See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On July 27th, 2009 at 10:48 am, stillontheroad said:

   Bold and edgy???? More like slow and plodding but then………….

2. #2
   On July 27th, 2009 at 10:54 am, BobonStatenIsland said:

   What’s all this fuss about the Constitution and judicial activism? I thought all the qualifications were that the nominee be female and hispanic. So she should be good to go, right? If that’s so, I choose my roommate (also female and Puerto Rican but very conservative).

3. #3
   On July 27th, 2009 at 10:57 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

   Awaiting cries of racism in 3, 2, 1…

   I just posted the following in another thread, but it is even more appropriate here…

   Six and one-half months ago, members of Congress were blinded by Obama’s popularity (only 29% disapproved of him), along with their fear of being called “racist” (if you didn’t support Obama it could only be because you were a “racist”).

   Instead of fulfilling their sworn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”, they shunned their responsibility and “outsourced” it to an unelected, unaccountable, untrustworthy third party.

   There is no expiration date on the Congressional Oath of Office.

   Now that a majority of the population disapproves of Obama, and Obama himself has been revealed as a racist, it is time for members of Congress to no longer be blind and finally honor their sworn oath by doing the following:

   1) Personally inspect a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, sent to them under seal directly from the State of Hawaii. (Just as was done with the certification of the Electoral College vote)

   2) Ask the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of the Constitutional phrase “Natural Born Citizen”.

   If the Supreme Court finds that the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” is consistent with both Vattel’s definition…

   “natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

   … and is consistent with the letter from the man who became the first Chief Justice (John Jay) to the man who became the first President (George Washington)

   “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

   …then the question of Obama’s birth location is irrelevant… he’s ineligible due to the British citizenship that both he and his father had at his birth.

   Obama’s own campaign admitted:

   “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.

   Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

   Before the Senate can vote to confirm a new Supreme Court Justice, they must conclusively establish that the man nominating that Justice is eligible to hold the office of President!

   This is a serious Constitutional issue, not some irrational conspiracy theory, and it must be addressed.

4. #4
   On July 27th, 2009 at 10:59 am, Ragspierre said:

   “Which Sotomayor will we get?”

   I know…!!! I know…!!! Call on me…

   The racist and sexist that she is at her core.

   Not the lie she projected…artlessly…during her confirmation hearings.

   But, totally fitting as THE ONE’s nominee.

5. #5
   On July 27th, 2009 at 11:03 am, Flyoverman said:

   In a column published in today’s USA TODAY, the Alabama senator questioned whether Sotomayor would follow through as a justice on her pledge in confirmation hearings to show “fidelity to the law.”

   GOOD NEWS: I believe Sotomayer will show “fidelity to the law.”

   BAD NEWS: Venezualan law

6. #6
   On July 27th, 2009 at 11:05 am, zyzzyg said:

   Judicial activism? Have any of her opinions referenced foreign law? Where has she demonstrated judicial activism? Even in the Ricci case she was following existing law.

   Sen Sessions reason to not vote for Judge Sotomayor is a bit amorphous. He should be more specific and provide exactly where her decisions (record) did not follow her testimony.

   She has nearly two decades on the bench and hundreds of written opinions. Just pull one and demonstrate where there is an inconsistentcy on her part.

7. #7
   On July 27th, 2009 at 11:05 am, Dexter Alarius said:

   Lord,
   Please protect the health of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and (gulp) Kennedy.
   Amen.

8. #8
   On July 27th, 2009 at 11:06 am, spaceycakes said:

   Awaiting cries of racism in 3, 2, 1…

   While I don’t doubt it, perhaps they’re too busy beating Baalam’s ass over the Gates thingy…

9. #9
   On July 27th, 2009 at 11:07 am, Paul Revere said:

   She’s a hustlah with no swaggah.

10. #10
    On July 27th, 2009 at 11:09 am, BruceB said:

    Judicial activism? Have any of her opinions referenced foreign law? Where has she demonstrated judicial activism? Even in the Ricci case she was following existing law.

    The law that she made up in her mind.

11. #11
    On July 27th, 2009 at 11:09 am, sonofdy said:

    Even in the Ricci case she was following existing law.

    What possiable law allows you to exclude people from promotion because of race????

12. #12
    On July 27th, 2009 at 11:16 am, Lockstein13 said:

    “I don’t believe that Judge Sotomayor has the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism,” Sessions wrote. “She has evoked its mantra too often.” Saying her testimony and record were at odds, he asked: “Which Sotomayor will we get?”

    Fair enough. I haven’t read the article, but I can only hope it includes
    the link between “judicial activism” and “maintaining (versus destroying) our Constitution.”

13. #13
    On July 27th, 2009 at 11:38 am, Flyoverman said:

    Even in the Ricci case she was following existing law.

    Z,

    Sotomayer in her confirmation hearings danced around the question of what legal precedence she was referring to in her written opinion on the Ricci case. She never answered the question.

14. #14
    On July 27th, 2009 at 11:39 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Before the Senate can vote to confirm a new Supreme Court Justice, they must conclusively establish that the man nominating that Justice is eligible to hold the office of President!

    Members of Congress inspected one certificate delivered under seal from the State of Hawaii (the certificate of the Electoral College vote), but they have yet to inspect the other certificate (Obama’s original birth certificate).

    It is their Constitutional duty to uphold their sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States… including Article II Section 1.

    It is their Constitutional duty to inspect a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, delivered under seal from the State of Hawaii.

    It is their Constitutional duty to determine, with the help of the Supreme Court, whether the first President born after 1787 to a father who was never a U.S. Citizen and conferred British citizenship to his son under British law, is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.

15. #15
    On July 27th, 2009 at 11:43 am, iamsaved said:

    8 to 9 out of 10 of her decisions have been over-turned by a higher court. She’s stated her judicial philosophy on a number of occasions during her past that would give one pause. For a statist, she’s a dream selection. For a strict constitutionalist, she’s a night mare. Sorry, but I prefer keeping the constitution as it was originally written and not subject to capricious changes based on society’s whims at the time.

    I’m sure there are a lot of Hispanic people who are quite capable and qualified and not so polarizing.

16. #16
    On July 27th, 2009 at 11:53 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    “Which Sotomayor will we get?”

    All the young cherubic faces turn and look toward Europe for the answer.

17. #17
    On July 27th, 2009 at 11:57 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    “bold” or “edgy” ? Her non answers did set me on edge-does that count? She was bold in her evasiveness, and her butt…but let’s not go there…I’d never get back (aka-the Great Liberal Expanse )

    Lady Lindsay is the two word response I often give to the RNC and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. I tried using JohnnyMac–but it causes depression-pills-therapy and psych stuff, none of it covered by ObamaCare. But Lady Lindsay Sotomayor will be our next Supreme Court Justice and one more reason to give up on the United part of United States.

18. #18
    On July 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Here is the actual text of a letter I previously received from one of my Senators:

    Thank you for contacting me about President-Elect Barack Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate knowing your concerns.

    The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Hawaii became a territory of the United States in 1898 and was officially admitted as a State in 1959.

    It is my understanding that President-Elect Obama has released an official copy of his birth certificate. Since he was born in 1961 in Hawaii, he is eligible under the Constitution to run for and hold the office of President of the United States. In addition, President-Elect Obama’s birth records have been certified and validated by the Hawaii Department of Health as well as by experts from the University of Pennsylvania. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case and agreed with the lower courts’ rulings that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the legal challenges questioning President-Elect Obama’s citizenship.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know or visit my website at …

    Article II Section 1 makes a clear distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. To be eligible to be President, you must be a “natural born citizen”, not merely a “citizen”. An exception was made for those who were “citizens” when the Constitution was ratified (in 1787), but that clearly does not apply to Obama.

    The 14th Amendment is irrelevant here, as it merely defines “citizen” and does not define (or redefine) “natural born citizen”.

    At the time Article II Section 1 was written, the commonly accepted definition of “natural born citizen” was Vattel’s definition:

    “natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

    My Senator said:

    It is my understanding that President-Elect Obama has released an official copy of his birth certificate.

    Why didn’t my Senator personally inspect an official copy of Obama’s birth certificate, delivered under seal from the State of Hawaii?

    My Senator claimed:
    

    Obama’s birth records have been certified and validated by the Hawaii Department of Health as well as by experts from the University of Pennsylvania.

    The Hawaii Department of Health only verified that they have Obama’s original birth certificate on record. They made absolutely no claims about Obama’s birth location nor about the authenticity of the COLB produced at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago.

    The “experts from the University of Pennsylvania” are Annenberg Political Fact Check, a group with political connections to Obama (former chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Project), and which made two glaring misstatements (a.k.a. lies):

    FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate

    and

    The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.

    Both of those statements are NOT TRUE!

    We don’t know why the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the cases brought before them. But we do know that there is significant debate about the meaning of the Constitutional phrase “natural born citizen”, and the Senate should ask the Supreme Court to clarify its definition. The 14th Amendment does nothing to define (or redefine) the term “natural born citizen”.

    Again, pardon my repetition, but it is time for members of Congress to no longer be blind and finally honor their sworn oath by doing the following:

    1) Personally inspect a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, sent to them under seal directly from the State of Hawaii. (Just as was done with the certification of the Electoral College vote)

    2) Ask the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of the Constitutional phrase “Natural Born Citizen”.

19. #19
    On July 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pm, happyscrapper said:

    These lefties say anything they think you want to hear in order to get elected or appointed. Anything! By any means. Do not be fooled. She is one of Obama’s personal picks. Enough said.

20. #20
    On July 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pm, Lockstein13 said:

    I have only one OT (but related to some of the comments above) question:

    Why does the Right have such a penchant to “EAT YOUR OWN”?!

    I do NOT see this elegibility issue as an “either/or” matter.

    I do NOT see this as “distracting” from more important matters (as the legitimacy of our POTUS and compliance with the U.S. Constitution is a sorta kinda groovy thing IMHO), or ‘delegitimizing’ anyone on the Right.

    Why the insults?!
    Why the degradation?!?

    Let’s bring him down as best we legally can, but as soon as we can, EITHER by vote OR disqualification. I do not know “the best” method; can YOU claim to?!

21. #21
    On July 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    “On July 27th, 2009 at 10:48 am, stillontheroad said:

    Bold and edgy???? ”

    If she was conservative, that phrase would read “insufferable b****.”

22. #22
    On July 27th, 2009 at 12:23 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On July 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pm, Lockstein13 said:Why the insults?!
    Why the degradation?!?

    Let’s bring him down as best we legally can, but as soon as we can, EITHER by vote OR disqualification. I do not know “the best” method; can YOU claim to?!

    What’s your point? I thought that is what we are trying to do. Also, we are discussing and debating on these threads. That is the purpose of them.

23. #23
    On July 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm, iamsaved said:

    ITookTheRedPill #18:

    I agree with you whole-heartedly and wonder why all of Obama’s past records have been made off-limits to scrutiny when all other candidates are expected to produce theirs.

    People in the driveby media claim Obama is a genius. I ask – based on what information? His teleprompter rhetoric? No one is even allowed to look at his undergraduate nor graduate (let alone his community college)transcripts to see if there is any indication as to genius abilities.

    A bigger mystery to me is why so many of the so-called conservative journalists dismiss these arguments at “loony” or “tinfoil hat wearers”.

    I’d think the fact that Obama would spend close to a million dollars in legal fees keeping information – information that most citizens have to produce during their life times — from being made public would cause at least a modicrum of journalistic curiousity. He very well could have been born in Hawaii and this is a non-issue. It’s the expensive stonewalling that raises one’s suspicions. It cuts across his call for transparency.

    Not releasing his health records I can understand. But his birth certificate? I can’t understand that. $20.00 and it’s over. Is he better than John Q. Public?

24. #24
    On July 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pm, zyzzyg said:

    BruceB #10, sonofdy #11 and Flyoverman #13 -

    The central focus of Ricci’s appeal to the Second Circuit was to overturn the lower courts decision that first allowed New Haven to throw out the Lieutenants exam.

    That was the question. Can New Haven not use the exam.

    New Haven rejected the firefighter exam because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that’s inadvertent, as well as, intentional. Ricci’s claim is that the city’s effort to comply with Title VII is itself race discrimination (under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and under Title VII itself).

    Title VII, good law, or bad law? Does Title VII create, or solve problems? I am sure we all have our own opinions about that. The reality is that Judge Sotomayor, and two other Judges, concurred with the lower court that first heard the case.

    In overturning the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court was even far more narrow in their decision, because they would be effectively striking down Title VII. Or, saying it another way, the Supreme Court would, and could be, labeled as ‘activist judges’ for changing and making law from the bench.

    I wish Sen Sessions had provided a clear example of one of her many judicial opinions that was inconsistent with her testimony. That is his reason for voting ‘nay’ on Judge Sotomayor. Absent that specific example, his reason lacks ‘heft’.

25. #25
    On July 27th, 2009 at 12:36 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    ITookTheRedPill : Something about our elected officials and gubmit types seems rather universal-an innate ability to utterly ignore their constituents concerns and speak long and large on nothing. I say “innate” but perhaps they have a class for freshmen senators and congresscitters on evasive answers.

    I have JohnnyMac–he does not bother to answer at all but quick to ad you to his solicitation for funds mailing list.

    —

    Damn Rebels, lay down your arms!
    No.

26. #26
    On July 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    happyscrapper, I think Lockstein13 is referring to my comments,
    and is as disappointed as I am in the way MM and some (certainly not all) of the commenters here have portrayed us as tinfoil-hat-wearing kooky conspiracists.

    Alas, Trutherism thrives on both the left and right. Which brings us to the spate of lawsuits challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court considers one of those suits filed by New Jersey citizen Leo Donofrio, who maintains that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because his father held British citizenship.

    There may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here (how is the citizenship requirement enforced for presidential candidates, anyway?) And at least Donofrio concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii. But a dangerously large segment of the birth certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory. The most prominent crusader against Obama’s American citizenship claim, lawyer Philip Berg (who, not coincidentally, is also a prominent 9/11 Truther), disputes that Obama was born in Hawaii and claims that Obama’s paternal grandmother told him she saw Obama born in Kenya.

    Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama was altered or forged. They claim that the contemporaneous birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there. (Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?). And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.

    I believe Trig was born to Sarah Palin. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on U.S. soil. I believe fire can melt steel and that bin Laden’s jihadi crew – not Bush and Cheney – perpetrated mass murder on 9/11. What kind of kooky conspiracist does that make me?

    I’m surprised that Michelle has shown no interest in following up on what she herself admitted “may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue”.

    I’m surprised that Michelle trusts any document produced by and at the Obama Campaign Headquarters in Chicago. (A document, by the way, which is as authentic as the COLB for “Haye I.B Ahphorgerie” and practically screams “Hey! I Be A Forgery!”)

    I’m surprised that Michelle doesn’t seem to realize that a newspaper birth announcement (which could have been placed by his grandparents) is not documentary evidence of birth or citizenship (if it were, it would be accepted as documentary evidence for an I-9 form, but it’s not, so it isn’t).

    I’m surprised MM has mocked those of us who seek the truth and expect our elected members of Congress to uphold their sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States (including Article II Section 1).

    I’m surprised that anyone (especially Michelle Malkin) has allowed an unelected, unaccountable, untrustworthy third party (Annenberg Political Fact Check) to be the organization that declares Obama eligible to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

27. #27
    On July 27th, 2009 at 12:52 pm, Savage24 said:

    The Senate reminds me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil, unless it is a Republican nomination. Then all stops are pull out. Don’t you love these guys?

28. #28
    On July 27th, 2009 at 1:12 pm, right_on said:

    I’d love to have the writers for SNL do an “The Inner Man” skit (the one with comic Kevin Nealon) using the panel’s questions for Sotomayor. They should have a leg up on this one, since one of their former writers is now on this Senate panel.

29. #29
    On July 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm, lgm said:

    Awaiting cries of racism in 3, 2, 1…

    Not to dissappoint — Jeff Sessions himself was denied a seat on a federal court because of his racist remarks.

30. #30
    On July 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pm, happyscrapper said:

    I’m surprised that Michelle doesn’t seem to realize that a newspaper birth announcement (which could have been placed by his grandparents) is not documentary evidence of birth or citizenship (if it were, it would be accepted as documentary evidence for an I-9 form, but it’s not, so it isn’t).

    I’m surprised MM has mocked those of us who seek the truth and expect our elected members of Congress to uphold their sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States (including Article II Section 1).

    I’m surprised that anyone (especially Michelle Malkin) has allowed an unelected, unaccountable, untrustworthy third party (Annenberg Political Fact Check) to be the organization that declares Obama eligible to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

    RedPill…about the newspaper item. As a genealogist, I know for a fact that people put birth announcements and other personal information in newspapers other than their own local paper. In the case of Obama’s mother, she could very well have sent the information of Obama’s birth from Kenya to certain papers in Hawaii because she had relatives there and other friends who she wished to notify. That is commonly done even today. So a newspaper item from back when Obama was born is absolutely no proof that he was born in Hawaii. Only that his mommy wanted the announcement in the Hawaii paper. I agree that there is so much more to this story. Obama could resolve the entire issue so easily…just prove where he was born. The fact that he doesn’t speaks volumes. I will continue to believe he was born in Kenya until he proves otherwise.

31. #31
    On July 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pm, sonofdy said:

    lgm does not disappoint.

    Dissent is racism to the left.

32. #32
    On July 27th, 2009 at 2:46 pm, stillontheroad said:

    lgm said:

    And your point is?

33. #33
    On July 27th, 2009 at 2:50 pm, Roland said:

    Obama could resolve the entire issue so easily…just prove where he was born.

    The truth is probably that he really was born in Hawaii, but he cannot prove it due to Hawaiian sloppiness with records.

    Which opens up a whole can of worms our elites would rather not address.

    NEVERTHELESS, the USSC telling citizens they don’t have ‘standing’ to demand proof their President is qualified to BE their President is just plain nuts.

    What are 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

34. #34
    On July 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pm, battleaxe said:

    Q: What are 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

    A: Cheaper healthcare due to a reduction in frivolous malpractice lawsuits.

35. #35
    On July 27th, 2009 at 3:29 pm, California Red said:

    The “Republican’s hate minorities” narrative is something that has to be addressed.

36. #36
    On July 27th, 2009 at 3:33 pm, rocketman said:

    ***
    Sonia Sotomayor will replace Ruth (Buzzi!) Ginsburg nicely. No real change in the 5-4 court makeup.
    ***
    As far as her 90 percent reversal (aka “getting it wrong”) rate–in my pre-retirement engineering career I would have been fired quickly if I “got it wrong” more than 10 percent of the time. Lawyers and Judges must get cut a lot more “slack” than most other people do.
    ***
    But “touchy–feely” judging (aka STATE SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION) will be great for all persons in the new “democratic” / liberal / socialist / statist / marxist / communist U.S.S.A. that President Obama (PBUH) and his congressional minions are setting up for us. The “wise Latina” will help him out with his agenda. Except for us Caucasians (aka Whiteys) and our Asian citizens. Racial identity politics at its worst.
    ***
    The real end of our country will come when the Messiah gets to replace one of the conservative SCOTUS justices. A heart attack, stroke, accident, illness, or assassin’s bullet could change the court to 4-5 in the near future.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

37. #37
    On July 27th, 2009 at 4:23 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On July 27th, 2009 at 3:29 pm, California Red said:

    The “Republican’s hate minorities” narrative is something that has to be addressed.

    I would suggest the response should be, “How? Put up or shut up?”

    I am sick of the Drive By slur that goes unchallenged. A very brave man once said that he dreamed of a day when people are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. That’s my standard. Anyone who has a problem with it can tell me why not.

38. #38
    On July 27th, 2009 at 5:35 pm, neocon527 said:

    ITookTheRedPill, take your meds.

    In 2001 – the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless. Paper documents were discarded. The official record of Obama’s birth is now an official ELECTRONIC record Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department told the Honolulu Star Bulletin, “At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.

39. #39
    On July 27th, 2009 at 6:09 pm, ScottyDog said:

    Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released
    Certification of Live Birth — Counterfeit
    Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
    Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
    Soetoro adoption records — Not released
    Fransiskus Assisi School application — Released
    Punahou School records — Not released
    Selective Service Registration — Counterfeit
    Occidental College records — Not released
    Passport records for 1981 Pakistan trip — Not released
    Columbia College records — Not released
    Columbia thesis — Not released
    Harvard College records — Not released
    Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
    Baptism certificate — None
    Medical records — Not released
    Illinois State Senate records — None
    Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
    Law practice client list — Not released
    University of Chicago scholarly articles — None

40. #40
    On July 27th, 2009 at 6:24 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On July 27th, 2009 at 6:09 pm, ScottyDog said:

    So…exactly what are you implying? Do you think that they are hiding something? Where is the proof? Move along. Nothing to see here.

    /sarc off

41. #41
    On July 27th, 2009 at 7:27 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    neocon527,

    What did Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino and Registrar of Vital Statistics Alvin T. Onaka (who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records) inspect when they said they had:

    personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    That statement was made October 31, 2008. What did they inspect?

    Oh, and by the way, Obama admitted in his book that he has an original paper copy of his birth certificate…

    “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. It’s a short piece, with a photograph of him. No mention is made of my mother or me, and I’m left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father’s part, in anticipation of his long departure. Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father’s imperious manner; or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of the simple story that they were looking for. I wonder, too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents.”

    - From the text of “Dreams From My Father” Page 26 last paragraph

42. #42
    On July 27th, 2009 at 7:27 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaCOLB.htm

43. #43
    On July 27th, 2009 at 8:59 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    I can’t go into all of the details right now, but expect some new news soon regarding what I’ve been talking about above. It’s not a “silver bullet”, but it is definate, major progress towards uncovering the truth.

    I’m so excited that I can hardly stand it!

44. #44
    On July 27th, 2009 at 9:36 pm, jangar said:

    “Which Sotomayor will we get?”

    As with Obama, so will be with Sotomayor. Both are criminals to the US Constitution, and enemies to freedom, liberty, life and family issues.

    As in the words of Rush Limbaugh…“mark my words – don’t doubt me”

45. #45
    On July 27th, 2009 at 9:38 pm, jangar said:

    ITookTheRedPill said:
    I can’t go into all of the details right now…I’m so excited that I can hardly stand it!

    Great. Tell a Polack to pi$$ in the corner of a round room…

46. #46
    On July 27th, 2009 at 9:53 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Jangar,
    I really didn’t expect that kind of a comment from you…

47. #47
    On July 27th, 2009 at 10:16 pm, jangar said:

    Pill,
    The suspense is overwhelming…

48. #48
    On July 27th, 2009 at 10:20 pm, jangar said:

    Pill,
    One thing that is indisputable, Papa Obama passed on his British citizenship to Junior, so that right there makes for a questionable issue of loyalty.

49. #49
    On July 27th, 2009 at 10:59 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Jangar,
    I agree completely with your last comment. But the question of whether or not a dual citizen qualifies as a “natural born citizen” is a question that likely has to be answered by the Supreme Court. If the court rules in favor of Vattel’s definition (and First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Jay’s letter to George Washington), then Obama is not eligible to hold the office.

    What’s happening on my end is that I have spoken to someone with a “tangible interest” in Obama’s original Birth Certificate, and obtained their verbal agreement to request a certified copy of Obama’s Birth Certificate. If the State of Hawaii refuses to issue it, there will be grounds for a lawsuit because this person most certainly has “standing”. I don’t want to say too much more, because I don’t want to do anything that would allow the Obamabots to practice their “thug thizzle”.

50. #50
    On July 27th, 2009 at 11:19 pm, jangar said:

    Pill,

    Who’s that lady laywer that represented the interest of the serviceman who sued Obama and refused to go to Afganistan? She delivered all documentation to Chief Justice John Roberts for preliminary review, should the case go to SCOTUS.

51. #51
    On July 28th, 2009 at 1:01 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Jangar,

    Dr. Orly Taitz Esq

52. #52
    On July 28th, 2009 at 8:39 am, jangar said:

    That’s her! Thanks pill.

53. #53
    On July 28th, 2009 at 11:16 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    You’re welcome, I’m happy to help.

    And here’s an update on that case…

    A case brought by a military officer whose order to deploy to Afghanistan was revoked now has been refiled in a federal court in Florida, and it raises the specter of a class action claim among members of the military that their orders aren’t valid because of Barack Obama’s ineligibility to be president.

54. #54
    On July 28th, 2009 at 3:56 pm, ScottyDog said:

    On July 27th, 2009 at 6:24 pm, happyscrapper said:
    So…exactly what are you implying? Do you think that they are hiding something? Where is the proof? Move along. Nothing to see here.

    /sarc off

    Absolutely I think he is hiding all kinds of embarrassing facts in his background. Two documents that his campaign has put forward are obvious forgeries.

    You can laugh and stick you head in the sand but there are real questions if Barry Soetoro meets the natural born citizen requirement of the constitution.

    We know less about this fraud than we do of a janitor with a background check sweeping the floors in a City Hall.

    John McCain should have done this during the campaign but he refused to go after this usurper from Kenya.
    They held natural born hearings on him why not on Barry Soetoro aka Obama?

55. #55
    On July 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Before the Senate can vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee, they must first address the issue of whether or not the person who made the nomination is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President!

    Obama previously claimed that the 14th Amendment made him eligible to be President.

    But the Supreme Court, more than six years after the 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution said, in “Minor v Happersett”,

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

    This 14th Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.
    U.S. Supreme Court CHIEF JUSTICE Morrison Remick Waite delivered the opinion of the court in “Minor v Happersett” on March 29, 1875.

    Members of Congress (Senators and Representatives) have a Constitutional duty to:

    1) Personally inspect a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, sent to them under seal directly from the State of Hawaii. (Just as was done with the certification of the Electoral College vote)

    2) Ask the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of the Constitutional phrase “Natural Born Citizen”.