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

Skip to comments.

Lawsuits Proliferate Demanding Proof of Obama's Natural-Born Citizenship before..
LifeSite News ^ | 11/19/08 | Kathy Gilbert

Posted on 11/19/2008 12:52:10 PM PST by pissant

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 last
To: pissant; LucyT; SatinDoll; David; theothercheek; holdonnow; AJFavish; ExTexasRedhead; BIOCHEMKY
Not much new in the posted article, except there appear to be more cases going than previously reported.

Nevertheless, the more publicity about these suits, the better for the cause - as long as the coverage is accurate, as this article appears to be.

121 posted on 11/19/2008 6:43:14 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adorno

Isn’t it also true that if Obama was unqualified for the presidency by virtue of not being a native-born American, then the electors assigned him were assigned under a fraud. I would think that all those electors would be disqualified. I’ve have seen no posts challenging the electors involved in a fraudulent scheme. It doesn’t make sense that they should then have carte blanche to vote for whomever if their election was based on a fraud. Is there some precedent?


122 posted on 11/19/2008 7:55:24 PM PST by Tzvi1004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

I keep a few “bricks” of standing in a special room at my house...


123 posted on 11/19/2008 9:45:02 PM PST by an amused spectator (I am Joe, too - I'm talkin' to you, VBM: The Volkischer Beobachter Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Kevin James on 870 AM will be talking about the case before SCOTUS this hour. He said it’s not going to go anywhere, but he would talk about it.

He’s on from 9-11 PM

http://krla870.townhall.com/


124 posted on 11/19/2008 10:20:29 PM PST by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: RC2
As for the Electoral College, don’t they only have the names of Obama and McCain?

No, they can vote for any eligible citizen of the U.S. Its been done several times before., most recently in 1960. Votes were cast for Sen. Byrd in Mississippi and Virginia, even though only Nixon and Kennedy were candidates.

Many here assume that the Electoral College was set up for a two party system. It was not. If 3 or 4 candidates ran and no one received the majority of the votes, the EC can pick from them and elect their choice.

125 posted on 11/19/2008 10:52:07 PM PST by CharacterCounts (1984 was supposed to be a work of fiction, not a how-to manual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyP

Well, that was a bummer. Just said it’s not going anywhere and Obama will be sworn in.

Didn’t even discuss the merits of the case. And he’s an ex Federal prosecutor.


126 posted on 11/19/2008 10:53:17 PM PST by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: adorno
Then, why bother with an election to begin with?

The original Constitution did not provide for a popular election. Electors to the Electoral College were appointed by the States. Many states permitted the people to make the selection by popular vote but were not required to do so.

Additionally, Senators were also selected by state legislators until the 17th Amendment in 1913. The diminution of states rights and federal government expansion can be traced back to the 17th Amendment.

127 posted on 11/19/2008 11:01:10 PM PST by CharacterCounts (1984 was supposed to be a work of fiction, not a how-to manual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

bumpa


128 posted on 11/20/2008 12:18:33 AM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: pissant; All

Fellow FReepers: we're looking a few volunteers to work on a small, but important PR project.

We need folks with journalism & news release writing skills, as well as media relations experience. Depending on where you live, you may be asked to do stand-up camera interviews and/or call-in radio interviews.

If you're interested, please PM me so we can discuss it further.

(Note: Trolls need NOT apply)

129 posted on 11/20/2008 12:50:51 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
The original Constitution did not provide for a popular election. Electors to the Electoral College were appointed by the States. Many states permitted the people to make the selection by popular vote but were not required to do so.

You're still talking about how things used to be. That's not how things are.

The way things are is what we need to adhere to. The way things were is not applicable today.

That's not to say that things can't change again, but for today, the electoral college is supposed to represent the will of the people, even if on a state-by-state basis towards a cumulative number of votes.
130 posted on 11/20/2008 7:55:06 AM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

Myself, I don’t know. I was responding to #69.


131 posted on 11/20/2008 10:50:31 AM PST by stuartcr (If the end doesn't justify the means...why have different means?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Aw, c’mon. Think about it. After Obama green-lighted the operation, who are the people most likely to have been directly involved in (1) creating the forged source image, (2) copying and distributing the copies the forged image, (3) creating the forged COLB objects for the source photographs, (4) taking the source photographs and Photoshopping them, (5) producing and distributing the press releases, (6) handling the cover-up activities, and lastly, (7) bankrolling this entire operation?


132 posted on 11/20/2008 3:37:42 PM PST by Polarik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: adorno
The election is conducted so that "the people" decide who gets a particular set of electoral college votes.

Sorta like the Democrats voting for their delegates in their primaries, trouble was some of these delegates then got their arms twisted (and their campaign funds topped up) to make them switch to Obama despite their voters' preference. I believe Electoral College folks can in fact vote any way they want, no?

133 posted on 11/20/2008 6:26:22 PM PST by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: adorno

Well, I gave you cites for as recently as 1960. Give me a cite or two that says the EC must votes a certain way and I will believe you. Otherwise the way things used to be are the way things are today.


134 posted on 11/21/2008 4:19:09 PM PST by CharacterCounts (1984 was supposed to be a work of fiction, not a how-to manual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: pissant

135 posted on 11/21/2008 4:23:51 PM PST by Colonial Warrior (Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts

It doesn’t matter that technically, the members in the electoral college might toss the votes in the opposite direction of the intent of the voters.

What matters is, when is the last time that a group of electoral college members from any state voted for someone completely different from what the voters of the state intended?

So, yeah, the possibility of the electoral college voting opposite of the voters intent is there. But, when is the last time it happened?

If something like that is tried in current times, and with everybody shouting “disenfranchisement” about the slightest election “infraction” in today’s world, I doubt that one set of electoral college members from any state could get away with voting opposite of what the state’s voters intended. There would be chaos and rioting.


136 posted on 11/21/2008 4:48:54 PM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: adorno
What matters is, when is the last time that a group of electoral college members from any state voted for someone completely different from what the voters of the state intended?

1960 Nixon v. Kennedy - two States. That is not that long ago.

137 posted on 11/21/2008 4:53:53 PM PST by CharacterCounts (1984 was supposed to be a work of fiction, not a how-to manual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts

Like I said, when is the last time that it happened? Then, you state that it happened almost half a century ago. Not very recently, was it?

Like I said, with so many people screaming “disenfranchisement” at the most minor of voting irregularity, the electoral college members wouldn’t get away with giving their votes to the candidate of their choice which might be opposite of the regular voters’ intent in the general election.


138 posted on 11/21/2008 5:18:07 PM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 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