Posted on 12/04/2008 2:50:11 PM PST by pissant
Didn’t Berg, a Democrat seriously start this REQUEST?
They’re trying to say it’s a sore loser thing. LOL
A simple request should get a simple straight forward answer,
but since we didn’t get one, there has to be something very bad behind
their stonewalling and trying to squelch the citizens questions.
Best reason to ask why he doesn’t do the same I have heard!
I’d like to know my new President. I am trying to write about him but there are no facts to report, only presents and fakes and lawyers.
I am waiting with baited breath to read anything Obama wrote at Harvard when he was on the law review. You can not be on the law review without writing something.
Which should have been enough to raise red flags to anyone in the 'watchdog' media that was worth two bits...
I understand that these folks often talk in a barely comprehensible 'governmentspeak' dialect -- but when the Hawaii Health Director deliberately refrained from saying that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii it should have set off alarms.
The fact that it has been met with mute silence (other than on a few websites) is another indictment of the enemy media. They seek not the truth -- but how to push a socialist one-world agenda.
My take would be that that may well be the outcome if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. Either way....it's basically a time bomb.
Sorry, you are incorrect on that assumption. Changes in the law make that statement more valid today then it was 40 some years ago.
Actually that is not what the case directly alleges, as I understand it.
NJ law requires that the SOS (Nina Wells) confirm and attest that the anointed one is Constitutionally eligible to be placed on the ballot. She did not do that.
Even IF the great Obama is a citizen, he did not prove to the SOS that he is and thus he was incorrectly approved for the NJ ballot, which means Nina, like most Democrats, failed to perform her job.
The liberal 1984 headquarters has probably more memos down the spin tube to blame for the lack of coming change or trouble arising out of this divisive issue provoked and brought on by this manshurian scum Obama:
Bush knew it! That’s racist! It was a conspiracy!
While I think this effort is in vain.
I do believe if that if my son/daughter are required to produce a birth certificate (Not a certificate of live birth, there is a difference) in order to participate in football and soccer; I think the president-elect should be required to present his identification as well.
I just find it strange that Obama refuses to publish his actual birth certificate.
It would be easy to settle this matter then let it fester in the Supreme Court and create myriads of conspiracy theorists.
There is strong evidence the guy is at least politicaly and emotionaly not really a US citizen, period. This is something this Manshurian is using to subvert the US through attempt at rallying people under his foreign invasion cause.
ABC has spoken, the matter is settled. The Justices can go home now.
Sheesh.
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
The author has this backwards. The burden of proof is on Obama. If a job requires certain qualifications, the job-applicant must provide the proof of those qualifications. No one has to prove they don't exist, the applicant must prove they do exist.
For instance, suppose a person says he's an M.D. and opens up a clinic but there is no proof that the person is an M.D. He cannot simply say, "Prove that I'm not." Instead, he must prove that he is.
Same thing with the presidency. There are minimum qualifications that must be met. It is not up to anyone to prove they aren't. It is up to the nominee to prove that they are.
Well you wouldn’t want to be racist!
It’s not so in vain, because now liberals cannot say “we” denied we knew “911” and Manshurian Obama was going to happen.
Not only is Jake a jerk, but he misses one of the most important parts of the argument. That is, that Obama probably lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. It would be tough to prove he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, although the plantif attempts to place the burden of proof on Obama, and a lot easier to prove that he lost his citizenship and never regained it.
Personally, I’m upset that this issue wasn’t resolved well before election day. Were all 50 of the secretaries of state asleep at the switch to not have questioned him before he was put on the ballot for their respective states? If it is taken up by SCOTUS and it is found that Obama is not eligable we will likely be in for pretty dramatic social upheaval. I’m not sure which is worse, widespread civil unrest or giving him a pass.
Long term or short term?
I have posted like mad about that article. It is turning into a free-for-all over there! The libs descend into name-calling and ad-hominem attacks, as usual. They are so transparent. You can smell their fear.
damn good idea—a march on the Kenyan government to demand release of their sealed and locked documents.
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.