Posted on 08/09/2010 11:54:26 PM PDT by stevenl77
Just as Richard Nixon lost the battle of Watergate because of cover-up and stonewalling, Barack Obama has lost the battle over his constitutional eligibility for the same sins.
With the latest CNN poll showing only 42 percent of Americans definitively persuaded that he was born in the U.S., those who claimed this wasn't a "winning issue" have been proven wrong.
Not only is it a winning issue, it is the only issue that can effectively undo the nightmare of the Obama era in one fell swoop.
There would be no need for repealing Obamacare if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wait until Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan retire or die to see them replaced on the Supreme Court if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wring our hands in hopes that future congresses and future presidents might roll back all of the damage Obama has inflicted on America if it turns out his presidency was sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wait until 2011 in hopes that a new Republican majority might impeach Obama if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
There would be no need to wait until 2012 for another chance to replace Obama if it turns out his presidency was a sham from the beginning.
That's why this issue is so important.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I think Americans are realizing this guy isn’t just a poor president, he’s a nightmare. The eligibility issue is just another facet of the much larger realization that we were sold a bill of goods with this guy, and his credibility on any issue is nil.
Id like to see his presidential pension and his US Senate pension stripped if he failed to show actual proof he was born here.
Advise to read the whole article. The author says there is no way his father being a Kenyan can produce a son that is a “natural born citizen” per the US Constitition.
But whether the American people can break the Democrats' grip on the reins of power, even despite elections, remains to be seen.
According to a previous report, he is amused by all the fuss.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2567752/posts
Why doesn’t 0baMao release his long form BC for public inspection?
The ones that sold him (huh, that's racist), are really going to be scrambling . msm creds are slipping, and soros is gonna hafta spend tons. Ha, too late, he's more transparent everyday.
Then let's see how happy Obama becomes.
Then we’d end up supporting him anyway if he happened to be in jail, say, awaiting a treason trial...
I want to see him in the dock doing it first.
OMG! I agree with you!
;o)
I beg to differ with the author. If daddy wasn't married to Stanley Dunham, then Obama's a bastard but he's a natural-born citizen. FWIW I think he was born in Honolulu all right, but that he started telling people (after Bobby Rush pounded him in a congressional election) that he was born in Mombasa to make himself "blacker" and get over with the Southside Chicago voters. Bobby Rush had painted Obama as a tan man with an Oreo attitude wrapped in a Harvard degree and a three-piece suit.
I'm more interested in his "renaturalization" and citizenship history after he was adopted in Jakarta, which made him an exclusively Indonesian citizen. And did he use Indonesian passports when he was in his 20's, and apply for student aid as a "foreign" student?
Says he.
He counts on the Partisan Political Operatives in the State-Controlled Media to play the race card against “birthers”, and that has succeeded so far in cowing the Republicans into silence.
But a majority of the people cannot be indefinitely ignored.
Preach it, Brother!
You’re learning. :P
I wish they would stop emphasizing the “natural born citizen” argument with respect to his father’s lack of U.S. citizenship. We’ve apparently had presidents in the past who were not born to two American citizens like Chestur Arthur, whose father didn’t become a citizen of the U.S. until after his birth. Although a great argument can be made for the historical meaning of the term, it’s never been formalized in any way. It’s not defined in the constitution and the Supreme Court has never formally defined it, but only mentioned it in dicta, which isn’t binding. It’s a moot point, a losing argument even if a correct one, since he isn’t the first president to have one parent who wasn’t a U.S. citizen at his birth. Instead, Farah and the others pursuing this matter call it their primary argument, that the birth certificate and other citizenship issues are secondary. If the Supreme Court ever did formally define the term in a binding fashion in an opinion, given presidential history, there’s no way they would interpret it as meaning both parents had to be citizens at the time of a presidential nominee’s birth. It’s just not going to happen. What is certain is that Obama needs to have born in the country and retained his U.S. citizenship. Neither of those is certain, and they need to focus their attention on that and get off this losing argument about his biological father being non-citizen.
I don’t think being a bastard would change things. You need to have two citizen parents to be natural born. With just one you would be native born.
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.