Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Barack Obama Nationality Scandal
Independant News ^ | January 9, 2010

Posted on 01/09/2010 1:34:54 PM PST by Red Steel

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-311 last
To: Star Traveler

Not all candidates need to be natural-born citizens, per the constitution — only those running for the Presidency.

Others would only need to show proof of citzenship, age, residency if required. All candidates should be required to show their qualifications for the office they seek.


301 posted on 01/11/2010 4:14:48 PM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Conservative voters don’t “take cues” from politicians—they follow principles. This is very important to understand because it is what separates conservatives from liberals, who follow personalities over principles.

(You must be very careful having a discussion with me—I can convert you.)

So now let’s summarize the major concepts we’ve outlined:

Seeking votes, vs seeking the truth.

Following personalities, vs following principles.

Again, these are not my ideas. And they will define political dynamics whether or not you understand them.


302 posted on 01/11/2010 4:22:59 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Liberals are just creative enough to fall into their own intellectual trap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
You were saying ...

Not all candidates need to be natural-born citizens, per the constitution — only those running for the Presidency.
Yeah, I know that it's not required for all candidates to be natural born citizens of the U.S. -- but producing a birth certificate is a very good measure to take for all candidates and I would support that -- across the board -- for all candidates. In fact, I would not only support that, I would prefer that, as the first choice of what to do for all candidates.


Others would only need to show proof of citzenship, age, residency if required. All candidates should be required to show their qualifications for the office they seek.

Citizenship and age can be wrapped up into that one requirement for all candidates to show a birth certificate. If they don't have a birth certificate for being born here, then they would have to show further documentation in regards to citizenship. A birth certificate is the logical first step -- and it may be the only step needed for most of the information required.

But, in terms of residency, I think that many just swear to it and have a local address "for that residency". There have been controversies before about residency (for a particular voting district or area or people that they are representing). I'll just let the "locals" figure that one out for themselves.

But, for all states and for all jurisdictions and for all offices -- I think a birth certificate should be required by law.

303 posted on 01/11/2010 4:26:14 PM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
The political action committee ‘Obama for America’ paid $1,066,691.90 to the Perkins Coie law firm between Oct. 16, 2008 and March 30, 2009, to fight every request to release Obama’s original birth records.

Nowhere in your sourcing does it say that this money was used specifically for fighting BC requests.
304 posted on 01/12/2010 1:43:24 PM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
lets see YOU produce something that supports your theory that 0bama did NOT spend money.

I never said he didn't spend any money on the issue. I said that you birthers are talking out of your asses when you claim to know how much he spent. You prove my point by not being able to answer any of the questions you asked me in your post.
305 posted on 01/12/2010 1:49:05 PM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Natural Born 54

All campaigns, candidates and presidents retain lawyers for a multitude of reasons. Nowhere in your source does it explain what those funds were spent on. Also, World Nut Daily is not a legitimate source. If I cited Slate.com, you would say the same thing.


306 posted on 01/12/2010 1:59:21 PM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive

You are aware that there have been lawsuits - correct?

In fact there have been close to 40 lawsuits in at least 20 states.

Would you expect that the attorneys have been paid - anything at all - for their work on those lawsuits?


307 posted on 01/12/2010 3:28:35 PM PST by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
In fact there have been close to 40 lawsuits in at least 20 states.

I have seen no evidence that any of those cases were argued in person. Please enlighten me if you have such evidence. A motion to dismiss can be filed with the court without a lawyer ever leaving his office and could cost very, very little.
308 posted on 01/12/2010 3:48:00 PM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive

It doesn’t matter whether they were argued in person or not, frankly.

Please give me a lowball dollar amount for what you think a motion to dismiss “fliled with the court with out a lawyer ever leaving his office” would cost. I’m just asking for your best guess.


309 posted on 01/12/2010 4:00:52 PM PST by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
Please give me a lowball dollar amount for what you think a motion to dismiss

I talked with 3 different lawyers I know (don't ask) and they all said that a Motion to Dismiss would cost between $2,000 and $5,000.
310 posted on 01/17/2010 4:23:34 AM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive
Okay, thanks for checking.

So at roughly 40 lawsuits to date, we're talking anywhere from $80,000 to $200,000, according to your attorney friends - for Motion to Dismiss. There were other motions filed, but let's just take this example for now.

My curiosity is piqued considering that IF Barry's Certification of Live Birth, which is posted online, is adequate proof of his natural born status....

..then why didn't any of these attorneys just submit a copy of that document in ANY of these lawsuits and nip them all in the bud?

At this point, it looks as though there's no end to the lawsuits. So whether it's $80,000, $200,000 or $1-$2million - they need not have spent anything more than the cost of answering the first lawsuit with a copy of his short form.

Why didn't they do that?

311 posted on 01/17/2010 10:54:10 AM PST by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-311 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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