Posted on 05/01/2011 6:40:13 PM PDT by ml/nj
I keep reading that or variations of it over and over - yet how does that make it any more true? In the year of his birth, one didn't require both parents to be US Citizens for the child to be an automatic citizen (natural born).
Or conscience dead.
Fortunately, no one else here has ever made mistakes.
:-D
“Citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are not interchangeable or synonymous.
You can find the information on FR if you’re interested.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~rxsid/
Scroll down and pay special attention to what John Bingham had to say. He is the father of the 14th amendment.
Is it to keep the Eligibility Questioners (or "EQ"s - my preferred term) focused on the place of birth, to the exclusion of the requirement that both parents be citizens?
Is it to keep the EQs aligned with Trump, so as to encourage a third-party run?
Do they just want to continue, with the assistance of the MSM, flagging EQs as tin-foil hat wearing loonies, in the hope of scaring Independents off? Or are they just so arrogant and contemptuous of Congress & the MSM, that they saw no need to be careful? (After all, most of the MSM still believes the Texas ANG memos were authentic.)
At this point anyone who doesn’t get what a NBC is doesn’t want to know. I’ve never seen FR with such a huge number of aggressive trolls before.
0h0m0’s giving those who want to believe him or go along with the insane road show and excuse to continue believing, while giving everyone the middle finger salute since the “documents” are obvious forgeries.
It’s sickening.
I need your help.
Whats your opinion of this blog article:
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/the-odds-are-racist/
I have already tried to post this as a new thread and failed due to the blocked source. Wordpress.com is blocked I think.
Are the pixel duplications present in all versions of the document??
ML/NJ
I thought the thing about the check boxes was interesting. I'm not where I can easily check this out myself now. Maybe I'll be able to look later this evening.
The comma after the four could just be due to someone forgetting to type it and then back spacing. On most old typewriters if you hold the backspace key down while typing a character, that character gets typed at a halfway position.
Are the pixel duplications present in all versions of the document??
The only versions that matter are the White House pdf and faithful representations of it. I don't know what other versions you might have in mind.
ML/NJ
Read this please.
There’s something that we need to know for sure.
The explanation on HRS 333.17.8 does not hold water. “People” say it was not enacted until 1982. But that isn’t the end of the story.
It could merely be section (c) that was added or changed in 1982. Or some other change was made.
We need a PRINT COPY of a Statute book from sometime before 1982. From HI.
*OR*
Someone in HI to do a physical check on the SESSIONS OF CONGRESS from HI to see WHAT WAS CHANGED according to the notations at the end of HRS 338.17.8.
The session history will tell the EXACT amendment to the laws. It’s not something they can hide.
If it can be proved that 338.17.8 existed PRIOR to 1982, then the “Forgery” may not be one.
A physical examination of the written Congressional Session from HI will tell the tale. Someone on the ground needs to go look and post a copy. Not trust a (leftist) law librarian.
I Find it VERY ODD that the statue (Supposedly written in 1982) reference filing a birth certificate for TERRITORIAL CHILDREN when the territory ended in 1959.
Lady and butter - I thought you might be interested in EvasiveManuever’s idea. And maybe even have an idea how to find out the answer.
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.