Posted on 11/29/2008 7:34:28 AM PST by Charlie Fairbanks
The time to challenge President-elect Obama’s citizenship has long since passed. Based on long-standing principles of election law, opponents must raise defects in nominating petitions, including the eligibility of the candidate, at the time of the filing of the nominating petition. Petitions were filed in late 2007 and early 2008. There were no legal challenges And not for nothing: Don’t you think that Senator Clinton would have raised this issue in order to keep BHO off the ballot? Citizenship will remain as a political issue, and may return as a legal issue in 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at menforpalin.com ...
You said — “Citizenship will remain as a political issue for many, and it may return as a legal issue once the future President Obama begins to file nominating petitions for his re-election. But for now, the citizenship is moot as a legal issue where the 2008 election and 2009 inauguration is concerned.”
LOL...
That may be true for some people, but I’ll guarantee you, it’s going to be a *legal issue* for a long time to come, unless Obama shows his birth certificate which will verify his status as a natural-born citizen.
I guess that means you won’t be working on this case against Obama....
I believe it was raised a long time ago, at least during the primaries from a Hillary supporter, the Mr. Berg who we have been reading about for several weeks. So it isn’t just now being raised as an issue, and the Constituion says that the qualifications can be challenged before the electors in December, and someone from Hillary’s camp, whether directly or indirectly, did raise the issue quite a while ago.
Here's a clue for you---THE REAL ELECTION IS YET TO TAKE PLACE. That happens when the Electors (which is who were ACTUALLY voted for in November) meet to cast their ballots. It is perfectly legitimate to question Obama's citizenship status, and, as I understand it, some electors have joined in some of the lawsuits to ascertain said citizenship status.
Obama is NOT "President-Elect", and has zero official status.
Look at the communist-style art work on this fake pro-Palin web site:
http://www.menforpalin.com/index.php/about/index
These Obama trolls are really quite amazing!
They even named their “character” after the man Fairbanks Alaska is named for, Vice President Charles W Fairbanks.
The only conclusion I can some to is the Obama folks are REALLY SCARED about the birth certificate issue. They are engaging in what appears to be an elaborate disinformation campaign to try to influence a few powerless people, you and I.
Tell me why The Zero stands alone among all the Presidents of the United States in being the ONLY one to go to such lengths to hide and obscure his birth information from the public?
I keep reading about Obama spending vast sums of money on a legal team to keep his BC sealed. He's spending $500,000, $800,000, $1M, etc. I'm just curious. Do you have a reputable source for this?
These threads are interesting to watch....all of the trolls show up. (not you)
Sorry Charlie - but if fraud was used to hide information legally germane for a nomination to gain an office for which Obama was not Constitutionally qualified then this is still a live and hot issue. He still, and should, be denied the Presidency if he does not qualify Constitutionally. So go MOOT yerself Charlie Tuna.
|
|
Charlie Fairbanks
Since Oct 31, 2008
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||||
>Maybe mute for you but it isn’t going away, we have chicken shits for judges who are afraid of the Obananazis. He won’t last 4 years.
Moot, not mute; these are very different words.
What I want to know is why the press hasn't simply looked up the hospital and attending doctor and put this to rest. Is it because they can't? Are you telling me one newspaper can't check into the records and find out when he was born and where?
All it would take is the following: “Barak Obama was born in St. Francis Hospital at 10:25 local time. Dr. Smith was the attending physician.”
Why don't you see that?
The 20th Amendment says otherwise. The 20th says, “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”, not, “if a candidate for a political party shall have failed to qualify”.
Election law does not supersede the U. S. Constitution.
"Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu."
That is a straight - out LIE. As anyone who has looked into what they director said, she NEVER said he was born in Honolulu - or Hawaii for that matter. Typical "Fact" check. They take a statement, slant it by putting their own interpretation on it, and make people think that is what was actually said. Just like with the COLB. First referring to it correctly as a Certification. Then later on, subtly changing it to Certificate and then referring to it as "the original" birth certificate. Factcheck has about as much credibility with checking the facts as the elephant that was guarding the peanut jar does when peanuts disappear and he claims he didn't know where they went.
When this arose, if Obama possessed a valid birth certificate, why produce it?
Holding it back makes those asking for it look xenophobic and racist in this PC world. If it is ever really an issue that rises to actually provide any leverage on his coronation, its production will be high drama and legendary belittlement of the racist rightwingers.
We live in a time where many people don’t know the birthplace and history of their own grandparents. They will feel kinship across all lines of race with The ONE.
Obama troll
And risk pissing off a strong contingent of black democrat voters?I dont think so.
That pretty much sums it up.
Sorry charlie,aint buyin it.
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.