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.


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

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:32 AM
HAHA... I love checking this thread every morning.

You know why? Because it reminds me how many fools there really are out there who line up behind charlatans like Berg and Donofrio (Poor Vincent).

These people are nothing more than sore losers and cranks. They don't give two whips about our great nation and seek only to divide and tear it down. While they do it, they demonize those of us who call them on their conduct unbecoming and American. They say "What about the 2000 election?" Which is nothing more than saying "He acted like a fool.. why can't I?" And each time they use this argument, they admit their own foolishness.

The thing that really gets me, is that the far right pundits aren't even talking about this. I don't hear Hannity talking about this... he's concerened about the Fairness Doctrine.

I don't hear Boortz talking about this... he's concerned about the economy and the future of our nation.

I don't even hear Lush Rimbaugh speaking about this anymore either.. but then again, he's a windbag IMHO. Although I often disagree with Hannity and Boortz, and they can both get "windbaggish" from time to time, they seem to have their limits on what foolishness they will give air time to.

At the end of the day, It doesn't really matter if someone brings a case to the SCOTUS. What matters is that we all respect the outcome of the SCOTUS.

As I have grown up in this wonderful nation, one thing has stood clear. If you have a problem, don't bother bringing it up unless you also have a possible solution and are willing to work at it.

With that I ask those of the pro-donofrio/berg ilk.... What do you hope to gain? How does this help our nation? How does this help our economy? Does the rule of technical law trump the public good in your eyes? I'm not saying that the law should be ignored, but I also don't believe that seeking dilligently to usurp the power of an elected official (who hasn't even taken office) based on a technicality which can't even be proven has any ability to help our nation.

Oh well... I suppose our great nation will always have some idiots who don't care about it living within it. That's the promise of our nation. And that is what the SCOTUS protects us against.

Thank God for unelected officials.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You are aware that this case acknowledges Obama was born in Hawaii to an American citizen, right? I wonder, which article of the Constitution you think is not being followed...

Article 2, Section 1, paragraph 5; that's not what's been / being followed.
(referring to )
I too, want the Constitution followed! There's a serious doubt about his qualifications to be President. Enquiring minds want to know, right? Our Constitution clearly states - by omission, I know - Dual-Citizens cannot be President - even if all other requirements are met. There is doubt as to where Barry Sarturo, a.k.a. Barak Obama WAS born. Yes, it *could be* that he was born in Hawaii, but how come's the story about he was born in one of two hospitals in Kenya? Or, he was born to an American Citizen in Kenya? Either way, that would give him a dual citizenship status British / American. (His father was a Kenyan and Kenya falls under the British Empire, hence dual citizenship)
So, another question I have is: Where's the documentation of his renouncing his British Citizenship?
I know that Hawaii has issued birth certificates under their state seal for children not born in Hawaii. (I wonder how much that costs?)
Anyway... back to point...
What article in the Constitution isn't being followed? Article 2 Section 1 para 5.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by TrueAmerican


posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Lokey13

And for the 2 BILLIONTH time, yes they can, with a court order. A court order CAN force release of the record:

Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?

A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:

* the registrant (the person whom the record is concerned with);
* the registrant’s spouse;
* the registrant’s parent(s);
* a descendant of the registrant (e.g., a child or grandchild);
* a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin);
* a legal guardian of the registrant;
* a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
* a personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
* a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
* adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
* a person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
* a person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
* a person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by t12string
Our Constitution clearly states - by omission, I know - Dual-Citizens cannot be President

It "clearly states" "by omission"???

How can it "clearly state" something that is not stated at all?

Obama is no longer a dual citizen, anyway. He lost his Kenyan citizenship when he turned 21.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:20 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

That one cracked me up too!

Clearly states... by Omission.

WHAT? Nothing can ever clearly state something by omission. It is either left to interpretation or it is not.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:23 PM
Listen folks, it is over. Time to move on.

I, too, wanted the court to review this and verify Obama's qualifications to serve as President, but they chose not to do so. I still have questions, but unless Obama steps up, which he has no obligation, legal or moral, to do, my questions (and other's) won't be answered.

He is this country's President-elect. It is time to support him and our country and give the man a chance.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:33 PM

HunkaHunka wrote:

No it's not wrong, because it's not worthy. They stated that by not hearing it.

"they stated that by not hearing it"....?

Sorry - if I don't just buy that "they" are automatically doing the right thing
by not hearing it.
It's been years upon years of deceit by the "theys" of the world.
We should question everything.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by spinkyboo]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Gregarious
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've already failed at that.

You attack the man because you think that enough evidence has been presented to convince you, a rabid supporter.

I don't "attack the man" based on the evidence I've seen. I attack based on the indisputable fact that not one single person asserting these allegations has yet provided even the tiniest piece of evidence to support them.

You wish to ignore the rules of law, and forego the highest and best evidence.

I'll state this again, and I'll bold it so you can read it without your glasses:

IF you can specifically lay out your entire case, including your hard and damning evidence that Obama is NOT a natural-born US Citizen, then I might at least be willing to consider it.

IF you can specifically state which "rules of law" I am, as you say, "ignoring", and provide for me the "highest and best evidence" I am "forgoing", then maybe--MAYBE--I might be convinced to give this subject a moment of careful consideration beyond the research I've already done.

IF the "questions" here are legitimate, then surely the anti-Obama posters can do this, yes?

Can any of you provide one scrap of direct, damning evidence?

Can you provide interviews where we know exactly who we're talking to, without things getting "lost" in translation between languages, or without deliberately misleading questions being asked of a helpless old woman who's proud of her grandson's accomplishments (assuming, as BH has noted, that the interview in question is even with whom we've been told)?

Can you provide a Kenyan birth certificate that directly disputes the Hawaii BC, certified as genuine by Kenyan officials and the US State Department?

Can you provide proof that Dr. Fukino, Hawaii State Director of Health, is lying?

Can you provide irrefutable evidence that the document provided by Obama in June is a forgery?

Can you provide proof that the DNC "propped up" a candidate who they knew was ineligible for office?

Can you provide direct evidence that John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, etc. also knew this, and because the outcome was "predetermined", as many posters say, they kept their mouths shut and continue to do so to this day?

Are you starting to see why my credulity in regards to this matter has been stretched to the breaking point?

Because you 'know' you are already correct, and anyone who does not agree with you is obviously wrong.

It has nothing to do with "knowing" I am "correct". It has to do with preponderance of evidence.

I have seen NOTHING CREDIBLE from ANY of the anti-Obama posters that leads me anywhere near the conclusion that Obama is a non-citizen and therefore ineligible for the office of the President of the United States of America.

All I have seen is links to Web sites and blogs run by right-wing fringe groups, funded alternately by agents of the GOP and/or White Supremacist groups, so-called "strict Constitutionalist" groups, etc.--ALL people who have a vested interest in seeing Obama fail.

Repeated requests for this evidence they supposedly hold (enough, in one person's case, to file challenges in court to any legislation Obama signs, or at least in that person's mind) have gone unanswered. The person who says they have enough to file charges refuses to pony up. Others simply ignore the (very reasonable) request and continue their attacks against Obama without one ounce of evidence to support their claims. And then, these same people attack me and others who refute them for being "Kool-Aid Drinkers".

IF you have evidence, you should provide it.

I said it before and I'll say it now:


And I don't want to hear any of this "I don't have to provide squat" crap either. If you can't back up your claims then the debate is effectively over. No, this is not a court of law. But, for anyone who uses even an ounce of their grey matter, the same standard applies to the court of Public Opinion, which is exactly what this is.

If you want me to take you and your claims seriously, provide your evidence.

Put up or SHUT UP.

Boy am I glad you are not in office.

Frankly, so am I. I have a feeling I'd be dodging bullets from people like you the rest of my life. I'd like to live long enough to retire, thank you very much.

Are you a cop?

Are you?

With your intense faculties of observation and analysis, you would make a great leader~in Lithuania.

Blah blah blah yackety shmackety. How original.

I have to tell you, you are trying to rip this guy, and in so doing you are making a laughing stock of yourself.

All I ask is that the people who make these accusations provide their evidence.

In ignoring this reasonable request, or in some cases outright refusing it in terms leaving no uncertainty in regards to their poor attitudes regarding the "truth" they revere so much, they effectively render themselves impotent with regards to the debate as a whole. They defeat themselves and their purpose with their incompetence and in my opinion, open themselves to ridicule.

I don't "play nice". The stakes are way too high for that.

Maybe you should think about your posts before you hit send. Please, please do. At least once.

Always have, always will. Can you say the same?

[edit on 12/9/2008 by The Nighthawk]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:54 PM

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

Who are you to think that you speak for the People?

If memory serves, the People have spoken, 69,394,675 of them, 52.9% of the voting public. And a majority of the People chose Obama to be the President.

You do not represent the People. You represent a minority who wants to overthrow the will of the People because you are not happy with the outcome of the election; you want a tyranny of the minority.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

Well from the topic of this title the court will not review this... So in theory your wrong, because you already stated the court threw this out. So therefor there isn't a court that will review this, regardless of what your claiming the constitution says. The constitution also states that I have the right to bear arms; well after a year and a half waiting period when the original constitution stated if I wanted them I could just have them. So in short you cannot go by the constitution because lets be honest they contradict that thing every single day of the week. In conslusion until they actually review this, your about the 30th thread opened up on this same topic, which has become quite irritating since there still is nothing going on with this, and there won't be anything going on with this. So please when this actually gets into court then show me that the constitution is being followed because my constitutional rights get smaller every day.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Lokey13]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

And also from your statement it clearly states you have to have probable cause to get a hold of this type of documentation. I will state right now that conspiracy of him being born out of the US will never bring this case into court without credible proof, that of which will never be found by the said people trying to mandate this court appearance. So unless these people you are stating have all of his families birth certs. including both mommy and daddy they will never be able to disprove that Obama's birth certificate reads BORN IN HAWAII.

Also it would have to be a Democrat looking for this type of information since the Republican's are looked at as trying to just smear Obama's flawless record.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Lokey13]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:21 PM
If it was a conservative that was in question EVERYBODY would be up in arms, since it is a LIBRAL we don't even hear abou this much, ummmm I wonder why that is???? The bias media mabye......Yes, I think so!

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Victoria 1
If it was a conservative that was in question EVERYBODY would be up in arms, since it is a LIBRAL we don't even hear abou this much, ummmm I wonder why that is???? The bias media mabye......Yes, I think so!

Actually if you PAID ATTENTION you would see that MCCAIN was also on the original paperwork to be questioned in this same thing.

The hate which you sense is not against conservatives or liberals, it is against America as a whole.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 02:14 PM
The more I read on this issue the more I come to the conclusion that reality clearly has a left wing liberal bias!

Not a one line post.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 02:19 PM
reply to post by Victoria 1

Um Obama isn't a liberal but is in fact a Democrat, don't really understand how liberals and democrats are being mixed up; were not talkin Ralph Nater here. The reason we don't see this in the news is that the Republican's that head major companies such as FoxNews see this as being a lost cause and something that will bring only hatred toward the bickering Republican Party. Nothing worse then seeming like a sore loser *cough* Sarah Palin.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by HunkaHunka

Love your point of view and have enjoyed quite a chuckle reading your posts, these topics are becoming far to easy to shoot down and the Republican's are becoming more and more transparent. Keep up the good work, I know I will.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by The Nighthawk

Great research, although I don't think you'll be seeing any new evidence anytime soon. As I stated in an earlier post this is about the 30th thread on this topic and I have yet to see anything credible, just a bunch of wind bags asserting an opinion as a fact when they have ABSOLUTELY no proof what so ever. So I'm intrigued and I hope someone trys to give you some answers, otherwise this is just another smear thread in need of being shut down.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Lokey13]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 02:28 PM
SCOTUS, will not be the group that will put this matter to rest.

FACT: A Certificate of Live Birth IS NOT a Vault COPY of the Birth Certificate, so let's all get that straight first ok?

The COLB that is posted on Obama's website has been altered, at least 6 different ways. The certification number has been blacked out to avoid other ways of tracing it's authenticity.

Obama's College records, past employment records, US State Department records of travel, including ANY US Passport information are also sealed.

Because of Barack being adopted the Office of Vital Statistics in Hawaii would have sealed his original due to law. That is a very LARGE LEGAL problem for everyone taking up this case going forward; regardless of what you heard from their people out in Hawaii or in the MSM last month.

Constitution Law DOES NOT support Dual Citizens for the office of POTUS. Please go and check your sources if you want to still cling to that bogus fact.

School records that have been located out of Kenya, confirm Barack's adopted name, which puts into question him giving up US Citizenship by not retaking the Oath of Allegiance when returning to America. And mysteriously we can't find those records either; if they were ever even created.

His mother wasn't within the legal time frame of giving birth abroad because of her young age according to the law at the time, which also puts this into question.

NOTE: Those rehashing that Mccain was born on a Military base line, please go look at the law concerning US Military Personal stationed before replying to this.

NOTE: If Clinton, Mccain, and the Easter bunny knew Obama wasn't a US Citizen they'd have jumped all over it? Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.

A few things clear all this up, releasing the Original Vault Copy of his Birth Certificate. And all additional records of employment as I'm sure at some point if he really was born in America and HELD a legitimate copy of a Hawaii Birth Cert, SOMEONE from his past employment has this in a filing cabinet right?

You don't spend a million dollars if you have nothing to hide. A copy of his Birth Cert (once he can get it unsealed) costs 12 DOLLARS.

In the meantime, the rest of America that still cares about the US Constitution will await his swearing in, and a signature on the first law he passes and TRY him as an usurper...

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Victoria 1
If it was a conservative that was in question EVERYBODY would be up in arms, since it is a LIBRAL we don't even hear abou this much, ummmm I wonder why that is???? The bias media mabye......Yes, I think so!

Congratulations, you managed to get it completely backwards.

There were lawsuits contesting John McCain’s eligibility. Was “everybody up in arms”? In fact, if you search about this in all of ATS you will find 2 posts regarding these lawsuits.

Did you hear anything about it on the MSM? I doubt it.

Fred Hollander v. Senator John McCain and the Republican National Committee for example, contested that John McCain was born in Colón, Panama and provided a Certificate of Live Birth showing his birth place as Colón R. P. (Republic of Panama). [edit: here is the supposed birth certificate]

The birth certificate, according to Hollander, was found in the Panama Railroad Company’s records, who at the time was the owner of the land where The Colón Hospital was built.

Hollander also contested that McCain’s staff claimed McCain was born in Coco Solo Hospital, but the hospital was built in the summer of 1941, 5 years after McCain’s birth. On December 17, 1941 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8981 which “transferred the area of the Coco Solo Hospital from the civil part of the Panama Canal Zone to the naval part” (source).

Hollander further contests that it is not clear this area was under American sovereignty, as alleged by some, who claim the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty granted sovereignty to the US.

However, looking at the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty, under Article II, the following is stated:

The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark with the proviso that the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant.

While I personally doubt Hollander is right about the question of the Coco Solo area sovereignty, he did made a somewhat compelling argument and asked the Court to request McCain’s birth certificate and related information.

The Court dismissed the lawsuit stating that,

Putting those considerations aside, however, the theory does not establish Hollander’s standing because it does not “allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct,”

The Court concluded the plaintiff didn’t have enough standing. Guess what? It’s exactly what other Courts have concluded in lawsuits regarding Barack Obama.

And I remember reading posts of people “up in arms” saying that if Berg/Donofrio/etc (voters and US citizens) didn’t have standing who did?

You can now resume screaming from the top of your lungs that the media and the Courts are biased because Obama is a ‘liberal’...

edit: added link

[edit on 9-12-2008 by danx]

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in