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.
Originally posted by IamCorrect
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)
Are you sure about that? Not according to Canada Free Press.
Originally posted by Sinnthia
Obama was confirmed and elected in the exact same manner as the presidents before him.
OK the whole issue is whether the candidate is constitutionally eligible, right?
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 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?
the RNC used one universal certification document which included full certification of constitutional eligibility in every state, in 2000, 2004 and 2008.
So much for your claim that "Obama was confirmed and elected in the exact same manner as the presidents before him."
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 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.
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?
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?
Democratic National Committee officials have declined to comment on the issue
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Photoshop is an amazing thing.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Are you sure about that? Not according to Canada Free Press.
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:
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?
So much for your claim that "Obama was confirmed and elected in the exact same manner as the presidents before him."
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.
So, do you still think that "Obama was confirmed and elected in the exact same manner as the presidents before him."?
Well at least you're honest and admit you don't know the issues.
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Well at least you're honest and admit you don't know the issues.