THE Obama lawsuit to follow

foxpaws said:
Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to
the birth of such person, was physically present in the United
States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods
totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were
after attaining the age of fourteen years:
Click to expand...

Nationals and citizens of the United States doesn't apply to "Natural Born Citizen". What is so hard for you to comprehend? Keep tossing spears. I find it entertaining.
 
he wasn't natural born? oh my god, he's a cesarean?
this just gets dumber by the day.
 
MonsterMark said:
Sorry, this conversation is only for AMERICAN citizens.:shifty:
Click to expand...

Got proof Bryan? I think we really need to see your birth certificate, birth announcement, and two or three eyewitness that can be subpoenaed.:)

Ah, are those lips really like sugar?

Yep, subsequent acts were retroactive – they do it all the time – law changed in 1986, made retro to 1952… as far as I can tell from the law…

Do you think that in 1986, when Obama was 25 a conspiracy was started because someone saw into the future and knew one day he would be elected president – so, the wheels were set in motion to make sure that this little bit of law would be ‘post dated’ to include this unknown, not even a law student yet, from Hawaii? I bet it was, Bryan of the delectable digits…

So where in law, other than 1401 does it state what a natural born citizen is? 1401 defines what criteria a person has to meet at birth to be a citizen – a natural ‘born’ citizen. If you can find where the law defines anything else, especially regarding parenthood of someone who was born on US soil, I would love to see it.

You know since everyone here refers to Obama as the messiah – why are we worried about his father anyway – wouldn’t that be taken care of with the whole immaculate conception definition and that God must be an American because he is always on our side? ;)
 
foxpaws said:
....everyone here refers to Obama as the messiah – why are we worried about his father anyway – wouldn’t that be taken care of with the whole immaculate conception definition ;)
Click to expand...

Obeyme ("We are the ones we've been waiting for") has yet to provide proof of where he was born, so yes, immaculate conception might be an accurate way of putting it.

After all, "We are the ones we have been waiting for".
 
fossten said:
As usual, you don't have a clue where the reference originated.
Click to expand...

Foss, does this mean I am no longer persona non grata (whoa –more latin, settle down girl ;) )? I have somehow risen above not worthy (along with Wayne and Garth)? No longer an outcast or pariah? And could it be too much to hope that I am better than déclassé?

Probably not – but, oh well, it is the cross I must bear :) … Or is that the bear I must cross?

It was a tiny, teeny joke, the messiah thing… obviously below the Foss joke-a-meter…

Whoops… Probably back to quarantine for me... :p
 
I suppose in your way of thinking this is proof that Obama is a Manchurian candidate who will sell out America.
And all the more reason to stop him now.

I don't think "Biden plans to reach out to Muslim world" would play as well overseas.

Comments....

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2145984/posts

I'm sure you'll enjoy the comments at this blog, really.


Barack Obama plans to reach out to Muslim world


8:48 PM CST, December 9, 2008 | By Christi Parsons, John McCormick and Peter Nicholas |

Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:55:56 AM by granite

Barack Obama says his presidency is an opportunity for the U.S. to renovate its relations with the Muslim world, starting the day of his inauguration and continuing with a speech he plans to deliver in an Islamic capital.
And when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama. "I think we've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular,'' Obama said Tuesday, promising an "unrelenting" desire to "create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together."
 
If he does bring some genuine peace between the West and the Islamic countries he could be considered a messiah of sorts although history is against him to succeed- but the future remains to be written.
 
04SCTLS said:
If he does bring some genuine peace between the West and the Islamic countries he could be considered a messiah of sorts although history is against him to succeed- but the future remains to be written.
Click to expand...

If you think that'll make any significant difference, later on we'll talk about this bridge I'd like to sell you...
 
Get over it already!!!!!:)


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=
December 8, 2008 4:00 AM

Obama Derangement Syndrome
Shut up about the birth certificate.

By David Horowitz

The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president are embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, a demagogue who lost a Senate election to the then-unknown Obama by 42 points, should be a warning in itself.

This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats’ seditious claim that Bush “stole” the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats’ Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq war, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became “Bush’s War” rather than an American War — with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.

The birth-certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)

What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?

Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to five Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the four liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?

It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution.
 
So I guess when Obama's presidency is marked by a scandal-a-month, this will be nothing but ODS.
 
04SCTLS said:
If he does bring some genuine peace between the West and the Islamic countries he could be considered a messiah of sorts although history is against him to succeed- but the future remains to be written.
Click to expand...

Naiveté knows no bounds.
 
97silverlsc said:
Get over it already!!!!!:)
Click to expand...

Yayyyyy. Copy/Paste/Phil is here to post up old crap. What a relief.

This battle was being fought LONGGGGGG before the election. Sorry you are just tuning in now. Day late and dollar short as usual.

If Obama can run, then any kid (daddy unknown) who's wench plopped them on US soil will be able to run.
 
MonsterMark said:
If Obama can run, then any kid (daddy unknown) who's wench plopped them on US soil will be able to run.
Click to expand...

Yep - that is the way it is now. Remember - we are the land of opportunity...

Heck, how much longer before we do have that scenario - a woman can easily get impregnated from the sperm bank with no idea who the father is - just a list of 'attributes' (sort of like the options list on a car) and Dad 1284578 is chosen... And the father of our president is just a number on a vial...;)
 
foxpaws said:
Heck, how much longer before we do have that scenario - a woman can easily get impregnated from the sperm bank
Click to expand...
Are you telling us how you once got knocked up?

Seriously...
foxpaws...

You might want to read this....



Taken from: http://www.constitution.org/

§ 211. What is our country.
THE whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§ 122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country — a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing, then, this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Pretty cut and dried. Sorry to ruin your morning.;)
 
foxpaws said:
Heck, how much longer before we do have that scenario - a woman can easily get impregnated from the sperm bank with no idea who the father is - just a list of 'attributes' (sort of like the options list on a car) and Dad 1284578 is chosen... And the father of our president is just a number on a vial...;)
Click to expand...

How much longer before men start harvesting women's eggs and culturing them in incubators while teaching sheep how to cook and wash dishes.:)
 
Isn't that Vattel - a swiss guy? The whole The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns is, thank goodness, not the United States Constitution - it is awful... really read it Bryan...

Or read this great rebuttal...

You don't think that this is some sort of 'guy fear thing'? That old nagging anxiety that the male half of the human race might just be becoming obsolete? Eye candy, great in the sack - but beyond that - does the other half really need you? /s/s/s/s/s/s
 
foxpaws said:
Isn't that Vattel - a swiss guy? The whole The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns is, thank goodness, not the United States Constitution - it is awful... really read it Bryan...

Or read this great rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it was the US Constitution but I lnked it because it is another indicator of the thinking at the time.

If the SCOTUS decides to hear the case, they will have to decide on what the meaning of "natural born citizen" is. If the SCOTUS decides to open the door any tom, dick or harry that wants to run, so be it. That is the way it will play out and that is the way it will be.

If they decide to not hear the case, they will have opened the door to any tom, dick, or harry that wants to run anyway.

I appreciate the rebuttal artiucle you posted. As you stated, it is horrible. I guess we have two guys with two different opinions. I just wanted to show you another instance where the ideal of "natural born citizen" was significantly separated from "citizen" in the Constitution where it came to the office of President, the only place in the Constitution where this distinction is made.
 
And when Phil posts again...:D this is for you bud.

gorec9va.gif
 
97silverlsc said:
Get over it already!!!!!:)

Obama Derangement Syndrome
Shut up about the birth certificate.
Click to expand...
In fairness, at least around here, the conversation IS NOT about the birth certificate.

So, if you'd like to participate, I'd recommend at least following the conversation. And if you want to introduce that article, don't post it as an indictment of this community.
 
foxpaws said:
Isn't that Vattel - a swiss guy? The whole The Law of Nations
Click to expand...


Sister, looks like The Honorable Justice Scalia used this same legal textbook in March of 2008 to cite some law reference. “The Laws of Nations” is pretty clear on the NBC issue.

The 14th amendment didn't specifically deal with the Presidential issue which is why Article II, Section I of our Constitution does.

I know it affects your fraudulent candidate, but I can tell you I have no problem with this applying to McCain either. To be honest, it looks like Hillary could be the one that comes out on top in all of this. And I like women on top way better anyway.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 113 (members: 1, guests: 112)
Back
Top