Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Obama Birther Challenge Subject Of Kansas Objections Board Hearing
1 posted on 09/13/2012 4:20:05 PM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Libloather
His will be done.

Pray America!

2 posted on 09/13/2012 4:25:25 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist (I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a Barack 0b0tt0my!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
Wainscott specifically rejects Montgomery's assertion that Obama's qualification is undermined by his father's non-citizen status. "For over a hundred years the Supreme Court has held otherwise, he argues.

Where, when?

3 posted on 09/13/2012 4:29:46 PM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

Hope all his taxes are correct and up-to-date ... he is about to be audited.


4 posted on 09/13/2012 4:39:17 PM PDT by doc1019 (Given my choices, I will not be voting this time around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

“born in this country to parents who are both U.S. citizens, primarily to a U.S. citizen father.”
________________________________________

If this is designed to help Willard it wont...

Willard doesnt want birthers challenging Obamas fathe’s status...

Willard also had a father who was born elsewhere, Mexico, and who may not have been an American citixen when Willard was born...

Willard’s own father was challenged on his status when he ran for POTUS in 1964, 1968...

Willard does not want that all dragged up again...


5 posted on 09/13/2012 4:44:36 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather; Absolutely Nobama; aragorn; Art in Idaho; Aurorales; autumnraine; azishot; ...
Constitutional Eligibility

7 posted on 09/13/2012 5:00:36 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1333 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather; Hotlanta Mike; TheCipher; little jeremiah; bitt; STARWISE; onyx; edge919; ...

Can somebody ping the Kansas list? We need people to contact this panel and urge them to do what is right.

I’m having troubles finding the return receipts for Kansas for some reason, but I remember seeing them come in because the states closest to Nebraska came in first. I’ll have the post office confirm with the tracking number tomorrow, but I am sure that two of the guys on that 3-person panel - the SOS and the AG - have received letters from Larry Klayman explaining that they themselves would have to commit election fraud to allow Obama on the ballot, since HI state registrar has legally confirmed that Obama has no legally-valid birth certificate in Hawaii; any Certification of Nomination they receive is thus immediately recognized as perjurious, and anyone who knows it is perjurious and still allows Obama on the ballot is him/herself complicit in election fraud.

With this challenge right there, they are placed in a LEGAL setting where they are held to account for what they know. We need Kansans to step up and tell these guys that we know they have been informed of this, and this cup will NOT pass from them. They are on the spot; will THEY commit election fraud for Obama?

The way that America goes down is if EVERY SOS and EVERY AG in the country is willing to commit election fraud for Obama. There is no way for these people to punt; they’ve been informed. Now what will they do?

We have to tell them we know and that we are watching to see what the rule of law means to them. And we will not forget what their answer is.


8 posted on 09/13/2012 5:01:03 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather
This story also got a bit of coverage from the KU campus newspaper.
10 posted on 09/13/2012 5:10:58 PM PDT by ecinkc (ugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather

The Kansas Objections Board wanted to deny this challenge, but couldn’t find a legal reason to do so. They suggested that the objection was reading “too much” into Minor v. Happersett which they were told makes a clear material distinction between natural-born citizen and 14th amendment citizenship by birth. The objector pointed out that Obama’s cousnel cited only one Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark, but that their citation only applied to 14th amendment citizenship and the term “citizen of the United States,” not Article II eligibility. He also pointed out that Obama’s counsel ignored that the same decision said the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens, but that it cites Minor for the definition of all children born to parents who were its citizens.

The SOS is hinting still that he wants to sweep this under the rug and that he would use a nonlegally supported definition of NBC to do so. It’s very important to try to hold these people accountable and insist that they follow Supreme Court precedent, especially when Luria v. United States in 1913 points to Minor and not Wong Kim Ark to specifically define presidential eligibility.


33 posted on 09/14/2012 2:12:49 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Libloather; rawcatslyentist; Pontiac; doc1019; Tennessee Nana; Tucker39; null and void; ...

Ut Oh. So Zippos peeps didn;t think they could sway the commitee so they focused on a citizen with a family....

53 posted on 09/14/2012 4:26:57 PM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson