One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Finally Truth About Obama
Page <<first <prev 4 of 14 next> last>>
Sep 8, 2014 00:49:20   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
Okay guys I posted this once on another topic, I think it is time to post it again. Then you can place your concerns against the written word.

Ranger7374 wrote:
"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own." ---John F Kennedy's 1961 Inaugural Speech

We the children of the people who heard this speech and believed in this speech, produced us Children of today. Therefore, I invite all of you to re-read the Constitution

Article I section 9, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

President Obama has been identified as a "King" or "Imperial President" This is a violation of the above Article and section.

Article II section 1, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

This is a controversial issue. Barrack Obama may or may not be guilty of this. However, an Arizona politician, (I forget his name and position) did however find the proper evidence to conclude that Obama is a citizen of the United States. To this day, I am not 100% sure and neither are many citizens comfortable with the evidence presented.

Article II, section one, "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In various instances, he has not protected nor defended the Constitution. As stated here he has violated the constitution.

Article II section 2, "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

Barack Obama was just found guilty of violating this section of the Constitution by the Supreme Court of the United States. This is a confirmed violation.

Article II section 3, "SECTION. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

Now this is a big violation. In the case of trading the terrorists, he should have convened Congress in Closed Session and discussed the issue thus notifying Congress of the exchange. He did not do this. Therefore, it was an act of Treason, for he gave comfort and aid to the enemy in time of war.

Another count under this same statute, is he failed to defend the borders and he failed to enforce the Protection of Marriage Act. The Protection of Marriage Act was enacted by Congress and he ignored the enforcement thereof. So does that mean we can ignore the Law known as Obamacare?

Article III section three, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

President Obama released terrorists thus giving aid and comfort to the enemy. This is therefore defined as treason according to the Constitution. Now, according to the testimony of the Secretary of State and the Defense Secretary the trade was completed. This verifies and can be used as witness that the crime was committed whether they believed it was treason or not.

Article IV section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

President Barack Obama has failed to protect the State of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas from the "Invasion of illegal immigrants" into the perspective states. This failure to protect the states on this issue lead to the formation of the law known as Arizona SB 1070 which since the Obama Administration, as a representative of the Executive enforcement portion of the Federal Government, failed to not only protect the state of Arizona, but then filed suit against the state for attempting to protecting themselves. This is an act of treason and a violation of their rights guaranteed therein this article and section.

Article VI, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Obama has ignored the authority of the Constitution as Supreme Law of the Land, by attempting to usurp the first Amendment, with the "Individual Mandate" of the Obamacare law making Obamacare more supreme then the Constitution. The Supreme Court however has chastised him for this attempt.

First Amendment, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

President Obama has attacked free speech, religion and the free exercise thereof, by not enforcing the Protection of Marriage Act, and Obamacare's Individual Mandate.

The tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

He attempts to usurp the powers of the States and people, ie, Obamacare and Arizona SB 1070, by ignoring to enforce the law as passed by Congress. Also he says, "I've got a pen and a cell phone" arrogantly abusing his power as chief executive.

So during the Term of Barrack Obama he has violated the Constitution of the United States many times. If there is a mistake here, please let me know. If you can find any other statues within the Constitution or feel that these accusations are not warranted by all means let me know.

I am just a concerned citizen who at one time swore to "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies Foreign and Domestic" and according to actions seen in the newspapers, on the internet, and on tv, whether or not it is ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Fox News or CNN, the conclusions return to the same issue.

President Barack Obama is guilty of infringement of the Constitution. And I believe that We the People should push Congress into impeachment proceedings.

Now Robert Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States and brother to John F. Kennedy said, "Stamp out injustice and prejudice wherever it lies."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges." in his speech, I have a dream.

"In the unending battle between diversity and dogmatism, between tolerance and tyranny, let no one mistake the American position. We deeply believe that humanity is on the verge of an age of greatness – and we do not propose to let the possibilities of that greatness be overwhelmed by those who would lock us all into the narrow cavern of a dark and rigid system. We will defend our faith by affirmation, by argument, if necessary – and Heaven forbid that it should become necessary – by arms. It is our willingness to die for our ideals that makes it possible for these ideals to live." -Remarks by Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States, at Nihon University Tokyo, Japan Tuesday, February 6, 1962

What Say You, America? What Say You, Congress? For you too, are sons and daughters of the Kennedy's and Dr. King's generation.
"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what yo... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 8, 2014 06:12:33   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Gene Garman wrote:
Obama won because of lack of voter ID? Will you naysayers ever give up? Is Obama an actual citizen of the USA? Yes, he is, born in Hawaii, as the record in Hawaii shows. Of course Obama is not perfect, but the voters elected Obama, and the Republican Chamber of Commerce Religion Right Party is the major problem. Congress cannot even get a minimum wage increase passed by the House of Representatives because the majority of Republicans could not care less about the poor or ethics, which is why I believe Jesus was, obviously, a Democrat!
Obama won because of lack of voter ID? Will you na... (show quote)


rightttttttttttttttttt~~~







Reply
Sep 8, 2014 06:14:10   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Ranger7374 wrote:
Okay guys I posted this once on another topic, I think it is time to post it again. Then you can place your concerns against the written word.


Let him lie with the pigs he supports!!! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Excellent post~~

Reply
 
 
Sep 8, 2014 07:03:50   #
Turk182
 
It appears everyone has missed the most important point of the qualifications.

In The Constitution of the United State, it defines the definition of who is qualified to be President.

Article. II., Section. 1., number 5

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States, means he must have lived in the United States which is Washington D.C. and a 10 mile square. There has never been a legal President as none have lived in Washington D.C. for 14 years.

Do you think they could use their own law to remove this President? Or are all of the laws made for all other people to follow and they are above the law?

Reply
Sep 8, 2014 07:31:45   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Turk182 wrote:
It appears everyone has missed the most important point of the qualifications.

In The Constitution of the United State, it defines the definition of who is qualified to be President.

Article. II., Section. 1., number 5

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States, means he must have lived in the United States which is Washington D.C. and a 10 mile square. There has never been a legal President as none have lived in Washington D.C. for 14 years.

Do you think they could use their own law to remove this President? Or are all of the laws made for all other people to follow and they are above the law?
It appears everyone has missed the most important ... (show quote)


Obviously the latter applies~~ :twisted:

Reply
Sep 8, 2014 08:00:51   #
mcjwelles
 
What has changed?

 
1. When W. Bush left office, our GDP was at minus 9 and today is positive 3. something. Which is better?  
 
2. Size of the economy in the 4 Quarter of 2008 was at 95% of GDP, and today is greater than 104 % of GDP. Which is better?  
 
3. When Bush left office, Down Jones was at 6600 point, and today is at 16,000+ points. Up 250%+, Similarly, when Bush left office, my 401K was half value. Today my 401 K is triple. Which is better?  
 
4. When Bush left office, we had over 12 months jobs lost consecutively, 800K jobs lost per month, spiral to a depression. Mr. Obama stops the bleed, and has produced over one term of jobs growth consecutively. Which is better?  
 
5. When Bush left office, corporation profits was down, and today is up 40 - 60% higher than 2008. Which is better?  
 
6. When Bush left office, Export was down at minus 30%, and today is positive 16 percent. Both export and import are growing again. Which is better?  
 
7. When Bush left office, we had higher trade deficit, and today is a lot less. Which is better?  
 
8. We have higher household income today than when Bush left office. In fact, it’s much higher than real GDP. Which is better?  
 
9. well over 9 million new jobs, unemployment lower than when Obama took office, recovering housing industry, etc., etc.



Forkbassman wrote:
VERY well said!! Six years have passed and what has improved? The welfare rolls. I am independent, pro life, old man who was hoping our president in '08 would really improve things since he ran on hope and change. I didn't vote for him but wasn't bitter and angry when he won, just disappointed in America because I was concerned about his background and Senate record of voting "present" most of the time. Then came the '12 election; personally liked Cain but was forced to drop out of the race. I feel because of lack of voter ID, Obama won; again, not bitter or angry because, as a Christian, I feel God allows leaders to be chosen: good or bad, just as in biblical days. Now, we are coming to another election and then in '16, a new pres will be chosen. The American people are generally not very confident in our reps and senators and personally, I'm sick and tired as well. Perhaps we need new blood, non- political, with principles, character and leadership qualities: Dr. Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who is seriously considering running. I've mentioned his name and his qualifications on this forum many times as most of you regulars know and will continue to do so until '16. (Sorry if you regs are bored). Our future as a country is at stake so serious Americans had better wake up and decide where we want to go as a nation before we have still have one; ISIS is here until we eliminate them. May God bless America.
VERY well said!! Six years have passed and what ha... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 8, 2014 08:21:06   #
jaydee
 
Lily wrote:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/09/something_is_rotten_in_america.html

Something is rotten in America

Obama is rotten in America. He has caused the country to go from the class of Audrey Hepburn to the clumsiness of Anna Nicole Smith. He needs a triple-E bra to contain his ego.

He was supposed to unite red and blue, white and black. Instead he has made divisiveness his specialty. There is no coordination between his speeches and their pragmatic realities. People rioted in Ferguson, Missouri over criminal Michael Brown’s death. Obama did not defuse the rampant hatred.

A four-hundred-pound cigarette salesman, Eric Garner, dies in New York in a chokehold by cops. Mayor de Blasio, Al Sharpton and Obama exacerbate the racial divide by emphasizing the cruelty of the choke hold and not pointing to Garner’s weight problem, diabetes, and resisting arrest. It’s almost as if they are paid outside agitators who are trying to cause riots.

They focus on Garner’s tragedy. They hardly bother with the crimes of looting and burning down stores.

Our leaders forget that they are part of the establishment because they are trying to curry favor with the demonstrators. They play to their liberal base, the lowest common denominator. They forget that they are highly paid bigshot officials.

Gates, a Harvard professor, was guilty of disorderly conduct with the Cambridge police. Obama said that the cops “acted stupidly.” Give me a break. Gates acted as obnoxiously as Alec Baldwin often does. Color has nothing to do with disrespect to the cops. It is snobbery and feeling superior to the police, regardless of color. Professors are known for thinking that they are smarter than they are. Especially Ivy League snobs.

Gates is envious of white snobbery. He adopts it out of insecurity about his own blackness. He should get a life.

Hundreds of black kids are being shot in Chicago. The world is falling apart. It has an upset stomach. It is sick of chewing Obama’s rotten rhetoric.

Now, these dead people are not polite, upstanding citizens. I was just at the classy St. Regis Hotel for lunch. The family sitting next to me was black. They would never be arrested. They were polite and well-dressed. They were nothing like the slobs in Ferguson who resisted arrest and caused senseless violence. Obama should not defend criminals. He should attack them.

Something is rotten in America. It is Obama weakening our values, supporting same-sex marriage, criticizing the cops. Obama is a narcissist filled with self-love.

Unfortunately, Obama’s rottenness has spread throughout the world. He is deadly. He is Ebola. He has the rigidity of sharia law, of ISIS coming to our state. He has a Harvard education, but he is an ideological simpleton.

There is a bad mood in America. There is a smell of possible revolution and death, a hint of revolution and worldwide warfare fostered by America’s giving up its exceptionalism and position of power in the world. It’s amusing that the liberals who hated the supposed war-mongering of the right wing will be responsible for WWIII.

Reagan believed in strength and might for self-protection. Obama believes in “might.” He thinks, Yes, I might do this and I might do that. I don’t know. The less I do, the better. I don’t want the responsibility of my acts.

Remember when Obama was a senator in Illinois. He never took a position on anything. He was always “present.” But he was never really present. He has never been here for us.

People call Obama an empty suit. He is rented for the Junior Prom.

The last sentence is a exact answer to the POS,
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/09/someth... (show quote)



Great writing. Being critical but nice. You seem like a very nice person and a patriot.
Also the top 5 radio talk shows are awesome and they are also nice. That's a good thing. All of these American broadcasters are great Americans. I respect that. They have done lots of good for our side of the political storm.
But folks with all due respect, we can be nice to our own destruction.
All these people in the Democratic & Republucan Rhinoes are communist. The top priority of any elected or appointed or enlisted or drafted servant to "we the people" is at all cost to uphold the Constitution. Communist don't do that. Why. Because they hate it. Contradicts their agenda
So man up & call um what they are. COMMUNIST. They don't deserve nice or respect. They all need to be arrested, tried(by speedy trial) & executed by fireing squad on the WH lawn for treasonist acts against this nation.

Reply
 
 
Sep 8, 2014 08:31:45   #
LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA
 
boofhead wrote:
It looks to me as if you just cut and pasted something from the internet. It was irrelevant to the question because it was a general discussion about citizenship, not the subject we are concerned about, which is Natural Born Citizens and the Presidency.

If it is your research, then you need to do it again and this time look up Natural Born.

I have five kids who are citizens, but because when they were born I was not a US citizen, they are not natural born and cannot therefore be eligible for the position of President or Vice President. But I am not ignorant of the law and do not go around spouting nonsense about their eligibility, as so many do on behalf of Barry. I researched the matter, found out what the law said, and accepted it.

I am offended that the law is not being followed, and offended that so many people are so ignorant in this country that they willingly become enablers. To many, political gain is more important than the law, and the future of this country.

I think I am more patriotic than most because I earned the right to be a US citizen, and value it more than you do, who were given it by accident of birth.

It is my opinion that if you support criminal action, you become responsible and liable for the penalties that might be applied when the criminal is punished.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It looks to me as if you just cut and pasted somet... (show quote)
You need to go back and fill yourself in on the previous posts.

Reply
Sep 8, 2014 08:37:58   #
LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA
 
Turk182 wrote:
Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States, means he must have lived in the United States which is Washington D.C. and a 10 mile square.
How in the hell do you arrive at this?

Reply
Sep 8, 2014 08:56:37   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
mcjwelles wrote:
What has changed?

 
1. When W. Bush left office, our GDP was at minus 9 and today is positive 3. something. Which is better?  GDP was negative 1% first quarter and if it stayed at such recession would have been confirmed....Do you believe that kind of growth so quickly??
 
2. Size of the economy in the 4 Quarter of 2008 was at 95% of GDP, and today is greater than 104 % of GDP. Which is better?  
 
3. When Bush left office, Down Jones was at 6600 point, and today is at 16,000+ points. Up 250%+, Similarly, when Bush left office, my 401K was half value. Today my 401 K is triple. Which is better?  
 
4. When Bush left office, we had over 12 months jobs lost consecutively, 800K jobs lost per month, spiral to a depression. Mr. Obama stops the bleed, and has produced over one term of jobs growth consecutively. Which is better? ~~~ Basically, what's clear is that fast food has made up way too many of these jobs. We are not going to eat our way to a solid foundation nor flipping burgers into our 90's.

" Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth.

Today, there are nearly two million fewer jobs in mid- and higher-wage industries than there were before the recession took hold, while there are 1.85 million more jobs in lower-wage industries.
Service-providing industries such as food services and drinking places, administrative and support services, and retail trade have led private sector job growth during the recovery. These industries, which pay relatively low wages, accounted for 39 percent of the private sector employment increase over the past four years. ..."~~

 
6. When Bush left office, Export was down at minus 30%, and today is positive 16 percent. Both export and import are growing again. Which is better?  
 
7. When Bush left office, we had higher trade deficit, and today is a lot less. Which is better?  
 
8. We have higher household income today than when Bush left office. In fact, it’s much higher than real GDP. Which is better?  ~ Don't believe this for one minute, got some numbers that support it?
 
9. well over 9 million new jobs, unemployment lower than when Obama took office, recovering housing industry, etc., etc.
What has changed? br br   br 1. When W. Bush left... (show quote)

~~ - higher unemployment overall this time around, more people on SNAP / EBT this time around. Prices of food rising, on average 33% Year over Year to date. Fuel costs (gasoline, petroleum products), as well as futures of coal fired power facilities will be causing electricity prices to go up..Numbers do not reflect the fact those whom no longer qualify for benefits are not counted... The problem is that despite the number of new jobs created (almost as many as were lost during the recession), the jobs are paying much lower wages and with less benefits. That means each new job created has only a fraction of the economic benefit that the jobs lost had on both consumers pocket books and the US economy as a whole

Sorry have to finish later~gotta run.......Have a great day, tho...

Reply
Sep 8, 2014 09:01:37   #
Babsan
 
hprinze wrote:
The title of the thread "Finally Truth Abour Obama" is a bit inaccurate. The truth about this despicable criminal has been out there from the beginning. Too many people never bothered to look.


Agree,it was out for all to read if they just had looked.This shows how lazy and stupid some Americans actually are.

Reply
 
 
Sep 8, 2014 09:13:51   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
boofhead wrote:
It looks to me as if you just cut and pasted something from the internet. It was irrelevant to the question because it was a general discussion about citizenship, not the subject we are concerned about, which is Natural Born Citizens and the Presidency.

If it is your research, then you need to do it again and this time look up Natural Born.

I have five kids who are citizens, but because when they were born I was not a US citizen, they are not natural born and cannot therefore be eligible for the position of President or Vice President. But I am not ignorant of the law and do not go around spouting nonsense about their eligibility, as so many do on behalf of Barry. I researched the matter, found out what the law said, and accepted it.

I am offended that the law is not being followed, and offended that so many people are so ignorant in this country that they willingly become enablers. To many, political gain is more important than the law, and the future of this country.

I think I am more patriotic than most because I earned the right to be a US citizen, and value it more than you do, who were given it by accident of birth.

It is my opinion that if you support criminal action, you become responsible and liable for the penalties that might be applied when the criminal is punished.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It looks to me as if you just cut and pasted somet... (show quote)


====================================

Excellent, and written with proper English.
Thanks

Reply
Sep 8, 2014 09:15:10   #
mcjwelles
 
In spite of the patient, patronizing tone of this 'official' source, Minor VS Happersett is not the sole, immutable precedent as claimed, this is not the established law the anti-Democrat- "propoganda" (loved the misspelling of their flagship word!) ignored according to your citation in my opinion- and I am not even an avid Obama fan- I just like Truth underlined instead of Political Profiteering. Disinforming the American voter is seditious.
The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report, concerning the current legal status of eligibility for that highest office stated that:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.

BTW where was the fervor from the principled Right when the SCOTUS appointed pres. took office???? Could there be a political agenda being played out here rather than just the Settled Law For Dummies motive???



Reply
Sep 8, 2014 09:21:37   #
Babsan
 
hprinze wrote:
====================================

Excellent, and written with proper English.
Thanks


Excellent reply from a SANE and INTELLIGENT American patriot

Reply
Sep 8, 2014 09:25:22   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
MrEd wrote:
If you are referring to the Democrat Congress, then you are wrong. They not only knew about Obama, but were the ones that covered up for him in the beginning. Obama had to be certified by the Democrats to run for President, but they couldn't do that because he was not a natural born citizen and they knew it. Nancy Pelosi knew about it and couldn't certify him, so they simply stated that he was the Democrats pick for a candidate. They never said he was a natural born citizen just in case it came back on them.

They have been trying for years to get that little rule changed, but since that rule happens to be in the Constitution, it would take an amendment to change it and they could never get that, so they simply ignored the Constitution once again and nominated Obama and covered everything up as best they could.

Now that it is starting to come out, they are saying that it doesn't matter and he can run just like anyone else. They are simply ignoring that little part that says he must be a natural born citizen and concentrating on the allegations that he is not a citizen at all. They are not saying he is not a natural born citizen simply by ignoring it altogether and sticking with this citizenship thing.

If truth be told, he is not even a citizen of this country at all. He was born in Kenya and never applied for US citizenship. His father being a citizen of Kenya made him a citizen of Kenya also. He would have to be a citizen of Kenya to go to school there, but nothing about that is ever mentioned. He went to school here on a foreign student visa, but that has been covered up too.

What I am afraid will happen is, when this really starts to come out, he will resign and DipStick will give him a Presidential pardon and he will get off scott free. Then he will go back to Hawaii and spend the rest of his life living in his happy home and laughing at all of us because he got away with it and nothing will be done about it.
If you are referring to the Democrat Congress, th... (show quote)


=================================

Another person who understands what has and is happening and is capable of writing it with the words spelled correctly.

Thanks

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 14 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.