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: 42
122
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by candcantiques
 


Doesn't matter, Germany grants citizenship, like Ireland, based on grandparents... Italy and Ireland, can go back to great grandparents.

Both of Rick Santorum's parents are Italian btw.

en.wikipedia.org...



That matters not. Santorum's mother was born in the US and his Dad was naturalized before he was born.


Rick Santorum was born in Virginia. His mother was a US born citizen, and his father Aldo was brought over from Italy at 7 by Santorum’s grandfather. It is unclear whether Rick's grandfather included his son Aldo when he gained his own citizenship (a common approach), but Aldo served for three years in WWII, and the tens of thousands of as-yet un-naturalized immigrants who served were given citizenship afterward to show our nation's gratitude. So, Aldo Santorum too was a US citizen long before Rick's birth in Virginia in 1958. So his qualification as a presidential candidate is unquestioned.


illinoisreview.typepad.com...




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtcctr
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


I cant watch your vid, Can u sum it up for me?


It's a clip of Nixon on TV. He is being interviewed and says "Well, when the president does it, it's not illegal." Tricky Dicky....



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by D7777
 





2. If Obama was not eligible to be president the Republicans would have made sure he wasn't elected.


I'm not so sure I agree about this point. I had a feeling in 08 that Republicans weren't putting that much into the election cycle. McCain is one of the most liberal of Repubs. Some people call it "moderate" and others call it "RINO".


I agree. It appears to have been a strategic move to distance themselves from Bush policies by inserting a four or 8 year Democrat buffer. They'll NEVER get that distancing in as long as the neocons still own and operate the Republican party, but that appears to me to have been the intent. Not only is McCain a "Republican" that NO self-respecting Republican would ever vote for (much like Romney), but even then he ran a half-assed campaign, and never really gave any evidence of having any intent to win.



I personally feel that Romney is the "Establishment" pick. But Rick Santorum won the debate in Florida tonight and even some of the news people were grudgingly admitting it, but they were still careful to place Romney as continuing to be the front runner.


Aye. Romney is their fair-haired boy this cycle, and will take the nomination. Just take a look at the Virgina debacle. Romney is the quintessential neocon. Might as well vote for Gus Hall. Just slapping a "Republican" label on him to gather votes and try to give the impression that there is some sort of "competition" is insufficient to make it a reality, but that's the strategy. Either way, the establishment will have their crony in place, and it will be the same old song and dance. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... and the old boss before that... and the old boss before that... and the old boss before that...



It takes a bit of conspiracy theory thinking to realize that the insiders are CFR and in GLobalist thinking it really doesn't matter in the long run.
People I know say that we are getting to socialism via the short train y through Democrats and the long train through Republicans.


Precisely.



Another acquaintance of mine called Romney a "Stealth Progressive". Sounds about right to me which is why I'm always amused at liberals trashing him. He tried to justify his Romneycare tonight. That is why I have a hard time believing he truly intends to repeal Obamacare.
When Bush ran against Kerry, both Skull and Bones, it just was so telling.


Yup. Liberals trash Romney because it's expected of them - it's the "party line". Without that, they can't foster the illusion that there is some sort of "competition" going on. There is not, nor was there between Bush and Kerry, or Bush and Gore, but look how they still carry on about some "stolen election", as if there would have been any difference had it gone otherwise.

It's all part of the illusion.




edit on 2012/1/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


This is a crazy bit of illogical "reasoning".

The only way Obama could be a citizen and not be eligible is if he wasn't born in the US, which he was. You don't need to be grandfathered in if you're born here.


The Founding Fathers DID have to though which is why that statement, "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is there. Everyone else in succeeding generations have to be "Natural Born". I don't know why so many have such a hard time grasping this concept. I'm guessing for some it is willful stubborness.


The first several presidents prior to Martin van Buren, as well as potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution.[4]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Huffington Post reports:
'Georgia Birther Hearing Proceeds Without Obama, Without Effect'

www.huffingtonpost.com...

They say 'Without Effect'??

Here are the videos of the hearing I found online

The audio is a little difficult to hear sometimes but here it is if you haven't seen it yet:












edit on 27-1-2012 by _SilentAssassin_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by _SilentAssassin_
 


It is early.

No one knows what the effects of this might be.

To speculate, it is possible that:
Voters would hear about the hearing and have new doubts about the candidate.
People who were un-informed or apathetic might be inspired to action.
Other states may decide to do the same thing. Many other states are annoyed with FEDGOV for all the lawsuits.
He might lose re-election, because of the way he handled this.

Or maybe nothing will come of it, who knows.

But that is all weeks or months away. We shall see.

Count down to Feb 5th... 9 days to go... Next event, the official ruling

Just like the days before the hearing. We argue, no one changes their opinion. Nothing to do but wait.

edit on 27-1-2012 by kawika because: add text

edit on 27-1-2012 by kawika because: add text



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


I think everyone is hot and bothered because they find the constitution irrelevant and don't want to be bound by it.....face it our country has finally been overthrown and they are going to silence those of us that still want to fight for it.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
www.newsamericadaily.com...

I believe that consequences will be coming out of this beyond Georgia. He should be arrested for major FRAUD and be stripped of office, but also of immunity, so all he did to others was as a private citizen. But then I feel that way about them all.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrlqban

Honestly, i think you are totally confused about this whole issue. Whether you believe that it has to be one parent or two has no relevance. Besides, state why do you believe so. Do you really know what's being presented? Comon, just read a bit.

There were 3 cases that preceded in Georgia today. All of those 3 cases have different arguments. The first 2 dealt with similar issues and the question whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen because his father was never a citizen. The third case is about the kenyan stuff and the ssn, and the birth certificate, and the Indonesia stuff and so on.
I personally not interested in the last case. The first two cases are based on a legal question and it's a legal matter only, that is, if you are born with divided allegiance, meaning, with one or no U.S. citizen parents, are you a natural born citizen of the United States per the Constitution? That is the argument.




uh huh. "No relevance". Got it. The question of what defines a "natural born citizen" has no relevance in a case involving the definition of "natural born citizen". Got it. How could I have ever thought otherwise?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Only if your parents were us citizens at the time of YOUR birth........no matter how many times it is said or facts posted stating this....the "I'm entitled to anything I want" crowd will stamp their feet and deny it. Anchor babies with 1 or more non citizen parent are citizens but not eligible for the presidency. of course the majority of Americans are more than willing to give their country and constitution away to foreigners...but some of us will still fight



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


In the United States there are two established legal principles upon which individuals are said to acquire citizenship at birth: jus sanguinus ("right of blood"), meaning citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens, and jus soli ("right of soil"), meaning citizenship conferred by being born on U.S. soil. Per the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," all individuals born on U.S. soil are considered "birthright citizens" under the law regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.

NOW GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Foreigners....you mean like your ancestors? Unless you are a Native American, then you should go back in time and kick your relatives, or accuse your own ancestors of being the foreign ilk that is "stealing the country." Ignorance at its best. I am pretty damn sure if anyone treated your relatives this way when they got off the boat you would be pissed. OH WAIT, they probably did, since this ignorance has been going on forever.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

edit on 27-1-2012 by D7777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PhillyParanormal
 


Unfortunately for the native Americans, a bunch of people took over the country, wrote a constitution and as a us citizen you are bound by it.My ancestors were treated awful when they got here, but it was worth it to them and they were not eligible for president . but lucky for me, they stuck it out, became citizens before my birth and now I am eligible. Denying the truth of the constitution and calling those who understand it names just shows your willful ignorance.
edit on 27-1-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


I think everyone is hot and bothered because they find the constitution irrelevant and don't want to be bound by it.....face it our country has finally been overthrown and they are going to silence those of us that still want to fight for it.


Yep. Clearly people have not read the part of the Constitution in question, or really, they just don't care.

But it sure is fun to portray all of us as ignorant racist rednecks, when in actuality, that is not where I am coming from at all. I genuinely feel this is a legitimate Constitutional question.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I dont get it?
he can get the CIA and FBI to fake one.
and make a back ground to go with it.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


A fake what? A fake father that was a US citizen when he was born?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Born of two citizen parents


During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor: “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.) Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US. John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor: “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)) Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
reply to post by PhillyParanormal
 



This was in 1866, by the framer of the 14th amendment......he wrote the amendment....and he is stating what natural born means.....the end.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhillyParanormal
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


In the United States there are two established legal principles upon which individuals are said to acquire citizenship at birth: jus sanguinus ("right of blood"), meaning citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens, and jus soli ("right of soil"), meaning citizenship conferred by being born on U.S. soil. Per the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," all individuals born on U.S. soil are considered "birthright citizens" under the law regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.

NOW GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!



Wow, you're rude.

He is most definitely a citizen. Got it. Never questioned that.

Natural born citizen? That's what I'm questioning.

I'm sure you (and Obama) would like for us all to go away.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Why can't I find this on any MSM websites?



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join