|
Posted on 12/19/2008 12:23:50 PM PST by Red Steel
Get over myself? LOL
|
1. Please, does anyone know?
2. NOTE: Forget about Justice Ginsberg, because I don't think she would have the courage to even try. She probably would be just as happy to remain in the dark forever than to bring light to the room by replacing the burnt-out light bulb with a new one.
3. My own amateurish answer: It obviously only takes one justice, but the 9 Supreme Court justices don't know for sure, because they are afraid to stick their necks out and make a critical decision on the issue of how many justices are needed to screw in a light bulb.
NOTE: Feel free to offer your own answer as to how many Supreme Court justices it would take to screw in a light bulb.
Jerome Corsi made some interesting observations in his investigations and summary of Obama’s book.
When Obama discusses his times and life in Indonesia, he fails to even mention his younger sister, Maya.
He actually visited Kenya three times prior to his recent trip as a Senator. He fails to discuss his second Kenyan trip with his fiance Michelle, and the fact that she accompanied him on that journey.
All Kenyan records pertaining to him have been sealed by Kenyan authorities. Why should any records even exist if he was travelling as an adult American with an an American passport and tourist visa.
Eventually the truth will surface, it always does.
Had the fourth estate not donned their worship kneepads for the Marxist Chicago squirrel, they might have been busy during ther primaries interviewing the public servants Obama’s army of lawyers and detectives sent around burying any scrap of his adult history. But of course the media presstitutes are socialist dead-souls and could not comprehend why anyone might question the chosen affirmative action hiree. They do love their wicked democrats, and the more debauched the better. Of course, this one had dark skin, so he gets passes for anything raised to doubt him. As an affirmative action hiree, he is allowed to tell us he is a natural born citizen and we are not to question him or expect anything int he way of discovery of his past. ... When the riots start, I’m goin’ huntin’ for the real enemedia.
The schism was already there. McCain did more in that effort than Obama ever could.
Just come out and say it.
No one wants to touch the isue because he is Black or partially Black. And therefore, the rules of law should not be applied equally to him.
He is allowed to operate with a sub-standard code of ethics, where laws are not applicable based on his preferred racial categorization. It is the same logic applied to the Simpson murderer and the national rejoicing by 1/2 the country when OJ was judged innocent by a jury of his peers.
His race card has allowed him a status above our laws and Constitution;
1. The MSM has withheld all credible questioning and reporting.
2. He has been given a pass for years of illegal drug usage, including narcotic usage and the acquisition thereof.
3. He has been given a pass on his past racial snipes against Whites and his own family in particular.
4. He has been given a pass on his past and current associations with criminals, racists, and black-supremecists.
5. He has been given a pass on his past and current relationships and friendships with American home-grown terrorists.
6. His Blackness or partial African blood allows him to operate with impunity above the law.
7. His race is provides a ticket to fame and “get out of jail, free” card through politics, legalities, and all qualifications.
“”all I ask is that the truth be brought out in court.””
It will be truth & justice or political expediency.
It can’t be both.
There is no embarassment to be had.
Illegitimate birth is not cause for embarassment (except that is contrary to the concept of not eliminating a baby as ‘punishment.’’
Adoption or lineage to an athesit, marxist, black-supremicst, or communist are all terms of endearment to his primary constiuency.
The term “embarassing” is code speak for illegal.
As in forged birthplace, dates, names, and pseudo tales of African romances.
Great comments.
schism?
There will always be a schism between moley trolls and Conservatives.
Let me guess bubba, you’re here to heal and unify the Conservative base.
Well bless your heart, what is your secret game plan for party unification?
Does it involve kissing and crossing ourselves before replicas of the ‘One?’’or just giving up the quest for his proof of Constitutional acceptability? Is that the sole issue, that once dropped, will allow us to all hold hands and sing ‘koomb ba-ya?’
The One does not appear to be laughing every time he has scooted back to Hawaii, he looks a nervous wreak.
His erasure of data, photographs, and articles related to his past from the web search engines is likely no laughing matter either. But do continue your laughter since it brings you comfort.
The term “embarassing” is code speak for illegal.
As in forged birthplace, dates, names, and pseudo tales of African romances.
***I wonder if it simply says, “unknown” for name of father. That would prove embarrassing for the obamarxist and add fuel to the fire that he’s not natural born. In essence, it brings to the constitutional fore the issue of burden of proof of eligibility for the president. If it’s an unknown citizen, he’s natural born; if it’s an unknown alien, he’s naturalized. And mama Obama is dead, so the pursuit of the truth is hampered. Of course, we all believe that zer0bama should produce positive proof of eligibility. Our socialist opponents believe he’s eligible because he was elected and choose to ignore the language from the 20th amendment. And he could say that he honestly felt he was eligible all along. What a mess. The supreme court would find some way to punt, I’m sure.
I'm not "going after" Berg. I'm making a commonsense assessment of his suit's chances. I'm totally with you on wanting Obama to come clean. I would love for someone to mount a suit that would work. But the devil is in the details with lawsuits, and I'm predicting this one won't work. Sorry. I call it like I see it.
Nothing else makes sense does it? What could possibly be more embarrassing on his BC than Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayers or his total lack of experience?
Have you had a chance yet to look at the quotes from Bingham and John Jay regarding the born of ‘parents’ owing no allegiance to any other soverignty issue for natural born?
Please rephrase your question intelligibly.
You nailed it.
I'll just post some of Beckwith's work for you:
: Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." (http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx)
"For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. in 2008 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). As you can clearly see, Obama is a U. S. citizen, but he's not a "natural born citizen" and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was a foreigner. His birth certificate is only relevant to answer the question, "what does Obama have to hide?"
C H A R T at http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart2.htm
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, that holding is correct.
Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
You can go take a look at the excellent chart Beckwith (an attorney) has put together to explain differences in 'citizen'.
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.
