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.

 

Judge Has [not] Ruled, Obama [not] Off Of Ballot In Georgia! (erroneous news report)

page: 12
122
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Wait wait wait ... it doesnt matter about what? The presidency?

edit on 26-1-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Annee
 


Annee,

If you google

Congress research office and vetting of obama you will get about 851000 hits.

Pick the source you like.

Go get em. A report was published by the congress research office to help the congressmen and women explain to angry citizens what happened with the vetting.


Thank you.

I believe Obama is legitimate.

If it is found he is not - - then he is not. Facts are facts.


edit on 26-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by candcantiques
 


No ..... you are very wrong. The only places in other countries that are "American soil" are embassies and consulates. Military bases are leased by the host country ...

Stop wearing "Deny Ignorance" as a slogan if you are ignorant.
edit on 26-1-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


Incorrect.

Military bases are U.S. soil. This is why John McCain was also eligible for the presidency, as he was born at Coco Solo in Panama.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
what about romney ?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


Sir , i am in the military. The US base is not "American" soil. The military base makes an agreement with the host country about the base. You are still under that counties law that you are in.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
This is a picture of Obama's dad arriving in Hawaii for the first time with with a few fellow Kenyans.






What is his future father-in-law doing in the picture with him? I ask this because, Barack's mother, Ann Dunham, had not met Barack's father yet.

Can anyone explain this?


Maybe it can help answer questions about Barack's past?




Sorry, forgot to add Barack's father is the one with the leis around his neck with someone holding up the "peace" sign behind him. Stanley Dunham is to the right of him(as u view the pic) in the white plain short-sleeved shirt.
edit on 26-1-2012 by freedom12 because: (no reason given)


They are plotting a terrorist attack, little Barrack is in the doggy carrier sleeping inside his
test tube




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 



I really don't care if you are in the military. It doesn't make your statement any more correct.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Romney's grandparents left the US and went to Mexico (to escape polygamy persecution), where they had a baby. That child is a natural-born US citizen, because his parents were both US citizens. They never renounced their citizenship, or became Mexican citizens. When that child was 5, the family moved back to the US. When he grew up, he had Mitt, a natural-born US citizen.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


Source - www.state.gov... (The link is a PDF - will ask for download)

c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on
U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad
and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of
the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A
child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the
United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of
birth.
(2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the
rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and
enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are
not part of the territory of the United States of America.
(See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec.
466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729
F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).


Does that help you?
edit on 26-1-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Man this whole issue is crazy.
The guy has pretty much done all he can to prove his eligibility and It's still not good enough.
Should he jump every time someone says so.. Everyone time someone makes an accusation or every time some random activist judge wants him in court?

No, of course not.... he'd never be out of court.


But it is an interesting spectacle for an outsider.


I shall keep viewing.


Cheers



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
People should read, learn history and document themselves. Obama can never be and never was a Natural born citizen. Neither is McCain, neither is Marco Rubio, neither is Jindal. Birth in the soil does not automagically determines natural born citizens status. This is a special status for the office of the President and nothing else.

Read Minor vs. Harpersett, the ONLY U.S. Supreme Court case that DEFINES what a Natural Born Citizen is by unanimous decision and also gives you a background of the idea of membership in a nation. Its a relative short decision so it shouldnt be too bad to read.. Read U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark as well (although I warn you it's a very long read) and compare this case with Minor's.

Many Obama supporters in the blogosphere argue that Wong Kim ark trumps Minor, but this is absolutely false. The two cases do not conflict with each other as the Minor court construes Article II section I to define the status of Minor before the 14th amendement and Wong Kim Ark is decided construing the 14th amendement. They are absolutely not in conflict.

Read the 14th amendement and learn why it was created and try to look for the words Natural born citizen in the amendment to see if you can find it.

Happy reading...

www.scribd.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Furbs
 


Source - www.state.gov...

c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on
U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad
and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of
the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A
child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the
United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of
birth.
(2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the
rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and
enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are
not part of the territory of the United States of America.
(See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec.
466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729
F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
edit on 26-1-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


What is your point? For the purposes of -THIS THREAD- Military Bases are considered U.S. soil.. or was McCain not eligible for the presidency?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


McCain was ineligible according to that document and no , for the purposes of this thread. US Bases are not American soil. It is not true.
edit on 26-1-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Wait wait wait ... it doesnt matter about what? The presidency?

edit on 26-1-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


Yes, go back and read the Title 8 quoted earlier. If both parents are US citizens, and retain residency, and actually live here within the year surrounding your birth, you are still a "natural born citizen."

According to the quoted portion anyway.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You know, sometimes people need to do the digging and find out what the truth is BEFORE they speak, to wit



John McCain was born on August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).[2] At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control.[3]


John McCain born of TWO US citizens on US soil
edit on 26-1-2012 by candcantiques because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawika

You will find the answer here

Law of Nations

THe ebook is also easy to find. Ebook

It may take some reading to find the right part. In the old days to be considered educated one had to read many books. Now we just watch video's I think.


Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“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.”


Actually a big part of this is simply that GA is po'd that the feds took them to court over the immigration law they past. Paybacks...


Well, first of all, just because George Washington checked out this book in his library does not prove that he agreed with 100 percent of it.

Second of all, in the paragraph you quoted, the link you provided me does not say "natives or natural-born citizens". It actually says "natives or 'indigenes' ". I do not see the term "natural born" anywhere"

Third of all, this passage clearly implies a person is a citizen of whatever country his father is a citizen of. The 14th amendment clearly states that if you are born on U.S. soil, you ARE a U.S. citizen, which nullifies what the Law of Nations says.

I'm just saying that there is no intelligent debate on this in favor of Obama not being a natural born citizen (that's my opinion of course)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
Breaking news folks. Obama refused to show up in court today and as a result the judge has decided to reccomend that Obamas name NOT be put on the ballot in the next Presidential election. The Georgia Secretary of State agrees with the court ruling and WILL NOT BE ALLOWING OBAMAS NAME ON THE BALLOT. That means that Obama will recieve ZERO popular vote and ZERO electoral votes from the state of Georgia. Find more on the story HERE---->
giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com...
edit on 1/26/2012 by tothetenthpower because: --Mod Note--All Caps

edit on 1-26-2012 by Springer because: corrected title


Will Read the thread to see if it is resolved...But your link shows none of what you claim in the OP or Headline?

It says the judge will issue a ruling on Feb. 5th???????????



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by Annee
 


You know, sometimes people need to do the digging and find out what the truth is BEFORE they speak, to wit



John McCain was born on August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).[2] At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control.[3]


John McCain born of TWO US citizens on US soil
edit on 26-1-2012 by candcantiques because: (no reason given)


John Mccain was not born on US soil George Orwell.......................................



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by Annee
 


You know, sometimes people need to do the digging and find out what the truth is BEFORE they speak, to wit



John McCain was born on August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).[2] At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control.[3]


John McCain born of TWO US citizens on US soil
edit on 26-1-2012 by candcantiques because: (no reason given)


No, John McCain's birth certificate clearly states that he was born in Colon, Panama, outside of the military compounds.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I'll address this:


Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Annee
McCain was not.

The ruling to make children of military born on foreign soil natural born citizens came after McCain was born - - not before.


Link please.

ETA: Aren't military bases the same as embassies? Own land in a foreign country?
edit on 26-1-2012 by intrepid because: (no reason given)


McCain was born in 1936 in the panama canal zone which at the time was not considered U.S territory/soil. The status of citizenship for children of American parents was still not clarified by law, it was only in 1937 that this was rectified:


Because the Canal Zone was a “no man’s land,” in the words of Representative
Sparkman, in 1937 Congress passed a statute, the Act of Aug. 4, 1937
(now codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1403(a)) granting citizenship to “[a]ny person
born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904” who had at least one
U.S. citizen parent. This Act made Senator McCain a U.S. citizen before his
first birthday. But again, to be a natural born citizen, one must be a citizen at
the moment of birth. Since Senator McCain became a citizen in his eleventh
month of life, he does not satisfy this criterion, is not a natural born citizen,
and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President.”

www.theodora.com...

But this was not a confirmation of natural born citizenship.

Heres another part to the article:


Of course, McCain’s lack of citizenship at birth is a technicality ne plus
ultra. Presidential candidates who obtained their citizenship after birth are
no more likely to be disloyal than those born citizens, and the people of the
United States should be allowed to elect whomever they choose. Therefore,
as a policy matter, Senator McCain should be eligible to be president. Yet
the text of the Constitution forbids it.

www.michiganlawreview.org...

McCain is not a natural born citizen because of a silly technicality in the laws at the time. Common sense would dictate that if your parents were serving your country, overseas, and a child is born, that child should be in all fairness treated in the same manner as citizens born on US soil, it makes more sense, but technically, the laws at the time did not cover this fact.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)







 
122
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join