Obama To Ignore Judge’s Ruling To Appear In Court Over Eligibility Hearing

reply to post by Annee
with out that McCain would be in the same boat as Obama not entitled to run for office as the law states, you either for the law as it is written or you bend the law to fit your needs, if you bend the law this makes you above the law and become a kingdom ruled by a king.

They really need to arrest this foreign national, criminal!The Terrorist Within

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Annee

 

Coco Solo Naval Air Station. Military property = US property. And yes he does, both of his parents are US citizens as required by Supreme Court rulings.

Thank you for helping prove the rest of my point though!

Explain why a resolution was enacted to make McCain a Natural Born citizen.

kawika just nailed it for me.

I will repeat this, I'd love to hear your answers.

Was the NDAA not a wakeup call for you? Do you consider that Constitutional as well? Is Libya Constitutional? Why isn't Obama impeached for breaking international laws? It's a shame people still think the way you do.

It is frighteningly obvious Obama is able to break the Constitution. What say you?

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Annee

 

with out that McCain would be in the same boat as Obama not entitled to run for office as the law states, you either for the law as it is written or you bend the law to fit your needs, if you bend the law this makes you above the law and become a kingdom ruled by a king.

So its OK to bend the law for McCain?

Originally posted by r3axion
kawika just nailed it for me.

If you want to convince me - - you better pick a better source for your support.

FACT: a ruling was needed to make McCain a Natural Born citizen.

Isn't interesting that its OK to do this for McCain - - but not for Obama. And don't use the argument McCain's parents were military and he was born on a military base.

I have no problem with ruling McCain Natural Born. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say its OK to do it for one person because you agree with the situation - - and not for the other because you don't agree with the situation.

A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue By ADAM LIPTAK Published: July 11, 2008 In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.” www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by Annee


I'm waiting for your response to my questions

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Annee

 

I'm waiting for your response to my questions

You mean FACT vs Please fix it for me?

reply to post by Annee



Not sure what that means...again, I ask:

Was the NDAA not a wakeup call for you? Do you consider that Constitutional as well? Is Libya Constitutional? Why isn't Obama impeached for breaking international laws?

You're pulling a Jan Brewer
:45

reply to post by Annee
well you tell me, he is one of the ones that put forth the NDAA2012 sub sec d 1021 1022 or did you not know this? so is he above the law ?, gee what do think.

reply to post by Annee
McCain is only able to run for the pres because he made the lawful motion to say he can, obama has not! show me where his[ Obama's] dad is a citizen.

Originally posted by bekod
show me where his[ Obama's] dad is a citizen.

edit on 29-1-2012 by bekod because: editting

Show me where his dad needs to be.

Orly Taitz has been arguing that it doesn't matter if the Hawaiian Birth Certificates are genuine ... because Papa Obama was not a US citizen and therefore Baby Obama was not a US citizen. IF that is true, then it also means that the President's two daughters are not US citizens (because their dad is not, etc.), and then that their children might also not be US citizens, and so on, till the end of time. IF Taitz is right the same applies right now to millions of Americans. That's goddam moronic.

reply to post by Shoonra


No one is arguing the citizen aspect, just the "natural born" citizen aspect.

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Shoonra

 

No one is arguing the citizen aspect, just the "natural born" citizen aspect.

What are they using to make that argument? I believe I saw a list of "evidence" somewhere in one of these threads. Is that it?

Originally posted by Still

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Shoonra

 

No one is arguing the citizen aspect, just the "natural born" citizen aspect.

What are they using to make that argument? I believe I saw a list of "evidence" somewhere in one of these threads. Is that it?

Feel free to watch the court case

A good summary of what happened in court this morning:

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW

By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am

www.thenationalpatriot.com...-4138

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.

Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by Still
gladly but then will you read it? www.abovetopsecret.com... in short here it is read it carefully, from the link

(See: U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.)how hard is it not to read as written, from the above are those born in the United States of parents who are citizens. Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of the child.

do you understand now? Obama by law has no right to be pres as the law states, his dad is not a US citizen his visa expired but then a visa does not count for it does not grant you citizen ship, this is his agreement

one of whom has had a residence in the United States

if your visa is expired what are you then? see here www.ehow.com... then here is the law in full www.law.cornell.edu...

Originally posted by r3axion
Feel free to watch the court case

So you do not know then?
See, I asked because after reading so much of this it has become clear that most birthers are lost in a world of confusion and lies. I want to hear from one of you the answer to my question because I am fairly certain none of you can provide it, explain it in your own words, and make it into the valid argument this judge should be considering.
If you cannot do that, that is fine. It just shows all you guys can do is cut and paste things you think mean something but do not really understand yourselves.

reply to post by bekod


I still do not see where is states that one must be born of two citizens if born within the US. Do you see any such thing?

If I were born in NY to a mother who was born in NY and neither of us knew who the father was because she went to a sperm donor, you are saying I cannot be president?
A simple yes or no will do.

Originally posted by Still

Originally posted by r3axion
Feel free to watch the court case

So you do not know then?
See, I asked because after reading so much of this it has become clear that most birthers are lost in a world of confusion and lies. I want to hear from one of you the answer to my question because I am fairly certain none of you can provide it, explain it in your own words, and make it into the valid argument this judge should be considering.
If you cannot do that, that is fine. It just shows all you guys can do is cut and paste things you think mean something but do not really understand yourselves.

Translation: "I dont understand what was posted and I want someone to explain it to me at a level I can comprehend"