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

To: HawkHogan
No court in this land would define “natural born citizen” in this way because of the uncertainty and upheaval it would create.

But my point is that the entire heavy weight of all history and law is against this claim.

And there is simply no credible evidence to support it. Just a big pile of twisted quotes, misreadings, and birther wishful thinking.

It's not a matter of uncertainty or upheaval. The claim that natural born citizen takes birth on us soil plus citizen parents is simply, flat out false.

633 posted on 03/09/2013 5:56:25 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Winston

Oh, I’m in complete agreement with me. I just think the whole argument is moot. Even if their definition was correct, which it is not, TWO presidents have already failed to meet this qualifications.

I’m not even a fan of O’Reilly, but I do agree with him about this birther movement. It brings down the credibility of the legitimate criticisms of Obama.


635 posted on 03/09/2013 6:00:08 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies ]

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