It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:49 PM
Barry is a criminal!

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by pheonix358

I'll ask a question I have asked a few times in the past and have yet to receive a response to. If someone is born on US soil to two US citizens but due to certain circumstances are raised on foreign soil by non-US citizens are they qualified to be president?

Yes, but they have to have been also a resident in the U.S. for at least 14 years as per Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:55 PM
If you want to read a constitutional scholar's take on the issue, and get a solid background in the historical origin of the phrase "natural born citizen" as it was actually meant, please take 5 minutes and read this article on the
federalists blog - Natural Born Citizen Defined

As I've already said, the historical, true meaning doesn't really matter now. Bad court decisions based on politics and the need to be more liberal than France will drive a SCOTUS decision 180 degrees away from the intended meaning.

In brief, the phrase as it was used at that time meant your citizenship was conferred by your Fathers status. If you were born to an American Father, even while overseas, you were a natural born citizen. Children born of diplomats and government representatives in the US? Not even citizens according to the writings of the men who actually wrote the constitution.

Read the article, get some historic perspective.

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:56 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Barack Obama senior went to the United States on a student scholarship, he did not go to Hawaii on official government business.
got any proof of said assumption ??
yes, he arrived in the US via an educational program, yet was recruited by the well known Communist, Harry Belafonte.
kindly prove he wasn't on official government business.
he had already been jailed for his radical and political activities.
he was enlisted in the British military and was hand-picked (not qualified) for said program.

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):
actually, there is no proof of any such claim, but there is proof that Mr O Sr was jailed for his radical governmental or anti-governmental activities.
he certainly was NOT chosen for his intellect or any form of advanced studies. (see link below)

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.
and you can speculate that he was not, fortunately, there are more records supporting my statement than yours.

so, just to reiterate your position ... once enlisted in the military (as O Sr was), you are not an employee of the government, correct ??

you might want to read over this link ...
UK Daily Mail: U.S. and British officials were deeply suspicious of this outfit, observing that the AASF – though backed by singer (ands Communist Party member) Harry Belafonte and actor Sidney Poitier – had links to a Kenyan nationalist leader.

‘The motives behind this enterprise, therefore, seem more political than educational,’ warned a letter from the British Embassy in Washington.

It added: ‘The arrival here of these students, many of them of indifferent academic calibre and ill-prepared for the venture, is likely to give rise to difficult problems.’
- snip -
The Times of Malta: British colonial administrators expressed concerns about the calibre of Kenyans receiving scholarships to go to US universities, claiming they were “academically inferior” to their contemporaries who remained in Africa to study.

The memo observed that the AASF had links to Kenyan nationalist leader Tom Mboya, and suggested that he favoured members of his Luo tribe − to which Mr Obama senior also belonged − in awarding the scholarships.

It said: “The motives behind this enterprise, therefore, seem more political than educational.

“The arrival here of these students, many of them of indifferent academic calibre and ill-prepared for the venture, is likely to give rise to difficult problems.”

The permanent secretary of the Kenyan Ministry of Education said: “The 81 students proposing to go to America are almost entirely of lower grade.
- snip -
Britain's Foreign Office has made public thousands of "lost" colonial era files, and the documents reveal efforts to destroy and reclassify sensitive papers.

The Foreign Office was forced to admit last year, as a result of a high Court case brought by Kenyans involved in the Mau Mau rebellion, that it held some 8,800 files, which were migrated to Britain from colonies at the time of independence because of their sensitivity.
*** more at link above ***

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:03 AM
to quote mark twain

:It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." —

these words are also attributed to Will Rogers , but research points to twain as the author.

so true so true.

birthers are idealogues, they have their minds already made up--even when the FACTS say otherwise
edit on 1-6-2012 by research100 because: (no reason given)

they gravitate toward information that agrees with their present opinion, regardless of its validity. To do such, is to cease thinking intelligently and merely rearrange prejudices.
edit on 1-6-2012 by research100 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

OOOOO...liar liar.....the Arizona case was DISMISSED...not decided....YOU are the one being dishonest..

the current controversy over the President’s qualification under the United States Constitution to hold the office of the President of the United States is uniquely federal in character and better suited for the federal courts to handle following the upcoming Presidential election.

The part about the Ark case and natural born was only the Justices OPINION thrown in the dismissal ruling....shame shame.

Farrar vs Obama...that's a newspaper article wheres the ruling?

Ankeny V Govenor

Candidate President Barack Obama hereby moves to strike and dismiss the obje¢~I
f -» < ....... - ....... , James D. Schneller on the following grounds:, - 9 ~g~ »CC o ::0 1. Objector lacks standing to challenge President Obama's nominatio~etitio:; because h~ is not a member of theDemocratic Party. 2, This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a challenge to President Obama'seligibility under the U.S. Constitution for the office of President of the United States. Nocandidate's affidavit averring eligibility was filed, or required to be filed, under Section 910 of theElection Code, 25 P.S. § 2870. Because no such affidavit was required or filed, this Courtlacksjurisdiction to consider a challenge to President Obama's eligibility

Again..DISMISSED no ruling: You are really being dishonest!!!!

Tisdale V Obama

Another DISMISSAL....not a decision
All the above dismissed because of inability to cover costs, lacking jurisdiction or authority numerous other reasons....none of them being a DECISION by the court!

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

This after the first sentence is OPINION....not the actual ruling which I honestly fail.

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:06 AM
reply to post by ecoparity

Good luck on that one....I have tried that on every "birther" thread the left is not interested in the founders,the federalist papers or the truth.

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by LifeInDeath

he was merely a citizen of a foreign government

as a member of the British colonial forces, he was hardly just a citizen of a foreign government or a student as you imply.

but alas, that isn't the topic of this thread either, would you care to comment on the topic at hand and save these deflections for an appropriate thread ??

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?)
how does that make any sense whatsoever ???

A soldier does not carry the sovereignty of their nation with them, only people of Ambassadorial status do according to Common Law. This is why soldiers do not have the same diplomatic immunity when on U.S. soil that Ambassadors and their families do. Ambassadors and their staffs hold special rank and papers. If an Ambassador has a child while on U.S. soil, their child would not be a citizen of the U.S., much less a natural-born citizen. If a soldier does, so long as they are not part of an invading army (i.e., they are of an allied army or otherwise guests here), their child would be a natural-born citizen.

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

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.
and, how many lawsuits did it take to reverse the Dredd Scott decision ?
how many American citizens suffered at the hands of bad law ??
how does that change the Obama circumstances ??

on the other side of the fence, how many children and mothers were murdered by bad mecial practitioners and bad law until Roe v Wade was presented and decided ??

so, according to you, because the Constitution was interpreted differently during those times, are you saying that what was should still be law ??
how does that make any sense at all ?
bad laws need repealed or clarified not re-interpreted to death.

fyi, the Constitution, its provisions, requirements and penalties are not bad law or in need of perpetual re-interpretation.

why not scream fraud ???
i did over all 3 Bushs (i'm in Fl, we had to put up with the young one too)
i did over Nixon and Clinton and Carter and Ford and Reagan and will be with the next one who dances all over the Constitution.
last i checked, that is still well within my rights as a natural born citizen.

this isn't a "who do you support" thread, now is it ??
no offense intended but i wouldn't vote for Romney if he was the last man standing on the planet.
(however, the Romney antics are not new to me like they are to most of you)

for the record, for the last several elections, i've exercised my write-in option.
there hasn't been a worthy nominee in nearly 20yrs.

for sure, Obama will NOT get any vote from this household. (or the entire region if i can help it)
(however, considering Newt won the primary here, it's an uphill battle i tell ya)

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:27 AM
reply to post by paradox

I heard if you repeat your delusions 3 times and click your heels, they will actually become facts
then, you're doing what ??? practicing

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by Honor93

You are suggesting that every other nation on the planet has more power over our presidential elections than anyone in the US does.

That is bullpucky.

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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.
excuse you but i have no such job.
i didn't and wouldn't vote for the inexperienced doughboy as he's been more pliable than the first Rubber Man toys.

ah, not to worry though, a few boys and a few beers usually equals a successful summit of some sort ... at least that the one thing Obama has proven

the Whitehouse isn't Obama.
the Hawaii officials aren't Obama.
when and IF the real Obama steps forward, i'd at least be willing to listen and receive any proof he (Obama) is willing to provide. Otherwise, my sole duty is to avoid his syle of tyranny, afterall, i am an American.

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian
so, based on this faulty logic ... where were the WMDs ???
Bush, Powell, Rice and a whole slew of "Officials" at the TOP of the heap swore they existed AND they knew exactly where too, so, what gives?

if you remember, they had intel, they had proof and they certainly had intent to destroy those who they deemed responsible. sooo, do tell, how'd that work out ??

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

And ultimately, Dual citizenship was banned for presidents, as the Loyalty of a person tied to 2 nations, can't be determined.
That's my take. and to me it makes sense, for when America was founded, If a person in a prominent place in Gov, Had dual citizenship with england and was a secret loyalist of england, the potential would be great, that they would secretly work to undermine the structure of the fledgling nation.

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by pheonix358

What I like about these threads is that it allows me to identify the Government drones and for this reason I will continue to read these threads.


It seems completely pointless to go on and on about that if you are not going to at least be an adult and point out exactly who you are accusing of just posting on ATS as part of their government job.
Otherwise, you are just talking trash with no balls really, aren't you?

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:19 AM
reply to post by Honor93

Just face it...nothing you say is correct. No matter how many times birthers repeat the same old BS, it will not magically become true. Obama is your legal POTUS voted in by the American majority, and he will most likely be your legal POTUS for another 4 years.
edit on 6-1-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:37 AM

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
It doesn't matter where his father was born, it only matters where he was born and he was born in Hawaii. There is NO requirement that your parents be natural born citizens, only that YOU be a natural born citizens.
Seriously, how dumb can those birthers get?

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?


Thank you ma'am!

Now where's your logic silly goose?!?!

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:38 AM
So Obama is a Brit now.

According to a blog that sites another blog as a reference..

Well, Jolly good I say.

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Shadowalker
reply to post by Shoonra

Hawaii hasnt VERIFIED diddly doo doo squat. They produced documents they CLAIM are legit.

But that would require INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION, which they have chosen to deny to every person and govt official that has requested access.

Evidently you are complaining that the State of Hawaii has not undertaken an independent investigation to prove that Obama was born in Honolulu 50 years ago, regardless of its own birth certificate and the signed physician's report received by the Health Dept within a week after the birth.

In those 50 years the doctors have died, the mother (and father) died, the grandparents died. Just how many people do you think can be found who could remember the name of whomever was giving birth on that day fifty years ago?? Please provide their names and addresses!

Tell me when the State of Hawaii -- or any other State of the Union -- ever undertook such an investigation, to prove (or disprove) a birth fifty years after the event.

The Hawaiian Health Dept received, within a week of baby Obama's birth, the birth report signed by the attending physician and the baby's mother, with all the relevant information properly provided. The various stamps and notations on that birth record show that it was received in the usual way within a few business days of the birth. This record has been personally examined by two Governors, the Director of the Health Dept and the supervisor of the office of vital records, according to their own statements.

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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.

No, wrong.. It is EVERY American's job to make sure the legality of all our leaders are correct, regardless of party affiliation.. Remember WE THE PEOPLE? This was the actual original intent of our founders..

Oh but if you happen to support a candidate that has questionable legality, you can just abrogate your responsibilities and aid your candidate in commiting a fraud.. okay....

See how people are now?

And people wonder why America is crumbling...

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in