One thing all these people who are hemming and hawing about the Constitution fail to realize that the Constitution is ambivalent about Obama's appointment. The Constitution has machinery set in place for people to redress their grievances. This is almost always through the courts. In order to get through the courts, you have to have standing. In order to have standing, you need to have suffered an injury.

If Obama violated some civil right like your right to speak freely, under the US Constitution you could seek a remedy in the courts because you have standing because you suffered an injury. The mere fact that Obama was wrongly elected is not an injury to you. Under the US Constitution, there is nothing you can do other than vote against him in 2012 because you have not been injured.

Since the Constitution does not operate to remove Obama merely because he is really a foreigner, it values this portion of the Constitution less than the substantive portions like the Bill of Rights. The Constitution will only enforce this provision if someone has been wronged by Obama's "illegal" election, yet nobody can point to a wrong that was done to them by Obama's illegal election. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to demand Obama's ouster unless you have been wronged.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

If Obama violated some civil right like your right to speak freely, under the US Constitution you could seek a remedy in the courts because you have standing because you suffered an injury.

Did they not have a white house hot line on which to report any suspicious emails or dissent about the healthcare bill? That would potentially have limited every citizen's free speech. So that is 320 million chances. How about anyone injured or relatives of anyone killed by being sent to any of the current invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan? How about anyone who lost a job since Obama has been in power? How about anyone who has lost their home while the banks have been bailed out...oh and then 'mislaid' billions under his watch. I am sure there are a million instances of injury since he came into power, and a million more potential ones for the future of bills about to be passed.

This is an interesting debate. IF Obama was born outside the US, then you have legal and logistical problems.

IF...Where's the proof? Even the 'evidence' sounds distinctly flaky. I'm sorry, but everything I've heard on this subject pertaining to Obama being a Kenyan impostor sounds utterly ridiculous.

I do find your take on Socialism / Communism interesting also. Americans in general take a very black and white view on this - I can't really blame you, decades of 'reds under the bed' and commies out to get us is bound to have some kind of effect on social thinking.

You might like to note, when talking about 'other countries' that it was FRANCE who invented the modern form of democracy taken on by the US, and most of your political processes were based on BRITISH parliamentary processes, adapted and tailored by the founders of the Union.

There are many countries in the world who operate differing types of democratic government. In addition, you may like to note, the concept of a free market is NOT limited to the US, nor do you have an intellectual monopoly on this. It's the standard economic model used by most, non crazy, countries in the world.

Isn't it interesting that the countries who get voted, time and time again, to have the best quality of life, are nordic states like Sweden and Norway. What you have to try to understand, is that these are not SOCIALIST countries. They are strong democracies who aim for a form of SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.

What this means is that they embrace democratic and free-market principles, but they also aim to provide their residents with decent health care, public schooling, income safety-net, etc. Not the end of the world, hey? Not the slide into dreaded communism that a lot of you would like to predict. This social democracy principle has also, at times been pursued by the UK, Australia, New Zealand, most european nations, and so the list goes on.

I'm certainly not trying to justify the erosion of your constitution, you have every right to stand up for its integrity - what I'm saying is, get some perspective, maybe even VISIT some other countries, and don't base a three-page thread on the assumption that one of the most ridiculous and logically flawed conspriacies there's ever been is in fact true.

Originally posted by Enigma Publius
I normally try to see someones side of an issue, especially when I ca njust tell there is going to be a swarm against them, but you really just don't have a leg to stand on here.

First off, you can't say that NO ONE will dispute G. Bush being an awful president. You just said no one will dispute a certain opinion, which is impossible.

Well *I* wouldn't say that, however, as obviously people do. I don't,though. I think he was pretty bad as a president.

You say none of our rights were harmed. He is not done with his term yet. I hope Obama can overcome the difficulties that lie ahead in his presidency, but I just don't feel it happening. I think there is a major blunder waiting to happen and then we WOULD be hurt by his reign as president. Since he is only begun, you cannot say no harm will come, we just don't know yet.

Bush did a lot of bad things like kill 100,000 to maybe even over 1,000,000 people in Iraq and really screwed our reputation with the World which should be our friends. Even if Obama makes a "blunder", how do you know that that is because he was not born in USA? I.e. that such a "blunder" is/will be a result of deliberate harmful intent and not merely human error?

Also, the minute you start saying that one certain aspect of our constitution can be averted, you open the floodgates for other interpretations. One cannot change it around for convenience for their candidate, or any other personal reason. It must be maintained.

Well what about any other rule -- do you think this same logic applies to other rules, that is, all must be changed or none at all, light or dark, top or bottom, plus or minus type binary thinking? What if some rules are good but others not so much? US Constitution was a document written by fallible human beings,thus it can contain both right and wrong. Note that this is neither an advocacy piece for a change of those rules nor opposition to a change. It is an observation that I feel needs to be pointed out and also to call out that this type of logic can be used to justify keeping all sorts of rules and so does not really help. The question is: Is this a good rule now, or could there be a better way of doing things that might also answer whatever problem it sought to address, but also not deny *good* people from getting power (note the jury is still out on whether Obama is a "good" man/president/leader/politician/whatever, but I am not talking about Obama specifically here)?

Finally, there's one more thing: US interests are not always right, good, and just.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Born in the U.S. or not, that question is really unimportant. Was he born a citizen or not?

The birthers, in their haste to get rid of Obama, would throw under the bus ever single natural born citizen of the United States that has the unfortunate experience of being born a citizen of the United States outside of it's borders. They are a real and present threat to the legitimacy of those Americans.

reply to post by kyred


Oops. Thank you for correcting my body and my mind.
Second line just for jollys.

-500 points for me, Well, that's better than the last time.
Oh, and to get back on topic, Yeah, so what? Obama wasn't born in the US? Hey, it's all about what a great person he is and his intentions.
Heh.

Uh that could me he is a terrorist out to destroy this country from with in its very possible look at his church he used to go to.

www.youtube.com...

GOOD BYE!
Not a one liner. Don't You Get It?

Think twice about this. Remove this requirement, and you make Arnold eligible to run for President. After what he's done to California, are you sure you want him running this country? Just a thought.

Anyway, it's too late for Obama. The law was in effect at the time he ran and was elected President. If he wasn't born in the US, he was ineligible to run, and the election is therefore invalid. He cannot be President.

However, I would believe that the AP article is simply incorrect, that Obama isn't actually Kenyan by birth, and that the Hawaiian birth certificate is correct. Reporters don't always check their facts.

reply to post by mazzroth


Exactly. It's not such a big deal if he was born outside of the U.S. but rather the fact that he would have intentionally covered it up. This could imply that he had a secret loyalty to that country or some other ulterior motive.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


and who did obama bow to,and who paid for his harvard education??????

survey says...saudi arabians!!!!!!! numbah one answer!!!!