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.
Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by Youmakemewonder
Sorry pal, don't flatter yourself, that only took a few minutes to look at your profile and do some quick calculations. Unlike some, I have real life. Oh, Happy Independence Day BTW.
Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by aptness
It’s hard to believe but you birthers give conspiracy theorists a bad reputation.
You call yourself a conspiracy theorist? You should be ashamed at yourself for degrading that title by refusing to challenge Obama's legality. Do you also accept the official story for 9/11? I guess you think Kennedy was shot by Oswald too?
Why not just come out and say we should believe what we are told? What? Too blatant for you?
Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by userid1
Well basically, I like to laugh a lot at the newbies...
Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by survivalstation
What exactly has Obama hidden and what was the price tag.
Break it down with numbers and sources or you are full of sh!t.
Originally posted by Youmakemewonder
You prove to me that Obama spent millions hiding anything and I will concede. Articles without proof will not count.
Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by survivalstation
What exactly has Obama hidden and what was the price tag.
Break it down with numbers and sources or you are full of sh!t.
No, I don’t.
Originally posted by survivalstation
You call yourself a conspiracy theorist?
Can you make your argument without resorting to a straw man?
You should be ashamed at yourself for degrading that title by refusing to challenge Obama's legality. Do you also accept the official story for 9/11? I guess you think Kennedy was shot by Oswald too?
My general rule is this: no matter how ludicrous and crazy it sounds, if there is credible evidence to support it, then I have to take it seriously and strongly consider my previously held beliefs to the contrary are probably wrong. Birther conspiracy theories are indeed ludicrous and crazy, but lack any supporting evidence.
Why not just come out and say we should believe what we are told? What? Too blatant for you?
Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by spoor
Bovine excrement! If you think all those briefs filed in court are free. you've got another thing coming. How many times has the Obama admin had to respond just to Orly Taitz? What? You think Obama's lawyers are working pro bono?
Originally posted by survivalstation
You think Obama's lawyers are working pro bono?
Originally posted by spoor
Originally posted by survivalstation
You think Obama's lawyers are working pro bono?
Yes they are actually...
dyn.politico.com...
Originally posted by spoor
Originally posted by Scoriada
Fact #1 To be POTUS you have to be a "Natural Born" citizen (both parents having sworn allegiance to U.S.A.)
No, that is lie 1, why make up lies like that? that is NOT the definition of natural born, that is the birther version.
Fact #3 Obama is not a "Natural Born" citizen, he is a "native" born citizen
James Madison
In a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789, James Madison said:
It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States
Edward Bates
In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ... .[12][italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.[13][italics in original]
Black's Law Dictionary
Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines 'Natural Born Citizen' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government".
Congressional Research Service
A memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service, states:
Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth".[14]
Academic and legal publications
In an 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution, William Rawle wrote that "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."[15] During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying
...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.[16]
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had "a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China" was a U.S. citizen.
The Court stated that:
The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'[24]
Originally posted by BungleX
If you are calling for President Obama to be impeached and tried for treason then I assume you also want President George W. Bush to be put on trial too for taking USA to war on a lie. That lie is that there were WMD's in Iraq, from everything that has come out since it is clear the administration knew it was a lie and used it to start a war that has killed 100's of thousands of people. When that is compared to a forged birth certificate it really makes Obama look like small cheese... Unless this is not about justice and just about partisan politics huh?