‘Stop With the Damn Birth Certificate!’ Beck Delivers Strong Message to Birthers

Glenn Beck is dead wrong on this issue, but I challenge you to discredit his assessment of the problems we face. No one else has even mentioned the word Communist in describing the Communist infested white house.

301 posted on 04/14/2011 4:13:08 PM PDT by itsahoot (Almost everything I post is Sarcastic, since I have no sense of humor about lying politicians.)

WaterOilSteamGas??? ( if so, how many lbs.???

or, water oil Socialism gas...??? Mix

or, waste oil, Socialism/ Gas...

302 posted on 04/14/2011 4:13:45 PM PDT by waterhill (Little 'r' republican: taker of the Founder's 'Red Pill'...www.mikechurch.com)

“Baby Dunham”

“Male Baby Dunham”

303 posted on 04/14/2011 4:13:57 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana

BOR has called everything he thinks a fact. Everything. The guy is his own best cheerleader.

304 posted on 04/14/2011 4:14:35 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)

To: little jeremiah

The media is rejoicing and promoting the BC issue. It has taken Obama’s failure off the front page. It has taken Obama’s multiple wars of the front page. If this keeps up, his approval rating will shoot up.

305 posted on 04/14/2011 4:15:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway

To: Tennessee Nana

306 posted on 04/14/2011 4:15:58 PM PDT by sanjuanbob (Festina Lente)

I would hazard a guess that it is Roberts among the 4 conservatives who is blocking hearing eligibility cases.

He swore the bugger in, after all.

And I have to believe he knew all the suspicions.

307 posted on 04/14/2011 4:16:19 PM PDT by Scanian

To: WOSG; Emperor Palpatine

"“Both mommy and daddy must be citizens of the United States for their offspring to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen. “

The court in Alkeny disagrees with your opinion.

-------------------------------------------------

That state of Indiana case?

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents

OK. Let's have a look at this case from a state court in Indiana...

1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?

Here's what it says:

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

What does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?

2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:

The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14

What does footnote 14 say?

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.

It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.

So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were perminatly domiciled here by the way, Barry's father was a temporary visitor) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they someone find Barry NBC?

That, so called, "decision" is an embarrassment to the state of Indiana...and I say that with all due respect to any clear thinking Hoosier's out there.

Furthermore, Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Waite, Justice Story and the House of Representatives that debated the issue of citizenship leading to the 14th Amendment (in particular framer Bingham) all agree that a child born in this country's sovereign territory, to parentS who owe no allegiance to a foreign country, are "natural born Citizen(s)."

308 posted on 04/14/2011 4:19:06 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))

Anybody who would accept that piece of crap is begging for fraud to happen.

I am 62 and had to produce an original long form birth certificate in order to renew my drivers license the other day.

Are we being pickier about motorists than about presidents?

309 posted on 04/14/2011 4:19:38 PM PDT by Scanian

I agree that he was almost certainly born in Hawaii, and I am not a birther by any means. Obama has the right to say “Screw you, I ain’t showing you jack.” But ALL THAT DOES is fan these ludicrous flames. I am intellectually curious about what he doesn’t want the public to know— but that’s the end of it.

310 posted on 04/14/2011 4:20:35 PM PDT by agooga (Struggling every day to be worthy of their sacrifice.)

To: Tennessee Nana

See post #213. The truth is out there. He was born in Honolulu.
Now, go ahead and tell me where *else* he was supposed to be born and prove *that*.

311 posted on 04/14/2011 4:20:59 PM PDT by WOSG (Carpe Diem)

Actually, until his actual documents are brought into a court of law, there is no teling who his mother and father were, where or when he was born.

Read this thread, extremely interesting stuff on it.

He is lying about a lot more than just where he was born.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702976/posts?q=1&;page=1

312 posted on 04/14/2011 4:22:14 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)

To: little jeremiah

Obama has been president for over 2 years. Now the onus is one someone to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii. Where is the proof. The Clinton’s couldn’t find any proof. Republicans are incompetent sissies at oppo research compared to the Clintons. If the Clintons couldn’t find it, it’s hard to believe some amateur will. To date, there is no proof that Trump has sent investigators to HI.

313 posted on 04/14/2011 4:22:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway

People who do not get it -- not you, Faucetman, your post was brilliant -- need to meet this guy.

He says he got his money legally, from making a simple bank withdrawal. He has a receipt, too, which is hard to read, low ink, dates a little weird, doesn't look like the other receipts from that bank.

He's been carrying around that money for 3 years now, so it's really his, isn't it? I mean, he HAS it, does he not? Some people think he might have robbed that bank, but it's really too late. Why make a fuss, after all that time? He's ready to go in and make another withdrawal, and that's OK too. He's probably a good guy. He would never lie to us.

314 posted on 04/14/2011 4:22:46 PM PDT by Yaelle

“the newspaper announcements from Aug 1961 in honolulu announcing his birth back it up”

“They don’t announce “his” birth. The newspaper ads say a baby *boy* was born.”

Yeah, that’s what they do when they get info from the public health dept. (which got info from hospitals). It’s just a boy, born to Barack Obama’s parents. So it’s him who was born in those newspaper announcements.

315 posted on 04/14/2011 4:23:10 PM PDT by WOSG (Carpe Diem)

To: Bluebird Singing

Being aq corporate tool makes lots of sense. For tools.

Everything about Beck says “I’m going to get it while the getting is good.”

Thus the books one after the other, the tours with O’Reilly, radio and TV at the same time. All about money and feathering his nest-—fast.

316 posted on 04/14/2011 4:23:27 PM PDT by Scanian

Are you saying he was actually a girl?

317 posted on 04/14/2011 4:23:58 PM PDT by nickcarraway

To: Responsibility2nd

“Us Birthers? We are more interested in winning back our Country than winning an election.”

How does pushing a bogus story about Obama not being born in Honolulu - when he was - help take back anything, except insert stupidity into the conservative cause?

318 posted on 04/14/2011 4:24:22 PM PDT by WOSG (Carpe Diem)

To: Springfield Reformer

I hear he scored 20,000,000 on that.

As in $20,000,000 Saudi dollars.

319 posted on 04/14/2011 4:25:27 PM PDT by Scanian

He's been carrying around that money for 3 years now, so it's really his, isn't it?

According to the law, it has to be proved in court (civil and/or criminal) that the money isn't his? Do you dispute that?

320 posted on 04/14/2011 4:26:26 PM PDT by nickcarraway

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794