Posted on 12/05/2009 11:07:08 AM PST by betty boop
That Obama had a British father was without doubt a year ago. Why didn’t conservatives raise the issue then?
That towering intellect Ann Coulter, who wrote a book “The Impeachment of Clinton”, a constitutional lawyer no less, didn’t think anything of it a year ago? Not to mention radio talk show hosts?
That liberals would keep quiet is to be expected - why would far right people go along?
STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOU . . .
Then . . .judging from his treasonous evil acts . . .
is he really even human of human parents or a creature from hell?
But then . . . maybe I’m being unfair . . . or maybe not.
To keep us busy the left introduced a straw man...
They put the citizenship of McCain to the test in congress...
BTW Barry signed off on it agreeing that McCain was eligible to run...
Theres more than one reason why we ended up with McCain...
If we had Romney it would have been the same...
Just like Barry...
Romneys father was not born here either...
He was born in Mexico...
Thank you so much, TQC!!!
Maybe.
What is really interesting to me is that few people seem inclined to acknowledge the "800-pound gorilla in the room."
Which boils down to this: If Obama is an illegitimate president, then EVERY ACT of his in office is "null and void" from the get-go; i.e., is not binding law that the American people must respect. No appointment he has ever made; no signing of any legislative act; no executive order issued under his name. None have any effect under the Constitution; they are not valid laws that can bind the American people.
In effect, if he sits illegitimately, then nothing that he has done since his inauguration has any legal effect under the Constitution. Not only that, but since such would be illegal acts, he cannot legitimately compel the federal taxpayer to pay for them.
How's that for a monkey wrench in the works???
. . . INDEED . . . and just for starters . . .
there’s then all the implications of all those illegal deeds.
We’ve just seen the global warming issue blown wide open by the exposure of the blatant forgery of phony climate data.
I want to see that birth certificate. I don’t see any reason to trust any of these con men.
Truthers? The author is an idiot. The term is "Birthers".
I respect you, Jean S, as a sane, dependable, and rational collaborator hereabouts. I know this from longstanding experience.
Thus your last disappoints me. I for one cannot draw any meaningful distinction between "birthers" and "truthers." I do not care about "doctrinal positions" one way or another.
What I want to know is this: Does President Obama hold his office legitimately or not???
Not to mention that the "idiot author" is me. I do have a stake in this game.
There is a difference. "Truthers" think that the U.S. government or the Jews orchestrated 911. "Birthers" believe that Obama is not a U.S. citizen.
There is a huge difference between the two words.
True.... But your method of expressing yourself leaves much to be desired. Your response is exactly the kind that discredits FR.
Sorry if I offended you.
~~~~~~~~~~
"U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, [BUT, NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN] at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; "Methinks that a fruitful line of research might be the birth/parental status of those signers/authors of the Constitution who knowing themselves NOT to be natural born citizens, specifically exempted themselves from the "natural born" requirement.
IOW, if one of our early Presidents (exempted under Article II, §1) was born here, but not of two Citizen parents, We have a clear example of what a natural born citizen is NOT.
...but now that we have, we have no standing to question our elected leaders on anything anymore.
-PJ
Didn't offend me, I just felt like I'd point it out. Starting off your response to somebody with "the author is an idiot" is a good way to try to start a fight with somebody, but not so good at presenting a cogent criticism.
Incidentally, I see it far too often on FR, I see too many flame wars, and have unfortunately allowed myself to get sucked into a few, which is why I don't hang out at FR nearly as much as I used to.
Besides, betty boop is one of my contributors, and I go to bat for my contributors.
However for the following to be true, there needs to be one other part of the formula - JURISDICTION!
The mexican anchor baby, still would not have JURISDICTION, as it’s parents are under Mexican law.
In effect, if he sits illegitimately, then nothing that he has done since his inauguration has any legal effect under the Constitution. Not only that, but since such would be illegal acts, he cannot legitimately compel the federal taxpayer to pay for them.
Thank you so much for your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
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.