I am advised that the logo/slogan "Where's the Birth Certificate" issued for the billboard campaign can be purchased as a yard sign through worldnetdaily. I can't find the link but here is the link to the bumper sticker.
Today WND contacted me and said yard signs are available.....we may have to email them.
Comments (17)
Post THESE yard signs:
1. We Have No Evidence, But We Don't Care
2. The Courts Won't Listen So You Shouldn't Either
3. Caution: Waste Of Time Conspiracy Theory Ahead
4. Free To A Good Home: The Conservative Agenda
5. Need A Good Laugh- Talk To A Birther!
6. We've Got(no)Proof
7. Our Argument Has No Legs, Please Help.
8. Free Speech For Dummies
9. Birthers: Even Rush Thinks We're Nuts
10. Birthers: Misinterpreting The Constitution Since 2009
11. Will Work For Spam
12. We Love Nuts- Come & Teabag A Birther
13. Citizen Grand Juries: Frivolous Since 2009
14. Tiny Billboards For Tiny Minds
15. I AM An Exercise In Futility
16. I Spammed A Website- Now I'm Spamming My Yard!
17. All I Want For Christmas Is An Argument With Teeth
18. Blue In The Face, But No One Is Listening
19. If You Like Laughing, You'll Love The Birthers
20. I'm With Stupid
21. WHERE'S THE SMOKING GUN, DAMMIT!!!!
I made my own.
The birth certificate is a red herring. Instead of calling names and posting ugly remarks, if convinced they are right, why don't posters rationally debate the facts of the definition of "natural born citizen," as required by the Constitution.
Barack Obama, the son of a Kenyan British subject, is not a Natural-Born citizen and is therefore ineligible for the Presidency.
Article II, Sec. 1-- No person except a Natural Born citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President...
Natural-Born is Nationality from Natural Law. It is determined by the father at birth, from which all rights of birth and inheritance flow. Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan British colonial.
Natural-Born Citizen. A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.
Black's Law Dictionary, 17th Ed. (1999)
Naturalized-Citizen A foreign born [or born of foreign parentage] who attains citizenship by law. Black's, 17th Ed (1999)
Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,”
John Jay to George Washington, May 25, 1795 "Permit me to hint, whether it would not 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 Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”
The legislative definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was defined as "not owing allegiance to any other." "[E]every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS {plural} NOT owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." [Sec 1992 of U.S.Revised Statutes (1866)] (See also the intent of the writers of the 14th Amendment, who did not believe that persons born with a split allegiance would be "natural born". P.A. Madison at http://federalistblog.us has an excellent review of the issue as stated by the writers of the 14th Amendment.)
Whether born in Kenya or Hawaii, Obama is a citizen under (1) the "out of wedlock" (due to bigamy of the father) provision of Immigration and Naturalization law (8 U.S.C. 1409-c); or (2) 14th Amendment provisions of being born to a U.S. citizen within U.S. jurisdiction. Statutes over foreign birth, or birth to a foreigner, are Naturalization laws as they provide for the revocation of that alien nationality. Statutes cannot create or redefine Natural-Born, an immutable condition occurring from two U.S. citizen parents. (http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/
National law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nations' citizens. The simple fact that Obama had a foreign father removes the possibility of Natural Born status.
If he was born in the US, he would still be ineligible for the office, due to the fact that his father was a Kenyan, a British subject, which citizenship passed to Obama at birth. Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the 14th Amendment was written said,
"... 'all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens'... that means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof'.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Obama was born with a split allegiance and is therefore ineligible to be a "natural born" citizen. This split allegiance becomes evident in his interference in the political affairs of Kenya and the Mideast, while declaring himself to be a "citizen of the world." The founders of our country specifically intended that only one whose sole allegiance is to the United States would be eligible to serve in the presidency.
From Fightthesmears 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."
In the Berg case before Judge Surrick, reported at theobamafile March 4, QUOTE:
In these motions, Obama's lawyers argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, etc.) would 'cause a defined and serious injury' to Obama and/or the DNC.
They argued that revealing these documents raises a 'legitimate privacy concern' and ...'particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation'. The source of that embarrassment was not specified. END QUOTE
His lawyers admit he is hiding something. Patriots want transparency as promised. What is he hiding?
Just get some wood, plyboard, spray the backdrop and paint.
Dig a couple of holes, set a couple of small pine logs/poles, attach your sign, painted with your comment/question, of course and plant it. oh....you will get'deer in the headlight looks" This has been kept quiet too long.
blackmonrikker
It boils down to this..... The American public knows NOTHING about the man. He has had a blanket over him all the way through his campaign and his "knights" have done "premptive" strikes to blunt any questions of impropriety and misdoing. A brilliantly orchestrated campaign without any doubt, but hardly transparent, as he promised.
This curiosity probably won't go away anytime soon, so why doesn't the man just put it to rest, and tell the citizens (the majority of which are, "natural born citizens") of the United States of America.
Besides, the "Messiah" is so well loved, one could not imagine why the public shouldn't know everything they can about him so that the adoration and love can go on and on.
There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.....
"It boils down to this..... The American public knows NOTHING about the man"
And yet they overwhelmingly voted for him. You don't win elections by telling the majority that they don't know what they are talking about. And there's nothing illegal about not knowing about your president, BTw.
WHERE'S THE SMOKING GUN??
I did not vote for him....I have a question. Is there a problem if I ask a question?
blackmonrikker
I completely agree with you that there is nothing illegal about not (I'm assuming that you meant knowing 'anything') about your President.
But 'stupid' comes to mind if you don't do research about someone with whom you are going to trust your life and well-being......
If everyone thought that way, there wouldn't be any campaigns..... just a few words and a beauty contest.
But wait......, "they" voted for him on that premise, don't you agree...
Review your statement, there you will find the "smoking gun."
The at-the-time CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court ruled on Obama's Birth Certificate. They saw it. They ruled that it was authentic.
I am not Obama's greatest fan. But the ignorant people that keep creating the "HE NEVER SHOWED HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE" and "HE'S AN ILLEGAL PRESIDENT" ideas are not doing anyone any good, and furthermore, are poor reflections of the conservative position.
Nobody in the history of this country was more successful at passing what conservatives will tell you are their key issues. He was not a failure by any stretch of the imagination if you are judging by how much of his party's agenda was achieved.
What did he do to deserve this title?
Biggest tax cuts in history
Biggest cuts in "social" programs
Biggest rollbacks of environmental protections
Most defense spending ever
Biggest rollbacks in business and development regulations
Biggest giveaways of public land for mountaintop mining and timber
Biggest crackdown on civil liberties
Biggest cuts in higher education budgets
Privatization of Military, law enforcement and prison infrastructure
Biggest cuts in Veteran's benefits
Two new ultra right Supreme Court picks
And on and on...
There is nothing this man did that was a failure...if you are judging by whether one advances his party's interests. He was able to accomplish things that conservatives have been whimpering that the dirty "Libtard" congresses of Nixon, Bush I, and Reagan blocked them from doing for 40 years.
Well, the stars lined up for them. They got everything they said would "free capitalism" from the bonds of "big government" to work it's magic.
What did we get?
Worst job creation record since Hoover
Actually LOST jobs over his entire first term
300,000 jobs for his second term
(Jimmy Carter created 10 million jobs in "worst economy in history”)
Millions more people without health insurance
Millions more collecting unemployment from the government
Millions of people’s retirement saving WIPED OUT
Homes worth half what people paid for them
Major decline of respect for US in the world
Continued terrorist attacks on US soil (Anthrax? Snipers?)
Stagnant wages in the midst of inflation in the prices of fuel, food, education and health care resulting in a NET LOSS in the standard of living of the vast majority in this country
Largest gap between rich and poor in this country since the beginning of the Great Depression
It is not George W. Bush's fault and it is not his failure. The fault for the state of this country rests firmly on the POLICIES not the PERSONALITY of GEORGE W BUSH! It is conservative, trickle down, “let business regulate itself” policies that got us where we are.
If we don't acknowledge that then we will repeat this experiment again in the next election. It is important for people to know what they are going to get when they vote for conservatives.
If you make 250,000 a year or more and you want to shut the door to prosperity behind you so you don't need to share your loot then you should vote republican.
But if you are trying to get there, and want policies that help that happen, like a good education and healthcare alternatives so you don't get trapped in a job you hate…even though you have a great idea for a business...then you need to vote for New Deal Liberalism.
New Deal Liberalism is social spending to help you succeed and government regulation to keep powerful corporate interests from rolling right over you and crushing your hopes to line their own pockets the way they did to millions of others in the last 8 years.
citar,
Look up Chester A. Arthur, 21st President of the US. According to your criteria, he was not a "natural born citizen". Therefore, by precedent, your criteria are wrong.
BTW, what could British law possibly have to do with US citizenship? Is the US required to apply British law to US citizens?
Now all we need are stickers to put on these yard signs: "www.factcheck.org".
LMAO
Hairlip: "If everyone thought that way, there wouldn't be any campaigns..... just a few words and a beauty contest."
NOW you're starting to understand the reality of politics in this country. If Clint Eastwood ran for president, he'd win in a landslide. For once, I'm not being facetious.
Doing research on Obama and calling for his ouster based upon the flimsy evidence mounted by the birfers are two different things.
Chester A. Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843, but Arthur was born in 1829 -- 14 years before. Therefore, Arthur was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a "natural born citizen" and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
lmeditato-
"The at-the-time CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court ruled on Obama's Birth Certificate. They saw it. They ruled that it was authentic."
There have been 48 lawsuits filed, some dismissed for lack of standing, some still in progress, but none have been heard by the Supreme Court as yet.
Note below- his own lawyers state the documents have not been released. They did not argue that what is posted on the internet is sufficient; they admit valid documents have not been released.
In the Berg case before Judge Surrick, reported at theobamafile March 4, QUOTE:
In these motions, Obama's lawyers argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, etc.) would 'cause a defined and serious injury' to Obama and/or the DNC.
They argued that revealing these documents raises a 'legitimate privacy concern' and ...'particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation'. The source of that embarrassment was not specified. END QUOTE
His lawyers admit he is hiding something. Patriots want transparency as promised. What is he hiding?
WHERE'S THE SMOKING GUN???
citar,
Re: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Another fanatic. I've only seen such convoluted logic on other wacko (wacko - one who is obsessed with fringe theories, usually political, for which there is little or no evidence) websites. There's nothing secret about when Arthur's father was naturalized. You can find the naturalization certificate at http://www.scribd.com/doc/11067180/William-Arthur-father-of-President-Chester-Arthur-Naturalization-certificate-1843-Congress. There wasn't an issue in 1880 about Arthur's status as a "natural born citizen" either, because he was one. Hinman pursued the "born in Canada, or maybe Ireland" tack because that was the only one that counted.
And Charles Guiteau, Garfield's assassin, was not "a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter". He was a fanatical Garfield supporter, who believed that he was single-handedly responsible for Garfield's election. He shot Garfield because he wasn't given an ambassadorship for his largely imaginary efforts.
More BS.