Governor Palin Comes Out As The Better Mother When Compared To Wendy Davis Of Texas

[gallantwarrior]

Wendy Davis is a pile of shit that used her second husband's money to get ahead in life then left him....all the while losing custody of her 2 kids from two different men.

Wendy Davis is a user whore who does not deserve the appellation "mother". She's nothing more than a "donor". But what the hell...makes her a hero to the Left.

What the **** does any of this have to do with the governorship of Texas, a position which by the way Sarah Palin is in no way running for?

You do have a point. I believe the discussion involves whether the candidate for the TX governorship actually matches her published "narrative biography" as opposed to the bio of the former governor of Alaska. While I do not appreciate Palin's abandonment of her office, (she should have done so upon her selection as VP candidate), I understand how the persistent attacks on her and her family influenced her decision to quit. Sometimes it takes greater courage to quit than to continue.

 

[Pogo]

Let's go over his qualifications shall we?

1) Was a Senator from Illinois, served on seven different senate committees
2) A Constitutional Professor/Scholar
3) Community Organizer
4) B.A. in international relations
5) J.D. from Harvard
6) Civil Rights lawyer

What, dare I ask are his leadership credentials?

What part of, "not the least qualified," do you not understand?

As light as that resume is, Lincoln's was lighter.

Illinois General Assembly
1 term U.S. Representative
Lawyer

As far as "leadership credentials," Kennedy had none -- turned out to be a very good president.

Bush had "leadership credentials" as a two term governor -- turned out to be one of the worst presidents.

I'm sorry, experience or not, Obama is a good speaker, terrible leader. Clinton, Kennedy, Reagan and Nixon, were good leaders. Johnson, Ford, Carter, were not.

I'd agree with most of that assessment, maybe with one exception. If you define "leadership" as the ability to get people behind you, I'd move Nixon to the other camp. Certainly his was a polarized Presidency.

 

[Faun]

Let's go over his qualifications shall we?

1) Was a Senator from Illinois, served on seven different senate committees
2) A Constitutional Professor/Scholar
3) Community Organizer
4) B.A. in international relations
5) J.D. from Harvard
6) Civil Rights lawyer

What, dare I ask are his leadership credentials?

What part of, "not the least qualified," do you not understand?

As light as that resume is, Lincoln's was lighter.

Illinois General Assembly
1 term U.S. Representative
Lawyer

As far as "leadership credentials," Kennedy had none -- turned out to be a very good president.

Bush had "leadership credentials" as a two term governor -- turned out to be one of the worst presidents.

I'm sorry, experience or not, Obama is a good speaker, terrible leader. Clinton, Kennedy, Reagan and Nixon, were good leaders. Johnson, Ford, Carter, were not.

That's not the point. The point was what leadership credentials did they earn prior to becoming president. Kennedy had none. Turned out he was a good leader. Bush had some in the form of being a governor. He turned out to be a crappy leader.

"Leadership credentials" are meaningless since there are examples of strong presidential leaders who entered office with no prior leadership experience; and pathetic presidential leaders with leadership experience.

 

[Faun]

And Obama fails that qualification since his birth was governed by the British Act Of 1948.

I don't believe the British Act of 1948, or any British Act Ever, trumps the United States Constitution, McRacist.

No. It just makes him a dual citizen (if he was truly born in the United States) and not a constitutional natural born Citizen eligible for Article 2 Section 1.

In which U.S. statute can I find your definition of "Natural born citizen?"

 

[Pogo]

Wendy Davis is a user whore who does not deserve the appellation "mother". She's nothing more than a "donor". But what the hell...makes her a hero to the Left.

What the **** does any of this have to do with the governorship of Texas, a position which by the way Sarah Palin is in no way running for?

You do have a point. I believe the discussion involves whether the candidate for the TX governorship actually matches her published "narrative biography" as opposed to the bio of the former governor of Alaska. While I do not appreciate Palin's abandonment of her office, (she should have done so upon her selection as VP candidate), I understand how the persistent attacks on her and her family influenced her decision to quit. Sometimes it takes greater courage to quit than to continue.

It's even more remote than that; the OP purports to judge these two women, one of whom isn't even running, on the basis of their mothering, an activity that (a) has nothing to do with running a state, and (b) isn't something any of us would be in a position to experience anyway. I mean not only is it comparing apples and kumquats with a third party who's not even running, but it doesn't even try to talk politics. This thread is a meaningless distraction vehicle that serves no purpose beyond character assassination. Posted by an assclown who doesn't even live in Texas.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

I don't believe the British Act of 1948, or any British Act Ever, trumps the United States Constitution, McRacist.

No. It just makes him a dual citizen (if he was truly born in the United States) and not a constitutional natural born Citizen eligible for Article 2 Section 1.

Horseshit.

United States citizens are not subject to British laws. Nor are Brits to ours.

Oh really? So why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

From his 2008 Fight the Smears campaign website:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


This is what the principle framer of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, defined a Constitutional natural born Citizen as being:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))


As you can see, Barack Obama's father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty named England thus negating Barack Jr of Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen status. He never was eligible.

 

[Pogo]

No. It just makes him a dual citizen (if he was truly born in the United States) and not a constitutional natural born Citizen eligible for Article 2 Section 1.

Horseshit.

United States citizens are not subject to British laws. Nor are Brits to ours.

Oh really? So why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

From his 2008 Fight the Smears campaign website:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


This is what the principle framer of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, defined a Constitutional natural born Citizen as being:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))


As you can see, Barack Obama's father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty named England thus negating Barack Jr of Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen status. He never was eligible.

Oh the moronity...

You didn't bother to link that website; having searched it out I can see why. It's not affiliated with O'bama. Further the site itself refers to several links including this one that spell it all out: Barack Obama Senior was a citizen of the UK and after that country's independence in 1963, of Kenya. But that same country's constitution prohibits adults from holding dual citizenship, therefore Obama Junior (now POTUS) would have had no standing once he reached the age of 23, if he had any at all before that.

But none of this negates the fact that Obama's birth in the U.S. state of Hawaìi automatically makes him a natural born citizen. British law has no influence on that. None.

Your after-edit is even stupider, if that's possible. No, it 'negates' no such thing. Bingham spoke of parents not citizens of a foreign state. He says nothing of those who are, as Obama Senior would have been. Furthermore, such matters are not decided by Congressmen, so whatever he said doesn't mean diddly. But let's have a look at what else Bingham said -- and as a racist you're gonna hate this part:

"Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens"

--- and unlike you I'll link my source here. And guess what McRacist-- Hawaìi is "within the Republic". You lose.

Finally, let's quote an entry earlier in the thread:

You've jumped track. This is about who's the better mother who exhibits good moral character with ethical values between Governor Palin and gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis from Texas. Stay on the topic of the thread my little sensitive liberal.

Now why exactly have you sullied this place with a thread about motherhood, which has nothing to do with the governorship of Texas (where was the thread on George W. Bush's or Rick Perry's mothering skills?) complete with a former half-governor who's not even a citizen of the state, let alone running in it?

 

[Interpol]

Sarah Palin has seen better days. Her popularity among the public is at its lowest point ever. 6 years ago she was like the high school girl that all the boys wanted to sleep with and all the girls wanted to be like. But then the more she spoke and the more people got to know her, the more they disliked her and found her superficial.

Her favorability rating in America is currently 28%, while her unfavorable rating is over 60% now.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton's favorability rating in America is close to 70%. Clinton and Clinton are the two most favorable living politicos in America today.

Poll: Sarah Palin ?16 wouldn?t win Alaska - POLITICO.com

Talking Points Memo

72% of Alaskan Republicans say Palin should NOT run for President in 2016. Not Alaskans, but just the Republicans in Alaska!

In a hypothetical matchup for Senator of Alaska, she musters only 40% support, which is why she hasn't bothered running for that position either.

Sarah Palin had to resign as Governor because the whole house of cards was beginning to cave on her.

When it comes to the private lives of Americans, I stand with Liberals, who err on the side of saying that how your neighbor chooses to live is their own business, not the government's, as long as you don't hurt anyone else but yourself.

Conservatives on the other hand always preach about staying out of our lives but apparently they think government should only be small enough to fit in women's vaginas, and they come to boards like these trying to compare which politico's personal life they like better.

This thread is Republican hypocrisy at its finest. They pretend to be patriots and pretend to be religious, but then publicly shame and judge our women and whoever else they don't like. Does that sound very Christian-like to you? Not to me it doesn't.

Republicans have lost 5 of the last 6 popular votes in the general election, and with not one serious contender on the horizon for 2016 and their obsession with playing God and judging all of us who don't fit their narrow definition of "good", they're setting themselves up nicely to lose again in 2 years.

Judge not lest ye be judged, asshats.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Sarah Palin has seen better days. Her popularity among the public is at its lowest point ever. 6 years ago she was like the high school girl that all the boys wanted to sleep with and all the girls wanted to be like. But then the more she spoke and the more people got to know her, the more they disliked her and found her superficial.

Her favorability rating in America is currently 28%, while her unfavorable rating is over 60% now.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton's favorability rating in America is close to 70%. Clinton and Clinton are the two most favorable living politicos in America today.

Poll: Sarah Palin ?16 wouldn?t win Alaska - POLITICO.com

Talking Points Memo

72% of Alaskan Republicans say Palin should NOT run for President in 2016. Not Alaskans, but just the Republicans in Alaska!

In a hypothetical matchup for Senator of Alaska, she musters only 40% support, which is why she hasn't bothered running for that position either.

Sarah Palin had to resign as Governor because the whole house of cards was beginning to cave on her.

When it comes to the private lives of Americans, I stand with Liberals, who err on the side of saying that how your neighbor chooses to live is their own business, not the government's, as long as you don't hurt anyone else but yourself.

Conservatives on the other hand always preach about staying out of our lives but apparently they think government should only be small enough to fit in women's vaginas, and they come to boards like these trying to compare which politico's personal life they like better.

This thread is Republican hypocrisy at its finest. They pretend to be patriots and pretend to be religious, but then publicly shame and judge our women and whoever else they don't like. Does that sound very Christian-like to you? Not to me it doesn't.

Republicans have lost 5 of the last 6 popular votes in the general election, and with not one serious contender on the horizon for 2016 and their obsession with playing God and judging all of us who don't fit their narrow definition of "good", they're setting themselves up nicely to lose again in 2 years.

Judge not lest ye be judged, asshats.

Your post and bias liberal rag links is utter bullshit. Palin has a huge conservative grass roots backing all across America. In fact, one of the big reasons Romney lost is because he alienated conservatives from him by not inviting Gov. Palin to speak at the convention. He knew she would steal any momentum he had. She had attracted more crowds than Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and the others in her political speeches in Iowa during the primary's. Never the less, conservatives were pissed and stayed home election night. Ignoring Palin was political suicide for Romney who was too soft on Obama.

 

[Pogo]

Sarah Palin has seen better days. Her popularity among the public is at its lowest point ever. 6 years ago she was like the high school girl that all the boys wanted to sleep with and all the girls wanted to be like. But then the more she spoke and the more people got to know her, the more they disliked her and found her superficial.

Her favorability rating in America is currently 28%, while her unfavorable rating is over 60% now.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton's favorability rating in America is close to 70%. Clinton and Clinton are the two most favorable living politicos in America today.

Poll: Sarah Palin ?16 wouldn?t win Alaska - POLITICO.com

Talking Points Memo

72% of Alaskan Republicans say Palin should NOT run for President in 2016. Not Alaskans, but just the Republicans in Alaska!

In a hypothetical matchup for Senator of Alaska, she musters only 40% support, which is why she hasn't bothered running for that position either.

Sarah Palin had to resign as Governor because the whole house of cards was beginning to cave on her.

When it comes to the private lives of Americans, I stand with Liberals, who err on the side of saying that how your neighbor chooses to live is their own business, not the government's, as long as you don't hurt anyone else but yourself.

Conservatives on the other hand always preach about staying out of our lives but apparently they think government should only be small enough to fit in women's vaginas, and they come to boards like these trying to compare which politico's personal life they like better.

This thread is Republican hypocrisy at its finest. They pretend to be patriots and pretend to be religious, but then publicly shame and judge our women and whoever else they don't like. Does that sound very Christian-like to you? Not to me it doesn't.

Republicans have lost 5 of the last 6 popular votes in the general election, and with not one serious contender on the horizon for 2016 and their obsession with playing God and judging all of us who don't fit their narrow definition of "good", they're setting themselves up nicely to lose again in 2 years.

Judge not lest ye be judged, asshats.

Your post and bias liberal rag links are utter bullshit. Palin has a huge conservative grass roots backing all across America. In fact, one of the big reasons Romney lost is because he alienated conservatives by not inviting Gov. Palin to speak at the convention. He knew she would steal the momentum he had. She attracted more crowds than Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and the others in her political speeches in Iowa during the primary's. Never the less, conservatives were pissed and stayed home election night. Ignoring Palin was political suicide for him.

Then why didn't he just make her his running mate?

Because even Mitt Romney knows better than that, that's why. And by the way, Romney doesn't decide who gets invited to the convention anyway. Duh.

 

[Faun]

No. It just makes him a dual citizen (if he was truly born in the United States) and not a constitutional natural born Citizen eligible for Article 2 Section 1.

Horseshit.

United States citizens are not subject to British laws. Nor are Brits to ours.

Oh really? So why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

From his 2008 Fight the Smears campaign website:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


This is what the principle framer of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, defined a Constitutional natural born Citizen as being:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))


As you can see, Barack Obama's father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty named England thus negating Barack Jr of Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen status. He never was eligible.

Holyfuckingshit!

While Mr. Bingham was certainly entitled to his opinion, the opinion of a Congressman is not U.S. law. And if that was to be the language of the law, and not just John Bingham opinion, it would have been codified within the 14th Amendment. Regrettably for your argument, it was not.

 

[Pogo]

Horseshit.

United States citizens are not subject to British laws. Nor are Brits to ours.

Oh really? So why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

From his 2008 Fight the Smears campaign website:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


This is what the principle framer of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, defined a Constitutional natural born Citizen as being:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))


As you can see, Barack Obama's father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty named England thus negating Barack Jr of Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen status. He never was eligible.

Holyfuckingshit!

While Mr. Bingham was certainly entitled to his opinion, the opinion of a Congressman is not U.S. law. And if that was to be the language of the law, and not just John Bingham opinion, it would have been codified within the 14th Amendment. Regrettably for your argument, it was not.

Doesn't matter; Bingham was referring to the opposite case. McRacist is trying to assert that the reverse must also be true. Which is stupid.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Horseshit.

United States citizens are not subject to British laws. Nor are Brits to ours.

Oh really? So why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

From his 2008 Fight the Smears campaign website:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


This is what the principle framer of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, defined a Constitutional natural born Citizen as being:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))


As you can see, Barack Obama's father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty named England thus negating Barack Jr of Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen status. He never was eligible.

Oh the moronity...

You didn't bother to link that website; having searched it out I can see why. It's not affiliated with O'bama. Further the site itself refers to several links including this one that spell it all out: Barack Obama Senior was a citizen of the UK and after that country's independence in 1963, of Kenya. But that same country's constitution prohibits adults from holding dual citizenship, therefore Obama Junior (now POTUS) would have had no standing once he reached the age of 23, if he had any at all before that.

But none of this negates the fact that Obama's birth in the U.S. state of Hawaìi automatically makes him a natural born citizen. British law has no influence on that. None.

Your after-edit is even stupider, if that's possible. No, it 'negates' no such thing. Bingham spoke of parents not citizens of a foreign state. He says nothing of those who are, as Obama Senior would have been. Furthermore, such matters are not decided by Congressmen, so whatever he said doesn't mean diddly. But let's have a look at what else Bingham said -- and as a racist you're gonna hate this part:

"Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens"

Fight the Smears was Obama campaign approved. Ever hear of Organization for Action. They promote Obama's agenda and take donations for him. Never the less, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a statutory Citizen but not a natural born Citizen eligible for the presidency. You see, a statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature). Bingham was speaking of U.S. citizen parents. Bingham was clear in his definition of natural born citizen as stated on the House floor = born in the US to parents who are citizens.

Obama's father was never a citizen nor did he apply to be one. He is not a true natural born Citizen in the eyes of the founders original intent. Being born to two U.S. citizen parents guarantees sole allegiance to the U.S.. Allegiance is what the framers wanted first and foremost in a president.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Horseshit.

United States citizens are not subject to British laws. Nor are Brits to ours.

Oh really? So why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

From his 2008 Fight the Smears campaign website:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


This is what the principle framer of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, defined a Constitutional natural born Citizen as being:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))


As you can see, Barack Obama's father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty named England thus negating Barack Jr of Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen status. He never was eligible.

Holyfuckingshit!

While Mr. Bingham was certainly entitled to his opinion, the opinion of a Congressman is not U.S. law. And if that was to be the language of the law, and not just John Bingham opinion, it would have been codified within the 14th Amendment. Regrettably for your argument, it was not.

Sorry but only Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution deals with natural born Citizenship. The 14th Amendment does not. It only deals with Citizenship. There is a difference. Here, let me let a Constitutional scholar explain it to you. Here is his impeccable credentials:

He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.


Now pay attention REAL GOOD for 6 minutes so you can get educated.
Part 1

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8]Natural Born Citizen? - YouTube[/ame]

Part 2
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ]Natural Born Citizen? Part II - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Pogo]

Oh really? So why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

From his 2008 Fight the Smears campaign website:

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


This is what the principle framer of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, defined a Constitutional natural born Citizen as being:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))


As you can see, Barack Obama's father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty named England thus negating Barack Jr of Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen status. He never was eligible.

Oh the moronity...

You didn't bother to link that website; having searched it out I can see why. It's not affiliated with O'bama. Further the site itself refers to several links including this one that spell it all out: Barack Obama Senior was a citizen of the UK and after that country's independence in 1963, of Kenya. But that same country's constitution prohibits adults from holding dual citizenship, therefore Obama Junior (now POTUS) would have had no standing once he reached the age of 23, if he had any at all before that.

But none of this negates the fact that Obama's birth in the U.S. state of Hawaìi automatically makes him a natural born citizen. British law has no influence on that. None.

Your after-edit is even stupider, if that's possible. No, it 'negates' no such thing. Bingham spoke of parents not citizens of a foreign state. He says nothing of those who are, as Obama Senior would have been. Furthermore, such matters are not decided by Congressmen, so whatever he said doesn't mean diddly. But let's have a look at what else Bingham said -- and as a racist you're gonna hate this part:

"Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens"

Fight the Smears was Obama campaign approved. Ever hear of Organization for Action. They promote Obama's agenda and take donations for him. Never the less, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a statutory Citizen but not a natural born Citizen eligible for the presidency. You see, a statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature). Bingham was speaking of U.S. citizen parents. Bingham was clear in his definition of natural born citizen as stated on the House floor = born in the US to parents who are citizens.

Obama's father was never a citizen nor did he apply to be one. He is not a true natural born Citizen in the eyes of the founders original intent. Being born to two U.S. citizen parents guarantees sole allegiance to the U.S.. Allegiance is what the framers wanted first and foremost in a president.

And nowhere did Bingham say ONLY those births, ya illiterate ****.

But he DID say, as I already posted, those born within the Republic are citizens. And Hawaìi is in the Republic. CASE ******* CLOSED, DUMBASS.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Oh the moronity...

You didn't bother to link that website; having searched it out I can see why. It's not affiliated with O'bama. Further the site itself refers to several links including this one that spell it all out: Barack Obama Senior was a citizen of the UK and after that country's independence in 1963, of Kenya. But that same country's constitution prohibits adults from holding dual citizenship, therefore Obama Junior (now POTUS) would have had no standing once he reached the age of 23, if he had any at all before that.

But none of this negates the fact that Obama's birth in the U.S. state of Hawaìi automatically makes him a natural born citizen. British law has no influence on that. None.

Your after-edit is even stupider, if that's possible. No, it 'negates' no such thing. Bingham spoke of parents not citizens of a foreign state. He says nothing of those who are, as Obama Senior would have been. Furthermore, such matters are not decided by Congressmen, so whatever he said doesn't mean diddly. But let's have a look at what else Bingham said -- and as a racist you're gonna hate this part:

"Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens"

Fight the Smears was Obama campaign approved. Ever hear of Organization for Action. They promote Obama's agenda and take donations for him. Never the less, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a statutory Citizen but not a natural born Citizen eligible for the presidency. You see, a statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature). Bingham was speaking of U.S. citizen parents. Bingham was clear in his definition of natural born citizen as stated on the House floor = born in the US to parents who are citizens.

Obama's father was never a citizen nor did he apply to be one. He is not a true natural born Citizen in the eyes of the founders original intent. Being born to two U.S. citizen parents guarantees sole allegiance to the U.S.. Allegiance is what the framers wanted first and foremost in a president.

And nowhere did Bingham say ONLY those births, ya illiterate ****.

But he DID say, as I already posted, those born within the Republic are citizens. And Hawaìi is in the Republic. CASE ******* CLOSED, DUMBASS.

Now pay attention REAL GOOD to the constitutional Harvard educated lawyer for 6 minutes my dense little liberal friend so you can get educated in case you missed my prior post.

Part 1
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8]Natural Born Citizen? - YouTube[/ame]

Part 2
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ]Natural Born Citizen? Part II - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Pogo]

Tick... tick... tick...

 

[Esmeralda]

Birther crap again? There is only one salient point here: Obama has been president for 5 years now. Every possible investigation into his birth has been done. There is no sane individual in the entire world who questions that he was born in the US and is a citizen, by birth, of this country.

Good lord. You people who are still questioning this epitomize the phrase 'sore loser.'

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Every possible investigation into his birth has been done. .'

And the results of strenuous law enforcement criminal investigation into his birth is about to be revealed in March.

 

[Pogo]

Every possible investigation into his birth has been done. .'

And the results of strenuous law enforcement criminal investigation into his birth is about to be revealed in March.