As much as i like the guy & think its great that a black man is now President but come on, his people invade countries & blow the f0ck out of many poor innocent people & he gets a prize. This world is sick
if you paid attention to his actions you would realise.
what has he done better than bush pls?
and at least bush didnt overrule property rights - a fundamental pre requisite for any free society
if you paid attention to his actions you would realise.what has he done better than bush pls?and at least bush didnt overrule property rights - a fundamental pre requisite for any free society
not bitter no. confident i will still be proven right. not long now.
assuming you read all the stuff i wrote on that particular issue you may remember that once deep into research i said that a "quo warranto" case in the dc court would be the only way to remove him - as per the analysis of leo donofrio who appeared to be correct imo.
there have been loads of courts cases trying to challenge his eligiblity, but none have followed this quo warranto process. every case has been dismissed on the grounds of no standing (no one may challenge) and not on the actual merits of the issue.
donofrio is just filing his quo warranto case now. and it is a good case - because standing will be granted imho this time because he is representing the chrysler bondholders who obama fked over with his overrulling of property rights and bankruptcy law (bondholders must be paid first). they therefore have a particular grievance not suffered by the entire population - and this is what will grant them standing. the eligibility issue will be presented as a sub-issue of the case - and they will have to hear the case, and therefore the eligibility issue will likely also get dealt with. clever donofrio imo.
fyi quo warranto means "by what authority". techincally obama holds his office in the district of colombia and therefore it appears that a case can only be brought against him there - not in any other court.
so wait 'n see - next 9 or 10 weeks will be interesting on this front.
and for the record, the birth certificate doesnt matter. yes it could prove him ineligible if he was not born in the usa like he says he was. but even if he was born there i think the court will still find that he is ineligible because he is not a natural born citizen as is required. natural born citizen is a national security measure and part of the constitution. a natural born citizen has no more rights than any other citizen, other than being eligible for president. a natural born citizen must be born of two citizen parents - something obama was not. by his own admission he was "governed at birth" by great britain, by virtue of his fathers nationality. in natural law which the constitution uses, the country of the father is the country of the child - and like i say, obama does not deny his dual status at birth. dual status makes one not a natural born citizen and ineligible for president- the idea of this is to prevent dual allegiance within the highest office of the land with the hope of preventing foreign influence. obama defenders will say that jus sanguinis (nationality by lineage not by birth place) does not apply because english common law was the basis of the constitution - this is clearly wrong since the very purpose of the american revolution was to get away from english common law and being ruled by british kings.
tyvm.
not bitter no. confident i will still be proven right. not long now.assuming you read all the stuff i wrote on that particular issue you may remember that once deep into research i said that a "quo warranto" case in the dc court would be the only wa
sorry bud, but you and your doctor buddies have no jurisdiction over me. i do not consent to being governed and subject to the rules of your society. society may be defacto, but that does not mean you cannot withdraw consent. gl applying your silly statues on me.
sorry bud, but you and your doctor buddies have no jurisdiction over me. i do not consent to being governed and subject to the rules of your society. society may be defacto, but that does not mean you cannot withdraw consent. gl applying your silly
in quo warranto btw, the onus is on the defendant to prove that he had the authority to act has he did. so it's different to "innocent until proven guilty" - one has to in effect prove innocence.
in quo warranto btw, the onus is on the defendant to prove that he had the authority to act has he did. so it's different to "innocent until proven guilty" - one has to in effect prove innocence.