Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I came across something very interesting as to why we do not hear From McCain or the RNC on Obama's eligibility.
Bob Says:
March 4, 2009 at 8:01 am (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/quoa-warranto-a-new-hope-military-can-now-retreat-in-peace/#comment-5235 - broken link) Leo –
Please notice that same McCain birth certificate lists his parents’ residence also as “Colon,” and not “Coco Solo,” which has its own post office at the time (Closed in 1948).
Why is that important also? Because, that is the explanation why the Panama Health Department did NOT record his birth certificate. The Health Department did NOT record vital statistics on military “families” who were not living in base housing in 1936.
Also, the U.S. State Department has no consular record of his birth, although there are many other such records on births reported from the Canal Zone.
Further, Baja California has NO RECORD of his parents’ application or receipt of a marriage license for their wedding at Caeser’s in Tijuana.
The more you look, the less information that can be found. Plain and simple: McCain’s story that he was born on the Canal Zone at a military installation appears to be BOGUS.
I believe that this is the primary reason that the Republicans are TOTALLY silent on the issue of Obama’s eligibility — because McCain accepted taxpayer matching funds that apparently should be repaid in full.
And this is also the reason why the Republicans are TOTALLY silent on the Obama’s campaign fund-raising abuses. [Ed. Thanks for pointing all of that out. ]
I'm still waiting on hard evidence that shows Obama is anything but a US born citizen. Like any hard evidence at all.
Fifteen Republican members of the Missouri General Assembly have signed on to a state constitutional amendment that appears aimed at advancing the claims of the fringe movement that doubts President Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president.
Doesn't sound exactly like "so much concern", sounds like extremists.
Wow, this 30% motif just continues to keep coming back. Roughly 30% approved of Bush, 25-30% like Rush, 30% disapprove of the job Obama's doing, and now 30% on this forum think this issue has a leg to stand on. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the same 30% of the country disproportionately causes most of the ridiculous arguments.
Came across this in another forum, thought it might have some relevance to this bloated and useless thread.
Excerpt from judge's ruling in Holilster v. Soetoro:
Quote:
This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the
blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.
Plaintiff has not cited a single case that lends even
colorable support to the notion that his alleged "duties" can be the "money or property" to which the interpleader statute applies.... This suit will accordingly be dismissed.
... The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised,vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.
Damnit, we need education in this country.
Particularly reading comprehension, math/science and basic ****ing logic.
You wrote "Doesn't sound exactly like "so much concern", sounds like extremists."
You implied with this statement that you felt people who are concerned about candidate fraud and take any action to that end are extremist. I just wanted to find out where you stand on the subject because either you do or you don't care. It is a very simple question that could have been answered with a yes or no but, for some reason you needed to rant about the simple question. Are you for or against protecting against candidate fraud?
Wow, this 30% motif just continues to keep coming back. Roughly 30% approved of Bush, 25-30% like Rush, 30% disapprove of the job Obama's doing, and now 30% on this forum think this issue has a leg to stand on. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the same 30% of the country disproportionately causes most of the ridiculous arguments.
Do you apply that same philosophy to all minorities or is it just the ones that fit into your agenda?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
