It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


100% PROOF! Obama "RESOLVES" That He Is Not Eligible To Be President! (Condemning Info!)

page: 14
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in


posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse

how can crap like this even be allowed on the internet. just a bunch of mindless sheeple.

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by ericsnow

The guy in the video is a con artist.

For John McCain, there were two questions that had to be answered. BECAUSE HE WAS NOT BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL. If his parents were Mexican, and he was born on an overseas US military base, he would not be a natural born citizen.

Because he was not born on American soil, they had to look to the citizenship of his parents. Obama was born on US soil and is a citizen no matter what.

Statute, by birth within U.S.

As of 2006, United States Federal law () defines ten categories of person who are United States citizens from birth. According to that law, the following acquire citizenship at birth:

* "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
* "a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
* "a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
* "a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"

edit on 29-4-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-4-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

It looks like the parents don't need to be citizens if you are born on American soil according to this.
Is this all a distraction for us to stop looking at the birth certificate?

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:24 PM

Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy
It looks like the parents don't need to be citizens if you are born on American soil according to this. Is this all a distraction for us to stop looking at the birth certificate?
Yes, Congress just passed these citizenship laws, defining who is a citizen, with huge implications for our country, so that a few crazy people, who apparently just now became aware of OCR and the PDF format, would stop posting on internet forums and blogs their ‘analyses’ of Obama’s birth certificate.

I mean, what other explanation could there be?!

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by micpsi
The lie is yours - or rather lying spin that you mindlessly repeat. What happened was deliberately misreported. I heard the interview live and I know what was said!

The entire interview can be heard at my link so you should have checked on that before beginning this further BS.

Sarah Obama did not correct McRae. Others did later. That does not count because they were part of the coverup concerning Obama's birthplace.

Oh, doesn't count huh?

There was NO confusion in mistranslation. That is, too, part of the excuse given. The tape makes it plain as plain that Sarah said categorically that she was present when he was born. Here is the transcript of the conversation (see end).

Follow my link. You can listen to the ENTIRE INTERVIEW for real this time. I also already posted the transcript. Unless you can top the transcript with the full audio, you are reaching.

Heck, at the time of Obama's run for the Senate, some of the American press were saying that Kenya was Obama's birthplace
Sarah just confirmed it!

No, that never happened. You chose. Are you lying or just repeating a lie because you do not know better?

And here is the Kenyan ambassador confirming that President-elect Obama was born in Kenya:

That solves the case then huh. Have anything real? Please show me ONE QUOTE where the ambassador claims he was born in Kenya! ONE QUOTE FROM YOUR CLIP.

There's NO argument about it. Just DENIAL,DENIAL, DENIAL. Because some of you don't want to face the awful truth of the huge lie foisted onto the American people. You can't deal with it, so you accept lies from the media and Democrat bloggers, who concoct some absurd nonsense explanation for you to grab onto in your desperation to avoid the truth.
edit on 1-5-2011 by micpsi because: (no reason given)

Wow. There really is no argument. His grandmother never said he was born in Kenya. The Kenyan Ambassador never says it in your clip and no US press ever reported he was Kenyan born. When you get rid of the lies, it becomes pretty clear.

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:47 PM
I'll just leave this thread with this question.

Which seems more right, that the Founders believed natural born meant you couldn't have allegiance to another nation through one of your parents not being a citizen at the time of your birth, or that they felt anyone born here could become president even though they still had allegiance to other nations via the parents?

I was never a birther and never will be. This issue is something the SCOTUS should take up and settle once and for all since it's never really been completely adjudicated. There are rulings and dissenting opinions all over the place.. writings by the Founding Fathers and many others.

To me it makes sense that to be President you must have been born to 2 US Citizens so as not to have any allegiance to a another nation. The same should also hold for VP and Speaker.. since they are both in line to become president if something happens.

I also believe we should have a law banning anchor babies. If 1 parent is a US Citizen then the child is a citizens.. if neither parent is, then the child is not.
edit on 1-5-2011 by Twainfan because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by Twainfan

While these hypotheticals about what the founding fathers probably meant, regardless of settled law, seem to go a long way to ignore the founding fathers for who they were. What sounds more right? No one should take your guns away or everyone should have the right to own nuclear weapons? What do you think the founders thought about that? How about "All men are created equal?" What do you suppose sounds more right? That they actually believed that or that they all owned slaves and denied women rights?

All the whining about race card tossing going around and you forget, our founding fathers would never have let Obama off the plantation to begin with.

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 08:09 AM

edit on 2-5-2011 by beenupsince2007 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 08:10 AM
Obama's Birth certificate directly from is a fake. Watch this...

edit on 2-5-2011 by beenupsince2007 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by mbkennel
Of course Congress has power to make explicit or elaborate on the meaning and specific application of the Constitution, which was intentionally not excessively prescriptive except in a few areas. (Your hypothetical example would violate other parts of the Constitution.)

Congress could make a law that all left-handed midgets born between 3 and 3:07 AM in Tibet are U.S. citizens from birth (hence natural born), and one of these people could become President upon reaching the age of 35. Is this law legal? Yes. Will such a law ever be passed? Obviously not.

Wrong, because the only two terms congress is allowed to define are "piracy" an "felony". The 10th power listed (in the list of the powers of congress) is

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;


Since "natural born" is unrelated to piracy or felonies, congress has no power to define it without an amendment to the constitution.

Regarding "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies...", why does the constitution authorize congress to define the term "piracy" if another part of the constitution already allows congress to define whatever terms it wants to? If what you were saying was true, that provision clearly would not be there.

So, why is that congress are not authorized to define other terms in the constitution? Because by "elaborating" on the meaning of terms, the constitution can be changed to mean anything at all. But the only valid way to change the meaning of the constitution is with an amendment! Lets see... could civilchallenger make himself dictator for life of the whole world using a 51% vote in congress under your idea of the law? Imagine if I got this hypothetical law passed through congress:
"Elaboration" 1: The word "four" in the constitution means a lifetime of years. So after that convenient revision takes place, the president is in power for "four"(a lifetime of years) years.
"Elaboration" 2: The word "congress [member]", "house [member]" and "senate [member]" means "people [or person] who must approve of everything ATS member civilchallenger does, support him hand over foot as his servants, and let him get away with anything and everything without consequence."
"Elaboration" 3: The word "United States of America" means "entire planet Earth, owned by our glorious leader civilchallenger of ATS".
"Elaboration" 4: The word "crime" means act against the law which is committed by someone other than the eternal and magnificent civilchallenger of ATS"
"Elaboration" 5: The word "law" means directions designed for the benefit of the supreme commander, "civilchallenger of ATS".
"Elaboration" 6: The word "president means the (heroic master) ATS memeber with the handle civilchallenger at the time this definition goes into effect.

Wow, a 51% vote could make me dictator for life over planet Earth by creating a single law in congress that elaborates on the meaning of five words in the constitution. And if my revisions lead to contradictions in the constitution, don't worry because I could just redefine those contradictions out of existence!

That kind of possibility of editing the constitution using lesser law is why congress being allowed to redefine or elaborate on terms in the constitution is a fundamental injustice. Even though I used an extreme example I don't see why lesser offenses would be any less wrong to enact.
edit on 2-5-2011 by civilchallenger because: added in additional self-compliment, corrected grammar

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:28 PM
how long until folks start speculating obama will pull a 9/11 so he can have unlimited terms in office ? did somebody hit the 2005 button ?

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:43 PM
if obama was white, this discussion wouldn't existed

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:43 PM

Originally posted by beenupsince2007
Obama's Birth certificate directly from is a fake. Watch this...

Obama is really the antichrist. Watch this.

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Hendrix92TheUniverse

Originally posted by jam321
Correct me if I am wrong.

But wasn't senate resolution 511 NONBINDING?

That means Congress never passed a law defining what a natural born American is.

Looks like 100% is headed toward 0% proof.

The resolution means nothing, the Constitution states that both parents must be U.S. citizens, and Obama's father was a Kenyan, a british protectorate at the time, there Obama's father was British, and not a U.S. citizen.

Do your damn homework!

No it doesn't.

posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 03:35 PM
Even if he was born here (which for evidence upon evidence) the reason for the 'natural born' clause was so that the country would not elect a president* with divided loyalties.

Born here or not his Barry Sotoro seems to be dedicated to destroying this country.

*Granted the natural born clause has not stopped almost every president in the last century from being bought off or bribed. Just being born here doesn't mean you love the country or the people that make it up.

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13   >>

log in