Posted on 02/25/2010 9:41:28 PM PST by bogusname
I can’t speak for all of you out there reading this, but I sure do get a lot of concurrence from the readers of CFP articles regarding the absolute necessity to establish the validity of one Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” of the United States in accordance with the requirements as set down in Article 2 of the U. S. Constitution; Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly notwithstanding.
It seems that with each passing day more news is presented of cases of challenges from every corner of this country. Many of these cases have met with Judicial intransigence from the lethargic or shady decisions of many judges at many levels of our society all the way up the chain of command. But even so, there always seems to be some still pending a full hearing of even an open discussion which gives me, at least, the feeling of ‘what’s going on with this birth business’?
But as in life in these ever surprising United States, every now and then a bright light suddenly shines on a brilliant new attempt to solve a riddle or stalemate.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
I think you are funny and smart. What you lack is wisdom. To say that Obama is native born and then support it with “I believe he is” betrays your allegiance. I submit that it is you who is working for Obama and it is you who is trying to distract us. It’s a smooth ploy. Quoting the Constitution and pretending to be it’s staunch defender while you persuade your readers to take a less likely path for success is pretty slick but I’m not buying it. You’re full of bull and you are either a talking head or a troll.
We are not trying to distract anyone. We simply want him to show his birth certificate. It’s not brain surgery. The one who is trying to sound deep and intelligent is you because you are pushing hype. Obama does the same thing. I’m just pushing common sense.
If you were legitimate you would have no problem pusuing both avenues. Perhaps you are just a lazy defender of the Constitution and you have only enough energy to tackle one task at a time. If that’s your problem I apologize but let me suggest you get some exercise.
The answer is in Loving Country, Texas which has a population of 67 people. Of those 67 people, only 54 are of voting age.
Therefore, all the Birthers need to do is to have 28 people move and establish residency on Loving County.
Of those 28 people, one must run for Prosecutor and another for a judicial post.
Once the Birthers of Loving County have elected a prosecutor, that prosecutor can impanel a Grand Jury and Indict Obama. From there, they can take Obama to trial in the Loving Country Courthouse and perhaps convict the president.
Instead, the Birthers send their money to Orly Taitz who has not exactly had a great deal of success in the American court system, and has now requested that the United Nations step in and take control of the American Legal System.
And while I am not a legal scholar like Ms. Taitz, I am guessing that my Loving County plan would be somewhat more effective for the Birthers than Orly’s plan to call in UN Troops with the Blue Helmets.
Have mercy...I only have two more years left on my mortgage. LOL
It is not law yet. It's making it's way through the state senate.
The other day, on conservative talk radio (KFYI), the 4-7PM host (who replaced J.D. Hayworth), was whining about how the state should not get involved in a federal issue. I won't mention the host's name but he sucks.
Could Republican and Democratic parties in each state require a presidential candidate to present his long form birth certificate---he could be required to attach it to his application form in each state---BEFORE he could put his name on the presidential primary ballot?
That is, I don't see how state and federal lawmakers could object to how political parties decide who can and who cannot put their names on primary ballots.
My point is this: If political parties passed their own rules that required presidential candidates to present their long form birth certificates before the candidates could put their names on the primary ballot, then we might NOT need state lawmakers to pass questionable and possibly unconstitutional laws that require presidential candidates to present long form birth certificates before they could put their names on the November 2012 presidential ballot.
Yes. In my opinion, the political party primary is the key first place to require a presidential candidate to present a long form birth certificate.
As I see it, it may be too late---and maybe even unconstitutional---for a state to wait until a presidential candidate applies to put his name on the November 2012 presidential ballot before requiring a presidential candidate to present his long form birth certificate.
So to be safe and to make sure that a presidential candidate is required to publicly present his long form birth certificate, let's look at the political party presidential primary as the first key place to demand presidential candidates to present their long form birth certificates.
Thanks for that idea. I’ll assume you are sincere. However, I think your plan is seriously flawed. It supposes that you can trust Democrats.
My suggestion was suing all the Secretaries of States for not doing their own due diligence and just believing Nancy Pelosi. Sue the 365 electoral college members who voted for the perp for conspiracy to commit federal election fraud...one of them might crack. Yes it is that easy.
Spaulding is correct. The issue is not ‘native born’, it is ‘natural born’.
The whole point of having a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ qualification for US President is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2443849/posts?page=33#33
The long form ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is merely a technicality to get at the real issue.
Once again, this leaves nothing to dispute the fact that he is refusing to show his birth certificate. It’s illogical to think that fighting one wrong conflicts the righting of the other wrong. You can pursue one if you like or you may pursue both but to choose one and then combat the other is to put yourself on Obama’s side. A house divided cannot stand.
It’s not clear where you are coming from.
Even if Obama shows or is forced to show his long form birth certificate, if it exists, let’s say it does, then he still has to face the fact that he is not a ‘natural-born’ citizen as it is defined by those that wrote the Constitution.
Spaulding and I are not arguing that he should not show his birth certificate, we are arguing past that. If he has a BC, he needs to show it qualifies him for the Presidency by showing two citizens on the BC were his biological parents.
As far as I know Obama could have been adopted and is not even a native-born citizen. But if chance he was native-born, then he seems not to be natural-born and that is the real issue.
And keep in mind that a lot of folks don’t even know the difference between native-born and natural-born. So Spaulding is doing a service by educating those reading that the real issue is natural-born, not native-born. And yes you have to get the long-form BC to determine natural-born status, so Spaulding is on the same page; he’s just saying don’t end the inquiry if a long-form is produced because the long-form is not the issue, it’s what’s on the long-form, namely the citizenship status of the mother and father.
I gotchya and I apologize. I was at work and getting ready to leave when I read your post quickly and it in that hurried state I saw it as contrary and snapped back a reply. As I was drivering home it was reprocessed. My fault.
Peace
Good Point!
Well-put.
“It is not law yet. It’s making it’s way through the state senate.”
The stories have said that this passed a committee which had 40 republicans (out of 90 total state legislators). Republicans have the majority in both Houses in Arizona, so there’s a real good chance this could pass.
This is all well and good HOWEVER...
This (elligebility/lack of basic documentation)has been a hot topic (for Freepers) for 2 years now and “we” appear no closer now than prior to the ‘08 election.
Forgeries have been uncovered, voids spotlighted, dots connected, and billboards erected. Yet the unenquiring minds have only to say “he posted his birth certificate” and whatever the nuance or evidence, the issue is sidelined as another “birther” rant.
Now what is it about the arguements that doesn’t seem to get through to the Limbaughs, O’Reilys, Hannitys, and Becks? How is it that they are content to just laugh it off and trash whatever is said? This is as much (un)settled as MMGW was yet to the media pundits it’s like the proverbial third rail of investigative broadcasting.
You would think that a very basic life history of Obama highlighting what is NOT known would make for pretty decent ratings.
I just hate to think that conservative media is so compromised as to bury this issue but it just seems so. Otherwise, there must be some overwhelming evidence, that they are uniquely privy to, which globally renders all contrary arguements moot.
Will someone please share that silver bullet? Moving this discussion further is like alcoholic recovery - you must admit that there is a problem. Why is it that the Becks et al cannot/will not admit to this one?
I haven’t been there, but I have kin in Pecos (Pay-cuss).
http://www.texasescapes.com/TOWNS/Mentone_Texas/Mentone.htm
| Dawg, I'm not sure what Orly's Latest Poopies (or prior poopies for that matter) has to do with Kerchner or Apuzzo in the 3rd Circuit, or any ongoing quo warranto case, but it's good to see you haven't lost faith in the Grand Jury process. But the point is moot, in that an actual copy of Obama’s “birth certificate” has never appeared in front of a judge to be established as a Fact in a court room. Amazing when you think about it that perhaps only two people have actually seen Obama's COLB. |
| The long form ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is merely a technicality to get at the real issue. BINGO. That's when the fireworks begin ;) I mean ... c'mon ... In order for Obama's "birth certificate" to be accepted as a legal "fact" — As the Certification says very clearly:
NOT "This COPY OF A copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding." |
Why would he try to get around it? He'd satisfy it by simply providing the document that was posted on the internet.
That's extremely doubtful, especially since the issuing agency can't confirm if it's real or not.
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.
