2004: Barney Frank makes a case for barry’s NBC status

October 21, 2009

Updated birth certificate posts/videos/lawsuits

I’m glad I found this in the drafts. It’s quite curious and of course involves barry and his natural born citizenship. I ran across it on Orly Taitz’s site a while back and seems I lost the link. But if it made it to Taitz’s site – it most likely came from somewhere else and has probably been discussed.

It’s shocking.

Barney Frank knew as far back as October 2004 that barry was not a NBC.

On October 5, 2004, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing re: changing the constitutional requirement of natural born citizen. “Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans”. As far as I could tell, it showed up on the schedule on September 28th.

One recommendation living 20 years in the US, another a foreign born child adopted by US parents, another to cover the amount of years over the age of 14 and Barney Frank’s let any immigrant be president.

Well, not any immigrant – barry.

It’s absolutely 100% clear he was talking about barry. The question that immediately came to mind was who precisely set barry up to speak at the convention (July 27).

Think what it means if Frank knew the details as to why barry wasn’t eligible to be present at least as far back as 5 years ago. Think of what it means he did to then Sen Clinton – what they all did.

And why is it Barney Frank would be the one to know?

Rep Frank’s  full comments (PDF). Still functioning webcast. (Frank starts at 24:12). Here’s a small portion of the audio.

Relevant quotes – though not much is left out. [Emphasis and body language added.]

REP BARNEY FRANK:

I appreciate the way you framed this as increasing the choice for voters. Obviously, there is an element here of fairness to individuals….

It basically says to people who have chosen to come to America in many cases, or who have been brought here, who have gone through the process of citizenship, have been very loyal, very law-abiding citizens, that they are somehow flawed.

The notion that people who come here and become naturalized are any less entitled to be here and to exercise privileges and rights and responsibilities than anybody else is offensive.

And for that reason alone, we ought to get rid of it.

What if Justice Roberts naturalized barry before that second oath?

Beyond that, though, there is a fundamental principle here, and it is the one you touch on with your phrasing of this.

I believe in the right of the people to choose as they wish.

He prattles on about the electoral college ala those long rambling sentences to distract the listener before you try to slip in the lie or make it seem like the natural conclusion. He even gets them to laugh.

Focus on his hands – it’s like, ok, I’m going all in. He makes a present tense comment about barry not being Constitutionally eligible and switches to “voters” rather than people or American People.

Right off his eyes dart in front and then quickly to the right at “now”.

(26:46) BUT, uhm, WE DO HAVE NOW THIS MAJOR OBSTACLE [shakes head] IN THE WAY OF THE VOTERS, and we SAY to them: We don’t trust you. You could get fooled.

I mean, THEY might—some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person, mole him into the United States, or her, and GET that person citizenship, and then years later HAVE that person GET elected President, and you WILL BE too dumb to notice.

What person would come up with an example like this, including the barryspecific word “slick” and “mole” followed by “get” and “have” and “get” and the positively psychic “too dumb to notice”? And “obstacle” means it’s already there.

Barney has a good face for lying, but his body and mostly his words give him away. His voice doesn’t though. Couldn’t hear all this on the tape. Probably because of his Nortonesque speech.

Watch him make a complete look to the left to see how his words are going over. I would like to know who was sitting there. Who he was worried about enough to check out in the midst of his barryfable.

I don’t think that is accurate, and I don’t think that ought to be the governing principle.

I really believe that the people [looks left] of the United States ought to have the right to elect as President of the United States someone they wish.

Accurate, ought to be and someone (as opposed to anyone) are specific words. He doesn’t use a for instance. He says it as if they will get the choice – someone they wish.

He uses the dreaded: “I will be honest with you”, which means he hasn’t been or will only be in the next direct thought.

And the present tense “this is” instead of “it should be” up to the voters (which he repeats) is what has been protecting barry and what they have counted on all along. It’s why he went to the Arab countries early and often and why he still goes out and does townhalls.

I understand the prudential argument about some time limitation. I originally said 20 years. Mr. Snyder said 35. The fewer the better, as far as I am concerned.

I will be honest with you. If you look at the principle of it, in my view an hour and a half is probably about enough time, because I trust [right] the voters. This is up to them.

Obviously, for practical reasons [left] it will have to be a little bit longer that is the issue.

Should we tell the American people that we do not trust them to decide that someone—and, remember, nobody parachutes into the Presidency.

No. They ascend with the help of their friends…the DNC, Nanci Pelosi and barrymedia.

[…]

But nobody comes in without being subject to a lot of scrutiny.

Another first for barry and he still hasn’t gotten any.

Presidential candidates are people who the public HAS a chance to see. They have been in lower offices. They have been in the private sector. They have been prominent.

That takes years  – decades – and yet he says “around a while.” He had been around for about 8 years (in Illinois) and hadn’t won his senate seat. Frank mentions “prominence” not achievements or track record. Listen to the tenses.

And I don’t think we CAN SAY— we should say that the American people don’t have the mental acuity and political judgment to look at someone who has been around for a while [right] and who has achieved [right eye tic = lie] the kind of prominence that you have to achieve to be a Presidential candidate, but [gesture: dismiss out of hand] we cannot trust them  to pick someone who happened to have been born in another country [looks down] because of some flaw on their part.

How is someone’s flaw responsible for their birth in another country?

By deciding not to surrender their dual citizenship after the fact?

And the final ta-da where he just gives it up.

Does it sound like he’s describing anything other than the “first black president”? Maybe even one with a very useful middle name?

So I think this is really a further step in bringing democracy, as it should truly be understood to the electoral process.

And I am for it. And it would also be, I think, a very useful time.

You know, this is a world in which our country has been, I think, unfairly accused of a lot of things, misinterpreted. I think for this country at this point to take a step towards enhancing the rights of immigrants, even in this particular way would be—this is a good time to do it.

Did you hear anything other than an argument directly tailored to barry?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s