100% PROOF! Obama "RESOLVES" That He Is Not Eligible To Be President! (Condemning Info!) , page 14

reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse

---

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

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

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?

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:

YouTube Link

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.

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.

Obama's Birth certificate directly from www.whitehouse.gov is a fake. Watch this...

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;

(source: www.usconstitution.net...)

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.

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

Obama is really the antichrist. Watch this.

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.


en.wikipedia.org...

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.

Exclusive - Obama\'s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: \'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Haw
  Posted 11 days ago with 242 member flags

Ron Paul is NOT dropping out, the Mainstream Media is LYING.
  Posted 14 days ago with 111 member flags

Report: Romney Will Be Disqualified From Race Due To Fraud
  Posted 17 days ago with 105 member flags

Evidence of Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections
  Posted 6 days ago with 88 member flags

CNN Asks Ron Paul To Drop Out & Endorse Romney Despite His Chances To Win
  Posted 18 days ago with 70 member flags

Soldiers and Citizens alike, this is a must see.
  Posted 19 days ago with 69 member flags

Fox News Analyst: First American to shoot down drone will be a hero
  Posted 13 days ago with 68 member flags

Mitt Romney scared Ron Paul is winning!!!
  Posted 6 days ago with 62 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: