Emmerich de Vattel says it best: natural born citizens are they were were born in-country to two parents, both of whom were citizens at the time of birth. And in Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court used the phrase "natural born citizen" to describe such people, and *did not* use it--ever--to describe anyone who had any alienage whatsoever.
But this birth certificate has never been settled. And it's important for another reason. If Obama has never been present, then no official act, to which he has ever put his signature, is valid.
Obama eligibility: fresh warning
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/09/04 21:55:37
|
|
|||||
|
43 votes
|
|
31% | ||
|
58 votes
|
|
42% | ||
|
15 votes
|
|
11% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
1% | ||
|
5 votes
|
|
4% | ||
|
15 votes
|
|
11% | ||
Larry Klayman, of Freedom Watch, laid it on the line to Robert Bauer, general counsel of the Democratic National Committee. The Democrats must not certify Barack Obama as eligible to the office of President. For if they do, they will commit perjury.
Klayman based his reasoning on Alvin Onaka's failure to answer Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett's letter. Maybe Ken Bennett accepted that partial answer, but Klayman pointed out that this was not according to the law. And the only reason why Onaka didn't verify the information that Bennett asked for was that he couldn't.
Klayman carefully laid the groundwork for challenging any certification that comes through, after Obama delivers his acceptance speech in Charlotte on Thursday, September 6.
Only one thing can satisfy the law, says Klayman. And that is for Dr. Onaka to produce an actual long-form birth certificate and put it up before a judge or ALJ. Until that happens, says Klayman, we cannot legally be sure that Obama is even old enough to be President, let alone a genuine, honest-to-God born-in-the-USA-to-two-citizen-parents Article II Section 1 Clause 5 natural born citizen.
Klayman based his reasoning on Alvin Onaka's failure to answer Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett's letter. Maybe Ken Bennett accepted that partial answer, but Klayman pointed out that this was not according to the law. And the only reason why Onaka didn't verify the information that Bennett asked for was that he couldn't.
Klayman carefully laid the groundwork for challenging any certification that comes through, after Obama delivers his acceptance speech in Charlotte on Thursday, September 6.
Only one thing can satisfy the law, says Klayman. And that is for Dr. Onaka to produce an actual long-form birth certificate and put it up before a judge or ALJ. Until that happens, says Klayman, we cannot legally be sure that Obama is even old enough to be President, let alone a genuine, honest-to-God born-in-the-USA-to-two-citizen-parents Article II Section 1 Clause 5 natural born citizen.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/04...
So you are saying our Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on?
"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number. The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, August 13, 1961. [6]
http://www.inquisitr.com/3151...
Obama can't run a government, the guy is a boy trying to do a man's job, but his problem is he is out to destroy this country while people like you believe his lies. He is a puppet, nothing more, his teleprompter tells him what to say.
Clinton had a Republican Congress for most of his Presidency.. President Clinton worked with Republicans in Congress to have a budget agreement to cut spending.
Plus, Clinton took the Social Security money to pay the debt off and the surplus never went back into S.S. but stayed so he could have a surplus. That's why S.S. is in so much trouble.
I'm not sticking up for Bush, he is in on what's happening to this country too, he is a quiet Socialist. At the end of Bush's term, things were still a lot better than what it is now with Obama.
I have to add this, the housing market crashed on Bush's watch, and Clinton and the Democrats was the reason for the crash.
Social Security has taken in about 2.5 trillion dollars, which is owed to the SS Fund by the Treasury.
So if SS has a 49 billion deficit, it has a 50 times that amount owed. So to say that it has contributed to the national debt or deficit is false; in fact, the opposite is true: It has contributed to keeping the external debt smaller.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011...
So its OK for you to call people idiots, but not for me. Screw you.
I'm a guy queer.
Did you get that from Snopes¿
Meanwhile barack does spell huge tax increases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_...
The prez has said many times that his proposed tax increase is on those making $250,000 and above. And the highest Clinton tax rate was 39.5%. From 35 % TO 39.5%. Is that so terrible?
Wrong, it's eliminating a deduction and leveling the playing field. It will cost the 'rich' more than anyone else. The less fortunate never get to take advantage of the Mortgage deduction as many will rent all their lives. Some Buy such an inexpensive house that the mortgage deduction is only available for the first few years of the loan, if ever. Either way, wage earners at the lower end are subsidizing housing for the wealthiest, who always get to take advantage of mortgage interest deduction because their mortgages are bigger. And they get that deduction for 2nd homes as well.
Wrong, the pResident intends to raise taxes on households making 250K plus.
Those who make $250,000 plus and above own 80% of everything in America. They should pay 80% of all taxes.
''It might not appear that way at first, because the dollars are collected via a 40% tax on sales by insurers of “Cadillac” policies, fees on health insurers, drug companies and device manufacturers, and an assortment of odds and ends.
But the economics are clear. These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums. Consumers will pay the excise tax on high-cost plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation http://www.google.com/url?sa=...
indicates that 87% of the burden would fall on Americans making less than $200,000, and more than half on those earning under $100,000.''
Do you offer HC for your employees? Don't let your small business grow or you will be forced to purchase HC or you'll be Fined (taxed).
Obamacare is not even in full swing yet, they still don't know what is all in it.