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: 6
50
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen



Does the Constitution permit a dual citizen to hold the office of President?
Does the Constitution permit a ‘naturalized’ citizen to hold the office of President?
Has Barack Obama renounced his dual citizenship with Britain?
Does Barack Obama’s known adoption by an Indonesian affect his existing dual citizenship?
Has Barack Obama naturalized as an American citizen?

So, have the so-called "birthers" been asking the wrong question all along?


Yes, he wouldn't be the first as well.

He didn't need to. When Kenya gained independence all British Kenyans got Kenyan citizenship and lost their British citizenship, including Barack's father and Barack. Kenya does not permit dual citizenship so when Barack turned 18 and did not renounce his US citizenship he lost his Kenyan citizenship.

No, being born in Hawaii and to an American woman means he is a natural born citizen and nothing short of being exiled for treason can remove that. Not even officially denouncing your citizenship. The US does not allow its citizens to lose their citizenship. Once a citizen always a citizen.

No, see above.




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
What if he was born in HI moved to Indonesia as a child - had to renounce his US citizenship in order to go to school in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro an Indonesian citizen?

That would make him a "native born" citizen not "natural born" - would that be an issue with being a US President. No clue cause his Indonesian school & citizenship records are locked up tighter then the JFK assasination files.

Everybody focuses in on HI should be looking at Indonesia.

So who knows - the guys backround is sketchy to say the least.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
currently, my personal opinion on this matter is irrelevant.
so, by your logic or opinion ... all US forces who are educating overseas are NOT government employees ??? (or in the case of US service personnel, US property?)


Barack Obama senior went to the United States on a student scholarship, he did not go to Hawaii on official government business. He was not a member of the government or a diplomat at that time (he was after 1964 when he left back to Kenya to join the Kenyan government as an advisor):
www.washingtonpost.com...

You seem to be of this idea that Barack Obama senior was in Hawaii on official Kenyan business and diplomacy, he was not. You can speculate he may have been, but this again is merely speculation.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Still cannot answer the question can you?? Why did the founders put natural born in the presidential eligibility clause and nowhere else????

Why have people been trying to remove it since 1975??

Can you read this??


www.art2superpac.com... Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) 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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. .


The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

Can you read this sentence from the above??

Can you read this next paragraph???


Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.


it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens

Can you read that above sentence???


Can you read this next paragraph???


United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.




The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.


www.art2superpac.com...

Now on to eligibility of the presidents...since the Obammy botties love to use those incorrectly....shall we???

James BUCHANAN - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born - was born in 1791 in PA. His father was foreign born, Irish, but when James was born his father had already become a naturalized Citizen of the United States. Having a foreign born parent is OK if the foreign born parent has become a naturalized Citizen of the U.S. prior to the child being born.

Having a foreign born parent is OK if the foreign born parent has become a naturalized Citizen of the U.S. prior to the child being born


Martin VAN BUREN - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born - was born in 1782 in NY. This was the first President qualified under the NBC clause. He was born in the USA to two Citizen parents. His parents were original Citizens who gained their citizenship by adhering to the Revolution in 1776.



Chester A. ARTHUR - Not an NBC or original Citizen . He was NOT an Article II NBC since he was born before father's naturalization. Seated due to assassination of President Garfield. But based on the facts uncovered in later history, he was unconstitutionally seated due to the falsified nativity story and fraud by Chester Arthur which was not fully discovered and proven until long after his death. He burned all his early family records to cover up his lies and fraud. He was born circa1829, allegedly in VT.



Woodrow WILSON - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born - was born in 1856 in VA. His mother was foreign born U.S. Citizen, English, but when he was born she had become a naturalized Citizen of the United States prior to his birth due to her marriage to Woodrow’s father, a U.S. Citizen. Having a foreign born parent is OK if the foreign born parent has become a naturalized Citizen of the U.S. prior to the child being


cont.....



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Natural born = having been born in the U.S.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
now that makes for a strong argument, please continue.


What's there to say. birthers insist that Obama is ineligible and they base this on their own intepretations and opinions. You don't have a strong argument to make, this is specifically why after more than 100 lawsuits, people like you are still sitting on this forum making excuses, and Obama is still president.


i wouldn't hold my breath on that one. however, miracles have been known to occur and if they don't, they're simply manipulated,


So if you can't birth Obama out of office, you'll scream fraud. Oh good lord you're not a Ron Paul supporter are you? They seem to think the GOP is capable of pulling off that one.

For the record I think Romney was the best candidate the GOP could come up with out of the batch that ran this year, he is the only one that can take on Obama. I'm leaning more to the side however that Obama will get a second term, but likewise we'll have to see.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Herbert HOOVER - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born - was born in 1874 in IA. His mother was foreign born U.S. Citizen, a Canadian, but when he was born she had become a naturalized Citizen of the United States prior to his birth due to her marriage to Herbert’s father, a U.S. Citizen. Having a foreign born parent is OK if the foreign born parent has become a naturalized Citizen of the U.S. prior to the child being born



Barack Hussein OBAMA – Not an NBC. His father was a foreign national and was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama was seated due to FRAUD about his nativity story and the progressive corruption in the media of the legal meaning of NBC and the willful neglect of Congress. Obama’s father was a foreign national. His father was never a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA. His father was only sojourning in the USA attending college and went back to Kenya after completing his education. Obama claims he was born in 1961 allegedly in HI but his birth registration most likely was falsified by the maternal grandmother. No hospital record of his birth has been produced. No name of an attending physician, mid-wife, or paramedic called to the scene of a speculated home birth report exists. No independent witnesses to the claimed birth in Hawaii have ever been named or surfaced. No pre-natal care records exist in Hawaii for Obama’s mother. There is no record at all of his mother even being in Hawaii in August 1961, the alleged month of Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. A false registration of birth at home in HI with no witnesses would have generated the vital record in HI and also would have generated the two newspaper ads. Those ads were placed automatically by the state a result of all birth registrations – real or falsified. And to further contradict the Hawaiian birth nativity story of Obama, there are many accounts by Obama’s paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and Kenyan and African newspapers that Obama really was born in the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. No other President in history has had so many accounts attesting to his being foreign born and/or can provide NO contemporaneous birth witnesses or evidence to corroborate their claim to U.S. birth.


by: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret), Lehigh Valley PA USA
Originally Compiled: 16 Feb 2009 -- Last Updated 21 Mar 2011

4th attempt to remove natural born from constitution.....right before the 2004 DNC convention????? Huh?


4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.



After 3 more attempts before the 2008 election that were shot down...they pulled this move to make there was no question surrounding.........McCain??? The Dems cared about McCain being eligible....huh?


Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]


Why is it the left has such a problem with logic?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Still referencing opinion pieces I see timetothink? Do you have any actual recent rulings on this matter, or are you going to continue going back to opinion pieces to prove your point? You know, in the Dred Scott case it was argued that Africans were not worthy to be considered person(s), so shall we reference that to in Obama's case?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
correct, but his father's citizenship at the time of BHOs birth DOES matter.



wrong. birth location (Hawaii) ONLY instills American citizenship upon BHO, not "natural born status", which is a requirement for POTUS.



actually, the only way to achieve "natural born status" is by being born of 2 citizen parentS at the time of your birth. (preferrably on US soil but not always necessary, ie McCain)



this is just a silly question indeed ... MItt qualifies, Obama never has.




also, many should consider, since Obama never officially renounced his Indonesian citizenship, technically, he is in violation of their laws and could be subject to their laws and penalities should they choose to enforce them.



I heard if you repeat your delusions 3 times and click your heels, they will actually become facts
edit on 5-31-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Says nobody else but birthers.
oooooh, name calling first.
now that makes for a strong argument, please continue.


he may verywell get a second term
i wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
however, miracles have been known to occur and if they don't, they're simply manipulated, just like his last election.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


The issue is that you keep taking the position that the definition, in terms of Presidential eligibility, has been decided.

IT HAS NOT

You can site opinions and case law for other cases all day long, until we have a Supreme Court ruling the question of what a "natural born citizen" is in terms of the section of the Constitution dealing with this subject - has never been ruled on.

It's purely a matter of how you read it and I do not read it the same way you do, obviously.

Not that it matters, if / when it ever does go to the Supreme Court they will define it as "anyone born in the US", period even if both parents are not citizens. Until then it remains an open ended issue which is why various Senators have tried to pull an end run and change it.

That's not the issue with Obama, regardless. The issue is that he has been or still is a dual citizenship holder which clearly makes him not eligible due to the inclusion of the "owing no allegiance to any foreign government" part of the US Code.

I believe that is what he's spent so much money to hide and why various records were hidden which would not affect the question of where he was born. I'm not so sure he was actually born in Hawaii, for that matter but that issue will probably never be solved. If "they" want to challenge him the best bet would be to find proof of his dual citizenship, IMO.

I really don't care either way. He's just another establishment politician doing the establishment's dirty work and which party the next one comes from doesn't matter one bit.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
This birther thing will forever be a black cloud over Obama's head.
If things continue to get worse and if he is still not able to flush this turd by September, he may have to run under the name of Barry Soteoro and call it a loophole.
.. Oh, and his followers will accept it without even batting an eye.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
now that makes for a strong argument,


Don't need to. I'm not the one that has to demonstrate that Obama is ineligible. This is your job. The Whitehouse, Hawaiian officials and the courts have done their bit.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


They are not opinion pieces they are right from the court decisions sorry to disappoint you........

no lies to see here...move along....
edit on 31-5-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Just more birther desperation.

Birthers don't die...they just come up with different illogical lies. Now that it is proven that he was born in Hawaii...they move on to the next illogical argument.


Obama will be on all 50 State's ballots....birthers can cry about it all they want....but fortunately logical and intelligent people are in charge and not birthers.


But I wouldn't mind seeing them thrown out of court a few more times....that's always entertaining.


Oh, the ignorance. It has NEVER been proven that he was born in Hawaii. You're wrong, and there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You are brainwashed because you are not forming your opinion based upon the evidence, but rather your opinion is based upon what you WANT to believe is the truth. It's just a shame that so many people are becoming zombies in regards to thinking for themselves and finding their own information. People like you throw around "proof" without any idea as to what it really means. So you sir, have FAILED.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
The issue is that you keep taking the position that the definition, in terms of Presidential eligibility, has been decided.

IT HAS NOT


It has.

Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party,

Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV) ; Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett does not hold otherwise

www.scribd.com...

Farrar v. Obama,

Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,"

www.ajc.com...

Ankeny v. Governor

President Obama was a United States citizen at the moment of his birth in Hawaii. Since he held citizenship at birth all constitutional qualifications have been met. There is no basis to question the presidents citizenship or qualifications to hold office

www.scribd.com...

Tisdale v Obama

The eligibility requirements to be president of the United States are such that the individual must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, S1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g United States v Ark, 169 U.S 649, 702 (1898)

www.scribd.com...

Supreme court justice J. Grey in his ruling on the Wong Kim Ark (1898) case:


The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration 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,”
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization

www.law.cornell.edu...

In addition to this we already had one other president before whom was born to one parent whom was not a citizen of the United States, Chester Arthur. His father was Irish Canadian who had only resided in the United States for a year before Chester Arthur was born. He did not have U.S citizenship. The courts had no issue with Arthur becoming the president, and there is no reason for them to all of sudden do so now, in the case of Obama. The courts have also made this matter clear.
community.myvoa.com...

Don't like the outcome of the decision? It's not anybody elses problem. Obama isn't going to magically dissappear as president because you say he was born in Kenya.


I believe that is what he's spent so much money to hide


Where? Where has he spent all this money to hide documents? Better yet, explain to us why he'd have to spend money to hide his documents, considering that he is not obligated by law. How does that work? Give me some more of that birther logic.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


They are not opinion pieces they are right from the court decisions sorry


This is from a court decision?


as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention


I wasn't aware that judges referred to Obama as messiah? What kind of title is this? They are opinion pieces, this is specifically why birthers get no where in the courts. They think they can get away with using opinion pieces as evidence to their arguments, and then they get a reality check when they take this to the courts.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Oh, the ignorance. It has NEVER been proven that he was born in Hawaii.


Yes it has, in addition to releasing both the short and long form birth certificates we have these statements:


To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.
"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008.

www.politifact.com...


"They're just words," said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. "That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii."



"When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site," she said. "That's the birth certificate."

www.politifact.com...

Here are corrosponding emails between the whitehouse and the Hawaii department of health requesting the release of the long form birth certificate:
hawaii.gov...

Here is another official statement from current Hawaiian department of health directory, Fuddy, confirming the long form birth certificate that they released to the whitehouse, and confirming it's authenticity:


The Hawai„i State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “long form” birth certificate.

hawaii.gov...

Now what else must Obama do? Must he come to your house and personally prove to you that he is eligible? Or must he prove he is eligible to one of your birther experts? Nobody can make you personally accept that Obama is president, and nobody has to.


based upon what you WANT to believe is the truth.


Speaking of which.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


no, grasshopper.... a Natural Born Citizen is one whose parents were BOTH American citizens, and he/she is born in the USA....not too tough to understand..2 important parts of this equation.....now, tell me...does that definition apply to Barack Hussein Obama?.....no.....there ya go...pretty simple to grasp....


If I do not know who my dad is, I cannot be president?
You just disqualified not only past presidents but also Mitt Romney. And you are cocky about it and got stars for it. That says so much about the level of intellect birthers are actually operating on.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Don't play dumb....the parts that say the name of case are from the rulings....

and you know that.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join