Corsi To File Criminal Charges Against White House Over Obama Birth Certificate

Originally posted by xyankee
reply to post by Antiquated1

 

common, do you really think that a blog or website compares to a publisher? If he was to do that no one would get the information. What would he do advertise his blog and expect to be taken seriously?

Corsi's book was "published" by a website.
The same website 99% of the birthers cite as a source in their argument.
You were saying?

reply to post by bluemirage5





Yeah..looks almost painful

reply to post by MiloNickels


The natural born citzenship resolution (non-binding and drawn up ONLY in relation to John McCains NBC status, which by the way Obama endorsed so that McCain could run) is only pertaining to a person not born on american soil, should (as in McCains case) a child be born outside of the US they are only eligible if both parents are US citizens. Obama was born to an american woman on american soil. I had thought that at least this part had been put to rest and thus the drive to prove the LFBC a fake.

Originally posted by Tonosama
That isn't entirely true. This birther issue hasn't actually seen a courtroom yet. Every time someone files Obama's lawyers

When someone sues you you have to respond. That usually involves lawyers. It’s a crazy concept, I know.

upon which he has spent millions

Unsubstantiated claim.

have the case thrown out on a technicality know as "standing". What that means is that they are saying that the individual doesn't have the right to question the big O's legitimacy

The doctrine of standing wasn’t created just for birther lawsuits. What you are arguing here, in effect, is for the courts not to apply the law because you think your case has merit. That’s not how it works.

For a court to rule in your favor you need standing and have a meritorious claim. Birthers have neither.

that the only people that can do that are those in congress.

Because, like the courts explained, the qualifications for office, and removal from office certainly, is delegated, by the Constitution, to a political department, namely Congress.

So, since only congress can do it ... This is, of course, an impossible situation.

If Congress “can do it” it’s not “an impossible situation.”

The reason no one can show that they are harmed is because all of the stupid stuff Obama has done

The reason why no one has standing is because no one that has sued so far has an individualized injury, but, and more importantly, at this point, the courts can’t offer relief. It’s Congress that has the power to remove a sitting President, not the courts.

Candidates running against Barack Obama, before the election, probably had standing to question his eligibility in court. The election is over. Obama is the President. The courts can’t do anything about it.

Not one argument has been heard on the BC issue so it is FALSE to state that the courts have already ruled.

If a court would hear your “BC issue” it would go equally down in flames. Obama’s birth certificate is prima facie evidence of his birth. Unless you have undeniable proof Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii it would go something like this—

Birthers: Your honor, Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.
Judge: State of Hawaii, what say you?
Hawaii: Your honor, Barack Obama was born in our great state. Here’s his certified birth certificate.
Judge: Case dismissed.

You are delusional if you think a court of law would ever accept hearsay and unsubstantiated claims over a legal document issued by a state of the union.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Ok, what does Bill Ayers have to do with Obama's eligibility as president? Did Bill Ayers make the fake BC?

Do you not have people in your past or present that may cast doubt on your reputation? I know a couple people in my life that could cause me a world of hurt.

Wasn't it Bush who had an intimate relationship with the Bin Laden's? Did you whoop and holler about that? Did that in effect de-legitimize the Bush presidency?

By the way, Bill Ayers was and is remorseful about his actions.

Chicago Magazine reported that "just before the September 11th attacks," Richard Elrod, a city lawyer injured in the Weathermen's Chicago "Days of Rage," received an apology from Ayers and Dohrn for their part in the violence. "[T]hey were remorseful," Elrod says. "They said, 'We're sorry that things turned out this way.'"[30]

WIKI

Is in not disingenuous to then call him "unrepentant"?

So, all the people who wanted Arnold to be able to run for president are reversing their stance on who can be president. How convienient.

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Antiquated1

 

That is just deflection and obfuscation. The implication of the resolution is that both the parents must be American citizens at the time of birth, which Barrys Dad was not, no matter where Barry was born.

No, it is the truth. Please show me the resolution in full and explain how you find that implication.

You do know it was a non-binding resolution right? From the same people that "resolved" that Hawaii is Obama's birthplace. Let me guess, what they actually do and say does not matter, just what you think it really meant.

The implication is that both parents must be American citizens. What part of that do you not understand? What part of Barry's father not being American citizen, EVER, do you not understand. McCain was born in Panama while it was under US Jurisdiction. Kenya was never under US jurisdiction, but under British jurisdiction.

Originally posted by earthdude
So, all the people who wanted Arnold to be able to run for president are reversing their stance on who can be president. How convienient.

I never wanted Ahnold to run.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Antiquated1

 

That is just deflection and obfuscation. The implication of the resolution is that both the parents must be American citizens at the time of birth, which Barrys Dad was not, no matter where Barry was born.

No, it is the truth. Please show me the resolution in full and explain how you find that implication.

You do know it was a non-binding resolution right? From the same people that "resolved" that Hawaii is Obama's birthplace. Let me guess, what they actually do and say does not matter, just what you think it really meant.

The implication is that both parents must be American citizens. What part of that do you not understand? What part of Barry's father not being American citizen, EVER, do you not understand. McCain was born in Panama while it was under US Jurisdiction. Kenya was never under US jurisdiction, but under British jurisdiction.

What part of this do you not understand? Why do you refuse to look at evidence that conflicts with your fantasy?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Antiquated1

 

That is just deflection and obfuscation. The implication of the resolution is that both the parents must be American citizens at the time of birth, which Barrys Dad was not, no matter where Barry was born.

No, it is the truth. Please show me the resolution in full and explain how you find that implication.

You do know it was a non-binding resolution right? From the same people that "resolved" that Hawaii is Obama's birthplace. Let me guess, what they actually do and say does not matter, just what you think it really meant.

The implication is that both parents must be American citizens. What part of that do you not understand? What part of Barry's father not being American citizen, EVER, do you not understand. McCain was born in Panama while it was under US Jurisdiction. Kenya was never under US jurisdiction, but under British jurisdiction.

Wrong! He Could be an American citizen even IF he was born in Kenya.

Statute, by parentage Under certain circumstances, U.S. citizenship can be acquired from one's parents. The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):[5] If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever legally resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child's birth If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[6] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday.

WIKI

Originally posted by Tonosama

Originally posted by Antiquated1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

The further off topic you go, the better your argument gets. Obama must have been born in Kenya because you think FMD took nude pictures of Obama's mom. Keep up the good work. Have some stars on me.

Typical elitist response of an obamaton. No debate, just snide and flippant remarks.

Why are you all so afraid of this going to court? If it is proven he is absolutely a NBC then you can gloat and gloat and gloat. If he is shown not to be a NBC....well....things will be rather interesting at that point.

Then perhaps you can tell me what nude photos of Stanley and Frank Marshal Davis have to do with this topic, this thread, what is going to court, Obama's birthplace, etc? I kind of thought that post was a typical distraction but maybe you can explain it to me.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Ok, what does Bill Ayers have to do with Obama's eligibility as president? Did Bill Ayers make the fake BC?

Do you not have people in your past or present that may cast doubt on your reputation? I know a couple people in my life that could cause me a world of hurt.

Wasn't it Bush who had an intimate relationship with the Bin Laden's? Did you whoop and holler about that? Did that in effect de-legitimize the Bush presidency?

By the way, Bill Ayers was and is remorseful about his actions.

Chicago Magazine reported that "just before the September 11th attacks," Richard Elrod, a city lawyer injured in the Weathermen's Chicago "Days of Rage," received an apology from Ayers and Dohrn for their part in the violence. "[T]hey were remorseful," Elrod says. "They said, 'We're sorry that things turned out this way.'"[30]

WIKI

Is in not disingenuous to then call him "unrepentant"?

It has to do with the people who surround him, who he has surrounded himself with and who he allies himself with, which in many Patriotic Americans' view adds fuel to the fire of his loyalties to the US, as ultimately that is what is at the heart of the NBC requirement to be POTUS. The whole purpose of it is to guard the sovereignty of America from foreign interests. We know from Barry's own mouth that he considers himself to be a "Citizen of The World". When have you ever saw an American President ally himself with the rest of the World over the US?He clearly is doing things for the benefit of others in the world. But then, all the globalist bankers are that way as well. Antony Sutton has been talking about this since the 70's. In my view, Barry's situation is just so in our faces about it.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The implication is that both parents must be American citizens. What part of that do you not understand?

The implication of your absurd interpretation is that to be a natural born citizen one must be born on a military base. Isn’t that specified in McCain’s non-binding resolution as well?

Even if it was the Senate’s intent to define that a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents, as you claim, they couldn’t do it with a non-binding resolution.

reply to post by Antiquated1

I find it hard to believe anyone that knows how to do research and read a research paper could have said what you just said. Are you playing dumb here or is this a serious statement? I pointed out the lack of citations in the forward. If you flip to the citations section titled: "ENDNOTES" on page 371, you will notice citations listed for the preface, introduction, and chapter 1 - 13, the conclusion, and the appendix, ending on page 387. Not one footnote correlates to the forward. If you had the book and knew how to read it, you would know that.

I love it! You really do have the book! Sorry, I have to admit that I didn't think you did - I guess we just needed to get past the 'blank' pages.

I know you read pages 90-92 - just wondering if you had any opinions on that account?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Oh yeah, Bill Ayers making an apology....did you think Casey Anthony was sorry too? Ayers is on record as saying he did not do enough(that bombing wasnt enough) and here is his statement against Capitalism, which is typical of Marxist revolutionaries(and by the way when you apply to become a naturalized citizen of the US, you must sign a sworn affidavit that you have NOT been a member of any communist party or organization)..
voices.washingtonpost.com...

Ayers concludes his self-defense with a brief against capitalism. "Capitalism," he writes, "played its role historically and is exhausted as a force for progress: built on exploitation, theft, conquest, war, and racism, capitalism and imperialism must be defeated and a world revolution -- a revolution against war and racism and materialism, a revolution based on human solidarity and love, cooperation and the common good -- must win.

I'm sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say 'no, I don't regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.' Sometimes I add, 'I don't think I did enough.' This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings."

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Guess what, the world has shrunk and is shrinking at an incredible rate largely due to the wonderful thing you are using at this very moment to express yourself, the internet. It would be foolish to alienate ourselves, wouldn't it? By the way his name is not Barry it is Barack aka Mr. President. Do you insinuate that anyone who has spent time travelling the world is unsuitable to be POTUS? Are you suggesting that our freedom be restricted in this manner? Or that we only ever associate with people that are politically acceptable (non-diverse).

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

It has to do with the people who surround him, who he has surrounded himself with and who he allies himself with, which in many Patriotic Americans' view adds fuel to the fire of his loyalties to the US, as ultimately that is what is at the heart of the NBC requirement to be POTUS.

Popular opinion could also be called "mob rule". Our constitutional Republic is designed to prohibit such knee-jerk reactions by setting forth the laws from which we derive our laws and standards. You believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land"....right? Or should we dictate our action based on popular opinion?

Seems to me the only thing he could even be guilty of is guilt by association. That would put most of us in a real bad position. I don't think thats the standard we want to set.

We know from Barry's own mouth that he considers himself to be a "Citizen of The World". When have you ever saw an American President ally himself with the rest of the World over the US?

The US is part of this world is it not? That's like saying that you are a New York citizen, but not an American. I am a global citizen, and so are you. Get over it! We are not the only people on this big rock.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The implication is that both parents must be American citizens. What part of that do you not understand?

The implication of your absurd interpretation is that to be a natural born citizen one must be born on a military base. Isn’t that specified in McCain’s non-binding resolution as well?

Even if it was the Senate’s intent to define that a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents, as you claim, they couldn’t do it with a non-binding resolution.

edit on 25-5-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)

Oh brother!!! you O supporters really know how to make off the wall statements. NO to be natural born under Vattel's Law of the Nations, one must have both parents citizens and born on the soil.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

www.birthers.org...

Because McCain was born in Panama while it was yet under US jurisdiction(Blackstone's theory that if one is under US jurisdiction that counts as US soil) that is the substance of the resolution to include those born in a place designated as under US Jurisdiction(such as a military base or US Embassy), so that people serving the country who happen to be living abroad are brought under the umbrella. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand.
On the other hand, Barry's father was a Kenyan, and under British jurisdiction per the British Nationality Act of 1948, and was NEVER EVER a US Citizen naturalized or otherwise.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


Because McCain was born in Panama while it was yet under US jurisdiction

And the President was born in the US while it was under US jurisdiction, so whats your problem?

Why must these posts always fly off into the outlandish on ATS?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Ayers is on record as saying he did not do enough(that bombing wasnt enough

Context my friend! This is from the link I provided a few posts back. Please provide context before assuming intent or using a quote in a way that suits your benefit.

WIKI

Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication.[31] The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again," as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."[29] Ayers protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[32] In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."[33] Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.[33][34] In a November 2008 interview with The New Yorker, Ayers said that he had not meant to imply that he wished he and the Weathermen had committed further acts of violence. Instead, he said, “I wish I had done more, but it doesn’t mean I wish we’d bombed more #.” Ayers said that he had never been responsible for violence against other people and was acting to end a war in Vietnam in which “thousands of people were being killed every week.” He also stated, "While we did claim several extreme acts, they were acts of extreme radicalism against property,” and “We killed no one and hurt no one. Three of our people killed themselves.”[35]

ahh, the beauty of context!

and here is his statement against Capitalism, which is typical of Marxist revolutionaries(and by the way when you apply to become a naturalized citizen of the US, you must sign a sworn affidavit that you have NOT been a member of any communist party or organization)..

By the standard you just set, half of ATS falls under your blanket accusations of Marxism. Capitalism is many of the things Ayers claims it to be. Does that mean I should not be a US citizen, or I am a terrorist?

I bet you uphold the Constitution as high as I do, but you seem to use people's right to freedom of speech as a way to prove they do not deserve to be a citizen. Pick a side on the issue please. Are you for the Constitution, or for mob-rule dictatorship?

Edit to add: I am NOT an Obama supporter!