Posted on 05/02/2010 10:06:04 AM PDT by Menehune56
thanks for that, I saw that document, with the extra letters floating all over it, can’t find it again, and am furious with myself for not keeping a copy!
Different type faces, areas of obvious white-outs, no wonder it was removed from the web!
Yes.
When, where, and by who were the other two notarized documents debunked, please???
Simple. If the BC is fake, then it follows the other two must be fake, as they attest to its authenticity.
It's called deductive reasoning. You should try it some time.
It's called deductive reasoning. You should try it some time.
It took you some time to come up with that tap-dancing answer. Is that the best you can come up with, or who did you have to counsel with, - your employer in the White House?
And then how come that you continue to defend and protect your dear leader's fake B.C.??
Kind like you want to wash clean your both dirty feet in two different buckets of water at the same time. You don't think that the dem's Senator's none-binding Resolution 511 was made to cover up for your dear leader's ineligibility and neuter McPain as living in a glass house???
“Sorry for the typo. I meant to write that you seem emotionally invested in the proposition that he was born in Colon. Those pesky fingers don’t allways do what I tell them!”
Emotionally???
You may take a look at this regarding 511!!!
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd430.htm
I did. I don't see what it has to do with the fake McCain Colon BC. What am I missing?
What a bunch of goobledegoop baloney. If the GOP thinks like this we are screwed.
One year later, Sarah Herlihy, an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis gets her paper published in the Kent University Law Review on line. Herlihy claims in her paper that the citizenship requirement of the U.S. Constitution has been called "stupid and discriminating." Of course, she never tells us who makes this claim. Please note that a partner at the same law firm was one Bruce I. Ettelson, who apparently had a working relationship on finance committees for Obama and buffoon, Sen. Richard Durbin. Herlihy's paper, which shows "author approved editing" as November 23, 2005, is titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizenship Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle." You can read the paper here.
In February 2008, Democrats (and one Republican) began pushing legislation on the issue of citizenship:
"...on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).
"Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find....
"Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
"One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?"
Somewhere along the way, the issue of Obama's father being a Kenyan national and under British rule (British Neutrality Act of 1948) surfaced while the new Messiah was being groomed to steal the White House. Obama is a lawyer and has spent a great deal of time around other high power lawyers. Someone along the way said, uh, we have a problem. Beginning not too long after Obama became a U.S. Senator, the thorny problem of the U.S. Constitution had to be dealt with and out comes a paper by his lawyer friend, Herlihy, which opens up the discussion. Next comes the smoke screen legislation which was really to "qualify" Obama. Of course, it didn't work, so with the help of the useful fools in the dominant media and cable news networks like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, the issue was covered up and/or ridiculed as nothing more than sore losers or conspiracy nuts.
There is a conspiracy and a cover up here, just as there is regarding all the documents and records Obama is hiding from the American people.
One year later, Sarah Herlihy, an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis gets her paper published in the Kent University Law Review on line. Herlihy claims in her paper that the citizenship requirement of the U.S. Constitution has been called "stupid and discriminating." Of course, she never tells us who makes this claim. Please note that a partner at the same law firm was one Bruce I. Ettelson, who apparently had a working relationship on finance committees for Obama and buffoon, Sen. Richard Durbin. Herlihy's paper, which shows "author approved editing" as November 23, 2005, is titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizenship Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle." You can read the paper here.
[...]
Somewhere along the way, the issue of Obama's father being a Kenyan national and under British rule (British Neutrality Act of 1948) surfaced while the new Messiah was being groomed to steal the White House. Obama is a lawyer and has spent a great deal of time around other high power lawyers. Someone along the way said, uh, we have a problem. Beginning not too long after Obama became a U.S. Senator, the thorny problem of the U.S. Constitution had to be dealt with and out comes a paper by his lawyer friend, Herlihy, which opens up the discussion. Next comes the smoke screen legislation which was really to "qualify" Obama. Of course, it didn't work, so with the help of the useful fools in the dominant media and cable news networks like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, the issue was covered up and/or ridiculed as nothing more than sore losers or conspiracy nuts.
So there's Herlihy's article (AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE, 81 Chicago-Kent Law Review 275 (2006)) around 2005.
About when BO's Dreams from My Father was published (1995) so was this little gem:
What Is the Constitution's Worst Provision?
Journal article by Robert Post; Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 12, 1995
[...]
I was looking for a relatively clear rule that continues today in legal force and yet that somehow stands out as egregiously unacceptable. I thus ruled out the original constitutional provisions dealing with slavery, for these have long since been discredited and rendered inoperable. I also ruled out provisions like the direct tax clause (Art. I. [sections] 9, cl. 4), whose meaning has never been very clear to me.
Given these constraints, my final choice was Article II, [sections] 1, cl. 5: No person except a natural born Citizen, or Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ....
The Clause is currently in force. It is remarkably innocent of both legislative history and judicial gloss.(1) Although it contains a number of important ambiguities, notably on the question of whether foreign-born children of American citizens qualify as "natural born,"(2) the Clause is highly objectionable because it unmistakably and clearly prohibits naturalized citizens from becoming President.
“What is the Constitution's Worst Provision?" 12 Constitutional Commentary 191 (1995).
Interesting timing, huh?
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.