Posted on 02/22/2010 12:37:24 PM PST by Kaslin
It isn’t missing. He provided it. You may not like it. But it ain’t missing. It is only “missing” in the Collective Birther Consciousness. And yes, I have been wrong before. I was a Republican for 30 years. And once, even sorta libertarian.
parsy, who always kept his eye on the truth and wasn’t afraid of it
I think it was Orly Taitz who was intimidated. I think she had a flat tire.
parsy, who says, they ain’t got FOX News, yet
Tigersy Eyesy, who never knew he had so much in common with himself.
I will repeat what I have already posted on this thread.
I don't care where Obama was born. He could have been born on the desk in the Oval Office with the whole cabinet watching. His father was a foreigner and that makes him ineligible.
Obama isn’t eligible to be President no matter where he was born.
You’re beginning to scare me. This is getting WAAAAAY too easy for you. Both of you. lol
Here, watch this:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1964520-ann-coulter-calls-birthers-cranks
parsy, the helpful
I know you believe that.
Now... come up with some evidence and perhaps you’ll make some progress on the issue.
That is your legal theory and you have a right to it. Others disagree:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/
parsy
Tigersy Eyesy, who is worn out from having to think for two. Will we be twice as hungry when we wake up? Shut up! It's nap time.
I happen to believe Obama was probably born in Hawaii as well...but given that his father, and baby Barry were subjects of the British Commonwealth I do have some doubts rather he qualifies as a "natural born citizen"...which would invalidate him as president if correct.
Too bad that the Constitution does not say, and there is no law on the books that says a person with dual citizenship cannot be President.
Evidence from the period right after the Constitutional Convention also supports the notion that the Founding Fathers were very concerned about foreign influence on the federal government, and in particular on the President.
The most direct evidence comes from a statement made by Charles Pinckney to the U.S. Senate in 1800. Pinckney had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and, on July 26, 1787, had been the first delegate to raise the issue of presidential qualifications in the debate. On March 25, 1800, the Senate was debating a bill "prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elections of President and Vice President of the United States."(54) Pinckney gave a detailed explanation for the Electoral College, emphasizing that the rules governing the Electoral College were designed so "as to make it impossible ... for improper domestic, or, what is of much more consequence, foreign influence and gold to interfere."(55)
John Yinger is Professor of Economics and Public Administration at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, and the father of two adoptive children, one of whom, even when old enough, will not be eligible to be President.
I’ll see both of you later. ;-)
Tell your lefty friends that you're striking out.
Maybe... maybe not.
Bush ran for, and won, a second term.
If Obama runs for a second term, this will be an issue as all the other candidates will provide their birth certificates and demand that Obama do the same or face criticism over what he's hiding. The candidates will ask the voters to choose a president who is open and honest about their backgrounds over someone with something to hide.
Some states may even tighten up their candidate qualification regulations to demand positive proof of eligibility other than a flimsy-worded document from Nancy Pelosi.
If Obama chooses to not run again in 2012, then something may indeed have come from this.
-PJ
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.