Posted on 04/08/2011 12:28:02 PM PDT by Music Producer
You and me both. We have never had a President that has no basic background but that which was a creation of media.
Who is this guy? Nobody seems to know him as a kid. All of his records are denied.
Remember how the media always wanted GWB’s medical history and current medical status?
Why does nobody demand Obama’s.
Everything about him stinks and is murky.
I love that the Donald used the word “con.” This whole issue is fascinating. I do not understand the lack of rabid curiosity on the part of all Americans, especially Rush, Hannity, Beck and Coulter.
Rush has apparently washed his hands of this issue so I must wash my hands of Rush.
I’ll miss him more than he will miss me, but I will be much happier knowing that I did the right thing for the right reason.
Absolutely. It’s like they’re “pod people” when it comes to Obama. And yes, they were always vicious when it came to anything “hidden” or any tidbit that they could use to incriminate Bush (or any other conservative). I can’t believe they don’t see their own hypocrisy.
I can explain. It's this: You have suspicions -- legitimate suspicions. You have no proof -- only suspicions.
Until you have some shred of evidence that Obama was born outside the USA, birthers are going to be a fringe movement.
The "natural-born citizen" argument isn't going to cut it. It's dancing on the head of a pin that has yet to have any legal definition whatsoever. It wasn't ever decided in the case of Chester A. Arthur. There's no resolution now. In that sense, it's actually a distraction that dilutes your argument.
Personally, I wish you well, hoping that your research turns up something. But it would probably be more productive to invest those energies in un-electing Obama than trying to get him declared ineligible.
bookmark
Arthur had all his records burned, so there was little chance of somebody back then uncovering the fact that his father was not yet a U.S. citizen when Chester was born. We have all the evidence we need on BHO, for we already know his father was never a citizen.
.
No question. We absolutely know that Obama's father was never a citizen. Obama, in fact, admitted it in his book.
Consequently, everybody in the USA involved in politics -- from FReepers to constitutional lawyers to both party & elected officials -- knew it for a fact.
Yet, nobody -- not a single person -- raised a complaint about his eligibility for office. Nobody.
Why do you suppose it is that we had to wait over two years for a bunch of amateurs to suddenly discover that he was actually ineligible?
The NBC argument will get you exactly nowhere. It's a distraction.
I do not agree that there is consensus on whether a natural born citizen should have to have two citizen parents. The main reason I feel that way is because Barack Obama was never questioned about the obvious fact that his father was never even close to a citizen ever, before he was nominated or elected.
However, I think there needs to be constitutional clarity about what defines Natural Born Citizenship. And being born in the USA to two Americans who show no voluntary loyalties to another country sounds like a good definition to me.
And I am disappointed by rush Limbaugh too. There is no evidence Barack Obama was born in America. The certificate of live birth means nothing and is probably false. The microfiches for the ads in the papers have been tampered with. There is no other evidence. No one saw stanley Ann pregnant, and she showed up in Seattle with a newborn. Occams razor says she may have been in a home for unwed mothers. And that home could easily have been in British Columbia, Canada.
It’s too bad rush never admits that it is possible that Barack Obama and his people might have perpetrated the worst scam on the American people ever.
She is unstoppable.....
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
A statute needs no “consensus” to be valid. The law speaks for itself:
EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:
The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations
Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel!
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
The law is as plain as day, and needs no contemporary consensus.
Oh for heaven’s sake....whether his mother was married or not....he has a birth father and an adopted father neither of which Obama states are or ever have been American citizens
Short term thinking.....it is not about Obama....it is about the rule of law and the constitution
Fine. Then take your case to court and get a resolution. Or to Congress for a statutory definition.
But trying to disqualify Obama on the basis of an obscure NBC definition is a fool's errand.
“Obscure NBC definition?” There are only three qualifications for president—at least 35 years old, resided in the country for at least 14 years, and natural born citizen. Natural born citizen has a historical understanding to be one who is born on our soil to citizen parents. Does the fact that you are ill-informed make the definition obscure? Not likely.
lET ME BE CLEAR.....Short term thinking.....IT IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA....it is about the rule of law and the constitution
I tend to agree with your take on the situation. There are many dots to be connected , some are probably extraneous but some are probably telling as to real importance. Among my many dots are Rahm Immanual taking an African vacation with side trip to Kenya about the time two relief ships (one was in trouble with pirates for a few days) were going to Kenya. It was also at this time that the Kenya government closed down all public notices and celebrations about Obama being born in Kenya. Perhaps Trump is the person who can connect all the dots about Obama and his enablers. I would also like to know if Trump is beholden in any way to European banker’s(including the Rothchilds)for his investments. I believe a person has to be free of such to be good for the USA.
I tend to agree with your take on the situation. There are many dots to be connected , some are probably extraneous but some are probably telling as to real importance. Among my many dots are Rahm Immanual taking an African vacation with side trip to Kenya about the time two relief ships (one was in trouble with pirates for a few days) were going to Kenya. It was also at this time that the Kenya government closed down all public notices and celebrations about Obama being born in Kenya. Perhaps Trump is the person who can connect all the dots about Obama and his enablers. I would also like to know if Trump is beholden in any way to European banker’s(including the Rothchilds)for his investments. I believe a person has to be free of such to be good for the USA.
O.K. Fine. Go for it.
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.