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.

 

Hawaii Verifies Obama a Dual Citizen: Not Qualified For Presidency

page: 14
50
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HamrHeed
 

hmmmmm, considering it was .... Longshanks, i think ... i'm guessing it could really go either way, eh ??
King or Queen ... both of England.

but, but ... i thought we fought a Revolution to escape the clutches of the King/Queen of the day and all future days ??
yeah, nevermind ... i must be mistaken


LOL yeah, the more I think about it, the more I feel like a mosquito is sitting on my brain, just living it up. King/ Queen Knight/Horse
Peace bud:
edit on 1-6-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MuonSpin
 





I expected someone would say this. The 'ties' factcheck.org's parent company has to Bill Ayers or Obama is not enough to convice me their information is false or distorted. Your claim is ambiguous @ best.


Well alright then, you won't be seen complaining about posts using WND either.


Not 100% sure what you are saying here. I did take my adderall today, yet I don't see the connection between my post and WND.

But since you said I won't be seen complaining about WND, I'll tell you my experience w/WND is that its ganglion of erroneous information.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
if we were to for whatever reason assume that to be a natural born citizen both of an individuals parents had to be born in the united states
in what way would the founding fathers be qualified for office?

are birthers really attempting to argue that the founding fathers would be unqualified to become president?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MuonSpin

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MuonSpin
 





I expected someone would say this. The 'ties' factcheck.org's parent company has to Bill Ayers or Obama is not enough to convice me their information is false or distorted. Your claim is ambiguous @ best.


Well alright then, you won't be seen complaining about posts using WND either.


Not 100% sure what you are saying here. I did take my adderall today, yet I don't see the connection between my post and WND.

But since you said I won't be seen complaining about WND, I'll tell you my experience w/WND is that its ganglion of erroneous information.


You just proved my cynical point, that you will say that Factcheck is just fine but WND is not.

Umm ok about the Adderall. I generally don't have a problem with people and ADHD.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
if we were to for whatever reason assume that to be a natural born citizen both of an individuals parents had to be born in the united states
in what way would the founding fathers be qualified for office?

are birthers really attempting to argue that the founding fathers would be unqualified to become president?


I did mention this very thing in a post. It lies with the statement, "citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution".

In other words, since those who signed the Declaration of Independence generally were considered to have risked their lives for Independence and shown they did not have loyalty to the crown, they would be grandfathered in by that clause.

I hope that clears things up for you.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by MuonSpin

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MuonSpin
 





I expected someone would say this. The 'ties' factcheck.org's parent company has to Bill Ayers or Obama is not enough to convice me their information is false or distorted. Your claim is ambiguous @ best.


Well alright then, you won't be seen complaining about posts using WND either.


Not 100% sure what you are saying here. I did take my adderall today, yet I don't see the connection between my post and WND.

But since you said I won't be seen complaining about WND, I'll tell you my experience w/WND is that its ganglion of erroneous information.


You just proved my cynical point, that you will say that Factcheck is just fine but WND is not.

Umm ok about the Adderall. I generally don't have a problem with people and ADHD.


Still not following…. Are you saying there is error in my logic because I believe one site is legit and another is not?

I would put wnd.com on par with inforwars.com. I've read a couple of Joseph Farrah's books and taken the time to attempt to verify a significant amount of the garbage put out by Joseph & Alex Jones. Thirdeyehorus, have you taken the time to research and factcheck the information put out by these two fellas?

My opinion is not dependent upon a label others may put on me. I don't blindly follow ideologies and dogmas of others. I am not allied to any political party. I follow the truth. Perhaps that is why your statement confuses me so much. I'm waiting for some witty punch-line to suddenly pop out of your statement. I have to remember your perspective is much different. So, what to you may seem like a brilliant attempt to demerit me, might not actually make sense to me at all. And I think it’s starting to become clear you hold fast to ideologies manufactured for you by others. However, I did initially give you the benefit of the doubt.

I meant the adderall comment in jest as a way to say I hope my ADHD is not obscuring your meaning. Did you think I was being cynical like you?

edit on 1-6-2012 by MuonSpin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 



"BTW, Romney's dad was born in Mexico, so if there logic DID hold, which it doesn't, neither candidate would be eligilbe, now would they?"

I don't care so much about eligible as I do about being qualified, and in the peoples best interest, and it seems neither candidate has these traits. TPTB win, no matter who we choose (if, after all the voting machine scandal and corruption, our votes even count).. It seems like a no brainer to me...if these are the two choices, I'll vote for Mickey Mouse!
(Too bad R.Paul won't be in it, as he seems more than qualified, and eligible). I guess the only thing left to do is to pray that the Mayan hoopla was right, and we get wiped out this coming December 21st, as some predict....('
')


edit on 6/1/2012 by eatbliss because: formatting



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
typed in can pres have dual citizenship??? Answer: wiki.answers.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by HamrHeed
 


Anyone else find it funny any time someone writes BLOG about this issue it is put on ATS and gets thirty stars?
ANY mention of this and it is immediately jumped on. Chester Authur is rolling over in his grave.

CJ



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

TThe Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated


The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.[1]


There it is, directly from the government. Natural born means born IN the US, regardless of parental status. His dad's birth place has no effect whatsoever just as Romney's dad being born in Mexico has no effect whatsoever.
The end
case closed
wrapped up
finished
done
over
kaput


But 50 years ago the rules were different than in the quoted section. Did/does anyone think that in 1960, if the Soviet ambassador to the US or UN had a baby while in NYC, that baby would be a US citizen? There is (or at least, there was) rules on these things.

Unfortunately, when it comes to immigration our society seems to be trending quickly toward lawlessness.
edit on 1-6-2012 by LanceCorvette because: Add last sentence



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Ah there we have AS again, as always within the first page of any anti government thread.

The state of hawaï admitting to it is another "illogical birther lie" to you?

British laws are an "illogical birther lie" to you?


What no one expected was to have Barack Obama’s dual citizenship confirmed, again, by listing the name and birthplace of the father Barack Obama Senior and Kenya, East Africa (lots of name changes there since the 2008 short form). Barack Obama junior was born a dual citizen of Britain and the United States. The failure for Mr. Obama is that once born a British citizen, one cannot lose that citizenship unless it is specifically renounced. His Kenyan citizenship may have expired unless he claimed it in 1983-but not his original British bonafides.


Seriously, stop it already, you are starting to look like a fool.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



Obama is not qualified to be POTUS.


Only if you think minorities are unqualified to be President, which is the real issue here.

What happened to all the birthers saying they would shut up if Obama produced a birth certificate? What a bunch of lying morons.


So tired of the racist rant, by the way, as of last week more "minority" babies were born in our country than white babies. The handwriting is on the wall, how will you use the race card when the minorities are actually white people?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 


As long as this has persisted, why do people still think having a foreign-citizen parent have anything to do with one's own citizenship? Add to just basic knowledge of how citizenship works in the U.S. the constant news and discussion surrounding Mexican illegal immigrants and their "anchor babies." They're called "anchor babies" because two foreigners who are not citizens of the U.S. sneak in, have a baby here, and that child is an American Citizen.

I believe the only people who would question his or her legal status in terms of running for president would be the same people who are questioning Obama today. That said, I believe that group is largely comprised of those who never bothered to pay attention in any classes teachning how citizenship works in the U.S., and never bothered to do any real research on how citizenship is granted (it's a really simple subject - shouldn't take a 10 year old more than 5 minutes to figure it out.)

The only valid argument of whether Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States of America (by the way, you don't have to be born on U.S. soil to be one) - is the argument that there is a vast conspiracy in place by most o those on the "right and left", as well as the FBI, CIA, and NSA, to have Obama as president over probably hundreds of other puppets who wouldn't have been so much trouble to cover up their pasts.

Occam's Razor.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


my point was the same men who founded this country would not be qualified if they were alive today regardless of their motives or content of their character
im sure many had relatives still living across the pond
WHO KNOWS WHERE THEIR LOYALTIES MIGHT LAY
they could be british terrorist sleeper cells looking out for the best interests of england just waiting for a chance to destroy our great nation with socialism and godlessness
oh my god.... what if..........
thomas jefferson was loyal to the crown all along!!!! he was just looking at the bigger picture and playing long term!

why cant people just be honest and say they dont like him for whatever reason rather than playing this bs game of technicalities and semantics fighting tooth and nail to try to find some legal foothold to justify their feelings



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by artnut

Originally posted by CB328



Obama is not qualified to be POTUS.


Only if you think minorities are unqualified to be President, which is the real issue here.

What happened to all the birthers saying they would shut up if Obama produced a birth certificate? What a bunch of lying morons.


So tired of the racist rant, by the way, as of last week more "minority" babies were born in our country than white babies. The handwriting is on the wall, how will you use the race card when the minorities are actually white people?


LOL - this is funny. Why do we gather all the other groups up into one group to measure up against White babies for purposes of determining which group (the Group of 6 Races or the Group of 1 Race) is bigger? What is the point of that?

Would you say that the minority of cars bought in the U.S. are Fords and Chevys, if those two combined made up 49% of sales, when the other 51% is made up of 15 different brands? Of course not, you would simply say, "for the first time in history, Fords and Chevys represented less than 50% of total auto sales in the U.S."

Also, it's obvious the poster you quoted is reaching for some kind of logical explanation as to why you think POTUS is unqualified to be POTUS. He's 35+, Natural-born American Citizen. What makes him unqualified? Obama's proof of citizenship is just as good as what I have, and I'm a 5th-generation American, my family's time here dating to the 1870's. I seriously can't figure out what it is people want to prove his citizenship beyond what any other president's has been proven.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
See? That's the problem, people keep mixing up state court rulings based on state and even federal IMMIGRATION law with a requirement to hold office spelled out in the constitution.

So, let's ignore the federalists writings of the men who actually wrote the damn thing, the numerous explanations of what they considered a requirement for the office and keep throwing around case law that has absolutely nothing to do with this.

The fact is, there has been no supreme court ruling on this issue, period. Not yet, anyway.

I like how a site for the discussion of conspiracies is full of base insults and accusations of racism because people disagree with those who clearly have political motivations (anyone who fights so hard to support any member of the federal government is a complete fool, IMO but whatever).

Like it or not there is plenty of smoke surrounding this issue, enough for legitimate discussion of the conspiracy.

You want to call people racists for that? Go ahead but you make plain your own failures of reason. Unless you can prove for a fact these people wouldn't do the same thing to a person of another race I really don't see how you can determine they are racists based on forum posts. I don't see any obvious racists comments or insults...

I really do hope the full facts of this issue come out someday. I would really enjoy that very much, yes.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

are birthers really attempting to argue that the founding fathers would be unqualified to become president?



The people don't pick the US PResident. America is a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.

Read George Washington's memoirs. He didn't want to set the black people free because he and his children would lose their political power among the other Royal families of America.

George Washington amassed more troops to fight and kill Americans, than he ever did to fight the British.

Barrack was born in Kenya, big deal. There's nothing we can do about it. THE PEOPLE don't pick America's PResident. The American Royal Families do.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Don’t mess with that third eye stuff little chiten. Once my dad opened up his third eye, us kids had to evacuate the house it stunk the place up so bad


thanks for the heads up!!! I don't wanna hurt all the noses around here.
[ chiten talk ] I guess itz a gud thang that chitenz don't have a very gud sense ob smell huh? [/ chiten talk ]

(yes, I know those aren't thing that go in brackets and the brackets have extra spaces in them)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by RealSpoke
 





No one cares other than conspiracy theorists, regardless of their political affiliation


You are in a conspiracy theorists realm....You think average people tune into ATS? If that was the case maybe I should get my parents to become members....I will tell you what they won't be voting for Obama, I will make sure of that....My family from where I can reach won't be voting for Obama....

Or Romney...

edit on 1-6-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)


Don't be so sure. You might be that family member that everybody "humors", and pretends to agree with, then go on and do whatever it is they were going to do anyway...ya never know, every family has a few



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join