Posted on 02/27/2010 1:55:38 AM PST by Suvroc10
I think Beck knows that Billoviating O'Reilly is condescending to EVERYONE. How people can watch BOR is beyond me. His ego is about as big as Hannity's.
It would not set a precedent. A constitutional amendment would be required to allow non-citizens to serve as president. A constitutional amendment requires approval by 2/3 of both chambers of congress and 3/4 (38) of all states to be ratified.
That IS the the process. The candidate is irrelevant to your concern. The citizenship requirement applies to everyone.
I am glad that Mr. Hayworth said that Obama was born in Hawaii. Now, Mr. Hayworth can cement his credibility by sharing with us the evidence he is using to support that assertion.
Plus, I thought that there was more to the story besides whether on not Obama was born in Hawaii, like how does Obama meet the requirement to be a natural born citizen?
The real story is the unprecedented lack of openness by our President in connection with his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records.
If President Obama grew up poor what were his sources of funding? Who sponsored his community organizer job? What about his draft registration?
And there are many legitimate, unanswered questions in connection with his birth certificate. Why were there no hearings in connection with his satisfying the requirement to be a natural born citizen? We sure had hearings for McCain, who is clearly a natural born citizen. But we just had to have hearings on that matter for John McCain. Why not for Obama? There are questions of substance in connection with his satisfying that requirement IMO and in the opinion of many other voters in this country!
No, Sarah did NOT say the same thing.
Think J.D. had better come up with a better explnation. And start hitting McCain on HIS willful ignorance; including wanting Gov to take control over the vitamnin/supplements that sit on every heath food store shelves; on net and elsewhere.
Outrageous and a huge issue. J.D. better be on ithis; and do much better than he has thus far, managed per his 'birther position'.
Why was JD asked? This is twice now within the last week he’s been asked this very question. Scott Brown was never asked this question.
I don’t know. I can only think that Fox makes Beck show up on BOR’s show, probably at BOR’s behest. BOR is the big kingpin there. He gets a lot of the other high-profile Fox people on his show as well, such as Megan Kelly, Karl Rove, Brit Hume (once in a while) and Krauthammer (once in a great while), so I tend to think he’s using them to help draw viewership to his show so he can maintain his spot at the top of the heap.
We actually started watching a bit more again when we saw Brit Hume and then Krauthammer on. But then we realized that their superior knowledge base, command of facts and thinking skills didn’t slow BOR down one iota when it comes to lecturing his guests, bloviating right past them, and interrupting, so we’re back to not watching except a few minutes here and there.
Oh, I disagree. BOR makes Hannity look humble by comparison.
I’m not in AZ, so the point is mute, however I donated to Scott Brown, but it will be kinda hard to donate to JD now that I’m stuck under this bus.
ChilldaRat, “I’d find “birther” whiners”. Why the arrogance? If you were so sure about Birthers being on the thread, why read and reply? Your recent vintage gives the impression of trolling.
Because McCain is running an ad depicting Hayworth as a birther. He is referring to something J.D. said on his radio show. It was taken out of context. Everytime I hear one of Juan's ads, my blood boils.
Far as I am concerned anyone who ignores the fact that Zero is hiding his entire past and we know nothing about the man..is a traitor. We have a lot of them in D.C. gutless wonders who are afraid to ask the hard questions.
******
Just wondering: How does Hayworth know that Obama was born in Hawaii?
Has Hayworth personally seen Obama's 1961 Hawaii long form birth certificate, a document that the rest of us have not seen, and a document Obama won't let us see?
If Hayworth has not seen Obama's 1961 Hawaii long form birth certificate, it seems that he is simply taking Obama's word that he, Obama, was born in Hawaii, and we all know how reliable Obama's word is.
So, Hayworth, I'm sorry, but if you have NOT seen Obama's 1961 long form Hawaii birth certificate, then I don't see how you can say that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Hayworth has not, that I know of, been asked the definition of natural born citizen. Someone should ask if he agrees with Michael Chertoff, or John Marshall, or Morrison Waite, or Alexander Hamilton, or James Wilson, or John Jay. Many of those screaming about birth certificates are plants, who know that no documents are likely to be forthcoming during Obama’s first term.
If Hayworth doesn't know the definition, though I expect that he does, then explain it, and ask if the son of a British subject is eligible to be president. If he won't answer, then find someone else. It is time we insist on adherence to the constitution. McCain may actually be a co-conspirator, though I suspect his motive was his ambition and feeling of entitlement, rather than the replacement of our constitutional republic with a socialist oligarchy.
As originalists, we must be conservative and stop arguing about issues that cannot be proved. Obama told us he was born of a British subject and was thus a British subject at birth. He put his illigitimacy in plain sight knowing that few, even few lawyers, have studied that detail of our Constitution. Meanwhile he had Bob Bauer protect his vital records, knowing that would upset people. He didn't care. He had the votes. He is patently illegitimate. Anyone who has not read paragraph 289 in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, the definition of natural born citizen by Chief Justice Marshall, is not serious about constitutional legitimacy.
The same definition, though for natural born subjects, obtained under the commmon law of England when our Constitution was written. Find Calvin's Case of 1608. Vattel was the most widely cited legal reference between at least 1789 and 1821. Jefferson taught a course based upon Vattel at William and Mary beginning in 1779. Our founders all knew Vattel, and were not about to base our Constitution on the common law of the country we had just rejected. But if they had, the definition was the same: "...any person born within the king's dominion became the king's subject at birth, provided that his parents were at the time under the actual obedience of the king."
Orly Taitz knows the law, but has let herself be undermined by a mixture of misled patriots who don't understand our Constitution, and deliberate agitators who have weakened effect of her passion. I don't doubt her patriotism in the least, but this was always a Constitutional issue. She is now proceeding with the action questioning Obama's authority, and this time has a fearless judge, Royce Lambert - a judge who aggressively pursued Clinton's misdeeds and sent many to prison.
Mario Apuzzo knows the dangers of unsupportable allegations and has largely kept his less disciplined client from getting caught up in wild goose chases. He has pursued the legislators who failed to protect us - a brilliant strategy. All those documents were concealed to create this circus. The issue for which the evidence is certain is Obama’s British/Kenyan father. If the citizenry understands that truth some judge will allow discovery.
If J.D. has the courage, and asks the Constitutional question, while avoiding allegations which no one can settle, he will win not only the senate seat, he will win the gratitude of millions of Americans who know something is terribly wrong, but who can't see any way to address the terrible choice the majority have made. (I still wonder why Obama's supporters tendered an illigitimate candidate? They all knew)
Article II Section 1 is near the front of our Constitution because it was such a clear provision to protect our nation from a leader who might not have allegiance to our Constitution. It was mainstream international law elicited by the most popular author of international law of the time. The definition has never been amended. The last proposal to amend Article II, initiated by Orrin Hatch in 2003, was the subject of polls showing about 30% support. There have been twenty three other failed attempts. Obama has executed, with the cover of McCain, an end run around the amendment process. We must be precise about his ineligibility, and demand his removal. This thread is using the smokescreen created by Obama’s team to confuse the public about the eligibility issue, and hammering GOP candidates with their tool.
I hope Hayworth is knowledgeable about Article II, but he should avoid the birth certificate trap. If Obama doesn't resign before discovery, his real birth status will be ‘discovered’, and I'm guessing he was born in Hawaii too.
Hussein ran against Hillary. If he was not born in the US, the Clinton machine would have found it and used it.
I imgaine he’s being asked because he’s supported by conservatives and tea partiers who are bucking the pub status quo. Media people look for big sound bytes so they can advance their personal agendas. They can accomplish that by stirring the pot and asking provocative questions.
Scott Brown was never considered a strong conservative and he wasn’t running against a former presidential candidate, which I think also plays into why there’s so much media focus on this race.
At this point, no one can prove where Obama was or was not from. The newspaper birth announcements and the starting of college a month later on the west coast are strong evidence that Obama’s momma was, even if out of the US for the birth, quickly back into it afterwards.
On the other hand, no one has seen the complete/orignal/whatever-you-want-to-call-it birth certificate. They’ve seen an abstract.
Hayworth is wise to avoid controversy, and his stand now is not evidence he believes he has seen the original bc.
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.