- This topic has 340 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
PadreBrian.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 15, 2009 at 6:31 PM #431823July 15, 2009 at 6:53 PM #431098
patb
Participant[quote=Casca]
Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.
[/quote]
even if this were true, so what?
Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.
As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.
July 15, 2009 at 6:53 PM #431314Participant[quote=Casca]
Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.
[/quote]
even if this were true, so what?
Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.
As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.
July 15, 2009 at 6:53 PM #431604Participant[quote=Casca]
Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.
[/quote]
even if this were true, so what?
Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.
As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.
July 15, 2009 at 6:53 PM #431674Participant[quote=Casca]
Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.
[/quote]
even if this were true, so what?
Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.
As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.
July 15, 2009 at 6:53 PM #431833Participant[quote=Casca]
Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.
[/quote]
even if this were true, so what?
Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.
As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.
July 15, 2009 at 7:04 PM #431103partypup
Participant[quote=IONEGARM]
The reason is news is because market making software was stolen and COULD BE used to front run orders if someone wanted use it maliciously. Where the tin foil hat crowd goes off is that they immediately assume it was being used by GS for that purpose.[/quote]
Uh, okay…and you trust that Goldman hasn’t used this software maliciously to score RECORD profits and bonuses in a year when the economy is collapsing? LOL! Do you still have money in the stock market, too? Believe green shoots are a-sprouting? I’m just curious how deep your naivete runs.
[quote=IONEGARM][quote=partypup]
Sorry you can’t connect the dots. I’m not going to think for you. But I want to get this straight: We have “hairbrained” (think you mean “harebrained”, BTW), “obviously false allegations” being raised by “wacky people”. Is that your position? And yet, the case is not being dismissed, but is instead being heard on its merits. Gee…I wonder if the hairbrained (sp) military cases go to the Special Wacky and Patently False Military Claims Court? LOL! You’re killing me. Your argument would have been so much stronger if the court had decided not to hear the case. You do realize that, don’t you? Have you ever been to court, BTW? It doesn’t sound like it.Hey, did you know that the judicial system has a neat little system for dealing with harebrained cases? They’re dismissed without being heard. It’s called summary judgment. But that didn’t happen here. So sit back and wait for a decision and keep the barbs and snipes to yourself. Because until the court hands down a decision, your defense of the proferred b.c. is just as “wacky” as the plaintiff’s allegations – no matter how loudly you bleat or how many times you call your opponents “wacky”.[/quote]
The judge is getting through the technical aspects of what is wrong with the filing before even considering the merits of the case. You take that to mean the judge gave the case some legitimacy where in fact it means the judge just says “You dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s wrong, get back to me when you do it right”. So when in fact the plaintiff does do that it will then get dismissed and the whackjobs will complain its a conspiracy and find another million reasons why they can call whoever is currently president not their president. It happens with every president its just funny to see how it manifests itself every cycle.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but that explanation is not making any sense to me from a legal perspective. First: If the court was looking to dismiss the case on procedural grounds, it would have easily done so for the reasons that the other 25 cases have been dismissed around the country: lack of standing. So why didn’t that happen?
Second: What are the so-called “technical aspects” of the case that the judge is mulling, in your opinion? Where do you see a reference to these “technical aspects” in the articles? I didn’t see these references, but perhaps I missed them, so please point me in the right direction.
Third: As I read the Huff link: “A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”
So Huff admits the case is being heard on the merits, but the defense (the U.S. Attorney’s office) says the move is only procedural. Does it surprise you that the defendant’s counsel (the U.S. Attorney) would take this position? Look, there are dozens of other cases like this around the country that Huff hasn’t even talked about, so tell me why Huff considers this case a small victory for tin foil hat types? Dozens of other cases have been filed around the country with nary a comment from Huff. So why is this case a victory, do you think? Or did Huff get that wrong?
I still don’t think you are familiar enough with the difference between “on the merits” vs “procedure” to have a productive discussion on the topic, but suffice it to say that the fact that this case has not already been dismissed on the basis of standing – as many others have – is significant. You are right, we’ll have to wait and see what happens. But regardless of the outcome, if this case is not decided on the merits the issue isn’t going to just go away. And that’s a problem for a president who needs the confidence of a nation that is quickly losing hope and confidence.
And does this really happen with every president? How many times have you seen courts hear challenges from the military against our CIC? Did this happen with Clinton or Bush, as polarizing as they were? You can dismiss this as a whackjob claim, but it’s beginning to seep beyond the province of the tin foil crowd you apparently so despise. How many other so-called “whackjobs” are serving in our military as majors, lieutenants and colonels? And if these people are so wacky, shouldn’t the Army dismiss them from service permanently due to mental illness? After all, in your words, they are whackjobs. Why would we want these people protecting our country? Wouldn’t you have just discharged the guy permanently if he is as dangerously unstable as you make him sound? Or are we so hard up that we will even let the truly wacky serve? Because as it stands, this “whackjob” is still a Major in the Reserve unit, and he may be called back to duty to serve – assuming he doesn’t object to Obama’s qualifications again 😉
July 15, 2009 at 7:04 PM #431319Participant[quote=IONEGARM]
The reason is news is because market making software was stolen and COULD BE used to front run orders if someone wanted use it maliciously. Where the tin foil hat crowd goes off is that they immediately assume it was being used by GS for that purpose.[/quote]
Uh, okay…and you trust that Goldman hasn’t used this software maliciously to score RECORD profits and bonuses in a year when the economy is collapsing? LOL! Do you still have money in the stock market, too? Believe green shoots are a-sprouting? I’m just curious how deep your naivete runs.
[quote=IONEGARM][quote=partypup]
Sorry you can’t connect the dots. I’m not going to think for you. But I want to get this straight: We have “hairbrained” (think you mean “harebrained”, BTW), “obviously false allegations” being raised by “wacky people”. Is that your position? And yet, the case is not being dismissed, but is instead being heard on its merits. Gee…I wonder if the hairbrained (sp) military cases go to the Special Wacky and Patently False Military Claims Court? LOL! You’re killing me. Your argument would have been so much stronger if the court had decided not to hear the case. You do realize that, don’t you? Have you ever been to court, BTW? It doesn’t sound like it.Hey, did you know that the judicial system has a neat little system for dealing with harebrained cases? They’re dismissed without being heard. It’s called summary judgment. But that didn’t happen here. So sit back and wait for a decision and keep the barbs and snipes to yourself. Because until the court hands down a decision, your defense of the proferred b.c. is just as “wacky” as the plaintiff’s allegations – no matter how loudly you bleat or how many times you call your opponents “wacky”.[/quote]
The judge is getting through the technical aspects of what is wrong with the filing before even considering the merits of the case. You take that to mean the judge gave the case some legitimacy where in fact it means the judge just says “You dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s wrong, get back to me when you do it right”. So when in fact the plaintiff does do that it will then get dismissed and the whackjobs will complain its a conspiracy and find another million reasons why they can call whoever is currently president not their president. It happens with every president its just funny to see how it manifests itself every cycle.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but that explanation is not making any sense to me from a legal perspective. First: If the court was looking to dismiss the case on procedural grounds, it would have easily done so for the reasons that the other 25 cases have been dismissed around the country: lack of standing. So why didn’t that happen?
Second: What are the so-called “technical aspects” of the case that the judge is mulling, in your opinion? Where do you see a reference to these “technical aspects” in the articles? I didn’t see these references, but perhaps I missed them, so please point me in the right direction.
Third: As I read the Huff link: “A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”
So Huff admits the case is being heard on the merits, but the defense (the U.S. Attorney’s office) says the move is only procedural. Does it surprise you that the defendant’s counsel (the U.S. Attorney) would take this position? Look, there are dozens of other cases like this around the country that Huff hasn’t even talked about, so tell me why Huff considers this case a small victory for tin foil hat types? Dozens of other cases have been filed around the country with nary a comment from Huff. So why is this case a victory, do you think? Or did Huff get that wrong?
I still don’t think you are familiar enough with the difference between “on the merits” vs “procedure” to have a productive discussion on the topic, but suffice it to say that the fact that this case has not already been dismissed on the basis of standing – as many others have – is significant. You are right, we’ll have to wait and see what happens. But regardless of the outcome, if this case is not decided on the merits the issue isn’t going to just go away. And that’s a problem for a president who needs the confidence of a nation that is quickly losing hope and confidence.
And does this really happen with every president? How many times have you seen courts hear challenges from the military against our CIC? Did this happen with Clinton or Bush, as polarizing as they were? You can dismiss this as a whackjob claim, but it’s beginning to seep beyond the province of the tin foil crowd you apparently so despise. How many other so-called “whackjobs” are serving in our military as majors, lieutenants and colonels? And if these people are so wacky, shouldn’t the Army dismiss them from service permanently due to mental illness? After all, in your words, they are whackjobs. Why would we want these people protecting our country? Wouldn’t you have just discharged the guy permanently if he is as dangerously unstable as you make him sound? Or are we so hard up that we will even let the truly wacky serve? Because as it stands, this “whackjob” is still a Major in the Reserve unit, and he may be called back to duty to serve – assuming he doesn’t object to Obama’s qualifications again 😉
July 15, 2009 at 7:04 PM #431609Participant[quote=IONEGARM]
The reason is news is because market making software was stolen and COULD BE used to front run orders if someone wanted use it maliciously. Where the tin foil hat crowd goes off is that they immediately assume it was being used by GS for that purpose.[/quote]
Uh, okay…and you trust that Goldman hasn’t used this software maliciously to score RECORD profits and bonuses in a year when the economy is collapsing? LOL! Do you still have money in the stock market, too? Believe green shoots are a-sprouting? I’m just curious how deep your naivete runs.
[quote=IONEGARM][quote=partypup]
Sorry you can’t connect the dots. I’m not going to think for you. But I want to get this straight: We have “hairbrained” (think you mean “harebrained”, BTW), “obviously false allegations” being raised by “wacky people”. Is that your position? And yet, the case is not being dismissed, but is instead being heard on its merits. Gee…I wonder if the hairbrained (sp) military cases go to the Special Wacky and Patently False Military Claims Court? LOL! You’re killing me. Your argument would have been so much stronger if the court had decided not to hear the case. You do realize that, don’t you? Have you ever been to court, BTW? It doesn’t sound like it.Hey, did you know that the judicial system has a neat little system for dealing with harebrained cases? They’re dismissed without being heard. It’s called summary judgment. But that didn’t happen here. So sit back and wait for a decision and keep the barbs and snipes to yourself. Because until the court hands down a decision, your defense of the proferred b.c. is just as “wacky” as the plaintiff’s allegations – no matter how loudly you bleat or how many times you call your opponents “wacky”.[/quote]
The judge is getting through the technical aspects of what is wrong with the filing before even considering the merits of the case. You take that to mean the judge gave the case some legitimacy where in fact it means the judge just says “You dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s wrong, get back to me when you do it right”. So when in fact the plaintiff does do that it will then get dismissed and the whackjobs will complain its a conspiracy and find another million reasons why they can call whoever is currently president not their president. It happens with every president its just funny to see how it manifests itself every cycle.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but that explanation is not making any sense to me from a legal perspective. First: If the court was looking to dismiss the case on procedural grounds, it would have easily done so for the reasons that the other 25 cases have been dismissed around the country: lack of standing. So why didn’t that happen?
Second: What are the so-called “technical aspects” of the case that the judge is mulling, in your opinion? Where do you see a reference to these “technical aspects” in the articles? I didn’t see these references, but perhaps I missed them, so please point me in the right direction.
Third: As I read the Huff link: “A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”
So Huff admits the case is being heard on the merits, but the defense (the U.S. Attorney’s office) says the move is only procedural. Does it surprise you that the defendant’s counsel (the U.S. Attorney) would take this position? Look, there are dozens of other cases like this around the country that Huff hasn’t even talked about, so tell me why Huff considers this case a small victory for tin foil hat types? Dozens of other cases have been filed around the country with nary a comment from Huff. So why is this case a victory, do you think? Or did Huff get that wrong?
I still don’t think you are familiar enough with the difference between “on the merits” vs “procedure” to have a productive discussion on the topic, but suffice it to say that the fact that this case has not already been dismissed on the basis of standing – as many others have – is significant. You are right, we’ll have to wait and see what happens. But regardless of the outcome, if this case is not decided on the merits the issue isn’t going to just go away. And that’s a problem for a president who needs the confidence of a nation that is quickly losing hope and confidence.
And does this really happen with every president? How many times have you seen courts hear challenges from the military against our CIC? Did this happen with Clinton or Bush, as polarizing as they were? You can dismiss this as a whackjob claim, but it’s beginning to seep beyond the province of the tin foil crowd you apparently so despise. How many other so-called “whackjobs” are serving in our military as majors, lieutenants and colonels? And if these people are so wacky, shouldn’t the Army dismiss them from service permanently due to mental illness? After all, in your words, they are whackjobs. Why would we want these people protecting our country? Wouldn’t you have just discharged the guy permanently if he is as dangerously unstable as you make him sound? Or are we so hard up that we will even let the truly wacky serve? Because as it stands, this “whackjob” is still a Major in the Reserve unit, and he may be called back to duty to serve – assuming he doesn’t object to Obama’s qualifications again 😉
July 15, 2009 at 7:04 PM #431679Participant[quote=IONEGARM]
The reason is news is because market making software was stolen and COULD BE used to front run orders if someone wanted use it maliciously. Where the tin foil hat crowd goes off is that they immediately assume it was being used by GS for that purpose.[/quote]
Uh, okay…and you trust that Goldman hasn’t used this software maliciously to score RECORD profits and bonuses in a year when the economy is collapsing? LOL! Do you still have money in the stock market, too? Believe green shoots are a-sprouting? I’m just curious how deep your naivete runs.
[quote=IONEGARM][quote=partypup]
Sorry you can’t connect the dots. I’m not going to think for you. But I want to get this straight: We have “hairbrained” (think you mean “harebrained”, BTW), “obviously false allegations” being raised by “wacky people”. Is that your position? And yet, the case is not being dismissed, but is instead being heard on its merits. Gee…I wonder if the hairbrained (sp) military cases go to the Special Wacky and Patently False Military Claims Court? LOL! You’re killing me. Your argument would have been so much stronger if the court had decided not to hear the case. You do realize that, don’t you? Have you ever been to court, BTW? It doesn’t sound like it.Hey, did you know that the judicial system has a neat little system for dealing with harebrained cases? They’re dismissed without being heard. It’s called summary judgment. But that didn’t happen here. So sit back and wait for a decision and keep the barbs and snipes to yourself. Because until the court hands down a decision, your defense of the proferred b.c. is just as “wacky” as the plaintiff’s allegations – no matter how loudly you bleat or how many times you call your opponents “wacky”.[/quote]
The judge is getting through the technical aspects of what is wrong with the filing before even considering the merits of the case. You take that to mean the judge gave the case some legitimacy where in fact it means the judge just says “You dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s wrong, get back to me when you do it right”. So when in fact the plaintiff does do that it will then get dismissed and the whackjobs will complain its a conspiracy and find another million reasons why they can call whoever is currently president not their president. It happens with every president its just funny to see how it manifests itself every cycle.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but that explanation is not making any sense to me from a legal perspective. First: If the court was looking to dismiss the case on procedural grounds, it would have easily done so for the reasons that the other 25 cases have been dismissed around the country: lack of standing. So why didn’t that happen?
Second: What are the so-called “technical aspects” of the case that the judge is mulling, in your opinion? Where do you see a reference to these “technical aspects” in the articles? I didn’t see these references, but perhaps I missed them, so please point me in the right direction.
Third: As I read the Huff link: “A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”
So Huff admits the case is being heard on the merits, but the defense (the U.S. Attorney’s office) says the move is only procedural. Does it surprise you that the defendant’s counsel (the U.S. Attorney) would take this position? Look, there are dozens of other cases like this around the country that Huff hasn’t even talked about, so tell me why Huff considers this case a small victory for tin foil hat types? Dozens of other cases have been filed around the country with nary a comment from Huff. So why is this case a victory, do you think? Or did Huff get that wrong?
I still don’t think you are familiar enough with the difference between “on the merits” vs “procedure” to have a productive discussion on the topic, but suffice it to say that the fact that this case has not already been dismissed on the basis of standing – as many others have – is significant. You are right, we’ll have to wait and see what happens. But regardless of the outcome, if this case is not decided on the merits the issue isn’t going to just go away. And that’s a problem for a president who needs the confidence of a nation that is quickly losing hope and confidence.
And does this really happen with every president? How many times have you seen courts hear challenges from the military against our CIC? Did this happen with Clinton or Bush, as polarizing as they were? You can dismiss this as a whackjob claim, but it’s beginning to seep beyond the province of the tin foil crowd you apparently so despise. How many other so-called “whackjobs” are serving in our military as majors, lieutenants and colonels? And if these people are so wacky, shouldn’t the Army dismiss them from service permanently due to mental illness? After all, in your words, they are whackjobs. Why would we want these people protecting our country? Wouldn’t you have just discharged the guy permanently if he is as dangerously unstable as you make him sound? Or are we so hard up that we will even let the truly wacky serve? Because as it stands, this “whackjob” is still a Major in the Reserve unit, and he may be called back to duty to serve – assuming he doesn’t object to Obama’s qualifications again 😉
July 15, 2009 at 7:04 PM #431838Participant[quote=IONEGARM]
The reason is news is because market making software was stolen and COULD BE used to front run orders if someone wanted use it maliciously. Where the tin foil hat crowd goes off is that they immediately assume it was being used by GS for that purpose.[/quote]
Uh, okay…and you trust that Goldman hasn’t used this software maliciously to score RECORD profits and bonuses in a year when the economy is collapsing? LOL! Do you still have money in the stock market, too? Believe green shoots are a-sprouting? I’m just curious how deep your naivete runs.
[quote=IONEGARM][quote=partypup]
Sorry you can’t connect the dots. I’m not going to think for you. But I want to get this straight: We have “hairbrained” (think you mean “harebrained”, BTW), “obviously false allegations” being raised by “wacky people”. Is that your position? And yet, the case is not being dismissed, but is instead being heard on its merits. Gee…I wonder if the hairbrained (sp) military cases go to the Special Wacky and Patently False Military Claims Court? LOL! You’re killing me. Your argument would have been so much stronger if the court had decided not to hear the case. You do realize that, don’t you? Have you ever been to court, BTW? It doesn’t sound like it.Hey, did you know that the judicial system has a neat little system for dealing with harebrained cases? They’re dismissed without being heard. It’s called summary judgment. But that didn’t happen here. So sit back and wait for a decision and keep the barbs and snipes to yourself. Because until the court hands down a decision, your defense of the proferred b.c. is just as “wacky” as the plaintiff’s allegations – no matter how loudly you bleat or how many times you call your opponents “wacky”.[/quote]
The judge is getting through the technical aspects of what is wrong with the filing before even considering the merits of the case. You take that to mean the judge gave the case some legitimacy where in fact it means the judge just says “You dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s wrong, get back to me when you do it right”. So when in fact the plaintiff does do that it will then get dismissed and the whackjobs will complain its a conspiracy and find another million reasons why they can call whoever is currently president not their president. It happens with every president its just funny to see how it manifests itself every cycle.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but that explanation is not making any sense to me from a legal perspective. First: If the court was looking to dismiss the case on procedural grounds, it would have easily done so for the reasons that the other 25 cases have been dismissed around the country: lack of standing. So why didn’t that happen?
Second: What are the so-called “technical aspects” of the case that the judge is mulling, in your opinion? Where do you see a reference to these “technical aspects” in the articles? I didn’t see these references, but perhaps I missed them, so please point me in the right direction.
Third: As I read the Huff link: “A judge said he would listen to “the merits” of Alan Keyes’ case challenging Obama’s presidency. While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the move was merely procedural, birth conspiracy proponents are encouraged.”
So Huff admits the case is being heard on the merits, but the defense (the U.S. Attorney’s office) says the move is only procedural. Does it surprise you that the defendant’s counsel (the U.S. Attorney) would take this position? Look, there are dozens of other cases like this around the country that Huff hasn’t even talked about, so tell me why Huff considers this case a small victory for tin foil hat types? Dozens of other cases have been filed around the country with nary a comment from Huff. So why is this case a victory, do you think? Or did Huff get that wrong?
I still don’t think you are familiar enough with the difference between “on the merits” vs “procedure” to have a productive discussion on the topic, but suffice it to say that the fact that this case has not already been dismissed on the basis of standing – as many others have – is significant. You are right, we’ll have to wait and see what happens. But regardless of the outcome, if this case is not decided on the merits the issue isn’t going to just go away. And that’s a problem for a president who needs the confidence of a nation that is quickly losing hope and confidence.
And does this really happen with every president? How many times have you seen courts hear challenges from the military against our CIC? Did this happen with Clinton or Bush, as polarizing as they were? You can dismiss this as a whackjob claim, but it’s beginning to seep beyond the province of the tin foil crowd you apparently so despise. How many other so-called “whackjobs” are serving in our military as majors, lieutenants and colonels? And if these people are so wacky, shouldn’t the Army dismiss them from service permanently due to mental illness? After all, in your words, they are whackjobs. Why would we want these people protecting our country? Wouldn’t you have just discharged the guy permanently if he is as dangerously unstable as you make him sound? Or are we so hard up that we will even let the truly wacky serve? Because as it stands, this “whackjob” is still a Major in the Reserve unit, and he may be called back to duty to serve – assuming he doesn’t object to Obama’s qualifications again 😉
July 15, 2009 at 7:08 PM #431108Participant[quote=patb][quote=Casca]
Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.
[/quote]
even if this were true, so what?
Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.
As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.[/quote]
That’s incorrect. Do some research on the archived threads. The issue is much more complicated because of laws in existence at the time (1961) governing the determination of naturalized citizens.
Short answer: having a natural born mother isn’t sufficient if you were born on foreign soil in 1961. It may be a silly law, but someone needs to come clean and address it. Perhaps now that the Dems control Congress Obama can amend the Constitution – while he’s going through the trouble of dismantling our capitalist foundations. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Then Schwarzenegger can be president. Yippee!!!
July 15, 2009 at 7:08 PM #431323Participant[quote=patb][quote=Casca]
Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.
[/quote]
even if this were true, so what?
Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.
As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.[/quote]
That’s incorrect. Do some research on the archived threads. The issue is much more complicated because of laws in existence at the time (1961) governing the determination of naturalized citizens.
Short answer: having a natural born mother isn’t sufficient if you were born on foreign soil in 1961. It may be a silly law, but someone needs to come clean and address it. Perhaps now that the Dems control Congress Obama can amend the Constitution – while he’s going through the trouble of dismantling our capitalist foundations. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Then Schwarzenegger can be president. Yippee!!!
July 15, 2009 at 7:08 PM #431614Participant[quote=patb][quote=Casca]
Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.
[/quote]
even if this were true, so what?
Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.
As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.[/quote]
That’s incorrect. Do some research on the archived threads. The issue is much more complicated because of laws in existence at the time (1961) governing the determination of naturalized citizens.
Short answer: having a natural born mother isn’t sufficient if you were born on foreign soil in 1961. It may be a silly law, but someone needs to come clean and address it. Perhaps now that the Dems control Congress Obama can amend the Constitution – while he’s going through the trouble of dismantling our capitalist foundations. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Then Schwarzenegger can be president. Yippee!!!
July 15, 2009 at 7:08 PM #431683Participant[quote=patb][quote=Casca]
Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.
[/quote]
even if this were true, so what?
Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.
As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.[/quote]
That’s incorrect. Do some research on the archived threads. The issue is much more complicated because of laws in existence at the time (1961) governing the determination of naturalized citizens.
Short answer: having a natural born mother isn’t sufficient if you were born on foreign soil in 1961. It may be a silly law, but someone needs to come clean and address it. Perhaps now that the Dems control Congress Obama can amend the Constitution – while he’s going through the trouble of dismantling our capitalist foundations. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Then Schwarzenegger can be president. Yippee!!!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.