In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"BDK" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
States reviewing 'eligibility' Challenges--Oklahoma's gets committee
approval.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=256526
cuhulin



ROTFL! Holy ****, what do you have to be taking/drinking/huffing to take
that nonsense seriously?


I love these in particular:

"Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the
time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the
law at the time."

This of course is BS. There is no age involved in 'confering'
citizenship by birth. If the mother had a child at age 12, that
child would still have confered on them the citizenship of the
mother.

"The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual
citizens from qualifying as natural born."

More BS. If this were remotely true, the framers themselves would
not have been eligible to hold the office, since each was also a
British citizen by birth.

That's not BS. You have to renounce your foreign citizenship and swear
an oath to the USA. The framers were not longer British subjects by the
time the Constitution was signed. Now think about what you wrote and
the consequences just a bit more for the framers at the time.

I would double consider any post I would make that agrees with the news
group Kookaburra.

I'll also remind you that everyone is not equal under the law in the
USA. Foreigners do not have the same rights. Citizens of the USA do not
have the same rights in other countries. Immigration, citizenship,
visas and the like area of laws are written solely for the purposes of
discrimination and you are considered guilty and must prove your
worthiness to enter or become a citizen of the USA.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California