Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paul Ryan Has News For The Birthers: Hes Not One Of Them
TPM ^ | 10/5/2012

Posted on 10/06/2012 12:09:40 PM PDT by Kleon

Paul Ryan has figured out a way of letting the birthers down gently.

Like many of his fellow congressmen, Ryan has been bombarded for years with letters from conspiracy theorists who believe President Obama was somehow secretly born in Kenya and so is ineligible to be president. The missives began even before Ryan became one of the president’s biggest foes on budget issues and more recently as he joined the GOP ticket alongside MItt Romney.

But unlike some in his party who have been embarrassed by their own clunky and awkward responses to the birthers, Ryan has come up with an easy solution to deal with them.

He simply sends them a copy of the president’s birth certificate.

(Excerpt) Read more at tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: 2012veep; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; moonbatbirthers; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last
To: RegulatorCountry

So know I’m a foreigner? Because I made the observation that folks would whine? LOL


41 posted on 10/06/2012 2:00:00 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

No you’re homophones, Rudie.


42 posted on 10/06/2012 2:02:37 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

I’m sure a lot of information will come out later. The goal right now is to win the election.


43 posted on 10/06/2012 2:08:24 PM PDT by barmag25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

This quote is irrelevant to presidential eligibility. The same decision already acknowledged that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The same decision limits the operation of the 14th amendment to the children of resident aliens who have permanent residence and domicil in the U.S. The same decision specifies Minor v. Happersett defined NBC as birth in the country to citizen parents.


44 posted on 10/06/2012 2:25:29 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

I didn’t say anything about so-called “birtherism” ... whatever that is supposed to be. Ryan and Romney have legal standing. Obama is not eligible. This would be very simple if they simply follow Supreme Court precedent.


45 posted on 10/06/2012 2:27:10 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: edge919
OK, I thought that the bottom line to the natual-born clause was that both parents had to be citizens of the United States. Obama fails this test.
46 posted on 10/06/2012 2:27:18 PM PDT by ANGGAPO (Layte Gulf Beach Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: barmag25
I’m sure a lot of information will come out later. The goal right now is to win the election.

I agree. The advocates for making a case against Obama based on this need to take a step back and be quiet for the next six weeks. Even if additional evidence were to come out, it wouldn't/couldn't be confirmed (at least in the MSM) until after the election and couldn't benefit the goal of electing Romney/Ryan. There's just not enough time to do anything with it. However it WOULD be portrayed as a lame attempt at an October Surprise by a bunch of right-wing nutcases. Something that could drive voters back to Obama.

I'd rather have Conservatives hold their fire for the likelihood that Obama will try an October Surprise ... in the form of some sort of "opening" with Iran. THAT'S a fight we can win right now.

Immediately after the election I'd expect a President-Elect Romney to make an explicit and unambiguous statement that members of the current administration and Executive Branch are required to preserve all documents/materials and WILL be held fully accountable for any shredding parties that occur.


47 posted on 10/06/2012 2:29:24 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Its the fathers foreign birth thingy...

Hes been told to worry about the challenge by Obama to the foreign birth of Willards dad, George Romney...


48 posted on 10/06/2012 2:31:13 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Romney should release his college transcripts the day before their next debate. :)


49 posted on 10/06/2012 3:23:51 PM PDT by Qwackertoo (Romney/Ryan 2012 The Future of Our Children and Their Children are at stake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: married21

I agree. We can’t prove anything - so might as well accept the fact that he was born in Hawaii. Even if he wasn’t. This is a side issue - there are bigger fish to fry. Besides, its way too late to do anything about it except vote him out of office.


50 posted on 10/06/2012 3:36:51 PM PDT by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

A document Produced by Barack Obama and Co. Not an official governmental agency. For some reason, the Official governmental agency won’t produce a document. Not even for official business. Funny that.


51 posted on 10/06/2012 4:02:47 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
There is no evidence that Obozo was born anywhere but Hawaii.

Yes there is. The fact that Stanley Ann showed up in Seattle in late August. It has been pointed out that no Airline would have allowed the baby to fly so soon after it was born. That pretty much proves Obama could not have been born in Hawaii on August 4, 1960.

The prevailing legal opinion is that a US citizen is either born or naturalized.

The prevailing opinion used to be that the world was flat. Citing as proof the fact that a lot of people believe something is known as the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum." I have little doubt that the prevailing legal opinion is that birth within our boundaries makes one a "natural born citizen", but I also have little doubt that this opinion is simply wrong, and is based on a faulty interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark decision, the 14th amendment, and the Original Common law.

One has to do actual research to realize that the founders didn't accept this blanket definition. There were many thousands of British Loyalists who were born after July 4, 1776 that were not considered American citizens by either the founders or the British. THOUSANDS. Their very existence refutes the stupid theory.

52 posted on 10/06/2012 4:11:12 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
I agree Ryan should not get involved in this issue, but I see no reason for him to push that document of dubious veracity. It didn't come from Hawaii, it came from Obama's team. For some reason, Hawaii is not letting anyone see the real thing, not even to qualify Obama to run for re-election.

Apparently we need a law exempting all Presidential candidates from any privacy laws relating to their eligibility. A Sane person would have assumed that this legal condition was already implicit in our laws based on the need to conform to constitutional law, but apparently a petty little rump state privacy law has more power than Article II in our brilliant legal minds of today.

53 posted on 10/06/2012 4:19:36 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The Constitution describes only three types of US citizen. Currently one is either natural born or naturalized. There is no fourth category. Only naturalized citizens are barred from the Presidency.

No one wants to hear about your stupid "categories". Obviously citizens can be in plenty of different catagories, such as young or old, Male or Female, Black or White, Democrat or Republican.

Some citizens are "natural" and others are citizens as a result of man made laws, such as Barack Obama.

54 posted on 10/06/2012 4:23:34 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“The Constitution describes only three types of US citizen. Currently one is either natural born or naturalized. There is no fourth category.”
It doesn’t appear that you can count. Why should we believe that you can understand the Constitution?


55 posted on 10/06/2012 4:27:31 PM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The quote is relevant because it shows that the 14th & NBC ARE THE SAME citizenship.

But then, there is a reason why birthers lose every time they go to court. And here is the reason: They’re WRONG.

Natural born citizenship is the American phrasing of Natural Born Subject, as the WKA decision goes on to discuss at length. I realize you are incapable of understanding sentences, paragraphs, and, heaven forbid, pages. For those who are not, here is the WKA decision:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


56 posted on 10/06/2012 4:28:25 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Don’t hold your breath.


57 posted on 10/06/2012 4:31:45 PM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
There is no evidence that he WAS born in Hawaii.

There is, however, a first hand account of his birth - in Mombasa, Kenya, by his paternal grandmother.

Would a grannie lie?

58 posted on 10/06/2012 4:37:28 PM PDT by Churchillspirit (9/11/2001. NEVER FORGET.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bobo1
i am a “birther”. i do not believe that he should have been president because his father was not a natural citizen

Well, you can believe what you want. But there is no requirement that a candidate's father be a "natural citizen [whatever that is.]" Please prove me wrong -- other FReepers' posts will not, however, count as proof.

59 posted on 10/06/2012 4:40:01 PM PDT by BfloGuy (Teach a man to fish and you lose a Democratic voter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
I have read that in 1961, No airline would have allowed a two week old baby to fly. The Change in pressure would have burst it's weak eardrums, and the baby would have suffered potentially permanent damage. It was supposedly standard policy at the time.

We have two forms of proof that Stanely Ann was in Seattle in august of 1961. (School registration records, and Testimony of her Friend Susan Blake, saying so.)

This is circumstantial evidence that Stanley was in North America, not in Hawaii, before the baby was born. Stanley Ann had TWO relatives living in North America. Ralph Dunham (her dad's brother, living in North West Washington State) and Eleanor Birkebeile-Dunham, Dad's half sister, living in Canada, and having recently lost her own two infant boys. )

Which is more probable? That a girl with an embarrassing pregnancy is sent off to live with a Relative till the child is born, or that a girl immediately leaves her support structure in Hawaii, and flies thousands of miles with a newborn just to go to school? (With all the expenses that entailed.) How would Stanley have paid for any of this?

I will point out that Barack Sr.'s INS records claim it was their intent to give the baby up for adoption. I suspect it was difficult to get an interracial baby adopted in 1961, and Stanley was left with no choice but to keep him.

I don't know what is the truth for sure, but one scenario makes far more sense than the "Official" version of what happened, but it ends up with Barry very likely being born in Canada, so it's a death sentence to his eligibility.

60 posted on 10/06/2012 4:47:36 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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