Skip to comments.Jeff Kuhner of WashTimes: Top Democrats & Top Senior Editors Concerned about Obama's Eligibility
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 obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
And who was it that financed a project to get elected to SOS positions persons friendly to the One and to “progressives?”
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?
“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.
You have to start with what you know at this time.
Instead of everyone running around screaming that he is a British Citizen..it 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.
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.
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 parents...to be a "citizen." The topic is "Natural Born Citizen" as required for POTUS eligibility. So what's your point?
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!
Tribal /customary marriages versus statutory marriages are a problem....
They are a problem today..and were a problem then.
You didn’t need to register a marriage for it to be legal.
The marriage in Hawaii would not have been legal in Kenya and it was not legal in Hawaii.
The marriage in Hawaii did not meet the requirements to be legal at the time in either location.
This article shows the problems that the Brits face.
Interestingly enough, the problems are starting to come to the forefront again because of the Muslims. You have Muslims trying to get tax payer dollars for their second and third wives. They have succeeded in some cases. It is causing an uproar.
The one thing that a lot of people miss out on is the convenience of the birth date and statutory rape.
Has anyone calculated when she conceived by the obstetrics method. My guess is it was a Miracle..just after she turned 18.
However, what if little Barry wasn’t really born on that day but they had to say so because of rape issues?
I think Marriage after a certain age took care of that problem.
That could be a reason for this whole concocted mess.
Barry is born on a date that would have created a statutory rape issue. Obama may or may not be the father. he agrees to marry her to make the problem go away.
Just one possibility under the umbrella of what could have happened.
Or maybe the Bay of Pigs Exile is right and Obama’s mother was pregnant when she left Cuba..again the birth was before the “official story”.
It looks like someone figured the conception date.
However, I think Hawaii’s rape age may be lower than 17
“The one thing that a lot of people miss out on is the convenience of the birth date and statutory rape.”
Maybe Obama was born *somewhere* before HI became a state. Look at his pictures, he sure was a BIG boy in his class pictures........
" According to the California Lawyer transcript, Scalia said he knows there still are people mad over the court's 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore that ended the Florida recount controversy in that year's president election, installing Bush in the White House.
"I've been impressed that even when we come out with opinions that are highly unpopular or even what should I say emotion raising, the people accept them, as they should. The one that comes most to mind is the election case of Bush v. Gore. Nobody on the court liked to wade into that controversy. But there was certainly no way that we could turn down the petition for certiorari. What are you going to say? The case isn't important enough? And I think that the public ultimately realized that we had to take the case. ... I was very, very proud of the way the court's reputation survived that, even though there are a lot of people who are probably still mad about it."
He said that his perspective on the Constitution that it continues to mean today what it meant when written and is not evolving is the only logical position to taek.
"In its most important aspects, the Constitution tells the current society that it cannot do [whatever] it wants to do. It is a decision that the society has made that in order to take certain actions, you need the extraordinary effort that it takes to amend the Constitution. Now if you give to those many provisions of the Constitution that are necessarily broad such as due process of law, cruel and unusual punishments, equal protection of the laws if you give them an evolving meaning so that they have whatever meaning the current society thinks they ought to have, they are no limitation on the current society at all," he said. "
Is the question of Barry's eligibility NOT important? Can someone who was born owing foreign allegiance be considered a Natural Born Citizen as intended by the framers? Let alone, someone who hasn't proven they were born here?
It appears they are STILL reeling from that case in 2000.
That is truly comforting to read.
I hope they are "still reeling" from the way BO dissed them at the last State of the Union address. Hear the case, SCOTUS. Please, just hear it.
Amen. Courage, Justice Scalia.
May God bless and protect him.
Am I the only one who thinks Michelle’s Mama looks a lot like Valerie Jarrett?
AS of tomorrow.....John BOehner will be Speaker of the House. The SCOTUS has two cases waiting for them....WE ALL need to pray hard for truth to come forward ASAP...but just at the right time so the DNC cannot organize for the next election.
The sooner the better.
I really cannot imagine a Republican with the Intestinal fortitude to question Obama...
Change to: I really cannot imagine a Republican with the “TESTICULAR” fortitude to question Obama...
(There, fixed it for ya)
Keep “PINGING” me. I do appreciate it!