Advertisement
Well is he? What does the phrase "natural born" mean as it is used in the Constitution?
It bears noting that the Framers didn't put it in there. It came later.
U.S. Constitution Article II § 1, clause 4, Says in pertinent part:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
If Dear Leader was not born inside the US this seems to present a barrier to him taking the oath of office or possibly invalidating any oath he might have taken. But, as with most things, it’s not that simple.
I’ve seen people on-line (ignorant uneducated people that is) insisting that if your parent/s are citizens then you automatically are no matter what.
This is absolutely not the law. It’s not the law in the Constitution and it’s not the law according to US code. A child born on foreign soil of US parents can have citizenship and be naturalized under some very specifically enumerated circumstances. It is most definitely not automatic.
8 U.S.C.A. § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of Title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of Title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
8 U.S.C.A. § 1431
§ 1431. Children born outside the United States and residing permanently in the United States; conditions under which citizenship automatically acquired
(a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply to a child adopted by a United States citizen parent if the child satisfies the requirements applicable to adopted children under section 1101(b)(1) of this title.
Those are the pertinent statutes on point.
Neither offers much guidance. This because nothing in them speaks to the term from the Constitution “natural born.”
Does natural born mean born physically within the US or does it mean born by Natural birthing process. ( yah I really said that) or does it mean that you fit under the qualifications of one of the US code defining “nationals” or does it mean not a bastard? The problem is that the term “natural born” is without any definite meaning and the Constitution does not elaborate.
That of course means that it falls to the courts to say what the law is. In this case: to define that term.
Sadly each time they've had the chance they punted.
There is a Law Review article on the topic (Law Reviews are not law they are Student (sometimes professorial) research projects undertaken for a law school’s journal)
“Presidential qualification clause in this bicentennial year: The need to eliminate the natural born citizen requirement.” J. Michael Medina, 12 Okla.City U.L.Rev. 253 (1987).
Usually Law Review Articles are not found online for free but this one is:
www.fdlaw.com/articles/Th...l%20Year.pdf
The PDF is an Image the whole document is an image so it is not searchable. You just gotta read it the old fashioned way: one word at a time. Medina believes that the clause should be amended and the “natural born” language be removed.
The phrase “natural born” was not part of the Constitution as framed by the Founders.
It arose later in 1787 when Chief Justice John Jay was concerned that the president should never be allowed to fall to a foreigner.
Chief Justice John Jay, wrote to then President George Washington: “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.”
And thus began the long and strange life of the term “natural born.”
The phrase has no other corollary in the Constitution and is rarely used elsewhere.
On March 25, 1800, Charles Pinckney ( a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787) used the term. He said that:
“They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible […].”
Well that clears it us doesn’t it? Clear as mud~!!!
What about the court cases that have recently challenged Dear Leader’s qualifications claiming that since he is not a “natural born” citizen that he fails to qualify.?
Well the courts have dispensed with these cases in ways that allowed them to never speak to the troubling phrase. Soetoero’s challenge was dismisses because the court held that “interpleader” was the wrong instrument. Choen’s because he failed to show an actual injury to him and therefore lacked standing to bring the suit.
So to date not one court has issued holding speaking to that phrase in the Constitution as it regards presidential qualifications.
It would be really nice of one of these challenges to Dear Leader’s qualifications were able to get before the Supreme Court so that finally the nation could have a definition for that phrase.
Right now the answer to the question in the title of the thread is "Don't ask me, I don't know"
It bears noting that the Framers didn't put it in there. It came later.
U.S. Constitution Article II § 1, clause 4, Says in pertinent part:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
If Dear Leader was not born inside the US this seems to present a barrier to him taking the oath of office or possibly invalidating any oath he might have taken. But, as with most things, it’s not that simple.
I’ve seen people on-line (ignorant uneducated people that is) insisting that if your parent/s are citizens then you automatically are no matter what.
This is absolutely not the law. It’s not the law in the Constitution and it’s not the law according to US code. A child born on foreign soil of US parents can have citizenship and be naturalized under some very specifically enumerated circumstances. It is most definitely not automatic.
8 U.S.C.A. § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of Title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of Title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
8 U.S.C.A. § 1431
§ 1431. Children born outside the United States and residing permanently in the United States; conditions under which citizenship automatically acquired
(a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply to a child adopted by a United States citizen parent if the child satisfies the requirements applicable to adopted children under section 1101(b)(1) of this title.
Those are the pertinent statutes on point.
Neither offers much guidance. This because nothing in them speaks to the term from the Constitution “natural born.”
Does natural born mean born physically within the US or does it mean born by Natural birthing process. ( yah I really said that) or does it mean that you fit under the qualifications of one of the US code defining “nationals” or does it mean not a bastard? The problem is that the term “natural born” is without any definite meaning and the Constitution does not elaborate.
That of course means that it falls to the courts to say what the law is. In this case: to define that term.
Sadly each time they've had the chance they punted.
There is a Law Review article on the topic (Law Reviews are not law they are Student (sometimes professorial) research projects undertaken for a law school’s journal)
“Presidential qualification clause in this bicentennial year: The need to eliminate the natural born citizen requirement.” J. Michael Medina, 12 Okla.City U.L.Rev. 253 (1987).
Usually Law Review Articles are not found online for free but this one is:
www.fdlaw.com/articles/Th...l%20Year.pdf
The PDF is an Image the whole document is an image so it is not searchable. You just gotta read it the old fashioned way: one word at a time. Medina believes that the clause should be amended and the “natural born” language be removed.
The phrase “natural born” was not part of the Constitution as framed by the Founders.
It arose later in 1787 when Chief Justice John Jay was concerned that the president should never be allowed to fall to a foreigner.
Chief Justice John Jay, wrote to then President George Washington: “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.”
And thus began the long and strange life of the term “natural born.”
The phrase has no other corollary in the Constitution and is rarely used elsewhere.
On March 25, 1800, Charles Pinckney ( a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787) used the term. He said that:
“They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible […].”
Well that clears it us doesn’t it? Clear as mud~!!!
What about the court cases that have recently challenged Dear Leader’s qualifications claiming that since he is not a “natural born” citizen that he fails to qualify.?
Well the courts have dispensed with these cases in ways that allowed them to never speak to the troubling phrase. Soetoero’s challenge was dismisses because the court held that “interpleader” was the wrong instrument. Choen’s because he failed to show an actual injury to him and therefore lacked standing to bring the suit.
So to date not one court has issued holding speaking to that phrase in the Constitution as it regards presidential qualifications.
It would be really nice of one of these challenges to Dear Leader’s qualifications were able to get before the Supreme Court so that finally the nation could have a definition for that phrase.
Right now the answer to the question in the title of the thread is "Don't ask me, I don't know"
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Tue, July 14, 2009 - 7:41 AM"Right now the answer to the question in the title of the thread is "Don't ask me, I don't know" "
And herein lies the problem. This guy has been elected President of the U.S. and still has not been properly vetted in regards to his eligibility. No one has seen his long form birth certificate which identifies the hospital of his birth or the attending physician. Beyong this, the constitution leaves the definition of "natural born" vague enough that individual states have a say in the matter. Hawaii became a state 3 years (1958) prior to baby Baraks arrival. His mother was 18 at the time of his birth. Based upon Hawaii law, she would have had to have been a citizen for 5 years prior to his birth, 3 of which after the age of 18. As such, if Barry was born in Kenya (as two priests have given affidavits to after recording Barry's grandmother stating that she was present at the birth), than we have ourselves a constitutional crises. To date, no one wants to talk about this, not the democrats, nor the republicans, not fox news etc.. The only news source trying to get answers is WorldNetDaily.com. -
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Tue, July 14, 2009 - 11:20 AM**********And herein lies the problem. This guy has been elected President of the U.S. and still has not been properly vetted in regards to his eligibility.************
What statutes about this “vetting” are you referring to when you say “properly”??
I don’t think there are any.
******** No one has seen his long form birth certificate which identifies the hospital of his birth or the attending physician.*********
Is there a statute that says these things are required?
I don’t think there is.
*********** Beyong this, the constitution leaves the definition of "natural born" vague enough that individual states have a say in the matter.***********
No the states do not have a say. The president is a federal office, the states don’t have a say. The supremacy clause puts that to bed.
*******Hawaii became a state 3 years (1958) prior to baby Baraks arrival. His mother was 18 at the time of his birth. Based upon Hawaii law, she would have had to have been a citizen for 5 years prior to his birth, 3 of which after the age of 18.***********
Well as interesting as that seems on it’s face, you still have the problem that all citizens of the territories are Citizens of the United States. So his mother is A-OK or so it would appear. Unless you have a boat load of federal case law saying otherwise, I say forget it.
*********As such, if Barry was born in Kenya (as two priests have given affidavits to after recording Barry's grandmother stating that she was present at the birth), than we have ourselves a constitutional crises.**********
You have the Constitutional crisis. You and a handful of true believers.
No one else has a Constitutional crisis.
******** To date, no one wants to talk about this, not the democrats, nor the republicans, not fox news etc.. The only news source trying to get answers is WorldNetDaily.com.***********
Probably because most major networks have easy access to good legal counsel and when they ask their lawyers they hear pretty much what this Lawyer has been telling you.
World Net Daily is another species of fish altogether.
To take such a case I would need a client who:
1.) Could show an injury in fact. That is to say she'd need to be an injured party whose presidential chances were cut off by Hussein.
Or maybe that Hussein has done something else by way of injury that he could only do as president and without the involvement of Congress.
2.) some damn good showing that Husein's mother was not in the USA as a citizen for a year ( any year pick one) prior to his birth.
If you could show me those things I'd say maybe - - just maybe but., first you'd need to pony up with several hundred thousand dollars as my Non-Refundable retainer.
#1 is a mandatory requirement because you have to be an injured party with an injury in fact ( www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/h...user.html ) It can't be some vague crap like you are upset because you don't think he is legally the president. That's not an injury in fact. That's just you being upset.
#2 is necessary because unless you have done your homework I am not interested in making a fool of myself.
-
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Tue, July 14, 2009 - 1:14 PM"What statutes about this “vetting” are you referring to when you say “properly”??
I don’t think there are any."
I am referring to our congress and our judiciary. Congress did vet McCain for instance on this issue, but not Obama. There should have been hearings on it since it is at least as serious, by any reckoning, as McCain being born in Panama. What derailed this is that Democrats are expert decievers. They slapped up a cert. of live birth but it is not relevent to the issue. Even so, most were uninformed of this and this ignorance is widespread. We have the conservatives joining with the liberals mocking those who are asking all of the right questions. Talk about fruitless and a waste of time, fighting those who are working to unseat this guy is a big a waste of time as I can imagine.
"Is there a statute that says these things are required?
I don’t think there is."
How else do you determine "natural born citizenship". That is the issue hear. If he was not born in the U.S. then we need to examine the statutes of Hawaii regarding citizenship in 1961.
"No the states do not have a say. The president is a federal office, the states don’t have a say. The supremacy clause puts that to bed. "
I am not an attorney, but you will have to forgive me here as I am running with the opinion of other attorneys, legislators etc who disagree with you here. Perhaps you are right, we will see in time.
*******Hawaii became a state 3 years (1958) prior to baby Baraks arrival. His mother was 18 at the time of his birth. Based upon Hawaii law, she would have had to have been a citizen for 5 years prior to his birth, 3 of which after the age of 18.***********
"Well as interesting as that seems on it’s face, you still have the problem that all citizens of the territories are Citizens of the United States. So his mother is A-OK or so it would appear. Unless you have a boat load of federal case law saying otherwise, I say forget it."
If all we get out of this is an admission the Obama has lied to the American people we are money ahead. If we get him to lie under oath to a grand jury then we have another Clinton on our hands.....
*********As such, if Barry was born in Kenya (as two priests have given affidavits to after recording Barry's grandmother stating that she was present at the birth), than we have ourselves a constitutional crises.**********
"You have the Constitutional crisis. You and a handful of true believers.
No one else has a Constitutional crisis."
a handful of people have been behind ALL of the great movements in the world.
******** To date, no one wants to talk about this, not the democrats, nor the republicans, not fox news etc.. The only news source trying to get answers is WorldNetDaily.com.***********
"Probably because most major networks have easy access to good legal counsel and when they ask their lawyers they hear pretty much what this Lawyer has been telling you."
News is news and the eligibility issue is newsworthy. Numerous challenges have been brought and gone unreported in the press. These cases should be reported on so the American people are aware of what is going on. Eventually, they will be.
"World Net Daily is another species of fish altogether."
whatever that means.....
"To take such a case I would need a client who:
1.) Could show an injury in fact. That is to say she'd need to be an injured party whose presidential chances were cut off by Hussein.
Or maybe that Hussein has done something else by way of injury that he could only do as president and without the involvement of Congress."
The people have been injured by this fraudulent presidency.
"2.) some damn good showing that Husein's mother was not in the USA as a citizen for a year ( any year pick one) prior to his birth.
If you could show me those things I'd say maybe - - just maybe but., first you'd need to pony up with several hundred thousand dollars as my Non-Refundable retainer."
I don't need your help. There are lawsuits going forward as we speak. All I am suggesting is that you do more investigating yourself into the issue.
"#2 is necessary because unless you have done your homework I am not interested in making a fool of myself."
Perhaps that is what it really takes to make positive change. Someone has to risk something.
-
-
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Tue, July 14, 2009 - 7:49 AMbtw, I appreciate the fact that you are finally coming around to grapple with this issue. I didn't realize that you changed your name..... -
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Tue, July 14, 2009 - 10:54 AMwhen a person is an adult they should consider whether or not the name they were given at birth actually reflects who they are as a person, as an adult. after all, those who named you didn't really know you very well when they first met you, did they?
and of course things change. . .you are probably much different than you were those many years ago. so grappling with your personal identity is a good thing. don't listen to those who say it is merely a mid-life crisis. . .if zippy suits you, why not? you are the boss of your life. . -
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Tue, July 28, 2009 - 10:27 AM***************when a person is an adult they should consider whether or not the name they were given at birth actually reflects who they are as a person, as an adult. after all, those who named you didn't really know you very well when they first met you, did they?***************
And that motherfucker chose to be sworn in by his favorite name Hussein.
Fukin commie islamist bastard.
-
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Tue, July 14, 2009 - 10:55 AMThere isn't a hell of a lot of grappling to do.
Go through the statutes above.
in 1401 for instance
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
Does either of those fit Dear Leader? If not there "may" be an issue.
In either instance there must have been a contiguous period of his mother's presence in the USA for a minimum of one year - - AT ANY TIME PRIOR to the birth of the child.
His mother was in the USA for lots of years before she left to travel abroad.
So I don't think there's much of a case against him in that regard.
That leaves only one question: What does the term "Natural Born" mean?
I dare say you can't lay hold of any definitive meaning anywhere at all. In fact in the mind of the guy who started all this mess: Chief Justice John Jay, it was meant to say : "not a foreigner."
I think it's fair to say that the Treason in Chief is not a foreigner.
While I'd love to see a way clear to joining your cause Dan, I think it is a hopeless one with no legal precedent and as such you are not going to over turn an election with it. To unseat a president you'd need some really solid well settled law ( lots of consistent holdings or one brutally clear bell ringing one from SCOTUS) and I'd be willing to guess the Court wouldn't give it to you even then unless you also uncovered a deliberate fraud by the president himself on the subject of his citizenship. And you have none of that . you got not one itty bitty shred of any of it.
I say your cause is stillborn and is a waste of time and effort.
That's my legal opinion - for what it's worth.
There are so many better paths to pursue. None of them lead to unseating the president but, Impeachment may be possible.
Of course it's not with a a Democratically controlled house and senate but there's no reason to imagine that that won't change.
-
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Tue, July 14, 2009 - 12:57 PM"That leaves only one question: What does the term "Natural Born" mean? "
I dare say you can't lay hold of any definitive meaning anywhere at all. In fact in the mind of the guy who started all this mess: Chief Justice John Jay, it was meant to say : "not a foreigner." I think it's fair to say that the Treason in Chief is not a foreigner."
The definition is left open to the states interpretation. The laws governing citizenship in Hawaii in 1961 to be precise. Look them up since you claim to be an attorney.
"While I'd love to see a way clear to joining your cause Dan, I think it is a hopeless one with no legal precedent and as such you are not going to over turn an election with it."
actually, there is a precedent. Take a look at Eldrige Cleavers attempt to run for president. He was under age by 1 year and was therefore found to be inelligable. It is not necessary to have a legal precendent anyway to deal with a violation of the constitution. If Obama is not eligible under the constitution, he is ineligible.
"To unseat a president you'd need some really solid well settled law ( lots of consistent holdings or one brutally clear bell ringing one from SCOTUS) and I'd be willing to guess the Court wouldn't give it to you even then unless you also uncovered a deliberate fraud by the president himself on the subject of his citizenship. And you have none of that . you got not one itty bitty shred of any of it."
whether you are right or not, I really don't know. But I do know that the truth is important and if Obama has lied to the American people repeatedly, his credibility as President and chief will drop faster than a GM stock. This, in the long haul, will be good for America as we will have demonstrated that he is a complete fraud.
"I say your cause is stillborn and is a waste of time and effort.
That's my legal opinion - for what it's worth."
well hopefully there is no charge, because I am not buying it. And I don't really think that you are certain of it either, otherwise you would not have bothered to waste your time with this post. I think you have I have something in common, we both realize that Obama represents a danger to freedom, economic and individual. And at the root of this danger is his potentially fraudulent presidency. As more Americans become aware of "why have I done" in voting for this fraudster, the possibility of throwing him out on his chin for violating his oath of office becomes more realistic.
"There are so many better paths to pursue. None of them lead to unseating the president but, Impeachment may be possible.
Of course it's not with a a Democratically controlled house and senate but there's no reason to imagine that that won't change."
it will change, likely in about 1 1/2 years. I think we need to pursue all means necessary to upset, and potentially unseat this socialist. I think you are mistaken about the value of discovering that he has lied about his birth place. That fact alone would be damaging to his presidency and alarming to many of his own constituency. Obama's coalition is not a monolith of left wingers. He has among his supporters many good Americans who thought he was a good man, such as the catholic vote for instance. This support is already erroding and will dramatically drop with widespread knowledge of his ineligibility.
-
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Tue, July 14, 2009 - 1:32 PM********The definition is left open to the states interpretation. ********
Not as it regards the Fed. United States Citizenship is a federal question. The States have nothing to say about it.
There is not even a vehicle by which the states can challenge it.
I suppose if you got enough of the governors together and all singing off the same sheet you'd have some serious political firepower but, still~ ~ ~ ~ ~ it's a federal question.
********actually, there is a precedent. Take a look at Eldrige Cleavers attempt to run for president.************
Apples and oranges. Age of a president is not citizenship. The only proposition you can extrapolate from that case would be the proposition that the Court has jurisdiction over presidential qualification questions.
Every microscopic detail distinguishes the facts and holding of one case from all others.
You can use such a case to inform your research and even as an off track argument bolster when desperately trying not to get your case dismissed but, to make the case you want to make, you need law that is "on point." you need at least one high court holding that speaks to “natural born” in the exact context of presidential qualifications.
Lets say you found an immigration case that addresses the term. Unless it was dealing with presidential qualifications it would be irrelevant. That’s how it works in law. You have to have a very high degree of similarities to use one case to speak to another.
The facts must be similar, the question must be identical. You can't answer a question about citizenship qualifications using law that addresses age qualifications.
Different facts = different everything
********** It is not necessary to have a legal precendent anyway to deal with a violation of the constitution.*************
As a general proposition you are sort of correct. However, to unseat a president you are going t have to have a hell of a lot more than a question about age. Now if Hussein were underage you would have something~!!
Here all you have is two words that no one has defined. So can you got into court seeking a holding that offers a definition~?
YES. But there are other limiting factors: Ripeness, Mootness, Standing, Jurisdiction and in this instance since you can't show an injury in fact, you lack standing. There are barriers.
********If Obama is not eligible under the constitution, he is ineligible.*********
Only a very few uneducated people seem to agree that he has an eligibility problem
By "uneducated" I mean they are not legal scholars. Whatever education they may have, it is not the law.
******whether you are right or not, I really don't know.**********
That’s OK, I know whether I am right or not.
*****But I do know that the truth is important and if Obama has lied to the American people repeatedly, his credibility as President and chief will drop faster than a GM stock******
Yipper, however, given the religious zeal of his worshippers it is going to take a lot to make them turn on him.
***********This, in the long haul, will be good for America as we will have demonstrated that he is a complete fraud.*********
Well it’s my hope that the left is permanently done for after this monster has trashed everything he can.
******well hopefully there is no charge, because I am not buying it.********
Nope no charge. Free advice is worth only one of two things: What you paid for it or what use you can make of it.
*********** And I don't really think that you are certain of it either,********
That’s OK, I know what I think and why.
******** otherwise you would not have bothered to waste your time with this post.*******
Mind reading is it now?
******** I think you have I have something in common, we both realize that Obama represents a danger to freedom, economic and individual.********
And a hell of a lot more but there are things that just don’t deserve any effort and this eligibility thing is one of them . I understand how it got started. When I first heard of it I was like “Hey that might be a good angle.” But the more I looked into it the less of an angle it appeared.
It would have been great to have had a huge assed legal sledge hammer to knock that tadpole back into the muck from whence he came. But, no such luck. Nothing is ever so easy.
******And at the root of this danger is his potentially fraudulent presidency.********
For you maybe. For me his presidency is all too real valid and terrifying.
Unless he is impeached, he gets his 4 years.
******As more Americans become aware of "why have I done" in voting for this fraudster, the possibility of throwing him out on his chin for violating his oath of office becomes more realistic.**********
Or at the least not giving this monster a second term.
However there is a bright side. He can not have a third.
**********it will change, likely in about 1 1/2 years.**********
One hopes.
**********. I think we need to pursue all means necessary to upset, and potentially unseat this socialist. I think you are mistaken about the value of discovering that he has lied about his birth place.**********
They claimed that Bush lied to go to war. Fat lot of good that did them.
*********. Obama's coalition is not a monolith of left wingers.*********
The surely seemed to have the critical; mass needed to get the attention they needed.
*******He has among his supporters many good Americans who thought he was a good man, such as the catholic vote for instance. This support is already erroding and will dramatically drop with widespread knowledge of his ineligibility.**********
One hopes.
I have learned something terrible about my fellow humans. There is almost no limit to the credulity of fools and most people are fools. -
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Tue, July 14, 2009 - 2:48 PMfine, it is a federal issue, and the constitution states:
"If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified ..."
So this implies a qualifying aspect to eligibility must take place and if it doesn't, or the president doesn't qualify for some reason, he must step down and Joe Biden is our man until such time as Obama is found to be eligible.
*****But I do know that the truth is important and if Obama has lied to the American people repeatedly, his credibility as President and chief will drop faster than a GM stock******
"Yipper, however, given the religious zeal of his worshippers it is going to take a lot to make them turn on him. "
You fail to understand that he hold a loose coalition together which can crumble at any moment. Many of those who voted for him voted against the GOP candidate more than for Obama. Obama knows this very well.
"That’s OK, I know whether I am right or not. "
perhaps a statement of arrogance rather than one of truth....
Mindreading isn't necessary to reason logically. You brought up the subject today even though you have poo pooed it at least twice over the past number of months I have been addressing it. You stated yourself that you don't know, so I presume that you are telling the truth here.
"I have learned something terrible about my fellow humans. There is almost no limit to the credulity of fools and most people are fools."
All men are flawed Zippy but not all men are fools. If you are this cynical than you surely have no hope at all. I don't share your cynicism. I am confident that many many decent people live in this, the greatest nation on the face of the earth and there are many layers of strength here to protect us from a tryranny. Even the anti-christ himself would struggle trying to get a foothold here. Obama will do some damage, I fully expected such and refused to vote for McCain to prevent it because I feel this is just what America needs right now to shock them out of their complacency. But his moment in the sun will pass, just wait and see. when it does, my hope and prayer is that Americas dabbling in socialism and government largess will be over once for all.
-
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Tue, July 14, 2009 - 3:08 PM
***********So this implies a qualifying aspect to eligibility must take place********
Maybe it does to you but you are an island of one in that regard.
To me and any other scholar of law it is not implying anything it is directly addressing how power transfers.
Here: supreme.justia.com/constitu...ndex.html
There is a really well written explanation and one that no attorney will find much fault with.
I am guessing you are hanging your thesis on the phrase “Failed to Qualify”
Unfortunately for your proposition there is no law on point informing you what that phrase means who does the qualifying etc.
**********You fail to understand that he hold a loose coalition together which can crumble at any moment.*********
Well I am glad that you are able to tell me what I do and don’t fail to understand.
I was worried there for a moment
*********perhaps a statement of arrogance rather than one of truth..*********
No. I know well the path I took to arrive at what I know and understand. IT is immaterial to me whether others share that knowledge. .
*********All men are flawed Zippy but not all men are fools.*********
Most are both.
********If you are this cynical than you surely have no hope at all.********
Alas wither a hope goeth, I goeth without.
****** I don't share your cynicism.********
I wasn’t offering sharsies. I’m a backwash baby anyway.
-
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Wed, July 15, 2009 - 4:46 AM"I am guessing you are hanging your thesis on the phrase “Failed to Qualify”
Unfortunately for your proposition there is no law on point informing you what that phrase means who does the qualifying etc."
and this brings us back to your view that "no precedent, no case", which is not true. And your comment that "no attorney" is also silly speculation on your part as attorneys are a dime a dozen and do not fall in lock step with your views. If I have cynicism, it is regarding attorneys, many of whom, are fools.
"Well I am glad that you are able to tell me what I do and don’t fail to understand.
I was worried there for a moment "
don't be. I am here to get you all straight. And while I am getting started, you may want to re-examine your foolish disdain for the bible and the God of the Bible. It is contradictory to your political views which are rooted in the bible. Perhaps this explains your funk. You hold to positions and views for which you have no support. You hate the left and the right.
*********All men are flawed Zippy but not all men are fools.*********
"Most are both. "
and upon what basis do you know that you are not?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bombshell: Orders revoked!
Wed, July 15, 2009 - 7:31 AMBORN IN THE USA?
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Bombshell: Orders revoked
for soldier challenging prez
Major victory for Army warrior
questioning Obama's birthplace
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 14, 2009
9:53 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily
Dr. Orly Taitz
A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.
His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.
"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"
She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."
A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.
Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.
"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.
The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation here.
Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."
He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him "something is amiss."
"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.
"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.
Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty tomorrow, on July 15, to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama's plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.
He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.
Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a "conwoman," as he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world." He flayed the soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice."
Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."
According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general."
The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."
"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the 'long-form' birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.
Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.
"We are going to be asking for release of Obama's records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people," she said. "Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?"
Taitz said the issue "must be resolved immediately," and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.
"We're going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president," she said. "We're going to say, we have orders every day, and we'll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided."
She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.
"If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it," Taitz said. "If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place."
Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:
"Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying 'I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.'"
Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.
The mystery letter (go to link:
www.wnd.com/index.php
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to confirm the authenticity of the alleged Jan. 24, 2009, letter from President Obama to his purported place of birth, Kapi'olani Medical Center. His remarks begin at the 55:27 mark of the press briefing. (Click photo to view)
Obama has maintained he was born in Hawaii, and at least one hospital, Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children, claims it received a letter from the president declaring his birth there.
As WND reported, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to confirm that the letter which was used by the hospital to solicit donations is, in fact, a real correspondence.
When WND exposed doubts about the authenticity of the letter because it was created with HTML computer code and had no presidential or White House seal, the hospital which for nearly six months proudly declared Obama was born at its facility commenced an active cover-up, hiding that White House letter from its original webpage and refusing to confirm such a letter actually exists.
WND also reported that just within the last week, at least two reports have cited Obama's birth in Kenya. Wikipedia also was found to have been reporting on Obama's birth in Kenya, before a series of scrubs placed his birth in Honolulu.
And that came on the heels of several online information sites changing the president's supposed birthplace from one hospital in Hawaii to another, after WND broke the news of the letter said to be from the White House.
Barack Obama states in this purported letter from him on what appears to be White House stationery that he was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu. The letter was posted by the medical center for nearly six months on its website and used for fundraising before electronically hidden once WND disclosed it was not an actual paper letter, but merely HTML coding. The hospital and White House now refuse to confirm that a real document even exists.
The question over Obama's eligibility now also is being raised on billboards nationwide.
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania
The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
The billboards are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama case alleging he wasn't qualified even to be U.S. senator and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Chelsea Schilling, Joe Kovacs, Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.
-
-
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked!
Wed, July 15, 2009 - 8:02 AMI don't think it is realistic to put any stock in the reasons they want to believe drove the revocation given in that article.
His orders may have been revoked because the military believes him to be unstable. Who can say?
It is impossible to attribute motives to the military.
But for the guy who didn't want to go to Afghanistan it is a happy out come.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He is the man who doesn't exist. -
-
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked!
Wed, July 15, 2009 - 8:12 AMI feel your are correct about their exuberance. Yet they are free to draw the conclusions they want in the absence of real evidence here. I think they are simply finding encouragement with their "success", and hope to exploit it further.
"But for the guy who didn't want to go to Afghanistan it is a happy out come."
read again:
"who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan"
The issue isn't cowardice, it is the absence of a legitimate commander in chief.
"He is the man who doesn't exist."
I think this hiding of his history is problematic and uncharacteristic of most presidents. It is true the some have tried to hide facts related to their military involvement etc., but this guy wants to create a fictional account of himself while hiding the corrobative facts. -
-
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked!
Wed, July 15, 2009 - 10:55 AM*******************I think this hiding of his history is problematic and uncharacteristic of most presidents. It is true the some have tried to hide facts related to their military involvement etc., but this guy wants to create a fictional account of himself while hiding the corrobative facts.***********
It is pretty fukin weird~!! Especially coming from Mister Transformative Transparency himself.
And the idiot left never seems to notice.
Instead they have anointed him as their god.
-
-
-
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked!
Sun, August 2, 2009 - 3:39 PM
of all the shit to be bitching about, this seems to be at the bottom of the list. -
-
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked!
Mon, August 3, 2009 - 6:25 AMIt is pretty stupid.
I have come to the position that Hussein is deliberately goading the Birthers on.
He could easily address all their questions so why doesn't he? Because it serves a purpose of the administration.
They like the conspiracy theorists out there acting stupid and crazy so they can point to them and use the label "REPUBLICANS" Thus tarring all conservatives and republicans as mental defectives. So I do not expect Hussein to be putting any of this to bed.
Yah it's sort of Orwellian but then damn near everything about these monsters in Orwellian. -
-
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked!
Mon, August 3, 2009 - 7:10 PM>> I have come to the position that Hussein is deliberately goading the Birthers on. <<
yep. the strategy is to exaggerate the conservative fringe. it deflects attention from Dodd, Rangel, et al. as well as the fact that the economy will mend itself before the stimulus package actually kicks in. but I imagine with the collusion of the media, it's pretty effective.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Mon, August 3, 2009 - 6:47 AMWell now Dan is showing off a Kenyan Birth Certificate for Hussein.
Which if valid does present an interesting set os issues.
uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...5812d933
www.wnd.com/index.php -
-
Re: Is the president a "Natural Born " citizen?
Mon, August 3, 2009 - 12:43 PM
-
