Posted on 04/21/2010 5:53:00 PM PDT by Plutarch
President Barack ObamaThe "birther" myth is the political equivalent of a horror-movie villain: Not only does it refuse to die, but every time someone tries to kill it, it only comes back stronger.
The latest incarnation: a bill approved 31-22 by the Arizona House of Representatives on Monday that would require 2012 presidential candidates to offer proof of citizenship in order to qualify for the ballot. The proposal has little chance of becoming law. For that to happen, the state Senate would have to pass it and the governor would have to sign it. But it's still the closest birtherism has come to being codified.
Democrats have dutifully condemned the bill. One Phoenix legislator said it's turning Arizona into "the laughing stock of the nation." White House spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the measure and others like it on CNN as "fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories." Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly wrote, "The fact that fringe lunacy is being taken seriously at this level suggests a strain of contemporary Republican thought that's gone stark raving mad." Even some Republicans are rushing to distance themselves from the bill, particularly senatorial candidate J. D. Hayworth, whom John McCain has tried to tie to the fringiest elements of the Tea Party movement....
[excerpt]
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
When you look at that definition, the Supreme Court is giving us something for which there’s no doubt. They acknowledge that others believe the parents’ citizenship doesn’t matter, but rather than entertain this notion, they simply stick by the definition for which there’s no doubt. This is significant since this is in the face of an extremely liberal Constitutional amendment that declares citizenship at birth regardless of parental citizenship. In the end, the Constitution (and 14th amendment), we are told, does not define natural born citizen and there is only one definite definition: to be born in the country to citizens.
So, you are saying that George W. Bush had the backbone of a chocolate eclair?
Since when do you need "Congressional support" to ask for an investigation if you report that a law may be being violated?
As an ordinary citizen, you can report a suspected violation of the law ("I believe my neighbor is a child molester") and it will be investigated by the Police. Your suspicions may prove to be inaccurate but the matter WILL be investigated.
The President of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer under the Executive powers of the Constitution. If the President of the United States believes that something is illegal, he can order the FBI to investigate it and there is nothing that Congress can do about it.
Wrong, that is you have the law wrong. If a US Senator or Congressman asks for some highly (such as Top Secret compartmented (TS-SCI) information, he must be given what he asks for. Exactly what she asks for, and nothing more. (That got to be a real issue when Red Ron Dellums was in Congress, but he was the example given when I was briefed into one such compartment)
wondering who is Dr. Conspiracy on these threads..any ideas..he often visits..
This bill is extremely important anti-illegal immigration legislation. Will I agree with the birther movement, I certainly hope that the ‘birther’ amendment doesn’t ruin any chance of this bill getting signed. Where does Rep. Judy Burges, who introduced the amendment, stand on illegal immigration/amnesty?
remember receiving a message from congress..it was addressed to many many military commands..they wanted all files related to an “investigation”..we were told to comply...found nothing and sent a message to Congress,info to the command
Oops.
All the ruels and penalties for handling classified information apply to those who are *granted* access to them, and who sign agreements concerning such handling. They do not apply to Congresscritters, who are not covered by executive branch actions. Their staffs are though.
Now there are agreements between Congress and the executive branch that allow for only certain committees or subcomittes to have access to some material. BUT those are not binding on individual CongressCritters, who can still ask for whatever they want.
Where he was born matters. The rest does not. As has been posted many times, adoption would have no effect on US citizenship. Using another country's passport would have no effect on citizenship. The US State Dept. notes that the only requirement of a dual national with dual passports is that:
Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.Using another passport to enter another country has no effect on US citizenship.
As to renunciation, the US State Department says that to renounce citizenship one must:
Additionally, renouncing as a minor is very difficult -
Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
I have no idea how I managed to turn half of my post red. Not my intent.
Wrong, that is you have the law wrong. If a US Senator or Congressman asks for some highly (such as Top Secret compartmented (TS-SCI) information, he must be given what he asks for. Exactly what she asks for, and nothing more. .... El Gato
Please cite your alleged legal source for that assertion.
What you are claiming is that the United States has 531 Commanders-in-Chief other than that guy sitting in the Oval Office.
I will fully concede that the military is full of careerist ass-kissers but their action do not establish legality.
Maybe you ought to go back to just lurking. I’m wondering, considering how you post, and your signup date, what your purpose on FR actually is.
US citizenhip is not necessarily the issue at hand. It’s natural born citizenship. Just being a citizen isn’t enough; but if he is not even a plain vanilla citizen, that’s enough to toss him out right then and there.
Sven Magnussen has said that 0bama did indeed renounced his US citizenship in Indonesia. Do a search on Sven Magnussen’s comments if you’re interested. If you’re not interested, keep plugging away for 0thugga.
So, since 0bama and his team of lawyers, enablers, and assistants, are hiding every single bit of documentation about his entire life, no one will know for sure until this all sees the light of day. Which day is coming closer.
(Courtesy ping to Sven.)
And yet Roger Calero, who OPENLY AND PROVABLY wasn't a natural-born U.S. citizen ("Notable: Nicaraguan Native" -- information provided by the candidate), managed to get on the ballot (Socialist Workers' Party) in some states. His candidacy wasn't legal and yet it was "allowed" in these states. How does this mesh with your theory about BO?
What is Rogers batting now? 1 for 999.
You may well be right about that; but what about all college and passport records? Why hide them so carefully?
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that president Bush had the FBI investigate Obama's Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of POTUS?
Let's hear it.
McCain had attack ads commissioned against him criticising him for wanting to see the Constitution enforced. So he backed down and denied everything - this is what modern Republicans do with their principles.
What would have been the point of GWB doing any kind of background check on Obama even if he could have done so? Was he going to come out and say, “Hey, we did this illegal secret search on Obama and found out that he’s been hanging out with terrorists like Bill Ayers and Rashid Kalidi so nobody should elect him”?
The point is that there are no provisions made in our process for the security interests of the nation to be safeguarded through a background check. As you said, if the people are stupid enough to elect somebody who hates this country and is bent on destroying it, who can stop them?
But for the nation to vote for somebody because we are not LEGALLY ALLOWED to find out whether he’s a crook who’s bent on destroying the nation is another thing altogether. Crimes were committed to keep the public in the dark about this guy. Crimes committed by government workers and media members while EVERY law enforcement entity turned a blind eye.
No, if we can’t even get the people who are SUPPOSED to check out crimes to check out what’s in front of our faces, I doubt that a president who AFAIK isn’t authorized to order investigations would have ordered a pointless investigation of someone not even accused of a crime.
Obama and his thugs would have no problem investigating Joe the Plumber or you or I for no reason. But GWB wouldn’t do it because it’s not his job and he’s not authorized to do that. We weren’t a tyranny yet under GWB.
But what you’ve said is a commonly-held belief: that Obama has had to have background checks because we’ve got a process that prevents enemies of the nation from taking office. We really need to have the FBI come out and tell the nation straight whether this is true or not.
Though banks are “too big to fail”, I don’t believe we have anybody given the legal charge to make sure that the USA doesn’t fail. We don’t have the entitlement of always having a free country; it’s up to us to protect that. That’s why the freedom of the press is so important. That’s also why the betrayal by the media must be taken seriously if we are to save this nation.
I wish what you say was true. I wish that if a citizen reported a suspected crime it would be investigated. If it’s just you or I reporting on each other that still may be the case.
But I have evidence of forgery and perjury committed by the man who now holds the nuclear football. I have reported it to every law enforcement entity I can think of.
They have all refused to do a thing about it. Most told me it’s not their job.
See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
I used to believe that the nation’s law enforcement worked. After being directly involved with the HDOH and with law enforcement in my state and in Hawaii, I now believe we absolutely have a crisis because law enforcement is politicized beyond any semblance of either justice or the rule of law.
That’s what this issue is about, for me. It’s really not even about Obama. It’s about the broken government, media, and law enforcement which will be screwing this nation long after Obama is gone, unless we do something to claim back the rule of law.
Remember the myth that Father of the Year, John Edwards, was cheating on his cancer stricken wife?
These myths just never end ....
Good point.
The fact that a provision requiring that the requirements of the Constitution actually be acted upon is such a danger to a bill requiring the laws of US immigration be followed.... tells you where we’re at in terms of this being a lawless nation.
It’s a SCANDAL that anybody would propose that what is already supposed to be binding in this nation actually be - gasp - obeyed.
We are in a fight for the survival of this civilization. A people cannot survive without the rule of law.
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.