That didn't take long.
I wonder what the Fed will say about this? One thing is certain.... The Libs will scream like zombies. That makes me happy. Know what I find strange about this? Last year when Arizona wanted to shut her southern border down, the MSM was all over that immediately. Everyday. Front page headlines talking about the cold, heartless Conservatives who wanted to control illegal immigration and the crime that goes with it. Now this. Why isn't the fact that 10 states are proposing legislation that requires a candidate to actually prove eligibility all over the front pages? This is something of a big deal, if you ask me.
Which brings me to the next question... Why wouldn't he just show his long form birth certificate and be done with the controversy?
Either his papers aren't in order, or he want's the controversy because it distracts attention from other things.
What do we know about this guy? Who is he? Where does he really come from? Was he born in Hawaii? Kenya? Baltimore? Seriously, we know absolutely nothing about him. Nothing. That speaks volumes about the Moonbats who elected him. I believe that it's our right as American citizens to know who our president is.
Hypothetical situation: Can you imagine the reaction of the Liberals if the Supremes were to decide that obama wasn't qualified to be president due to his dual citizenship at birth? (Did he ever renounce his British citizenship?) They would scream and rant about how obama's destruction of America was destroyed by a bunch of birthers. They would never even consider the fact that they had been deceived by the
Wouldn't it be wonderful?
In my mind, the definition of "natural born citizen" doesn't require any legal wrangling to define it...
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
A natural born citizen, common sense would dictate, is a person born of American citizen parents.
Ahhhh welllll....... It ain't gonna happen. It is what it is. I do like the idea of the states standing up to the Fed and passing legislation requiring proof of eligibility before allowing a presidential candidate onto their ballot. That's good thinkin'!
Stay safe.
8 comments:
He is employed by us. He is our employee. So far, so good. Now - try and get a job at Walgreens without peeing in a cup or a drivers license without proving residency. Every day some citizen of this country has to prove who he/she is - except Obama. Make sense? Didn't think so...
Re: "Why wouldn't he just show his long form birth certificate and be done with the controversy?"
Because he has already posted his OFFICIAL birth certificate, the one that thousands of people in Hawaii use every year. Hawaii has not sent out copies of the long-form birth certificate ever since the short-form birth certificate became the official birth certificate in 2001. It does not send out copies of the original long form birth certificate to ANYONE, even people born before it became the official birth certificate in 2001.
The facts on Obama's official birth certificate were confirmed by THREE REPUBLICAN officials of the former governor's administration, including the former governor herself. The attorney general in Hawaii for the last four years was a CONSERVATIVE Republican, who could have taken action if the officials were lying or if there was something wrong with the birth certificate, and he didn't.
Obama's Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that Obama was born in Hawaii, where his father was studying. And, she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii. A letter from Hawaii.
smrstrauss... thanks for your input. welcome to my blog! :)
Re: "He is employed by us. He is our employee."
Yes, he is our employee. But we have already hired him. The Constitution specifies only two ways of removing him, impeachment or not electing him again in 2012. The latter is far more likely than the former.
If in the next election the Republican candidate shows more details about her or his background than Obama, Obama would probably show the same details. Or, if not, people can vote for Obama's opponent. But Obama does not have to show any document now, and he won't.
It is significant that he is the first, and so far the only, US president to have shown his birth certificate. (McCain did not show his either. The one that is online is not his.) And, it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the only one that Hawaii has sent out to anyone since it became the official birth certificate. And the facts on it were confirmed by the three officials.
smrstrauss....
Like I said in my original post, "it is what it is". We all understand what is required to remove a sitting President from office. Impeachment or the polls in the next election. No one is questioning that.
The birth certificate issue (non-issue?) with obama is really just an indication of the frustration that half the voting population feels toward the other half of the voting population for electing a man to be POTUS with little, if any, idea of who he is, where he's been, or what his qualifications to be POTUS are.
Some might say that one doesn't have to be qualified in any way other than to be 35 years old, have lived in the US for the preceding 14 years, and to be a "natural born citizen of the US" to be elected POTUS. We proved that to be true in 2008.
As a citizen and voter, I believe that it's perfectly reasonable to verify the things that I have spoken about, such as who he/she is, where he/she has been, and what his/her qualifications are. By qualifications I mean relevant experience.
In my opinion, obama was elected without anyone knowing any of these things.
So much for an informed and educated electorate, eh?
The choice was between Obama and John McCain. McCain was a war hero but he gave some evidence of being unstable and certainly prone to tantrums. His choice of Sarah Palin was not popular for various reasons, one being that she had virtually no academic record, international experience or knowledge of economics. McCain also seemed weak on economics.
So the choice of Obama seems rational to me.
In the next presidential election, of course, he will have had three years of experience as a president, which will be three more than his opponent.
Still, it is not the experience that will matter, or should matter. It is whether he will have done a good job or not.
You may well be right that he is not doing a good job. I certainly do not expect any startlingly strong improvement in the employment data. In which case you have nothing to worry about; he will not win the election in 2012.
I am not worried about that. If he loses in 2012 fine. I am worried about a nut with a gun right now who thinks that Obama was not born in the USA or that he is not eligible to be president because his father was not a citizen.
I'm not too sure that obama has much of a grasp on economics, either. Nor does he seem to have a very strong grasp on foreign policy right now.
It seems like our country is being run by amateurs. I was never a Hillary Clinton fan but thought she was a good choice for Secretary of State. I'm beginning to question that support now with the handling of the troubles in Egypt and Tunisia. We'll have to wait and see how this all plays out, I guess.
Would McCain have done a better job? Would he have surrounded himself with people who had more relative experience? We'll never know. Was he even the right choice as the Republican candidate? It's debatable.
Personally, I like Condoleeza Rice, though I do not believe she has any interest in the job :(
Your "nut with a gun" scenario would do no one any good. The last thing this country and this world need is for something like that to happen. Nothing good could possibly come of it.
The ballot box and keeping the heat on our elected representatives between elections are the proper places to settle our political differences.
I agree with you that Obama was not an expert in economics (as McCain certainly wasn't) but he seemed a quick study, who could learn economics better and quicker than McCain.
I very much agree with you that we do not need to add to the four assassinated presidents, which is why I fight assertions that Obama has not proven that he was born in Hawaii. He has, with the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which were confirmed by THREE Republican officials.
The risk is that some nut will read a blog that says that he did not show his birth certificate, the officials were lying and that his grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. None of these are true and in some cases (such as the guy who claimed to have gone to Kenya and came back with a "Kenyan birth certificate" that was found to be forged) they are deliberate lies.
The motives of such liars seem to me to desire to provide something for the nut with a guy to be influenced by. To be sure, there are already enough nuts who can do things thousands of crazy reasons--but why deliberately add to their motives?
Post a Comment