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.

 

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

page: 5
75
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse
 


Lesson on being tricksters would come from the Bushs not Donald Trump. The lies told to get into Iraq and Afghanistan wars by George senior and the sham ( trickster) of the election of his incompetent son. These were two Major cons that was gotten away with. Now people want to jump on the bandwagon about Obama and his BC is the Sham. Everyone wants to beat their chests and yell. Where were you then?




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Greetings aptness,

It appears that John "Mr. Amnesty" McCain should have been disqualified. His birth certificate indicates the hospital to be Colon Hospital, RP, location Colon, Panama, hence, outside the Canal Zone, somewhere in downtown Colon.

Had he been born anywhere inside the Canal Zone, yes; the Canal Zone was US soil and part of the US until Jimmy Carter, intimidated by Omar Torreos, gave it away to Panama.

McCain should have had enough sense to disqualify himself early on. His love and adoration for illegals clouded his judgement.

Respectfully



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I never cared about the BC. One thing that everyone conveniently leaves out in these discussions is this "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Since Obama's father was not a US citizen, the US had no jurisdiction over him.. and my reading of the Constitution and subsequent laws/amendments would mean that Obama would not be a natural born citizen because of that.

Think about it a moment. Osama Bin Laden could come here, get a woman pregnant, have the baby born here and people think that kid could be President??? The Presidency falls on a stricter standard where both parents must be US Citizens otherwise the child will have loyalties to another nation thru his/her parent that's not a US citizen.

This statement also keeps anchor babies from being citizens. Because if both parents aren't US Citizens , then the child is not either. We need to have real enforcement of this and a clearly defined law stating this. Otherwise, everyone could come here, drop a kid and we'd have half the world being citizens in no time.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
And after this video and the fact that birthers are still questioning wheter Obama is American/born in US, and now going after his parents..Sure this is definetelly not a proof of a good old racism brewing beneath. This is just common sence, riiight, people asking questions, riiiight...

Pretty much disgusting. If anything, I would like to see him stay on for 4 more years just so these individuals can wallow in their own misery even further.
edit on 30-4-2011 by Kenan2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
But now his parents? I find this is a very weak attack that is nothing but a 'Grasping at Straws' exercise.


It doesn't matter what your feelings are. Sorry pal, it's the LAW.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by RicoMarston
If one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, then you are a U.S. citizen and eligible for the office of presidency. it's really quite simple.


NO - - neither parent needs to be a US citizen. Only you need to be born on US soil. Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii. It does not matter where his parents were born.

Or has the law changed - - that if one of your parents is a US citizen and you are born in another country - - does that qualify you as a natural born citizen? I don't think so.

I am a bit unclear on US territories and military bases abroad. Because non-citizens are in the US military. If both parents in the military are non-citizens - - but their child is born on a US military base - - does that qualify the child as a natural born US citizen?
edit on 30-4-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnneeNO - - neither parent needs to be a US citizen. Only you need to be born on US soil.

I am a bit unclear on US territories and military bases abroad. Because non-citizens are in the US military. If both parents in the military are non-citizens - - but their child is born on a US military base - - does that qualify the child as a natural born US citizen?


Nope. You're wrong, and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Being born on US soil simply makes you a native born citizen. You're going to have to actually go and research Constitutional law and its founding before posting in this thread and looking like a complete fool.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


jam321, I'm sorry but you are absolutely and clearly wrong about your idea that Obama is in the clear because the word "natural born" is not defined by law. Words have meanings regardless of whether they are assigned one by law. When a definition is not applied, it is expected one makes the best effort to figure out what the law meant as it was written, using tools like the dictionary, historical quotes by the founding fathers, etc. The video presented a very detailed and clear case that the word "natural born" at the time the constitution was written meant both parents were citizens. So where is your counter-claim to show it could have meant any differently? Nobody on this thread has attempted to show any different and yet seem confident of their position although clearly they'd be wrong if they think its okay just to throw out historical precedent in favor of complete guesswork.

Furthermore, even IF you write a law defining a word, it may NOT apply to the constitution, because otherwise it would change the meaning of the constitution, and you cannot change the constitution without a constitutional amendment! If they want to change the meaning of "natural born" within the constitutional then you'd have a case. Otherwise, the word stands exactly as it was written and exactly as it meant at the time of its writing. Congress have no right to interpret the law in the USA because we have a separation of powers. Only a judge in the judicial branch has the right to interpret the law.

The fact that the senate resolution was binding is most certainly totally irrelevant! If you're going to allow congress to define the meaning of words in the constitution with their own law, then they could and most certain would redefine "president" to mean... "your supreme overlord who has the power to do anything at all without consequence!". How would that sit with you for a redefinition? So no, congress may not change the constitution by re-defining the words within it. Congress attempting to force their interpretation of the law on a judge is an absolute fundamental violation of the constitution.

The only valid issues in this thread are the actual meaning of the term when it was written and voted on, and the citizenship status of Obama's parents at the time of birth.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte
Being born on US soil simply makes you a native born citizen. You're going to have to actually go and research Constitutional law and its founding before posting in this thread and looking like a complete fool.


I don't think so.

We have had at least one president who's parents were both foreign born.

Native is natural born.

I know there is discrepancy on "Natural Born" if not born on actual US soil. There is no discrepancy if a child is born on US soil. "Native born" is "Natural born". The discrepancy is when a child is born to a US citizen on a military base or territory.




edit on 30-4-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I don't think so.

We have had at least one president who's parents were both foreign born.




The birthplace of one's parents is not the issue. The only requirement is that both parents be US citizens at the time of one's birth. Naturalized citizen parents (e.g., immigrants) will confer natural born citizen status to their children.

And furthermore, just because there is precedent of someone breaking the law and getting away with it (a president with foreign born parents), does not make it lawful. Or are you saying if someone gets away with murder, I am free to go out and indiscriminately murder people?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Native is natural born.


No it's not. And if you're going to start saying things like this you're going to have to provide a reference. But you won't be able to find one because it is incorrect.

Read this:
www.thepostemail.com...[e ditby]edit on 30-4-2011 by Riposte because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte
Being born on US soil simply makes you a native born citizen.
Being born in the United States makes everyone, except children of foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers, a natural born citizen, as per Wong Kim Ark.


The birthplace of one's parents is not the issue.
Correct, neither is the parents’ citizenship.


The only requirement is that both parents be US citizens at the time of one's birth.
Can you point me to the law or Supreme Court case that specifies this requirement? Surely there must be some place in US law where such an important requirement is defined.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Twainfan
I never cared about the BC. One thing that everyone conveniently leaves out in these discussions is this "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Since Obama's father was not a US citizen, the US had no jurisdiction over him..
This is absolutely wrong. Do you know what jurisdiction means?

If aliens, while in the United States, weren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States they couldn’t be deported, arrested or convicted for crimes.

Everyone, except a few classes of people, are subject to the jurisdiction while in a country. Some people, like foreign diplomats, are not subject to the jurisdiction because they have legal immunity by treaty. This is why they can’t be arrested for crimes.

It is also the reason why their children, if born in the United States, do not acquire US citizenship by reason of birth, because diplomats’ legal immunity extends to their minor children.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hendrix92TheUniverse

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!


You need to do your homework, and "homework" doesn't mean reading threads on conspiracy forums and believing what you want to, it means searching for facts. I'll make it easy for you, here is the entire text of the constitution:

www.usconstitution.net...

And here is the passage regarding presidential candidacy requirements:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Note that the constitution says nothing about both parents needing to be citizens. It's simply not there.


Originally posted by Hendrix92TheUniverse
You might be a fool, if you don't read the Constitution. which clearly states that both parents must be U.S. citizens.


See above and tell me, who didn't read the constitution, hmmmm? Be careful what you say, you condemn yourself with your own words.


Originally posted by randomname
it proves that you need 2 parents to be citizens and be born on u.s. soil.


It proves no such thing. A Senate Resolution is non-binding as has been pointed out over and over again in this thread and the many others on this subject. It means nothing. For example, Senate Resolution 67 expresses the Senate's opinion that providing breakfast in schools has a positive impact on the lives and classroom performance of low-income children. So does that mean that any school that doesn't provide breakfast will be shut down because they're breaking the law? Of course not, because a Senate Resolution is non-binding, it means NOTHING.

I and many others here are anxious to get Obama out of office, but we're standing up against all of this birther ignorance and nonsense. You need to put this behind you and quit making us conservatives look like we're all a bunch of loons. And you especially need to quit putting words into the constitution that aren't there and then calling others names when they don't agree with your personal opinion of what you THINK is in there.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

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...



How dare you bring logic to the conversation!



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Wait a minute....

If I read the US constitution:


No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


I interpret that to mean that you can be president if you are born in the US or become a citizen of the US.

So even if B.O. was born in Kenya, and became a US citizen, he is eligible to be President... right?
Here is how I see this happening. The issue we have is that when the Constitution was written, how many states were there? If one was born in a part of the US that was not yet a state, but became one later, would that person be eligible? What about slaves? And we still have the issue of his Mother being a US citizen. Who, if she was working for the government abroad (CIA) would make her offspring eligible as US citizens.

Tell you the truth, after reading the constitution, I dont see a problem with B.O.'s status as US President.

www.usconstitution.net...



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Once again, yet again.....another example, of member NOT reading the thread, only the OP that he/she agreed with....and a knee-jerk "S&F" was awarded.....

The OP is WRONG! The OP keeps repeating (if you had read it) that a POTUS must have two U.S. Citizen birth parents...because, OP said (multiple times, incorrectly): "It's in the Constitution".


Over and over, of late......ATS threads follow similar patterns. A wild, incredibly (and, as easily proved) wrong opening post, and title, is drafted and posted. Yet, a few late-comers inevitably mosey along hours (or days) later, and fall in love with the same already discredited DISinformation....makes ATS look bad, I would think , to outside readers....(?)


Absolutely correct. ATS is a laughing stock filled with misinformation and gullible knuckleheads that read the headline, agree with it and immediately post their support. Not to mention the trigger fingered S&F's.
They then read the rest of the thread and either defend the indefensible to the death, despite the real proof, or they just slink off into the shadows.
The moderaters never seem to be around or are complicit in spreading the tripe.
Garbage like this should be thrown into the hoax bin and the OP reprimanded for posting outragious headlines and falsehoods.
There should be an UNstar option and an UNflag button available to balance things out.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adonsa
His birth certificate indicates the hospital to be Colon Hospital, RP, location Colon, Panama, hence, outside the Canal Zone, somewhere in downtown Colon.
That is not a meaningful difference because the 8 USC 1403 statute also includes a provision granting citizenship to “[a]ny person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904 ... whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States” [8 USC 1403(b)]. This would apply to McCain.

The question of McCain’s natural born citizenship status is not so cut-and-dry because this statute was enacted in 1937, several months after McCain’s birth. McCain wasn’t, therefore, born with US citizenship. It was granted, retroactively, to him by the 8 USC 1403(a) or (b) provisions in 1937.

My opinion, however, is that McCain should have been able to serve had he won the election. And if it ever got to the Supreme Court, it would be very unlikely they would rule against him.

Edit: Forgot to mention that, another factor making McCain’s status uncertain, is the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the natural born citizenship status of children of US citizens born abroad, even if they were born as US citizens. My feeling is that anyone born as a US citizen, irrespective of the place of birth, is a natural born citizen.



edit on 30-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
ok i am not an obama fan but here is the LAW as defined by Title 8, Chapter 12, subchapter 3, Setion 1401:

1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
How Current is This? The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions 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 prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) 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;
(f) 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;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Part A clearly states that ANYONE born inside the United States is a Citizen of the U.S. AT birth and would be considered a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and eligible to be the president. We need to give this one a rest people



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
The number of these threads has become a bit disconcerting. I thought this was Above Top Seceret, not Above Thinking Sanely. I am in awe of the tenacity of the Birthers, but tenacity does not a revolution make.

Please Understand, you are not going to get any ground swell of support on these flimsy, hate filled ideas about Obama's un-Americanism.

Some of us believe, in fact, that America is the great place it is BECAUSE of its open arms policy for all the world's cultures. We are the melting pot of the world, and, as such, we accept that some of our citizens (and their parents) come from elsewhere. Unless you are 100% Native American, your family is a bunch of immigrants too.

Developmentally speaking, Obama could've moved here right up until he was three and he would still be an American, culturally speaking.

So, delve into Constitutional Law, or demand to see Obama's placenta. It will change nothing except how the world sees YOU.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
75
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join