“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Congressional oath of office
US Constitution
Hall of Shame
2008 Man of the Year
Senator Barack H Obama
Barack Obama is named the US Constitution Hall of Shame Man of the Year
for obvious reasons. Obama, whose father was a Kenyan citizen and under
British rule, and therefore not a natural born citizen and not eligible
to be president, has worked all of the 2008 election year to steal the
presidency. What is even more scary, is that Obama was probably born
in Kenya, not a US citizen at all and therefore an illegal alien.
Barack Obama has thumbed his nose at the US Constitution, rule of law
and American people. His arrogance and “me me me” attitude is a product
of the “government owes me” mentality and Chicago crime and corruption
that engenders a position of being above the law. Obama has looked
down upon the US Constitution despite taking an oath to “support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic”
Obama’s disregard for the rule of law goes back for many years to strong
ties to crime and corruption in Chicago and Illinois involving such
corruption figures as Rezko, Levine, Blagojevich and many others and
continues as he attempts to avoid proving he is eligible to be
president. Here are some prominent examples of Obama’s flagrant disregard
for the US Constitution and Rule of law.
Barack Obama has run for the office of President of the United States and
is clearly not eligible. For his own selfish gain he has ignored the US
Constitution, unfairly impacted other candidates and disenfranchised
millions of voters. He has also obtained millions of dollars of campaign
donations under fraudulent circumstances and caused many others to spend
enormous amounts of time and money trying to expose Obama’s fraud.
Here are some facts regarding Obama’s eligibility:
What Hawaii Health Official really said
Latest information on court cases
One of the hallmarks of the Obama camapaign was repeated attempts to
discredit those questioning Obama. This included massive internet armies
utilized by the Obama camp to make personal attacks on internet users
and websites, prominent people like Jon Voight and many others as well
as scrubbing internet data and attempts at revisionist history. Many
voters and campaign workers were harrassed and theatened during the
primaries and general election. The Obama camp even threatend news
organizations.
Consider the following from Missouri Governor Matt Blunt:
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words……
abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political
criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment. This abuse
of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals
of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking
than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil
rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the
others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free
and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative
organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of
Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke
out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily
conversation about the election. “Barack Obama needs to grow up……Enlisting
Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is
reminiscent of the Sedition Acts
– not a free society.”
In Obama’s own words:
“I want you to argue with them and get in their face…You are my Ambassadors”
Obama quoted in San Francisco Gate, by Kathleen Hennessey, September 17, 2008
Philip J Berg states:
“Defendants (Obama and DNC) are attempting to change our United States
Constitution without proper due process of law by allowing Obama to continue
his campaign and continue seeking election as the President of the United States,
knowing he is not a “natural born” citizen and the fact he may not even be a
“naturalized” citizen.”
Barack Obama visited Kenya in 2006 and campaigned for his far left leaning
cousin Raila Odinga. Obama was in possible violation of the Logan Act but at
the very least was guilty of “High crimes and misdemeanors.” Here is an exerpt
from the official Kenyan Government response to Obama’s visit:
“RESPONSE TO AMERICAN SENATOR BARACK OBAMA’S POORLY INFORMED COMMENTS
ABOUT TERRORISM, WANTED GENOCIDE CRIMINALS AND GOVERNANCE IN KENYA”
“Senator Barack Obama indicated that he was visiting Africa to help nurture
relations between the continent and the United States. His mission, therefore,
was warmly welcomed by the Government and the people of Kenya. The fact that
he has roots in Kenya endeared him to the people of this country.
However, during his public address at the University of Nairobi, Senator Obama
made extremely disturbing statements on issues which it is clear, he was very
poorly informed, and on which he chose to lecture the Government and the people
of Kenya on how to manage our country.”
Dr. Alfred N. Mutua
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION SECRETARY &
GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON
August 31, 2006″″
Here is a video of Obama and Raila Odinga:
Obama continues contact with leftist Odinga
Obama lied on his Illinois Bar Application by not listing his aliases
and having multiple oustanding traffic tickets. He then relinquished
his law license early to avoid prosection.
The following videos reveal much about what Obama
thinks about the US Constitution.
Obama speaks about fundamental flaws in the
Constitution .
Constitutinal Lawyer’s perspective on exactly WHAT
Obama said during his 2001 radio interview.
Citizen WElls 
Some light afternoon reading:
Oliver Cromwell: Lord Protector of England (1599-1658)
By Jay Rogers
Published April 2008
There is definitely an association between John Knox and Oliver Cromwell. Knox, in his book The Reformation of Scotland, outlined the whole process without which the British model of government under Oliver Cromwell never would not have been possible.
Yet Knox was more consistently covenantal in his thinking. He recognized that civil government is based on a covenant between the magistrate (or the representative or king) and the populace. His view was that when the magistrate defects from the covenant, it is the duty of the people to overthrow him.
Notice that last sentence —
“When the magistrate defects from the covenant, it is the duty of the people to overthrow him.”
Hmmmh?
From Beckwith —
The Obama File: Latest OBAMA Nations —
“Natural Born Citizen” — The Law
http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenLaw.htm
Second to the last paragraph:
This is a brilliantly brief summary of the entire matter. But, this sentence is particularly relevant to the “Man of the Year.” Notice how many times the word “irrelevant” is used.
“Whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the moon, is irrelevant. Birth documents, real or forged, are irrelevant. Yes, even VOTES ARE IRRELEVANT. Even Supreme Court action, or inaction, is irrelevant.
” It is simply FRAUD and illegal for Obama to be put in the office of U. S. President by any means or reason.”
A better title could not be found for the: “Fraud of the Year.”
Wells, you are spot on!!
Excellent choice for Hall of Shame – Man of the Year – Obama
ZachJonesIsHome
Hi Ted & CW
The way that I understand it, Biden would be exempt from taking office even on a temp basis, as he was appointed by Obama making that appointment Null and Void if Obama is fount to be ineligable or dropped for other criminal findings. As I see it, the Congress (House of Reps) would have the responsibility of voting for and appointing a Temp until a new election could be coordinated. If that is the case, Hillary would of course be the pick. I would also assume that whomever was chosen to fill the void would have to immediately pick a VP so that there would be a Constitutional 2nd in line to assume the role of President if the acting Pres. is for any reason unable to fill his/her duties either permanently or temporarily (such as a health issue etc.)
Another thing that I would like some of you to look at is the confusion involving the Selective Service obligation. As we all know, he was Barry at that time (along with who knows how many other alias’s) and I see a multitude of discrepancies in not only the timeline, but other factors also, including the continued proclamation of being Islamic. Anyway, here are the articles that have raised my curiosity and concern including the links to each.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JIMMY CARTER, President of the United States of
America, by the authority vested in me by the Military Selective Service Act, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), do hereby proclaim as follows:
1-1. PERSONS TO BE REGISTERED AND DAYS OF REGISTRATION
1-101. Male citizens of the United States and other males residing in the United States,
unless exempted by the Military Selective Service Act, as amended, who were born on or
after January 1, 1960, and who have attained their eighteenth birthday, shall present
themselves for registration in the manner and at the time and places as hereinafter
provided.
1-102. Persons born in calendar year 1960 shall present themselves for registration on any
of the six days beginning Monday, July 21, 1980.
1-103. Persons born in calendar year 1961 shall present themselves for registration on any
of the six days beginning Monday, July 28, 1980.
1-104. Persons born in calendar year 1962 shall present themselves for registration on any
of the six days beginning Monday, January 5, 1981.
1-105. Persons born on or after January 1, 1963, shall present themselves for registration
on the day they attain the 18th anniversary of their birth or on any day within the period of
60 days beginning 30 days before such date; however, in no event shall such persons
present themselves for registration prior to January 5, 1981.
1-106. Aliens who would be required to present themselves for registration pursuant to
Sections 1-101 to 1-105, but who are in processing centers on the dates fixed for
registration, shall present themselves for registration within 30 days after their
release from such centers.
1-107. Aliens and noncitizen nationals of the United States who reside in the United
States, but who are absent from the United States on the days fixed for their registration,
shall present themselves for registration within 30 days after their return to the United
States.
1-108. Aliens and noncitizen nationals of the United States who, on or after July 1, 1980,
come into and reside in the United States shall present themselves for registration in
accordance with Sections 1-101 to 1-105 or within 30 days after coming into the United
States, whichever is later.
1-109. Persons who would have been required to present themselves for registration
pursuant to Sections 1-101 to 1-108 but for an exemption pursuant to Section 3 or 6(a) of
the Military Selective Service Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 453 or 456(a)), or but for
some condition beyond their control such as hospitalization or incarceration, shall present
themselves for registration within 30 days after the cause for their exempt status ceases to
exist or within 30 days after the termination of the condition which was beyond their control.
“1-302. When reporting for registration each person shall present for inspection reasonable
evidence of his identity. After registration, each person shall keep the Selective Service
System informed of his current address.”
Click to access MSSA-2003.pdf
http://nairobi.usembassy.gov/selective_service.html
Below is the link to what I believe to be the official Document of Registration. Just doesn’t Add Up IMO.
Any input would be appreciated. 🙂
Happy New Year and THANK YOU CW for all that you are doing to Protect our MOST VALUABLE OF DOCUMENTS!
Pingback: 2008 “Man of the Year” for “Constitution Hall of Shame” - Barack H. Obama « ZachJonesIsHome - Helping to Keep an Eye on the Larry Sinclair Allegations
Thanks kittycat77.
Right On CW! I hope this finally gets out to the public. The “FIX” was in from the beginning. The media should have been exposing this sham election. Our elected officials/DNC/media have all let us down. We could have all been very proud — instead we are ashamed. This must be corrected right away — really scary.
Not a happy time .
Thanks again, CW for your hard work in putting all this together.
Detroit radio jocks call Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego
November 21, 2008
Detroit Radio Jocks from WRIF’s “Mike in the Morning” call Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego to congratulate him on Kenya becoming the “51st state” and during their conversation the ambassador seemingly confirms that President Elect Obama’s birth place is in Kenya and is already an “attraction”.
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/berg_philip/index.shtml
(scroll about half way down the page)
You’re welcome, CW.
Hello all and Happy New Year.
I have been following this birth certificate for some times now on this site. I posted a couple of questions that was posed to me by a history teacher. He knows a lot about Civics too. Right now I am confused between what he is telling me vs what I read on here. He argues that the Constitutions do not define “Natural Born”. Now I see that it was defined by Rep. John Bingham in 1866 that (and I’m paraphrasing here) that both parents have to be US citizens. Now two years later, 14th amendment was ratified. Now here are my issues,
1)The first line of the 14th amendment says “All persons born “OR” nationalized in the United States, “AND” jurisdictions there of, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. It’s the contraction OR that got me. Or distinguishes between two or more entities meaning either entity can be true. AND means that both have to be true. Look at where the comma is placed after Naturalized citizen. The way I would interpret section of the 14th amendment would be if you are born on U.S soil OR you are a naturalized citizen AND did not change citizenship then you are a citizen of the United States.
2)Since the 14th amendment was ratified AFTER John Bingham bill, does that mean that the 14th amendment trumps John Bingham?
3) Even if all that is true then there are allegations that Barack Obama’s was adopted by an Indonesian. The only document that I have seen on this site that is used for the basis of this claim is an AP photo of an Indonesian school record that Barack Obama went to. There are no official adoption records and how can we be sure that the step father didn’t bribe the school or lie to the school.
Again, the constitution does not define “Natural Born”.
I would welcome any intelligent rebuttal or help me understand where I am wrong.
Thank you.
@ Chance
On one hand your expectation regarging Biden is reasonable, on the other hand there is a huge problem. The inescapable logical conclusion is that Obama severely disturbed the whole process(both with avid followers and manufactured votes) such that the entire general election got screwed up. Many Democrat congressmen owe their slight margin of votes solely to the “Obama Factor”. All of those need to be kicked out also. Thus the entire GE would need to be invalidated and a whole do over. Without Obama the Republicans would have done a little better in seat counts. In a do over, with what we all know now, the Republicans would do a lot better. So, you see, Obama REALLY screwed EVERYTHING up.
So, I think you basically have to keep Biden as one of the otherwise eligible candidates that got Electoral Votes. To see what happens then, see my post near the end of the previous thread.
gholtron…
The framers didn’t need to define “Natural Born” then. It was commonly understood by citizens of this country because the majority of them were under British rule and were forced to understand it completely. The U.S. was a group of colonies back then, so Britain used “Natural-born” to force all those born on American soil to be British subjects.
The British Nationality Act of 1730 clearly defined “Natural Born”:
“That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.”
The framers replaced “subject” with “citizen”. Why? Because subjects belong to a monarchy and citizens belong to a republic.
In the empirical sense, Natural Born Citizens are citizens born to fathers who are U.S. citizens. And as we know, to be a citizen, you must be born within the jurisdiction (i.e. U.S. soil) of the United States.
gholtron
Allow me to respond to your inquiry in like manner that I elucidated to commenters in AOL forum…
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-certificate/
Obama, via his own admission on his own website, is a “dual citizen.” You CANNOT be a “dual citizen” at birth, and simultaneously a “natural born Citizen.” The two are incompatible. “Natural born citizen” need not be defined by the Constitution (Article II, Section I), by any act Congress, or other statute (FAM et al). You either ARE a “natural born citizen” or you are NOT. Any other process (acts, statutes, etc) that attempts to define citizenship for a person, can only bestow to said individual a “naturalized” state of citizenship.
The literacy rate at the time of the founding of this nation was around 90%. That means that around 90% of the population (especially the founders) were well versed in the works of Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel; particularly his epic tome, “LAW OF NATIONS: PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS.” (1758)
We have correspondence from Benjamin Franklin making liberal reference to Vattel. “Law of Nations,” is made reference to by other founders in the “Federalist Papers” (commentary to the Constitution). Even Justice Scalia has made reference to “Law of Nations” in his opinion this past March (2008) in “District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller.”
“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.”
— § 212. Citizens and natives, “Laws of Nations”
Furthermore…
“If a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it is no less obliged carefully to preserve all its members. The nation owes this to itself, since the loss even of one of its members weakens it, and is injurious to its preservation. It owes this also to the members in particular, in consequence of the very act of association; for those who compose a nation are united for their defence and common advantage; and none can justly be deprived of this union, and of the advantages he expects to derive from it, while he on his side fulfils the conditions.” (15)
(15) This principle is in every respect recognized and acted upon by our municipal law. It is in respect of, and as a due return for, the protection every natural born subject is entitled to, and actually does, by law, RECEIVE FROM THE INSTANT OF HIS BIRTH THAT ALL THE OBLIGATIONS OF ALLEGIANCE ATTACH UPON HIM, AND FROM WHICH HE CANNOT BY ANY ACT OF HIS OWN EMANCIPATE HIMSELF. This is the principle upon which is founded the rule “Nemo potest exuere patriam,”
— § 17. And to preserve its members, “Law of Nations”
Technically, we DON’T need to see any vault COLB for Obama. He has already publicly admitted to be born of a Kenyan (British) father. Obama ADMITS to being born with dual/split loyalties to two separate sovereignties. “Dual citizens” CANNOT be conveyed “natural born citizen” status. “Dual citizens” can only AT BEST, enjoy the privileges of a NATURALIZED citizen.
Once again…
“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;”
— Article II, Section I, U.S. Constitution (1789)
Are we crystal clear now, on WHY Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is NOT “eligible” for the office of President of these United States of America?
Yeah, it may not be fair in the eyes of many. Unfortunately, the “many” being illiterate in the REQUIRED ways of civics. However, IT IS THE LAW!
[Addendum to my previous]
You will notice that at that AOL forum, leftist morons like “EL” will even attempt to twist Vattel. At that point, you just “dust your feet off,” of certain folk and merry on your way…
@ Chance // January 1, 2009 at 9:28 pm
This is the really sinister side of all this, should this scenario come to pass. Hillary has been the man/women of Philip Berg all along. If Berg prevails with SCOTUS post Jan. 9th, then we are most likely looking at the LQ (Lizard Queen) as “acting” POTUS. More than that, she will be in that capacity CONSTITUTIONALLY! Talk about one getting what they wish for. All we ask as citizens of this great land, that the Constitution be followed, and adhere properly to Article II, Section I, especially the provision for “natural born citizen.”
The Constitution will be followed. The “natural born citizen” provision will be adhered to. We WILL get our eligible NATURAL BORN citizen for POTUS. And, that person will be Hillary Rodham Clinton…
Genius, Brilliance…
Got to hand it to them…
This whole thought process reminds me of a scene from “Die Hard.”
Hans Gruber: “The circuits that cannot be cut are cut automatically in response to a terrorist incident. You asked for miracles, Theo, I give you the FBI. ”
We STILL finally adhere to one of the most critical aspects of the Constitution. Our reward for doing so, is the assumption of one possibly worse and far more dangerous than Herr Obama. It would appear to me, unequivocally, that the violation of Article I, Section X of said same Constitution, is not fleeting…
Do we prefer a clear Constitutional “usurper” to be eventually brandished and replace by military commissioners; or a clear Constitutional “eligible” that will most likely lead to the same destination as the aforementioned “usurper?”
I tell you dear people. God is certainly having the “last laugh.” More than that, before the “Second Coming of Jesus of Nazareth,” will we first be entreated to the “Second Coming of Oliver Cromwell?”
Before someone else asks it…
Where is John McClain? Well, we DID have him in Ron Paul. Will we get another chance? Let’s not blow it again this time around…
Of course, the LQ as “acting” POTUS will be the “de facto” nominee for the DNC in any special election. Would a Kuncinich dare challenge her? Is Ron Paul still up to the task? Could a possible Reaganesque-Paulinesque Iraq/Afghanistan War hero arise (in the vein of Smedley D. Butler), that will vow to bring the troops home, and call for eventual abolition of the Federal Reserve? Stranger things have happened. One has got to keep a “glimmer” of optimism within oneself. Otherwise, all your are left is with fatalism. I will choose (for now) the former…
The Constitution does not define who IS a ‘natural born Citizen,’ (and no member of the Executive or Legislative branch, or the Judiciary, can without a Constitutional amendment, the Constitution does define who is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen,’ and that is those who are citizens pursuant to an Act of Congress operating under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.
Since we know that factcheck.org acknowledges that Barack Obama, Jr., was born a British Subject, so ask your history teacher how he or she can explain this to you:
In respect of the Congressional Act of 1795 Lord Grenville wrote to our minister, Rufus King:
‘No British subject can, by such a form of renunciation as that which is prescribed in the American law of naturalization, divest himself of his allegiance to his sovereign. Such a declaration of renunciation made by any of the king’s subjects would, instead of operating as a protection to them, be considered an act highly criminal on their part.’ (2 Am. St. Papers, 149. And see Fitch v. Weer, 6 Hare, 51. )
Does the 14th Amendment trump that? How? By the 1795 Act of Congress? When?
As early as the act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414, c. 20), applicants for naturalization were required to take, not simply an oath to support the constitution of the United States, but of absolute renunciation and abjuration of all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince or state, and particularly to the prince or state of which they were before the citizens or subjects.
If so, then Barack Obama, Jr. is a ‘naturalized Citizen,’ and not a ‘natural born Citizen,’ and no different from Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is not qualified for the office of President of the United States.
There’s the rub.
The Constitution did not have to because at the time of the penning, it was a common phrase much like “shooting a free throw” is today. Everyone knows that to be a foul shot in basketball. It does not have to be explained. ALL of the writtings of the day and subsequent writtings defined it as a child born of TWO citizens. It was known. SCOTUS has used other works from that time to define intent before. In fact…here is a nice link :http://peoplespassions.org/documents/Natural_Born_Citizen_Discussion.htm
“The culture of litigation produces the fear of litigation which causes people to hire lawyers for defensive purposes, which causes a greater demand for lawyers, which produces more lawyers, who produce more lawsuits, which causes more fear of lawsuits, which causes a greater demand for lawyers, which produces more lawyers etc.,etc.,etc,.” – author unknown
Maybe this is why Obama exists.
ms helga
There is a connecting link at the bottom of that page that contains even more info…..
Here’s a good video for you too:
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/
gholtron, “all persons born or nationalized in the United States, and jurisdictions there of, are CITIZENS of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” This defines a citizen of the United States, but the framers made sure to differentiate between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
From the Law of Nations: § 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.
Pingback: Obama wins another award from 2008! « ZachJonesIsHome - Helping to Keep an Eye on the Larry Sinclair Allegations
Gholtron:
Dr. Orly has an interesting post up this morning that adds some clairification.
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html
“You will notice that at that AOL forum, leftist morons like “EL” will even attempt to twist Vattel. At that point, you just “dust your feet off,” of certain folk and merry on your way…”
Oh, I had my little run-ins with that ding-a-ling too! It’s the same one.
Here is an excellent historical dictation on how de Vattel’s Law of Nations was used by Alexander Hamilton to help frame the U.S. Consitution:
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id5.html
Jeff, JCD, Kim and others that responded. First thank you for your response. Here are 7 former Presidents of the United States that had foreign born parents. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.
It is permissable for the parents to be naturalized citizens, because the parents
only had to be citizens of the US.
Rahm Emanuel Evading Property Tax On Home By Declaring Himself A Charity?
Email This Post November 6, 2008
Posted by: Matt
Tagged: Obama White House, Rahm Emanuel, Scandals
Wow. When I’m wrong I’m the first eventual one to admit it, so I’ll go ahead and say it, “I was wrong.” Yes, I doubted that Obama could bring about the “change” I needed to not have to worry about paying bills anymore like Peggy The Moocher told us.
Well Barack Obama has put my money where his Cabinet is with the news that his newly minted Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, has possibly been evading taxes on his home for years. How could he do it? Easy! He created a fraudulent charity in 2002, named it after him and his wife, set its address as his personal residence, and voila, taxes are gone:
According to the Cook County Assessor’s website, the Chicago home of four-term Democrat Congressman and likely new White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, doesn’t exist. While the address of 4228 North Hermitage is listed as Emanuel’s residence on the Illinois State Board of Elections’ website, there seems to be no public record of Emanuel ever paying property taxes on this home…
Why would 4228 North Hermitage property owners Rahm Emanuel and wife Amy Rule not pay property taxes?
One reason could be because Emanuel and Rule declared their 4228 North Hermitage home as the office location for their non-profit foundation appropriately called the “Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Foundation”. As a non-profit headquarters, they may consider their home as exempt from paying taxes.
Skeptical? You shouldn’t be! After six years, the “Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Foundation” has had only two donors. Can you guess who?
The Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Trust was formed in 2002, when the Chicago lawmaker was first elected. The former Clinton White House aide and his wife, Amy Rule, are its only donors.
USA Today has a great article about Rahm and other Dems, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who are illegally operating charities under their own names while failing to report that information.
Congratulations, America, you’ve just elected another corrupt politician who surrounds himself with corrupt supporters. “Yes we can” steal from the government and those we represent!
Source: Illinois Review and USA Today
http://rightsoup.com/rahm-emanuel-evades-property-tax-on-home-by-declaring-himself-a-charity/
Are you coming around yet to my way of thinking yet that the only way to stop Obama is by a campaign of civil disobedience making it impossible for his administration to govern.
I promise you Citizen Wells it WILL work.
Ian.
“We shall overcome?”