Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jeff Kuhner of WashTimes: Top Democrats & Top Senior Editors Concerned about Obama's Eligibility
Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records ^ | DECEMBER 31, 2010 | Obama Release Your Records

Posted on 12/31/2010 3:34:20 AM PST by RobinMasters

Video: Jeff Kuhner of the Washington Times: People around the White House and in democratic circles including senior top editors afraid to pursue Obama's Eligibility and records concealment.

Kuhner says the Media's abdicating their responsibility to pursue the truth and hold our politicians accountable. Kuhner goes on to say that All know there is something there, saying "where there's smoke, there's fire," and says the Controversy is gaining traction and momentum. This is an excellent interview with Jeff Kuhner.

Via MrTimotheus85; Steve Malzberg Interviews Jeff Kuhner - If The Truth Got Out About Obama There Would Be A Civil War.

(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; harvardresumefraud; kagan; kaganresumefraud; naturalborncitizen; noaccountability; nobirthcertificate; nocredentials; nodocumentation; nothesis; notransparency; noveritas; obama; obamaseligibility; resumefraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-236 next last
To: TNTNT
I am sorry you received such a poor education.

My education was fine, although unlike you, where I lived I didn't get to take Red Diaper Baby class.

161 posted on 01/01/2011 11:56:50 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

” always back whomsoever wins the Republican Primary. Now, if you can convince Karl Rove to do it .....”

Me too....even if I have to wear a clothes pin on my nose!

“But I don’t want a shiner
delivered by a big tough guy Forty Niner!”

No chance of that at all....I save that for liberals/socialists/radicals........LOLOLOLOL

Happy New Years to you kind sir.......


162 posted on 01/01/2011 12:10:25 PM PST by Forty-Niner (Dump Diane Feinstein 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

What “efforts” are you talking about? You’re the one making efforts, or at least claiming to, by “talking” to “Senators” and Congressment. Everyone knows that’s not how it’s done, is it?


163 posted on 01/01/2011 12:19:55 PM PST by browniexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: browniexyz
The only Congressman I have spoken to regarding the birther issue is my own Congressman, Lamar Smith. He is also the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,the committee that would likely hold any hearings on the birther claims. I can assure you that he has little interest in pursuing any of the birther claims. If everyone knows that is not how it is done, you tell me, how do you plan on getting it done? Any plan will be better than what the birthers have tried in the past. If my math is correct, Obama is coming up on his 2nd year anniversary in office and we are no closer to ridding ourselves of him as we were 2 years ago.
164 posted on 01/01/2011 12:33:59 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

When the wife calls, a wise man will always listen. lol.

The bill itself wouldn’t require that the person have 2 citizen parents. The bill would only require that if someone was born to a parent who was not a US citizen, the courts have to determine eligibility and the name cannot be placed on the ballot until the court determines that they are eligible.

And the cost of the court case would not fall on the prospective candidate; it would fall on the state. But the end result would be a court ruling establishing a working definition of “natural born US citizen” - the decision being made by the people the Constitution authorizes to interpret the Constitution.

Once that definition was in place the state could expect that ineligible candidates would not even try to be placed on the ballot, which would make the court costs a rare thing for the state. Hopefully it would be a one-time investment on behalf of the entire nation.

The only requirement the state would be making is for the candidate to authorize access to documentation pertinent to Constitutional eligibility. Would that be considered extra-Constitutional? It seems to me that if the law can currently require documentation for every federal employee before they can receive a federal paycheck, the issue of requiring documentation is already established as Constitutional. Would you agree?


165 posted on 01/01/2011 12:34:30 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I still feel that the scheme you have created to determine constitutional eligibility for POTUS could be construed as an unconstitutional infringement. Although you try to make the state responsible for the court costs involved, any candidate who is challenged will required to expend significant funds for representation in such an action. That in itself could be considered an infringement. But like I previously noted, it is not slam dunk and will bring the issue into the Judiciary. I just don't think you will be happy with the court's rulings, based on the previous rulings on this issue in the past 2 years. Particularly when SCOTUS was presented with this exact same issue in a Petition filed between the 2008 election and the inauguration ( I forget the name of the case , but believe it was brought by Donofrio). Not a single justice thought the issue had merit when it was legally ripe to be heard. They have since denied cert in another 9 cases. It obvious that they are of the opinion that the lower courts have properly decided the cases and the issues brought by the cases did not require SCOTUS intervention.
166 posted on 01/01/2011 1:25:09 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I meant to reply to this post before I got sidetracked last night for New Years. Yes if a criminal action is brought against Obama, he will have to use his own money to defend himself. Remember the legal defense fund set by Clinton for his perjury in the Paula Jones case. I don't believe that will bring down the expense of the investigation and prosecution. IIRC, The Starr investigation cost between 60 & 70 million dollars.Even you cut that in half, it is still quite an expense for a state to take on with an iffy chance of success. Unfortunately, in today's economic environment, Obama can probably out raise and outspend any state that tries this maneuver.
167 posted on 01/01/2011 1:42:42 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Let the House investigation on Zerobama’s eligibility begin!


168 posted on 01/01/2011 1:58:42 PM PST by RightWingConspirator (Impeach the Communist Kenyan Fraud and his band of Czars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

No court has heard any case on its merits. This bill would require them to hear it on the merits. That’s basically all it does. It requires the documentation to be collected, any potential problems identified, and any problems referred to the court to decide expeditiously, since the plaintiff has standing.

This bill wouldn’t change anything Constitutionally; all it would do is require that a court actually hear the case on its merits. Because the AG is to present the case on behalf of the plaintiff it would actually end up SAVING the plaintiff money, as compared to the current process.

I don’t see where there would be Constitutional grounds to challenge it.


169 posted on 01/01/2011 2:27:05 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT
Yes, John Bingham!!! He's a heck of a lot more credible on this issue than anyone "breathing in the last century."

John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment!

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War.

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

 

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.

every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

The text of non binding Senate resolution 511 on McCain's status:

"Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';"

The resolution of 2008, and the first Congress's Naturalization Act of 1790 Both referred to two citizen parents. The first Congress tried to extend NBC status to children born, to citizen parentS, overseas. Congress doesn't have that authority, only for naturalization. So, it was repealed by the act of 1795.

Vattel's definition is stated in the dicta of a number of SCOTUS cases as well, even though those cases had nothing to do with the intent of NBC and POTUS eligibility (thus the reason the definition, well known to the justices, appears in the dicta). The definition is well known, except by revisionist historians and progressive globalists.

One can't be a "Natural Born Citizen" and have multiple alligiences owed at birth.

Don't be an after-birther tool.

170 posted on 01/01/2011 2:43:58 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: RightWingConspirator
And who is going lead this House investigation of Obama’s birth certificate?
171 posted on 01/01/2011 3:18:53 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
:They can pursue this natural born citizenship issue **and** work on other issues as well.

Splendid!

Teamwork, my good man. You and your crew work that line of country, and I'll keep working on the GOP/TeaPartiers/Conservatives to hold to an appropriate ideological line over the next two years. I did not think much of their strategy during this Lame Duck session, but there is hope.

And ... I am quite serious about finding one Republican Governor with a Legislature to match, who will fight to keep whasisname off the ballot in their state. I am also backing Lawyer Donofrio in his effort to secure a Wrtit of Quo Warranto from the Federal District Court in DC. He is in desperate need of a Republican from the Congress to step up in support.

172 posted on 01/01/2011 3:46:40 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (America can survive fools in office. It cannot long survive the fools who elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Good plan!


173 posted on 01/01/2011 3:52:53 PM PST by wintertime (Re: Obama, Rush Limbaugh said, "He was born here." ( So? Where's the proof?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner
Remember that stupid Chinese Curse?

"May you live in interesting times!"

Well, 49-er, we have lived through an anti-constitutional coup d'état. Whoop-ee! I fear there are going to have to be at least a punch-out or two before this is over.

174 posted on 01/01/2011 3:55:17 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (America can survive fools in office. It cannot long survive the fools who elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Well, actually a court in Indiana had a trial on this very issue and held that Obama was a NBC. It was not an unexpected result based on current statutory and case law. Your opinion that this bill does not change ‘anything constitutionally’ is wrong and misguided. As I have explained in previous posts, the current state of the law does not support your opinion of the definition of NBC.

Another area of probable constitutional infirmity in your bill is your mandatory language regarding a state court to hear a case regarding this eligibility issue. That is a definite violation of the constitutional separation of powers. If you recall the Schiavo case in Florida several years,that was one of the constitutional infirmities the courts found in the law passed by Congress. I also don't
believe your idea that the AG present the case on behalf of plaintiff, will pass muster. In most, if not all states, the AG is charged with representing the state or elected officeholders in which they are a party. Since obviously the state would be party to any case brought under your law, a conflict of interest will immediately arise. In addition, I do not think that an individual whose candidacy is being challenged by state, will want that state's chief legal officer representing his interests.

175 posted on 01/01/2011 4:03:32 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Obama is a product of the CIA. Whether or not HE worked with them is unclear. But it sure looks like his family was involved with the spooks.

Whenever a Left-Wing-Nut is in serious trouble, his handlers trot out the "CIA Connection." They tried it with Bill Clinton to explain his year behind the Iron curtain after expulsion from Oxford on a date-rape complaint. They tried it with John Kerry to explain away his private peace mission to the North Vietnamese in Paris.

Now they are floating this possible "CIA Involvement" as an explanation of something or other for whatsisname. I've heard that Stanley was based in Pakistan as a liaison to the mujadahin (or however that is spelled) when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. I am researching this fascinating bit of obamian apochrypha ... but I ain't buyin' it!

IMHO, The Dunhams were real communists, not FBI plants. BHO, Sr.? No question. Lolo Soetoro, Absolutely. Raila Odinga, for whom whatsisface campaigned so strenuously in Kenya? You betcha.

If you can think of it over the next week or so, throw me some links.

176 posted on 01/01/2011 4:14:55 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (America can survive fools in office. It cannot long survive the fools who elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Well according to my favorite SCOTUS Justice, Scalia, Bingham’s opinion is no more credible than yours or mine. In fact his would probably have less credibility according to Scalia since a congressman speaking on behalf of passing legislation is likely to say anything to pass said legislation. I put much less credibility to Vattel than I give Wong Kim Ark and its 1000 plus case progeny.

The reason the Senate Resolution refers both of McCain's parents being citizens is because McCain was not born within the sovereign territory of the USA, but rather in the Panama Canal Zone which was the sovereign territory of Panama. It that fact which caused the inclusion of that language. Obama’s fact situation is completely different, and frankly I would think it rather embarrassing for birthers to try and make an analogy between the two different situations.

177 posted on 01/01/2011 4:36:00 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

The Left wing Nuts arent trotting anything out.

It is people who are interested in Obama’s past that are putting the pieces together.

I have absolutely no doubt that the family was involved with the Spooks.

you don’t have to believe it.

Real Communists and Russia do not have the ability to make all this info go down a black hole. Very few outfits could have done it.

Do you think the State Department of Revenue can audit a deep undercover operative?? Or might it get shut down.

The answer is...if necessary...it gets shut down. Just how does one go about claiming income that is so far off the records that it is done in cash and if that person is caught in the mission the Government denies everything?

it’s not the Commies who could make this info go down the black hole..it is the US Government that can do it.

Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949...CIA has no jurisdiction in the US. Anyone who believes that it didn’t is about as naive as can be.

Wow, it’s a real coincidence that a CIA operative leaves his career as Ambassador to Indonesia by going to be the Chancellor at East-West as East-West was hacked off about Lolo doing an end run around them through INS trying to get out of going back to Indonesia right before the bloody coup.

But you must be one of those that think the CIA didn’t set the whole coup up.

http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?_JONES_HOWARD_PALFREY

http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06/17435?_JONES_HOWARD_PALFREY

What a coincidence that Jones leaves Indonesia as the Bloody Coup is going down and Lolo can’t get a hardship waiver and is shipped off to participate.


178 posted on 01/01/2011 5:00:27 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

The state has no interest in whether the candidate makes it onto the ballot or not. If an AG can prosecute crimes by individuals and that’s not “against the defendant’s interest” - because the AG is supposed to be as close as we can come to “fair and unbiased”, with no axe to grind one way or the other - then why would a case like this be any different?

An attorney suggested to me that a state court would be better than the feds because the state can mandate expedited review, whereas the federal courts could stretch things out forever - and because any decision by the state court can immediately be appealed to SCOTUS, which is where the interpretation of the US Constitution is properly done anyway. See, time is of the essence so that no candidate can be legally sandbagged into missing the ballot deadline.

Regarding whether the state can hear cases regarding Presidential eligibility, it seems like the CRS is saying that states are precisely where the Constitution places responsibility for the nitty-gritty administration of elections, so that is where it would HAVE to happen - but with SCOTUS ultimately being able to interpret the Constitution.

No matter how you slice it there is that uncomfortable gap between two conflicting Constitutional mandates - that the states run Presidential elections and that the federal judiciary interpret and apply the Constitution. The only way I know of for that gap to be bridged is if the state handles the process but is subject to the Consituttional review of the federal judiciary. And that’s what this bill proposes.

This bill does not support any particular view of the definition of NBC. It only provides a framework so that the courts must define it - because until they do, the Constitution is being interpreted and applied by a secretary who has no skilled knowledge of the US Constitution.

The issue of the AG supposing to side with the state workers is a really sore spot with me. The AG is not supposed to side with his cronies. He is supposed to protect the interests of the residents of his state as expressed through the laws and Constitution of the state. This is the crux of the whole stinkin’ problem with government in this nation. The bureaucrats think they are suppsed to do CYA and scratch backs for each other and screw the people. We’ve got NOBODY who EVER serves the interests of Joe Sixpack when the bureaucrats screw him, break laws, and do all kinds of corruption.

But even at that, the AG would not be arguing a case AGAINST the SOS because the SOS isn’t trying or wanting to keep anybody off the ballot. It’s not even his/her decision to keep the person off the ballot; he/she is just doing what the law requires, and that is just to allow the right people to make the decision as to whether the candidate is eligible.

Dispassionate. No vested interest except following the law - which is exactly what we need when we’ve got the fiasco with SOS’s like in Ohio, NJ, CA, and Alaska, and we’ve got communists like Soros intending to subvert the election process by getting the rule of PEOPLE, rather than the rule of law. As it is right now Soros knows that if he can get a corruptocrat in as SOS the law will be damned and so will the interests of the American people. That’s why we need laws like this, where the SOS is simply obeying the law and getting out of the way. And where we the people have a way to undo the damage of a corrupt SOS BEFORE it’s too late.

As to whether the candidate would want the AG to represent his/her interests, there would be nothing to stop that candidate from having his/her own counsel as well, although it might be good for politicians to have to rely on a public defender so that money can’t buy the decision. I nominate NEAL PUCKETT to represent the interests of every politician in the country in these cases. May he screw them all just like he screwed Terry Lakin, and good riddance to them all.


179 posted on 01/01/2011 5:06:42 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

Can an AG file a suit to clarify the eligibility of a candidate? The reason I suggested that the SOS deny placement on the ballot is because then there is clear injury which gives the candidate standing to have the case heard. If the AG could file a suit contesting eligibility or asking advice, and the court would have to hear it, that would be a way to keep there from even being a defendant and any “conflict of interest” from AG v SOS.

The trick is to eliminate the problem of “standing”, so that the courts CANNOT refuse to decide the case on its merits.

Would there be any legal problem with an AG being required to challenge a candidate’s eligibility or request judicial clarification that would also then be subject to review by SCOTUS?


180 posted on 01/01/2011 5:13:03 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-236 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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