Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jeff Kuhner of WashTimes: Top Democrats & Top Senior Editors Concerned about Obama's Eligibility
Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records ^ | DECEMBER 31, 2010 | Obama Release Your Records

Posted on 12/31/2010 3:34:20 AM PST by RobinMasters

Video: Jeff Kuhner of the Washington Times: People around the White House and in democratic circles including senior top editors afraid to pursue Obama's Eligibility and records concealment.

Kuhner says the Media's abdicating their responsibility to pursue the truth and hold our politicians accountable. Kuhner goes on to say that All know there is something there, saying "where there's smoke, there's fire," and says the Controversy is gaining traction and momentum. This is an excellent interview with Jeff Kuhner.

Via MrTimotheus85; Steve Malzberg Interviews Jeff Kuhner - If The Truth Got Out About Obama There Would Be A Civil War.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; harvardresumefraud; kagan; kaganresumefraud; naturalborncitizen; noaccountability; nobirthcertificate; nocredentials; nodocumentation; nothesis; notransparency; noveritas; obama; obamaseligibility; resumefraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-236 next last
To: Kenny Bunk

So how do we the people get out of this mess? That’s what I’m struggling to resolve in my own mind and use as a basis to suggest action that state legislatures can take on our behalf.

For instance, what can a state do to create a case where SOMEBODY would have standing so that the whole system of judges can’t just totally blow off their duty?

I keep thinking about the First Amendment phrase: the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” If we the people have no recourse BETWEEN ELECTIONS - and we’ve seen just how much the corruptocrats care about the “accountability” of elections - then the corruptocrats have no reason to fear us, which equals nothing to hold them in check. Letting Congress monitor its own ethics is one of the worst experiments we’ve tried in this country. It has created a cesspool in DC that every decent and honest person we elect seems to inevitably succomb to. These critters need to be accountable to somebdoy besides their partners-in-crime. Somebody besides the fox needs to guard the henhouse.

201 posted on 01/01/2011 10:15:20 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
So how do we the people get out of this mess?

We the people can demand that Speaker Boehner subpoena the relevant documents so that we the people can discover the truth. I am concerned that Boehner will not act under the mistaken belief that the Obama eligibility issue is a phony issue concocted by crackpots on the fringe of the political spectrum. Boehner needs to hear from ordinary people that care about our constitution.

If Boehner abandons the people on this issue, the issue will be dead.

202 posted on 01/01/2011 10:22:09 PM PST by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]


Why do you think the RATS held hearings on whether John McCain was eligible to run for President? Literally had hearings on whether he could run but because he had two American Citizen parents, one being a Naval officer, they came to the conclusion that he was a ‘Natural Born Citizen’. Ask yourself why did’t they have hearings for Odumbo.

203 posted on 01/01/2011 10:25:30 PM PST by rambo316 (Rush is Right, Odumbo is an Imposter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: ncfool

“where there’s smoke, there’s fire,”

You mean to tell me that these idiot pointy heads are only coming to that conclusion now - after two years of this empty suit in office.

204 posted on 01/01/2011 10:29:17 PM PST by Mr. Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

There’s only one thing that I have a problem with, with the ID situation:

Everyone in this country that has a decent job has GOT to provide real identification to get it. Same thing with the driver’s license. We’re just normal people with normal work situations, and we manage to provide school records, birth certificates, social security numbers, the whole bit.

Why the hell doesn’t the president?

205 posted on 01/01/2011 10:44:30 PM PST by Judith Anne (Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]


Maybe you could speak to the the fact that BHO is using a SSN from Connecticut. How could that have happened. You sound like a pretty educated person, Who paid for BHO’s education? Let’s see, Occidental, Harvard, Columbia, mmmm; I know a job at Baskin Robbins with a fake SSN wouldn’t pay for those prestigious universities. My parents scrimped and saved and remortgaged our house to pay for my sisters to go to college? Some things, no a lot of things with BHO do not add up.

206 posted on 01/01/2011 10:50:01 PM PST by rambo316 (Rush is Right, Odumbo is an Imposter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Danae

The first marriage was a tribal marriage which was a legitimate marriage under the law at the time.

If you actually read up on the law you would find out it wasn’t that hard to get married in kenya under a tribal marriage.

You have to go with what you know at this time and everything indicates that he was already married.

You can’t pretend it never happened and thus is irrelevant.

207 posted on 01/02/2011 5:19:20 AM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: rambo316
First, your premise is wrong that there were hearings held by Congress on McCain's eligibility to be be President. There was one question, asked of Sec. Chertoff by Sen. Leahy at a hearing on the Homeland Security Agency, which addressed the issue of McCain's birth. The question was asked and the non-binding resolution was unanimously passed by the Senate because of Mr. McCain's birth outside the USA. Since both his parents were US citizens and the United States Code provides that if a person is born outside the territorial limits of the US to two citizens that person is a US citizen at birth. Citizen at birth=natural born citizen according to the Senate resolution.

No Senator , nor any of the 435 Representatives, felt there was a necessity for a hearing or resolution on Obama because all the credible evidence that was available then and is still the only credible evidence, is that Obama was born in Hawaii and is thus a natural born citizen. Although birthers try use this action by the Senate to make some type of analogy to Obama, it fails every time in the court of public opinion because the two fact situations are completely different. If I were a birther, I would be embarrassed to bring it up since the action of the Senate was basically an accommodation to a fellow Senator.

208 posted on 01/02/2011 9:49:44 AM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

I didn’t and I don’t. All I am saying is that there is a reasonable amount of doubt regarding what you are saying. Just as there is with my theory. We do not know what the reality is, and may never know. That is all we have for certain!

THAT is what I am saying. We have theories. We lack facts, and THAT is ultimately what this is all about. We want to know what the facts are.

And yes, it is very frustrating.

209 posted on 01/02/2011 10:26:50 AM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: rambo316
I have no idea “where” Obama’s Social Security number came from. People have told my daughter her SS number is from Florida and she received it while living in Texas and has never set foot in Florida. I suggest you ask the Social Security Administration your question if you really want an answer to your question.

I fail to see how Obama paid for his education has anything to do with whether he is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS. That being said, my guess is that his college education was paid the same way Ronald Reagan and myself paid for their education. We received scholarships and worked to pay for college. BTW, one my jobs that helped put me through college was at a hot dog stand. I imagine the pay there was about the same that Obama made at Baskin-Robbins. Both schools I went to were private universities and were not cheap.

210 posted on 01/02/2011 10:33:35 AM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]


Yes, but what does it illustrate about the One’s knowledge of his own status? Can he now have known, as a participant in the Senate, that his own eligibility was in doubt?

211 posted on 01/02/2011 10:49:51 AM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

And who was it that financed a project to get elected to SOS positions persons friendly to the One and to “progressives?”

212 posted on 01/02/2011 10:54:33 AM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
Unfortunately for birthers, Obama’s eligibility was never doubted by a single Senator, including himself. No senator has ever asked for an investigation of his eligibility, thought a resolution was necessary because of doubts. and not a single Senator, nor Representative, objected at the joint session of Congress in January 2009, when they had 29 opportunities to object to Obama’s eligibility. The evidence is fairly conclusive that no one in the Senate thought Obama to be ineligible to be POTUS.
213 posted on 01/02/2011 11:39:25 AM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]


How can we possibly know that he did not doubt his own eligibility? Did he not, at the very least, have “reason to know” that it was in doubt?

214 posted on 01/02/2011 11:52:44 AM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

“Did he not, at the very least, have “reason to know” that it was in doubt?”

The brilliant Constitutional Law lecturer at a prestigious university surely had to know that his eligibility was ‘in doubt.’ His dullest student should know that.

Happy New Year, AV. Thanks to your recommendation at the VP FReep, I’m now here 10 years (and a few days).

215 posted on 01/02/2011 12:01:58 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Danae

You have to start with what you know at this time.

Instead of everyone running around screaming that he is a British is more appropriate to say he is NOT a British citizen unless you can find out that the tribal marriage was one big lie OR you find an exception to the British law. It is very doubtful that you will be able to document that there was no tribal marriage.

A marriage that is void ab initio is subject to collateral attack and thus the death of both parties is irrelevant. One reason for this is to be able to deal with estate issues.

Perhaps Obama was really born in Canada and thus why he said he had British citizenship.

216 posted on 01/02/2011 2:14:02 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Its all possible. The only thing we know for certain, is that the Birth Certificate leads to something so bad OholyO is going to some great lengths and is under mounting pressure to release it.

With his birth records, we will know where to go from there. I still believe that with all available evidence given to us, from Obama, he is ineligible as the son of a British Kenyan Father. He was born with more than one citizenship and that right there invalidates him. I believe from conception, Obama could never have been an NBC. No matter where he was born, no matter if his parents were married or anything else. His father is British. So is he. Could I be wrong, of course. This is my own opinion, and is worth no more than that.

We await the facts together no matter what we believe, because all of us could be wrong.

217 posted on 01/02/2011 2:48:24 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters


218 posted on 01/02/2011 5:54:01 PM PST by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Bingham's opinion is deffinately weighty on the issue of citizenship. He was one of (if not the) principle author on the 14th Amendment.

I'll see you a (great) justice Scalia, and raise you the great Chief justice from the founding era, Marshall from

THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (A case on citizenship and domicile. Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel six (6) times by name, and "law of nations" ten (10) times.)
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Oh, and the WKA court found Mr. Ark...who was born in the states to LEGAL immigrant and permanently domiciled be a "citizen." The topic is "Natural Born Citizen" as required for POTUS eligibility. So what's your point?

219 posted on 01/03/2011 4:53:27 PM PST by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
The problem with the "Tribal Marriage" gambit is that in the British Empire, which collapsed about 250 years too soon, was that it could be superceded by a recognized and registered marriage. Sort of grey area, wouldn't want a connection with some fuzzy-wuzzy princess fouling up a chap's career and subsequent dynastic obligations back home, now would we ... and we don't really care what the natives do amongst themselves ... do we? However, if the marriage were to be properly registered with the DO (District Officer), why then it would be completely kosher (Ancient British Legal Phrase).

BHO, Sr., being a drunken polygamous commie, who knows how many tribal marriages were registered with the colonial authorities and how many not? In fact, there is absolutely no record of the American marriage between Stanley and Barack Senior. We assume it, because they were divorced ... not exactly a solid legal principle. Might have been a kahuna on the beach.

By jingo, where is that blasted stenga-wallah? This legal codswallop gives one a powerful thirst!

220 posted on 01/03/2011 5:46:45 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (A pity Pinochet is still dead. He would have been ideal for 2012 ... or sooner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-236 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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