Posted on 04/07/2011 8:05:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This woman is wrong,She should not be Complaining about the Guy who took Hell from all Directions including Republicans when he made that Statement about Hoping Obama would Fail,you cant deny that,Rush is right.
Well that’s okay. I’m not a Republican nor a Demoncrat either but an conservative Independent. Besides I made it clear that Trump bears watching in light of the distance the current crop of weak kneed Republican wannabes are keeping on the BC debacle, a major issue growing by each passing day.
I thought that Hawaii refused to authenticate the Factcheck.Org Obama COLB?
And that many photoshop experts claim it is an altered document?
Am I missing something?
Trump is from the Clinton/Emanuel camp. He’s loving the attention and it’s the only way Clinton can strike at Obama with plausible deniability at this point.
There IS NO original Birth Certificate for Barrack H. Obama, Jr. in HI.
There IS NO record of his birth at any hospital in HI.
You make a mistake to assume all Republicans are opposed to where Obozo and his handlers want to take us. The Globalist wing of the Republican Party want to destroy the restraint of the U.S. Constitution to establish a "Global Government". (vague term but a horror)
Show me where Lingle stated that Barrack H. Obama actually was born in HI or at a specific hospital. Not a report by the MSM but an actual news release that stated that.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Zero was indeed born in Honolulu.
Show me "any evidence" of that conclusion. Remember the HI election officials "refused to certify" that Barrack H. Obama, Jr. was "Constitutionally qualified" to hold the office of President of the U.S. before the November elections, and only after Nancy Pelosi and the National Dem. Party certified him for HI and AZ (with absolutely no evidence to support it) was allowed to proceed.
We are witnessing the biggest Election Fraud ever perpetrated in U.S. history.
You made my exact point. The problem is not the failure of the U.S. Constitution, but the failure to abide by the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.
Had the Constitutional requirements for the office of President been enforced as written we would not be in this mess where a Commie Fraud now sleeps at 1600 Penn. Ave.
And the only other time the "natural born" requirement was "argued over" was during the election that selected Chester Authur as the Vice President. At that time the "definition" was understood, but Authur his his records to prevent detection.
His grandmother is alleged to have said she held his little body in Africa just after he was born THERE? Where is the documentation she said this???
Well done sir.
The 14th is typically the last strawman the Obots put up, but it too, is easily defeated.
I read that Obama’s aunt, who lives in Mass., said that she was in the delivery room, when he was born, in Kenya. I don’t remember which publication printed that article.
Your discussion of the vilification of Joe McCarthy is appropriate because that is where the story of Obama begins. The whipping the Communists took from McCarthy caused them to go underground but they did not give up. They immediately went to work and devised a long range plan, this one would be a much more deliberate and deceptive coup attempt with Stanley and Madeline Dunham, their daughter, black nationalists and Middle Eastern money barons. The objective would be to groom and propel a charismatic black guy into the Presidency to bring down the U.S. capitalist government.
I see we have a new troll.
What are ya...nine?
Lenin had already started to export communism to the west, from Europe (France), even before his Bolsheviks stole the Russian Revolution. He increased this activity in 1919, but it paled in comparison to Joe Stalin's efforts.
As you point out, Stalin originally sold communism openly, but early in his tenure, the signs of failure of communist economic philosophy began to show, and informed resistance began to grow. McCarthy's exposure of more open communists in fact triggered the switch to covert infiltration sleeper agent tactics.
Overt communism was declared to be a past fad and now a myth. Nothing to see here, move along.
Of course, environmentalists popped up in the late 60's, but no one would re-brand communism now, would they? It didn't exist in the west.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Conservatives are smart enough to multi-task.
No, you’re just wrong. part 1401 does refer specifically to persons born in the U.S.
This has been hashed out dozens of times here in the past. part 1401 refers to persons born in the U.S., but it makes no mention anywhere in the entire document about the term or meaning of the term “natural born citizen”. “Natural Born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States was clearly refering to a person born within the boarders of the United States with two citizen parents. Don’t feel bad you are not the only one who remains confused on this issue. I challenge you to search for the term “natural born” anywhere in the “United States Code”. Then report back here with your findings.
Oh, I know it’s been hashed and rehashed, and no, I’m not ignorant of all the echo-chamber discussion. I’ve been following these threads for years hoping that there might be some nugget of actual evidence show up. I was at first intrigued by the reports that Obama might not be eligible. But time after time, it’s just been shown to be a dry well.
The so-called “birthers” have wanted so badly to see a clear constitutional basis for their claims that they’re starting to see things that simply aren’t there.
It does not require two citizen parents to be a “natural born citizen”. It sounds good, but it never has been true. Wishing it so doesn’t make it so. Don’t bother rehasing Vattel. Vattel isn’t law, and it isn’t the way the constitution has been interpreted.
There are only two ways to be a citizen: either by birth or by naturalization. A citizen at birth is a “natural born citizen”. That’s all there is.
That said... Whether an activist court will eventually rule against this meaning is hard to say. It certainly wouldn't surprise me.
There’s no need to be insulting, here. I’m not your enemy, honest.
I know precisely why the framers included that part in the Constitution. They were aware that the British crown could otherwise send some noblemen over, to become citizens for the purpose of running for President and effectively undoing the revolution.
To this end, at the time they drew the line at persons either born in the new “United States” OR— and this is important— persons who were already citizens when the Constitution was ratified. What does this mean? It means that a former British subject who became a (naturalized) U.S. citizen (a much simpler task back then, btw) by the time of the Constitution (conceivably even after the revolution)... THAT person was “grandfathered in” and could run for President.
So to part of your question, did they contemplate that somebody could grow up during their formative years as a british subject and still become President? Yes... they did.
I’m merely going by the interpretation that as far as I can tell... has historically been used by courts at all levels. There are only two ways to become a citizen, therefore only two “kinds” of citizen. You’re either born into it, or you become naturalized into it later. Nowadays though, the naturalized citizens that were once eligible are long gone. So now, the only people eligible are those who are born to citizenship: natural born citizens. The word “natural” doesn’t mean anything about the parents. It refers to the “born” into citizenship status of the child.
I’ve following all these threads for years now, and they’ve become an echo-chamber of bad ideas that get traction only within these threads, because there’s nobody that cares to argue the points anymore. It’s gotten, well... boring. Every now and then I’ll poke my head in and make a comment, hoping for some new evidence, but there never is any. LIke now.
Slammed? Sheesh, I thought this was about the entire Dem party signing something or other against him. Instead it was just some caller to his show.......
Why does everything have to be prefaced with drama these days?
Probably for the same reason he never came to the defense of Michael Rivero..another FReeper such as you who claimed to have all the facts. Let me guess, you're back and still pissed off about Rush not giving credence to the black helicopters.........LOL!
It's great being an arm chair quarterback isn't it? Especially since you're not required to be 100% correct 100% of the time......in fact, YOU don't even have to be correct at all considering you're not putting your reputation and credibility in front of millions of people on a daily basis.
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.