Posted on 05/28/2014 6:29:53 AM PDT by sevinufnine
There's a very good chance Obama pretended to be Kenyan to attract financial aid money in college. If you say you were born in Kenya, you got aid, and you got into colleges,' Trump said.
Trump told reporters on Tuesday he still doesn't understand why president Obama would turn down a $50 million gift to charity if he's telling the truth about his past.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
ALL the information we need to know about Obama is contained in the sealed records of Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard...........
Minority/Foreign national loans and Affirmative Action allowed this dead beat to skate thru college and university without notice from anybody.....even from alleged fellow students who never recalled seeing him.........And now he's president.
It had to be something along those lines. Obama humiliated B. Clinton—actually cast him in a racist light—& Clinton just had to take it. Obama was nasty to Hillary too—hence the pro-Hillary cougar group, that has never embraced Obama despite their being Dems.
Speaking of race, that was the other issue the Clintons faced. Any false move toward Obama would have sealed their doom in perpetuity. I.e.: yes, blacks were already in favor of Obama in ‘08. But if B. Clinton or his wife, or even their surrogates, had come down too hard on Obama they would have been portrayed as racist White Privilegers for bleeding ever. They’d have been finished, politically speaking.
If you don’t recall the Pfleger performance, give it a fresh watch. It’s quite short. It’s also probably far, far more hateful & devastating than you recall. I had a black friend back in that time, whom I knew from church. She seemed like a very nice person, & she was close to me. But she could recite every single word of the Pfleger diatribe, & she had the inflections down to a fine art. Anyone who doesn’t think this type of smack down ruined Clinton’s chances just doesn’t know the power of hate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAfy5PFJwcg
here is the video of Trump
http://newzvids.com/trump-obama-refused-50-million-dollar-offer-to-see-his-college-records/
Thanks Seizethecarp. He let the dj of his book proclaim that he was born in Kenya, no retraction, no disclaimer slipped into later editions.
Well, it is easy to see right through all their lies and bs...
Because we believe in adhering to Constitutional law. Would you take the same attitude if Obama was under the age of 35? Would you insist we ignore that too?
It's the same body of law. If any requirement means anything, they all do.
I’m talking about the difference between a technical requirement and the benefit that requirement is supposed to produce. The purpose of the “natural-born citizen” requirement was supposed to be that this type of person would feel a natural loyalty to the country.
Since that is quite obviously not the case, the provision has failed in its purpose. I do believe we should observe even ineffective constitutional provisions, but let’s not pretend they’re effective when they’re not.
The Constitution makes no provision for a candidate to certify his eligibility per the requirements. I think the Founders obviously intended the Electors to determine eligibility in their College.
Since the EC has lost its original purpose of actually electing the President, the function of determining whether a person is constitutionally eligible defaults, I’m afraid, to the actual Electors, which are now the voters themselves.
IOW, the Constitution provides no mechanism, other than the voters, for determining eligibility. If that isn’t important to a majority of the electors, there is no constitutional remedy.
The proposed remedy by some, having a court overturn a presidential election, is IMO much worse than enduring 8 years under a possibly technically-ineligible president. The judicial branch is already much more powerful than the Founders intended. Giving them the power to overturn elections is a really, really bad idea. It would potentially turn every election into an extended court battle.
“Because 30 years later they expected him to be president? Really?”
Percy Sutton’s advocacy for the young college student Obama is well documented. Draw your own conclusions:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/25/ready-new-questions-about-how-obama-got-into-harvard/
Tell George W. Bush who lost the popular vote in 2000 but won the Electoral vote and was elected president that the Electors don’t choose the president! :-)
In contemporary times, candidates are vetted by: (1) having to campaign for a full year and do reasonably well in more than twenty primay election debates and 53 primary elections and or party caucuses to win a major party nomination; (2) clear placement on the state ballot by the Chief Elections Official, usually an elected Secretary of State, in 50 states plus the District of Columbia; (3) do reasonably well in three nationally televised presidential debates; (4) raise, at a minimum, half a billion dollars; (5) capture at a minimum, 60 million popular votes; (6) garner 270 electors; (7) have your electoral votes counted and certified by both Houses of Congress where any one Representative and any one Senator can submit to the President of the Senate a written objection to your electors. (8) Take the Oath of Office.
(9) Withstand any legal challenges to your eligibility that may be filed (Obama has had 226 legal challenges; 92 state and federal appellate court rulings and 27 appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States for a total of 345 legal challenges).
Succeed at each stage of the above and you too can be president.
The Electors, as I’m sure you know, don’t make a decision as to whether the candidate they’re pledged to is eligible, as the Founders no doubt intended. They are merely a formality by which the will of the voters, potentially somewhat distorted by the peculiarities of the winner-take-all system in most states, is expressed.
Since they no longer fill their original constitutional role, it defaults to the voters of each state.
Any state legislature, if it so chose, could return its own electors to what the Founders intended, choosing men who would exercise their own judgment on who to vote for. But that’s about as likely to happen as me being elected President.
The Constitution establishes no other role for the Electors than to vote for the president. Your suggestion that they are to determine eligibility is pure speculation and there is no historical precedent for the electors ever performing that function.
It is Congress who can stop an ineligible candidate by refusing to certify his/her Electors or count the Electoral votes from any particular state.
Today, 21 states allow electors to not necessarily vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote (”faithless electors”). Electors in those 21 states could eadily deny any candidate the necessary 270 electoral votes that are required.
He probably would pass an IRS background check for a job.
Or State Department.
Correct.
However, to me at least it is obvious the Founders intended the EC to be composed of men who would actually between them decide who should be the next president. There is not a hint in the Constitution of the states being intended to instruct the electors who they should vote for.
This can be seen in what Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
That sure sounds to me like the Electors were expected to use their judgment as to whether the candidates met the constitutional requirements.
Many constitutional scholars think the Founders expected the electors to routinely split their vote many ways, hence the unusually detailed procedures for Congress to decide among the leaders in the EC.
The Constitution never really functioned in this way. Washington was elected by acclamation twice, and by the third election party politics had already emerged and the EC never did function as an actual electoral body.
I’m sure that you are aware that the Electors are usually the most prominent members of each political party in each state and that they have no statutory investigative or enforcement authority, nor have they ever.
Zero was telling people even as Senator born in Kenya...
Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya’
Promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
2007, 2 months after launching presidential bid internet wayback machine shows Dystel & Goderich’s author bio birthplace now “Hawaii”:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/shocker-obama-was-still-kenyan-born-in-2003/
Also signed affidavit by former postman of Tom and Mary Ayers in Chicago burbs,they were financially supporting Zero and referred to him as a foreign student...
http://02ce1ab.netsolhost.com/KingHarvest/?p=1245
Zero’s SS# fails e-verify according to PI’s Susan Daniels, John Sampson affidavits.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3160911/posts?page=43#43
Per the above post, underage people can’t renounce their citizenship or have someone else do it for them.
Since that is quite obviously not the case, the provision has failed in its purpose.
It is not up to us to judge whether a constitutional requirement is effective or not. It is our duty to adhere to it until it is nullified. We don't get to decide to enforce the parts we like, and ignore the parts we don't. We are obligated to enforce it all, even if it is ineffective.
I do believe we should observe even ineffective constitutional provisions, but let’s not pretend they’re effective when they’re not.
If you believe in observing ineffective constitutional provisions, then why waste time by bringing up it's ineffectiveness? It sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.
The Constitution makes no provision for a candidate to certify his eligibility per the requirements.
This is nonsense. It is axiomatic. If the Constitution stipulates a requirement, it doesn't need to explicitly state that it will be enforced. Non irrational people recognize this as an inherent aspect of any constitutional law.
And who's duty is it to enforce it? Every American citizen, and especially office holders.
The proposed remedy by some, having a court overturn a presidential election, is IMO much worse than enduring 8 years under a possibly technically-ineligible president.
This would not even be a proposal had the court moved quickly to address the issue prior to the election, or even prior to the assumption of office. That they did not, is also the fault of the courts.
The people who really dropped the ball are the 50 Secretaries of State who oversee elections. *THEY* should have been the first line of defense, and *THEY* should have demanded proof of natural citizen status before allowing this guy on the ballot.
Part of the problem is that very few people nowadays has a good understanding of what was intended when they wrote "Natural born citizen" in Article II. The 14th amendment has so badly polluted the principles involved that people nowadays can't tell the difference between a naturalized at birth citizen and a natural born citizen.
Since that is quite obviously not the case, the provision has failed in its purpose.
It is not up to us to judge whether a constitutional requirement is effective or not. It is our duty to adhere to it until it is nullified. We don't get to decide to enforce the parts we like, and ignore the parts we don't. We are obligated to enforce it all, even if it is ineffective.
I do believe we should observe even ineffective constitutional provisions, but let’s not pretend they’re effective when they’re not.
If you believe in observing ineffective constitutional provisions, then why waste time by bringing up it's ineffectiveness? It sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.
The Constitution makes no provision for a candidate to certify his eligibility per the requirements.
This is nonsense. It is axiomatic. If the Constitution stipulates a requirement, it doesn't need to explicitly state that it will be enforced. Non irrational people recognize this as an inherent aspect of any constitutional law.
And who's duty is it to enforce it? Every American citizen, and especially office holders.
The proposed remedy by some, having a court overturn a presidential election, is IMO much worse than enduring 8 years under a possibly technically-ineligible president.
This would not even be a proposal had the court moved quickly to address the issue prior to the election, or even prior to the assumption of office. That they did not, is also the fault of the courts.
The people who really dropped the ball are the 50 Secretaries of State who oversee elections. *THEY* should have been the first line of defense, and *THEY* should have demanded proof of natural citizen status before allowing this guy on the ballot.
Part of the problem is that very few people nowadays has a good understanding of what was intended when they wrote "Natural born citizen" in Article II. The 14th amendment has so badly polluted the principles involved that people nowadays can't tell the difference between a naturalized at birth citizen and a natural born citizen.
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.