Overheard via hot mic: "I'd like to pound my gavel in your congressional chamber, baby!" ;)
Hey, this thread could use a little levity!
Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
They are the republicants ... can’t afford to have their sevret lives revealed, so they do the democrips’ bidding.
“Bin-Talal went on to buy majority public ownership of News Corp, owner of Fox News and the WSJ, a major holder of Citibank and AIG, Cisco, Apple, GE, Siemens, and dozens of other corporations.”
Bin-Talal does not have anywhere near majority ownership in any of those companies. He had less than 10% of Newscorp last time I looked at the proxy and 10-K.
IMO, Barry is a Chicago Marxist. When the USSR fell they had to look around for big money to sucker into funding their activities and they pretend to be Muslim sympathetic when it helps just like Barry has pretended to be Christian for years.
BTW, I went to the same prep school in the same class with Scooter four years after W. did. Scooter threw in with Cheney and did some things that harmed W in order to protect Cheney (appearing to be pretending not to remember things), which is why I believe Scooter did not get full pardon. I agree that the prosecution was a disgrace and never should have happened.
Obviously, that was simply not their concern.
Have you not followed the conversation? Three of our first four Presidents were French citizens, WHILE they were President.
George Washington. President of the United States and citizen of France.
Thomas Jefferson. President of the United States and citizen of France. For his entire Presidency.
James Madison. President of the United States and citizen of France. For his entire Presidency, as well.
They simply had no fear of children with non-citizen parents.
Nor did they have any fear of children carried abroad and raised in foreign countries.
It just wasn't a concern.
Do you know what they actually feared?
They feared foreign royalty sweeping in here from other countries to take over.
Not coming here to have babies, and then their babies becoming President 50 years from now.
That's just stupid, even today.
AND... they feared rich foreigners coming over and having lunch with totally native US politicians, and bribing them for favorable treatment.
THAT's what they were concerned about.
And by the way, when I tell you I frankly don’t care one way or the other, that’s not a flip answer. That’s an honest assessment of my feelings on the matter.
You asked for an honest answer, so I gave you one.
“Not to belabor the obvious, but FREMONT was Fremont’s father.”
Citizen John Pryor was Fremont’s legal father, not Fremon. You obviously haven’t spent much time in family court and don’t know US family law!
The SCOTUS definition of NBC affirmed in Minor v. Happersett applies to the children of two married citizens.
Under international law an unmarried woman passes unitary citizenship to her child, not the citizenship of her husband. This is why it matters whether Barry’s parents had a legal marriage.
If you take the time to read the 1948 BNA that “governs the children of” BHO Sr. you will find that UK citizenship does not pass from UK subjects to illegitimate children. It only passes to children of a legal marriage. In Hawaii and also under UK colonial Kenyan law where BHO Sr. first marriage to Kezia was tribal, not Muslim, the marriage of Barry’s claimed biological parents appears to me to have been likely to have been bigamous.
Bottom line, marriage matters when determining whether nationality passes from a father to children. Look at how the law is applied to the children of US soldiers overseas with women to whom they are not married!
Your gymnastic foolery is astonishingly obvious! How did Washington become a French citizen? How did Jefferson become a French citizen? ... You are one of the smartests and most dishonest obamanoid workers I’ve come across at FR. You are so deeply committed to support the freaud-in-chief that you make stupir\d assertions which contradict your won posts yet try to pretend you are genuine in your concern for conservatism. You are a lying fraud.
What an imagination. So, how exactly does a natural-born citizen requirement stop “foreign royalty” from “sweeping in here from other countries to take over,” when the Obot argument is that NBC means to be born on U.S. soil alone and NOT to citizen parents??? I’ve got to hear this one.
Lots of things are possible Tau Food (clever, I think), but not so important as the reality that the US has accepted as chief executive, and commander in chief of our military, someone about whose origins were really know very little, and most of that from two autobiographies written before he was 35 and 45, and probably by an anonymous ghost writer named Bill Ayers.
For wild suppositions the suggestion that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama’s father seems more plausible. What is more important is that we really don't know, and the media have participated in the subterfuge.
A more likely, and seldom discussed attribute of our mystery golfer is the verifiability of his election. The issue is seldom discussed because few understand that with the approbation of both political parties, our voting processes are no longer auditable. No one, except someone generating numbers to suit his managers, can say how many voted, or for whom. Checking is impossible.
Most citizens don't imagine that their franchise to participate in representative government could be a sham, even when most know about Acorn, and some know that one of Obama’s earlier jobs was training activists for Soros’ “Project Vote.” Counting events reliably was my business for years, so I happen to have had to think about guaranteeing the validity of data - audit trails.
This is not the thread, so I will only say that were our votes instead numbers of molecules of a contaminant in a drug sample sent to our FDA as part of an application for approval of a pharmaceutical, the FDA would not accept the application because the applicant handled the data after it was collected. The count needed to be protected from human editors.
Today our votes presumably get counted by scanners managed by the SEIU. (I say presumably because we have no assurance that any counting is done.) Absentee ballots are counted by the SEIU, away from public scrutiny. Our voting process is controlled by government employees whose salaries depend upon the results. Not only is Obama not a natural born citizen, his elections are not verifiable. Germany recently returned to a system based upon auditable paper ballots. There are very few who could explain how our votes are tabulated. Ask in your precinct sometime. Volunteers used to count the votes before leaving, and are now ushers in a system opaque, like Obama, by design. As Stalin explained, “In elections only who counts the votes matters.”
Thanks for the Ping; I’m still 350+ posts behind, trying to catch up. It’s a great thread, troll/SP infestation warts and all. :)
Overheard via hot mic: "I'd like to pound my gavel in your congressional chamber, baby!" ;)
Hey, this thread could use a little levity!
Are you saying they didn't?
Both had French citizenship given to them by the French government. That made them naturalized French citizens.
James Madison as well.
All three were dual citizens of the United States and France, while serving as United States Presidents.
Again, I am simply explaining the historical and legal meaning of the term. There is tons of evidence to support the things I’ve said. This is simply the way that it is, and that is understood by every real legal expert, Constitutional scholar, and court in America.
If you can’t understand it or accept it, that’s your problem.
It needs no explanation. A third grader can understand it quite easily. But not a birther, apparently.
Well, Davis did live in Hawaii and did know Obama's family. He was born in Kansas.
So, if Davis was Obama's father and the woman who called herself "Stanley Dunham" was his mother and if she gave birth to Obama in Hawaii (where both parents lived), then Obama is a natural born citizen by even the most stringent standard.
On the other hand, if his father was a member of the Saudi royal family and he was born in Hawaii, then he is a natural born citizen only under the less stringent standard.
I am trying to picture members of the Supreme Court sitting around a table trying to sift through all this unsliceable baloney. Does anyone really believe that the Supreme Court is uniquely suited to correctly solving these kinds of mysteries?
In other words, you have nothing. Whining about so-called "birthers" doesn't cover for the delusion you posted. No surprise that you can't back up what you post.
-PJ
Okay. If you absolutely insist, then I will spell it out for you.
Some good men started our country. These men were called Founders. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were Founders. And there were other good men like them.
They did not want a king. They did not want a queen. They did not want a prince. They did not want a princess. They said we should have a President instead.
They decided the President should be born a United States citizen, or be a citizen already when they wrote the Constitution. They did this because they knew that none of our citizens were kings or queens or princes or dukes from England or France.
They did not want a rich king or queen or prince or duke from some other country to come over here and become President. They knew that if a rich duke from England came here, he could impress a lot of people and buy up votes and get elected President. So they stopped that from ever happening by making a law that no one who was not already a citizen, or who would not be born a citizen later, could be President.
They wrote that in a big, important paper that gave the basic laws for the United States. They wrote that the President must be a natural born citizen. That paper is called the Constitution.
Originally said:
Not coming here to have babies, and then their babies becoming President 50 years from now.
Then he says:
So they stopped that from ever happening by making a law that no one who was not already a citizen, or who would not be born a citizen later, could be President.
Two if by "C" maybe? Oh wait, wrong historical reference.
Dual C-tizens, perhaps?
The Odd Couple?
All I know is that image sends me into a Constitutional Crisis of my own! ;)
You are correct Seizethecarp. I should have said the largest exernal holder of public stock in News Corp. Individual public stock holders seldom hold a majority of shares in any company. In bin-Talal's case his holdings were about four times the size of Invesco's. Only the Murdoch family held more. Clearly, since the British trial of Roger, things have changed, and I am both not knowledgeable about media corporations, and don't follow them - just enough to learn never to own more of your employer's stock than you need to. Now Roger Ailes appears is the largest external stockholder with bin-Talal's Kingdom Holding Company nowhere to be seen. That I cannot explain, but it is very recent.
The point is that the Saudis are embedded in large corporations in the US, making Obama's position a real coup, whether for business or politics, take your pick. Bin-Talal has boasted of his control over both Fox News, and the WSJ's editorial policies. What evidence we have suggests that Obama is their guy.
Kingdom Holding Company is the largest corporation in Saudi Arabia, and has investments in hundreds of US Corporations, Including Time Warner, world's largest media conglomerate last time I looked. It is probably just coincidental that Time Warner give 451 million dollars to the Obama campaign in 2012 and 30 thousand to Romney. Donations also shape editorial policy, but the New Corp connections is stronger, with Murdoch close to opening a branch of Fox in Saudi Arabia:
Here is Jamie Dettmer's summary of News Corp ownership as of April, 2012. Things appear to have changed, particularly Roger Ailes large holdings, and I can't provide the analysis. Bin-Talal certainly didn't hold a majority of the shares of public stock, but he held more than anyone else among the top five, and about four times more shares than Invesco. He is investing our domestic product, profits from our buying his oil, oil our government prevents us from producing domestically, into potential control of our media. That isn't illegal, and may be beneficial, except that Alwaleed does exercise editorial control, which may not be beneficial. In other words, be skeptical of Fox News and The WSJ when the issue involves the Middle East, as almost everything does, or eligibility, because Obama is their guy.
From James Dettmer in April of 2012:
In the end, the only important News Corp. shareholders are the top five in voting terms: the Murdoch family and Rupert Murdoch, who control 39.74 percent of the votes in News Corp.; Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud (7.04 percent); Invesco (1.8 percent); Bank of New York Mellon (1.19 percent); and Taube Hodson Stonex (1.07percent).
Max Fisher's "Atlantic Wire":
Fox loves the Islamic world so much that the TV news company is planning a 24-hour Arabic-language news channel. Fox is partnering with Al-Waleed bin Talal, a mid-ranking prince in the sprawling Saudi royal family and an international businessman so successful that Time nicknamed him an "Arabian Warren Buffett." The new channel will compete with the existing Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera networks for access to the world's 300 million native Arabic speakers.
The above is a news item from 2010, and would be innocuous, and hasn't happened yet, were it not a fact that bin-Talal is the source of operating funds for the Muslim Brotherhood, running Egypt, Libya, Sudan, working on Algeria, Morocco and Syria, operating in our State Department, Homeland Security, CIA, and perhaps, our chief executive.
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.