Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Got Served
American Thinker ^ | February 1, 2012 | Cindy Simpson

Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven

[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.

Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.

The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.

Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: 2012; 2012election; abovethelaw; areyoubeingserved; ballot; bho44; bhocorruption; bhofascism; birthcertificate; blog; bloggersandpersonal; braking; certifigate; constitution; contempt; contemptofcourt; corruption; democrats; election; election2012; elections; fraud; georgia; imom; impeach; lawless; liberalfascism; naturalborncitizen; naturalized; nobama; nobama2012; nonserviam; obama; scofflaw; snot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 651-693 next last
To: Sallyven
Good evening.

Let's see, if I neglected a judges ruling, or violated an order, you would see my face on the blotter tomorrow.

Emperors, dictators and such on the other hand, view these lower court rulings as frivolous. Annoying little things that drones or lower bureaucrats should handle. Definetly not to be bothered with by the annointed.

Societies quickly deteriorate when the upper, governing class, think the law no longer applies to them.

Jefferson was right about the liberty tree. The watering is long overdue.

5.56mm

501 posted on 02/02/2012 6:32:18 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
That said, a state court does have power. Obama's lawyer may be sanctioned for failing to appear, and he was already warned that he and his client face peril--not merely sanction, but loss of the case.

Federal court seems to be a different matter, as you pointed out. I recall that Clinton made a feeble protest against testifying--now that I think about it, I seem to recall him appealing the adverse ruling, unsuccessfully. If I remember correctly, it was the Supreme Court that ultimately ruled--but I probably am wrong--and I even seem to recall Tony Scalia deriding Clinton's argument, either in the opinion itself or during oral arguments.

And I can see why the difference exists between federal and state courts. Federal courts are on a par, the same level, with the President as a co-equal branch of government, giving them standing a state court can never have.

502 posted on 02/02/2012 6:32:56 PM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God IS, and (2) God IS GOOD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm

in the end, history will prove that i am right


503 posted on 02/02/2012 6:48:20 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
in the end, history will prove that i am right

Then why are you here making a fool of yourself? You are either right, or you are not. What either we or you post here cannot change that.

Troll much?

504 posted on 02/02/2012 6:53:37 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I need to prove nothing else than I have because the Constitution proves it for me.

Your argument would result in a redundant coordinating conjunction in Article II.

But I would not expect you to understand what a redundant coordinating conjunction is because you obviously failed grammar as a child.


505 posted on 02/02/2012 7:11:46 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

This link will take you directly to the quote by Farrar, for what it’s worth

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/01/27/some-cold-water-on-overheated-birther-mania/?cp=16#comment-850752


506 posted on 02/02/2012 7:18:51 PM PST by Fractal Trader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

this would be a good time to donate & help FR
click the pic - thank you!

507 posted on 02/02/2012 7:22:23 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Photobucket
508 posted on 02/02/2012 7:22:50 PM PST by IrishPennant (Did Adam and Eve have belly-buttons? I'm jes' askin'...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader; Obama Exposer

yes, I saw that...but that’s NOT what Obama Exposer wrote, so it’s obviously NOT the source of the comment.


509 posted on 02/02/2012 7:39:09 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Oh DUH!!! I am studying chemistry WAY too hard...

Thank you Phil.


510 posted on 02/02/2012 8:19:18 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: devattel

Nonsense.
You decided what you wanted, you ignored all legal rules to the contrary, you ignored the process of law in this country, you do not state English grammar in any way that supports your case, and you are WRONG!


511 posted on 02/02/2012 8:24:09 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
I would prefer that the liberals not have STUPIDITY ON PARADE, such as stupid over-the-top Birther nonsense, to poke fun at.

I can't stand Obama. I have fought liberalism my entire adult life.

However, I have noticed that the vast majority of conservatives IGNORE you crazy birthers, and I think it is time someone who understands the law to set you straight.

You have NO case! The fact that you might win a few ISOLATED cases in lower courts means nothing. You will lose in the end.

This battle is OVER and you need to spend your resources in a more effective manner.

(Having said that, Obama was arrogant to refuse any response to the Court on this matter. I am guessing Obama knows he will win on appeal, and that he will use crazy “birther” arguments as a foil to make fun of the entire conservative movement.)

512 posted on 02/02/2012 8:29:14 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant
Not a single conservative talk show host agrees with you.

Not a single conservative author agrees with you.

Not a single immigration attorney agrees with you.

No current or former employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service agrees with you.

No elected officials agree with you.

Yet, you call ME stupid?

Wow, a bit of arrogant projection, I would say!

513 posted on 02/02/2012 8:32:04 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Your total misunderstanding of the law would be criminal, if you were a licensed member of the bar and charging clients money for your...services.

The worst example is your bogus and legally dangerous idea that Congressional statutes have any power to overrule the Constitution, or Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution. That’s so wrong it’s shocking.


514 posted on 02/02/2012 8:34:38 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: devattel
Back to your complete drivel about grammar:

The Founders clearly allowed Naturalization PRIOR to adoption to be allowed for POTUS requirements, a point we need not worry about much, today, but the Founders clearly did not want Naturalization AFTER adoption of the Constitution, to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen.

You flunked. Your problem is that you figured out what you wanted PRIOR to doing any “research”.

You are biased and intellectually dishonest, and that is why you fail at debate.

515 posted on 02/02/2012 8:41:34 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Dude, you do realize that you’ve converted nobody here to believe that the Constitutional term “Natural Born Citizen” has the meaning you’ve assigned to it, don’t you?

Many of us here have contributed financially and have committed ourselves to support the mission of holding Obama (and, yes, others also) to this standard. I believe that finally progress is being made on these efforts and that seems to have you very upset. I’m guessing that you may have substantially more reason to be upset in coming days.


516 posted on 02/02/2012 8:44:03 PM PST by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12
"Incidentally, since my mother was born in Canada, I am not a natural born citizen either."

Stepan12, your mother and father needed only to be a citizens when you were born, naturalized, native-born, or natural born, and you to be born on sovereign soil. Will you be a candidate?

When someone tries to address the possible extensions to who is natural born, questions quickly arise. Article II Section 1 clearly eliminates many who could make fine presidents, but, since the majority of people are natural born, while it isn't a perfect rule, it seres the purpose of limiting the number of those with clear potential to be enemies of the state. Many attempts to amend Article II Section 1 have failed, and probably for good, or for understandable political reasons.

Just as it was politically expedient to promote McCain from citizen to natural born citizen for Obama’s election, many attempts at amending Article II were to promote an individual whom the opposite party saw no reason to support, such as Orren Hatch’s amendment attempt to make Schwarzenegger eligible. The two attempts by :John Conyers may have been intended to make Obama eligible. There were five other amendments to change Article II Section 1 between 2000 and 2007. The bill sponsored by Obama and his campaign chair, Clare McCaskill, in February 2008, "A Bill to Insure That Foreign Born Children of Military Citizens is Eligible to the Presidency," SB2678, could have become an amendment, but there wasn't time before the election, and McCain's campaign would have been stymied. Clare, Barack and Axelrod certainly knew that, so this bill was just for talking points. Everyone knew of McCain's ineligibility, since this bill and SR511 spelled it out. They also knew about Obama, since the hearings for both SB2678 and SR511 made "born to two parents who were citizens" the core of their legal argument.

Since natural born citizenship is only required of our president, and since citizens who immigrated or whose parents intended to immigrate have a special understanding of our freedoms, they may be especially useful in the State Department or Defense. Obama is the perfect example of the wisdom of Articel II Section 1; remarkably, he told us as much. Barack told us on Fightthesmears.com that he was “...born a subject of the British Commonwealth”, and called himself, correctly, “A native-born citizen of the US,” which is the language of the 14th Amendment for a jus soli citizen, like Wong Kim Ark, born on our soil of parents who were not both citizens. Barack was careful and legally inscrutable. He knew that the media would help to confuse citizens over the settled, but labyrithine citizenship law. Barack famously explained that he didn't feel bound by the negative principles expounded by the Constitution.

517 posted on 02/02/2012 8:45:15 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

Well put as always Spaulding!


518 posted on 02/02/2012 8:50:34 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
You have no Constitutional language to point to, that has been changed by the Congressional Acts.
Congressional Acts define and interpret and enact the Constitution all the time.
There was NO Constitutional guidance at the time of any of the MOOT “Case Law” you birthers frantically present to support your cause.
Congress has defined Citizenship SEVERAL times. Congress has every right and power to do so.

BTW, are you willing to stand behind every statement made by the birthers on this thread? Many of those in your camp did not even think Congress had EVER passed any laws concerning Citizenship, and many of your birther nuts also claimed that Congress had “no power” to enact any laws concerning citizenship of any kind other than Naturalization processes. Your birther buddies obviously were wrong and I proved that point.

However, one thing you Birthers share with the LIBERALS? You all circle the wagons and you rarely call out one of your own, do you?

How about a little intellectual honesty. BTW, notice how most conservatives IGNORE YOU? The reason is that most conservatives think you are nuts!

519 posted on 02/02/2012 8:50:51 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Fred, I didn't find the quotes you were looking for but David Farrar said these interesting things tonight...
February 2nd, 2012, 9:58 pm ... the Malihi Court would have been glade to accept any type of verification Hawaiian Health Officials care to bestow, along with candid Obama’s birth certificate into evidence. However, there are two major problems with that hypotheses: One, before the court can accept the two birth certificates into evidence, the plaintiff side must have access to the original files in order to rebut. And, Two: candidate Obama wasn’t there to enter any evidence. And even if his lawyer was there in his place; he still couldn’t enter any exhibits or witnesses into evidence because his PTO [pre-trial order] wouldn’t allow him to.

That’s how bad this guy screwed up — and the reason why candidate Obama had no choice but to run away from this hearing with his tail between his legs, dragging his lawyer with him.

ex animo
davidfarrar


February 2nd, 2012, 10:29 pm ... [referring to Judge Malihi ] I think he, and the Secretary, are waiting until Friday so they can duck away for two whole days after the fact.

ex animo
davidfarrar




I personally believe the farce Illinois hearing was designed and rushed to occur Thursday to compensate in the MSM for what should happen Friday in Atlanta

520 posted on 02/02/2012 8:56:41 PM PST by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
You could not be more wrong.
I am worried that this entire thing, all of your efforts, will backfire.
Obama is vulnerable on his hidden past, his college records, his former writings (where are they, where is that Harvard Law Review record?)
Obama is vulnerable on MANY fronts.
However? Obama will use YOU and your birther buddies as a “straw man” and avoid answering any of the other, more important questions due to the PR disaster that will eventually come to conservatives, from this dubious misuse of our resources.

I am absolutely right on the law, and my take on the law will prevail, in the end.

I wish we could invalidate Obama this way, but I honestly, sincerely doubt that we can.

Also, I came to my decision on my own -— but I am comfortable with my decision as I see that NOBODY of any real note is on your side, on this one.

I will actually be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong, but one “outlier” lower State Court case will prove nothing.

521 posted on 02/02/2012 8:57:54 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
There is no right to be President. It's a privilege. So there is no harm in denying that privilege. Not to imply that West isn't eligible, but I would rather deny 1000 Allen Wests and Marc Rubios (both of whom would be great) than admit one Obama.

After all the suffering of America's Blacks, it is unconscionable that the first person of African descent to be President is part native Kenyan and part native white American. The first such President should have come from a native American Black family, not from the union of two people neither of whom come from American Black culture or tradition. Enforcing the NBC constraint would have prevented that travesty.

No disrespect intended to native Kenyans, but no native African can really speak for native Black Americans, regardless of skin color or historical ethnicity. The centuries of history of American Blacks in the US have created a new culture and a new ethnicity to which native Africans have never, ever belonged.

522 posted on 02/02/2012 9:01:30 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Thank you Phil.
Whatever.

I'm sure you'll pardon me for my ambivalence.

523 posted on 02/02/2012 9:08:29 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I challenge to submit the text of the post to which I’m replying to a any professor of law an any accredited University for his analysis and criticism. Publicly.


524 posted on 02/02/2012 9:08:43 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike; Gvl_M3; Flotsam_Jetsome; Berlin_Freeper; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Illinois State Board of Elections Overruled 3 Ballot Challenges Against 0bummer: berry hussein's Name Will Appear on Illinois Ballot

. . . . See # 456 .

Thanks, Hotlanta Mike.

525 posted on 02/02/2012 9:11:13 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
“.........this dubious misuse of our resources....”

I do believe you're letting your mask slip a little to reveal somewhat of a collectivist mind. “OUR resources”?? Anything I contribute to is done solely using MY money that I've worked hard to earn.

And if you turn out to be “pleasantly surprised” (as you put it) you state that it would merely be “...one ‘outlier’ lower State Court case (which) will prove nothing.” On the contrary, it will represent 100% of the judicial decisions on the Obama ballot eligibility issue. 100% is certainly not an “outlier”; it would seem to be more like a precedent.

Again, you're not discouraging anyone here if that's your intent. You're amusing many of us and irritating others. And maybe helping to motivate us all.

526 posted on 02/02/2012 9:15:49 PM PST by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Yeah, but you ain’t Bill Hickok, and this ain’t Dodge City.


527 posted on 02/02/2012 9:25:15 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Yeah, but you ain’t Bill Hickok, and this ain’t Dodge City.

I don't know where we're goin', but there's no sense bein' late.

528 posted on 02/02/2012 9:30:43 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: NYTexan
Didn’t I meet ya at a TCM Shoot party in San Antonio?

He was at the Mud Memorial on the Trinity too. He was the one who worked the come-along to pull my car out of the mud. :) for which I am still grateful.

529 posted on 02/02/2012 9:32:03 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Which means, I gather, that the MSN has no objection in principle to the idea of an absolute monarch "governing" us. For only an absolute monarch can be said to be "above the law." Worse, the MSN — by deciding what is "fit to print" — on the supposition that what can be kept out of the public record never happened — are not impartial conveyors of on-the-ground reporting of important public events. Rather, they have chosen to be the handmaidens of creeping absolutism....

So very true, dearest sister in Christ!

530 posted on 02/02/2012 9:32:30 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; philman_36

Yep...we be AKA the Guns ‘n Mud Brigade! ;)


531 posted on 02/02/2012 9:41:13 PM PST by NYTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Grab the cat.

What? ...

Grab the cat!

532 posted on 02/02/2012 9:42:11 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber; abenaki

I had heard Marco Rubio state that too, do you know where and when? I need to prove it to a lot of people!

He was a child when his parents became citizens, contrary to the first reports when he surfaced as a VP candidate.

Please, anyone, do not say “then why is he in the Congress? Check the Constitution. ONLY the Presidential requirements have the NBC Clause.


533 posted on 02/02/2012 9:47:55 PM PST by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYTexan; El Gato
You're too kind, El Gato. I was just helping out.

Yep...we be AKA the Guns ‘n Mud Brigade!
I like that. It seems that when the sun shines and the ground is firm I'm not able to go.

534 posted on 02/02/2012 9:55:16 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I'm too old for this sh*t!

Oh, wait...that's your line, old man. {;^)

535 posted on 02/02/2012 9:58:46 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

When six hundred years you have live, old you too will be.


536 posted on 02/02/2012 10:01:48 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Certain death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?


537 posted on 02/02/2012 10:06:27 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
People are going to think we really are nuts.

I say let 'em think what they want.

538 posted on 02/02/2012 10:12:52 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“... you magnificent bastard, I read your book!”


539 posted on 02/02/2012 10:22:45 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

540 posted on 02/02/2012 10:27:15 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray clearly states in the majority opinion that a natural born citizen is distinct from the child of an alien born in the United States:
“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

To say that the "child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen" can have no other interpretation than the fact that, although both children are equally citizens, only the child of the citizen is a "natural born" one. Mr Wong was a citizen, but was not the child a of citizen. Therefore, he was not a natural born citizen. Per the majority opinion of Justice Gray, only those born in the US who were "the child of a citizen" are natural born.

541 posted on 02/02/2012 10:28:04 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Those poor bastards. They’ve got us right where we want them. We can fire in any direction now!


542 posted on 02/02/2012 10:31:04 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Nuts!


543 posted on 02/02/2012 10:32:19 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

And with that I bid you a good night.


544 posted on 02/02/2012 10:33:09 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti

I’ve been busy..hunting a new job, since having been laid off 2010 Dec 31, and connecting or reconnecting with family via FaceBook. I’ve connected with a great niece who I hadn’t seen since she was about 2, she’s 18 now. Also met her sister who I’d never met at all. I converse with a niece, 12, who I’d seen when she was a few weeks old, and only very sporadically since she was about 2. She’s smart as a whip that one is.

I also keep in touch with my brother and his daughter and with the two other great nieces who lived with us for several years. Also connected with two of our three exchange students.

Plus lots of FReepers with their real names.

But I sort of got sick of the political stuff, Still sick, or even sicker of it now, but It’s important so I check in from time to time.


545 posted on 02/02/2012 10:52:03 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Sampson’s radio interview 27 Jan.

http://grrc.podomatic.com/player/web/2012-01-27T19_30_24-08_00


546 posted on 02/02/2012 10:54:06 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

yeah... pearls to swine. Why bother to be civil and all that bullpucky right?

Pffft.


547 posted on 02/02/2012 10:54:18 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: cracker45
Sorry, naturalized didn’t exist before the birth of our nation! SHEEEESH

But it did exist before the Constitution even for our Nation, but each state had it's own rules/laws. The Constitution wasn't passed until about a decade later than the birth of the Nation, in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. But the Constitution did give Congress the power to define a uniform rule for it.

It existed in various forms in other nations well before ours came into existence.

548 posted on 02/02/2012 11:00:33 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
Article II Section 1 clearly eliminates many who could make fine presidents, but, since the majority of people are natural born, while it isn't a perfect rule, it seres the purpose of limiting the number of those with clear potential to be enemies of the state.

Of whom Obama is a case in point. All the good ones who can't become President are justified to keep us from having a President such as Obama who obviously does not have allegiance nor natural born love for our Country and may well be a communistic, big government plant.

549 posted on 02/02/2012 11:17:32 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

He/she/it must ALWAYS have the last word... it’s why I never waste my time with him/her/it... :/


550 posted on 02/02/2012 11:38:38 PM PST by Bikkuri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 651-693 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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