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.
Corsi To File Criminal Charges Against White House Over Obama Birth Certificate
page: 12share:
reply to post by Antiquated1
That was a side issue, as I have seen those photos and wondered if anyone here at ATS has declared those photos to be photoshopped. It is thought that they may have been taken by FMD who was a friend of Stanley's parents at the time.
That was a side issue, as I have seen those photos and wondered if anyone here at ATS has declared those photos to be photoshopped. It is thought that they may have been taken by FMD who was a friend of Stanley's parents at the time.
Vattel’s definition was never the definition of natural born subject in common law, and it was never the definition adopted in US jurisprudence. In other words, it was never the law of the land.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
NO to be natural born under Vattel's Law of the Nations, one must have both parents citizens and born on the soil.
The Vattel argument is ridiculous beyond words. It’s like arguing that the citizenship law of another country should rule our citizenship laws because they used the same terms.
And, btw, when Vattel wrote his treatise he wrote in French and the terms he used were ‘naturels’ (naturals) and ‘indigenes’ (natives). The first English translation using the term natural born citizen appeared 10 years after the adoption of the Constitution.
Just another meritless birther argument.
Now, here is more on Vattel and Blackstone
www.birthers.org...
Incidentally, that is why atty Stephen Pidgeon says it ultimately does not even matter whether Barry was born in Kenya or not, as the British nationality Act of 1948 says his Father was born under British rule and never gave that up and never was naturalized in the US, and that the nationality of the Father is what is transferred at birth.
What further discredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Born Citizen clause, is the first immigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel’s assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States. Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:” Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstone’s definition, he remained silent.
To add further proof to the intent of the Founding Fathers literal meaning of Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen being born of two citizens, and in the country itself, and wanting a natural born citizen having no other claim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America, in 1795 the Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1795, which was also signed by George Washington, recognized Blackstone’s commentaries on English Common Law, making children born overseas in the lands under British rule, British Subjects. Even if their parents were American. This act removed the words natural born from children born overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person, and thus establish “a presence of influence” in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of our Founding Fathers to “naturalize at birth” these children, but not give them the status “natural born citizens.” Also in this act of 1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the first appearance of the oath of allegiance “to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.” This oath is still in effect today.
www.birthers.org...
Incidentally, that is why atty Stephen Pidgeon says it ultimately does not even matter whether Barry was born in Kenya or not, as the British nationality Act of 1948 says his Father was born under British rule and never gave that up and never was naturalized in the US, and that the nationality of the Father is what is transferred at birth.
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
reply to post by ShakaDoodle
GO GET 'EM Corsi, it is time to run this :Judas Goat" to ground and expose him for the fraud he is.
Originally posted by aptness
Vattel’s definition was never the definition of natural born subject in common law, and it was never the definition adopted in US jurisprudence. In other words, it was never the law of the land.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
NO to be natural born under Vattel's Law of the Nations, one must have both parents citizens and born on the soil.
The Vattel argument is ridiculous beyond words. It’s like arguing that the citizenship law of another country should rule our citizenship laws because they used the same terms.
And, btw, when Vattel wrote his treatise he wrote in French and the terms he used were ‘naturels’ (naturals) and ‘indigenes’ (natives). The first English translation using the term natural born citizen appeared 10 years after the adoption of the Constitution.
editby]edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason
given)
Originally posted by aptness
Vattel’s definition was never the definition of natural born subject in common law, and it was never the definition adopted in US jurisprudence. In other words, it was never the law of the land.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
NO to be natural born under Vattel's Law of the Nations, one must have both parents citizens and born on the soil.
The Vattel argument is ridiculous beyond words. It’s like arguing that the citizenship law of another country should rule our citizenship laws because they used the same terms.
And, btw, when Vattel wrote his treatise he wrote in French and the terms he used were ‘naturels’ (naturals) and ‘indigenes’ (natives). The first English translation using the term natural born citizen appeared 10 years after the adoption of the Constitution.
Just another meritless birther argument.
You want to tell me where the proof is that Vattel is not the definition our Founding Fathers used? The Common Law is that which Blackstone uses in his arguments, and that is for British Common Law, so do you want to tell me why our Founding Fathers in attaining Independence from Britain would necessarily use their definition?[
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
Can you disprove a negative?
Why did you pass over my posts?
You want to tell me where the proof is that Vattel is not the definition our Founding Fathers used?
Can you disprove a negative?
Why did you pass over my posts?
Originally posted by aptness
Vattel’s definition was never the definition of natural born subject in common law, and it was never the definition adopted in US jurisprudence. In other words, it was never the law of the land.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
NO to be natural born under Vattel's Law of the Nations, one must have both parents citizens and born on the soil.
The Vattel argument is ridiculous beyond words. It’s like arguing that the citizenship law of another country should rule our citizenship laws because they used the same terms.
And, btw, when Vattel wrote his treatise he wrote in French and the terms he used were ‘naturels’ (naturals) and ‘indigenes’ (natives). The first English translation using the term natural born citizen appeared 10 years after the adoption of the Constitution.
Just another meritless birther argument.
Are you trying to tell me that none of our Founding Fathers could possibly have spoken French?
Originally posted by Kali74
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?
You are citing your own post elsewhere stating that Stanley Ann's citizenship is all that mattered?
Originally posted by Kali74
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.
So apparently you are arguing now that only one parent must be an American citizen.
The candidates' circumstances were not the same: Questions were raised over McCain's eligibility under the Constitution's demand that a president be a "natural born Citizen," because he was born to American citizen military parents while they are on assignment overseas.
www.freerepublic.com...
oops original text found on WND www.wnd.com...
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason
given)
Obviously not. But your argument is that Vattel said “natural born citizen means x,” when, in fact, he didn’t.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorusAre you trying to tell me that none of our Founding Fathers could possibly have spoken French?
When the Founders wrote the Constitution Vattel wrote about ‘naturals’ and ‘natives’ and the “natural born subject” common law principle existed since the 1600s.
You realize it’s that same common law that is the basis of our laws?
The Common Law is that which Blackstone uses in his arguments, and that is for British Common Law, so do you want to tell me why our Founding Fathers in attaining Independence from Britain would necessarily use their definition?
It doesn’t matter what you think the right interpretation or definition is, because over a century ago the Supreme Court, in Wong Kim Ark, unambiguously stated natural born citizen is derived from the common law principle.
You are free to disagree but your opinion is not the law. Unlike that of the Supreme Court.
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
Here is yet another reason why the "birthers" claims always seem so outrageous and baseless.
I want you to look at your argument structure and realize how ridiculous you sound:
"Obama cant be president, he was not born here, there is no birth certificate"
.."Yes he was, and here you go, here is the certificate"
..."Oh thanks for that! Too bad it's a fake!"
...."No it isn't, and here is why."
....."Where is the raised seal?!?!?! Huh huh huh??"
......"Now we've shown you the raised seal, is it still a fraud?"
......."Well, how can you explain the nude photographs?!?! Huh huh huh??"
........."What's that got to do with it?"
.........."So what!!! Is it out of the realm of possibility that one of our founding fathers spoke French??? huh huh huh?
I can't imagine why no one takes any of it seriously.... like boondock said a million people believe this nonsense, I take solace in knowing that the other 299 million do not.
Here is yet another reason why the "birthers" claims always seem so outrageous and baseless.
I want you to look at your argument structure and realize how ridiculous you sound:
"Obama cant be president, he was not born here, there is no birth certificate"
.."Yes he was, and here you go, here is the certificate"
..."Oh thanks for that! Too bad it's a fake!"
...."No it isn't, and here is why."
....."Where is the raised seal?!?!?! Huh huh huh??"
......"Now we've shown you the raised seal, is it still a fraud?"
......."Well, how can you explain the nude photographs?!?! Huh huh huh??"
........."What's that got to do with it?"
.........."So what!!! Is it out of the realm of possibility that one of our founding fathers spoke French??? huh huh huh?
I can't imagine why no one takes any of it seriously.... like boondock said a million people believe this nonsense, I take solace in knowing that the other 299 million do not.
When obama was introduced it was direct criminal intent by enemies of the citizens of the united states by the hidden government powers, and to
overthrow the constitution. as a matter of fact the 700,000,000 million used to endorse this man was stolen directly from general accounting of the
pentagon to continue on what bush had started, so he could graciously slip away. it is a coup d etat there truly is no other word for it. remember the
look on Hillary's face when she was pulled to the side and given the ultimatum? i knew at that instance America was finished and that no investigation
or justice department intervention would ever happen after bush got away with firing all the attorney's and locking everyone out thus sealing this
countries fate.
obamas unquestionably the enemy, and the sooner the people recognize him for what he is the better we can prepare ourselves for the up and coming election and the stunts the government are going to continue to pull to fulfill the task of our undoing
obamas unquestionably the enemy, and the sooner the people recognize him for what he is the better we can prepare ourselves for the up and coming election and the stunts the government are going to continue to pull to fulfill the task of our undoing
edit on 25-5-2011 by anumohi
because: (no reason given)
Everyone born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, is a natural born citizen. That is the law of the land, and it was the law when Barack Obama was born.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So apparently you are arguing now that only one parent must be an American citizen.
Why did it take 3 years to produce a birth certificate if there was nothing to hide in the first place? That is just too supicious to be called
coincidence.
Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
Here is yet another reason why the "birthers" claims always seem so outrageous and baseless.
I want you to look at your argument structure and realize how ridiculous you sound:
"Obama cant be president, he was not born here, there is no birth certificate"
.."Yes he was, and here you go, here is the certificate"
..."Oh thanks for that! Too bad it's a fake!"
...."No it isn't, and here is why."
....."Where is the raised seal?!?!?! Huh huh huh??"
......"Now we've shown you the raised seal, is it still a fraud?"
......."Well, how can you explain the nude photographs?!?! Huh huh huh??"
........."What's that got to do with it?"
.........."So what!!! Is it out of the realm of possibility that one of our founding fathers spoke French??? huh huh huh?
I can't imagine why no one takes any of it seriously.... like boondock said a million people believe this nonsense, I take solace in knowing that the other 299 million do not.
Ok now please find in any of my statements where I have spoken of the seal? At this point I am arguing that even if Obama is born in Hi, it is the Nationality status of his father. Now, I am hearing people argue that it is only one parent necessary(Stanley Ann), and that his father's nationality is not important. You have posted a bunch of stuff I never said and put it in a way that makes people visiting this site think I did. You sir have misrepresented me and my arguments.
Regarding the resolution for McCain's eiligibility
www.wnd.com...
Text from the resolution
www.wnd.com...
The candidates' circumstances were not the same: Questions were raised over McCain's eligibility under the Constitution's demand that a president be a "natural born Citizen," because he was born to American citizen military parents while they are on assignment overseas.
But plaintiffs and lawyers who earlier brought a lawsuit against Obama alleging he is ineligible to be president, say he failed to meet the "natural born Citizen" requirement because his father is a foreign national, and the understanding of "natural born Citizen" at the time the Constitution was written was a citizen offspring of citizen parents.
That's also what Obama, as a cosponsor, included in his Senate Resolution 511 in 2008 regarding McCain.
The statement includes two references to "Americans" as parents or "American citizens" as parents.
Text from the resolution
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Read more: Obama's McCain resolution demands 'American' parents www.wnd.com...
Originally posted by PunchingBag80
Why did it take 3 years to produce a birth certificate if there was nothing to hide in the first place? That is just too supicious to be called coincidence.
So they had three years to fabricate a birth certificate, and the best they can come up with is something that is deemed fraudulent by imaging experts within hours? Is our government really that fragile and lacking in capability?
edit on 25-5-2011 by expo15 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by aptness
Everyone born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, is a natural born citizen. That is the law of the land, and it was the law when Barack Obama was born.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So apparently you are arguing now that only one parent must be an American citizen.
That is not true. Now you are using the argument that anyone born here is eligible to be POTUS. That would mean that the children born here of illegals living here illegally are eligible. Please show me in case law anywhere to support this claim of yours.
reply to post by Misoir
Did you even watch the video? You entered this thread knowing you wanted to post a comment contradictory to the original post. You posted a comment at 3:08, the orginal comment was posted at 3:05. So, it took you less than three minutes to make your judgement on Corsi's evidence... and people just ate up what you said. You can't make pre-judgments about situations when you don't even hear out the whole story. Why can't you understand that? Two other people did the same thing at the same time, 3:08. How can you claim something to be one way if you don't hear both sides? Anybody out there?
Did you even watch the video? You entered this thread knowing you wanted to post a comment contradictory to the original post. You posted a comment at 3:08, the orginal comment was posted at 3:05. So, it took you less than three minutes to make your judgement on Corsi's evidence... and people just ate up what you said. You can't make pre-judgments about situations when you don't even hear out the whole story. Why can't you understand that? Two other people did the same thing at the same time, 3:08. How can you claim something to be one way if you don't hear both sides? Anybody out there?