The Republic you save may be your own.
Posted on 05/17/2012 10:58:09 AM PDT by AtlasStalled
Ok, so Obaba was lying (his s.o.p.) again.
And is not legally the Prez.
If a Republican the impeachment hearings would have already be underway.
But being a Dem, legality or anything else matters little.
Obaba could probably be Pol Pot in disguise and the Dems would still defend his right to be Prez and do all the illegal stuff he does.
Corrupt is, as corrupt does.
The “mistake” was most likely letting that suppressed document surface, not a case in being not true.
Probably many more such skeletons in the Obaba locked closet...which is why he has spent so much money and effort sealing/suppressing his past.
Where there is smoke.....
May it be so FRiend. Cannot take any credit,
all is outside my influence. Swearing on the Bible.
Whoa. Obama’s literary agent from 1991 is a “Birther” - maybe the original one?
Take Obama out of this. Lets say you are speaker/CEO/executive X, and your organization prints brochures about you to tell whoever you are interacting with your background. Now lets say you are from the proud state of Texas, but when you get a look at the brochure, it says you hail from Utah, or Kansas. Dont you go back and say “this needs to be fixed”? Wouldn't the sponsoring organization want to change it to avoid looking like morons everytime someone said to you “so, you were born in Utah”? you didn't have to say “no, Texas actually, the brochure is wrong” and thereby implying that the company is A)too dumb to get their materials right and B) too lazy and cheap to fix the error?
Now consider we are talking not about a state, but your COUNTRY! How many people, not to mention professionals with Ivy league credentials, would be ok with their profile indicating they were from India, or Elbownia, or Craplakistan, or wherever?
Not many that I know of. yet to believe Obama, this is exactly what we have to believe. Before, to give any credence to the Birther argument, you had to read between the lines. Now you just have to read a brochure.
I have a brother in law like that.
The day I met him I was sold a bag of lies. About a year later I found out his whole story was a crock ‘o sheet.
30 years later he still lies lie a rug.
It’s incredible how some people just lie about everything.
YA.... KENYA BELIEVE IT?!?!?!
Sorry to burst your bubble. I don’t know who first misread Minor, or started that ridiculous conspiracy theory that websites were hiding the case to protect Obama, but it does not do people who support your views any favors. Reasonable minds may disagree on the meaning of natur-born citizen, but no one with at least a fourth-grade reading level and who *actually read the damn opinion* could believe that Minor holds that only the U.S. born children of U.S. citizens are natural-born citizens.
More than 100 Civics textbooks editions from elementary and middle schools over the last 150 years have taught that “natural born” required two citizen parents. None have ever taught contrary to that.
You are a revisionist, and a deliberate deceiver.
Forgive me if this little tidbit has been posted already..
According to the article, the agency at issue here was/is headed by Jane Dystel.
According to Ms. Dystel’s bio on her agency’s site it states she has two children, Zachary and Jessica.
http://www.dystel.com/staff-e-mail/
Now this New York Times wedding announcement shows that a Jane Dystel had a daughter Jessica Toonkel married back in 2003, who was a professional editor of a financial newsletter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/style/weddings-celebrations-jessica-toonkel-maceo-marquez.html
Is this the same Jessica Toonkel who is now a financial journalist with Reuters?
https://twitter.com/#!/jtoonkel
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jessica-toonkel/0/8a5/68a
Assume this is the daughter, who now works for Reuters as a journalist. If I were hired as a journalist, and my Mother was head of an agency that represented the President of the United States years prior, the first thing I would do is phone my mother up, “hey, can you get me any and all non-confidential materials related to Obama and let me see if I can find a story in there somewhere”? Or better yet, assume Obama was a Conservative Republican rather than a left winger of the type most at Reuters seem to prefer, would that have increased the likelihood of Reuters breaking this story?
I guess if I had any respect for Reuters journalistic integrity to lose, I may have lost some of it after knowing how close one of their reporters was to this bombshell and yet, nothing. Even if it were in fact a clerical error, etc., it is STILL newsworthy to the point of being journalistic malpractice in my opinion, nearing rathergate proportions if they (or Toonkel alone) knew about this material and failed to report it.
I suspect that the American people won’t busy this either, for it would indict many of them personally.
Yes, Dunham wouldn’t have met the residency requirement to pass on her U.S. citizenship to a foreign-born son with a noncitizen father; I explain that in detail in my post #168.
My post #432 was about a separate clause and a separate theory that Obama might use to claim citizenship if he was born abroad—that his parents weren’t really married, so he was born out of wedlock to a mother with U.S. nationality who previously had lived at least one uninterrupted year in the U.S. As I said in my post (and a follow-up), I’m not sure if his mother could have passed on her citizenship or merely her nationality, which are two separate things.
WRONG!
There are only two types of citizenship.
1. Native. (citizen by birth)
2. Naturalized. (citizen by statute)
“Natural Born Citizen” ONLY applies as a condition, an added requirement, for “The Command and Chief” who happens to be the president. IT IS NOT A THIRD TYPE OF CITIZENSHIP.
A Natural Born person is a NATIVE citizen. The terms are NOT interchangeable. The term “Natural” was used ON PURPOSE to require additional requirements on The Command and Chief, that his loyalty would be without question, since he would have the military power to take over the country.
We couldn’t take the chance that some day a man born in Kenya, to a foreign father and a mother too young to be considered an adult able to convey citizenship, who both were anti American Communists, bent on TRANSFORMING the United States into something the Founding Fathers would find an abomination.
Thanks for the ping!
Did you watch the White House Correspondents’ Dinner when he said he was born in Hawaii....then he winked twice and laughed. The audience laughed, too.
It’s all a joke to him.
Making up stuff and calling me names won’t make you any less wrong when it comes to interpreting Minor. You are waaaaay off on what the Court said in that case. You would be wise to stick with citing Blackstone and such rather than embarrassing yourself by claiming that Minor says what it doesn’t come close to saying.
I’ve read several articles on the NBC Clause that espouse your view, some of which are quite good (particularly one by a Democrat arguing in 1916 that Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes wasn’t a natural-born citizen because his father was a British subject when Charles was born), but none are convincing. And the “this is how the clause has always been interpreted” argument falls flat when one considers that not only was Hughes on the ballot in all 48 states in 1816 and had his electoral votes counted by Congress, but that Chester Arthur was elected VP in 1880 (remember, the 12th Amendment provides that VPs have the same constitutional qualifications as presidents) despite his father being a British subject at the time of Chester’s birth. In fact, that Americans in 1884 did not believe that the NBC Clause required both parents to be citizens at the time of birth is proven by the fact that Democrats falsely claimed that Arthur had been born in Canada and was thus ineligible (because his father was not a U.S. citizen and mothers couldn’t transmit citizenship by themselves back then), instead of merely claiming that Arthur wasn’t an NBC even if he was born in Vermont (as he was) because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen. If the NBC Clause was really so universally understood to require both jus sanguinis on both sides and jus soli, the Dems would have been able to stop Arthur from running in 1884 and Hughes from running in 1916. But that didn’t happen, because those who held such views on the NBC Clause were in the fringes of constitutional scholarship.
BTW, in case you’re interested, here’s an excellent, scholarly note on the NBC Clause that reaches a different conclusion from yours: http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
I was right! Years ago I saw that debate between Obama and Alan Keyes. I mean I saw a clip of it, linked here on FR. Keyes says. Something to the effect that Obama wasn’t born here and Obama says we are talking about senator, nor president. Paraphrased.
I know I saw this but it has been scrubbed off the web and lied about.
We still dont know where he was born, but now we know :
A) he used to BRAG about being from Kenya
And
B) he has serious problems with every American documentation
Conclusions may be met. This is strong circumstantial evidence. I bet he was born in an unwed mothers’ home in British Columbia, still.
Just a personal theory, but I think Breibart was brilliant by distancing himself from the “birthed” argument. I don’t think he had proof positive about this.
Seems to me, from the reading, that Breitbart has proof yet to come that Obama registered himself as a foreign student to gain admission to Harvard. I assume his “Columbia” grades were too low to get in as an American, therefore he fudged to get the advantage.
Logical that as this drips out during “The Vetting”, Obama is going to have to eventually admit either being born in Kenya and/or lying to get into law school.
Either way, when the rest of “The Vetting” is released, I don’t believe there is any way Obama will be able to keep the media or the American people quiet.
I have faith in Breitbart when he said this was going to be explosive and I do not believe we have seen the end of “The Vetting” at this point.
Of course, all the in humble opinion of a Jew who really doesn’t know much.
:-)
What does his book ‘Journeys in Black and White’ state?
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.