Posted on 04/25/2010 7:53:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
no onus on proof, anybody can be anybody they want to be.
Getting rid of documents is a convenient agenda in the first-the-pond-tomorrow-the-word Power Game.
Only in America can a man who doesn’t exist grow up to be President.
Interpreter? Give me a break! 0b0wa doesn't master any language, including English, except teleprompter English. Case in point, corps pronounced corpse and other examples I really don't care to numerate.
Knowing a few words of a language, pronounced with a thick accent and the wrong emphasis, doesn’t make one an interpreter or a linguist. Another implied or unintended glorification for an idiot!
He might have been a CIA informer who squealed on his buddies, the radical blacks, terrorists and communists, but to glorify him as an "interpreter" is quite a stretch. IOW, 'singing" to the CIA doesn't make him the new Sinatra!
You can imagine how all these groups would react to such revelations about their messiah. I certainly wouldn’t like to be in his hoofs when it eventually happens!
........should be rebranding them as “Documentarists” rather than “Birthers”.
You got that right. This ghost of a POTUS's documents, especially education documents, should be uncovered to find out who the real 0kaka is.
This is why I consider myself a Ghoster not a Birther.
Re “According to your view was Barry Goldwater eligible to run for POTUS in 1964?”
Why The Republicans Are Silent On The Eligibility Issue
The Republican Party has a history of accommodating presidential candidates whose Constitutional eligibility is uncertain.
Chester Arthur — America’s first post-1787-born president, whose parents were not both U.S. citizens, was a Republican.
George Romney — ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968. He was born in Mexico.
Barry Goldwater — born (in 1909) in Phoenix, when Arizona was still territory, not yet a state.
Lowell Weicker — entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out. He was born in Paris, France.
John McCain — born in the Republic of Panama.
Bobby Jindal — a possible Republican candidate in 2012. He was born in the United States, but at the time of his birth, his parents were not U.S. citizens.
Given its history of eligibility-questionable presidential candidates, the Republican Party would be guilty of hypocrisy if it were to challenge Obama’s eligibility.
Moreover, if the Courts find that Barack Obama is ineligible, it is likely that John McCain is ineligible as well, since neither candidate was subject to sole and complete U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his birth. Should that happen, both major political parties might be required to reimburse presidential campaign financing they received from the Federal government in 2008. This would be a non-issue for the Democratic Party which accepted little, if any, Federal monies during the 2008 presidential campaign. But the McCain campaign received substantial Federal funding.
If McCain were found to be an ineligible presidential candidate, the RNC might be required to return government monies it had received in 2008 for McCain’s presidential campaign. Given the financial risk that McCain’s questionable eligibility poses, the Republican Party is likely to oppose any public discussion of McCain’s or Obama’s presidential eligibility.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/SilentRepublicans.htm
Re: What if Ireland decided to grant Irish citizenship to all persons who could show at least one grandparent was an Irish citizen, at birth.
Now you’re just being foolish.
No country can just decide to make you a citizen.
All four of my grandparents came from Ireland, and, yes, I can file for Irish citizenship and an Irish passport, but Ireland can’t decide on it’s own to make me an Irish citizen.
In reference to your “The idea that you if you are born here (on American soil) you are automatically a citizen is also a statue (14th Ammendment).”
This is wrong-
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state; All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition
Under Jus Soli, the following is written “The Supreme Court’s first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102.
It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the ‘Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.
The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.
So explain how “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.”
So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?
Mind you this is The Supreme Court that has stated complete and not partial to any degree jurisdiction.
Now you’re just being foolish.
No country can just decide to make you a citizen.
All four of my grandparents came from Ireland, and, yes, I can file for Irish citizenship and an Irish passport, but Ireland can’t decide on it’s own to make me an Irish citizen.
Doesn’t have anything to do with my post.
Are you confused?
Doesn’t have anything to do with my post.
Are you confused?
Are you a narcissist who thinks that everything is always about you?
http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/2010/04/26/news/local/doc4bd523c70ef73660583516.txt
Az birther bill
McLain said Obama took too long to show proof of his citizenship. Obama’s mother was an American citizen but his father was from Kenya.Arizona Rep. Doris Goodale, R-Kingman, also supported the bill, saying so many hours and so much energy was spent in the past year debating the issue of Obama’s birth.“This bill is to prevent the angst and frustration with this situation occurring again,” Goodale said. “This will place Arizona in a solid position of knowing, proving the certification and requirements for the candidacy for our highest office.”“I have no problem requiring candidates prove they meet the qualifications to run for office. From the top of the ballot to the bottom,” Arizona Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City said.
I’d say you’ve exposed this obamanoid, Beckwith! This poster has been bending truth for weeks, trying to give cover to the affirmative action liar-in-chief. Now, the effectiveness of exposing the malignant narcissism of the sonofabitch in the Oval Office is showing up in the tlking points to be used in defending the lair and his illegitimacy.
Az birther bill
McLain said Obama took too long to show proof of his citizenship. Obama’s mother was an American citizen but his father was from Kenya.Arizona Rep. Doris Goodale, R-Kingman, also supported the bill, saying so many hours and so much energy was spent in the past year debating the issue of Obama’s birth.“This bill is to prevent the angst and frustration with this situation occurring again,” Goodale said. “This will place Arizona in a solid position of knowing, proving the certification and requirements for the candidacy for our highest office.”“I have no problem requiring candidates prove they meet the qualifications to run for office. From the top of the ballot to the bottom,” Arizona Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City said.
The base hospital McCain claimed for his birthplace wasn’t even authorized to be built until 1941. McCain was born in 1936. There are various sites when a search is made showing he was born in Colon Hospital in the Republic of Panama, not on a U.S. military base. Back to SR 511: if there were no question it would have not been necessary, but Obama used it to try and make his own NBC legitimate. It was a trick and both parties were at fault. Repubs thought McCain would defeat Hillary because of her known liberalism. With Obama’s deception (failure to tell what he was all about), Dems had ACORN, SEIU and the black vote, which I believe is how they won Congress in 2006 as well. I also believe the secret session of Mar. 12, 2008 about the economy to fail in Sept., gov’t finances to fail in Feb. ‘09, civil war, etc. caused many Congressmen to believe a catastrophe was imminent and globalism, and world government was the way to go. (Ben Pershing, Washington Post, 3/13/08 “House holds rare closed session” and also Gold and Silver Exchange, March 13/2008, “Closed door session of Congress predicted the present economic crisis.”
That is where I recall hearing it. And yes, I do believe he has a fast approaching court date.
Why weren't any questions about McCain's eligibility raised during the 2000 campaign? Why wait until 2008?
Thanks
:-)
Thank you for the list and the excellent history lesson.
The GOP should set a good example by cleaning up its own act first with regard to Presidential candidates of dubious eligibility. Mr. Arthur is a stain that can never be removed, unfortunately.
Do YOU fear Obama?
_______________
No and HELL NO! He can KMA. I fear for the future of my children.
No sh*t. He moved there for the lovely weather. LMAO! Crime City.
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.