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.
If there are only two, I think we're ahead of the game! (And as far as the business of a "de facto" President goes, I wonder why the same people who have a problem with President Obama don't seem to be bothered by the fact that for eight years, Dick Cheney was the de facto President--an office to which he was not elected, if I am not mistaken).
Surely you read right here on C-D about him being fired from his civilian job for what he did. Why the DOD seems to have told his contractor boss who works on military bases for the government to fire him because he had been less than soldierly about this.
It is very sad but very true that he lost his job that way but I have read about it many places.
roy, he was not fired for "questioning Obama's birth certificate" as the article title claims. I asked twowolves if s/he believed that title, because if s/he did, that would have cut a long way into the chase and saved a lot of effort on everyone's part.
He is not required to produce his long form BC, no court has requested it....
Well then, by golly, he shouldn't have to prove his qualifications when millions of us think he should. Is that rule by the judiciary you are talking about.?
If there are only two, I think we're ahead of the game! (And as far as the business of a "de facto" President goes, I wonder why the same people who have a problem with President Obama don't seem to be bothered by the fact that for eight years, Dick Cheney was the de facto President--an office to which he was not elected, if I am not mistaken).
roy, he was not fired for "questioning Obama's birth certificate" as the article title claims. I asked twowolves if s/he believed that title, because if s/he did, that would have cut a long way into the chase and saved a lot of effort on everyone's part.
I hate this but I will consider him a usurper until he proves his qualifications and place of birth is one of those things. In fact, I think he wants all this to go on as long as possible because that keeps us at each other's throats and our two political parties want that to be the state of affairs while they screw us all over the place. I am not blaming the Democrat party although he is a Dem. Both parties want to keep this going and if he really cared about the nation he would hold that thing out for us to see.
"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the 'long-form' birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.
is untrue in regards to meeting the test for "natural born citizen". The underlying law has been posted so many times that I'm going to tell you just to do a search. There have been several presidents and VPs (who must meet the same qualifications) who did not have two parents who were US citizens, plus numerous other candidates who did not, as well.
Indeed. And I also disagree that this is off-topic.
It is perfectly on-topic, as it is the answer the OP was looking for - why have we not seen proof that both his parents were citizens? Because they didn't have to be. Any person born in the U.S. is a citizen. Just as any person born outside the U.S., even to U.S. citizens, is NOT a citizen.
This whining from the right is just bad sportsmanship. I didn't whine when the court ruled in favor of Bush in the 2000 election.
That George Soros. An admitted socialist who provides so much of the money for Moveon. How did you guess? I guess it must have been because he has showed some dissatisfaction with Obama, huh?
Indeed. And I also disagree that this is off-topic.
It is perfectly on-topic, as it is the answer the OP was looking for - why have we not seen proof that both his parents were citizens? Because they didn't have to be. Any person born in the U.S. is a citizen. Just as any person born outside the U.S., even to U.S. citizens, is NOT a citizen.
This whining from the right is just bad sportsmanship. I didn't whine when the court ruled in favor of Bush in the 2000 election.
You lost. Get over it.
You were in a distinct minority of lefties if you didn't whine about Algore losing. Really, you never did?
Well then, by golly, he shouldn't have to prove his qualifications when millions of us think he should. Is that rule by the judiciary you are talking about.?
You need to spend less time at Freepers and World Nuts Daily, you are delusional to believe millions think he should prove his eligibility.....why should he cave in to the very small percentage of American voters who are doubters? He produced proof enough to satisfy the senate, congress etc.....he is in fact POTUS.
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.
