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.

 

Game Changer - Obama will have to produce birth certificate to run again in Arizona!

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I think the biggest proof he's a natural born citizen is the fact that he's the president, and in order to be president you have to be a natural born citizen.

I don't know any other citizen who has to post their BC online for all to see. It's his business and if you feel that he hasn't proven enough to you, complain to your congressman or woman who represents you. That's what the constitution says to do.

The only people who know FOR SURE where he was born are his mother, father, and the doctor who delivered him, and you won't believe this but they ALL say he was born in Hawaii.

Face it, it's alright to be skeptical. Actually it's a good thing to be skeptical. But have some sort of evidence
to back up your claims, not just email rumors and Internet lies.

My big fear is that the birthers and this garbage may get the man re-elected because it just seems to discredit the side claiming it, in the public eye, since they can prove it.
edit on 27-1-2011 by GeechQuestInfo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 


I believe that all states should ask this from any of its candidates that are to be elected to a particular position. I have to submit a whole line of things just to get a drivers license. This should have been done a long time ago.... But as mentioned before, they have a way of covering their own tracks. But always remember this..... Just because tracks have been covered by millions of years of growth. Don't think that we cant uncover and put together its true origin.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamCorrect


That was great I hope everyone watches that and shares it!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Any rational person would be skeptical.

It is not the skeptics responsibility to prove that he wasn't born in this country, it's his responsibility to prove that he was (and he hasn't).
edit on 27-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



This does not really make any sense. Obama was confirmed and elected in the exact same manner as the presidents before him. It is the birthers that contend something different went down this time. They need to show what that "different" thing is/was. They have that case to make. Unless they want to shift their argumenet to that no presidents have been eligible and something must be done to remedy that, they are making the accusation. They need to make the case to back it up.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Obama was confirmed and elected in the exact same manner as the presidents before him.
Are you sure about that? Not according to Canada Free Press.


It is the birthers that contend something different went down this time. They need to show what that "different" thing is/was. They have that case to make.
OK the whole issue is whether the candidate is constitutionally eligible, right?

The president right before Obama was certified as constitutionally eligible in all 50 states:
DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!


the RNC used one universal certification document which included full certification of constitutional eligibility in every state, in 2000, 2004 and 2008.
OK that covers the president right before Obama, who was certified to be constitutionally eligible by all 50 states. Now, how many states certified Obama to be constitutionally eligible?


DNC did NOT certify Obama as eligible under Article II – Section I of the Constitution, in 49 of 50 states. The DNC had only filed such certification in the state of Hawaii, Obama’s alleged birth place. The other 49 states received a Certification of Nomination which did NOT certify Obama as constitutionally eligible for office.
So much for your claim that "Obama was confirmed and elected in the exact same manner as the presidents before him."


At the end of the day, we clearly have a political Party currently in power which gained that power by ignoring or intentionally subverting the US Constitution. At a minimum, they were very sloppy and derelict in their duty. At worst, they are complicit in a crime of monumental proportions.

Article II requirements exist, they are quite clear, the parties are obligated to vet and certify their candidates, and yet the DNC failed miserably in all categories. Still, the nation assumes that all was above board. On what basis do we now make that assumption?
So I don't know if the DNC failed to properly certify constitutional eligibility in all 50 states because they were sloppy, or for some other reason like a conspiracy.

Whichever is the case, I think it's mighty inconvenient for anti-birthers.


1. Why did the DNC certify Obama’s eligibility only in Hawaii?
2. Why did no state DNC office, DNC elector, or Election Commission office catch it?
3. Since the DNC made no such certification, on what basis do we assume Obama to be eligible?
4. Without any such certification, isn’t it more important than ever to see the actual birth certificate and ask the courts to make an official ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen?”
5. Why did the DNC use TWO different docs, one incomplete, when the RNC used the same complete doc nationwide?
6. On what basis will the media continue to claim that Obama is eligible?
7. Why did Nancy Pelosi show signs of stress in her Hawaii certification of Obama?
8. When will every American demand answers to these and many more questions?

The DNC hasn't cleared matters up either:

Doc missing statement candidate 'qualified' under U.S. Constitution


Democratic National Committee officials have declined to comment on the issue

So, do you still think that "Obama was confirmed and elected in the exact same manner as the presidents before him."?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Photoshop is an amazing thing.



Photoshop is simply a software package that is used to change the appearance of digital images.

Now...Idealogical blindness, that is an AMAZING thing. It just doesn't edit a digital image...it edits an entire way of thinking and viewing the world at a fundemental cognitive level.

Idealogical blindness is to Photoshop as ...sunglasses are to a solar eclipse.

As far as this OP...
He has shown his birth certificate. Certificate of Live Birth with a registrars seal and validated as authentic by a states department of Health and Human Services? That is valid in any court in the land.

BTW - The "Full Faith and Credit" Clause of the constitution requires each State to recognize the citizenship afforded in each other state. Otherwise...If Hawaii says the POTUS was born there, the constitution requires every other state in the country to recognize the same.

He is a "natural born citizen" by current and past legal standards and law, both at the state and federal level.

BTW

Other Presidents with one (or more) foriegn born parents who had standing foriegn citizenship at the time of birth..Beyond the obvious George Washington..
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
James Buchanan (1857-1861)
Chester Arthur (1881-1885)
Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)

I know all of this has been covered Ad Nuaseum and I am not expecting anyone to be able to escape the Idealogical dictates that enslave thier objective thinking...but I guess I am an optimist when it comes to people and still believe that at the core folks value objectivity and honesty over what they "really want" to believe.

They know the difference and their better selves still prioritize honesty over idealogy...at least within their own internal conversations.

You can still oppose the POTUS, his postions, his views, his policy, his party...you can even dislike the way he looks or speaks...all the while acknowledging what is fact and what is fiction. I could respect that.
edit on 3-2-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Are you sure about that? Not according to Canada Free Press.


Are you sure about that Canada Free Press article? I am not sure you are.


OK the whole issue is whether the candidate is constitutionally eligible, right?


Obviously not. Birthers seem to have a small group of "issues" they pretend to attatch this too and I believe that is what it all boils down to. Not my issue, I cannot really speak to that.


The president right before Obama was certified as constitutionally eligible in all 50 states:
OK that covers the president right before Obama, who was certified to be constitutionally eligible by all 50 states. Now, how many states certified Obama to be constitutionally eligible?


I am going to go with all 50. Have anything say differently?


So much for your claim that "Obama was confirmed and elected in the exact same manner as the presidents before him."


Wait. Are you saying to just demonstrated that he was NOT confirmed in all 50 states or did you mean something else with that?


So I don't know if the DNC failed to properly certify constitutional eligibility in all 50 states because they were sloppy, or for some other reason like a conspiracy.




Then what are you even talking about? Your point was that he was not confirmed in all 50 states because you learned that from an article but yet even after quoting it, you still cannot be sure.

Try again.


Whichever is the case, I think it's mighty inconvenient for anti-birthers.


Why, is Obama being impeached?


So, do you still think that "Obama was confirmed and elected in the exact same manner as the presidents before him."?


Yes. Are you still confused about it?















posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
OK the whole issue is whether the candidate is constitutionally eligible, right?


Obviously not. Birthers seem to have a small group of "issues" they pretend to attatch this too and I believe that is what it all boils down to. Not my issue, I cannot really speak to that.
Well at least you're honest and admit you don't know the issues.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Well at least you're honest and admit you don't know the issues.


Odd.

That is not at all what I "admitted" in your quote or anywhere else in my post. So what does that say about your honesty? Does it say as much as your inabilaty to address anything else I wrote, especially the um... ON TOPIC stuff?

So you have no real interest in actually getting to the truth of anything do you?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join