Coffee cups? Did someone mention coffee cups?
Posted on 01/27/2012 6:53:39 AM PST by transducer
We will risk the fairly safe assumption, as this is being written, that Air Force One did not make an appearance at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport sometime Thursday....
You almost have to laugh at this latest chapter in the seemingly endless “birther” saga, because about the only alternatives at this point are tears and/or nausea.
It was embarrassing enough when members of the Georgia legislature -- including, to Columbus’ acute humiliation, two members of the local delegation -- drafted a “Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act” in the last legislative session.
Now Georgians get to enjoy the added spectacle of their secretary of state, Brian Kemp, warning the president (let that sink in -- warning the president) through a White House attorney that failure to appear in a Georgia court would be “at your own peril.”...
Peach Pundit editor Charlie Harper, in a blog published this week in the Savannah Morning News, wrote: “This is a mistake. We are taught from a young age that we will be judged by the company we keep … The birther argument transcends disagreements of policy and politics and spirals into pure nuttery.” How true.
Georgia, no thanks to some judgment-impaired officials and certainly without the consent of the governed, has been slumming in the Orly Taitz nuttery neighborhood way too long. Please, for the sake of the state’s already battered image, let’s just quietly tiptoe out of this putrid political ghetto and back to the daylight side of town before we attract any more ridicule....
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Coffee cups? Did someone mention coffee cups?
The irony of the situation is that obozo might have a better chance of being considered natural born if there were no father listed on the birth certificate.
14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Oh, and putting religious issues aside, all laws are manmade.
I will be convinced when the Supreme Court agrees with you and codifies your opinion. Until then we effectively have only persons who are citizens at birth and those persons who are aliens at birth and at some point after naturalize.
Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist here, but perhaps one of the reasons obozo and/or Jablonski didn’t participate and enter anything into evidence (the birth certificate) was because the document wouldn’t hold up to forensic analysis and verification?
...due to problems related to the non-sequential numbering, vis-a-vis the Nordyke twins’ BCs. (Addressed in testimony in yesterday’s hearing.)
Entering such into evidence, as well as responding to the testimony about the social security number would open the door to additional charges including document tampering, fraud, and perjury, among others.
No it isn't. As the stated purpose of Article II is to prevent foreign influence in the executive branch of government, any definition which does not accomplish this purpose is wrong.
You are wrong.
Well, the ladies do call me "Tripod".
There are only TWO examples of Violators. Chester A Arthur and Barack Obama.
All other Presidents were born to two American Parents, or were permitted under the grandfather clause in article II.
Chester Arthur got away with it because of deceit. Obama has gotten away with it so far because of ignorance. You need to stop spreading crap.
And what would that be, pray tell?
And Indians. Indians were not made citizens at birth until 1924 with the Indian citizenship act.
They call you a dog!?
Sucks to be you!
Yes that is also correct, but hey these others know it all.
Well, firstly, citizens DO have two parents regardless, so your analogy breaks down right there. Secondly, in 1787, the mother's original citizenship was irrelevant, because upon marriage a woman was automatically given the citizenship of her husband if it was previously different.
What this works out to mean is that the FATHER being a citizen was always a requirement to create a citizen. The mother's citizenship was irrelevant. This did not change until 1922 with the Cable act, which allowed women to transfer citizenship themselves.
Now it has been pointed out, that if a statute is required to make you into a citizen, then you are not a "natural citizen", you are a citizen which was created by the action of a statute.
Natural citizens existed prior to 1922. They always had Male Citizen Fathers, because citizenship has always been passed down by the father. Note my tag line:
" Partus Sequitur Patrem. "
The Word Patriotism literally derives from "the country of my father."
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.