Obama Cannot be President Because Hawaii Not a State of the Union

page: 5
75
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


I have read all your posts here and I'd like to submit this one for you to consider.
From: statehoodhawaii.org...
As we look at the July 27th 1959 plebiscite, and consider its importance in the statehood process, we should consider that of the 132,773 who voted for Proposition 1—“Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?”—7,971 voted against it. In this 17-1 mandate by those voting in Hawaii’s 1959 primary election for governor, a total of 140,744 votes were cast in this plebiscite.

Now this I think supports my last statement in my above post. From the same source.

What this suggests is that those who did not participate in the primary election either did not care about the statehood results, or were not informed about the process enough to participate in the vote. The underwhelming turnout for something so important is of concern. Considering that the State of Hawaii cites this plebiscite vote as determinate proof of public support for statehood creates what Daniel Elazar, Professor of Political Science at Temple University in Philadelphia describes as an ersatz legitimacy of a democratic technique to the political decision making process.

Again the source is: statehoodhawaii.org...
Here is the Ballot I understand that they used for the vote.


I'm sorry but the entire ballot did not post, you can view here: statehoodhawaii.org...
edit on 21-1-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)


Excellent work! This is what I was talking about... you provided a great reference here that will make it a much more thorough debate... this really gets to the core of the subject, and isn't just a reproduction of information from another source, but a CORRELATION of the same facts, and that is what I meant by different sources.

Star for you my friend!

~Namaste




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by UluaHuntah808
 



That is why the 2 attempts to annex hawaii failed in congress.

I just thought that I'd throw out there that, according to the Wikipedia page for the Hawaiian Admission Act, two attempts to annex Hawai'i failed in Congress, not because of protests in Hawai'i, but because of the racial prejudices of many members of Congress during that time.

I guess one has got to take it for what they think it's worth though. I must say that that reason sounds infinitely more plausible than the United States Congress backing away because of a few people's disagreements.

ETA: I remember being taught in high school that the Hawaiian government was overthrown and that's how Hawaii became part of the US. If that is the case, an annexation isn't really required I would think, as the government was disposed and the land conquered. At that point, I guess one would just have to accept what happens, happens. Sure, that might not sit right with some nationalists, but those are the breaks of the game sometimes.
edit on 1/21/2011 by octotom because: Adding everything after ETA


How can you legally overthrow a country with whom you have treaties of peace and commerce and isn't even hostile?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SeaWind
 


Thank you SeaWind... and I agree with a lot of what you said in your post.

I'm enjoying the debate going on in this thread, as it isn't a "birther" debate, but a sovereignty debate about Hawaii, which by proxy, has implications for Obama.

Great information all, please keep it coming!

~Namaste



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
www.truth-out.org...

Heres an article about the current case that was recently published by truthout.org.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
By this logic, nobody is American since the US was illegally occupied from the natives.
Second line.


Yes and no...

The US wasn't a sovereign nation with any form of government at that time, but was basically "taken" from the natives without asking and with incredible manipulation of the native American Indians at the time. It is not the same as what is being discussed here because Hawaii was a kingdom, completely sovereign from the United States, and was then "occupied".

The annexation is the critical thing here...


United States Public Law 103-105 was signed by U.S. President Clinton on November 23, 1993, to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the U.S. overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy. The bill formally apologizes for the role the United States played in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893.


Source

Now, to back the OP, why would we have to apologize for overthrowing the monarchy if we didn't as other posters argue? History, until recently, didn't acknowledge such a thing... now it does?

If it was considered NOT an overthrowing for almost 100 years, but now it is, one can assume that annexation was legit for almost 100 years, but now evidence is saying it isn't. Reading into the purpose behind the overthrowing leads one to believe that the annexation was therefore done in an illegal fashion.

~Namaste



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
By this logic, nobody is American since the US was illegally occupied from the natives.
Second line.


Yes and no...

The US wasn't a sovereign nation with any form of government at that time, but was basically "taken" from the natives without asking and with incredible manipulation of the native American Indians at the time. It is not the same as what is being discussed here because Hawaii was a kingdom, completely sovereign from the United States, and was then "occupied".

The annexation is the critical thing here...


United States Public Law 103-105 was signed by U.S. President Clinton on November 23, 1993, to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the U.S. overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy. The bill formally apologizes for the role the United States played in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893.


Source

Now, to back the OP, why would we have to apologize for overthrowing the monarchy if we didn't as other posters argue? History, until recently, didn't acknowledge such a thing... now it does?

If it was considered NOT an overthrowing for almost 100 years, but now it is, one can assume that annexation was legit for almost 100 years, but now evidence is saying it isn't. Reading into the purpose behind the overthrowing leads one to believe that the annexation was therefore done in an illegal fashion.

~Namaste


excellent point!



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Interesting post, it does have some merit, if they are sucessfully able to leave the Union. But however, your pemise that Obama is not a citizen is not really quite valid. As has been stated and proven, his mother was, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, being from the midwest, having married and had a child with a guy from Africa, both of whom were studying at a university. As she was at the time a citizen of the United States of America, then by virtue of her being a citizen, he is granted full citizenship and considered a citizen of the country from day one. It falls under the same category as say a military family, where the child is born in a foreign country, in a foreign hospital, the child does not lose his or her citizenship cause they were born in a foriegn hospital, and their parent is a citizen of the United States of America. If that is the case, there are a whole lot of people that would be shocked to find out, and a few have served in the US military.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Brah I just wanted fo' say,

Hawaii for life. No mess wit da Aina you Malahinis.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SolarE-Souljah
Brah I just wanted fo' say,

Hawaii for life. No mess wit da Aina you Malahinis.



Right on another Hawaii person!



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
The eligibility to serve as POTUS is based on more than citizenship but also being born on US soil. Are there any exclusions regarding those born on US territorial possessions?

Well, that question is not entirely settled. The only thing known for sure is that anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, and that is the status the Constitution specifies and requires.

It’s not settled if those, through Acts of Congress, born as US citizens abroad or on US territories, are natural-born citizens. My opinion is that they are, but the Supreme Court has never ruled specifically on it.

But I would advise you and youdidntseeme to stop raising questions and linking the citizenship statutes, because the birthers might just find out that John McCain was 11 months when he became a US citizen...

edit on 21-1-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
The eligibility to serve as POTUS is based on more than citizenship but also being born on US soil. Are there any exclusions regarding those born on US territorial possessions?

Well, that question is not entirely settled. The only thing known for sure is that anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, and that is the status the Constitution specifies and requires.

It’s not settled if those, through Acts of Congress, born as US citizens abroad or on US territories, are natural-born citizens. My opinion is that they are, but the Supreme Court has never ruled specifically on it.

But I would advise you and youdidntseeme to stop raising questions and linking the citizenship statutes, because the birthers might just find out that John McCain was 11 months when he became a US citizen...

edit on 21-1-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



Very good point. I see McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. I feel more comfortable about the possibility of turning the throne over to Biden right now when we could be bringing up similar points to possibly give it to Palin. If the vote had gone the other way and the Canal zone were not a question she could still be just a heartbeat away. >shudder>



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

On Topic Please.

Thank You.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Actually Hawaii is a state. Doesn't matter what some nutcase says, reality says something completely different.

www.hawaii-nation.org...

uscode.house.gov...

Sorry, Hawaii is a state, and Obama is the President.


If hawaii is a TRUE state of the united states then this case would not be happening.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth
reply to post by whatukno
 


Then why when I visited HI I had to pay an outrageous state sales tax on the gifts I bought, why are they represented in the Senate and the House.

Oh right, because they are a state. Get over it.
edit on 21-1-2011 by searching4truth because: (no reason given)


Or because we have a corrupt tyrannical govt.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Can it be said now that Pres Obama and Gov Lingle have been removed as parties to this case by the plaintiff.
Not sure if anyoe had noticed that yet, in fact Obama was removed as a def 45 days after the initail filing.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sabbathcrazy
 


Actually it could, see, in a free country like the United States, one can sue for whatever reason they want. Doesn't mean that it will go anywhere, but the courts are obligated to at least give a plaintiff their day in court, and allow them to present whatever cockamamie evidence they have.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sabbathcrazy
If hawaii is a TRUE state of the united states then this case would not be happening.

And what exactly is happening? This guy filed a lawsuit but no judge has ruled on it yet. So it proves what? That you can file a lawsuit claiming whatever you wish? Ever heard of the term frivolous?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Not sure if anyoe had noticed that yet, in fact Obama was removed as a def 45 days after the initail filing.

He did that because he realized, as chief executive, the President has absolute immunity from civil suits, so he couldn’t be named a defendant. Oops...

But the guy apparently has named Obama as a defendant again, by saying that Obama was born in Hawaii and since Hawaii is not part of the United States, Obama can’t be the President, and is acting as a de facto President.

The irony here is, if this was published in support of the birther agenda, then they have failed to realize that part of this guy’s argument actually rests on the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii, otherwise he can’t name him as a defendant.

Hahaha! Is this real life?





new topics
top topics
 
75
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join