Obama citizenship case on SCOTUS conference docket

Wrong grandmother. And 'on record'? What kind of 'on record'?

 

Do you have evidence of this?

 

Another Red Herring. Even if the Indonesians considered him a citizen that does not mean he applied for citizenship nor rejected his US citizenship.

My wife had a roomate in college who had a dual citizenship, Brazilian and US.

 

The grandmother that supposedly made these claims was his Kenyan Grandmother and not the one who just passed. Also, his two Kenyan brothers are younger than he is. They weren't born when they supposedly saw his birth.

 

Took me a while to look this one up....

[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Come on, Obama supporters; seems like I'm doing more work to help your candidate than you are....
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

This would of course mean legal names, not a name his parents used for him.

 

Really?????

Is this your attitude when interviewing a person for employment, and your request for information regarding accademic records, SS numbers, letters of reference, and previous employments with dates of hire/ termination, position, duties and skills involved in each, superisory roles, etc. is not produced or is incomplete, or a pre-hire investigation uncovers discrepancies between information given and actual documentation of record?

NO! You are not judgeing your candidate for employment on the bases of criminal behavior..... but you are judging him on the bases of honesty and integrity and whether he really meets the qualifications for the job, or if another is better qualified who has completed and submitted a better application.

I daresay, that certain unanswered questions and discrepancies between the applicants submission and the data you discover would 'red flag' that application for delayed consideration..... or create a greater scrutiny on your part if your haste to fill the position and the number of qualified applicants necessitated that you hire this person. You would either file 13 his application without looking back, or reinterview him again and attempt to resolve the issues you considered important, or hire him and more closely observe him in those areas of trust and those skills where there is doubt.

In the corporate and business world, and, no doubt, in politics, there is misrepresentation by applicants and 'wanna bees'. Some get through and get by. Others get in and get terminated when misrepresentation and falsifying an application can serve the purpose to eliminate bad wood or excuse some procedural failure in a department with the terminated one carrying the blame... whether or not he was at fault.

C4K, I'm not bothered as much about your skepticism over a 'witch hunt' or a motive for this proof.... but I'am bothered by your lack of concern whether this candidate meets the constitutional qualificatiosn for president and your (and others) willingness to place the vote of the people above the Law which is the Constitution of the United States: The CoUSA gives specifications for a person filling the office of POTUS. Any candidate running for this office can and should be subjected to proving qualifications, especially if there is reason to doubt: The courts have an obligation to all of us to either clear up any confusion in the ambiguity of the CoUSA, if such is the case, or require the production of the evidence and examine it to see that proof and qualification do exists or pronounce disqualification of the candidate. Failure to act on this issue by the courts..... or failure by Congress to call for such action or impeach justices who meet 'bad behavior' requirement for failure to carry out their mandate to protect the people and the CoUSA by rendering judgement..... or failure of the executive branch to enforce such action through supeonas etc....... is a failure of the checks and balances of our government divisions: It is not a failure of the CoUSA! It is a failure of our appointed and elected officials to do their duty under that law.

 

McCain's case is on the same docket for review that Obama's case is on.

 

The only ones not satisfied are a handful of fringe groups motivated or inspired by one rogue Hillary loving lawyer who has created a story where none exist. That is the only place that any doubt exists.

 

there's no way this is going to happen but what if Obama's candidacy is ruled illegal? Who won the election? John McCain. Wait a minute. I don't think that's true.

Under the electoral college system we vote for electors not the candidates themselves. In reality, the electors vote for the candidate winning the majority of the vote in their state but they don't have to do that. Under the Constitution they can vote for whomever they want. If you guys are successful and Obama gets thrown off the ballot my guess is the Democratic electors will for, you guessed it, HILARY CLINTON.

 

Exactly. That should make everyone real happy.

 

I have no doubt about that.

 

No chance. With the popular vote as close as it was, many of the votes would go to McCain, giving him the required 270. Some might vote for Hillary (I doubt it), but particularly in the closer states, McCain would get the votes.

 

Popular votes would be meaningless. There is no way that Democrat electors would vote for McCain.

 

In that fantasy scenario, I think it would most likely be Joe Biden. He was on the ticket and he would step in since the President-elect would by constitutionally prohibited from taking office.

But that's not going to happen.

 

The right-wing's hatred for Obama will not allow them to see past this fact.

 

You mean if each state would have went for McCain, Obama would have still been elected president?
The popular votes in each state is what determined the outcome of the election.

 

Please. There is no hatred for the man...just what he stands for.

 

This is delusional at best. Obama did not just defeat McCain, he humiliated him!

Obama: 365 electoral votes.

McCain: 173 electoral votes.