It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sitting president's eligibility questioned by member of congress

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:13 PM

Originally posted by whatukno

He put it on the internet. They didn't believe him. What's the point of going further with this?

i didn't know that, apologies

In which case, to carry on questioning it after it was produced is silly.

That will teach me to butt in to a discussion about US politics

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:14 PM
This doesn't surprise me after all the USA is the most corrupt country in the world.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:18 PM
can we please stop this Birther crap, it is so old and a non issue now. He is the President, end of story. Its a easy cheap shot by anyone who is too lazy and dumb to say anything but "ah gee i don't think he was born here, yuk yuk".

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:25 PM

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Dock9

As I asked pages ago, would those who're saying, ' Obama's the president. Doesn't matter where he was born. Get over it '

Well, I am one that says Obama is the President. He was born in Hawaii, get over it.

Because I do believe that it matters where the President was born, and he was born in Hawaii. Hawaii being a state at the time of Obama's birth in Hawaii to an American mother, makes him. (wait for it) A Natural Born American Citizen.

So until someone comes up with undeniable proof that Obama was born somewhere else than Hawaii, the prima facie evidence we have must suffice. That evidence points to Hawaii being the place of birth.

I see

So because YOU 'believe' and 'claim' this or that

it's engraved in stone and Ve Must Obey --- is that how you see the world ?

Look at what you've written

Are you embarrassed about it ?

Did you stamp your foot as you wrote it ?

Has that worked for you in the past ?

If so, how old are you ?

For the rest of us ... those of us who are adults of voting age ... such ego-ridden dummy-spits are a thing of the past

Anyway, if/when you reach your majority and are allowed the vote, you might have reached the emotional and intellectual maturity expected of legal adulthood

If/when you become a parent and contributing member of society, you will HAVE to deveop emotional and intellectual maturity. Foot stampting just won't work in the real world. Nor will expecting people to 'accept things' just because YOU say so

For the rest of us of legal voting age however, it simply will not suffice for someone .... ANYone .. to make unsubstantiated claims ala Obama and his co-conspirators

to the extent that they 'were' born in such and such a place, and (like a child) demanding HIS word be accepted in order he can retain the most powerful political office in the world (in the puppet world government at least, we're not talking the shadows who are the REAL controllers)

You see, anyone --- if they could get away with it --- would lift their chin and tell presiding judges and juries, ' I'm innocent. Like it or lump it. Yes, I DO have an alibi for when the murders were committed --- but I've utilized my ability to have my records SEALED. So you judges and juries are just going to have to believe me when I say I am innocent. And that's that '.

Be nice, wouldn't it, if we could all just stamp our feet and refuse to prove our claims, ala Obama ?

But it's not the way it works in the ADULT world. For good reason

For example, a child could insist to its parents that it had done its homework and passed the exams and was now entitled to the promised new car and trip to Hawaii

The parents would doubtless demand that the child prove its claims. After all, new cars and vacations in the sun don't grow on trees. And the parents (similar to the tax-payers funding Obama and his wars, etc.) had to work hard to not only pay their OWN bills, but also to put a bit of money aside

So they'd want documented PROOF of their child's claims

BUT --- if the child had already grasped the new car and vacation -- he could thumb his nose at his parents (similar to Obama) and say, ' Nah, nah, nah, nah nah. I already HAVE the car (and office of Presidency). So there's nothing you can DO, lol. I'm TELLING you that I'm entitled to have these things (and presidential office). That's what I am TELLING you. I don't HAVE to prove it ! I am ME ! YOU are merely you ! So run away. I win ! '

That's what Obama's saying. And he's getting away with it. Because he can. Just as a criminal would insist he is innocent and doesn't HAVE to prove it !

It's called chutzpah



Brazen defiance

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:32 PM

Originally posted by whatukno

Obama derangement syndrome - very accurate description of the birthers

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:40 PM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

I, for one, think Obama is qualified to be president, however, i don't think he should be president because i don't agree with all of what he's doing.

But if this representative has a legitimate reason to question Obama's eligibility, then he needs to step forward in session and present his doubts to the the other representatives or have a press conference and present them to the nation.

Otherwise, if he has no legitimate reasons to doubt Obama's eligibility, then he needs to shut up or go find proof.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:44 PM

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Gargamel

Yes it is a legal document that at the time people not born in Hawaii could obtain.

No it is not, what makes you think that?

Why is it hard to understand that people want this document verified.

It has been verified, but that is not enough for you

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by Dock9

1) I am 34 years old.


posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

Cant say I am surprised this happened. It was the first time a president got heckled during his speech aswell when it happened to Obama, and it was by another GOP politician. The GOP has hit rock bottom, and as usual they must appeal to the fringe voters to gain any sort of traction again.

This congressman is questioning Obamas eligibility? Over what? That his father was a Kenyan? Is he to assume that the other presidents have gone to any more of further length to prove their eligibility? If he says Obamas proof of eligibility isnt good enough, I'll be more than happy to say the same for Reagan, Bush, McCain, Romney and you name it. Because none of them have had to go to the lengths of evidence as had been provided in the case of Obama.

So what? Is he going to to speculate that 18year old Mrs Dunham, student, managed to afford a $400 ticket in 61' to fly to Kenya, 6-8 months pregnant, to only arrive there after 1 week and 5 stops in the air, then to travel another 60 miles to Obama seniors village, then to spend a couple of days there, to have Obama, then to fly back? Really? Have you even thought of this explanation of how Obama's mother would have gotten to Kenya? I mean aside from the evidence, to explanation itself is beyond logical thinking.

Its funny this man even has the nerve to questions the constitutionality of Obama's eligibility. He voted to make the patriot act permanent, voted against impeachment investigations of Bush, voted against investigations over whether Bush lied about the Iraq war, voted against gay rights and will be running for the 2010 Georgia governers position. Hypocrisy, opportunistic? I think both those apply to Mr Deal rather well.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:02 PM
reply to post by maybereal11

Yes. Alan Keyes was the Black man that the GOP scrounged up to run against Barack Obama for the senate seat after the previous GOP candidate (Jack Ryan) was found to be abusing his wife and trying to pawn her her off to other men so he could watch in upscale swingers clubs.

Not true.He wanted to have sex with her himself in public(who could blame him).

But this is what happened

David Axelrod-- Gets Obama's opponent's sealed divorce records opened up

There was a question that came up yesterday about Blair Hull’s difficulties here in Illinois, and what in the heck precipitated it? We all have our theories, right? What I’m looking for is some kind of documentation to attest to the facts in this; bearing in mind that Obama’s chief media advisor at the time was David Axelrod, who was an advisor to the Clinton campaign. Axelrod, in fact, railed against the politics of personal destruction in the 1990s, and was also once a columnist for the Tribune and an advisor to Mayor Daley. Lynn Sweet at the Sun Times shows us Obama’s 2008 Whitehouse team, and at the top of the list is: David Axelrod, media strategist. Founder of Chicago-based AKP Media. Handled Obama’s 2004 Senate race. “A” client list: consults for Mayor Daley, Rep. Rahm Emanuel. According to CBS Radio, he’s even more accomplished than that:


Why Unseal Ryan's Divorce Papers?

Neither Jack nor Jeri wanted them unsealed. What gives?


Records from the 1999 divorce of Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan were unsealed Monday, and the revelations contained therein are spooking some of his supporters. The documents contain allegations from his ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan, that her then-husband had a predilection for taking her to raunchy sex clubs. Both Ryans opposed the unsealing of the divorce records. Why was the court permitted to overrule their wishes?

Because the First Amendment rights of media organizations generally supercede the privacy rights of litigants, since the American legal system favors transparency in all court proceedings. In the Ryan case, the Chicago Tribune and a Chicago TV station sued in Los Angeles (where the divorce proceedings took place) to unseal the records. In keeping with prior rulings nationwide, the court concluded that the public's right of access outweighed whatever emotional distress the unsealing might cause.

This is with a little digging but Ryan was neither abusive nor willing to have the records unsealed, the Chicago Tribune a liberal paper that Axelrod worked for sued to have the documents unsealed.Thus ending any real opposition to b. hussien obama

[edit on 7-1-2010 by genius/idoit]

[edit on 7-1-2010 by genius/idoit]

[edit on 7-1-2010 by genius/idoit]

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

I wonder what sort of hobbies the Bush haters have chosen now. Just saying...........

Any new hobbiests out there?

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:16 PM
The entire U.S. Government is illegitimate. Why stop at just the President? Why harp on such a minor detail such as "place of birth?"

Was George Washington a natural born citizen? Hell no. But he is one of our founding fathers and is widely considered to be one of the best Presidents we've ever had. I know the Constitution has it as a requirement, but God only knows why they put it in there.

If you want to attack the eligibility of the government, attack them on real issues such as the proven, undeniable fact that none of those schmucks represents the will of the people. None of those schmucks follows the Constitution which they vow to uphold. None of those good for nothing pieces of crap even read the mail they get from the voting republic. They buy their way into power by schmoozing up to Big Media, and once they have power they use it to keep Big Media under control. Once they've got Big Media eating out of the palms of their hands, they can control who Big Media promotes for various offices.

This disastrous spiral of evil ensures that senior politicians have the real say in who the junior politicians will be, giving them - rather than the public - absolute control over what the government is going to do. Once the senior politicians retire or die, their handpicked replacements take their places and continue enacting the policies of those before them.

And who controls the senior politicians? Billionaires and the monopolies they control, that's who. Nobody else. Not you. Not me. Not us. Not the people around us. Just the billionaires and the monopolies they control.

This has been going on for decades. Nobody in the Federal government today is eligible for the office they hold, because the elections that put them in office were simple charades orchestrated by senior politicians and their media puppets. They were chosen by the elite, not by the people. Only a government legitimately chosen by rightfully and honestly informed people would be eligible to serve in this once great republic.

We don't have that. Every last one of the people in power now was planted there by the billionaires who've bought out the senior politicians, who've regulated the media into subservience, which tells people lies in order to control who they vote for. Every last one of them has got to go.

Obama is neither exclusive to NOR excluded from that statement.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:40 PM
It's up to Obama to disprove the rumours re: his eligibility and legitimacy

It would be expected, demanded even, that Obama be able to disprove the rumours and claims and quiet the clamour

After all, if he does, as he claims, possess a legitimate birth certificate which proves he was born in the United States

then it should be a small matter for him to proffer such document

without delay

And as we know, he was required to furnish such a document when declaring himself a candidate

Yet rather than reconcile his supporters and doubters

Obama chose instead to add fuel to the fire

by failing to make open disclosure

and by making it first order of business (at no small expense)

to SEAL his records and history

Now come on. Don't play the fool any longer

As someone above has already said:

Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing

Obama has FUELLED the fires of suspicion and distrust ! He has done so deliberately

And it's clear he has LOTS to hide

If not, the path is open to him to prove otherwise

And one year later, he has failed to avail himself of EVERY opportunity to quell rumour and suspicion

There CAN be only one logical conclusion

and nothing his supporters and defenders offer does one whit to dent that logical conclusion

Sadly for them, Obama has tied their hands behind their backs and given his supporters and defenders NOTHING with which to fight





posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:45 PM
While it’s a very passionate issue it is a ‘good news, bad news issue.’

First the good news…Obama will never serve out his entire term!

Now for the bad news…Obama will never serve out his entire term!

Obama will only be with us long enough to finish looting the rest of the U.S. Treasury and passing a few more debilitating laws like Health Care Reform (eugenics) and the Carbons Emission Tax.

It’s all about putting time and distance between the crimes of the Clinton and Bush Administrations that led to the real estate, and stock market bubbles, the thefts of 9-11 and ultimately the theft of about 11 trillion dollars in American’s savings and investments, and another 11 trillion dollars from America’s treasury.

So you get the idea of the actual proportions of the thefts that have occurred because even when you add 11 and 11 and come up with 22 it doesn’t seem all that big…

It would take every man woman and child in America working for two solid years to earn 22 trillion dollars. Of course you can’t eat, pay your bills, or buy anything in that time.

Everything happening right now is about redirection, deflection, and creating such a tangled web that no one down the line would ever be unable to unravel it all to trace it back to the main architects of the crime, Lord Rothschild, Rockefeller, and Bush Sr.

They will change horses midstream through Obama’s term and change directions once more when they do. It will not only cause domestic upheaval when they do but also develop quickly into dramatically expanding the War on Terror which Americans will be convinced through more false flags Obama is just not equal to fighting.

This is going to get really messy before it’s all through. The Powers that Be didn’t invest 2 billion dollars in an empty suit and nobody like Obama to make him an overnight sensation cause they thought he was the second coming, they did it because he’s brain dead and easily expendable.

Hold on to your seats the ride will get bumpy!

[edit on 7/1/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:50 PM
people dont seem to get the issue which is: is obama legally able to hold office..? and if he isnt, another question would be then, why try to put him in office.... thatd be an interesting answer if u ever got one..

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Dock9
It's up to Obama to disprove the rumours re: his eligibility and legitimacy

actually, you are wrong - or do you expect Obama to have to disprove any silly rumour someone makes up about him - "Hey Obama, prove you did not cheat in a primary school exam"

After all, if he does, as he claims, possess a legitimate birth certificate which proves he was born in the United States
then it should be a small matter for him to proffer such document
without delay

Except he has! But the Obama haters, birthers, racists etc. refuse to accept that fact, they just keep going on and on and on, making themselves look extremely silly. Some of the sillier ones have even taken it to court, and all have lost

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Deal Challenges Obama’s Eligibility

by P. Patriot

(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.

Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.

Now, what does this mean? This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting president….one full year into his term.

This forever changes the public discourse.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by asala]

The topic I thought was that congressman has questioned the President's eligibility...

I remember reading here that if a person (may not apply to congressman) accuses the President of a crime, and it is untrue, they can be prosecuted.

I may be mistaken... but I would think a congressman would have to have reason to accuse the President for fear of serious repercussions.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:13 PM
Here is the question that many people should be asking themselves:
Lets say that the question of removing President Obama is sucessful remove, are they prepared for the line of sucession and the people who would be in charge? It goes as follows:
1) Barak Obama
2) Joseph Biden
3) Nancy Pelosi
4) Hillary Clinton
5) Timothy Geithner
6) Robert Gates
7) Eric Holder
8) Ken Salazar
9) Tom Vilsack
10) Gary Locke
11) Hilda Solis
12) Kathleen Sebelius
13) Shaun Donovan
14) Ray LaHood
15) Steven Chu
16) Arne Duncan
17) Eric Shinseki
18) Janet Napolitano
Those are the people who would take a step up in the line of succession behind Barak Obama, as set out in the Constitution of the United States.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by sdcigarpig

Actually, it's not quite that cut and dry. If he was ineligible for office from the get-go, then couldn't you make a strong case that he was never eligible to appoint anyone else to their cabinet positions?

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:33 PM

Originally posted by TheCoffinman
people dont seem to get the issue which is: is obama legally able to hold office..?

This question has been addressed on here time and time again and yet birthers continue to ignore it.

Yes the president is legally able to hold office. The evidence of his birth right presented, along with verification from Hawaiian state officials and confirmation from congress on December 15 2008, makes him legally able to hold office.

Does dual citizenship make him ineligible? No, because he is not currently a dual citizen and nowhere in the constitution does it specifically forbid dual citizenship under any circumstances.

Does the fact his father was born in Kenya make him inelible? No, because the constitution does not specifically define a natural born citizen as have both parents as US citizens. Natural born is an anchor term for having being born of national soil which Obama has.

So, really its not a "question" of whether the president is legally eligible to be president. Its a matter of a certain bitter segment of this nation that cannot get over the fact that he is.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in