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 ...
he could have solved all these compounding problems by being at least partially honest,but the lure of power became too great.And when he finally does fall,the President is going to take a lot of people with him
Nope...you are learning. ;o)
He is the only one and it hasn't just been accepted as fine and dandy.
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.
That is far from true. SCOTUS could very easily define it as meaning two citizen parents and born on U.S. soil. One past President sliding under the radar would not impede their decision.
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.
Why would you post an article that contradicts your assertion?
Unless you just feel there's some need to reinforce the concept.
That and Larry Sinclair living in the same ‘hood as obambi will cause complete chaos in obambi’s brain.
I don't know about that one. I've heard it said but I don't know that it's true.
Of course, if it were true, I'd be excluded under Article II myself, and all the other sons of war brides from WW2 who were naturalized or who, like my mother, were still subjects of His Majesty George VI or Her Majesty Elizabeth II when their American children were born.
In respone to your comments:
Attorney Apuzzo made a compelling argument that the persons who drafted this part of the Constitution to begin with likely intended it to require that both parents were U.S. citizens. But when you’ve had previous presidents with a single parent not a U.S. citizen, the argument becomes a waste of time. They keep calling it their primary focus. It’s not going to happen. If he wasn’t born in the U.S. like he says, or lost his citizenship, that’s what could get him impeached and removed.
And U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., told WND today that he believes President Obama...is enjoying the dispute over his background.
What Bilbray believes may not be what Mr. Dunham feels.
Precisely.
The key here is, did Obama (re)apply for and use a foreign passport and citizenship AS AN ADULT? And did he fill out a college application as a foreign student?
Did our current President once answer the question "Are you an American citizen?" by checking the box marked NO????
Neither do I for a written in U.S. statute fact. Until SCOTUS makes a definitive ruling or Congress defines it in law no one will. On the available facts I think it's the best definition going.
As for your personal circumstance; is that heart breaking to you? If I had only been born in different circumstances I could have done a lot of things I haven't been able to. That's life.
re Winston Churchill becoming a U.S. President. So what? We had U.S. Grant.
I am so sick of this Magic Bullet nonsense.
philman_36:
“If it’s such a losing argument why is it gaining traction? “
(’it’ referring to the necessity of both parents being american citizens at time of barack’s birth).
It’s not gaining much traction. What’s gaining traction is the possibility of Obama not being born in Hawaii and/or his citizenship being lost when he moved to Indonesia. That’s what the CNN poll was about with over half the country not being fully convinced of where Obama was born.
Obama is a perfect example of why a president has to be thoroughly vetted before taking office. Does anyone beside Pelosi think he has proven his citizenship?
I still can’t over that Obama took his oath of office in private. The whole thing reeks of a conspiracy.
I had a friend tell me once, “If they are drinking Coke and eating Big Macs in Bejing - we won.”
This man has been in office for more than 18 months and this topic is still being discussed? We won.
I note that you use the plural when stating that previous presidents were not natural born citizens.
Was there someone else besides Chester Arthur or was he just an aberration?
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.