the obama birth certificate media scandal...

[candycorn]

Do people not realize that the presidential Constitutional requirements were never spelled out in law, nor in a Court decision. The only thing settled seems to be the fourteen year requirement and that occurred when Hoover was elected; it was settled by the nation politely ignoring the issue. The Constitution put in the requirements but the legislation needed to enforce and define those requirements was never done. It was not done even after some controvery arose with Chester A. Arthur being natural born. As for the birth certificate thing, states did not begin issuing birth certificates for almost 100 years after the Constitution was ratified. This is totally a political issue and some groups are doing their best to keep it alive and in the process making some Americans look dopey.

It's all about driving people to his fledgling web-tv made website.

 

[Toro]

the supreme court has to define "natural born"

It already has.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to determine a person‟s eligibility to become President in issuing the “Certificate of Ascertainment” “officially appoint[ing] the electors” who cast the State of Indiana‟s votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of the United States (“President&#8221. Transcript at 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible “to be appointed „Elector in Chief‟ in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2‟s prohibition that no United States Senator currently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State,” and (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”

we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President. ...

Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, ...

The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. ...

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.​

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. ...

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” ... The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, ... and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ...

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.​

... Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” ...

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

 

[washamericom]

More Allegations Of Threats...

Radio talk show host Mark Gillar recently stated: "One of the things you hear on the street is that they're [members of the media] being threatened. You hear rumors of the White House threatening to use the full force of the FCC or... the FTC to come after them if they don't get in line."

But the threat allegations appear to more than rumors. Dr. Jerome Corsi, stated that the Cold Case Posse is looking into allegations of threats being issued to members of the media and is actively pursuing those allegations:

"Testimony is being developed that the White House is intimidating, in a systematic way, the mainstream media and if any broadcasters dare go into this birther story, they're going to risk FCC investigations... people are going to have careers ruined... thrown off the air."

 

[washamericom]

the supreme court has to define "natural born"

It already has.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to determine a person‟s eligibility to become President in issuing the “Certificate of Ascertainment” “officially appoint[ing] the electors” who cast the State of Indiana‟s votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of the United States (“President&#8221. Transcript at 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible “to be appointed „Elector in Chief‟ in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2‟s prohibition that no United States Senator currently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State,” and (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”

we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President. ...

Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, ...

The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. ...

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.​

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. ...

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” ... The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, ... and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ...

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.​

... Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” ...

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

i meant this country harper...

Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause


The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various ... of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly ...

Constitutional provisions - Rationale - Constitutional Convention




eligibility was always a distraction anyway, in my mind. no... it's all about the cover up now, just as with nixon, who actually was president till he resigned. obama was born in mombassa, kenya. u.k.

 

[washamericom]

half typed half written is back.
michael isikoff never said if she really said it or if he just made it up in his story. it wasn't in quotes so the obots say she never said it. but isakoff said she did in his story. you can see why we birthers are skeptical.

Major Discovery in Obama’s LFBC…and It’s in the INK! | We the People of the United States


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4251995...-official-denounces-ludicrous-birther-claims/

tim adams told me she (fukino) was/is a nice lady, coerced by obama's minions. i have written to isikoff twenty times about this.

 

[Nemo]

"That is jus soli, isn't it?"
Justice Antonin Scalia, Transcript (Oral Argument), Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 553 U.S. 53 (2001).

 

[washamericom]

"That is jus soli, isn't it?"
Justice Antonin Scalia, Transcript (Oral Argument), Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 553 U.S. 53 (2001).

Jus soli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jus sanguinis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


the constitutionality of this, which i find to be dry and moot, has been discussed and argued by ordinary people like never before in history. the supreme court is reluctant to decide. is rubio eligible ??

but in this case it's about a cover up.

 

[Toro]

the supreme court has to define "natural born"

It already has.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

i meant this country harper...

Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause


The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various ... of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly ...

Constitutional provisions - Rationale - Constitutional Convention


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA]Justice Thomas: We are evading the eligibility issue - YouTube[/ame]

eligibility was always a distraction anyway, in my mind. no... it's all about the cover up now, just as with nixon, who actually was president till he resigned. obama was born in mombassa, kenya. u.k.

"Natural born citizen" was defined by the Supreme Court a century ago in Wok Kim Ark.

 

[washamericom]

It already has.

i meant this country harper...

Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause


The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various ... of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly ...

Constitutional provisions - Rationale - Constitutional Convention


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA]Justice Thomas: We are evading the eligibility issue - YouTube[/ame]

eligibility was always a distraction anyway, in my mind. no... it's all about the cover up now, just as with nixon, who actually was president till he resigned. obama was born in mombassa, kenya. u.k.

"Natural born citizen" was defined by the Supreme Court a century ago in Wok Kim Ark.

hey toro, does the canadian government use the camera on your laptop to spy on you guys ??

 

[candycorn]

the supreme court has to define "natural born"

It already has.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to determine a person‟s eligibility to become President in issuing the “Certificate of Ascertainment” “officially appoint[ing] the electors” who cast the State of Indiana‟s votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of the United States (“President”). Transcript at 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible “to be appointed „Elector in Chief‟ in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2‟s prohibition that no United States Senator currently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State,” and (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”

we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President. ...

Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, ...

The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. ...

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.​

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. ...

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” ... The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, ... and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ...

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.​

... Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” ...

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Thank you for that.

 

[regent]

the supreme court has to define "natural born"

It already has.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Thank you for that.

The question: does any definition of natural born yet rendered apply to the Constitutional requirement for candidacy to the presidency? The next birther step would be to claim that that any definition rendered so far does not apply to Art. II requirements. It would seem that laws need to be passed that applies to the Constitional requirements alone. I doubt if the Court would touch this claiming it to be a political matter. The Posey Bill sits in the House untouched, why? You would think the Republicans would have that out, debated and passed by now.

 

[niteowl]

We need to step back a bit. As has been pointed out, the story of the forgery associated with Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a worldwide phenomena. Everyone in the world, understands that forgery is a crime in their country. They may not understand the implications, but they understand that when you mix politicians and felony crimes, the answer is official corruption. Everyone in the world understands this point. What they're asking is, "What are Americans going to do about it?"

Well, what are Americans going to do about it? Will Americans unite, in opposition to official corruption? Or, will some Americans embrace corruption to their bosom, and defend it to the detriment of their fellow Americans? Are we a nation where every person is equal? Or are some Americans "more equal" than others? Is George Zimmerman to be arrested, even though there is no evidence of a crime having been committed, while issuing a forged document (a crime in virtually every nation on earth), should be ignored?

 

[Toro]

i meant this country harper...

Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause


The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various ... of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly ...

Constitutional provisions - Rationale - Constitutional Convention


Justice Thomas: We are evading the eligibility issue - YouTube

eligibility was always a distraction anyway, in my mind. no... it's all about the cover up now, just as with nixon, who actually was president till he resigned. obama was born in mombassa, kenya. u.k.

"Natural born citizen" was defined by the Supreme Court a century ago in Wok Kim Ark.

hey toro, does the canadian government use the camera on your laptop to spy on you guys ??

I know but can't tell you.

Its a secret.

 

[Toro]

We need to step back a bit. As has been pointed out, the story of the forgery associated with Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a worldwide phenomena. Everyone in the world, understands that forgery is a crime in their country. They may not understand the implications, but they understand that when you mix politicians and felony crimes, the answer is official corruption. Everyone in the world understands this point. What they're asking is, "What are Americans going to do about it?"

Well, what are Americans going to do about it? Will Americans unite, in opposition to official corruption? Or, will some Americans embrace corruption to their bosom, and defend it to the detriment of their fellow Americans? Are we a nation where every person is equal? Or are some Americans "more equal" than others? Is George Zimmerman to be arrested, even though there is no evidence of a crime having been committed, while issuing a forged document (a crime in virtually every nation on earth), should be ignored?

Americans will ignore it because it's not a forgery.

Please stop being crazy.

 

[washamericom]

We need to step back a bit. As has been pointed out, the story of the forgery associated with Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a worldwide phenomena. Everyone in the world, understands that forgery is a crime in their country. They may not understand the implications, but they understand that when you mix politicians and felony crimes, the answer is official corruption. Everyone in the world understands this point. What they're asking is, "What are Americans going to do about it?"

Well, what are Americans going to do about it? Will Americans unite, in opposition to official corruption? Or, will some Americans embrace corruption to their bosom, and defend it to the detriment of their fellow Americans? Are we a nation where every person is equal? Or are some Americans "more equal" than others? Is George Zimmerman to be arrested, even though there is no evidence of a crime having been committed, while issuing a forged document (a crime in virtually every nation on earth), should be ignored?

Americans will ignore it because it's not a forgery.

Please stop being crazy.

? if obama was a republican, he'd have to open the safe. it's not crazy, just unpopular, soon everyone will be on board, even fox canada.

 

[daws101]

yes... in a perfect alinsky world...

your poetry sucks. it doesn't even rhyme.

that's because it's prose efinition of PROSE
1a : the ordinary language people use in speaking or writing b : a literary medium distinguished from poetry especially by its greater irregularity and variety of rhythm and its closer correspondence to the patterns of everyday speech.
you illiterate asshat !
BTW poetry doesn't always rhyme.
I'd say you were stupid but that would put 5 or 6 rungs up the evolutionary ladder from where you truly are!

 

[niteowl]

We need to step back a bit. As has been pointed out, the story of the forgery associated with Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a worldwide phenomena. Everyone in the world, understands that forgery is a crime in their country. They may not understand the implications, but they understand that when you mix politicians and felony crimes, the answer is official corruption. Everyone in the world understands this point. What they're asking is, "What are Americans going to do about it?"

Well, what are Americans going to do about it? Will Americans unite, in opposition to official corruption? Or, will some Americans embrace corruption to their bosom, and defend it to the detriment of their fellow Americans? Are we a nation where every person is equal? Or are some Americans "more equal" than others? Is George Zimmerman to be arrested, even though there is no evidence of a crime having been committed, while issuing a forged document (a crime in virtually every nation on earth), should be ignored?

Americans will ignore it because it's not a forgery.

Please stop being crazy.

Ah! Finally, someone is willing to discuss the evidence! Well, do tell - what can you offer to refute the findings of the experts?

 

[daws101]

We need to step back a bit. As has been pointed out, the story of the forgery associated with Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a worldwide phenomena. Everyone in the world, understands that forgery is a crime in their country. They may not understand the implications, but they understand that when you mix politicians and felony crimes, the answer is official corruption. Everyone in the world understands this point. What they're asking is, "What are Americans going to do about it?"

Well, what are Americans going to do about it? Will Americans unite, in opposition to official corruption? Or, will some Americans embrace corruption to their bosom, and defend it to the detriment of their fellow Americans? Are we a nation where every person is equal? Or are some Americans "more equal" than others? Is George Zimmerman to be arrested, even though there is no evidence of a crime having been committed, while issuing a forged document (a crime in virtually every nation on earth), should be ignored?

Americans will ignore it because it's not a forgery.

Please stop being crazy.

Ah! Finally, someone is willing to discuss the evidence! Well, do tell - what can you offer to refute the findings of the experts?

is it evidence? or is it another forgery or series of forgeries? has anyone objectively checked?
what about the chain of custody ? has it been tamperd with?

 

[washamericom]

yeah toro... what ?

The Patriot Sheepdog: Vetting Obama

did bernardine dhorn babysit the obama kids ??

 

[washamericom]

your poetry sucks. it doesn't even rhyme.

that's because it's prose efinition of PROSE
1a : the ordinary language people use in speaking or writing b : a literary medium distinguished from poetry especially by its greater irregularity and variety of rhythm and its closer correspondence to the patterns of everyday speech.
you illiterate asshat !
BTW poetry doesn't always rhyme.
I'd say you were stupid but that would put 5 or 6 rungs up the evolutionary ladder from where you truly are!

it should rhyme... here i'll spot you one.

daws one o one, just think of that... what an asshole, no, an asshat...