Posted on 03/07/2010 6:57:25 PM PST by Man50D
ATLANTA – The billboard campaign that launched a thousand imitators marches south this week with a new location seen by thousands every day as they enter downtown Atlanta on the MARTA subway train from Hartsfield International Airport.
As they say, you can't miss it.
The latest "Where's the birth certificate?" billboard is located on the I-20 between Turner Field and the Georgia Dome adjacent to the Morehouse School of Medicine on Whitehall Street.
"As I said all along when this billboard campaign got underway last spring, we're in this for the long-term – right through 2012, if necessary," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, who conceived the idea for the controversial effort to call attention to Barack Obama's failure to prove he is constitutionally eligible for the office of the presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
There was a comment removed too but no one saw what it said. Apparently Jim did though. :-)
Bad on me. I guess I’ve never put it together in the alliteration as “BC”. Sorry, I’m tired as heck tonight. Innocent question from the ‘braindead’ contingent. Sorry folks.
BC threads are sort of like Bigfoot sitting threads.
“...we’re in this for the long-term – right through 2012, if necessary,” said Joseph Farah...”
.
What good is that billboard if Obama is allowed to stonewall it indefinitely. He’s probably laughing himself silly.
No prob.
Get some rest,
No one is really trying very hard and there is no help from Congress either.
Don't do it in California either, its more of a European manerism.
Mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm!!!
LLS
Sez who?
Thanks Jet. Will do.
“What is the definition used by our founders for a natural born citizen?”
No office holder or prospective office holder who fails to answer, or answers incorrectly should hold office. He or she is incapable of defending a Constitution he doesn't understand.
Need I say that Obama fails to satisfy that requirement, "born in the country of citizen parents?"
All the people who are trying to blow off us *birthers* as they call anyone who has questions about it.
I’ve run into people who don’t think it’s an issue.
There’s even some inhabiting FR who feel the same, as you know.
No office holder or prospective office holder who fails to answer, or answers incorrectly should hold office. He or she is incapable of defending a Constitution he doesn't understand.
Spaulding, I would like to include in that demand also those who purport to teach Constitutional law.
Perfect!
And that requirement with that specific wording is were in the US Constitution?
Birth Certificate ;)
They're definitely in the minority, by far.
The BC issue has passed the tipping point; it isn't going away.
Wath out you’ll get parsied.
• “Minor v. Happersett - yes, it’s been mentioned on FR but not fully hashed out. I don’t see how, if this was decided by the SCOTUS then they did indeed give a definition of the term NBC.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html";
Not only has it been discussed, but so too have other SCOTUS cases that have that exact definition that the framers (no doubt) used when they entered the NBC requirement without debate.
Attorney Apuzzo mentions these cases in the “Kerchner v Obama” & Congress case:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison’s notes of the Convention The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Obviously the weaker the Kenyan gets the more vulnerable he is on eligibility and birth certificates. Drip drip drip
I’m a rocket scientist!!!!
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.