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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-236 next last
To: omegadawn
Show me in the constitution where what you said is correct!

Constitutionally (therefore legally!) there is an office of the president and a office of the vice president.
How we have morphed this into a single entity is constitutionally irrelevant. Now of you want to argue that Biden was a willing accomplice then ok, but that's a different discussion.

101 posted on 12/31/2010 5:59:00 PM PST by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

IMHO, the laws that have been proposed to this point would not change anything. They still leave it up to “somebody”/nobody to decide what documents are needed and what definition of “natural born citizen” to use, which defies the whole checks and balances system.

We have to have laws which say exactly what documents have to be submitted. We have to have laws which require the documents to be made public and a way for the public to contribute to the accountability so that corrupt bureaucrats CANNOT screw the American public.

Look at what happened in Hawaii. The Hawaii Elections Office, according to Brian Adams, knew all along that Hawaii has no valid birth certificate for Obama. So they knew there was a problem with his eligibility even if the most lax definition of “natural born” was used. They have no SOS so the Elections Office is the only verifying body they have. Even if the HI DOE were required to see all the documents and it could be absolutely proven that they knew Obama had no valid BC, the laws that have been proposed in other states to this point would leave the public with no way to force the DOE to keep Obama off the HI ballot.

There also would be no way to force the courts to rule on the definition of “natural born citizen” and thus no functional definition for an SOS to use even if he/she MEANT to be earnest.

I’ve posted a thread proposing a draft of a bill that could be proposed in the various states, which I believe addresses the legal snags and pitfalls that the Obama coup has revealed. I want to make a few changes, based on input I’ve received, and then I’ll repost it here.

At this point I don’t think we can count on Congress or the federal government AT ALL. But there is no way that Obama’s thugs can threaten the legislators in every state legislature without making their whole scheme of bribes and threats too well-known and greatly increasing the risk of the threatened people spilling the beans on him. If he has to threaten that many people it would be an open, all-out coup.

That’s why we need to - immediately - lean on our state legislatures to HOLD THAT LINE. We’ve made huge gains in the states, and that’s where the battle for America is going to play out.

I’m going to do some revising on what I had posted earlier and get back to you. I especially hope that those who have a different “bent” than mine on the eligibility issue look at what I’ve got and see if they think it addresses the vulnerabilities they feel most keenly right now.

Basically I want the laws that are passed to

1) require a process that eliminates from the ballot anybody whose documentation show them ineligible,

2) enable the people to hold bureaucrats LEGALLY accountable to deal honestly, and

3) to require the courts to decide eligibility issues according to the standards for evidence and law.

I’ll get back to you.


102 posted on 12/31/2010 6:08:46 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ebysan

A lot of people know the truth. I’m hoping strongly that enough Rs in Congress have guts and put legal screws on the Dems, so that some Dems start squealing in fear. They won’t all want to go down with the ship. Some will want to testify in return for immunity.


103 posted on 12/31/2010 6:13:24 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Happy New Year Butter!

We are in a heck of a fix, because no one ever dreamt we have to be taking these precautions!

104 posted on 12/31/2010 6:13:47 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (America can survive fools in office. It cannot long survive the fools who elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
The way to get rid of Obama is by
impeachment and conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors,
resignation or
defeat at the polls in 2012.

Let me add one more possible scenario, even if improbable, given the people upon whom we would depend to enact it:

One or two State Governors, and Attorneys General decide to keep whatsisname off their states' ballots.
They are backed by their legislatures
This throws their decision into the courts: State Supreme court, then appeal to the SCOTUS.
No matter the decision, one side or the other would appeal.

Then, using the powers granted by the 25th Amendmendment, Congress finds him unfit, of course by then it would already be 2012. Whatsisname goes away and we have a working definition of "Natural Born citizen."

Caveat: this scenario fell into my hands when a beautiful, pink pig flew by my place and dropped it. And Happy New Year!

105 posted on 12/31/2010 6:24:40 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (America can survive fools in office. It cannot long survive the fools who elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner
Stand in front of a mirror and point your finger Mr 3rd Party

Mirror mirror on the wall
who's the most likely of all
To waste a vote on some Third Party,
Not me! I'm a freeper smarty
I think about it, But I don't want a shiner
delivered by a big tough guy Forty Niner!

I always back whomsoever wins the Republican Primary. Now, if you can convince Karl Rove to do it .....

106 posted on 12/31/2010 6:34:35 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (America can survive fools in office. It cannot long survive the fools who elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

I hope this formats correctly. Here’s a draft I propose for states:

Whereas the US Constitution states the requirements for Presidential eligibility and gives the federal judiciary the responsibility of interpreting and applying the Constitution but gives the individual states the responsibility of choosing Presidential electors resulting in a Constitutionally eligible President;

Whereas the only security clearance given to the Commander-in-Chief is the vote of the people, who do not individually have authority to demand documentation necessary for such a security clearance; and

Whereas the Congressional Research Service has concluded that “there is no specific federal agency or office that “vets” candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election. The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are administered under state law.”

Therefore be it resolved that the name of a candidate for US President or Vice President may not be placed on a primary or general election ballot in this State unless and until the following steps have been completed and Constitutional eligibility is confirmed:
1. The prospective candidate must complete a sworn application stating their birth date, birth place, years of US residency, and the US citizenship status of each parent at the time of the prospective candidate’s birth.
2. The prospective candidate must submit evidence of the years of US residency.
3. The prospective candidate must sign a consent form for the Secretary of State to have access to ALL his/her birth documents from the Vital Records Office in his/her birth state, including any supplementary documentation and written and/or embedded transaction records for the birth record.
4. The prospective candidate must sign a consent form for the Secretary of State to have access to all citizenship records for the prospective candidate and his/her parents from the Department of State and INS.
5. The Secretary of State must procure all the records listed in 3 and 4, and directly on the application mark on a check-off list Yes or No for whether each of the following occurs:
a) An amended/altered or late birth certificate.
b) A birth certificate showing a birth date resulting in an age younger than 35 years as of the beginning of the Presidential term for which he/she desires to run.
c) A birth certificate showing a birth place outside the United States.
d) Insufficient proof of at least 14 years of US residency.
e) Citizenship records showing the candidate having citizenship in another country at any time.
f) Citizenship records showing one or more parent not having US citizenship at the time of the prospective candidate’s birth.
g) Transaction records showing amendments or filing dates that do not match what is stated on the birth certificate.
h) Checklist disputed within 30 days of public posting
6. After completing Step 5 the Secretary of State shall post on the State SOS website the application, the check-off list, and redacted copies of the documentation provided – the originals of which shall be made available for public inspection at the SOS office on request.
7. If, within 30 days of the online posting, any person files a written complaint with the Attorney General documenting reasons to dispute the veracity of the evidence presented or the way the list is checked off, the Attorney General must check Yes on item h: Check list disputed.
8. If after 30 days of the online posting every item on the check-off list is checked “No”, eligibility is confirmed and the name will be placed on the ballot if all other State ballot requirements are met.
9. If after 30 days of the online posting any item on the check-off list is checked “Yes”, then the candidate must be informed by certified mail that their name is not allowed to appear on the ballot and the State Attorney General must within 10 days file an expedited lawsuit in the State Court on behalf of the prospective candidate, with all documentation collected throughout the process submitted to the court. The public must be able to file amicus briefs either in support of or to refute the prospective candidate’s eligibility.
10. If all appeals at the State level and/or United States Supreme Court level are exhausted and the court has ruled that the person is eligible, eligibility is confirmed and the name will be placed on the ballot if all other requirements are met.

Be it further resolved that if, after Step 9, the court confirms that the prospective candidate is INELIGIBLE, the Attorney General must notify by certified mail the Chairman of each national political party. If a political party nominates the ineligible candidate anyway, the Attorney General must file contempt of court charges against the Chairman of that political party.


107 posted on 12/31/2010 6:36:43 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Happy New Year to you too, Kenny.

And with that post you summed up the scenario that my proposed eligibility bill would seek to create, to close up the problems of “standing” and the Constitution’s requirement that presidential elections be governed by the states but the Constitution be interpreted by the courts.

The scenario you mentioned seems to me, after all this time of trying to process the claims made by everybody, to be the only way the Constitutional requirements for the POTUS and VP can actually mean anything in practical terms.

Let me know what you think.


108 posted on 12/31/2010 6:40:42 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Excellent! Thank you for this draft. It seems to cover every point.


109 posted on 12/31/2010 6:42:35 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

I was curious on the other thread regarding the language in the Georgia bill because I have yet to see a proposed eligibility bill which addresses this bogus issue of 2 citizen-parents required to be NBC. I know the Texas bill does not and it does not appears the Georgia bill does either. How would you propose the states address this issue? Oh, Thank you for the info and prompt reply.


110 posted on 12/31/2010 6:54:58 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

That formatting is lousy. I’ve posted it (with one tweak) on my blog at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/proposed-eligibility-bill-2.pdf so people can see it with decent formatting.


111 posted on 12/31/2010 7:00:56 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I should say the SOS must be given access to CERTIFIED copies of all that stuff from the birth state’s DOH and from the State Department and INS.


112 posted on 12/31/2010 7:06:22 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: PallMal

The bill that I suggest we propose in our states would require the State AG to file contempt of court charges against the chairman of any political party which still nominates as their national candidate someone who has been found by the court to be ineligible.

A decently-formatted version of that proposal is at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/proposed-eligibility-bill-2.pdf Let me know any criticisms or suggestions you have, to make it the best it can possibly be.


113 posted on 12/31/2010 7:20:34 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

I was just down in TX this past week to visit my in-laws. My kids felt conspicuous as Nebraskans in a state where our Huskers lost to both TU and A&M, but I tried to let them know that we are among friends when we’re in Texas, on things much more important than football.

Would there be any way for you to talk to Rep Berman and have him look at a longer proposed bill that would close a lot of loopholes that would still exist even if the shorter one he’s thinking of proposing was actually passed? The longer bill is posted at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/proposed-eligibility-bill-2.pdf .


114 posted on 12/31/2010 7:24:41 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

State AG is the only level I can see actually doing something about this, but because the AG is usually an elected official this means it has to be somebody who isn’t afraid of the “name” that the press would give them after investigating Pelosi.

As long as the media can lie with impunity they will castrate almost every person who wants to get re-elected. We very seriously have to find a way to break the DC-press cabal. As long as we elect “conservatives” they go to DC and realize that if they want any political future they have to “get along with” the DC press corpse. (Yes, that spelling was deliberate) That is a cabal we have to break, just as surely as Al Capone and the mafia had to be broken by whatever means it took. Anybody we send to DC will very quickly be corrupted. Just the fumes from that place kill off any honest red blood cells a body has.


115 posted on 12/31/2010 7:29:32 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Retired Intelligence Officer
RIO, you are on the money. Why the heck is this question, that of his parentage ... never brought up?

Team Obama and a couple of million dollars have completely shaped the dialogue on the question. Hawaii it is!

116 posted on 12/31/2010 7:30:50 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (America can survive fools in office. It cannot long survive the fools who elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Let me add one more possible scenario, even if improbable, given the people upon whom we would depend to enact it:

One or two State Governors, and Attorneys General decide to keep whatsisname off their states’ ballots.
They are backed by their legislatures
This throws their decision into the courts: State Supreme court, then appeal to the SCOTUS.
No matter the decision, one side or the other would appeal.

Then, using the powers granted by the 25th Amendmendment, Congress finds him unfit, of course by then it would already be 2012. Whatsisname goes away and we have a working definition of “Natural Born citizen.”

Caveat: this scenario fell into my hands when a beautiful, pink pig flew by my place and dropped it. And Happy New Year!


A Harry Reid-led, Democrat majority in the Senate plus the Senate’s Republican RINOs are going to find Obama “unfit?”

Because the Federal Government has long (10 years) accepted a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth (COLB) for passport purposes, Obama can use a certified copy of his short form birth certificate to get on the ballot in every state in 2012. The short form COLB contains all the information necessary to determine eligibility to run for president except the 14 year residence in the US requirement. No birth certificate contains that last bit of required documentation.

The reason the new Democrat Governor of Hawaii is seeking to release Obama’s original long form is to have it ready for any state challenges in 2012. I predict it will be released by this coming February.


117 posted on 12/31/2010 8:34:24 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Yes, I do agree that State AG office is where the investigation should occur. The question to me is more of a financial issue. I would estimate that an investigation and prosecution of the BC issue will cost several million dollars. I know here in Texas we are facing a 20 billion dollar deficit and all departments have been ordered to cut 10% of their budget. The case will have to be brought in a state which can afford the expenditure and the AG can fade the heat from the press.


118 posted on 12/31/2010 8:39:57 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

I suspect a lot of you have not read the info that was obtained through an FOIA request on Lolo.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35192432/Lolo-Soetoro-U-S-Records-Allen-v-DHS-State-and-Allen-v-USCIS-FOIA-Releases-Final-7-29-10

It is quite interesting.

It appears he married Ann to stay in the country. He couldn’t remember what day he got married. Didn’t know her Dr’s name.

A Dr who had been an Assistant Chief of Staff in 1955 at a Maternity hospital wrote a letter in 1965 stating the Ann would suffer undue hardship if Lolo had to leave.

What is interesting to note, is that it appears someone pulled strings for Lolo to stay in the country and East-West was not happy about it ..neither was the Indonesian Government.

Who pulled the strings for Lolo to stay???

He had a paid off 1963 Corvair. He could have sold that to pay for her transportation to Indonesia. Supposedly an Uncle in Indonesia bought it and Lolo was paying him back. ...but through untraceable means. It was sent back by courier when people went from Hawaii to Indonesia.


119 posted on 12/31/2010 8:43:18 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

I suspect a lot of you have not read the info that was obtained through an FOIA request on Lolo.


You’re right, I have spent no time at all reading anything about Lolo Soetoro.

How is he relevant to Obama’s eligibility or lack thereor?


120 posted on 12/31/2010 8:48:43 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Well, if you can’t figure that out then it is obviously no use to you.


121 posted on 12/31/2010 8:49:52 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

btw, for those of you that are interesting in finding the truth about Obama..and not just what will fit your agenda..you might want to read Lolo’s file.

There is info about the child in there, obvious immigration issues as it relates to the child, questions about his status, where he was born, etc...whether or not he is considered Lolo’s son as determined by a certain provision...etc etc etc..

I am still trying to decipher some of it because it is hard to read.

There were ongoing immigation issues with Lolo for years. Lots of redacted info. The name of a one of Ann’s Doctors is in this info.

I would like to see this same info on Obama Sr.


122 posted on 12/31/2010 8:58:26 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Letter from immigration to the investigation unit in 1966 asking for them to find Ann. They have tried to contact her via letters and but they are returned . Another person at address.

They want to interview her in regards to Lolo’s request for a waiver.

It seems Ann couldn’t keep them apprised of her whereabouts during the ongoing Immigration saga.

A lot hinged on his relationship to Barack. Did he adopt Barack for immigration purposes? Still no sign of it happening but people should be combing these documents to try to find it.


123 posted on 12/31/2010 9:13:42 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
This is a very comprehensive bill that you propose. Perhaps a little too comprehensive. In dealing with legislators & legislative committees, I have discovered that the first rule to follow is the KISS rule. Keep it simple stupid. I guarantee you that the vast majority of the Texas legislator's eyes will glaze over about half way reading through the bill. I would hate to try to shepard this bill through committee where there are too many opportunities to pick it to death. It appears that you subscribe to the 2 citizen-parent theory. I just don't think there is the political support to pass such a bill, even in Texas with total Republican control. I am not aware of any legislator who supports that language, but most, if not all, will support a bill which requires a certified copy of the Birth certificate which can be used to obtain a US passport to be presented to the SOS before being allowed on the ballot for POTUS.
124 posted on 12/31/2010 9:14:27 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

A state that could investigate this might have its cost offset by the undoing of Obamacare, for instance.

Arizona is paying for border security, the high cost of trying to get the Department of Injustice to actually obey one of the few mandates that the Constitution gives the federal government: securing the states against foreign invasion.

They shouldn’t have to pay to protect the country from foreign invasion of the White House. Somebody else needs to step up to the plate.

Virginia seems to be working on the Obamacare thing; why couldn’t a different state spend money on the eligibility thing rather than duplicating VA’s efforts on Obamacare? It’s ultimately going to be resolved by SCOTUS anyway.

One thing that could/should be done is something that would require Obama to reimburse the taxpayers for all his legal defense if it turns out that money has been spent on what Obama knew was deliberate crimes against the Constitution and the American people. The money that the taxpayers spent on continuing the hoax in the legal system should go to reimburse the state that ends up securing justice for the nation.

Is there anything like that in effect right now, or is there any way to get such a thing done? How is it that Sarah Palin could be run broke by lawsuits over nothing, and the taxpayers are paying mega-bucks to ensure that Obama can keep spitting on our Constitution and the valid concerns of the American public? If Obama is not lawfully POTUS, then what would legally justify the US spending money to defend him in a criminal case? If it was a CRIMINAL case (as it would be if an AG investigated and prosecuted the case) wouldn’t Obama have to pay for it himself - which might help keep costs down?


125 posted on 12/31/2010 9:21:10 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
John Bingham??? Can you find someone who at least was breathing in the last century. If that is your best answer, I now understand why birthers have lost over 80 cases. My favorite justice on SCOTUS is Scalia who has stated on several occasions that last thing he looks to when trying to interpret a statute is to look at legislative intent. Realistically, if the the birthers wish to gain any traction for their pet issue, they are going to have to get someone, a Representative or Senator, with authority to issue subpoenas and hold hearings, to push the issue. Otherwise, it will never become more than spam on the internet.
126 posted on 12/31/2010 9:30:25 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I do think that if your proposal becomes law it will be immediately challenged by the Justice Department on Constitutional grounds, such as Arizona was sued for their illegal alien law. It would probably end up with SCOTUS, and I am not sure you will like the outcome. But at least you will hopefully have a definitve SCOTUS answer, if they take the case. need to celebrate, Happy New Years!!!
127 posted on 12/31/2010 9:41:55 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

After perusing the documents on Lolo..it is hard to say what really went on other than Lolo was about to get the boot from his stay in the US. East-West Center was sending him back to Indonesia in accordance with their agreement with Indonesia.

Lolo got some strings pulled with INS . Hmm, how did that happen???

East-West didn’t like it. They REALLY didn’t like it and commented on it.
They wanted him sent back to Indonesia.

No hardship waiver granted.

If this was just anyone, there seemed to be a pretty good case for a hardship waiver given what was going on in Indonesia.

Lolo married Ann as he was about to get the boot out of the country. Lolo didn’t even know the date they were married.

Was East-West , in part, associated with the CIA as some claim. Who knows.

What I can see is that Lolo was going back and nothing was going to stop them from sending Lolo back into the thick of things as the commies were being overthrown.

I did see a reference in 1967 that Barack was considered a step-son pursuant to a certain law. So it appears he was not adopted at that point.

Lolo’s family had land confiscated under the Commie regime. I wonder if he was promised he would get it back after the CIA overthrew the Commie regime.

Which makes all of this much more mysterious given the Commie Roots of Ann.


128 posted on 12/31/2010 9:52:06 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

I just believe that the Constitution requires that the judiciary interpret and apply the Constitution. I don’t want some SOS who has no clue about the Constitution or the issues involved making these decisions. Roger Calero was known to not be a US citizen and made it past the SOS in several states. I’ve spoken to my own SOS. He’s Republican and I wouldn’t trust him as far as I can throw him.

The job of the SOS should be secretarial - to document what the facts of the case are. The judiciary should decide what “natural born citizen” means. Unless and until they do that, the Constitution is only guarded by people elected because they know how to make copies and count, not because they know anything about the Constitution.

The point of this bill is to provide a framework where the courts interpret the Constitution. If the courts - eventually SCOTUS, I’m sure - say that 2 citizen parents aren’t necessary then that would be the definition we would live under unless and until a Constitutional amendment was ratified saying otherwise. If they say 2 citizen parents are necessary then that’s what we would live under. But they are the ones the Constitution authorizes to interpret the Constitution. This bill would just set it squarely in their laps where they CAN’T keep evading it even when there’s a Constitutional crisis at hand.

I have read Arizona’s law regarding how their ballots are supposed to be set up and that is eye-glazing language.

Do you think the legislators would understand the need for detail if they had any idea why these steps are necessary?

For instance, the NJ SOS was required by state law to “verify eligibility”, and Roger Calero still made it on the ballot - and the courts refused to let anybody have standing to sue that breach of the law. If New Jersey had a law requiring that the SOS see Calero’s BC it would not have changed a thing. The SOS can still say, “So what?” and ignore everything. The courts seem to hold this idea that unless the state law mandates a detailed, specific procedure, the broad ideas aren’t enforceable because the SOS can decide what to do anyway, and it doesn’t have to fit with the big picture at all.

Even though the NJ SOS is required to “verify eligibility” there are lawyers who argue that the SOS would not have authority to request a BC for somebody, because the law didn’t specifically require them to do that exact step. If the law had required a BC but didn’t require them to look at place of birth on the BC those same lawyers could say the SOS couldn’t disqualify a Calero on the basis of a foreign birth. Etc ad nauseum. If the detail isn’t mandated there will be lawyers saying the SOS isn’t authorized to do anything about it.

TX legislators need to be aware that just requiring the SOS to look at a BC does nothing toward forcing the SOS to use logic OR lawful definitions to decide whether that BC disqualifies somebody like Calero anyway. If the SOS wants to screw the whole country just showing a BC is not going to stop them, or enable anybody to sue them if they “interpret” the Constitution irrationally.

I don’t think that eligibility laws should really be about Obama, but the Obama situation has REALLY exposed the vulnerabilities. State lawmakers need to know the crap we “birthers” have been through so they can see the lawlessness and see how very, very detailed the legal language has to be in order to even put a dent in the huge loopholes - since courts only hold the bureaucrats to the exact, expressed letter of the law.

I understand the eye-glazing thing, having looked at a lot of laws that bore me to tears. But if state legislators aren’t willing to find out what would be effective then they may end up applying a bandaid to a severed carotid. That’s not what we need when the nation is in peril. Texas lawmakers would never have been so lackadaisical if they knew they were fighting the Battle of the Alamo. Well, this is an even more lethal battle than the Alamo.

If they knew what was at stake I don’t think they would let us down. Texans have bigger balls than that. They’re smarter than that.

Am I thinking too highly of them?


129 posted on 12/31/2010 9:52:52 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

What Constitutional grounds would there be for knocking down that particular law if it was enacted?

I know that the Department of Injustice would challenge anything that could actually protect the Constitution. That’s the legacy of this DOJ. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If we don’t get a handle on the Department of Injustice they will make sure that this nation is enslaved in every way possible.

I would be honored to be involved in kicking this Department of Injustice in the nuts. I say bring it. If SCOTUS is going to sell the nation down the river I’d rather know sooner rather than later so I can prepare for the inevitable Revolution or death, whichever comes first.


130 posted on 12/31/2010 9:59:15 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

“It appears that you subscribe to the 2 citizen-parent theory”

It is not a theory.


131 posted on 12/31/2010 10:00:37 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

“I have yet to see a proposed eligibility bill which addresses this bogus issue of 2 citizen-parents required to be NBC.”

Obots state it is a bogus issue.


132 posted on 12/31/2010 10:03:34 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Effing media cowards. They all have to chant like cannibalistic tribesmen to get their courage up, they are so lacking in integrity that that NOT ONE of them will report on or publish the Obama concealment facts in the MSM.

Just a bunch of cake walking leftist propaganda fag cowards IMHO.

Their non-feasance makes murder out of 1st amendment free speech rights.We have no free press, they are all seized by the politcal correctness of Obamas reverse racial discriminatioon scam. Dumber than dirt.

133 posted on 01/01/2011 1:43:15 AM PST by Candor7 (Obama . fascist info..http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/brack_obama_ipthe _quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
Obama IS the President. ..................

Obama does not have the lawful constitutional capacity to be president.

According to your logic,my Irish Setter could be President, as long as he somehow fooled everyone into electing him.

Arf, Arf, goes your logic, and your patriotism. Over half of our nation will not obey Obama law now, and will revolt if the feds try to enforce any of it.

134 posted on 01/01/2011 1:49:19 AM PST by Candor7 (Obama . fascist info..http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/brack_obama_ipthe _quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

You posted the article yesterday under a different title that I posted this morning. Your’s sounds better. Moderators please destroy my post, Robin’s is better. God Bless and Happy New Year!


135 posted on 01/01/2011 1:53:37 AM PST by rambo316 (Rush is Right, Odumbo is an Imposter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

Two parents who are citizens, is where Barack Obama fails the qualification process. He is British and American, and therefore could never have been a Natural Born Citizen! That is not exactly something which should be skipped. Two parents who are citizens makes a Natural Born Citizen. Only one American parent might get you citizenship, but it isn’t NBC and never can be unless you have two citizen parents, and are born on our soil.

There is a difference and it does matter.


136 posted on 01/01/2011 2:17:47 AM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT

If the “2-parent” issue is, as you say, “bogus,” then why haven’t we seen Obama’s birth, adoption, and educational records? Because the issue of whether he is an NBC isn’t “bogus”!!!!!!


137 posted on 01/01/2011 2:43:36 AM PST by browniexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: TNTNT
the 2 citizen-parent theory

Well it was taught as fact during social studies, back when I was in grade school in the 60s.

That's about the same time Barry Steve Dunham Hussein Soetoro Sobarkah was learning how to be a good little moslem/communist.

138 posted on 01/01/2011 5:50:17 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Some interesting and established facts :

1. The BC from Mombasa has never been discredited. (This document has been public for almost two years, and still stands. It is now in the halls of congress, in the hands of every Senator. No one has been charged with fraud.)

2. Rahm Emanual did go to Kenya before Obama became president.

3. Kenyan Parliament members started to sound off , and immediately Obama dodged the press near the Kenyan Embassy for an hour or so.

4. Aid to Kenya has increased, significantly.

5. We have never seen an American BC.

6. His wife brags that Kenya is his home country.

7. Election official from Hawaii states there is no American BC.

8. Obama imprisons a man rather than produce a BC. This is the most damning fact to date.

Facts are starting to accumulate on their own. We may have seen his BC, and it may be in every ones pocket in DC.

139 posted on 01/01/2011 6:17:49 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Well, if you can’t figure that out then it is obviously no use to you.


O.K., thanks anyway.


140 posted on 01/01/2011 8:31:35 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Danae

HE IS NOT BRITISH.

Find an exception to the law at the time that would have allowed him to be British when he was born out of wedlock.

Unless,perhaps he was born in Canada.


141 posted on 01/01/2011 8:36:02 AM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

According to the information we have, he is British. Unless of course you can get a DNA Sample and can prove his father was an American.

The information we have is that Ann was married to Obama Sr. when Barack was born. That makes him the son of a Britiah man, and he inherits his fathers citizenship.

Now, we HAVE to go with what we know. Now what we speculate about. Is it possible all the above is NOT true? Sure it is, but it is all information that would have to be gathered against the cretin’s will, because his will right now is what we see. Yes that makes me barf.

So based on what Obama has told us, he is as british as he is American at the time of his birth, and this means he was not ever, nor could he ever be a Natural Born Citizen.

That is the relevant point.


142 posted on 01/01/2011 9:27:28 AM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

Well-stated.

It all adds up.


143 posted on 01/01/2011 9:31:41 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Danae

The son does NOT inherit the british citizenship in an out of wedlock birth.

Sr was already married.

There could be no legal marriage to Ann.

Barry was born a bastard.

Unless you want to claim that Obama, SR was never married..and you have to go with what you know at this point..and all evidence points to the fact that he was ALREADY married.

Why did Ann get a divorce instead of an annulment IF THERE EVER REALLY WAS A MARRIAGE.

Lolo’s FOIA shows why. A divorce decree was imperative for the next phase as her backstory was that she was married..and an annulment would have shown that one or both lied in the first marriage..which would screw up the plans of Obama, Sr.


144 posted on 01/01/2011 9:33:31 AM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: EBH

This is the perfect time....everyone has pretty much been burned by this administration....so to end it would only ‘cause a ripple effect.


145 posted on 01/01/2011 9:39:58 AM PST by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
If your Irish Setter had received ballot clearance in all "57" states (despite his father reportedly possibly a Chihuahua), received 53% of the popular vote (despite the AKC papers clearly stating the sire's provenance), and then received majority of the votes of the Electoral College as certified by the President of the Senate, (who certainly should have known better) was then sworn in by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS (a "conservative," I hear tell, and he swore him in, not once but Twice!), why then I would have to say that that dog is indeed The "setting" POTUS.

Once so elected, certified, and sworn, the man's ineligibility becomes at least a bit moot, wouldn't you say? The very Constitution he violated now protects the SOB, who can only be "removed" by Congress. BTW, you and I, accompanied by about 50 million fellow citizens, think the guy is ineligible. So what? We ain't a court... except of Public Opinion. Even if a majority were to feel he's ineligible, we still ain't the court, and we're certainly not Congress.

An impostor claiming a throne, or the Papacy, or reaching the North Pole, is certainly not unknown in History. It has even happened here in the Presidency of Chester Arthur, who as it now turns out, was not a "Natural Born Citizen," either! Are you going to tell me that the states admitted during his Presidency must now revert to territorial status?

Obama's ineligibility was known since he first burst upon the scene in 2005, especially by him. The question remains at the end of the day, "so waddawe do now?"

Obama controls that answer, depending upon whether or not he chooses to run in 2012. If he does, I believe our remedy may lie at the state level.

Logic, Law, and Patriotism make a heady mix ... but the cognitive dissonance we face in this case is that they do not mix at all. Obama is NOT eligible. He IS the sitting POTUS.

If we were already Latin America (coming to a country near you sooner than you think) the shooting would have started 2 years ago. We are not, so it will not. You and I, patriots or not, are stuck with this dude until at least 2012.

146 posted on 01/01/2011 9:46:55 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (America can survive fools in office. It cannot long survive the fools who elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
are stuck with this dude
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This isn't about getting rid of Obama.

It is about the Constitution and the rule of law.

147 posted on 01/01/2011 9:52:30 AM PST by wintertime (Re: Obama, Rush Limbaugh said, "He was born here." ( So? Where's the proof?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick; james777
The Indonesian thingamabob is just another "red herring." That is an element of confusion and dust in the eyes of those following the trail.

If Obama were an American Citizen by virtue of birth in Hawaii, any subsequent shenanigans by Stanley and Lolo could not remove that from him. Yes, Lolo could have signed him up for an Indonesian passport, or even Indonesian Citizenship. He adopted him? Still does not remove his American citizenship, if that part of the legend is true.

However as an adult, if he were actually of Hawaiian birth and had a valid Hawaiian BC, he could claim American citizenship. All of this fou-faraw has NOTHING to do with "Natural Born Citizenship." At best, if all he says about Hawaii is true, all he CAN be is a NATIVE born citizen.

One nexus of the legal battle is the question, is a NATIVE a NATURAL? I say "No." Lots of other people say "Yes." What counts is what the SCOTUS says ...some day soon, may it please the Lord.

148 posted on 01/01/2011 9:58:52 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (America can survive fools in office. It cannot long survive the fools who elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
This isn't about getting rid of Obama.
It is about the Constitution and the rule of law.

Precisely. What I am saying is that we keep the "getting rid of Obama" talk to the VFW bar. Instead, we really have to concentrate on the Republic surviving the rest of an illegitimate administration.

149 posted on 01/01/2011 10:06:06 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (America can survive fools in office. It cannot long survive the fools who elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

The Indonesiasn thingamabob is crucial to this whole scenario because it helps put the pieces together....

People can argue the merits of Native and Natural Born until they are blue in the face..but NOTHING is ever going to happen to Obama that his handlers don’t want to happen. Clinton is just as tight with Soros as Obama.

All you have to do is start with the fact that his history is full of lies, and black holes, and weird stories...and black holes..and realize that there aren’t too many people that could accomplish that. Not even the Russians.

From there..you just have to fit in the pieces as best as you can.

It should no longer be about where Obama was born.

It should be the WHO is doing this to us and WHY????

And what can someone do to stop it.

And it won’t be a court that will stop it.

It will have to be an insider.

Obama is a product of the CIA. Whether or not HE worked with them is unclear. But it sure looks like his family was involved with the spooks.


150 posted on 01/01/2011 10:15:21 AM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-236 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
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson