McCain, Obama, Romney ALL INELIGIBLE. I need theories as to why this is happening, not arguments.

The Republicans have been hammering Obama for over 4 years now about his eligibility. There are many different reasons they believe he is ineligible. Some of them are truly ridiculous. The main one that actually works though - the claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen because of the definition of natural born citizen (which has never been changed) - also undoes the claim that McCain and Romney are eligible! I don't see how this definition can be wrong either, especially after watching this video, which is long, but I suggest you watch (or just listen to) it: radioactivision.com...

The definition of natural born citizen (the only existing one is in Vattel's "the Law of Nations", which we drew many ideas in our constitution from, and which was treated as a supplement for our own law or to describe the intent of our laws for decades after the signing of the Constitution) requires that: 1). You be born on the country's soil. 2). Both of your parents were citizens of this country at the time of your birth. There is a possible variant of that however, which makes it so that only your father needs to be a natural born citizen. So, I'll stick with the definition that at least your father needs to be a citizen.

McCain: Born in the City Hospital in the City of Colon, Panama, off base. (Embassies, military bases, and official foreign US offices would have been considered US soil. He was born off base. So, he's not a natural born citizen. I know it sounds petty/nitpicky, but...keep reading)

Obama: Born to a non-citizen father. (His father was never a citizen of the US)

Romney: Born to a non-citizen father (His father was not yet a US citizen when Mitt was born. Family was expatriated [citizenship stripped] by the US government for the crime of polygamy and leaving the country. The law giving descendant George Romney US citizenship came about in 1948. Mitt was born in 1947. Mitt was born a non-natural born citizen, which can't be changed by anything but a constitutional amendment. Interesting to note: George Romney ran for president in 1968, even though he was born a Mexican citizen in Chihuahua.)

So, if you're not intrigued yet....Here's why this is extremely important. The probability of just choosing 1 person at random from the Democrat elites (congressmen, senators, governors...those who typically run for and win the presidency), who is not a natural born citizen, is pretty small. Same for Republicans. Most people in the offices of the elites are natural born citizens; both parents citizens at time of birth, and born on US soil. I would assume that the probability of choosing one at random would be less than 10%, but lets just go with 10% as the actual number in each camp, Dem and Rep. I doubt it's more than that.

So, just with that math, you have a 10% chance of randomly selecting a non-nbc to be your party's candidate. What about the case where BOTH sides have a non-nbc as candidate? The probability of that is 1% (1/10 * 1/10). Now what would be the probability of having the next election structured in the same way, with 2 non-nbc's? The probability of having this happen (where one non-nbc candidate is recycled), is (1/10 * 1/10) * (1 * 1/10) = 0.1%.

That's just the math. Now factor in the fact that running for president as a non-nbc is highly illegal, support for it by congress and the judicial branch is illegal, and there are many safeguards in place to keep this from happening...and you find that the real probability of this happening can't really be calculated, but we know it is necessarily MUCH, MUCH smaller than 0.1%. As a matter of fact, the probability should be hundreds of times smaller for just ONE non-nbc candidate being selected from either party.

You might argue that only a couple - or none - of these men are non-nbc's, because you're going with an altered definition or don't agree with some of my facts. Ok...still, the probability is extremely small to have 3 candidates in a row who are AT THE VERY LEAST QUESTIONABLE when it comes to their natural born citizen status to become the main candidates. It's extremely unlikely. You could use other attributes to argue that 10% is nothing, because there are many other attributes (like a small nose, or having diabetes or something) that hang around the 10% range arbitrarily, and we could find similar unlikeliness looking at those attributes...but those things are not criminal. Congress does not have the duty to ensure people with those attributes do not become president, but they do have the duty to ensure non-nbc's stay out. The fact that they didn't even publicly discuss the potential problems of having any of these men become the president (as each of them have had their eligibility challenged), should tell you all you need to know. There was an outcry, and they did nothing. The judicial branch did nothing either. They are turning way the issue without any acceptable explanation.

The reason we have the natural born citizen requirement is extremely important as well. It is a safeguard from having our highest office usurped by foreign governments, and it tries to exclude some people from being president because it is more likely they may have their potential feelings of foreign loyalties exploited. We want someone that cares about our nation the most, and is unlikely to govern in favor of non-US interests.

ANYHOW...
...3 CANDIDATES IN A ROW WERE APPARENTLY SELECTED BECAUSE THEY SHARED THE ATTRIBUTE OF BEING INELIGIBLE. WHY!?!?!?

There are a couple of good-ish theories in this video as to why this is happening: radioactivision.com...

...but those are only two theories. What else could be the reason for this?
If you say coincidence....well, just don't. It's not possible.

Help me out here, people...please...

My theory is it is to weaken the constitution.

They put the candidates up there...one gets elected, sets a precedent.....game set match.

Now any Joe Schmo illegal can get their spawn in office.....end of the constitution, beginning of assimilation into UN NWO.

The only way to successfully bring down the US is to bring down the constitution .

I disagree with your premise that they are all ineligible. Take, as an example, Romney. It's granted that he was born in the United States. There was a question with McCain and Obama. The Supreme Court has established precedent which covers the Romney case.

The leading case is Lynch v. Clarke, which dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents' nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:

Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

And further:

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.

en.wikipedia.org...

I am unable to think of a conspiracy which connects Obama and McCain.

reply to post by charles1952


I am argued out over the natural born citizen thing, the op has the correct definition as used by the founding fathers......unfortunately they made the mistake of not putting the definition right in the constitution...I believe they thought people would still have some sense in the future....alas they were wrong. (I don't mean you, just citizens in general)

There has never been a Supreme Court decision on the definition of natural born citizen just "opinions".

The case you quoted doesn't stand up to scrutiny for the office of President.

reply to post by MagnificentTongue


With respect to this particular forum I submit that they are ineligible because they are actually aliens that were born on UFOs?

Here's my theory. Very conspiracy-esque mind you. With the coming NWO, that the US seems to be trying to impose, they want a one world government. So, if the whole world is going to be united under one government, it would only matter that they are Human beings.... with money. LOL

As this thread is posted under a different forum already I'm closing this one.

Thread closed.