Posted on 08/04/2009 1:15:21 AM PDT by markomalley
I think there is some question about the paper....the editorials are the most Libertarian...the news articles come from the usual biased sources...IMO.
I am encouraged if the Verifiers (not “birthers”) get this going.
It’s hugh.
“I canceled my subscription.”
Me2
Other issues as well...see prior comments...
Good-bye!
See link at #104.
In my opinion there is strong evidence that usage may have occurred prior to the official date of Dec 64.
Limbaugh started calling 'em "state controlled media" and "state run media;" but it seems that he prefers state run media and as far as I know he's never said SCaM.
I hope my email to him can get him to start using something that originated on this side,
Czar and fettering for Obama's America and
Warder boarding for Obama's boards of government employees guarding the gates of health care, freedom, prosperity . . . .
I think that SCAM, czar and fettering, and warder boarding could catch the ears of the apolitical.
I noticed today for the first time that Rush referred to a reporter simply as an employee of ABC; I stopped calling 'em reporters/journalists years ago.
If my email to Rush about Czar and fettering and Warder boards gets acknowledged I'll send him something I've used for years; to wit,
most employees of the MSM are skid marks on Journalism's shorts.
Bye
Hmmm, I naturally assumed that the Hildabeast was in Kenya to ensure that Kenyan authorities utterly destroy all existing medical records, birth certificates and newspaper articles/announcements covering the period April - November 1961.
Kenyans, stay away from your archive buildings.
Lightning is dangerous; a carelessly discarded match is dangerous; watch those cooking fires...
Not correct. The Constitution requires that he BE a natural born citizen. It doesn't require any specific procedure to prove the point. The various states have their procedures for controlling access to the ballot and validating elections. Whether those procedures are enough or not, he has already met every test that was applied to him. He is the President.
The birthers want to reverse that by going into court, but that requires proof. They have to prove that he is in fact NOT a natural born citizen. Claims that he just hasn't proven it to your satisfaction will get you exactly nowhere.
Kenya’s constitution of 12/63 stated they are a republic. It’s the very first line of their constitution dated 12/63. In 12/64, Kenya officially became/was accepted as a republic WITHIN THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH.
NO.
Kenya’s constitution of 12/63 declares they are a republic. That, in essence, was their declaration of independence.
In 12/64, Kenya became a republic in the British commonwealth.
All anyone has to do is google “Kenya constitution 1963” to clearly see that Kenya declared itself a republic in that constitution 12/63. What happened in 12/64, a year to the day after the constitution was made, was that Kenya was accepted as an autonomous republic within the British commonwealth.
You, of course....are absolutely correct. The only thing I read is the editorial pages.....so sometimes I forget.
Constitution:All this should have been flushed out before going so public.12 December 1963; amended as a republic 1964; reissued with amendments 1979, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2001; note - a new draft constitution was defeated by popular referendum in 2005
Constitution:All this should have been flushed out before going so public.12 December 1963; amended as a republic 1964; reissued with amendments 1979, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2001; note - a new draft constitution was defeated by popular referendum in 2005
Go look at their constitution as written 12/63. What happened in 12/64 is that it became a republic within the commonwealth of Britain. They were a British colony for about 40-50 years, then they went independent/rogue for a year from 12/63 to 12/64 at which time they became a republic that was part of the British commonwealth.
Just go google “Kenya 1963 constitution” and you’ll see it.
This means the constitution seen today is not the original (1963) but a version amended/changed in 1964 to read "republic."
This may not be correct but that is what it the CIA says. If you have a link to an original of the Kenyan constitution as signed in 1963 that would settle it. (Nothing short of this would be sufficient.)
There are a bunch of them out there. They all say the same thing. They show any amendments and the dates. Article 1 was never amended, and that is the very first statement of their constitution. The significance of that is what Kenya officially considered itself at the time it declared independence and wrote its constitution, not when the British or the CIA Fact Book folks said it was okay to call yourself a republic.
I don’t care if you believe me or not. I’m not going to go do the links for you. I looked it up to educate myself on the question. I understand it completely now and I already explained to you why there is a difference between when the two players, the Brits and Kenya, consider the separate dates as accurate. You might recall your American history. We declared independence but the British didn’t acknowledge it until several years later after we kicked their ass. But if you still don’t get it and you want to insist it isn’t so and be read/heard/seen saying it isn’t so ‘cuz the CIA says differently, I couldn’t care less.
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.