Blog powered by Typepad

Newsvine Politics News

« Audit More, Not Less | Main | Behind The Good Headline »

January 27, 2012

Comments

Bobby J.

Prove to me Mickey Mouse is a Natural born citizen of the USA;)

Dennis

Yes.... Mickey Mouse is a natural born citizen, and; therefore, more qualified than obama to be POTUS.

Bobby J.

But is Mickey Mouse a natural born citizen ;)

greeleygirl

I don't give a damn where he was born. We cannot afford to have this man as President any longer. I'll be happy with Mickey Mouse.

Dennis

namesrgone,

You are exactly right; however, the difference between Santorum's father and obama's father is that Santorum's father became a citizen after he immigrated here.

The MSM has selected the GOP candidate. This has been going on since Kennedy ran against Nixon. American's have been steadily losing their grip on our Constitution and our freedoms. In all likelihood it is too late now. The idea is good, but we've been asleep at the wheel for much too long.

Another revolution will be necessary to once again free our country. Even then we will not be united.

namesrgone

If part of Sam's argument that Obama is not qualified to hold the office of the POTUS because his father was not a natural born citizen, then that make Rick Santorum unqualified for office as well. Santorum's father was not a natural born citizen. He immigrated from Italy when he was five years old. Obama has already proven he is not qualified to be the president by his own doing, but I like Rick Santorum. I think he is a viable candidate. Too bad the media has already picked their man.

Dennis

....continue with your bliss

Shirley

You can complain. I'll be right. I prefer the truth.

Powerball

Shirley,
Your know it all crass-o-matic, coined for people like yourself, attitude will drive more votes to Obamanation than all of the RINOs, fanatical liberal Democrats, and left wing propagandists combined.
Your treatment of others continually illustrates you are nothing more than a Top Gun Mouth.
If I could plagiarize it in your own words: "Your display of ignorance to that fact is so entertaining. Please keep it up!"


Barf...Barf.

Shirley

And just so everyone knows, Sheriff Joe devoted not a single penny to the supposed investigation. It's a purely symbolic gesture to his goofiest constituents. I'm so excited for the outcome of such a thorough investigation.

Shirley

Your very first assertion is false, Dennis. And I'll bet you a big cheeseburger that Sheriff Joe will produce nothing. Let's focus on policy reasons why Obama should not have a second term--there are so many. This birther stuff drives independents, whose votes we need, to Obama, not away.

Dennis

obama spent $2million to seal his records. Why? Transparency? Is that how we vet our presidents?

The hospital in Hawaii kept micro-fiche records of all births in the hospital. This record would be chronological and impossible to forge. Why doesn't he produce that record? I'll tell you why. He isn't producing it because Sheriff Arpaio will be producing it next month at the conclusion of his "Cold Case" investigation.Would the production of this proof finally put to rest this issue, once and for all? One way, or the other? We could all move on to other issues like; why does obama have a fraudulent SSN?

Wouldn't it have been a great campaign strategy to show up to the Georgia District Court that was hearing this issue? He would have, if he were clean. At the very least he comes off as arrogant and above the law of the land (monarchy).

This is EXACTLY what our founding fathers were trying to prevent. Doesn't it make sense to do due process for the POTUS? Or are we just arguing, for the sake of arguing? In the race to get the first black POTUS, the left blindly and frantically moves forward with their candidate in 2008, while obama seals his records. Isn't that a little obvious to a discerning voter?

The impulsive democrat party is low hanging fruit for our enemies.

Did you think they would defeat us with guns?

Shirley

It took less than a minute to find and read the case and conclude that Sam had not. I offer no apologies for mocking his lazy ignorance. You are free to defend it.

Shirley

I don't care what you think Powerball. I'm right on each assertion.

Powerball

Shirley,
Your interpretation and seeming understanding of law appears very impressive but,
as I have pointed out before, your ego has hold of your arse when you write something as insensitive and down right bullish as you just did:
"Your display of ignorance is so entertaining. Please keep it up!!"

While you get your cheap thrills and leave thinking how brilliant you are, I find you quite unimpressive.
You build yourself up by tearing others down ruining any credibility you may have gained.
A sorry affair you have with yourself.

Shirley

Also, anyone literate can read Minor v Happersett and see that the Court did not analyze at all whether someone born in the US, who had one or both parents as non-citizens, was a "natural born citizen." The case is therefore of no consequence to the false issue the plaintiffs have raised in Georgia.

Sorry Sam.

ellenhancock

Obama is a natural born citizen.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Shirley

The outcome will have no bearing on this year's election. Fun for you to dream about, however.

Just so you know, nobody "testifies" about precedent. Precedent may be cited, and its effect on a pending case can be argued, but you don't understand what precedent is if you claim that someone testified about precedent.

You may assert that evidence "conclusively proved" something, but you don't get to make that decision. The finder of fact--judge or jury--makes that decision.

Experts don't testify to facts. Experts are allowed to offer opinions, in contrast to other witnesses. Judges and juries determine what is and what is not factual.

There's nothing significant about something being "officially entered into court records." All sorts of information is accepted into court records every second. Very little of it is of any consequence.

Your display of ignorance is so entertaining. Please keep it up!!

The comments to this entry are closed.