Are you sure you didn't mean sectoid?
 |
The description is applicable, no?
Posted on 09/13/2010 5:23:17 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Zero could dispel ALL of the naysayers and questions by simply releasing the long form.
He could even have embarrassing parts of it redacted if he wanted to. It would at least shut up 90% of the questions.
But he can’t release the long form.
Because THERE IS NO LONG FORM!!!
Thanks Red. All of us on FR are hardcore and your average guy doesn’t pay much attention to this issue, or so I thought.
This is anecdotal but I stopped to pick up a bunch of subs today - I’m working for the Scott Walker for Governer campaign - and the young man at the counter asked me if the subs were for a tailgate party at the Brewers game. I said no, they’re for the Walker campaign rally.
As I was waiting for my subs he started talking politics and another employee who was taking her break joined in.
Both were young, I’m guessing 19-20 years old. Both were voting for my candidate but what surprised me that the young man said that he thought that we would eventually find out that Obama was not a legal citizen and was probably a Muslim.
The other employee, the girl on her break, agreed.
I was surprised that young people are paying so much attention to the elections and especially was surprised at their intense dislike of Obama.
The false facade has certainly been stripped away from Obama when 19 & 20 year olds are paying attention who see through him. 2011 is going to be an interesting year in US politics, especially for Obama.
“But because we didn’t focus on the issues, we were left with a Republican president who would have made the best used car dealer in Texas, but was an unmitigated disaster for conservatism.”
Nice cheap shot at an honorable president who served our country well, even if you didn’t agree with all of his policies...neither did I.
Not a cheap shot. I’d’ve bought a car from him. Comes across as sincere, Christian, and decent. But he let Democrats run roughshod over him, all but destroying the conservative movement. That’s not an attack on his character.
I don’t think he ever thought he was lying, either. He was just thick-skulled beyond imagination to tell Americans that his amnesty wasn’t an amnesty. He just wouldn’t listen when people screamed till they were blue in the face, “That’s what we mean when we say, ‘No Amnesty!’” I think he thought he was being a good Christian. The bishops and preachers and convention presidents all told him what we really needed was to make citizens out of illegal aliens. It never occurred to him the moral devastation done by importing illegal workers.
And that’s really why I don’t like him as a person. He was worse than stubborn. A stubborn person can hear what you have to say and stick to his guns. Bush would never acknowledge anyone else ever said anything to him.
Right on. When all(or enough) is exposed all enablers (including Supreme Court Justices) must be held fully and without compassion to the full extent of the deviation from our Constitution.
And for the record, yes, I’m being awfully charitable. It’d be real easy to be cynical about his stacking the financial mechanisms of our country with Goldman-Sachs socialists,
or why he chose a bra-burning, pot-addled Oprah wannabe for the Supreme Court until the right sunk her nomination,
or why he chose to let Ted Kennedy write the No Child Left Behind Act, driving Jeffords (who chaired that committee) to the Democrats because why bother being a Republican?
Or why he used Fannie Mae and Dept of Justice to force banks to make loans to non-English-speaking people in spite of their lack of valid U.S. I.D., let alone the ability to pay back those loans (Go take a look at the counties which started the housing bust... they’re precisely all the top destinations for illegal aliens)...
Or why he put someone everyone in the world knew was a lefty faggot in charge of the RNC to stack the deck full of social left-wingers and meatheads...
Or why his Department of Justice was stacked with race-baiting leftists who Bill Clinton never dreamed of getting past the Senate... including Bill Lann Lee!... like folks who’d drive Stevens from DC, but never went after Jefferson, Rangel, Waters, Dodd, Franks, etc.
The case would be veeerrrrrrrryyyyy easy to make that Bush was a cunning leftists out to sabotage the Republican Party... but my paranoia is dispelled by my former boss who knew him quite well, and told me from Day One that he had a two-digit I.Q., leaving me to conclude it was mere political incompetence, like his very highly honorable father, and not a black-flag operation of the Democrats.
>The Supreme Court does not set nor change definitions of anything.
Then where did the penumbras and emanations that made it illegal for the states to protect their unborn citizens come from if they were not playing with and changing definitions?
Are you sure you didn't mean sectoid?
|
The description is applicable, no?
If you are right, expect some journalist in the mainstream media to suddenly “discover” this evidence at just the right time to benefit Ms. Hillary.
Lots of information in this thread.
[Thanks for the pings...]
For the Secret Service to not be looking into this issue and do their own investigation is beyond incredible.
Free The BC!...
For Biden, the key word here is not if he would be made ineligible, the key word here for both Biden and Pelosi is ? guilt, what did they know, when did they know it, and what part and how much of the scam and cover up were they a part of ?
Here are three cases that used the accepted definition (as per Vattel):
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
And later,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen.’ “
Show your birth certificate Obama = the 1st Amendment “ Freedom of the Press “ ......
This comment is disingenuous and moot. Minor v. Happersett cites Art.II Sec. 1 immediately before giving its definition of natural born citizen.
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
For Biden, the key word here is not if he would be made ineligible, the key word here for both Biden and Pelosi is ? guilt, what did they know, when did they know it, and what part and how much of the scam and cover up were they a part of ?
Barack Obama wrote a book in 1995 called “Dreams From My Father” which detailed his father’s birth and life in Kenya and lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility based on his birth certificate began well before the 2008 presidential election.
The eligibility lawsuits failed because Courts refused to grant legal standing to sue to any of the plaintiffs who filed those lawsuits.
It is the administration of the Republican Governor of Hawaii that has vouched for the authenticity of Obama’s birth records, including the Governor herself.
“You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Senator McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. ... It’s been established. He was born here.”—Governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle(R)
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.