Your choice is clear
Help keep Free Republic's lights on
Give once
Or donate monthly and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today
Posted on 04/19/2011 9:32:44 PM PDT by big bad easter bunny
It's funny how all this dialog is going in the MSM, how they consistently obfuscate the real question; why does Obama go to such great lengths to hide all of his past. Not just his BC but everything the man has done he has gone to great lengths to keep hidden from everyone.
We are all sending out our resumes telling all how great our achievements are, our current president hides it all. That's the story! A man scared to death the public will see him for who he really is, which is not the super star story he has told. Liar liar pants on fire!
What did “Toot” know and when did she know it.
You’ve got 47% of the people who don’t want it seen.
You are being kind...Obama is a POS.
There does not seem to be any precedence of presidents showing their BC prior to taking the Oath of Office.
Perhaps the Chief Justice or whomever delivers the Oath of Office to a newly elected president could ask.
For that matter, the members of the Electoral College cold ask prior to the Electoral College election.
Or the sitting Vice President could ask as could any member of Congress prior to certifying the results of the election.
But they don’t and never have.
And there is no law stopping them.
“You’ve got 47% of the people who don’t want it seen.
_______________________________________________________
That explains why America is in the last days.
The Peter Principle has caught up with the USA.
I do not see ever returning to the states.
You’ve got 47% of the people who don’t want it seen.
Well, anybody that hires a manager to run their bussiness without checking his resumee, gets what they deserve,
pig in a poke so to speak
Caveat emtor and all that
Obama could conceivably humiliate birthers by producing the definitive birth certificate. However...
47% of people obviously don’t give a dammmm about constitutional eligibility requirement.
Classic non sequitur. The problem here is that a lot of us didn't hire him, but have to live under his conditions anyway. Obobo is just plain bad for the US and what it stands for. He's lied from day one, and the MSM lets him get away with it. Have you noticed: No jewelry lately. It couldn't be because Muslims are not allowed to wear jewelry during Ramadan, could it? Of course not...he says he's a Christian. Yeah...right.
No...he's been given a free pass by the MSM which no longer does its job, yet they wonder why their circulation is in decline. Personally, I did not get what I deserve.
Respect your enemy. Sure, don’t trust him or show him any mercy much less invite him over for tea. But be able to see the world through his eyes and don’t underestimate him.
...and even if it’s being charitable to call Obama a “stuffed shirt” (can’t stand those people), he has an army of toadies working for him.
“Have you noticed: No jewelry lately. It couldn’t be because Muslims are not allowed to wear jewelry during Ramadan, could it?”
If it were Ramadan, perhaps..
Personally, I did not get what I deserve.
Did you vote for George W. Bush?
I didn’t vote for him. How is that caveat emptor?
They couldn’t spell it. Or pronounce it. With a teleprompter.
“I understand the principle. That’s not what’s happened.”
____________________________________________________
Well, it IS happening.
The idiots will soon be the majority.
No doubt. There is no stopping it now. The obligatory tattoo now rules. What morons.
True. Once the electoral college votes and the House certifies the ballot, done is done. The secrecy of his background though? In a day and time where we are subjected to the closest scrutiny from job apps etc you would think the President would lead the way. His finger is still on the button, he is responsible for initial threat response of our troops and he is only 1 American who should be an example perhaps eh?
http://www.freerepublic.com/~twoswords/nder
Actually, an election is like hiring somebody, the candidate is applying for the job, and all the voters are scrutineers of the applicant, but under our system the plurality decide, and sometime the wrong guy gets the nod,
hope for better judgement next year
The problem here is that a lot of us didn’t hire him
That may be true, but under our system the plurality gets to select the winner, otherwise,I agree with all you said,
I was just beeing a little sarcastic, couldent help myself, get this way sometome, anyway, hope for better judgement from the electorate next year
“True. Once the electoral college votes and the House certifies the ballot, done is done”
It is not like in December of 2008 and January of 2009 that the BC issue had not been raised.
Any member of the Electoral College could have said, “Hey, wait a minute. Let’s take a look at Obama’s BC.”
Any member of Congress could have stood up during or before certification and said, “Let’s see the BC!”
Dick Cheney who presided over the Congressional certification could have stood up there and said, “I’m Dick Cheney and I don’t give an F what people think of me! Show me the BC!
John Roberts could have said “I know the Constitution and I am not going the swear him in until I see the BC.”
Saudi Arabia would agree with many deragotary comments about Obambi
http://terrornewsbriefs.blogspot.com/2011/04/saudi-arabia-bahrein-oman-kuwait-part.html
BTW - in case you missed it:
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2011/04/breaking-news-iran.html
At this point even liberal talking heads would ask him "Why in the heck didn't you show it before? Do you consider the country a joke you can play games with?"
>>>There does not seem to be any precedence of presidents showing their BC prior to taking the Oath of Office.<<<
DD Eisenhower had to provide documents regarding his birth. So did McCain, because of Dems saying he was not born under US jurisdiction.
Isn’t the SoS of each State is normally required to attest that each candidate on the ballot is eligible? Also, the Speaker of the US House has to sign-off on the eligibility and Nancy Pelosi did that for Obama without any proof being presented.
Maybe this marxist punk was born in America.
BUT there has got to be some crappola in his past or he wouldn’t have spent a few million keeping all his past a secret.
Personally I think he is dirty as hell.
Read the Sundowner blog article the other day on Zero’s past. There is some conjecture but it makes a lot of sense.
I don’t hold out too much hope for next year. I mean in the last election people didn’t even care that he had CLOSE ties with a member of the weather underground. These are evil people who planned to kill innocent young soldiers attending a dance. Now he is (or pretends to be) the CIC.
I meant if anyone noticed he wasn’t wearing any during Ramadan. Yep, I voted for Bush both times. I think one of his biggest mistakes was not using the veto more.
POS?
Possession Of Satan?
It's not like we didn't demand to see it way back when.
Since day one it’s been not yet:
Not yet, he hasn’t won the primaries.
Not yet, he hasn’t been formally nominated by his party.
Not yet, he hasn’t been popularly elected.
Not yet, the Electoral Collage hasn’t selected him.
Not yet, Congress hasn’t accepted the Electoral Collage’s vote.
Not yet, he hasn’t been sworn in.
Not now, it’s too late.
No it isn’t.
Eisenhower.
... the Deseret News and Telegram, Fairclough forwarded us a United Press wire article from the Oct. 2, 1952 edition he thought we would find interesting.obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.comThe article appeared on page 6A with a dateline of Sherman, Texas. It was headlined: "General's birth certificate officially filed," and stated, "A certificate recording Dwight Eisenhower's birth in Denison on Oct. 14, 1890, was filed Wednesday [Oct. 1, 1952] in the Grayson County Clerk's office.
IIRC, Alan Keyes birther lawsuit fit this description.
www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/26/appellate-court-dismisses-birther-lawsuit
Suit filed after November 2008 popular election, before electoral ballots were counted before a joint session of Congress.
They are now, and the founders knew and debated the risks inherent in a wide-open granting of the privilege of voting. Notice the constitution does not contain a "right to vote." It says that whatever the criteria are, they must be applied equally to all citizens.
I think a "Welfare or vote, pick one or the other" would work wonders. Narrowly define "welfare" as receipt of SSD, AFDC, FoodStamps.
The classic game of pass the buck. Good points, all, and all of the players were/are derelict in discharging their duty to uphold the constitution.
If the zer0 one is so great a man, why is he hiding the fact that he is great?????????? Inquiring minds want to know how great this evil man is???? Let the records show.
Isn't that roughly the same percentage of people who are government dependents of one sort or another?
That would mean all the elderly who are collecting SS would not be able to vote?
Because the truth is more damaging than simply being caught telling lies.
No. By "SSD" I meant just "Social Security Disability," not the retirement payouts.
I think "Welfare or vote" is pretty clear in the main, although there are probably some government payouts where the label "welfare" is arguable.
Thanks for the ping!
Yes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.