Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty
I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.
Born in Hawaii, but being a British/Indonesian citizen, see their logic being a NBC, hmmmm???
No, calling people trolls because you don't like what they say is the problem. You are one of the offenders.
OK, what proof does the Constitution or the law require? And what person or agency is tasked with verifying it?
And of course you can point to the clause in the Constitution or the federal law that defines natural-born citizen? I mean, if he was born in Hawaii as you said then that should be the end of it, right?
"General Anthony Clement McAuliffe (July 2, 1898 - August 11, 1975) was the United States Army general who commanded the defending 101st Airborne troops during the Battle of Bastogne, Belgium, during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. He is famous for his single-word reply to a German surrender ultimatum: "Nuts!"
Well, then, IF ipse dixit, then no point to quod erat demonstratum.
And unfortunately in this case unsupported claims are all that the law requires. So the solution is to change the law, either at the state or federal level.
And what was it that George C. Scott said in Patton? “A man that eloquent needs to be saved.”
This is wonderful news to wake up to this morning for a change. Prayers for the truth!
You might want to read through the entire thread before you get you hopes up too high.
I don't know. INEVER thought the Supreme Court would pass up numerous opportunities to hear the case of the century, but they did.
Every officer of government, at every level, ie all of those who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I scanned it briefly, but frankly don’t have time this morning to read through pages and pages of bickering. Your concern for the possibility of dashed enthusiasm is touching, but I’m a big girl...lol...I can handle what-ever comes. The truth always rises to the surface and it will here as well. We all know that Obama is hiding vast amounts of his information from the American people and sooner or later it is going to come out. My guess is that Obama will be impeached by the end of next year for one reason or another. The man is out of control with abuses of power and dereliction of duty..not to mention the possibility of usurption.
And the law that says that is....?
You are probably correct. And wide receivers asking for a flag on EVERY dropped pass. You know why they do that? BECAUSE IT WORKS SOMETIMES. If it didn’t ever work, they would quit doing it, yet they continue to do so. While the percentages are low, nothing to lose.
Are you trying to tell me that you believe that all officers of government are not legally bound by their sworn oaths to uphold and defend the Supreme Law of the Land in all its provisions?
“And what person or agency is tasked with verifying it?”
The courts? (For want of a better answer.)
"No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
They are bound to uphold the Constitution and the law. How did they fall down on the job in this case?
They didn’t require any proof other than the person’s own assertion. Due diligence? Not.
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.