Obama's hidden birth certificate now exposed

reply to post by bknapple32


Don't think this is a new prob on ATS.

I remember seeing a truther advocating the violent murder of anyone that claimed the OS was true... And that statement was on ATS for days. Could still be. I also see Ron Paul supporters agitate for the end of US democracy, and no one blinks.

ATS is good in many ways, but the level of discourse is not great. Lies are often accepted as fact and personal attacks are often tolerated if they come from a certain ideological position.

Yea I suppose youre right. I just get flabbergasted when I see posts that go off topic but remain civil, but people can call for the murder of a president or tell someone to " eat a dick" and nothing happens.


Edit to add that this will probably get removed simply because i quoted another poster's usage of "eat a dick" or ironically this was too off topic.

Great thread.

But the question is, if it is found to be true by an authority within the government, what will happen to everything he has done during this time?

Naturally, the entire presidentcy would be null & void. That would be entirely disabling for the government.
That is why we will never have the "truth" on this subject.

He who controls the past, controls the future; and he who controls the present, controls the past.

reply to post by bknapple32


Hahaha... Here's one... I posted the exact same thing, copied and pasted it even, twice in a thread. The first one was removed, the second was left up.

Still there weeks later.

So...

reply to post by JaegerAce


The entire thread is based on a debunked hoax, a lie, created by the birthers.

So, in fact, your congratulating liars, for lying, because you agree with their ideology.

Deny ignorance. Or, you know, engage in partisan lying.

Originally posted by JaegerAce
Great thread.

But the question is, if it is found to be true by an authority within the government, what will happen to everything he has done during this time?

Naturally, the entire presidentcy would be null & void. That would be entirely disabling for the government.
That is why we will never have the "truth" on this subject.

He who controls the past, controls the future; and he who controls the present, controls the past.

Not that I want to play this game because its moot because the thread is based on a hoax. But I would imagine it would be like a judge recusing himself from a trial. The verdict isnt removed, a new judge would have to come in a reverse the old decision. So in this case the new president would have to work within the law to change what had happened.

Again moot point because this is a hoax

reply to post by bknapple32


I agree with you there. Funny how that works isn't it.

I often notice the bias in the way that posts get treated by both the mods and members.

It seems it's ok to be ignorant as long as you go along with the mob mentality.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012

 

You have a great misunderstanding of the law. The bottom line is...his father was not a citizen....which may make him a us citizen via his mother, but not eligible for the presidency.

Then the law should change. At the end of the day, he is American. That makes him eligible. If Bruce Lee was alive, he should be eligible.

Spend your life for your country, then its yours.

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by bknapple32

 

It seems it's ok to be ignorant as long as you go along with the mob mentality.

Ding, ding, ding!

reply to post by JaegerAce

Great thread.

But the question is, if it is found to be true by an authority within the government, what will happen to everything he has done during this time?

Naturally, the entire presidentcy would be null & void. That would be entirely disabling for the government.
That is why we will never have the "truth" on this subject.

OK, this is incorrect. His presidency would not be null and void. If this birth certificate is legitimate it does not make him ineligible to be POTUS. If Obama was born in Kenya he is still eligible to be President because he is still considered a natural born citizen because his Mother is a citizen. I thought we cleared this up already.

There would still be an issue which might be an impeachable offense if he falsified documents. But as far as his eligibility to be POTUS there is no question that where he was born makes no difference to him being a natural born citizen.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012

You have a great misunderstanding of the law. The bottom line is...his father was not a citizen....which may make him a us citizen via his mother, but not eligible for the presidency.

Don't believe a word of this. This is an entirely false statement.

I will outline it once again. There are 3 points of criteria which must be met to be eligible to be POTUS

en.wikipedia.org...

Eligibility

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:

1)be a natural born citizen of the United States;[62]

2)be at least thirty-five years old;

3)have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

The only item in question is # 1 Natural born citizenship

en.wikipedia.org...

The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirementsp/b]

Naturalization Act of 1790 The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens"

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Our back forth here made me think of writing a new thread. Check out the gen consp. forum...

On topic... Dont people who back the birther movement find it odd that the people " they " elected havent done a thing about it, much less run on this concept in the 2012 election?

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by JaegerAce

 

Naturalization Act of 1790 The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens"

edit on 26-2-2012 by ThirdRock69 because: (no reason given)

Honestly, I have never really researched this topic, and I did not know of the Naturalization Act of 1790. But so long as no law has been created in the past 222 years to change it, than you are right.

I knew that a child born of at least one parent that is a US citizen, and that parent must have lived in the US for 5 years after the age of 14 will be granted US citizenship. But I did not know it was considered "natural born". I thought both parents must be american for that title.

Thank you.

reply to post by JaegerAce


No.

In the case of being born on US soil neither parent has to be a citizen.

It's based on the legal idea that our citizenship comes from, "the soil".

reply to post by JaegerAce


The same issue for Obama popped up with McCain as well. He was born in the Panama Canal zone as his father was in the military. Since his parents were US citizens, so makes McCain.

Also, for people who are born in a foreign country where there parents are not citizens - IE Dad and Mom (Americans) visit say France and mom goes into labor in Paris. The child, under US law, has until their 18th birthday to decide which nationality they want to stick with.

Some countries allow dual citizenship, some do not.

I just wish they would get this crap over with. Show the records, for ALL members of government where there is a requirement clause to hold the position and move on.

reply to post by Xcathdra


In the case of Obama the document was shown and the state officials that produced it verified it's legitimacy.

But that matters little to those who are cool with lying and slandering a President.

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by blueorder

 

Anyone who is calling for execution of Obama should be demonized.

Are you freaking kidding me?

It's worse than racism. It's calling for completely unjustified murder.

You are moving off on another tangent now- I am not defending execution calls I am saying how the hell can you crowbar the race card into it unless he had said "I only support the execution of black people".


If fraud has occurred I pesonally wouldn't support execution, just imprisonment

You should be ashamed.

of highlighting a dodgy bit of race card playing, please, spare me the outrage

i wonder if hes going to break some necks about the koran burning since we know who he really is, might get the turban out aswell

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


don't get too precious about it ffs, how do you think someone gets to become President, by always playing fair and never smearing their opponents, do me a favour- wish people would stop fawning over their leaders like serfs

What I dont get was this. Did the doctors and staff of the hospital, and the people in the newspaper who announced his birth... ALL planning on making a baby named barack obama president 40 years in advance??? Because thats what would need to have happened for this to be a legit conspiracy.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


That's because a democracy sucks. It's the ruled by the majority and suppresses the minority. What we want is something like a quasi-republic where even the minority is represented.