Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve!

Originally posted by kozmo
WE, THE PEOPLE, are not going to take this *Snip* too much longer!!!

Well I guess you and the like minded had better get busy and do something. The sooner you get locked up for sedition, the better.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


Just reading your thoughtful and insightful responses to legitimate questions makes me value you as a fellow citizen even more than you deserve. I must be careful to keep this civil. You attack the man because you think that enough evidence has been presented to convince you, a rabid supporter. You wish to ignore the rules of law, and forego the highest and best evidence. Because you 'know' you are already correct, and anyone who does not agree with you is obviously wrong. Boy am I glad you are not in office. Are you a cop? With your intense faculties of observation and analysis, you would make a great leader~in Lithuania. I have to tell you, you are trying to rip this guy, and in so doing you are making a laughing stock of yourself. Maybe you should think about your posts before you hit send. Please, please do. At least once.

Personally it makes no difference to me who the President of the United States is. Those who don't want to believe Bangsters exist in the world and everyone in government is as honest and sincere as the days is long have every right to feel that way.

Personally I don't see either why when obviously so many citizens have a concern the court wouldn't find it prudent, as would the soon to be President Elect to solve the controversy by acting as if they have a need to serve all the people as opposed to just those people who chose to vote for him and chose not to consider it any kind of issue.

For me it boils down to one thing, which is frankly why I could not care less who the President of the United States is, our government seems to serve itself and believe we serve it.

Both Mr. Obama and the Court know that a very large number of people have a question and a RIGHT to question as citizens.

I feel more empathy for the Obama supporters who feel American citizens have no right to ask these questions. A little while in the future when they start having no choice but to wonder if the Banksters rule the world they are the ones who are going to feel most dissapointed.

May the Universe bless our Banksters and the religion to Amen-Ra they give us.

I wonder what will reemerge first Atlantis? Or the United States of America?

I want to say one thing to everyone here on both sides of this debate and then I shall post no more on this thread.

We all think we are sooooo smart. Above government propaganda and control don't we?

Now let's look for a second at reality, but first a quote from someone every member of ATS should know of:

United we stand, Divided we fall.

As we sit here and fight with each other over the people that were chosen by others to represent us and we supported one or the other that were chosen by the same people anyway. There are people sitting in D.C. somewhere reading this and laughing so hard their federal reserve notes are bleeding green down their legs saying to each other; "Look at these idiots, supposedly against corruption and predatory practices of their government, and yet they do nothing more than fight amongst themselves." "So long as they participate in that which we designed to distract them, we grow all the more powerful and their certain demise is sealed in concrete." "Don't tell me propaganda doesn't work Dickie C., these people are supposedly against us, yet they care more for fighting amongst themselves and ridiculing each other, than they care about what we are doing to them." "See I told you it would work now pay up."

Folks it is a game, Divide and conquer. Do not allow yourselves to be active participants.

Merry Christmas to you all!

reply to post by Avenginggecko


Thank you. I'm glad you pointed these things out. I did not realize that his grandmothers statement was not court admissible, and I did not realize that the fact Indonesia will not accept non-Muslim or non-Indonesian students is not court admissible. I also did not realize that Hawaii state officials are the exception to the rule, and some of them are actually honest. That amazes me. So we definitely should take their word for it, and not have to see the original, like the highest and best evidence rule states. We can make an exception in this case, because we like him. He may even be a better speaker than the Jewish Adolph Hitler, who, by the way, claimed at first to be a Christian, before he began his own religion. I am glad you pointed these things out, because Barry is a man who would best be able to reform the constitution, and the Bill of Rights. He has lots of experience, what was it I read, six months in Congress, usually voting neither yeah or neigh, but 'present'. I think we should all petition him to annoint you as his new Attorney General. You have even more reguard for law than he does! Again, thank you.

Im not impressed but I havent lost hope either. I hope they will atleast listen to one of the cases so that the issue can be settled. That may be what they plan to do, they may just not have agreed with this certain case.
There are so many cases out there I think they have their pick really.

I dont know what Ill think about his presidency considering he might get in and we may never question his citizenship status. Seems to me there should be a better process and all this should have been settled long before.

Had to edit to add something, I am happy that they are confrencing about the issues when they come in. Atleast they considered it and looked at it. So I think Im right, they just dont agree with this angle. There are so many angles on Barrys ellegibility I think someone can bring the right one.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Memysabu]

Originally posted by nsaeyes
I can't take any more of this Obama is not eligable for U.S. Presidency issue.....has anyone read the constitution article 2?

It states that the President must be a natural citizen and have been living in the U.S. for the last 14 years.

REGARDLESS of whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii...IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! Why?

BECAUSE HIS MOTHER IS A U.S. CITIZEN!!!! Any child born to a U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. citizen by birthright, regardless of where in the world the mother gives birth.

Are all of you people hung up on this issue serious? Don't just read the damn laws, understand what they mean.

Sorry for my tone, I just couldn't take anymore stupidity.

Umm, you said it. His mother is a citizen, but she could not have lived in the US for the required years before, as she was a minor. So even if he was born in Hawaii, which I do not know for a fact, he could not be a citizen because of her. That was the law at his birth date. You don't apparently read the laws, let alone understand what they mean. I should be honest, I have not read it, have you? I have to base what I think on this based on what I read, here and other places, and what my friend who filed a SCOTUS case concerning this tells me. I am not the judge, and I doubt you are. But I HAVE read most of the Constitution, and commentaries on it. I have studied law, I have studied American history, and world history. Enough to know that we know exactly what the authors/teachers want us to know. And then some from reading they do not feed us. I know and understand a lawyerly prevarication and deception when it is thrust on me. Apparently, most, like you, do not.

Originally posted by Gregarious
So even if he was born in Hawaii, which I do not know for a fact, he could not be a citizen because of her. That was the law at his birth date. You don't apparently read the laws, let alone understand what they mean.

You’re wrong. Anyone born in the United States, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the parents, is a US citizen at birth. [edit: except children of foreign diplomats]

I should be honest, I have not read it, have you?

You just said you knew what the law was when Obama was born, and accused someone else of not knowing it, and now you’re saying you don’t know what the law is/was?

I have studied law, I have studied American history, and world history. Enough to know that we know exactly what the authors/teachers want us to know.

Apparently it wasn’t enough to understand the basic concept of jus soli.



[edit on 9-12-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso

This is the last time I am going to respond on this thread. For some unbeknown reason the people on this thread continue to imply that I am saying something I am not saying. I did not speculate anything. If a person asks a question, can you please explain to me how that is speculation? Here are the exact words:

"I also have a question, if he does in fact have a legitimate BC, why would he spend all the time and money involved if the case did get heard? Wouldn't it just be easier to provide it?"

i don't care how many times or if you continue to respond. as far as i can tell you're trying to play word games. it doesn't matter what you said before, as my response wasn't about whether you support the decision or not, but about the ambiguous language you chose to use. at least two seperate people have now, according to you, misunderstood what you tried to say. if i were you i would choose my words more carefully to avoid this confusion in the future.

just because i'm bored and not sleepy at 2am local time, i will play along with your objection.

"if he did in fact" implies that you believe he doesn't in fact have one. you then seem to justify this position by saying "why wouldn't he provide it" instead of "spending all the time and money involved" but then you couch it all in a future possible tense negating your entire point.

so if this case is heard, he will either provide the bc or he won't but we can't know that since it hasn't been heard. maybe he will, maybe he wont provide it, maybe he can and maybe he can't. he will probably still need to pay a certain amount of money either way.

is your point that you think he will provide it if it does get heard? then why bother with the "if in fact he does have one" part?

no, i stand by my original interpretation of your circular logic. and again, this is the same problem with the very root of this argument and the probably endless lawsuits that will come from it.

it seems to me you are backpedaling and you've (either ingeniously or by accident) steeped your point in a way that allows you to do so easily.

if i've again misinterpreted, don't bother trying to explain. just take this lesson to heart and use less confusing sentence structure in the future.

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso

This is the last time I am going to respond on this thread. For some unbeknown reason the people on this thread continue to imply that I am saying something I am not saying. I did not speculate anything. If a person asks a question, can you please explain to me how that is speculation? Here are the exact words:

"I also have a question, if he does in fact have a legitimate BC, why would he spend all the time and money involved if the case did get heard? Wouldn't it just be easier to provide it?"

i don't care how many times or if you continue to respond. as far as i can tell you're trying to play word games. it doesn't matter what you said

before, as my response wasn't about whether you support the decision or not, but about the ambiguous language you chose to use. at least two seperate people have now, according to you, misunderstood what you tried to say. if i were you i would choose my words more carefully to avoid this confusion in the future.

just because i'm bored and not sleepy at 2am local time, i will play along with your objection.

"if he did in fact" implies that you believe he doesn't in fact have one. you then seem to justify this position by saying "why wouldn't he provide it" instead of "spending all the time and money involved" but then you couch it all in a future possible tense negating your entire point.

so if this case is heard, he will either provide the bc or he won't but we can't know that since it hasn't been heard. maybe he will, maybe he wont provide it, maybe he can and maybe he can't. he will probably still need to pay a certain amount of money either way.

is your point that you think he will provide it if it does get heard? then why bother with the "if in fact he does have one" part?

no, i stand by my original interpretation of your circular logic. and again, this is the same problem with the very root of this argument and the probably endless lawsuits that will come from it.

it seems to me you are backpedaling and you've (either ingeniously or by accident) steeped your point in a way that allows you to do so easily.

if i've again misinterpreted, don't bother trying to explain. just take this lesson to heart and use less confusing sentence structure in the future.

OK your right I do need to respond to this.

1 person does not know what the word "if" means.

1 person does not understand that a question cannot be speculation.

Sorry to inform you of this, but those are both legitimate points. You can spin it anyway you like and you can understand the English language anyway you choose, that is your prerogative.

Also this is not the psychic section, so it does not much matter if you "think" you know about what I believe here, please take that to the appropriate board.

OK now I am done.

[edit on 12/9/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

[edit on 12/9/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

Man, what a sad day huh? Here you have the blind idiots on one side of this saying "nah nah nah" and the other side that is standing up, yes, even on their constitutional behalf, shot down by TPTB.

This just goes to show that we are currently living in a time where our government is truly out of control.

Signed,

Eating an MRE at a FEMA camp near you

Originally posted by ConservativeJack

Originally posted by Moonsouljah
Let's all just treat this as open ended so we can still generate a dozen new threads a week on the subject.

RIGHT, like this ISN'T the last we've heard about this!

Haven't you heard, The Supreme Court is IN on the conspiracy, THEY ARE NWO!

OBAMA is really a KING from Kenya with ROYAL Blood and he TRICKED everyone HE was never born in Hawaii, in fact, Obama wasn't even BORN. Obama hatched from an Egg in the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and he lived his early life in Atlantis preparing to become President!

Nice one Maybe we can sneak in some reptilian alien link as well just for good measure.

Wow...

And while the powers that be have the American people divided again, you are too distracted to notice any other actions they may take in the background.

History never ceases to amaze me. There is always an issue, no matter how trivial, to divide the American people. Turn neighbor against neighbor. Keep the people from uniting while the puppetmasters work their strings.

Once this issue dies down finally something else will come up, and you will all be at each other's throats again, ignoring whatever rights the parties want to remove or what countries they want to invade.

You can't change your country until you help yourselves. Don't let them play you as fools.

Well I don't want to say this, but I feel like I have to. This is the work of Bush, he signed a contract dealing with presidential elections and the matter of National Security dating back to September if I remember correctly with a link to another paper trail that links back to July in the scenario of a presidential elect being deemed incompetent to handle national security directives. The day that Obama does not become president, is the day that Russian troops knock on our doors and ask us for warmth and shelter. Meanwhile bomb the hell out of the US.

Ok, this is maybe old information but new to me:

""Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

So Hawaiian birth certificate doesnt tell anything about place of birth?

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by stander

 

not sure where you were trying to go with the sarcasm, but if you are asking about the next case, it is against the Connecticut Secretary of State, and very similar to Donofrio's case. It will go to conference on 12/12/08.

I was not asking about any next case and can't imagine that anyone could misinterpret my post in question.

I wonder if you can explain the contradiction between two statements:

Yours

Please understand, Donofrio never disputes Obama's birth in Hawaii nor makes any comment whatsoever on Obama's birth certificate.

and the one made by the media.

Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Here is the lead for you: If Donofrio never disputes Obama's birth in Hawai and is not concerned about Obama birth certificate, what is the source that makes Donofrio to question Obama's eligibility to become the prez by arguing the identity of Obama's parents? The only admissible evidence regarding the identity of his parents is Obama's birth certificate, which, accorging to your statement, is of no concern to Donofrio.

The only thing that gets any clearer thread after thread is how many pages appear out of no where. It seems a judge should look at the issue seeing how theres a huge following on both sides of the isle.

Q. Is there shadow government influence over the Supreme Court?
eg. Trilateral Commission
Illuminati
Bilderbergs
The Council on Foreign Relations

To supporters of Barry. You have won. The constitution has been beaten. Be PROUD and flaunt it. Flaunt his Kenyan birth certificate/birth place. Pave the way to beating down the rest of the constitution.

Brag about this too:
www.ft.com...

Congratulations, Obama Supporters, you beat this without even having to pay the $12 fee for a copy of whatever paperwork the state of Hawaii has on file. Above all - be PROUD! and show your pride in this, your victory.

Your goverment has violated your constitution for years....


so i dont know why are you guys really that surprised...

Originally posted by grover
Thank God these loons (and that is not to insult Loons) are not representative of the average American

I was reading through this thread thinking along the same lines.

Thank God this is a small sample of the people out walking around, driving cars, serving up "fries with that".....