Posted on 07/31/2009 4:30:00 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
Lawyer, He CLAIMS to be a constitutional professor. Although he taught 1 course a semester as an Instructor, or Lecturer. NOT A PROFFESSOR! This is just 1 MORE LIE! He has continuously LIED about his past and his plans. He is by any definition of the word a LIAR! He promised to have the most transparent presidency in history, and he wouldn't even release his Certificate of Live Birth, his transcripts from any of the three colleges he attended, his writings for the Harvard Law Review, his records as to how he was able to afford his very expensive education, WHO PAID. Every one of these things may show nothing. But we will never know. The only thing we know about this guys past is the crap he wrote about in the 2 Autobiographies he wrote before he was 45.
Yes and Rush Limbaugh was talking about this today.
You wrote-
“National Review online
Suborned in the U.S.A.
by Andrew C. McCarthy”
I believe that this will all catch up to Obama- in court.
You wrote-
“Lawyer, He CLAIMS to be a constitutional professor. Although he taught 1 course a semester as an Instructor, or Lecturer. NOT A PROFFESSOR! This is just 1 MORE LIE! He has continuously LIED about his past and his plans. He is by any definition of the word a LIAR! He promised to have the most transparent presidency in history, and he wouldn’t even release his Certificate of Live Birth, his transcripts from any of the three colleges he attended, his writings for the Harvard Law Review, his records as to how he was able to afford his very expensive education, WHO PAID. Every one of these things may show nothing. But we will never know. The only thing we know about this guys past is the crap he wrote about in the 2 Autobiographies he wrote before he was 45.”
bookmark
Surely there is a CIA agent out there who doesn’t mind going “off the radar” to get to the truth... PLEASE, SOMEBODY!!!
PING!
This neutral writer makes a pretty good case against Obama.
As this dodge and hide continues from BO I am beginning to wonder if the thing he’s really trying to hide is not so much the place of his birth, but who his father is.
If his father is anyone other than the Kenyan, his whole life would be shown to be a fraud.
He is definitely hiding something!
It must be something very damaging that Obama is hiding since he’s paid over a million dollars in legal fees to keep it hidden.
I’m sure that perjury = impeachment.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Only a valid president can be impeached. If he can’t qualify then he can’t be a president. Arrest and a frog march out of the White House would be the appropriate action.
Yes, James Lewis’ article is really great!
Here’s a link: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamas_birth_debate_its_about.html
Here’s another article that Lewis wrote last year that still makes my head spin:
Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamas_birth_debate_its_about.html
Glenn Beck mentioned this strategy yesterday on his show.
Twitter message from Josef Farah of WND just posted:
Trust me for now: More coming next week on Birth-gate. You will be stunned. No more will anyone say there’s “no evidence.”
If he’s not a valid president, it won’t matter; he’ll be out of office either way.
There was only ONE definition as understood and used by the Framers - the De Vattel definition: From Emmerich De Vattel: “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law” (1758): “…natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owns to its own preservation: and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will only be the place of his birth, and not his country”. The evidence that this is the definition that was understood by the Framers is conclusive, but I won’t do more than just assert that notion here.
CIA or something equivalent is the only one who could have shut down his history .
It went down a black hole for a reason.
Look to the Mossad to finally get to the heart of the matter since Obama’s attitude is threatening the existence of Israel.
I once came across a story about a researcher conducting a project about past lives. One phone call and the study was shut down on one of the participants. The researcher was quite frightened.
I have no doubt that someone in the government shut down Obama’s history.
No, statute laws do NOT matter in a Constitutional test, or the Constitution could be effectively amended through legislation alone.
Any statute law applied during the time of its validity and later revisions of the law do not normally have retrospective application. The citizenship laws you refer to do NOT have retrospective affect - as you would know if you had researched the subject.
Obama may well be a citizen of the United States by birth, but even if he is, he is not, never could be a “natural born” citizen since his father could not bequeath that status to him since he was not a US citizen.
Instead, he bequeathed his British colonial status on his son. This is a conceded fact, beyond any dispute or controversy, and it rules out natural born US citizenship for his son without regard to the location of his birth.
Some of the same framers passed a law a couple of years later that allowed for natural born citizen born on foreign shores. So NO, they did not have just one definition in their minds.
That law was signed by George Washington.
And what about a boy who is born a bastard and cannot have the same country as his father...
Such as Obama?
The simple fact vis-à-vis verifying presidential candidates is it's a new age; gone is the age of trusting each other because we were Americans first. We competed for the "spoils" but we were Americans first and we respected the Constitution.
No more. Enter the 1960s Marxist-Alinsky hippie street rabble and their ideological issue (Obama and millions more)-cum-Rat Party (formerly the traditional, patriotic Democratic Party). F--- the Constitution, the ends justify the means.
It may take a Constitutional crisis to get the Rat to release his long form b.c. like Americans do all the time -- and yes it may prove Hawaiian birth, etc. but at least he'd be doing what Americans are expected to do.
“Instead, he bequeathed his British colonial status on his son. This is a conceded fact, beyond any dispute or controversy, and it rules out natural born US citizenship for his son without regard to the location of his birth.”
Oh, I have a dispute with it.
The marriage was Void Ab Initio.
And here is the UK law discussed on the UK Border Agency site.
I’m looking forward to it!
You wrote-
“Twitter message from Josef Farah of WND just posted:
Trust me for now: More coming next week on Birth-gate. You will be stunned. No more will anyone say there’s “no evidence.””
Only a man with Muslim roots such as Obama would defy the desire of the American people to know the truth.
You wrote-
“..... but at least he’d be doing what Americans are expected to do.”
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.