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

reply to post by hellobruce


The racist crap is as old as the birther crap.....enough...you should be ashamed.


He stinks as a president....period.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by hellobruce

 

The racist crap is as old as the birther crap.....enough...you should be ashamed.


He stinks as a president....period.

I have to agree. These tools are getting very old and to pull them out makes it obvious that is the only ammo they posses. I think the name calling and accusatory race card should warrant an automatic 1 month post banned!

Well, it seems that 9 of our past presidents were not Natural Born Citizens. (Like, duh-- of course George Washington's parents weren't citizens of the USA when he was born... There was no "USA" back then!) Such is the case for the 1st 7 presidents, and also the 9th. They were 'grandfathered in' as they say.

But check out #21-- Chester A. Arthur... the lying scoundrel!!!

1. George WASHINGTON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -
was born on 22 Feb 1732 in VA.
2. John ADAMS – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -
was born on 30 Oct 1735 in MA.
3. Thomas JEFFERSON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -
was born on 13 Apr 1743 in VA.
4. James MADISON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -
was born on 16 Mar 1751 in VA.
5. James MONROE – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -
was born in 1758 in VA.
6. John Quincy ADAMS – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC)
- was born in 1767 in MA.
7. Andrew JACKSON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -
was born in 1767 in Carolinas.
8. Martin VAN BUREN - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1782 in NY. This was the firstPresident qualified under the NBC clause. He was born in the USA to two Citizen parents. His parentswere original Citizens who gained their citizenship by adhering to the Revolution in 1776.
9. William Henry HARRISON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) -
was born in 1773 in VA.
10. John TYLER - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born
- was born in 1790 in VA.11.
James K. POLK - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1795 in NC.12.
Zachary TAYLOR - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1784 in VA.13.
Millard FILLMORE - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1800 in NY.14.
Franklin PIERCE - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1804 in NY.15.
James BUCHANAN - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1791 in PA.
16. Abraham LINCOLN - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1809 in KY.
17. Andrew JOHNSON – Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1808 in NC.
18. Ulysses S. GRANT - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1822 in OH.
19. Rutherford B. HAYES - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1822 in OH.
20. James GARFIELD - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born -
was born in 1831 in OH.
21. Chester A. ARTHUR - Not an NBC or original Citizen . He was NOT an Article II NBC since he was born before father'snaturalization. Seated due to assassination of President Garfield. But based on the facts uncoveredin later history, he was unconstitutionally seated due to the falsified nativity story and fraud byChester Arthur which was not fully discovered and proven until long after his death. He burned allhis early family records to cover up his lies and fraud. He was born circa 1829, allegedly in VT.
www.scribd.com...

edit on 11/3/2012 by new_here because: (no reason given)

The whole basis of your argument is wrong.

For obama to not be eligible to be president, his mom (a natural born citezen), would have had to smuggle baby obama out of the country and then smuggle him back in and then forge multiple documents and then get dozens of people to lie. Also Even if that did happen, his mother must not have been a citizen either beacuse under US law, if jut the mother is a US citizen the child is then a citizen, assuming that she lived her for a period of time before the child was born then brought the child back.

Thats a huge thing to fake. Sorry birthers.

Originally posted by MagnificentTongue
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.

Hi Magnificent Tongue,


I am afraid that your last sentence shall fall on deaf ears, given that anyone who can stand on a soap box does so in the forums. That's the breaks... Regarding your question, here is what I expect would be the likeliest utility for a power group already dominant enough to dictate to us who might be our candidates.


My thought about this is that at any time, when the opportunity strikes, a Military take-over Coup can hence more easily be perpetrated by Pentagon officials associated with UN pseudo-diplomatic Political Hitmen. They can impeach the USURPER and lock him down for High Treason, and then demand to disband the entire government allegedly to "Clean it up" pretending to be doing so to defend the Constitution while deeply betraying it in the most fatal way - turning the US Government into a Military Dictatorship. IMHO.


Getsmart

Originally posted by Getsmart
They can impeach the USURPER and lock him down for High Treason, and then demand to disband the entire government

Too bad Obama is not a usurper, but the legal president. So your theory fails.

Excuse me, people. I'm not going to keep tossing pearls to swine, but in this instance, I think it may help.

First off, you're wrong if you think x,y, & z HAD to occur the way you've structured it in your mind - or more likely, the way someone structured it for you, seeing as how you're incapable of complex thought.

Second, the list of other non-nbc presidents is pretty accurate. The problem with even using that as an argument can be found in the same sentence as the nbc requirement in the Constitution. There was an exception made for those living in the US at the time of the signing of the Constitution, that although they were not natural born citizens, they would be considered eligible to run for and become president. If they had made no exception, we wouldn't have had a president for at least 36 years from the time of the signing on.

Third, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, racism is a SERIOUS ISSUE. You children need to understand that. I don't know how a differing definition of natural born citizen, differing opinions (observations, really) about the (in)validity of Obama's paperwork and bio, or criticism of the president and his policies in general, can ever be called RACIST. People that say that kind of crap look ridiculous to the people with brains. What you are doing is TERRIBLE, not just for the person you casually toss the term at, but to race relations as well. It is IMPORTANT that the terms "racist" and "racism" KEEP THEIR STIGMA. What you are doing is making a mockery of the word and greatly decreasing the weight behind its meaning. People like you INCONSIDERATE JUVENILES are turning the event of being called a racist INTO A JOKE. It is supposed to be a POWERFUL word, a NEGATIVE word, but you have essentially informed us that one who accuses another of being a racist, is one with no intellect and no arguments other than unintelligent, half-assed social bullying, without regard to the groups that the terms and stigma essentially help. You have set back race relations by abusing the word. If you're going to post on this thread, try to be logical, and try not to be an inconsiderate, uncompassionate ass. Bonus points: Stick to what I asked from ats members. ASSUME what I'm saying is true. Work it out in your heads...I know it's kind of tough if you haven't graduated middle school yet and probably don't know how to employ any form of advanced thinking, but...allow it to be true in your minds long enough to come up with some ideas, some explanations for why this is happening. Who will profit? What might their next steps be? Who are "they", how are "they" pulling this off, and what's the purpose of doing it THIS way - with importance placed specifically on having ineligible candidates and illegitimate/non presidents - and not accomplishing their goals some other way? Understand? I just want you to think for a little bit.


Lastly, thank you to all of you who have been helping me think this thing out, which is what this thread is all about. I've learned a lot already from some of your thoughts, and am going to go deeper down the rabbit hole, vetting some of your thoughts and information to see what I can find. It is much appreciated. I've already glanced at some info related to your opinions, and I can't believe how credible some of this intel seems to be. I'll get back to you as soon as I can to let you know what way I'm leaning, after having done a bit more homework. Thanks again!

Originally posted by schuyler

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.

That is not completely accurate.

The law/rule - - whatever - - that guarantees Natural Born to children born to active American military parents off shore - - - was enacted AFTER McCain was born.

McCain was not eligible - - until a hearing (official get together) was held and approved him retroactively to qualify as Natural Born. I believe Obama was one of the signers.

reply to post by Annee


You are wrong on that:

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". (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S., ed. Bioren & Duane (1815) 82 at 83.) This act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which did not mention the phrase natural born citizen. [edit]

www.indiana.edu...

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Annee

 

You are wrong on that:

Read ATS threads (there are other threads - same subject)

MCCain is not a Natural born U.S. Citizen.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

John McCain is not a US Citizen!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Annee


I don't care about the other threads....I read the law......


If you went on vacation and happened to give birth in the country you were visiting, is your kid a citizen? Yes.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Annee

 

I don't care about the other threads....I read the law......

I guarantee you McCain had to have a special hearing (whatever) regarding his eligibility.

He was not legally a Natural Born Citizen by birth - - by the date he was born.

reply to post by Annee


The law from 1937 was retroactive to children born of American parents in the Canal Zone from 1904 on.

He was not born before 1904.

The senate passed a resolution (not a legal hearing).

And if you want to get into the resolution, it kind of shines a bad light on Obama. Because they said McCain was natural born because he was born of (American citizen"s"). We all know Obamas father was never a citizen. Problem is even the government doesn't know who is able to challenge or bring suit, it is easier to dismiss and put down those who question.

1 Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

www.opencongress.org...

It is a conditioning to help make people willing to accept Arnold Schwarzenegger, once they try to install him into the presidency.

So are birthers now going to transition to this argument rather than the old born in Kenya thing? If so, thats fine. Either way, its going to fall flat, as it should.

Until such time as the Supreme Court decides to take on the issue of natural born citizenship, the interpretation of the lower courts stands. And I dont really see the SCOTUS taking on this issue any time soon.

So complain all you want, attempt to cite laws of the land all you want, but it has already been taken to decisions in lower courts, multiple times. Good luck with your crusade.

Originally posted by MagnificentTongue
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.

If you are a person that can accept that the elites are Satanists and are bent on fulfilling Biblical prophecies, then here is your answer:

Jeremiah 5

14 Therefore this is what the Lord God Almighty says: “Because the people have spoken these words, I will make my words in your mouth a fire and these people the wood it consumes.

15 People of Israel,” declares the Lord, “I am bringing a distant nation against you— an ancient and enduring nation, a people whose language you do not know, whose speech you do not understand.

16 Their quivers are like an open grave; all of them are mighty warriors.

17 They will devour your harvests and food, devour your sons and daughters; they will devour your flocks and herds, devour your vines and fig trees. With the sword they will destroy the fortified cities in which you trust.

18 “Yet even in those days,” declares the Lord, “I will not destroy you completely.

19 And when the people ask, ‘Why has the Lord our God done all this to us?’ you will tell them, ‘As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your own land, so now you will serve foreigners in a land not your own.’

Jeremiah is talking about God's Judgment at Babylon/ Jerusalem. To fulfill the prophecies, the US functions as the Christian version of Israel. Since the antichrist has to sit in the temple and be worshipped as God, in the Christian fulfillment this is meant as a dictator over the body of Christians (5 months after 12-21-12, the 5 months of Trumpet 5, is 5-21-13. Add 1260 days, 42 months of AC to get 11-1-16, the 1st Tues of Nov/ election day. After the US is taken over by the UN, there is a movement to take the country back and reinstitute the Constitution). In the Jewish fulfillment, the AC sits in the 3rd Temple (coming our way 2016, calling himself god in 2023).

So, the verse is talking about Christian Israel/ Babylon being destroyed (12-21-12), the mortal head wound heals, and then the Chinese lenders buy up the country only to be ousted in 2016.

Originally posted by hellobruce
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.

There is little to add to this. Still beats why some people engage in what you aptly describe as "silly".