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

What matters in relation to the U.S. constitution is the relation that the U.S. government sees. If the U.S. sees that Hawaii was a state, that would make Obama a full-fledged legal citizen in the eyes of the U.S. government. Thus, according to the Constitution, he is eligible.

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.

You have all ready lost all credibility when you resort to ad hominem attacks such as calling someone a "nutcase".

The US gov can invent whatever legislation it likes. That in itself does not change history.

I lived on the Big Island for a year...The locals I knew, claim we stole it.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
What matters in relation to the U.S. constitution is the relation that the U.S. government sees. If the U.S. sees that Hawaii was a state, that would make Obama a full-fledged legal citizen in the eyes of the U.S. government. Thus, according to the Constitution, he is eligible.

Well if the US want to see Obama as their president regardless of whether he was born in the US or not then that's their choice.

Hawaii on the other hand is not legally a part of the US because there exists no treaty of annexation. Congressional powers "legislative powers" are only limited to the US and cannot have effect beyond its borders per international law, so in that case it is not for congress to decide whether or not Hawaii is still an independent country or not. The dispute has already been decided in 1894, "Liliuokalani Assignment". Its just that the "executive head of the US" has been non compliant in upholding their end of the agreement of restoration "Liliuokalani Assignment". It is the responsibility of the US president to fulfill the executive agreement of restoration (a binding treaty) of restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom Government. Hawaii still maintains its sovereignty, its just been illegally occupied for the past 113 years.

Its so much easier to watch those six short videos presentations linked to the site than for me to try and explain everything because there is just so much to cover.

These kind of post always irritate me, because in the long run - what's the point. Is the president going to be removed from office, No

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
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.

I didn’t have a problem with McCain being able to be President if he had won. I am, in fact, against the natural-born citizen clause. I understand why it is there and what were the concerns at the time, but I don’t think it is warranted at this day and age.

I raise the point of McCain because the birthers claim to be ferociously interested in upholding the Constitution, and yet I don’t think there’s even one thread on ATS devoted to the question of McCain’s natural-born citizen, or not, status.

Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
Hawaii still maintains its sovereignty, its just been illegally occupied for the past 113 years.

I guess some southern parts of Texas and California could make the same claim. Texas has some disputed land north of the Rio Grande that it battled with Mexico for. California had a vote to go with the US for statehood and many Mexican citizens have entered - legally or not?? - that would like it returned to Mexico.

I don't believe any of that would happen, nor with Hawaii. You might consider that conquered territory like those parts of Texas. Hawaii has had statehood for over 50 years now so some would consider it a done deal. I seem to recall South Carolina wanting to cede from the Union. There was a real big deal made of that but it didn't happen.

Nice thread though. The Obama angle gives it legs and a platform for other related discussion.

reply to post by Namaste1001


Sorry, it's just the truth, the United States came about because we stole land from indigenous peoples. Now, some nutcase wants to use that as an excuse to remove this particular president out of office? Please! Pull the other leg.

This is how pathetic this theory is. This is how petty the people are who are so desperate to try and remove Obama from office are.

First, they came and said, "Obama isn't eligible because he was born in Kenya!". But they failed completely to come up with any solid proof of said claim.

Then, they came and said, "Obama isn't eligible because his father was born in Kenya!". But they completely ignored the 14th Amendment for that to work.

Then, they came and said, "Obama isn't eligible because he lived in Indonesia!". But they completely failed to bring forth any credible evidence that he renounced his citizenship to the state department.

NOW? Now they want to make up a claim that Hawaii isn't even a state? Despite the fact that, IT IS A STATE? Cmon, this is getting beyond stupid to the point of pathetic.

I am not here to deny that we stole Hawaii from the native people that live there, we did steal Hawaii from the people that live there. Kinda how we stole this whole country from the people that lived here.



Do you want to know how you can tell these people's theory doesn't hold water? They keep changing the theory, that's how you can tell someone is lying, when they can't keep their story straight. Birthers can't keep their story straight, they keep changing the story, making stuff up, lying, forging fake birth certificates using an Australian birth certificate and trying to pass it off as a Kenyan birth certificate, etc.

But now, we are expected to forget all the lies, all the false accusations, and all the BS, and now THIS, THIS is the theory? Cmon, pull the other leg. Now the theory is, Yes Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he has said, but because we stole Hawaii from the native people, he somehow is ineligible? please. I can't wait to see what's next in the birther loony bin bag.

BTW, a little bit of information on me, Im not a birther at all if you think this post is mainly about Obama, it is really not. I visit this site everyday to read about all the wacky conspiracies, whether they real or not, I decide for myself with my own research. I never posted or commented on anything until today when I came across the post about "Abercrombie not being able to find Obama's birth certificate". I figured that since I come across an Obama birther thread everyday, why not give you guys something new to chew on. The Obama part attracts people all the while it also presents an opportunity to expose you all to "Hawaii not a being a State legally" since the news media does a very good job at not talking about this at all! As far as US presidents are elected, I really don't care who gets elected. Its always the same person that gets elected, just with a different mask on!

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
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.

I didn’t have a problem with McCain being able to be President if he had won. I am, in fact, against the natural-born citizen clause. I understand why it is there and what were the concerns at the time, but I don’t think it is warranted at this day and age.

I raise the point of McCain because the birthers claim to be ferociously interested in upholding the Constitution, and yet I don’t think there’s even one thread on ATS devoted to the question of McCain’s natural-born citizen, or not, status.

I actually think the place of birth might be even more appropriate in this day and age. A US citizen born on foreign soil may have loyalties to his "homeland" of birth if the world were to become further politically divided.

McCain's issue about being born in Panama Canal Zone might have had a considerable bearing on the Canal if it had been him instead of Carter.

I don't really think there is a great dispute about Obama being born in Hawaii, though I may be wrong. I'm quite certain he is a citizen though and the current dispute being discussed, valid or not, should not make a difference.

I think Obama may have a better claim than McCain, though I still need to check and see if those born in the Canal Zone were given citizenship like done in other territories like Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and Hawaii before statehood.

Interesting discussion either way, has some twists to consider.

reply to post by UluaHuntah808


So, basically you are deliberately creating a HOAX in order to push another theory? You KNOW that Hawaii is actually a state, you KNOW that Obama was born there and is eligible to be President, but in order to get attention for this lawsuit, you have decided to piggyback it to the failed birther conspiracy?

Pretty low man, pretty low.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
Hawaii still maintains its sovereignty, its just been illegally occupied for the past 113 years.

I guess some southern parts of Texas and California could make the same claim. Texas has some disputed land north of the Rio Grande that it battled with Mexico for. California had a vote to go with the US for statehood and many Mexican citizens have entered - legally or not?? - that would like it returned to Mexico.

I don't believe any of that would happen, nor with Hawaii. You might consider that conquered territory like those parts of Texas. Hawaii has had statehood for over 50 years now so some would consider it a done deal. I seem to recall South Carolina wanting to cede from the Union. There was a real big deal made of that but it didn't happen.

Nice thread though. The Obama angle gives it legs and a platform for other related discussion.

Well how can Hawaii secede from the Union when it has never been ceded to the Union to begin with. There is no cession without a treaty of annexation. The issue is illegal occupation and non compliance on part of the US president in an fulfilling executive agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom Government in restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom Government and removing itself from a country that legally still maintains its sovereignty till today. Basically the Hawaiian Kingdom Government still has its sovereignty, it just has no government.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by UluaHuntah808

 

So, basically you are deliberately creating a HOAX in order to push another theory? You KNOW that Hawaii is actually a state, you KNOW that Obama was born there and is eligible to be President, but in order to get attention for this lawsuit, you have decided to piggyback it to the failed birther conspiracy?

Pretty low man, pretty low.

It isn't a Hoax, all Dr. Sai's sources are cited and comes from government archives.
It isn't low, it's an opportunity to expose the truth instead of living a lie.

Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
BTW, a little bit of information on me, Im not a birther at all if you think this post is mainly about Obama, it is really not. I visit this site everyday to read about all the wacky conspiracies, whether they real or not, I decide for myself with my own research. I never posted or commented on anything until today when I came across the post about "Abercrombie not being able to find Obama's birth certificate". I figured that since I come across an Obama birther thread everyday, why not give you guys something new to chew on. The Obama part attracts people all the while it also presents an opportunity to expose you all to "Hawaii not a being a State legally" since the news media does a very good job at not talking about this at all! As far as US presidents are elected, I really don't care who gets elected. Its always the same person that gets elected, just with a different mask on!

I believe everyone by now knows what your concern is. But from the way you titled this thread it has brought many more into the discussion than if Obama's eligibility had not been mentioned. That part gives this thread much more depth but maybe takes the discussion to other than where you may want it to. The concession to you is that you have a successful thread and have many more stars and flags and other ATS brownie points than you would have otherwise had. You also get much more exposure to your Hawaii concerns than you otherwise would have.

Thanks for titling it as such though, I really had not paid any attention to where McCain was born until it was mentioned here.

Originally posted by UluaHuntah808

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
Hawaii still maintains its sovereignty, its just been illegally occupied for the past 113 years.

I guess some southern parts of Texas and California could make the same claim. Texas has some disputed land north of the Rio Grande that it battled with Mexico for. California had a vote to go with the US for statehood and many Mexican citizens have entered - legally or not?? - that would like it returned to Mexico.

I don't believe any of that would happen, nor with Hawaii. You might consider that conquered territory like those parts of Texas. Hawaii has had statehood for over 50 years now so some would consider it a done deal. I seem to recall South Carolina wanting to cede from the Union. There was a real big deal made of that but it didn't happen.

Nice thread though. The Obama angle gives it legs and a platform for other related discussion.

Well how can Hawaii secede from the Union when it has never been ceded to the Union to begin with. There is no cession without a treaty of annexation. The issue is illegal occupation and non compliance on part of the US president in an fulfilling executive agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom Government in restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom Government and removing itself from a country that legally still maintains its sovereignty till today. Basically the Hawaiian Kingdom Government still has its sovereignty, it just has no government.

Hello. Hello. Hawaii was conquered by the US. Clinton already apologized. Get on with whatever.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by UluaHuntah808

 

So, basically you are deliberately creating a HOAX in order to push another theory? You KNOW that Hawaii is actually a state, you KNOW that Obama was born there and is eligible to be President, but in order to get attention for this lawsuit, you have decided to piggyback it to the failed birther conspiracy?

Pretty low man, pretty low.

whatukno,,, As you know,,,, You and I don't see Eye to Eye on 98% of Anything Thread here on ATS, we argue and throw our facts and links at each other, I have to say, Star For You, I agree with you about this persons reason for starting this thread,,, YES, I agree with you here. we'll say 80%, I don't agree Obama is eligible to be the President, But That's My Feelings about Obama, Because I don't like his Politics.

Edited to add,,, whatukno, Don't have Heart Failure After Reading This,,, I'm sure we'll fine a lot to disagree on very soon,,, Guohua

I would not give Obama the time of day, but this is too much for even me. Even more insane than the whole Birther notion. What an utter waste of time and energy. Just as bad as the Daily Kos venom and lies.

Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
The issue is illegal occupation and non compliance on part of the US president in an fulfilling executive agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom Government in restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom Government and removing itself from a country that legally still maintains its sovereignty till today.

Executive agreement? Executive orders can be revoked. If you rely on that executive agreement as the basis for your argument I don’t think you will go very far. You argue that, from what I understand, the Newlands Resolution was not legally binding because there was never a treaty ratification for annexation. Was there ever any ratification of that “executive agreement” you rely on? It was never a treaty was it?

WHAT IS THE FLIPPIN POINT! Obama, Bush, Clinton. ( I said flippin, but that's not what I meant)