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

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
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...
edit on 3-11-2012 by MagnificentTongue because: Links got lost. I cpoied and pasted from a post I accidentally made in Aliens & UFO's. I'm kinda new here.




posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
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 .



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


I agree and would add that it gives the powers behind the scenes the tool they need to throw them out of office should they fail to carry forward their agenda.

I find it rather strange as well they would choose these people out of all the other candidates who were natural-born citizens. Even Romney's grandfather renounced his citizenship and moved to Mexico where I understand his father was born and he too was running for nomination.

This plan may have been long in planning and execution. Definitely a pattern for 50 years.
edit on 3-11-2012 by Asktheanimals because: corrections



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnificentTongue

The Republicans have been hammering Obama for over 4 years now about his eligibility.


Only the silly birthers have beeb doing that


The definition of natural born citizen (the only existing one is in Vattel's "the Law of Nations",


That is NOT the definition used in the USA, it does not apply. Various USA courts have declared that Obama is a natural born citizen, so any claim that he is not is just silly.

..



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Please, show me the court case where they declared Obama a natural born citizen. I have a feeling you're just repeating something you've heard, which is false. Also, the ONLY definition of natural born citizen is in Vattel's work. I challenge you to find another definition. Remember: As being a 'natural born citizen' only matters when deciding whether or not one can be president, and that requirement is found in the Constitution, the only way to change the definition from what it was (and is) in Vattel's work (which was cited numerous times), is to Amend the Constitution.

You're right about it not being "Republicans", per se. The elites are not "birthers", but the majority of Republicans are, whether they admit to it or not - at least in the case of Obama's eligiblity (they're blind to McCain and Romney). There was a point in which over 40% of people surveyed in the US doubted that Obama was a natural born citizen - most of them Republicans of course.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
obama may have needed a faked birth certificate because his real name was 'tim osman'

george h w bush [real name george scherf] a german citizen [and nazi spy] would have needed a forged birth certificate

george w bush , both parents german citizens, not an american citizen.

seems to be some sort of conspiracy here, ya' think?



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


Seriously? Whaaat? Please, link me. If this is true (which I currently doubt), that would be very significant. It wouldn't make too much sense to have the non-nbc line broken by Bill Clinton, though...



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnificentTongue
Please, show me the court case where they declared Obama a natural born citizen.



Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010);



Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”);



Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party, Arizona Superior Court (March 7, 2012) (order dismissing complaint)(“[A]nd 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, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”)



Farrar et al v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI (Feb. 3, 2012) (Ga. Office of State Admin. Hearings) (relying on Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels to hold that Obama is natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in the United States);



Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012);



Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Board of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012);



Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63, 66 (“Those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding and thus eligible for the presidency.”)

nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com...

Oh dear, you are looking silly now!


I have a feeling you're just repeating something you've heard, which is false.


You are the one just repeating birther lies - why did you ignore the above court cases? Or didnt the birther sites youget your "facts" from mention them - funny that!


the only way to change the definition from what it was (and is) in Vattel's work (which was cited numerous times), is to Amend the Constitution.


Care to show where Vattel is mentioned in the constitution.... of course you cannot! But then birthers apparently know more than the courts.


Also, the ONLY definition of natural born citizen is in Vattel's work.


Black's Law Dictionary

Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines "Natural Born Citizen" as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government".

Birthers have lost every court case so far. But they just refuse to accept reality, that Obama is the legal president
edit on 3-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
The Republican establishemnt has not been dinging on Obama at all. It's just a few bloggers and ATS forum posters. Consensus is he was born in Hawaii. If he wasn't, oh, well.

McCain was born of American parents while his father was on active duty. End of story. That's all you need. He could have been born in Russia and he'd still be an American citizen.

it was Mitt Romney's grandparents who lived in Mexico (as monogamists, not polygamists) and CHOSE US Citizenship for George Romney, Mitt's father. Mitt Romney himself was born in Detroit. So even if you call him an "anchor baby" he was still born in the US and is eligible.

I'm not arguing with you. Those are the facts. All three men are eligible.

Resistsance is futile. Get over it.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I apologize. I should have clarified. I want a court case where they declared Obama a natural born citizen, where they actually took into consideration the definition of natural born citizen. These court cases are meaningless dictates from judges employing the invalid and criminal judicial philosophy of "case law", which can only provide senseless explanations for their cowardly decisions.

To be a valid ruling, the court needs to be able to define natural born citizen, and show why their definition is the correct one. Remember, the idea here is to be true to the Constitution, not to the elitists' current inapplicable opinions. You would do a lot better if you watched the video I posted. It explains how tepid and unconstitutional dismissals of the natural born citizen requirement are irrelevant.

And again, you can argue all you want with me about this, but I really didn't want this to be another thread where people argue about whether or not they are eligible. There are plenty of those. I am saying that for the sake of argument, assume I am correct about all 3 being non-nbcs, and explain to me why this is happening. 3 in a row where the argument can even be made that they are non-nbcs is extremely improbable. So, just assume they are ineligible and go from there. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with me. I'm just trying to mine your minds for theories.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


P.S. This will help you. birthers.org...



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnificentTongue
I apologize. I should have clarified. I want a court case where they declared Obama a natural born citizen,


You are so blinded by your hatred - I showed you what you wanted, but you refuse to accept it as it is not on a birther site that you get all your information from!


I am saying that for the sake of argument, assume I am correct about all 3 being non-nbcs, and explain to me why this is happening.


You are not correct, as the court cases show and just how do I prove a negative?
edit on 3-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Again, with the broken record, stop. Your arguments don't make any sense. My argument hinges on the definition of natural born citizen. Yours references...nothing? Watch the video, people. You'll realize what's going on.

And....THIS plea may be futile, considering the quality of some of the ATS members, but I want you to put on your college thinking caps here, and ASSUME I am correct, whether I am or not, and come up with some theories as to why all 3 are ineligible (by assumption). You don't have to agree with me. You can be wrong all you want. On this thread though, show off your skills at logic and intuition, not your parroting skills. This is a serious issue, and it doesn't need to be belittled by parrots, especially considering how huge an issue it COULD be.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Hate? Did I display hate, or are you prejudiced in assuming I'm hating on these people? I'm extremely interested in the extremely strange candidacies of men who all possibly share the same damning attribute.

...and you're claiming that "natural born citizen" is the same as "citizen", which is a truly ignorant thing to say.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnificentTongue
This is a serious issue,


No, it is NOT a serious issue. The courts have shown Obama is a natural born citizen, but for some reason you refuse to accept that.


especially considering how huge an issue it COULD be.


And there COULD be invisible unicorns playing on the White House lawn, Obama COULD be an reptilian alien from Pluih;uihli, etc etc.

But in the real world Obama is a natural born US citizen, and the legal President.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 

Ah, clearly you DON'T get it. No law signed into effect by an illegitimate president has any legal weight. No appointments can stand. It will be a huge Constitutional Crisis once one of these guys has their whole term overturned by whoever because of their ineligibility. So, again, it is serious. Also, it is very improbable for 3 candidates in a row to have the same uncommon attribute. Address that, if you're going to talk at all. You won't make any headway with your other argument in a debate with people that have studied this in depth for years.

Serious thinkers only, please.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
The only "people" SELECTED for nomination are ones with closets FULL of skeletons. That way they have many strings that can be pulled, i.e. blackmail. Since they are all spineless cowards, threatening them with cutting them off from feeding at the public trough is all it takes to make them toe the line.

Therefore, these three have been selected purposely. Also, when TSHTF, they can be yanked and any legislation they have passed can be rendered null and void. Or not, if they want it that way.

All part of the scam.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnificentTongue
 


this is about the bush family...
hoax of the century

osama/tim osman/osama bin laden i'm still investigating

bill clinton, in arkansas, was g h w bush's money launderer for bush/ollie north's south american coc aine operation

also obama, g w bush, reagan, and carter were replaced by clones at some point after their elections.

that last line makes me look so much more credible, i just had to include it.

thanks for asking!
edit on 3-11-2012 by tinhattribunal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnificentTongue
It will be a huge Constitutional Crisis once one of these guys has their whole term overturned by whoever because of their ineligibility.


Except of course Obama is not ineligible.... No, being black does not make him ineligible, despite what some birthers want!


Serious thinkers only, please.


So how about you do some serious thinking and stop just visiting birther sites full of lies and believing the crap posted there!



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
just goes to show americans are stupid.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join