100% PROOF! Obama "RESOLVES" That He Is Not Eligible To Be President! (Condemning Info!)

reply to post by civilchallenger


So you are suggesting I go with what YOU THINK it meant to people specifically in the 1700s instead of looking at the FACTS of over a century of seated presidents proving what you THINK incorrect?

I am having a little bit of trouble with that one.

reply to post by Signals


ok. Fake.

Originally posted by Signals

This could be fake or bombshell, you decide.

For such a highly skeptical group of folks, this post just makes me sad. The 04 near the top of the page reaches out and grabs you and basically calls attention to all the obvious fakery in it. It is not even a decent forgery. Why don't these people just make one from scratch, that is the real question.

reply to post by Signals


Why would you even post this? You mean to tell me anyone can just call up and tell a State a kid was born and that they are Hawaiian?

I can call TX and tell them my daughter just had a kid but she is in Kenya. It just doen't make any sense.

I mean really, a week ago you guys were saying Kenya wasn't even a country in 1961. I go back to basics. Even if he was illegal congress would never ever open that can of worms. So why are you guys wasting all this energy on something that will never ever happen?

Can you smell it?

The smell of Birther despiration?

The smell of con artists fueling Birther hysteria?

Now that the long form bc has been published the Birthers are scrambling for any port in the storm any subtly nuanced turn of phrase to maintain their belief.

Sorry OP, no stars and no flags.

This site is about denying ignorance(not to be confused with living in denial) and in every Birther thread, this one included every argument against Obama as a legit President have been torpedoed.

-Obama can't be President because he gave up his citizenship in Indonesia!-BOOM-wrong
-Obama won't show his long form BC because -insert conspiracy theory x here- BOOM -wrong
-Obama has no past!-BOOM-wrong

it just goes on and on and on.

It became tedious 50 threads ago.

HAHAHAHA, It is glaringly obvious that Obombya is not eligible to be president. Some people just can't handle that fact. How ironic is it that by him co sponsoring that resolution, he had dug his own grave! This issue really doesn't matter because tptb are happy with there little puppet, so good luck trying to get rid of this usurper. If he wins the next presidential election, I will know that it is rigged. Just like George W, he has an utter disregard for the constitution, and if anybody says otherwise they are completely delusional.

Originally posted by Helmkat

It became tedious 50 threads ago.

I still find the delusion level and/or the lack of intelligence of many birthers highly amusing.

You would THINK someone would try to conceal those things about themselves. But they are so torqued up about Obama is doesnt seem to occur to them to try.

Originally posted by ih8dogfarts
HAHAHAHA, It is glaringly obvious that Obombya is not eligible to be president. Some people just can't handle that fact.

OK, I have a question then. If it is so glaringly obvious that by virtue of who his father was, Obama is not eligible to be president - even as some assert as per the founding fathers - then how come none of you brought it up when he was running?

I mean it was common knowledge who his father was then. Wouldn't that have saved you a lot of time and trouble to just remind McCain that Obama's dad was British before the election?

Basically the premise being put forth relies on the competing "realities" where Republicans and Birthers are the only ones smart enough to know the truth but for some reason collectively kept it to themselves for about 2 years and instead worried about who his preacher was and whether or not he did gay things in college. Interesting insight this gives.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Good point! Yet they will vote for Mitt Romney even though his father was born in Mexico.

reply to post by civilchallenger


Too bad dude. Your guy didnt write the constitution. And amendments made to the constitution since its inception have clarified the word quite nicely too. So are you just being thick headed and pretending not to understand this?

Originally posted by civilchallenger
Here is the one and only data I have on what it meant in 1776 to be a natural born citizen: Source: www.lonang.com...
Emmerich de Vattel 1758

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

I will ask you Vattelists this question again:

By Vattel’s definition, the children of US servicemen and women, born abroad, can never be President. And the children, born in the United States, of naturalized immigrants, can.

Is this really the definition you support?

I more than welcome others to add their own historical quotes from the era so that the answer can be more solidified as to what "natual born" actually means in the context of the US constitution.

While some argue, especially the birthers, the Framers relied on Vattel’s definition, the Supreme Court ruled the common law principle is what applies in the United States.

That has been settled since, at least, 1898 (Wong Kim Ark), and has never been changed.

Originally posted by jude11

But now his parents? I find this is a very weak attack that is nothing but a 'Grasping at Straws' exercise.

IMO

This comment and the large number of members who gave you stars to indicate their agreement is further proof of what John Titor and others predict will come about in the USA; it explains why the Federalists are so busy putting in their control grid, gathering the riff raff of the country to swell their ranks and taking a long list of other steps to prepare, including the placement of this man Obama in office as a symbol and rallying beacon to that side of the coming conflict.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by ih8dogfarts
HAHAHAHA, It is glaringly obvious that Obombya is not eligible to be president. Some people just can't handle that fact.

OK, I have a question then. If it is so glaringly obvious that by virtue of who his father was, Obama is not eligible to be president - even as some assert as per the founding fathers - then how come none of you brought it up when he was running?

Because ATS thought they would be cool and have the Messiah here to visit before his election and promptly removed every negative thing said about him!!!!!

news.yahoo.com...

Seems like lying runs in the family. This is very recent and it does back up our claims.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by jude11
Where will the fake BC get to? Nowhere. Give it up and concentrate on what is possible.

Either demand his resignation or failing that, DON'T vote him in again!

That's how to get rid of him.

IMO

Here's the issue... If this man is not eligible to be president, every signature he signed in that capacity is now null and void. So are his orders to attack Libya. It makes a difference.

And this vid shows that by resolution (ironically that he himself signed) he isn't president.

Ding Ding Ding give this man a prize!!!!
It's Treason at the very least.
He has sent American men and women to die.
Taxs
Obama care.
List goes on.
The man is a here for one reason only to change America at its very core.
Would a true American want to fix something that has stood strong for all these years till he get sin office?
He is here to flat ruin america.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Also, this rabbit hole runs so deep do you remember Alan Keyes getting arrested for telling everyone at the convention that they just elected the Anti-Christ?

I seen it happen. Obama is a CIA plant and only a few brave Generals can unseat his ass now.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Civilchallenger
I don't appreciate the idea that if something was done wrong 35+ times it should be done wrong a 36th+ time that your simplified summary means.

I think that simplified summary is supporting evidence that nothing was done wrong, in fact.

I think if I'm given a list of things presidents have done, there is a good chance its going to be a list of crimes. So, I think that should be one's first suspicion when they see the list I was provided.

You brought up a lot of good points and I've quoted only the ones I have comments on, leaving out the ones I probably agree with completely.

The U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the precise meaning of the US Constitution (as the Constitution says).

The 14th Amendment was passed after the era of 1789, as well. After the 14th Amendment, it is settled law that anybody born inside the US is a US citizen from birth, i.e. "natural born" --- that he does not need to be "naturalized" to become a citizen.

The 14th amendment does not include the text "natural born" and so could not possibly be a grounds to consider who is and who is not natural born. If a judge has done so they must be mistaken.

And in any case, there is also a matter of legal standing, and I believe courts have ruled on this as well. If the candidate is ineligible to be President, who has standing to stop him legally?

Every US citizen has a right to a constitutionally elected president. So, every US citizen therefore has legal standing to sue Obama if he isn't a constitutionally elected president. Congress are (in theory) the lapdogs of the US public... they will sue when the American people tell them to... and in the way they tell them to do it (again, in theory, not in practice).

Now in an impeachment or court proceeding, what would the committee or court need to see? Actual evidence that Obama was not a natural born citizen---for example, clear evidence of a birth outside the USA stronger than the evidence that he is. There is no such legitimate evidence.

What evidence would they have to see? They would have to see evidence *harm* was caused (or will be caused) by Obama as a result of an unfair loyalty to Kenya or Indonesia. I doubt there is any. If there was, then combine that with his birth certificate listing "Kenya" and you have both damages and probable cause for any US citizen to pursue in court. And it would be fair to argue in court that his father's birthplace makes Obama a non-natural-born citizen because the word was used in that fashion during the late 1700's.

Of course the very most important question is not how would the Judges rule, but how SHOULD the judges rule? They should rule based on the most common use of the phrase "natural born" as it was used in the late 1700's. Therefore that is the most important issue for the legal question. And the follow-up question would then be: was Obama's father a citizen a the time of Obama's birth.

Originally posted by malcr
I'm from the UK even I know the difference between the following:

1, Born in the US
AND
2. Born to US citizens

versus

1.Born in the US
OR
2. Born to US citizens.

I think some of you birthers need to understand the difference between the words "OR" and "AND". McCain failed 1 but passed 2. Obama passes 1 but fails 2. In either case both are eligible because of the key word "OR".

It's called the English language !

You failed to comprehend the resolution and its purpose.

1. Born to U.S. citizens.
AND
2. Born in the U.S. -OR- Born on a U.S. military base.

If you read carefully, this resolution paid homage to those serving in the military who were born abroad on U.S. military bases which applied to John McCain. Because of this he did not need to be born on U.S. soil. Born to U.S. citizens was stated as an implied requirement.

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Because ATS thought they would be cool and have the Messiah here to visit before his election and promptly removed every negative thing said about him!!!!!

news.yahoo.com...

Seems like lying runs in the family. This is very recent and it does back up our claims.

Who is talking about "here on ATS?" I am talking about the real world where real people vote and real people had nothing better to talk about aside from Reverend Manning. It really scares me sometimes that people need to be reminded life happens away from your keyboard. I could care less if Obama owned ATS before the election.

Look, it aint gonna make a jot of difference whether or not Obama is an American by birth.
The constitution, law and any regulations mean nothing in America today.
Why waste time and energy flogging this long dead horse? It aint going anywhere.
Like the Govt and the courts are gonna turn round and say "oh you were right, Obama must step down"!
C`mon people/birthers wake up and smell the..........

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by civilchallenger

 

So you are suggesting I go with what YOU THINK it meant to people specifically in the 1700s instead of looking at the FACTS of over a century of seated presidents proving what you THINK incorrect?

I am having a little bit of trouble with that one.

I'm suggesting that the constitution means what its words meant in 1776. And I'm suggesting what its words meant depend on what people said that they meant in 1776. You get so worked up about an issue when you don't even know what the phrase even meant in 1776 when it was written. Find out to what degree you can. The constitution constitution means whatever it says. And whatever it says can be determined by figuring out what all of its words meant in 1776 to the best of our knowledge.

To the best of my knowledge, the word "natural born" citizen was used in 1776 to mean "parents who were both citizens of the same country of their infants birth". People who argue with me say I shouldn't be allowed to define the word. Well, if I were to defining the word, I would define "natural born" as a life form who has hatched or been ejected from a womb in a common way. So if it were up to my definition, I'd say the guy was natural born.

But it doesn't matter what I THINK, it matters what people in the late 1700's meant when they wrote down the constitution. Does that make sense?