Keep Free Republic's balloons flying high
Give once
Or donate monthly and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
Save Lazamataz!
Posted on 04/21/2011 9:20:34 AM PDT by jdoug666
The speculation about President Obama's eligibility goes on and on, with no reliable access to the truth and with no end in sight. It is time for a new approach.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Is that what newt told you, that he left dc to refresh his outlook on the USA? Methinks it was because he was caught in his own thong panties trap in his office.
Obama will never willingly provide access to the birth certificate. We know that. Don’t you think that if he’s ever forced to legally provide the proper document, that he’s got that issue covered? Then what? Sure it will be 99% fraud, but what if it’s unprovable fraud? My bet is that he’s covered and if the subject is forced.... he wins.
Nice.
The good things is, there isn’t a person out there who wouldn’t accept the truth if the truth were told. Of course that’s if we’re talking about the people who have questions and it were shown he was born in Hawaii, and didn’t have college documents and others that showed him to be problematic.
This isn’t a ‘go get the Black guy’ moment here. It’s an ‘the American public deserves to know’ moment.
Was Obama born here?
Did he relinquish that citizenship to attend school in S/E Asia?
Did he declare himself to be a foreign national at college?
Did he travel under a foreign passport as an adult?
At the very least, this man swore an oath to protect and defend the U. S. Constitution. Is he living by that oath? Is he qualified to abide by that oath?
Is Obama intent on strengthening the United States, or taking it down?
I’d sure like to to have that confirmed.
First there were the McGovern maniacs. Then there were the Clinton goons. Do we have a foreign national at the helm?
Is this the ultimate terrorism? Yes or no?
I know what my instincts tell me.
Back in the 1980's, when Newt was riding high on the brow of the new, Reaganaut wave of conservatism, Rolling Stone (of all media creatures) reminded us that Newt's first foray into federal politics was to run for Congress in the late Larry McDonald's old Georgia district (based around Marietta, Smyrna, and suburban northwest Atlanta and Cobb County, Georgia -- I lived there at the time).
Incumbent Rep. McDonald, who had been killed by the Soviets in the KAL-007 airliner shootdown near Sakhalin Island that was such a cause notorious, was probably the most conservative member of the Congress, and Rolling Stone had pilloried him in its pages, depicting him as an SS officer in full black-uniform regalia ..... dripping urine from an open fly (they used to think stuff like that is avante-garde and proof positive of their own kewlness and fearlessness in political judgment).
Some of the candidates who ran to succeed McDonald were very conservative, RS reminded us, and won -- whereas Newt, in his very first congressional campaign, ran as a "kinder, gentler" Bushoid "Rockefeller Republican" (the conservative term of art for which, back in the 50's and 60's, was a "Me-Too'er"). And lost.
In later campaigns for that Georgia district's seat, Newt took the lesson and ran as a values conservative, but Rolling Stone's point was, he came to that position by political education, not as his first or basic inclination.
Which is what you said.
Remember that the RNC and the GOP heirarchs (meaning Boehner) and the Party's background-hugging, NWO-promoting overlords in Manhattan and New England are strongly directing the GOP-led Congress's agenda.
I think Boehner, Issa, and the rest are being strongly directed NOT to open the can of worms that is Barack Obama's background, or to fight too effectively against Obamacare, which is a political pre-compromise agreed to three or four years ago, again in the background. Business fiercely wants out from under employee medical expense, and Obamacare is Just Okay with them, if it accomplishes that goal.
Obama is likewise promoting other NWO goals, such as the submergence of U.S. liberty and sovereignty on the one hand, and of the People beneath a massive, suffocating government on the other -- which NWO enthusiasts like ex-President "Poppy" Bush are bound to love.
"Kinder, gentler" always meant, "don't fight too hard for conservative principles". Good advice for temporary, contingent employees of global fascists.
Thanks!
Bump, keep this post alive, its a good one. Read the article. Contact your representative. Congress needs to do their duty and open this can of worms... its their duty.
On the original document, where are the commas placed? Are the commas placed exactly as in the above excerpt?
Larry, reading the above statement, whom would you say is eligible to be a POTUS?
Now, read it this way:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
I think Newt woiuld be great in a cabinet position or as an advisor, but not as president. He’s smart but has a LOT of baggage and needs someone above him to keep him in line. Not the right guy for the top slot.
You are right. A great think tank guy but hardly POTUS.
“Just ONE and no one will do it.”
Disgusting isn’t it? Likewise - all it took was one democrat senator to vote against Obamacare - just ONE !
There is no honor among thieves, but it is amazing that not one senator out of 60 had a conscience for this country.
I might add a 4th to that list:
The right of an elector of the Electoral College ( of either party ) to challenge the eligibility of a candidate before casting his electoral vote. An elector of one party can challenge the candidate of the other party or even his own party.
As you may recall, an elector is not bound to vote in the manner of the vote result of his state. Every elector is a lone wolf.
The Electoral College has no business casting their electoral votes without conclusively determining Constitutional eligibility of the winning candidate.
Ring the bell, we have a winner!
The second clause is a ‘grandfather clause’ pertaining to former citizens of the colonies and their progeny who were made automatic U.S. citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (c. 1787). Of course many, if not most, citizens of the original thirteen colonies had emigrated from other countries, thereby not rendering them ‘jus soli’ citizens. Even those early U.S. presidents may have been born to ‘immigrant’ (non-citizen) parents as the nascent country was growing in the 18th century. However, post-1789, ‘natural born’ status required that the presidential candidate be born on U.S. soil and have citizen parents (natural born or naturalized). The subordinate clause in the article alludes to those ‘latch key’ Americans who had lived on the cusp of the country’s founding.
Does the House have the nerve to investigate the matter?
Interesting article, but while the House of Representatives may indeed have the power to address this issue, it is quite obvious that it has neither the desire nor the balls.
The US House of Representatives is, and probably always has been, FIRST AND FOREMOST, a society dedicated to the preservation of incumbency. No way is any (Hey, I’m ALWAYS running for reelection) congresskritter going to stick his neck out on this unless someone else has already done the heavy lifting — and maybe not even then.
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.