Impeach Obama?! New vid lays out a pretty good case.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by karen61057
You, YOU ONLY have to be born on American soil or OR, be born to American parents and even then it only has to be one not both. The law never stated that so no changes ever needed to be made where that is concerned.

Please provide proof of this statement.

OK - here's the proof that has ALWAYS been available - and I'm pretty sure you knew it, but didn't want to discuss it since it never helped your case. DO keep in mind that United States Codes CANNOT repeat CANNOT conflict with the Constitution. BTW - I took this from Phillip Berg's Web Site - you DO know who he is don't you - just in case you want to try and throw a comment about a stilted, left-wing web site post at me...

First bullet (AKA also known as subsection "A") - applies to Obama:


Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.”

citizenwells.wordpress.com...

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Not sure what you are going on. Nothing in that video backs the propaganda I see being spewed. Hence my perspective of it. If there was then this uphill battle would not be such a battle. Don't bash the man, bash the standards and policies and get at the root of what allows such a thing to occur and then you can perhaps verify and prove it without a doubt.

reply to post by Kitilani


your the one who keeps bringing up the birth issue, in saying "stay on topic". When I read the title "Impeach Obama?! New vid lays out a pretty good case.," I took it as a free-for-all concerning why he should be impeached.. yes the video is on that subject, sure.

Clearly that's not the only reason to, but it is something to address. if proven true, then there would be many who would go down for conspiracy i think.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Well yes I have and I've provided it however it apparently will never, in a thousand years, be able to dissuade you. That's what happens when people close their minds. Have a happy life!

edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

Whatever. You know you haven't. You know you were owned on the bills. You cannot prove anything you claimed. You wasted pages arguing about something you said was just a distraction. You have just failed all over this thread and pretending you did not might make you feel better but it is less than convincing. I will stop asking you for proof seeing as how you already said you were tired when shown how wrong you were.

You were asked to prove the bills in the video were about the parents. You were wrong. You claimed Obama was under Indonesian law when his stepdad wrote his name down. Then you denied you even said. Then you admitted you did not really have a clue. Then you said you believed it anyway. You are like a bad joke.

What planet are you from? What are you on? Just because you say something does not miraculously make it so. If I wanted to feel better then I would not pretend something as you obviously are doing. Is this what you do? I am seriously at a loss at how to respond to you. I have no idea what you are talking about or what your perspective might be to lead you to these conclusions. I have given you the benefit of the doubt through this thread and yet the only thing I get from you is frustration at your responses because they have no basis in reality. Are you feeling ok? That's not a jab at you but a very serious question.

Originally posted by Kingbreaker
reply to post by Kitilani

 

your the one who keeps bringing up the birth issue, in saying "stay on topic".

Probably because that is the topic of the thread.

When I read the title "Impeach Obama?! New vid lays out a pretty good case.," I took it as a free-for-all concerning why he should be impeached.

You were wrong and I took some sh!t for not watching the video in the OP.

yes the video is on that subject, sure.

The video that is the topic of this very thread you mean?

Clearly that's not the only reason to, but it is something to address.

Maybe in a thread about impeaching him for being a bad president. This is about impeaching him specifically because of his birth status. I did not even watch the video and I know what it is about.

if proven true, then there would be many who would go down for conspiracy i think.

edit on 2-7-2011 by Kingbreaker because: (no reason given)

If it is proven true that you do not like the job he is doing?

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
What planet are you from? What are you on? Just because you say something does not miraculously make it so.

I know. I pointed that out to you already. You are just repeating it back to me now. The problem is that I never made any claims I need to back up or am sitting here just repeating. That is all you, buddy.

If I wanted to feel better then I would not pretend something as you obviously are doing. Is this what you do?

Ask for proof of things? Yes that is one thing that I do.

I am seriously at a loss at how to respond to you.

With factual proof to confirms what you say.

I have no idea what you are talking about or what your perspective might be to lead you to these conclusions.

Then what are all your responses to me about?

I have given you the benefit of the doubt through this thread and yet the only thing I get from you is frustration at your responses because they have no basis in reality. Are you feeling ok? That's not a jab at you but a very serious question.

I am feeling fine. I am just waiting for you to back your claims. Should I outline your claims again to make it easier for you?

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ElectricWizard
We have proof he is a terrible terrible president... that is enough for me to want him to GTFO.

You may find this surprising but that means absolutely nothing to me. I thing pistachio is a terrible flavor for ice cream but that is not a legit reason to have it outlawed. Let me know how impeachment over your person dislike goes though. Send me a U2U or something.

We cannot waste anymore time and let our country rot away because of some globalist agenda! Time for some nationalism.. gotta build your country up. PERHAPS manufacture our own products and place HIGH 50% or more tariffs on any products that are imported here. I.e. iphones etc. What a thought.

But you seem pretty busy with all this birther stuff that is getting you nowhere.

I agree with you 100% Pistachio is a terrible flavor for ice cream. I thought I was the only one.

reply to post by userid1


The actual code is here: www.law.cornell.edu...

And it is for § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

Notice it says Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. There is a distinction between being a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen (which is the requirement for POTUS). This is why there had to be a senate resolution to grant McCain the ability to run for president because he was not born on U.S. soil but was certainly a citizen of the US at birth. There was question of his meeting the "natural born" requirement.

I know you said that your quote originally came from Philip Berg's website about the part:

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.”

but I cannot find that part in any of Berg's writing nor anywhere but on Citizen Wells and I'm having a great deal of difficulty accepting that statement. Nationals and citizens are not the same as natural born citizens. That was the whole controversy behind McCain and the whole reason why it took a senate resolution to confirm his eligibility. There was never any controversy whether he was a citizen or not just controversy over the "natural born" requirement.

i cant really say one way or the other but i do know it took way too long to get the whole birth certificate out as well as obama spent way too much money cloaking his records. point none of this should be posible if you run for president much less are president. you lose all rights to secrets and privacy its part of the job always has been till now. everything claimed in this video if true is even more suspicious in either case a simple you tube search for obama lying gives more than enuff reason to impeach him. i wish we could as private citizens sue for impeachment. its a simple case he stated/promised x y z he lied here here and here if true your fired done. i know idealistic and unrealistic in real life but i can dream cant i.

reply to post by survivalstation


LOL. Thank you. I was going to post a reply just like that but then I read yours.

Isn't it just funny when they put labels out there like "truther" and "birther" and "chemmy", I think it shows the level of maturity just great. Almost sounds like a middle school playground. It is okay tho because these things will not stay secret to the masses forever. When it does come out along with all the other nasty things that have gone on behind the scenes that is just too much for these "debunkers" (self acclaimed label) brains to handle, they will all go into hiding or off themselves due to the harshness of the actual truth.

Impeach Obama yet you didn't impeach all the effed up white presidents before him..

talk about hypocrites.

reply to post by citizen3273676


I don't suppose you can back any of that up can you?
Are you going to lash out at me for asking for proof too? Seems to be the trend.

reply to post by DuceizBack


Bring the race card in eh. The effed up "white presidents"???!!! Doesn't matter what colour your skin is, if your an idiot go ahead and paint yourself green see if that changes anything.

You know that everybody wanted to impeach bush as well?

Did you know Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. Oh but yes, they are only trying to impeach obama because he is black. That statement is a waste of a post and it only serves to stir up **** that takes away from the real issue at hand.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by userid1

 

The actual code is here: www.law.cornell.edu...

And it is for § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

Notice it says Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. There is a distinction between being a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen (which is the requirement for POTUS).

No there's not - and THAT is the fallacy of your argument. There is NO definitional distiction either in the Constitution or in USC. This is simply a smoke sreen birthers throw up to try and MAKE the Constitution say what they *think* it should say. [

This is why there had to be a senate resolution to grant McCain the ability to run for president because he was not born on U.S. soil but was certainly a citizen of the US at birth. There was question of his meeting the "natural born" requirement.

McCain's case was one of not meeting US State Department standards of citizenship. The State dept. does NOT trump the Constitution, or USC. BTW - that resolution was non-binding and signed by Clinton and Obama.

I know you said that your quote originally came from Philip Berg's website about the part:

My mistake - web site 100 percent supports Berg - but is not owned and operated BY Berg.

Nationals and citizens are not the same as natural born citizens.

The Constitution and USC only recognize two type of citizenship - Natural (born) and "Naturalized" - period.

This is such crap. I showed that video to my aunt (a Catholic nun - Sisters of St. Joseph) while she was still here today following my brother's funeral and related events. She was appalled at the association that idiot clams to have with the Catholic Church, considering the hyper-partisan political nature of the subject. In the New Testament, Judas betrayed Jesus in an attempt to force his hand against the Romans (a clear politically motivated effort) and became the poster child for violating the Christian ethos as a result of trying to force a mix of "God's will and issues of state". That's literally what she told me after seeing that video.

If this is Christianity in the new American century, then there'll be a lot more company in hell than anyone's expecting.

Obama was elected by a majority vote. His mom was an American citizen and all evidence points to the fact that she was in Hawaii when she gave birth to him. No one's going to impeach him over eligibility issues, and anyone who believes that this will happen is going to have to eventually deal with that fact.

Frankly, the idea that the DNC would've staged the primary battle between Obama and Clinton, with an eye on the black guy with the Muslim sounding name being the chosen shill is pretty laughable. The guys name rhymes with Iraq Hussein Osama, and in a post-9/11 world, no less. You people must think that the DNC is run by evil mastermind genuises if you think that any of them were expecting the American public to embrace such a candidate. To say that Obama pulled off the upset electorial victory of this (and the last) century is an understatement. He was running against a war hero with an Irish name. If anyone ever tried to shop a movie script with that as the premise, they'd get laughed off every studio lot in the world.

I'm going to assume that this thread is a hack partisan effort. I just can't deal with the idea that anyone actually believes this garbage. If his name was Bob Smith, and he had 3.2 kids, a great head of hair, a winning smile set in a strong jaw, and had been Governor of a Southern or Western state for at least 4 years, then I could see him being a realistic Manchurian candidate. Especially if he'd done a tour of military duty. But to suggest that a mixed-race, skinny black guy with three names that each violate the political playbook for national office, who never held a gun in his life and can't even bowl without looking like a teenage girl, is where the brightest political minds in the world went when they wanted to slip one past the censors with an eye on bringing down the USA......

Man, I don't even know how to finish that sentence. The idea of that as a plausible strategy is ludicrous. To suggest that those evil geniuses would've purposely chosen a guy who couldn't even pass the eligibility requirements is inane. Seriously. Why would they choose a negro with so many obvious speedbumps in front of him if what they wanted was a candidate who they knew could win the race? Since when has that sort of thinking ever been the go-to plan regardless of the party involved?

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by citizen3273676

 

I don't suppose you can back any of that up can you?
Are you going to lash out at me for asking for proof too? Seems to be the trend.

back up what? that i said it took way too long for a birth cert? i said that . that obama spent way too much money keeping his records private? i said that. my point was a candidate much less a president has no right to privacy its part of the job. the rest of my post stated that a simple youtube search of obama lying, telling lies etc gives more than enuff reason in my mind to impeach and how i wished average citizens could impeach a president for lying i then tried to mention that i reallized it was a nosensical idea but id really luv to be able to impeach any president that i can proved lied. so sorry if i seem to be lashing out at you but i dont understand what can i back up for you? if you need proof that obama lied, go to youtube in the search box type in obama telling lies or reasonable facsimile and then hit enter watch some videos i realise its kinda lazy i dont know how to embed a vid but you need proof obama lied??? really??? your kidding right???(please excuse the slight lashing)

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Oh yay, more birther nonsense.

Don't you people have anything else to do besides making up rumors and scandals about Your President?

Actually it looks like the two main captains of team birther are UcDat and Backinblack who are respectively Canadian and Australian.

Kinda says something. Not sure what but something.

Kinda says they know there's a certain audience out there who'll hate Obama no matter what. So why not make some profit off it?

reply to post by UcDat


...to usher in global Marxism? OP, what is Marxism exactly? That is a premise of this video. I would like either the video or the OP to explain exactly what "Marxism" is.

reply to post by Scoriada


Why is that the case? So my mom could be president, but my dad couldn't, even though both grew up in the same small town. My mom's mom was the only one in her family born in the US, but my dad's mom was born in Italy. I don't get it. What transfers from parents to children that does not from grandparents to grandchildren?

edit: nevermind, I really don't feel like arguing this stuff yet again.