Posted on 06/26/2011 2:37:43 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Half of Americans would like to see Congress investigate Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency and nearly that many believe the definition of the constitutional term "natural born citizen" means both parents must be U.S. citizens, according to a new scientific poll.
"There's no marginalizing those who want this matter investigated by Congress," said Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies, who conducted the WND/Wenzel Poll telephone survey June 16-19. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.85 points.
"Even among Democrats, more than one in four – 28 percent – said they now want an inquiry, as do 43 percent of independents and 77 percent of Republicans. Interestingly, men are much more skeptical than are women about the question of eligibility – only 42 percent of men said they think Obama proved his eligibility by releasing the electronic birth certificate, compared to 59 percent of women."
The poll indicated 43.5 percent of Americans believe that a Hawaii birth would make no difference in Obama's eligibility, as the Constitution requires both parents of a U.S. president to have been U.S. citizens – and Obama's father was not a citizen.
The figure included 56.9 percent of the GOP, 40.2 percent of independents and 32.9 percent of Democrats.
The eligibility saga, as Wenzel noted, has taken on a life of its own. It began with questions about Obama's birth place and parentage before his election. At that time, he released a computer image of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii and insisted it was original and the only document available.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member
of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and
state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama
does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.
(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal
on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.
(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity
are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup.
The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated
only by political self-preservation.
(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because
they see that none of their leaders are doing
anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders
are NOT going to stop this thing.
___________
Canada Free Press proof of Bo threat if media discussed bc
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373
.
The Left HAD to get rid of Nixon. The reason wasn't important. It could have been for spitting on the sidewalk, or using the wrong fork at a state dinner.
As long as Nixon was in power, South Vietnam was viable and could have developed like South Korea did. The U.S. and South Vietnam had successfully eliminiated the guerilla threat from the Viet Cong. The process of Vietnamization of the military forces defending the south was nearly complete. The only way North Vietnam could conquer the south was through a conventional invasion with long columns of tanks and armored personnel carriers and towed guns. Because of the limited entry points for a motorized conventional army into the south, it was a perfect target for US air attack which would quickly turn any invasion route into a "highway of death" and had no chance.
A conventional invasion of the south was a violation of the Paris Peace Accords, and Nixon told everyone that if the north invaded the south, he would bomb.
After 1968 the Left took control of the Democratic Party and the Mainstream Media, and was fully invested in the defeat of South Vietnam. If South Vietnam survived and prospered like South Korea and developed over time into a reasonably free and successful country, then everything the Left said in the 1960s would have been shown wrong and Nixon right.
That could not be tolerated. Nixon had to go. The Left with a weaker president and enough votes in Congress could cut off aid to South Vietnam and prevent the bombing of a northern invasion force. And that is exactly what they did.
If South Vietnam did not survive then the Leftwing myth about American imperialism and corrupt capitalism and militarism and oppression of indigenous peoples would live on in countless Hollywood movies and books and the Mainstream Media and be indoctrinated in generations of American schoolchildren. If South Vietnam did survive as a free and prosperous country then all of that would be exploded as a lie.
THAT is why Nixon faced impeachment and resigned.
ping for later, maybe.
Nixon was NOT impeached NOR tossed out! He resigned under threat of impeachment. Had he not resigned he would have been impeached and possibly removed from office. Bill Clinton on the other hand WAS impeached but not removed from office. For some reason a lot of people seem to believe that Nixon WAS impeached and Clinton WAS NOT impeached, the exact opposite of reality.
That really enrages me after you lay it out like that.
That is true with Senator KYL of Az. He has jumped the shark now that he has determined not to run again.
What I do not understand is how we have not impeached him because of starting an unnecessary war. We impeached Nixon, and I still don’t know the reason why we tossed him out. What did he do that merited impeachment?.
“... candidates to national office, President and V. President, must prove they are natural born citizens ...”
Absolutely. It is up to them to prove they are eligible, not this crazy situation where we have to prove they are not.
Funny how you keep repeating that lie, obamanoid n00b.
The voters are more ignorant than stupid. Ignorance can be cured by information and teaching.
RipSawyer wrote:
I’m in total agreement...how do you propose to go about educating the voters? I certainly don’t have a clue how to do it, I can’t even begin to comprehend how they got to be so stupid in the first place.
I can't give you a known good answer, but I can tell you the plan we have down here in my corner of Florida. Our local 9-12 Project and our local TEA Party are working on this. We have one advantage. In Florida, every voter actually signs an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. I know that some other states have this on their voter registration applications. And some don't have an explicit oath for voters. Every state has that as part of the oath of office for state offices (State representative, state senator, governor and other elected offices), and also for local offices (mayors, city council and county commission positions, sheriffs, police chiefs, fire chiefs, etc.).
Our plan is to first, to make the voters aware of their own oath, and of the oath of office for everyone from city Council and County Commissioners up to the Governor, and Congress, Senate and POTUS. Also, we are handing out copies of the Constitution and founding documents. I personally have enough "pocket constitutions" that I plan to give one to every voter in my precinct. I introduce myself to my neighbors, point out that they've sworn an oath to uphold and protect our founding documents, values and principles, and ask them if they've read the Constitution lately. Then, it's, "Here, let me give you a copy." I also have a sheet inserted pointing out the importance of the 10th Amendment, and the limitations of Article 1 Section 8, which contains a list of the only "powers" we the people have delegated to the Federal government and the United States Congress.
We also have "Newsletters" (both email and in print) showing how our local officials have been "defending the constitution" in their own local duties (or acting against the oath they took, if they are ignoring Constitutional limits) and whether they are, for example, requesting "federal grant money" that is outside the powers of the Congress as defined in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
Our 9-12ers and TEA Partiers also attend all city, county commission, county school board meetings and observe and ask questions. If, for example, the Sheriff is planning on some project, and he proposes to ask for a federal grant to help pay for the project, we ask, "Sheriff, you've sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps you can explain, where in Article 1, Section 8 of that document we gave the United States Congress the power to tax the people of Wisconsin, Idaho and Arizona to pay for this project for a Sheriff's department here in Florida?"
Our "Constitutional Patriots" will then let the voters in our precincts know how our local, state and federal officials and representatives are doing from a Constitutional perspective. By primary election time, we will also provide lists of candidates who have either proven records of complete respect for the constitution, or challenging candidates who have pledged to do better than the incumbents from the constitutional perspective.
Debunked? Not quite. Almost all of those links discussing parental citizenship were contingent upon Obama being born in Kenya. Only a couple of posters considered the idea that a Hawaiian-born Obama might be ineligible but only because his mother was not old enough to transmit citizenship.
Yes, people were talking about ineligibility prior to the election but the Vattel definition that requires both parents to be U.S. citizens, period, wasn't brought up until Donofrio brought it up first. And this was November, 2008. You (and apparently everyone else but me) might have learned about this in civics class but nobody was talking about it until after Obama was elected.
LoL. Like I predicted, the poll numbers are going back to where they were before Obama tried to hoodwink the public again with another forgery.
Hitler would have fit this description.
***Hitler went right to work fixing the economy of Germany, “repairing holes in the social fabric” (if you can call it that), and rebuilding German morale. As a result he was very popular to the average German just a few short years later, so popular that they willingly followed that madman into bloodthirsty world war.
I gather what you mean by saying that Hitler fit the description was that he came into the office with such fanfare. Reminds me of a joke about deciding to poop or go blind — How do you know a leftist isn’t taking a poop when he’s on the can? Because he’s willingly going blind.
What a coincidence - half of San Fransicko wants to probe Obama.
Yes, people were talking about ineligibility prior to the election but the Vattel definition that requires both parents to be U.S. citizens, period, wasn't brought up until Donofrio brought it up first. And this was November, 2008. You (and apparently everyone else but me) might have learned about this in civics class but nobody was talking about it until after Obama was elected.
Gena, let me type slowly since you don't seem to be able to read very fast.
In post #19 of this thread, you stated: November 19th, 2008 is the first post I can find on Free Republic arguing that Obama is ineligible because NBC requires both parents to be U.S. citizens. This is well after Obama was elected and corresponds to Leo Donofrio raising the issue.
So we're clear now that you claim nobody mentioned two citizen parents prior to Nov 19, 2008. Correct?
so_real pointed you to a post which you apparently didn't completely read. Here, let me excerpt a couple of quotes from said post:
Citizens is plural, as in both mother and father. It does not read, child or children of a citizen, singular.36 posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:36:46 PM by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
Also, both parents have to be American citizens and the candidate has to be born in this country. Questions have been raised about the eligibility of both candidates, especially Obama, and there should be no problem in verifying the information....45 posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:44:18 AM by Dante3
This issue also came up in 1968, when George Romney (Mitt’s dad) ran for the GOP nomination. George Romney was born in Mexico of American parents. The consensus then was that the fact that both parents were US citizens meant that he qualified as “natural-born,” even though he was born outside the US.48 posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:48:31 AM by cookcounty (Obama reach across the aisle? He’s so far to the left, he’ll need a roadmap to FIND the aisle.)
There, I even highlighted the relevant parts for you.
In case you want to do more research, let me get you started with this Google search where you can find more examples, if you're willing to dig a little.
I recall when this was first reported; then Sankey disappeared. Did he source his statement? ITSA BIG DEAL
In that post they were discussing whether he would be a citizen by birth if he was born overseas. So that quote is irrelevant.
Also, both parents have to be American citizens and the candidate has to be born in this country. Questions have been raised about the eligibility of both candidates, especially Obama, and there should be no problem in verifying the information....
That post is saying what the poster believes the requirements should be, meaning he thinks the current requirements are different. You totally took that out of context.
The consensus then was that the fact that both parents were US citizens meant that he qualified as “natural-born,” even though he was born outside the US.
Once again, they are discussing whether he could be a natural born citizen if born abroad to one citizen parent. It is irrelevant to the discussion.
Nobody cares. Find another nit to pick.
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.