MARK ALSO RESEMBLES HIS MOTHER.
Posted on 06/11/2012 10:42:09 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.
Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.
(Excerpt) Read more at pressherald.com ...
Yep... the WKA case in which WKA was ruled A CITIZEN only, NOT a natural born citizen.
Guess exactly why that is, Mr Rogers...
You obviously misunderstand the ruling. You should note, however, that no one else does. No state. No member of Congress. No state DA, or Secretary of State. In short, no one with any responsibility misunderstands.
Only you, and a handful of illiterate birthers.
MARK ALSO RESEMBLES HIS MOTHER.
Properly filed doesn’t matter one bit when it gets to the Supreme Court. They’re the one court in the nation that can decline to hear a case for any reason or no reason at all. It’s maddening, in this case, but that’s the way it is.
Ha Ha. Sorry about that. I didn’t read exactly what your post was about. I just took it as a short cut to post the article and pictures to you.
I came across the Daily Mail article and thought you might be interested.
I get so mixed up with who is who in O’Dumbo’s imaginary family that I wasn’t sure what, if anything, in the article or pictures would be considered worthwhile.
Really just posting as an aside so ignore it if you choose.
As I’ve said in the past, I don’t have a clue about Obama except that his paper work is fraudulent.
Can’t wait to see who has the correct theory when all is said and done.
They need Mark as an intermediary because when you look at the coal black Kenyan native Luo, it's plain as day they aren't related.
No, I do not. It is YOU who clearly does not understand the WKA ruling. Here it is...
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."WKA was found A CITIZEN only, NOT a natural born citizen. WKA did not meet the requirements of natural-born citizens defined in Minor v. Happersett (which WKA specifically cites), so SCOTUS had to interpret the 14th Amendment to grant WKA US citizenship.
Furthermore, SCOTUS specifically ruled WKA a citizen because his parents were permanently domiciled in the US. Obama's father was never domiciled in the US. He was always a foreign student, and did not remain in the country. Hence, Obama's direct allegiance to and his subjection to the jurisdiction of (see the US State Department's publication on Dual Nationality) a foreign country at birth, as explicitly stated by the DNC in the 2008 campaign.
Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
Keyes is popular among conservatives only. He would have carried no weight in any of the swing states. Same thing with Huckabee, and Ron Paul. Had any of them been the nominee, we would have lost even more badly. I notice you give them better chances than I do, so we might just disagree on that. I can't see any of them doing better. Sarah Palin is the only reason McCain did as well as he did, and it is highly probable that none of the other candidates would have picked her.
Fred Thompson would have won had he gotten into the race earlier and then fought for the nomination instead of taking "i'll serve if you select me" sort of attitude.
Good job! Fighting the lies....
I have to follow the rules, pay taxes, traffic laws etc. I wish the poweres that be would relax the rules on the underclasses like they do on themselves.
Unless you mean the kind of bad luck one has in a rigged game.
Well we may disagree, but I don't see ANY of the other candidates as doing even so well as did McCain. They were ALL losers of a worse sort. Several of them would have immediately alienated some of the states we needed the most. Fred Thompson was the only one that had the right combination of stage presence and conservative credo that would have appealed to a wider audience. After him, John McCain was the only one that even had any sort of chance.
I don't see any of them doing better than McCain. Guiliani would have been popular in the North East and California, but he would have had troubles carrying the Midwest and South. Huckabee would have had no support outside of the Religious Social conservatives, which wouldn't have been nearly enough to win. Romney would only appeal to the North East, and he would have likely gone no where with the rest of the nation, Alan Keyes would have had the same sort of support as Huckabee. All in all, not a single one of them would have pulled more votes than John McCain, so I don't see how you can say they were better candidates. Of the whole pack, the only good one we had was Fred Thompson, but he didn't get into the race early enough, and then he didn't put out much effort in trying to win the Nomination.
Out of the lemons we had to work with, John McCain was the least bad. If you feel otherwise, I cannot comprehend how.
It looks like what happened is this. McCain actually did want to win at first. Then he selected Palin as his running mate. He saw that he drew smallish, lackluster crowds, and Palin drew huge, riotously enthused crowds. His pathological need to be loved [note his continual sucking up to the MSM, which often took the form of backstabbing conservative GOPers] took a hit, and he threw in the towel. Better to lose w ‘honor’ than to endure four yrs of being overshadowed by a true conservative who doesn't know the meaning of ‘reach across the aisle’, and who doesn't begin ea sentence w the simpering trademark words, ‘my friends’.
That's what I remember as well. When McCain first got the nomination he actually looked like he was trying to win, but as you said he started doing inexplicable things. What I am trying to say is that when we had the primaries during the nomination process, McCain LOOKED like the best candidate. Sure, the others might have fought harder (but to no avail in my opinion) but at the time we were choosing, we thought McCain would fight harder too. He was a disappointment.
It looks like what happened is this. McCain actually did want to win at first. Then he selected Palin as his running mate. He saw that he drew smallish, lackluster crowds, and Palin drew huge, riotously enthused crowds. His pathological need to be loved [note his continual sucking up to the MSM, which often took the form of backstabbing conservative GOPers] took a hit, and he threw in the towel. Better to lose w ‘honor’ than to endure four yrs of being overshadowed by a true conservative who doesn't know the meaning of ‘reach across the aisle’, and who doesn't begin ea sentence w the simpering trademark words, ‘my friends’.
That is as good an explanation for what happened as anything else I have heard. I would also point out the backstabbing of Palin by his campaign staff. Without the damage they caused by their duplicity and incompetence, Palin might have pulled out a win anyways.
I do agree w you about his staff backstabbing Palin. However, even if they hadn't McCain could only have won by hitting Obama on his vulnerable points—and that McCain just would never do. He was terrified the MSM would call him a racist, and there may have been other factors as well.
Bottom-line: McCain was a loser from the start, and somehow or other we have GOT to stop the GOPe from selecting our candidates.
If it’s the application and meaning of the term bad luck we disagree about maybe a revisit to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2374991/posts will help you see my point more clearly.
Posts 3 and 31 specifically.
In Fred Thompson’s case you might defend the tactics used against him as politics as usual and on the surface that’s a fair argument.
But Fred was running pretty strong and gaining a following as I recall and doing it on a low budget, too. I suggest he was connecting to Americans as an American. In modern presidential cycles, that is not only frowned upon, it is discouraged.
And bad luck follows. That’s what I’m talking about.
“WKA was found A CITIZEN only, NOT a natural born citizen. WKA did not meet the requirements of natural-born citizens defined in Minor v. Happersett (which WKA specifically cites), so SCOTUS had to interpret the 14th Amendment to grant WKA US citizenship. “
Nope.
Remember - every court, every state, every state DA, every state SecState, and every member of Congress - agrees with MY interpretation of the WKA decision. None - ZERO, ZILCH - agree with you.
That is because THEY can read, sentences, paragraphs and even entire pages. And they have all consistently interpreted WKA that was since 1898...
If birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers.
Yes, indeed, SCOTUS cited the Minor v. Happersett definition of natural born citizen. WKA did NOT meet the requirements, so SCOTUS had no choice but to construe the 14th Amendment in the ruling.
Here is the ruling, again, in which WKA is found to be "a citizen" only, NOT a natural born citizen:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.""...every court, every state, every state DA, every state SecState, and every member of Congress - agrees with MY interpretation of the WKA decision"
WRONG.
"Chairman LEAHY: Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.
Secretary CHERTOFF: My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
Chairman LEAHY: That is mine, too. Thank you."
- Senate Congressional Record, April 10, 2008.
1) The DNC's own admission in 2008 that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed Obama's citizenship status at birth. Obama was born a British subject.
2) SCOTUS's ruling in Kawakita v. U.S. that a person may have nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.
The Framers specifically intended the office of POTUS to be free from foreign influence (John Jay's letter to Washington, and the resultant "natural born citizen" requirement for POTUS eligibility). That means NO responsibility to obey a foreign country's laws.
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.