.
Posted on 07/04/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Thanks for the ping.
I realize that's a possibility, but I suspect that neither he nor Jindal nor Haley will be the VP pick, talk about "thoroughly vetting" Rubio notwithstanding. I am convinced that millions, possibly tens of millions of conservative voters are perfectly aware of the two-citizen parent requirement for NBC and will vote 3rd Party or write-in a candidate in the event that the GOP pick for VP is ineligible. I'm one of them, and it's pretty much the only thing that would prompt me to do so, barring Romney (meh) getting caught with either a live boy or a dead girl between now and 06 November.
One of his own sons made a crack about "Obama"'s eligibility for pete's sake, though he was brought back in line quickly. I could be utterly wrong on this, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that there are enough conservatives out there who care enough about this issue that Romney would be defeated in a close election if the constitutionalist vote were to be lost by bringing aboard an ineligible candidate. I don't think he'll risk it.
Of course, if the fix is in anyway, and Romney is supposed to "go down in the 11th," well then we're already in the Globalist Hurt Locker with no foreseeable realistic way out any time soon. At least not without major convulsions.
Domo for the Ping, BD.
This "Hillary will swoop in and is a much more formidable foe than Bamster" line of reasoning has always annoyed me. If Barry were to be incontrovertibly outed as an ineligible fraud, Hillary and a whole lot of others would be lucky to keep their own necks out of the noose, and certainly she wouln't be able to effectively aspire to the Executive.
If the eligibility fraud issue were come to a head, the least of our worries would be whether or not Hillary is a threat. It (the undeniable exposure of the usurpation) could bring down the government entire; at least all of it that had or has responsibility for oversight and protection against infiltration and treason.
Hillary is probably also up to her eyeballs in Fast and Furious, which would just be rancid icing on the treasonous cake.
I suspect we would hear the phrase “good faith” ad nauseum.
Juan Mc C was born on Panamanian soil. Not NBC.
Mutt's daddy was born in Mexico. Again Not NBC.
Coincidence? Hardly!
This is proof of the communist infiltration at the highest levels of the GOP. To run 2 candidates that are ineligible against another ineligible candidate.
Meet the new Boss.
.
.
We are no longer a contitutional republic, and there is no constitution”...
I agree with you..It looks as though the Supreme Court Justice might have submitted to some kind of coercion in the gigantic, life changing healthcare bill decision. The US will go into a darkness of life not experienced here before which much of the communist world has known and other nations will follow. Our forefathers gave us the chance to try individual freedom and rule by the people and it worked for 200 plus years. Then, the world became very jealous and envious of our success and the wealth which followed..They desired to steal it and, further more, some of our own saw the benefit of using those same ugly human traits to grab personal power for themselves through dividing us from one another through unconstitutional acts. Now, we are in a shambles, facing drought and God only knows what else. Our media is largely to blame for our dilemma..They are beyond corruption at this point. Who believes them??? We are drug infested and my belief is that the drugs are used everywhere..In government, in church, in school, and in families. Many drugs effect the frontal lobes of the brain where logic and reason reside. It is unthinkable that, say, Supreme Court Justices, other kinds of judges and lawmakers and officials might be subjected to such drug use, but they are just men and women like everyone else. I imagine if we could know the truth we would be VERY afraid. This is what a Godless society looks like and we haven't seen anything yet.
The problem is the GOP forced 2 candidates with eligibility problems upon US at the same time as the DNC did.
They are in bed with each other, and we the people pay the motel bill!
And the Roberts ruling will go something like: The Constitution clearly prohibits someone like Obama from being President, but my last ruling allows such non-citizens to be President as long as enough citizens pay the penalties taxes to cover the mafeasance. If it was a normal citizen, he or she would have to pay his/her own penalties taxes , but when it comes to the Federal Government, it is the citizens' duty to pay for the crimes being committed against the People.
This:
"Let's talk of eligibility.
Juan Mc C was born on Panamanian soil. Not NBC."
This is based on a strict reading of Minor vs Happerset. Two citizen parents and born on sovereign US soil, so far so good. However, didn't Corsi document in his book that Juan was born on the base at Colon? If true then McLame would have met both criteria.
"Mutt's daddy was born in Mexico. Again Not NBC."
I've seen no evidence (or even suspicion) that Mittens was born anywhere other than in the US nor anything to sustantiate that his father was not at least a citizen at the time of Willard's birth, although George Romney ran into some eligibility flak during his failed presidential look-see, and would've likely faced more, had his try lasted longer. Like him or not, Mitt is constitutionally qualified unless demonstrably proven otherwise, and this is under a strict interpretation via MvH.
"Coincidence? Hardly!"
It does seem a stretch that so many candidates with questionable constitutional bona fides would all end up in the mix within a two-election window.
Hmmmmm
As recent events once again demonstrate, the Supreme Court is f***ed up. I would not be wanting anything to go before them until we get the loons off the court.
That is the major problem with our courts. They are not aware of the relationship between natural law and a natural citizen. This is a forgotten area of law. Today's judges are only concerned with what some previous court has ruled. Original intent is not even on their radar.
Are his children being threatened as well???? I thought we could trust the Heritage Foundation!
A lot of people have grown up learning that fallacy, and don't actually know the truth. The merely repeat what they've heard. The fallacy that just being born here makes you a "natural" citizen started with Wong Kim Ark. (Which did not use the term "natural born citizen.")
I’ve so much confidence in the USSC to do the right thing...
No he was not. I have researched this to a reasonable extent and John McCain was born on the U.S. Navy base in Panama, not in Colon. That accusation about him being born in Colon is due to a FAKE McCain birth certificate (cobbled together by some @sshole) claiming such. Please stop repeating this FALSE claim.
Mutt's daddy was born in Mexico. Again Not NBC.
To two American Citizens, which therefore makes George Romney an American citizen, and it makes Mitt Romney the child of two American citizens. Again, Stop with the CRAP!
Coincidence? Hardly!
This is proof of the communist infiltration at the highest levels of the GOP. To run 2 candidates that are ineligible against another ineligible candidate.
Meet the new Boss.
You may want to see a conspiracy behind everything, but there are those of us that Automatically classify any suggestion of a conspiracy as Nut-Burger territory. Now you have two incorrect "facts" upon which you are basing your conspiracy, so you either need to retract your theory, or get some correct facts to back it up.
I'm not saying that there aren't communist minded people attempting to influence American Politics. There are, and they do it overtly. Most of them live in Hollywood and New York. The Selection of McCain and Romney was not the result of some secret conspiracy, it's the result of the other candidates being even worse in some manner or the other. (Except perhaps for the double dealing in Virginia. I think the Virginia Republican party STOLE the election in Virginia for Romney, which had a subsequent domino effect on other states.)
a stretch but his father an, admiral and his mother were both certainly US citizens
As I again hold my nose, I am prepared to vote for Mitt who was born in the US of two US citizen parents
each GOP candidate released all of their supporting documentation ... Obama - not so much
.
No they didn't. I distinctly remember everything that happened in the Primary election of 2008. Campaigning started in early 2007, and we had a pack of bad candidates. Fred Thompson was the only decent candidate we had, but he didn't bother getting into the race until after everyone else had been campaigning for months. Even then, he didn't put as much effort into it as everyone else already had. I got the impression that he was wanting to be Coronated or something. Everyone else had already secured promises to vote for them by the time Fred got into the race, and there simply weren't enough uncommitted people remaining to give him much support.
Of the remaining candidates, none of them had a widespread national following. They were all regional and niche candidates. Had we picked ANY of the remaining candidates, we would have lost by an even WIDER margin.
I was not happy with John McCain, but of the players on the field, he was the only one that stood any chance of winning at all. I voted for him in the Primary and the General because EVERY BODY ELSE SUCKED WORSE!!!!!!
That's a question that the US courts and their judges do not honestly answer despite numerous Supreme Court cases that give them the natural born citizen definition based on natural law.
That's delusional. The current state of the law is that a person born in the US is Natural Born for purposes of Article II Section 1--you may not like it but that is the current legal rule under the U S Constitution.
What "numerous Supreme Court cases" give a different definition? Miner? The "we hold that . . . " language is mostly dicta--the plaintiff was born in the US so she was a citizen no matter where her parents were citizens--addition of citizen parentage was irrelevant; and the holding is not relevant to the Article II Sec. 1 issue because the argument was not over the eligibility of the plaintiff to hold the office of President.
And, why should citizenship of the parents make a difference? From our point of view, Rubio would make a great President committed to American Constitutional principles of government and the Judeo Christian ethic as a basis for our legal system. And frankly, I think there is a reasonable probability that Zero will ultimately be found to have been born to a multi generational US Citizen father and thus eligible under any any theoretical argument you might want to make about the relevance of citizen parentage.
The reason why place of birth is important is because the government and the head of state of the place a person is born has the power under international law to assert certain kinds of control over the person throughout the course of their life.
A good example is US tax policy. A German national; successful businessman who has earned billions of dollars of income throughout his life; born in the US in 1946 because his father was a prominent anti-Nazi businessman who was significant in connection with post war reconstruction efforts--the father and mother in New York for several weeks in connection with post war financing plans when the birth occurred; the US Government position is that he was liable for US Federal Income Tax on all of his billions of dollars of income throughout his life.
There is further documentary record that kind of issue was the exact reason for use of the NBC term in the Constitution by the founders.
An easy decision for the Court on this issue and correct on the applicable Constitutional legal principles.
Making this argument a centerpiece of our legal effort has hurt our case badly.
An effective lawyer for our side, making the record before the ALJ, would have focused on the place of birth issue. We have rules about evidence--what facts and sources can used to create an evidentary record before a Court or Administration Law Judge.
Whatever the ALJ might rule, the clear evidence is that the image of a Hawaii birth certificate furnished to support the born in Hawaii argument is not a true copy of a certificate of Hawaii birth records but is instead a fraud. That record can be made sufficiently clear to stand up on appeal.
Thus there is only one class of admissible evidence of the place of birth. Statements against interest are admissible as evidence, either because they are not defined as hearsay or because they come in as exceptions to the hearsay rule depending on the status of the person making such statements as a party or interested witness or other factors defined by local law; and further depending on local law as to definition.
Over the years, there is a pretty clear record of statements by Zero that he was born in Kenya. A number of people heard him make those statements--in political coffee hours; in one on one coversation; in public speeches; and he is responsible for publications which attribute the fact of his birth in Kenya to him.
The only legal evidence on the question of where he was born are his own statements against interest.
Now I tend to doubt that he was born in Kenya. But a legal record on appeal on this basis would ultimately put the burden of proof on the question of his place of birth on Zero--in order to defend his eligibility to hold the office, he would need to appear and prove that he was in fact born in the United States which I also tend to doubt that he can do.
In short, effective legal work on this case should have been the key to our success.
Will they seize the moment to slay this beast, or will they slay the Constitution?
Given their recent track record, it could go either way.
*sigh*
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.