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

At this point those who fight to keep him on theballot might be helping us more than they are the Democrats. Kicking off makes him a martyr and gives the Democrats a "reset" buttom to push.
1 posted on 02/29/2012 9:01:33 AM PST by jmaroneps37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: jmaroneps37
Not “reset”, but “overcharge” was what the button said in Russian. Which is appropriate for Commander Zero.
2 posted on 02/29/2012 9:07:20 AM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmaroneps37
Just one problem with the article. This is not a newly discovered law, and has been discussed many times on Free Republic. The law mentioned applies only to children born abroad. If Orly finally has proof of Kenyan birth, it works. It does not apply to a birth within the US.
3 posted on 02/29/2012 9:11:53 AM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmaroneps37
Taitz is a moron, and an embarassment to the legal profession. From the article:

”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status according to blog discovery.

By the express terms of the law linked in that same article, that only applies to children born overseas. It has nothing to do with children born in the U.S..

One commenter said, “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements! Backing this statement up, another commenter reiterates:” The law specifically outlines the requirements for a CITIZEN mother to confer citizenship to her baby. Ann Dunham was NOT old enough-case closed!”

I'm not sure who these unnamed "commentators" are as well, but they're morons too. No U.S. law says anything about being old enough to register a birth, nor does the 14th Amendment say anying about the age of the mother, nor did English common law. These idiots are conflating a provision applicable only to overseas births, and pretending it applies to domestic births as well.

6 posted on 02/29/2012 9:14:23 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmaroneps37
But new questions about the status of BHO’s teen age mother Stanley Ann Dunham are surfacing as analysis at another web site is revealing a Congressional rule change for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986 puts in serious doubt Stanley Ann Dunham’s ability to confer citizenship status on her son.

What website? It sure would be nice to be able to go there and read what is being said.
Google returns...@Congressional rule change for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986

What Congressional rule change? Again, it sure would be nice to be able to go and read the law mentioned.

Thanks for so little info, coach.

7 posted on 02/29/2012 9:14:44 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmaroneps37
My preliminary search shows that the law in question pertains to being born outside of the US.
More distraction, IMO.
9 posted on 02/29/2012 9:18:14 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmaroneps37
Oops...it says it right there at the link provided...
@http://www.hotstockmarket.com/t/64693/obamas-birth-certificate-verified-by-state/120

Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States

10 posted on 02/29/2012 9:19:42 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmaroneps37

An additional new factor arose recently in zero’s very confusing past. According to State Dept. documents, it seems that his father was married to a woman in Africa when he “married” zero’s mother prior to zero’s birth.

This, IMO, raises additional questions about zero’s true eligibility status on top of those already floating around about his citizenship.


14 posted on 02/29/2012 9:33:00 AM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmaroneps37

Ok, doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity. This Birther movement is not going to get rid of Obama as much as people wish it would. The Birther movement is like a bright light at night drawing moth’s. It just keeps people wasting time on pointless pursuits instead of spending energy on electing patriots.


15 posted on 02/29/2012 9:44:36 AM PST by pwatson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmaroneps37

The Kenyan won’t be kicked off any ballot for the same reason he won’t be removed from office except by an electoral defeat (if he has not suspended the constitution before January 2013.) And they called Reagan the Teflon president.


17 posted on 02/29/2012 9:52:40 AM PST by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmaroneps37
A candidate's application: A state's election board has the moral duty to check every detail of a presidential candidate's application, such as the person's name and address.

1. And those election boards should routinely check a candidate's Social Security number to make sure it is not a fake or a stolen number.

2. What do the election boards, like the one in Indiana, do when it comes to a presidential applicant's Social Security number: Do they simply take the candidate's word that the number belongs to the candidate without any proof whatsoever?

3. For instance, what happens if the candidate is someone who no one has ever heard of? How do election officials in Georgia or any state know that the applicant has a valid Social Security number unless they check the number somehow, like using e-verify?

4. If election boards do not verify a presidential candidate's Social Security number somehow, like using e-verify, then the election board is not performing its moral duty to use every possible resource to prove that a presidential candidate's application is valid and that the candidate is who he claims to be in order protect we voters from fraudulent presidential applications.

5. Really, we are not talking about checking the Social Security number of hundreds or thousands of presidential candidates.

6. I would think that 10 candidates would be a lot, so how long would it take an election board to check the Social Security numbers of 10 presidential candidates using e-verify? Maybe an hour at most?

7. This is what is sad about this whole Obama eligibility mess: I bet that soon after the Nov. 2012 election, states will be jumping all over each other to pass presidential candidate eligibility laws for the next election in 2016, because Obama won 't be eligible to run in 2016, and so election boards will feel comfortable in passing eligibility laws when they can't be accused of passing such laws simply to attack Obama.

8. For instance, I see some eligibility requirements that will probably be listed in new eligibility laws:

a. A candidate must provide a copy of his long form birth certificate.

b. A candidate's Social Security number must be verified by using a system like e-verify.

c. A candidate must provide a copy of his Social Security original application, a copy of which any person can obtain from Social Security for a small fee. Check Social Security's own website for details.

9. If a candidate does not meet the requirements above, his name will not be allowed on the 2016 presidential ballot.

10. If e-verify is good enough for a small business to check out the Social Security number of a job applicant, then surely it should be good enough to check out the Social Security number of a presidential candidate who applies to run for President of the United States, shouldn't it?

28 posted on 02/29/2012 11:04:15 AM PST by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmaroneps37

So, long story short, Obama’s still a bastard.


30 posted on 02/29/2012 11:15:48 AM PST by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmaroneps37

False article, or misleading. This only applies if baby barack were born outside the us. No one has been able to prove it.

Though his using fake documents and stolen SS numbers is circumstantial.


32 posted on 02/29/2012 2:41:01 PM PST by Yaelle (Santorum 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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