One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Criminal Charges Have Been Filed Against Obama
Page <<first <prev 5 of 6 next>
Nov 17, 2013 21:53:21   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
carolyn wrote:
So what makes this bird Obama eligible to be president? He was not born of two citizen parents because his father was a Kenyan citizen.




He is not eligible. He is a fraud and a usurper. He has been installed by some powerful people and the legislative and judicial branches of government have done nothing about it.
Over 100 cases have been filed in various federal and state courts in attempts to have Obama ruled ineligible.

NOT ONE COURT OR JUDGE HAS RULED THAT OBAMA IS OR IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO OCCUPY THE WHITE HOUSE.

In not one of those cases has the evidence been heard and a ruling made that he is or is not eligible. Every case has been disposed of by sidetracking, by some technicality, or by blackmailing or threatening judges.

I personally saw a video of a news interview with one Supreme Court justice who said, "We are evading the issue".

Reply
Nov 17, 2013 21:54:50   #
Raylan Wolfe Loc: earth
 
Bush found guilty of war crimes!

http://intellihub.com/2013/07/02/bush-administration-officially-found-guilty-of-war-crimes-lawyer-says-we-will-get-bush/

Morons




permafrost wrote:
Ricko, Did you read any of the fact checking sites, or even any of the major news sites.. Do not base your opinion on only comments that all come from the same direction.. You probably do not like the MSM, but they do have access to more information than someone typing in the spare room of his home..Or who is more an entertainer than news person...By far, most of the rumors are the same level of untruth that all politician have to contend with...

Reply
Nov 17, 2013 22:22:56   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
hprinze wrote:
The constitution requires the president to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the USA.
The constitution doesn't define natural born citizen, just as it does not define the other words it uses. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1875 as a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents.

The constitution requires natural born citizenship for the president only, the other offices such as congress critters are held to different requirements by the constitution.

The requirement and the definition are very simple, but politicians have tried for years to confuse the issue and some have even tried to change it.

Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president, even though he would certainlt be preferable to the snake Obama.



http://theghostfighters.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/natural-born-citizen-for-dummies/
The constitution requires the president to be a NA... (show quote)

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]

This is the 2011 interpretation of "natural born citizen" it seems to have more wiggle room than most definitions which the right has already rejected, but if you wish to use it, read it carefully...

Reply
 
 
Nov 17, 2013 22:29:59   #
carolyn
 
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
You people are moronic, to pick up a topic that even Fox News believes is not newsworthy! Then complain about not having the intelligence to find a source, it would take a sixth grader about 10 seconds to find one, it took me 5!

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/obama-accused-of-crimes-against-humanity-at-international-criminal-court/


I and another person on this website gave the same source that you are giving, but it seems to some, such as Rumitoid, it is such a hard task to look these items of information up that it is almost impossible to do. But I do believe you are doing a little Democrat bragging when you say it took you a mere 5 seconds to look it up. Unless you have a galloping ghost for a computer, it would take more than that to check anything out. I have to wait more than 5 seconds for my computer to get on a website.

Reply
Nov 17, 2013 23:17:01   #
Raylan Wolfe Loc: earth
 
Evidently you are in dire need of a different internet supplier or a new computer, post another ridiculous subject and I will be happy to find a source that proves it wrong in a few seconds!

carolyn wrote:
I and another person on this website gave
the same source that you are giving, but it seems to some, such as Rumitoid, it is such a hard task to look these items of information up that it is almost impossible to do. But I do believe you are doing a little Democrat bragging when you say it took you a mere 5 seconds to look it up. Unless you have a galloping ghost for a computer, it would take more than that to check anything out. I have to wait more than 5 seconds for my computer to get on a website.
I and another person on this website gave br the ... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 18, 2013 02:28:12   #
carolyn
 
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
Evidently you are in dire need of a different internet supplier or a new computer, post another ridiculous subject and I will be happy to find a source that proves it wrong in a few seconds!


As I said, you are doing nothing but little Democrat bragging. I will hereby change that statement. You are doing a whole lot of Democrat bragging because you evidently either don't know how little 5 seconds are, or you are so used to slinging your Democrat BS to other stupid Democrats that you naturally figure everyone is as blind to the truth as they are. Check the second hand on your watch and see just how little time 5 seconds gives you to even type in what you are trying to find, let alone the time it takes you to bring up what you have typed in.

Reply
Nov 18, 2013 08:16:53   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
permafrost wrote:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]

This is the 2011 interpretation of "natural born citizen" it seems to have more wiggle room than most definitions which the right has already rejected, but if you wish to use it, read it carefully...
The weight of legal and historical authority indic... (show quote)


The 1875 Supreme court decision defining natural born citizen as a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents is a binding precedent of the Supreme Court. There are a few exceptions such as a child born of two U.S. parents on military ory diplomatic duties in a foreign country at the time of the birth.

It appears to me that you and many others confuse the terms "natural born" and "native born".

All natural born citizens are native born but not all native born are natural born.

Some people still don't underestand that Rubio is not natural born because his parents were foreigners so he is not elegible.

That Cruz is not natural born because at least one of his parents was a foreigner and Cruz was not born in the U.S. therefore not eligible.

I think Cruz is a good man and would be an asset to America in a number of high offices, but he is not eligible for president.

Obama is not eligible eithere, but despicable crooks have installed him and neither the legislative or judicial branches have the cojones to do anything about it.

Reply
 
 
Nov 18, 2013 09:25:35   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
hprinze wrote:
The 1875 Supreme court decision defining natural born citizen as a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents is a binding precedent of the Supreme Court. There are a few exceptions such as a child born of two U.S. parents on military ory diplomatic duties in a foreign country at the time of the birth.

It appears to me that you and many others confuse the terms "natural born" and "native born".

All natural born citizens are native born but not all native born are natural born.

Some people still don't underestand that Rubio is not natural born because his parents were foreigners so he is not elegible.

That Cruz is not natural born because at least one of his parents was a foreigner and Cruz was not born in the U.S. therefore not eligible.

I think Cruz is a good man and would be an asset to America in a number of high offices, but he is not eligible for president.

Obama is not eligible eithere, but despicable crooks have installed him and neither the legislative or judicial branches have the cojones to do anything about it.
The 1875 Supreme court decision defining natural b... (show quote)


My little paragraph is supposed to be the most recent interpretation of "natural born". From 2011.. If courts use a different definition, I was not aware of it..

Reply
Nov 18, 2013 09:53:34   #
Ricko Loc: Florida
 
carolyn wrote:
The lies most of us are repeating are lies that have been proven that this crook Obama has told. I know there are more lies that are yet to be proven, but the one's that are most prevalent here are the one's that have already been proven to a thick-skinned Democrat public that refuses to acknowledge these lies. One amazing lie told by Mr. Liar himself is that he did not know anything about what was happening in the crooked IRS game until he read it in the newspapers. And that, my friend, is a blatant lie that only the very stupid or very brainwashed public would ever consider believing because the CIC has access to everything that goes on in the government. BELIEVE IT OR NOT!
The lies most of us are repeating are lies that ha... (show quote)


Permafrost-I shy away from msm because they offer only the liberal viewpoint and are in bed with Obama. Good Luck America !!!

Reply
Nov 18, 2013 10:10:03   #
carolyn
 


I believe the charges of "war crimes" against President Bush were proven to be lies perpetrated by the enemy. How many of these POWS' testimonies were later proven to be lies, just as the charges against Obama and Egypt may turn out to be lies. But the evidence at the trials will be the most convincing of ant argument we can make here, especially since so many of us are biased for and against Obama.

But let's face facts here, shall we? Obama WAS deeply involved in the IRS scandal, whether he tried to play dumb as to what was actually going on in his administration or not. And he was definitely involved in the Benghazi stand down order that caused the murders of the 4 Americans in Libya. He was also deeply involved in the Fast and Furious scam that was purportedly ordered to make the confiscation of American guns more realistic. And how many more of these sleazy plots he was involved in is to be later found out is left only to speculation. So I would say that Mr. Obama is one of our most distrusted presidents of all time.

Reply
Nov 18, 2013 10:10:20   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
permafrost wrote:
My little paragraph is supposed to be the most recent interpretation of "natural born". From 2011.. If courts use a different definition, I was not aware of it..


Whose interpretation are you referring to?

My posting was referring to the definition of natural born citizen as defined in a binding precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1875.

No matter how much the Obamabots try to twist it, that is the definition that counts. Here it is again, in plain, simple language


http://theghostfighters.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/natural-born-citizen-for-dummies/

Reply
 
 
Nov 18, 2013 10:30:41   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
hprinze wrote:
Whose interpretation are you referring to?

My posting was referring to the definition of natural born citizen as defined in a binding precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1875.

No matter how much the Obamabots try to twist it, that is the definition that counts. Here it is again, in plain, simple language


http://theghostfighters.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/natural-born-citizen-for-dummies/


The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that.....

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause&#8206;

Reply
Nov 18, 2013 11:11:08   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
permafrost wrote:
The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that.....

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause&#8206;
The Constitution does not define the phrase natura... (show quote)


I say again, the definition by the Supreme Court is a legal binding precedent, and cannot be overturned, over ruled, or changed by any Congressional Committees, or any other group or individual, even though it has been tried. The only way the requirement can be legally changed is by constitutional amendment. That could change the requirement for the president to be a natural born citizen, but it could not change the definition.

Reply
Nov 18, 2013 11:50:21   #
larry
 
hprinze wrote:
I say again, the definition by the Supreme Court is a legal binding precedent, and cannot be overturned, over ruled, or changed by any Congressional Committees, or any other group or individual, even though it has been tried. The only way the requirement can be legally changed is by constitutional amendment. That could change the requirement for the president to be a natural born citizen, but it could not change the definition.


What is the great fear to enforce this requirement? How do we get it to happen? Who or what agency has the cajones to do it,. Let me know, I will request it.

Reply
Nov 18, 2013 21:46:19   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
larry wrote:
What is the great fear to enforce this requirement? How do we get it to happen? Who or what agency has the cajones to do it,. Let me know, I will request it.




The fear in the Obama cartel is that their puppet will be exposed and removed from office

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 6 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.