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.

 

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

page: 7
75
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
I really had not paid any attention to where McCain was born until it was mentioned here.

Erongaricuaro, if you are really interested in further pursuing that question I would point you to the Act of Aug. 4, 1937. That’s when Congress enacted the statute now codified in 8 USC 1403.

8 USC General Provisions

Sections 5d and 5e, relating to citizenship of persons born in Canal Zone or Panama, were from act Aug. 4, 1937, ch. 563, §§ 1, 2, respectively, 50 Stat. 558; see section 1403 of this title.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by UluaHuntah808
 



It isn't a Hoax, all Dr. Sai's sources are cited and comes from government archives.


It is a HOAX, because you are using the Birther issue to forward an agenda. For the basis of argument, let's put it this way, if this lawsuit goes through, and Dr. Sai does win, it doesn't mean that Hawaii was never a state, it would mean that Hawaii would be REMOVED as a state. As it stands right now, Hawaii is a state in the United States.

It wouldn't be retroactive.


It isn't low, it's an opportunity to expose the truth instead of living a lie.


So, you are using a lie to expose a lie? I stand by my previous statement, pretty low man, pretty low.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Thank you very kindly. I've had my hands busy with this and other threads and other things going on to look for that. It is much appreciated. Star.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
It is a HOAX, because you are using the Birther issue to forward an agenda. For the basis of argument, let's put it this way, if this lawsuit goes through, and Dr. Sai does win, it doesn't mean that Hawaii was never a state, it would mean that Hawaii would be REMOVED as a state.

Clearly this Dr. Sai is using Obama’s name as a stunt to gather publicity for his cause. I am — and I think we all are — sympathetic to UluaHuntah808’s feelings. In fact you have stated the US stole Hawaii. I don’t think this fact can be denied. However, I don’t think the legal argument Dr. Sai is making, which is another matter, is very convincing.

I don’t see Sai’s lawsuit winning, but even if it did, do the Courts have authority to remove a state from the union? I’m very skeptical.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Yawn.
This Obama should/could not be President threads are old.
Not to Flame, but please get over it.
He IS the President like it or not. If you're that disgruntled 'vote' next election.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by UluaHuntah808
 


Ulua, can I ask how long this has been taught in Hawaiian schools?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

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!


Well, a conspiracy theorist could say, the Obama administration has been leading us on a wild goose chase with the BC issue, when in fact this is the real issue, that's why I asked about the schools in Hawaii teaching this information, did Obama know?


edit on 093131p://bFriday2011 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by UluaHuntah808
 


So the fact that Hawaii joined the United States in 1959 has nothing to do with anything? good job for trying



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by UluaHuntah808
 


Ulua, can I ask how long this has been taught in Hawaiian schools?


Probably within the last 10 years and only at the University (University of Hawaii) level. In public schools we were all taught that there was an annexation document ceding Hawaii to the US.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Ok I found it.

I was doing research on the History of Texas' Annexation into the Union.

Apparently there has been some massive controversies about these joint resolutions not being legitimate forms of bringing new states into the Union for over 150years.

This went to the Supreme Court apparently in 1901.

In addition, the United States Supreme Court decided in the case of DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901), that annexation by a joint resolution of Congress is legal.

link

I honestly believe that we need to strike this ruling down.
And that we need to do this the correct way through Treaties rather than Joint Resolutions from Congress.

Texas was annexed the same way though, through joint resolution. It's highly controversial. And a great subject to study.

Anyways good thread. I have enjoyed the discussions.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

After the United States and The Republic of Texas were unable to reach a Treaty agreement, Congress passed a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States.[16] The Republic of Texas's Annexation Convention then submitted the Ordinance of Annexation[17] to popular vote in October 1845 and the public approved the measure.


link

Did Hawaii present a "Ordinance of Annexation" to the people of Hawaii to vote on?
If the native population was not allowed to vote I would consider it illegitimate.

Did they even get a chance to vote on this at all?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by UluaHuntah808
 



It isn't a Hoax, all Dr. Sai's sources are cited and comes from government archives.


It is a HOAX, because you are using the Birther issue to forward an agenda. For the basis of argument, let's put it this way, if this lawsuit goes through, and Dr. Sai does win, it doesn't mean that Hawaii was never a state, it would mean that Hawaii would be REMOVED as a state. As it stands right now, Hawaii is a state in the United States.

It wouldn't be retroactive.


It isn't low, it's an opportunity to expose the truth instead of living a lie.


So, you are using a lie to expose a lie? I stand by my previous statement, pretty low man, pretty low.




If Dr. sai wins, he will receive compensation for his injury. The illegal occupation and non compliance to the Liliuokalani assignment by the US presidents are cited as evidence of his injury. But if he does win, it also brings more exposure to the fact that Hawaii is not a state but an illegally occupied country.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Ok, so following this logic, there is no United States seeing as we legally occupy land that was owned by the native americans who more than likely took it from someone else. So there is no actual office of President of the USA.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

n 1988, a study by the United States Justice Department concluded that Congress did not have the authority to annex Hawaii by joint resolution. The ersatz annexation was a cover for the military occupation of the Hawaiian islands for purposes related to the Spanish American war.

Bill Clinton signs United States Public Law 103-150
whatreallyhappened.com...
On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their sovereignty. The latter is the most important part of United States Public Law 103-150 for it makes it quite clear that the Hawaiian people never legally ceased to be a sovereign separate independent nation. There is no argument that can change that fact.

United States Public Law 103-150, despite its polite language, is an official admission that the government of the United States illegally occupies the territory of the Hawaiian people.

In 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations' charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and non-binding. (The same is true of the Alaska plebiscite).



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Good job muzzleflash, I wish I had remembered that case. That’s one of the so called Insular Cases, and the opinion is actually very relevant and helpful to the discussion at hand.

From the opinion—

On March 1, 1845, Congress adopted a joint resolution consenting to the annexation of Texas upon certain conditions (5 Stat. at L. 797), but it was not until December 29, 1845, that it was formally admitted as a state. 9 State. at L. 108. In this interval, and on July 29, 1845, the Secretary of the Treasury issued a circular letter directing the collectors to collect duties upon all imports from Texas into the United States until Congress had further acted. Of course, there could be no question that Texas remained a foreign state until December 29, when she was formally admitted.

It seems to me that then, even assuming the joint resolution to annex Hawaii was ‘illegal,’ it has no influence on the statehood of Hawaii, because it was admitted to the Union with so called Hawaii Admission Act in 1959. And yes, I believe the Hawaiian people voted for that, and they voted 93% in favor of joining the Union.

Unless of course Dr. Sai and UluaHuntah808 also contest the legitimacy of Admission Act.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by UluaHuntah808
 
The Bush's want to change the law and are really working at, to allow a nonborn American the right to be President. They are doing this so Schwarzenegger can be President. He has all ready been told he will be in the White House. They will use everyone going on about Obama, to get it passed. If he becomes President I will leave the Country. I think he only has one brain cell left after all those steroids.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
A hoax is something that is totally faked.

This isn't a "Hoax".

It's a "Controversy".

The lines are blurred here.

We really need to start respecting each other's opinions rather than attacking them as illegitimate.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
because it was admitted to the Union with so called Hawaii Admission Act in 1959. And yes, I believe the Hawaiian people voted for that, and they voted 93% in favor of joining the Union.

Unless of course Dr. Sai and UluaHuntah808 also contest the legitimacy of Admission Act.


Thank you for the response.

I found some documentation. It was 94%
lol.

Here is the actual copy of the document.
Link

And here is a excerpt from the article.

Out of a total population of 600,000 in the islands and 155,000 registered voters, 140,000 votes were cast, the highest turnout ever in Hawaii. The vote showed approval rates of at least 93% by voters on all major islands (see adjacent figure for details). Of the approximately 140,000 votes cast, fewer than 8000 rejected the Admission Act of 1959.

link


I would like to see what % of registered voters were actual natives. That would be very interesting and would aid us in determining the validity of this Admission Act.

94% of registered voters agreed to become a State.
But that is only like 22% of the overall population at the time.

600,000 population.
132,000 voted yes.

My calculations are saying this is 22%.

600,000 / 100 = 6000
132,000 / 6000 = 22
6000 x 100 = 600,000

22% vote is not what I call a legitimate victory but hey, thats how America works right?

Perfect example, the 2008 presidental elections.

52.9% Obama ( 69.4 million votes )
45.7% McCain ( 59.9 million votes )

But the US Population at the time was roughly 300 million.
300m / 100 = 3million (for each 1% of the population)

69 / 3 = 23 (Obama)
60 / 3 = 20 (McCain)

That means that only 43% of the total US population voted.
And only 23% got to choose the winning President.

I do NOT call that a legit election. 57% of the population doesn't believe in it. Therefore popular majority indicates it is an illegitimate system.

When 57% of the people have no voice in politics, and 23% call the shots, this is not a Just system.

Source for 2008 Presidential Election #.
link

Just my opinions based on the clear facts.


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



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


It is a HOAX because Hawaii IS a state of the United States of America. I posted the proof of this on page 1 of this thread.

The OP does not deny that Obama was born in Hawaii, because if he did, it would make his contention that Hawaii isn't a state irrelevant.

The OP is perpetrating a HOAX as he has brought forth a lawsuit claiming that Hawaii was taken illegally. Because that case hasn't been decided yet, the OP cannot make the claim that Hawaii isn't a state. As far as all are concerned, Hawaii is still a state in the Union until it isn't.

I am not even going to go into the extreme irony of using a US court for this lawsuit.

Even if all goes the plaintiffs way, the most he can hope for is some monetary compensation from the Federal Government.

So, until the court rules that Hawaii is no longer a state, this whole thread and it's weak birther premise in my opinion is a complete and total HOAX.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Of course Obama is not a president, he is a puppet. And thats how he will stay. You think there have been presidents for the past 20 or 30 years? Of course not! There have only been puppets to help control the American people into thinking they made the right decision. That is all. Behind the puppet, is the puppeteer. Find him/her and you shall see the true President!



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join