Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court dismisses 2nd Obama citizenship challenge

Posted on 12/15/2008 3:17:55 PM PST by jetxnet

It seems Obama will become President no matter what .. the people have no say anymore.

Now, we have a guy who is likely an illegal alien with access to the highest levels of the government, security clearances etc.

It's ironic how Russia is sending warships to Cuba today. They threatened to send Nuclear bombers to Cuba during Obama's "New World Order" speech in Germany.

All we wanted was the dam birth certificate .. hell, we have to provide that for things much less important.

So, can I put up a copy of vehicle Titles and birth certificates online now? So if I need it, I can just give them my "fight the smears" URL and call it good?

If it isn't required for POTUS, then why should it be for anything we do as citizens?

TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: jetxnet
Wow this Obama guy is a freaking genius, what a web, state government's, the executive of the US, the SCOTUS. He must be brilliant
41 posted on 12/15/2008 4:36:08 PM PST by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Obama had lots of help, this should be obvious. The MSM, George Soros etc.

The election was bought with nearly 300 million in foreign illegal donations .. none of which will be audited.

Don’t be so impressionable.

42 posted on 12/15/2008 4:39:46 PM PST by jetxnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jetxnet
Which Presidential candidates have shown their birth certificates in previous elections? Who did they show them to? Who decided the birth certificates they supposedly showed weren't forgeries?

I'm not aware of any presidential candidate ever being asked to produce a birth certificate, and I'm certainly not aware of random anonymous internet "experts" then declaring said birth certificate a forgery.

I also remain unaware of any state that actually hands out original birth certificates, as opposed to official copies and the like, since doing so would ensure that the STATE no longer had record of your birth, but, hey, anonymous internet experts know everything.

43 posted on 12/15/2008 4:41:15 PM PST by kenboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kenboy
Which Presidential candidates have shown their birth certificates in previous elections? Who did they show them to? Try the State Department.
44 posted on 12/15/2008 4:42:51 PM PST by jetxnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mcshot

You said — “I don’t see the eligibility requirement ever meaning anything anymore as the precedent is set.”

Well, actually, no precedent has been set, in regards to the requirement. It may seem a bit odd, but the fact that “nothing is known” about whether Obama meets the requirement (set forth in the Constitution) and that others say that he *has met* the requirements — mean — that nothing has changed in the Constitution.

You see..., it’s just that you *suspect* that he doesn’t meet the requirements. Nothing is really *known* about it — and that fact (that it’s not really *known*) provides the “out” that leaves the Constitution *intact*.

On the other hand — if it were *known* exactly and “for sure” that he did violate the Constitution, then you could say that, obviously, people and institutions would not enforce the requirement of the Constitution. That’s not been the case (i.e., that it is “known”). If it were known to be sure, beyond any suspicion, then you could question the viability of the Constitution. But, again, that’s not the case, here.

If a crook violates the law, in secret, and no one knows about it, that doesn’t mean that everyone around the crook approves of it. However, if it is plainly known that a crook violates the law (very plain and apparent) and they all approve — then everyone around the crook is complicit in the matter and is participating in the crook’s crime.

There may be a *limited number* of people who do know that Obama is committing a crime, but that’s not the general public and neither is it you or I. We simply don’t know and that’s the problem.

So, what we need to do is solve the problem of “not knowing” for anyone else that comes up in the future...

And then you said — “Perhaps the rest of the Constitution will soon nosedive like our once proud dollar.”

You’re over-reacting on the matter. The Constitution is still as viable today as it was before Obama was elected. It’s still up to us to ensure that it continues to be as viable as it’s been. All we need to do in this particular issue is to make sure some state laws are passed to vet a candidate before they can be put on the ballot. Pass those laws and everything will be just as normal as it was before (in regards to this particular issue).

As far as Obama is concerned..., just forget about the bum and concentrate on what we can do to make sure it doesn’t happen with another candidate...

45 posted on 12/15/2008 4:46:18 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jetxnet
Which prior candidate showed a birth certificate to "the State Department?" I can't seem to find any news articles about John Kerry, Al Gore, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter arriving at "the State Department" to present their papers.

Do I need to look back beyond that for the last time it happened?

Did every single State Department employee witness the presentation of documents? Was it just the Secretary of State who received the formal papers from each candidate? Perhaps a deputy? Is it a civil servant who looks over and approves the form, or a political appointee? If the candidate disagrees with the State Department's assessment of the validity of his papers, is there an appeals process?

Did the candidates need to show their parents birth certificates as well, you know, to ensure they were natural born citizens? Or is that a new requirement?

Please, do tell me more about this procedure. I'm fascinated by this untold story of American politics.

46 posted on 12/15/2008 4:48:33 PM PST by kenboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jetxnet

Do you know someone who could answer this question?

Leo’s and Cort’s cases were listed as pending by SCOTUS when their “stays” were denied (12/8, 12/15). I see no listed denials of Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus for these pending cases. Does this mean the Writ of Certioran or Mandamus are included in their “stays” and since their stays were denied, their Writ of Certioran of Mandamus were also denied but just not listed as denied?

47 posted on 12/15/2008 4:49:04 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kenboy

Every Candidate has that was questioned .. they have to if questionable. In fact, there was on on the ballot this year .. do not remember his name that was required to show proof of natural-born citizenship but turns out he was from Nicaragua.

He was removed from the ballot.

If there the Candidate’s citizenship is questionable, he will be asked to provide the Certificate of Birth as was in the case of John McCain. John McCain show proof of his citizenship right away and it wasn’t some forged COLB as was in the Obama case.

When requested, the documents are submitted to the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the Department of State (DOS).

Obama has failed to do so. He will only show an image of a supposedly existing certificate.

You’re grasping at straws .. bottom line, Obama has not shown any real proof. Other Candidates in question have.

A doctored up Photoshop image doesn’t count.

48 posted on 12/15/2008 4:59:39 PM PST by jetxnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

I’m not sure about this .. maybe Donofrio’s Blog would give more indication to this.

In any case, once the Electoral College votes Obama in, it’s a done deal.

Impeachment is highly unlikely.

49 posted on 12/15/2008 5:00:42 PM PST by jetxnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jetxnet

Yes, the EC did vote today. But their votes are secret even though it is expected they voted for Obama. Obama is not officially President-elect until the votes are counted by Congress and VP Cheney and the total certified. That will happen on January 8th. Then Obama would be President-elect until being sworn in at noon on January 20th.

We have a Chicago crime investigtion going on and there are more cases pending and headed to the SCOTUS. A lot can happen between now and January 20th! :)

50 posted on 12/15/2008 5:09:57 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Yeah, that’s true. Allot is happening already.

You sure begin to lose faith though when things come out and are hushed up and the trail stops cold as in someone changing their story etc.

How long can this corruption go on? We are only at the tip of the Iceberg.

The more that is revealed the better.

51 posted on 12/15/2008 5:13:50 PM PST by jetxnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: jetxnet
and 66 million votes Don't be so naive
52 posted on 12/15/2008 5:20:08 PM PST by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob

Yes, 96% of the Black population and others through major ACORN voting fraud.

I suppose Al Franken will magically win on the similar gournds after 4 or more recounts - while discovering more and more statistically impossible votes each time until the number surpasses his opponent.


53 posted on 12/15/2008 5:38:25 PM PST by jetxnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: jetxnet
The black population represents what 18% of the electorate and what% of the total voted.

Go back to "charming the girlz"

54 posted on 12/15/2008 5:50:32 PM PST by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Russ
It bothers me too, and something else that bothers me ...a lot of the actions the current administration has times it almost seemed they were nudging the Dem. to win....meanwhile , you can't tell me McCain was the best that the Republican Committee could find.....there's a heck of a lot of questionable actions on the part of BOTH parties....I am registered Rep. , voted twice for Pres.Bush...I wish I could register CONSERVATIVE, as that's what I am....however, in order to vote primaries in my state, you have to register either Dem. or Rep.

I'm sorry to say, I think we've lost control of the voting process some time ago...I think everything, the two candidates, the winner, the financial nightmare.....all planned to a T...all meant to turn our country totally Socialist/ be run by a dictator....and don't we just have the perfect guy standing in the wings to assume that role?
And the H### with the Constitution..

55 posted on 12/15/2008 6:51:21 PM PST by Molly T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 6SJ7

If it were to take out congress, the senate, the supremes and a passel of govt. workers it may be a fair trade.

56 posted on 12/16/2008 4:30:08 AM PST by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson