Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama's hidden birth certificate now exposed

page: 29
126
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


And thank you for the answer ! Great clarifacation.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


I am talking about the natural born citizen issue because of Obamas father...I am not a "birther" as you so rudely keep calling everyone who disagrees with you.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Ok good, thats a productive question and moves the thread forward.


Yes, I thought so too.

Glad you agree.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Thanks for that info.

I am also wondering if, let's say, a Puerto Rican family has a child born and raised in Florida.

Would that child be eligible ?


And, how did they handle the status of Hawaiians when Statehood was achieved.

A child born in Hawaii in let's say 1958, would that person be eligible ?


Or, an Iranian family has children born and raised in New York City, are they eligible ?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


LOL...laugh all you want but if a woman is under a certain age and has her child in another country, she cannot pass on her citizenship to it. The child would be an anchor baby of that country. Just like so many people want anchor babies here...other countries do the same and the US back it up depending on the mother's age.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

There is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen which is what I posted in my previous posts. You can be a citizen but not eligible to be president.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
And of course we have this version too.

Some think the Grandmother Dunham had it "registered" for more than one reason.

Maybe because Ann was not 19 at the time.

I think I have seen a law about that somewhere.

Also possible: They may have been lying about Obama "Sr." being the real Father.
(that would be on the one that has been "certified")




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



Thanks for that info.

I am also wondering if, let's say, a Puerto Rican family has a child born and raised in Florida.

Would that child be eligible ?


And, how did they handle the status of Hawaiians when Statehood was achieved.

A child born in Hawaii in let's say 1958, would that person be eligible ?


Or, an Iranian family has children born and raised in New York City, are they eligible ?


If that child was born in the United States proper (and not a territory) then yes, they would be a natural born citizen. A child born in Hawaii after it achieved statehood would be a natural born citizen, the same as any child born in any of the other states.

An immigration lawyer specializes in the legal status of a citizen, or US national, or an immigrant. I'm sure if there was any question over Obama's status as a legal, natural-born citizen then they would have raised that issue. Considering that the highest authority in the land regarding Hawaii birth records (the Hawaii Department of Health) has flat-out stated that Obama's BC is authentic and in their records, then that should satisfy the rest of us. Instead we get a perpetuation of this BC hoax by people who have a political agenda (WND), are selling books (Corso), or are truly insane (Taitz).



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Seriously, I don't know why nothing is enforced any more. It's like the govt is lawless now. So frustrating to wake up to this reality and have to sort through this mess while trying to have a tranquil life, peaceful with fam. Obama has done literally nothing to help mine nor anyone I knows life, seriously post if he has, and I think his birth certificate is sham he dodged it like a bullet.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by aBuck
 


Exactly, that is the whole point I have been trying to make. No one bothered to vet him properly and because race was made such an issue, most do not want to touch it now. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on his birth but even then there are other problems with his eligibility and no body cares.

To those who keep saying it doesn't matter because we are 3 years in, then that can that be said about any crime...if someone gets away with it long enough then they are free and clear. That's not civilization that's anarchy. I will still fight for the constitution no matter how many people say it's irrelevant.

And like someone on another thread or post said....now a precedent has been set that another foreigner can use to take control of the US.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
now a precedent has been set that another foreigner can use to take control of the US.


Except Obama is NOT a foreigner, having been born in Hawaii....



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by aBuck
reply to post by timetothink
 


Seriously, I don't know why nothing is enforced any more. It's like the govt is lawless now. So frustrating to wake up to this reality and have to sort through this mess while trying to have a tranquil life, peaceful with fam. Obama has done literally nothing to help mine nor anyone I knows life, seriously post if he has, and I think his birth certificate is sham he dodged it like a bullet.


First the govt enforces things too much, now its lawless....

What has obama done? How about the unemployment rate back down to his first month in office , 6 straight months of job growth, single handedly saving GM, a 1,000 dollar real life tax cut from your pay check... made the decision to take down bin laden,the list goes on.

You may think his birth certificate is a sham... but the experts who matter disagree and thats why they are the experts and we are not.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

www.14thamendment.us...


In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.




The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.


www.14thamendment.us...


BS - these 2 sections fail to address each other - in the top one it says that illegal aliens cannot be born citizens (which I do not know about), in the 2nd it says that only children of citizens can be born citizens - neither of them mentions legal immigrants.

Fortunately the Supreme Court did - it quite specifically stated that anyone born in the US to parents who are legal residents are born US citizens - I suggest you go read the case - Wong Kim Ark - read the actual case decision, not some deluded nutcase's fantasy about it!

As for the subject of s "completely subject" to the jurisdiction - legal residents are completely subject to the laws of the USA because they have to follow the laws of the land.

The only people who are not completely subject to the jurisdiction of the USA are diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity.

Your site is a lie - what a waste of 45 seconds of my life having to rebut such utter stupidity!!

edit on 29-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Rafe_
 


So....what we need now is a print of his foot! If it matches......no disputing the document! There are several states disputing his eligibility to run this year. Should get interesting! One case saw court time, though guess who didn't bother to show, or send a lawyer, even?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
So....what we need now is a print of his foot! If it matches......no disputing the document!


Except you obviously have not even bothered to read the thread title.... and missed the fact that it is a hoax!


One case saw court time, though guess who didn't bother to show, or send a lawyer, even?


He did not have to, as the birthers there had zero facts and no evidence, so they lost to a empty table!

Sheriff Joe did not turn up either, as he also knew the subpoena's that Orly obtained were not valid outside the state!



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

(that would be on the one that has been "certified")





This one was certified.
That is why it says certificate in huge letters across the top.

Now just see if you can find out where.
I am willing to bet WND birth certification archives.
edit on 1-3-2012 by LErickson because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Rafe_
 


So....what we need now is a print of his foot! If it matches......no disputing the document! There are several states disputing his eligibility to run this year. Should get interesting! One case saw court time, though guess who didn't bother to show, or send a lawyer, even?



So when you found this thread, did you ignore the fact that you had to look in the hoax section for it????



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Rafe_
 


So....what we need now is a print of his foot! If it matches......no disputing the document! There are several states disputing his eligibility to run this year. Should get interesting! One case saw court time, though guess who didn't bother to show, or send a lawyer, even?



So when you found this thread, did you ignore the fact that you had to look in the hoax section for it????

The thread was not origonally in the hoax section , as you well know, that is a very poor line of argument.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by imnothereru
The thread was not origonally in the hoax section , as you well know, that is a very poor line of argument.


It has been in the hoax section for many pages now, so your claim is a very poor line of argument!
edit on 1-3-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by imnothereru

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Rafe_
 


So....what we need now is a print of his foot! If it matches......no disputing the document! There are several states disputing his eligibility to run this year. Should get interesting! One case saw court time, though guess who didn't bother to show, or send a lawyer, even?



So when you found this thread, did you ignore the fact that you had to look in the hoax section for it????

The thread was not origonally in the hoax section , as you well know, that is a very poor line of argument.


Doesnt change the fact that you are currently posting on a thread in the hoax section...






top topics



 
126
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join