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: 15
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syyth007
The John Bingham quote doesn't even really matter in this case anyway, as his mother was a natural born citizen. His parentS did not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, just his father. He was born, in the United States of America, to a natural born citizen. I would love to see any type of proof that a child born of a natural born US citizen isn't a natural born citizen themselves. It's quite clear from the quote you posted that Obama does not meet those specific "diss"qualifications.


He meaning Obama I guess you mean. Then you say his parents did not owe allegiance to a foreign nation just his Dad. So which is it?




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Once again, as other liberals have used that same argument, you are attempting to declare that Native Born is equal to Natural Born.
The “same argument” must be telling you what the law is, because I limited my posts to citations of the relevant and controlling Supreme Court case, and to the Department of State’s own explanation of the law.

“Other liberals”? You have no credibility left in this discussion.


Meaning other people I have encountered who used your arguments. Many of whom are quite leftist.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 



Everyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible


See you cite Wong Kim, whom that case was to establish mere citizenship, not eligibility for POTUS. Are you aware of the difference?


relevant and controlling Supreme Court case


Relevant to what and controlling what? Relevant to basic citizenship?


United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about the role of jus soli (birth in the United States) as a factor in determining a person's claim to United States citizenship. The citizenship status of a man born in the United States to Chinese parents was challenged[1] because of a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens,[2] but the Supreme Court ruled that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

There is no law stating that a person who has been naturalized is a Natural Born Citizen. If that were so then every person who came here from another country and goes through naturalization can be POTUS. Granted, that is what liberals are trying to achieve.
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
No, someone pointed out earlier, Barack's father did not owe allegiance to a foreign nation. I WAS WRONG. I'll admit it =P



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
reply to post by anumohi
 


Very good point for consideration!
That could mean he was deliberately looking for and
acquired a SS card with the sole intent of avoiding
military service. Or was it because he was trying to hide
something from his past, or perhaps both?


Or it could mean absolutely nothing at all.
1 - there's absolutely no *proof* he "thefted" anything. Please show me incontrovertible "proof" if you think I'm wrong.
2 - Why bother? The draft ended in 1973, hasn't been reinstated since, and has no real prospects of being revived in our lifetime.

(Just a passing question...what exactly does this statement have to do with O's BC? Consider trying a "full" choke versus an "improved" choke on that shotgun approach next time)

Here's a perfect example of a false/unproven allegation being built upon to make an even more implausible and unseemly accusation/argument.

Congratulations! You've added to the esteem of birthers immeasurably.
edit on 25-5-2011 by userid1 because: Spelling



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Ok, so now we've established that Barack's father did not owe allegiance to a foreign nation, he was under the jurisdiction of the United States while in this country, not to mention the simple fact his mother was a Natural Born Citizen. I was confused by the wording of the legalese (which I'm sure is the whole point in trying to use the Bingham quote when it has nothing to do with Obama's situation). His mother also was under jurisdiction of the United states when Obama was born, in the United States. NOW, either you can try to prove Barack SR owed an allegiance to a foreign nation, and was not under US jurisdiction when in the US, OR ya gotta find another reason to claim Obama is not a Natural Born citizen.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syyth007
No, someone pointed out earlier, Barack's father did not owe allegiance to a foreign nation. I WAS WRONG. I'll admit it =P


Yes he most certainly did owe allegiance to a foreign power. He was never naturalized as a US Citizen. Please tell me when he gave up his British allegiance?
www.obamanotqualified.com...

FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship, well with a spin of course.begin quote )"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…" (end quote



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syyth007
Ok, so now we've established that Barack's father did not owe allegiance to a foreign nation, he was under the jurisdiction of the United States while in this country, not to mention the simple fact his mother was a Natural Born Citizen. I was confused by the wording of the legalese (which I'm sure is the whole point in trying to use the Bingham quote when it has nothing to do with Obama's situation). His mother also was under jurisdiction of the United states when Obama was born, in the United States. NOW, either you can try to prove Barack SR owed an allegiance to a foreign nation, and was not under US jurisdiction when in the US, OR ya gotta find another reason to claim Obama is not a Natural Born citizen.


You just don't get it. This is patently false. Barack Sr was never a US Citizen and that is a requirement under Article II. He always owed his allegiance to Kenya and to Britain as a British subject. He never owed his allegiance to the US. Under the jurisdiction may work for traffic citations, but not for Presidential eligibility. Even residing in the States does not bestow automatic citizenship. Anyone from Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Morocco, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Syria, or Libya living in the States would know that after 9-11, as they all had to register and get fingerprinted just to stay without being deported or detained. And I happen to know that as a fact. Please call your local INS office if you refuse to believe me.
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

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



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
See you cite Wong Kim, whom that case was to establish mere citizenship, not eligibility for POTUS.
The contention in Wong Kim Ark wasArk’s citizenship, yes, but if you had read and understood the case you would understand why Wong Kim Ark settles the natural born citizenship question, at least for persons born in the United States.

How did the Court ascertain Ark’s citizenship? It ruled the common law principle of birth right citizenship entitled Ark to citizenship from birth. And that common law principle, the Court explained, also said the children of aliens were natural born citizens.

Ark was a natural born citizen, even though the only contention in the case was whether he was a citizen or not.

It’s bizarre to claim the Court didn’t say a word about natural born citizenship when the term “natural born citizen” is used 50 times, and the meaning of the term, its roots in common law, and the implications of it in the Untied States, are explored at length.


There is no law stating that a person who has been naturalized is a Natural Born Citizen.
I have no idea why you are saying this because I never said anything about naturalization. In fact, if there is one class of people who, by definition, are definitely not natural born citizens is naturalized citizens.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakaDoodle
reply to post by anumohi
 





Something else that needs to be considered and addressed about the SSN numbers that obama has thefted was his ability to circumvent selective services from ever inducting him into the military, so he wouldn't have to serve and be placed at risk in any armed conflicts...which also makes him a coward


Very good point for consideration!
That could mean he was deliberately looking for and
acquired a SS card with the sole intent of avoiding
military service. Or was it because he was trying to hide
something from his past, or perhaps both?


both, but one is as good as the other. but once he placed that ssn and signed the selective service it instantly made him a felon. doesn't matter who it belonged to?

the crooks in the government are covering for him because if any of these things come to light and the courts actually do what they are bound by their oaths to do, then the entire system will crumble because the entire system is corrupt and every one of them are guilty of multiple infringements..i think it will all be swept under the table to protect them all


the government cant have the people dictating to them

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



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
See you cite Wong Kim, whom that case was to establish mere citizenship, not eligibility for POTUS.
The contention in Wong Kim Ark wasArk’s citizenship, yes, but if you had read and understood the case you would understand why Wong Kim Ark settles the natural born citizenship question, at least for persons born in the United States.

How did the Court ascertain Ark’s citizenship? It ruled the common law principle of birth right citizenship entitled Ark to citizenship from birth. And that common law principle, the Court explained, also said the children of aliens were natural born citizens.

Ark was a natural born citizen, even though the only contention in the case was whether he was a citizen or not.

It’s bizarre to claim the Court didn’t say a word about natural born citizenship when the term “natural born citizen” is used 50 times, and the meaning of the term, its roots in common law, and the implications of it in the Untied States, are explored at length.


There is no law stating that a person who has been naturalized is a Natural Born Citizen.
I have no idea why you are saying this because I never said anything about naturalization. In fact, if there is one class of people who, by definition, are definitely not natural born citizens is naturalized citizens.


He would be native born not natural born. That is the part you seem to not be getting. As usual, Obama supporters try to assert that they are the same, and they are not. You seem to be asserting that this case makes for a precedent that all people born to foreign nationals are still eligible to be POTUS, just because it establishes citizenship.

You say how did the court establish citizenship, but again you keep missing the point, whereas it may establish citizenship, but not Natural Born citizenship.
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You just don't get it. This is patently false.
No, it is you who doesn’t seem to get it.


Barack Sr was never a US Citizen and that is a requirement under Article II.
It’s a requirement for the person, not the person’s parents!

The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, that is declaratory of the common law principle of birth right citizenship, says “all persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” It’s targets all persons who are born in the United States, it says nothing about the parents.

Both Obama’s parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Were they foreign diplomats entitled to diplomatic immunity? No. Were they enemy soldiers? No. Then they were subject to the jurisdiction! And by consequence so was Obama.


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



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

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.


I have to back you on this post, Alphabetaone.
When one strips away all the garbage of the thread, all that is left is the garbage you consolidated. Every single birther thread repeats the same lie after lie. They are all filled with the assumption that if one does not agree with birther claims that one is either a Gov shill, and elitist or an Obamaton (that one was funny at least). Just the fact that birthers are so strictly polarizing the issue with false dichotomies is enough to plainly see the true agenda behind their witch-hunt. It is not, not has it ever been about protecting the US constitution, American ideals or even politics at all.


It's nothing more than an elongated "I'm right, you're wrong and Obama must be your guy because you don't believe any of Corsi's theories."
edit on 25-5-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
He would be native born not natural born.
According to whom? Point me to the Supreme Court cases, or US legislation making this distinction.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com...


Proponents that say Barack Obama is a natural born citizen point to the highlighted portion above concluding that is as much a citizen and the natural born child of a citizen are equivalents in that sentence. Thus, a child born in the United States of a foreigner domiciled in the United States is a natural born citizen child.
First, it can be unequivocally argued that the justices in their affirmative opinion above found Wong Kim Ark to be a 14th Amendment U.S. Citizen. There can be no dispute of this fact regardless of the soundness of the Justices’ arguments. It should also be noted that while domiciled in the U.S. and again in accordance with the 14th Amendment that “every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States” was the additional argument that the opinion of the court was making.
The crux of the ruling though for our purposes is how it relates to the natural born citizen status of an individual and in the highlighted text above, the Justices clearly state: and his child (snip) f born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. These twenty-seven words may ultimately decide the eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the Office of the President of the United States.


So thats enough for tonight. I weary of your faulty arguments.
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by aptness
 


Once again, as other liberals have used that same argument, you are attempting to declare that Native Born is equal to Natural Born.


See, here you are polarizing the argument which does nothing but expose your actual agenda. That being, the debate has nothing to do with your president's credibility to hold office as much as it does your contempt for Liberals. You're equating the interpretation of Natural Born citizen to one's political views.

I think birthers would do themselves a great service by showing some actual evidence to the perpetual claim that Obama has spent millions in hiding records. That would be a great starting point.

???



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by aptness
 


See you cite Wong Kim, whom that case was to establish mere citizenship, not eligibility for POTUS. Are you aware of the difference?


Please show us exactly where the SCOTUS has ruled any differently since that case. If you can't - then it is - by default, the current rule of law, AND since the SCOTUS has provided no further definition, then Wong's being a "citizen" is EXACTLY the same as being a "natural born" citizen.


There is no law stating that a person who has been naturalized is a Natural Born Citizen.

Show us exactly where the term "naturalized" was used in that case to describe Wong's situation. As you are WELL AWARE, the term "naturalized" is a deliberate process that must be undertaken by an applicant. Wong was "awarded" his citizenship based on the "merit" of Jus Soli according to the SCOTUS. Since you're being so obstinate - I DARE you in front of everyone here at ATS to prove me wrong.


If that were so then every person who came here from another country and goes through naturalization can be POTUS.


Wrong, wrong, wrong - see above.


Granted, that is what liberals are trying to achieve.

That is what the SCOTUS has RULED.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by aptness
 


Once again, as other liberals have used that same argument, you are attempting to declare that Native Born is equal to Natural Born.


See, here you are polarizing the argument which does nothing but expose your actual agenda. That being, the debate has nothing to do with your president's credibility to hold office as much as it does your contempt for Liberals. You're equating the interpretation of Natural Born citizen to one's political views.

I think birthers would do themselves a great service by showing some actual evidence to the perpetual claim that Obama has spent millions in hiding records. That would be a great starting point.

???


My agenda is nothing but staying within the realm of the Constitution and the intention of the Founding Fathers, which was to preserve the safety and sovereignty of the newly found Republic. Perhaps it is the agenda of the Pro Obama supporters which is suspect. They overwhelmingly are Democrat/liberal. Some Republicans don't care or don't want to get into it. As for the Justices who refuse to hear any of the cases on merit, it is hard to know what is going on there.

What I keep seeing here over and over again is an insistence that the 14th Amendment has somehow replaced the Natural Born clause, and then use the case of Wong Kim Ark, which established his claim to citizenship, though not a claim to be eligible as POTUS.
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


Yes, I know about the jus soli argument. That still does not merit eligibility as POTUS.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
When we started this discussion, ThirdEyeofHorus requested that I support my claim “with case law.” I provided citations from the relevant Supreme Court case, various Court of Appeals cases, and the Department of State’s own admission and interpretation of the law.

ThirdEyeofHorus’ sources, on the other hand, consisted entirely of links to birther blogs.

Yet, my argument, he says, is ‘faulty.’

And birthers wonder why they aren’t taken seriously.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join