Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: edge919

Except for the part about being a natural born citizen.

Are you sure you want to go down this road. Latino’s actually show their papers and Obama hasn’t. And unless you have evidence the eligibility issue is widely publicized in Spanish-language outlets, this is a bunch of nonsense anyway.


Yeah, I definitely want to go all the way down to the very end of that road.

Obama wrote a number one bestseller about his father not being a US citizen in 1995. That was 12 years before he ran for president.

When he was running for president he posted his birth certificate on the internet for the entire planet to see.
That birth certificate has been authenticated by the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, also by the Registrar of Records for the State of Hawaii, also by the Director of Communications for the state of Hawaii and also by by the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle who is a member of the opposition party to the president and who gave one of the nominating speeches for Governor Sarah Palin at the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Obama was vetted by primary opponents, and by the other political parties in the General Election, and by Congress in its role as challenger to his electoral college votes.
Allan Keyes, a challenger for the presidency from the American Independent Party went to court to have Obama’s candidacy and election invalidated. His lawsuit was thrown out and was rejected again on appeal.

As the 12th Amendment to the Constitution clearly states:
“The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President,”

In 2009 that person was Barack Hussein Obama Junior and that’s why he was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts and no subsequent challenge to his eligibility has been upheld including 8 appeals attempted at the Supreme Court of the United States.


“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.“ US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land, September 16, 2009


80 posted on 07/23/2010 10:53:19 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777
but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.“

How much would you bet that Judge Land would not find the claim "so lacking in factual support" were Obama a Republican?

81 posted on 07/23/2010 10:58:23 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

To: jamese777
Yeah, I definitely want to go all the way down to the very end of that road.

Sorry, but for you, it's a dead end street, as I've already shown.

Obama wrote a number one bestseller about his father not being a US citizen in 1995. That was 12 years before he ran for president.

Right and he wrote about a birth certificate that he refuses to produce for some odd reason, especially not in a court of law.

When he was running for president he posted his birth certificate on the internet for the entire planet to see.

No, he posted an unverified birth abstract ... not the birth certificate he wrote about. Try again.

That birth certificate has been authenticated by the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, also by the Registrar of Records for the State of Hawaii, also by the Director of Communications for the state of Hawaii and also by by the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle who is a member of the opposition party to the president and who gave one of the nominating speeches for Governor Sarah Palin at the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Absolutely false. The alleged COLB has NEVER been authenticated by the issuing agency despite have full statutory and discretionary authority to do so. You need to quit peddling falsehoods.

Obama was vetted by primary opponents, and by the other political parties in the General Election, and by Congress in its role as challenger to his electoral college votes.

No, actually he wasn't vetted at all for being a natural born citizen and you know it. Again, let's not deal in falsehoods, james.

Allan Keyes, a challenger for the presidency from the American Independent Party went to court to have Obama’s candidacy and election invalidated. His lawsuit was thrown out and was rejected again on appeal.

His lawsuit was rejected on incorrect rationale. The judge said, "Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15." This is false, as we now know there are state laws that allow citizens to challenge findings of eligibility for placing candidates on local ballots. One such state is Hawaii. Why the court didn't understand the law better is a mystery, but it was demonstrably wrong.

As the 12th Amendment to the Constitution clearly states: “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

Irrelevant to the argument. This says nothing about certifying the candidate's constitutional eligibility.

“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.“ US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land, September 16, 2009

You chose a really bad time to to post this since just today a different court had to reverse an order to pay damages and court costs based on a suggestion that the eligibility case was frivolous. Such a reversal would only occur because it turns out there is merit or that the court doesn't want to create the standing it was trying to deny for the plaintiff. Ouch, james, ouch!

That makes you about 0 for 12. I love knocking down weak, faither arguments. Who's next??

87 posted on 07/23/2010 1:05:34 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


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