|
By:
yes, but im not expecting to happen. he will not be sworn in for other reason imo
|
|
By:
Most amusing politics thread of the year imo.
|
|
By:
read this by donofrio. then tell me where exactly he is wrong, and how obama is eligible. worth a read for all you doubters :)
particularly the last bit, where natural born citizen is defined in a text that is relied upon for it's legal reasoning in the supreme court as recently as march 2008. ¡°NATURAL BORN CITIZEN¡±: DEFINED BY 14TH AMENDMENT FRAMERS AND IN TREATISE RELIED ON BY SCALIA PREAMBLE This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our ¡°Fourth Estate¡± press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from ¡°The One Corporation - your source for everything¡¡± (cue eery theme tune). They don¡¯t report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. There¡¯s a huge difference. For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots - three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility. At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature. Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don¡¯t want to talk about that do they - because it would blow the ¡°he¡¯s just another Obama hater¡± mantra clear out of play. A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of ¡°natural born Citizen¡± in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution - that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather ¡°be¡± the law instead of following it. What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about? Thou doth protest too much. Me thinks so. Why? Because the law is against their man - it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default. I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn¡¯t), but rather that the law shouldn¡¯t be discussed at all. PRESIDENTIAL PRECEDENT Other than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were US Citizens. In their wisdom, they recognized the danger in having people born under the jurisdiction of another country taking the role of commander in chief. They did this recognizing that multitudes of loyal men wouldn¡¯t be eligible, but they also knew that they couldn¡¯t see into the soul of all possible candidates, so just to be safe, they put a restriction in the Document which is there to protect us from a sneak attack in the oval office by somebody who might have loyalty to another nation. The framers themselves were good men, loyal to this infant nation, but they recognized that people like them had to be excluded from future Presidential eligibility as an order of protection. McCain and Obama know that. And in my stay application, I never accused either man of disloyalty. Quite the opposite. Had any of these morose media maniacs actually read the papers I filed with the United States Supreme Court (before election day), this is what they would have found as to Barack Obama: As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama¡¯s birth certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point out that Senator Obama has not been presented with a genuine legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility to submit or to bend his integrity. And for that, he certainly deserves respect. Appellant believes that if Senator Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put this issue behind him forever. That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of President since he is not a ¡°natural born citizen¡± by the Constitution. As to John McCain they would have found this: Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly suffered more for this country than most of us ever will. He has shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask, and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States to remove John McCain¡¯s name from the ballots. I couldn¡¯t have shown the candidates more respect. But both of them should have known that if either were to become President - despite the loyalty they have for this country - the dam would be broken and the waters of foreign influence would be forever capable of drowning our national sovereignty and placing our military in the hands of enemies from within. IT¡¯S NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR McCAIN - IT¡¯S ABOUT WHO COMES NEXT. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND FALLEN ON THEIR PRESIDENTIAL SWORDS TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY. The truly patriotic thing for both to do was pass the baton to another worthy candidate not burdened with eligibility issues. I understand the lure of being President and all the power, glory, responsibility and possibility for enlightening change that entails. But the precedent to be set is fraught with danger. And the candidates knew that. I suppose they¡¯ve taken a view that the good they might bring to our Country far outweighs any risk from who may come next. But knowing the slippery slope of history, only hubris could make such a call. OBAMA¡¯S ADMISSION Like it or not, rich or poor, great or strong, Democrat or Republican, Obama was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain via Kenya. There is nothing conspiratorial about saying that. Obama has it posted on his own web site. It¡¯s this very definition which I included in Cort¡¯s Wrotnowski¡¯s brief. Here¡¯s what it says at Obama¡¯s web portal, Fight The Smears: 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. (Emphasis added.) There it is. Obama is telling you his status was ¡°governed¡± by a foreign jurisdiction. This is no theory. This is a fact. I have always believed Obama was born in Hawaii. I told numerous reporters that there was no way in hell Obama would post a fraudulent birth certificate at his web site. I said that over and over, but they¡¯re still lying about my position. Why not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Is the truth now part of a conspiracy? Instead of recognizing that a legitimate legal nexus exists for Obama¡¯s eligibility to be questioned, the great bulk of main stream media outlets have pulled out all the stops to mock, attack, accuse, hate and discredit anybody willing to consider the law. What have we come to? The opposing media argument concerns the will of the people in the election and that the Supreme Court shouldn¡¯t overturn the intent of 65 million voters. It¡¯s an argument that fails - if the candidates were not Constitutionally eligible then the election was a fraud no matter how many voted for Obama. My law suit was meant to return the election to the Constitution. It¡¯s the Republican and Democratic parties that overturned the election stuffing two ineligible candidates down our throats with no regard whatsoever to the future precedent it would set. The people are subservient to the Document and if we don¡¯t keep it that way, we have plenty of historical examples throughout history detailing exactly what will happen to us if the Document is defeated. Regardless, should the people demand that Constitutional restrictions in Article 2, Section 1, be removed from the Document, they can lobby their political representatives to introduce an amendment, and if such amendment were to be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, then they can have any President they like. But as long as Article 2, Section 1, is controlling law, it¡¯s those who are trying to attack all review of it who are the conspiracy theorists. All I did was ask the Supreme Court to rule on an issue which has caused multiple law review articles to be written and countless news reports and blogs to be published. It has generally confused legal scholars for over two centuries. ¡°Ooh, look at that crazy conspiracy nut Donofrio,¡± they squawk. Me so crazy. Well, maybe I am a bit strange (Who the hell isn¡¯t?) but not for my understanding of the natural born Citizen issue. And that¡¯s the only issue before the Honorable Court. That being said, let¡¯s now take a look at two established and respected legal sources which define the term ¡°natural born Citizen¡± as a person who is born in the United States to parents both of whom are ¡°citizens¡±. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DEFINED THROUGH HISTORY I could understand rabid attacks if the legal theory I was relying upon had been thoroughly discredited by a Supreme Court decision or by statute, or even by historical texts, but it¡¯s quite the opposite. Beside 200 years of Presidential precedent, the great weight of authority supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born Citizen. I understand the countering argument and I¡¯ve welcomed debate of both sides of the issue in comments to this blog. But most of the published arguments on the natural born Citizen issue are recently published law review articles which haven¡¯t done a very good job of presenting the whole truth and nothing but the truth. THE FRAMERS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of ¡°natural born Citizen¡± in its text. It just conveys the status of ¡°Citizen¡±. And it¡¯s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a ¡°Citizen¡± and a ¡°natural born Citizen¡±. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is ¡°Citizen¡±, but the requirement to be President is ¡°natural born Citizen¡±. From the 14th Amendment: ¡°All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.¡± But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that - to them - the meaning of ¡°subject to the jurisdiction thereof¡± meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof. Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005: The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ¡±When we talk about ¡¯subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,¡¯ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.¡± Senator Jacob Howard said that it¡¯s ¡±a full and complete jurisdiction.¡± This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can¡¯t claim they were unaware. But we don¡¯t have to take Dr. Fonte¡¯s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison¡¯s research at http://www.14thamendment.us (use his link for footnotes): It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee¡ and the one who inserted the phrase: [T]he provision is, that ¡®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. Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull: Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull¡¯s construction: Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word ¡°jurisdiction,¡± as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3] Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant: Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution: [Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power¨Cfor that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us¨Cshall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4] No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams: In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States¡All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ¡¯subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,¡¯ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5] Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue: Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866: find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen¡[6] It¡¯s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed. In conclusion, I would like to thank reader ¡°John Boy¡± for pointing to Justice Scalia¡¯s opinion in District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller. In that case, Justice Scalia took into consideration a certain historical legal reference: The common references to those ¡°fit to bear arms¡± in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant¡ Other legal sources frequently used ¡°bear arms¡± in nonmilitary contexts.10 Now look at ¡°footnote 10¡å: E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (¡°Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords¡±); Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008, it¡¯s not outrageous to think he might also refer to ¡°The Laws of Nations¡± on the natural born Citizen issue? I¡¯ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in: ¡ì 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. |
|
By:
very confident..you get them to open market and ill lay at 1.01 if you wanna back..
|
|
By:
the berg case is now scheduled for conference hearing in supreme court on 9th january.
|
|
By:
not a prayer.
|
|
By:
broe case in washington state court - now scheduled for oral argument on january 9th also.
alan keyes case is still not resolved either - waiting for an update on that one. |
|
By:
getting interesting now imo
|
|
By:
l.a. times cover-up! the proof is in the screen shots.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/williams/081222 |
|
By:
laughable nonsense.
|
|
By:
they laughed at columbas when he said world was round..
look what he found..!! |
|
By:
just in case
|
|
By:
ttt
Update. Obama became President-Elect 8th Jan. He was not President-Elect before 8th Jan. But it's not over yet folks. Conferences are docketed in the Supreme Court for 9th January (about 12 hrs from now), 16th January, and 23rd January - the next 3 Fridays. Standing obstacles have been overcome. Appeals may be launched right up until the moment before inauguration. And if it takes until the 23rd, and Obama is sworn in and then found ineligible, the law allows for the results to actually be rescinded and a new result determind. One last thing - a recent AOL poll showed greater than half of all polled believe there was an issue that needed publicly investigating regarding his eligibilty. The cracks are appearing. Seems to be a lot more criticism about him about this week too.... and no I'm not shocked. |
|
By:
Nobody's interested anymore Don.
|
|
By:
not long now then.. like i said before..if hes swore in next week, no probs...but if he isnt :)
|
|
By:
Just the most hilarious thread. "If he is sworn in next week then no probs" - err.. other than you have been made to look a complete d*ck.
|
|
By:
How did the IBAS case go don ?
|
|
By:
how are the lawsuits going?
|
|
By:
and i thought he was meant to get sworn in on the 20th, not 23rd...
|
|
By:
TICK
TOCK TICK TOCK ! |
|
By:
yes hes meant to be sworn in tomorrow - i see nothing to indicate that he won't be tho :( although it's a little odd imo if justice roberts swears him in, since he knows there is an eligibility issue and no doubt is not obama's biggest fan since obama voted again appointing roberts in the senate. i guess if he swears him in it means his hands are tied... for whatever reason.
i do still think this will come out at some point - and look forward to seeing the outcome of the court case scheduled for after inauguration to see what that has to say, if anything. i will certainly be putting some $$ on obama not completing a first term. the legal implications of what is effectively usurping could be far reaching - it depends on how/when this comes out, and what the reaction of the people is, as to what happens next. as for ibas, they denied my application of appeal, however their grounds were pathetic and contradictory and made me literally laugh out loud. i would pursue this issue by other means if obama was not sworn in however it looks like this wont be necessary as things stand. if he is later found ineligible and removed from office it would depend on the exact legal statements made as to whether i could make a retrospective claim with regard to the 2008 Presidential Election. obviously right now none of this matters. regarding for obama as president - i think people are going to be bitterly disappointed. general direction of policy will remain the same and things are likely to get worse imo under his administration. government will get bigger. this is obvious already with him recommending and endorsing more bailouts which will not work, and hiring the same old faces. only about 70% of them worked for the clinton administration... the administration that removed legislation limitting leverage ratios used in fractional reserve banking and causing the financial sh1tstorm we find ourselves in. |
|
By:
FYI, simply because this issue has not disappeared - forthcoming judiciary actions over the next few days are listed below:
-Wednesday, January 21: The Supreme Court is set to release its disposition of Berg v. Obama, whereby the Justices will decide whether or not to grant one of two types of injunctions against the Electoral College. The results are expected around 10am ET on the Supreme Court Orders page. -Thursday, January 22: The 368th Judicial District Court in Texas is expected to hear Brockhausen v. Andrade, where Plaintiff pro se Jody Brockhausen, among other things, asks the Court for various paperwork confirming the President-Elects eligibility. -Friday, January 23: Dr. Orly Taitz |
|
By:
Tick Tock .....Tick Tock........Train, arriving... arriving...
|
|
By:
OK Don, you keep pushing back the date when Obama will be declared ineligible. Now you say it will be AFTER he's sworn in. I have a serious question. How long will he have to be in office before you give up and just admit nothing is going to happen regarding this.
|
|
By:
I too have a question. Don, how many times must this nonsense be thrown out of court before you realise it has no merit?
|
|
By:
they've not had oral argument for any of the cases thus far. cases have been denied on the basis of lack of standing or without comment - hence the reapplication of cases... improved cases... and with standing too.
i am not in control of the date am i!? it is not me putting it back at all. the supreme court could rule outright that he is eligible, but they have not. i do not believe they will rule that he is eligible, because under current constitutional law he is not, imo of course. i accept and hope others do too that it is difficult to interpret the supreme court's actions exactly given that this is a truly unique scenario. they have lined up cases as per previous post - why would they do that!? why would they not rule him eligible if he were and stop further cases being submitted? the supreme court has been written too by various military personnel expressing their concerns and looking for clarity that he is eligible and they should follow his orders as their commander in chief - dont you think it would be sensible to provide those people with the clarity they are asking for? respectfully, im sure i have looked into this in a lot more detail than yourselves, hence i bring this up because i think it will happen. i will never accept that he is eligible under current constitutional law, and neither will many others. of course you are entitled to your opinions and i respect those opinions - mine just happen to be different. if there comes a time where i think there is no further course of action that the plaintiffs can take with regard to this issue, i will of course admit that here. we have however not reached that point as yet, and even if he is sworn in tomorrow he may still be removed from office at a later date and have his vote count from the 2008 election declared void (therefore obama would not be the "winner" of the 2008 presidential election under us constitutional law). the constitution specifically comments on such safe guards and confirms that these processes exist, and therefore i am keeping this issue open. nb - i will of course honour the small gentleman's wagers i made with a few forumites with regard to who would be sworn in on 20th jan if obama is sworn in tomorrow |
|
By:
rofl
|
|
By:
i think u owe me 10quid don
|
|
By:
I think it is more than possible that these 3 court cases will shockingly rule obama ineligible, even if he is already sworn in.
NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN Thanks |
|
By:
james i forget if it was $5/$10 or £5/£10 - need to check on the old threads. of course i will happily pay you this evening after he has been sworn in - give me your ftilt or stars name and i will ship later.
thx |
|
By:
"The condition in the constitution that the president has to be born there was put in to stop new immigrants taking over at a time when America was experiencing waves of high immigration."
this is your opinion as to why the condition was put it. there is a very good argument that the condition was entered to prevent anyone who may hold foreign allegience from securing the position of prez, hence the additional requirement of natural born citizen for prez, whereas senator and other positions only require you to be a citizen. you would know this if you have read all ive posted. Obama was born to an American woman and is clearly American and he as clearly elected fairly and squarely. if ruled ineligible the election was anything but fair - since the public was unaware of his ineligibility. i do not argue that he is not american, just not a natural born citizen. there are cases however that believe he is not even that. Even if the doubtful evidence that he was not born in Hawaii is correct, that would only be a minor point of law. so it is ok to pick and choose which bits of the constitution to adhere to? the constituion IS the law of the land. Judges in common law countries like the US and UK will look at the spirit of the law as well as the latter - What the law indented to achieve. i believe they will establish that the law was written with the intentions as per my statement above. Even if they came to the extraordinary conclusion that Obama is ineligible, the congress would surely pass a minor amendment to the constitution to legitimise him. not as simple as that - they will have to vote etc and it could go any way. I'm not a lawyer but i also think that when he takes the oath then in law that's it, he is de facto president and can't be removed, unless they impeach him for four years. simply incorrect. It looks to me that your man is pennsylvania is wasting his time, unless he's just a publicity seeker. if he wanted publicity, this action, which has been mocked by the media constantly, would hardly be the way to go about getting positive publicity imo **** as an aside, something that i have not mentioned before: obama, mccain, h clinton - all know about the eligibility issue, and knew before the election. proof: February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a |
|
By:
OK well i accept i'm wrong on the point of him not being able to be removed but i cannot ever see them doing it.
America would be a world laughing stock if they did that. |
|
By:
Tom Cat - Obama has a birth certificate placing him in Hawaii at birth. It doesn't go beyond that.
|
|
By:
one way or another they will be you're quite right, if he is declared ineligible.
either they announce he is ineligilble and keep him as prez anyway, in which case they are saying their constiution is no longer the supreme law of the land (the sole document protecting individual rights), or they remove him from office and admit that they couldnt organise a pi$$ up in a brewery let alone an election since they didnt even bother to make sure of the candidates eligiblity in advance |
|
By:
no sibaroni - totally false statement. certificate of live birth, is not a birth certificate.
one moment i will provide something interesting on this.. |
|
By:
in addition to all the other stuff i already posted across all the threads, i am trying to find a link to a page on the hawaii government website that i saw yesterday - it requests a full birth certificate and explictly states that a colb is insufficient. it is insufficient for the same reason it is insuffienct with regard to proving his eligiblity
|
|
By:
After 8 years of the Obama Presidency Don will still be here jumping up & down demanding the 600000th court case is going to win this time. He will never wake up to the fact that its been thrown out of court without being heard because there is no case to be heard. Regurgitate all the articles & quotes you like( gleaned from the media, in large part, you insist has paid no attention to this nonsense) it won't transport us all into the alternate universe you obviously occupy.
|
|
By:
lol
so u think they supreme court will simply allow case after case to be submitted and not even rule he's eligible? how much is that going to cost the taxpayers to hear all those cases? surely the sensible option would be to rule once and for all. |
|
By:
Don Warro - the sharpest constitutional scholar in the land. The man who knows more than every American public official who is tasked with checking Obama's eligibility for President.
|
|
By:
...and the stuff i have posted is a lot more accurate than the mainstream is providing.
i of course appreciate where you are all coming from and realise that this all seems ridiculous. never the less i continue to post on this because i have done my research throroughly. but why am i doing that? why would i be posting here for people to laugh at me? "the truth is still the truth even if you are in the minority of one" ty gandhi |