Yep. And we "know" his father was a British Subject how?
His commie momie told him so.
We can't prove he's legally a foreign subject without the birth certificate.
We can't prove he's legally a foreign subject without the birth certificate.
Bgill and null and void have been sowing confusion for so long we tend to ignore them, but in case citizens are beginning to pay attention, the little bits of misdirection need to be addressed. Our Congress is derelict, and colluded with Obama supporters. The evidence, the fourteen page talking points distributed by the Progressive Congressional Research Service to all congressmen within two months of Obama's inauguration was concealed from the public. It was leaked several weeks ago. (pointer at puzo1.blogspot.com)
Thecodent is correct. There are enough new patriots that there is again a risk that one or more may decide to risk attack from the state-run media, justice department or, as with Nathan Deal, some congressional committee. The House Ethics Committee which dug into IRS files to attack Deal will be chaired by a Republican.
As to Bgill's point of confusion, it doesn't matter "IF he was born outside the U.S." Obama told us who his father was. If Obama falsified his autobiographies, Social Security, bar registration, etc. etc. he has committed many crimes to attain the presidency, so many that his fitness to hold the office would invoke the Constitution to have Biden replace him until doubts are resolved.
Null and void suggests there needs more "proof" than the words and oaths spoken and signed by Obama, who told us very publicly that he was "born a subject of the British Commonwealth." Barry even cited the 1948 British Nationality Act, which deemed dad natural born subject, and passed that allegiance to his child - Barry. Barry swore to uphold and protect. If he lied, there are many paths to removal, and none may be necessary, since he isn't a constitutional president.
Obama is in his office because of the malfeasance of our legislature which oversees politically appointed federal judges. The reason's for the Supreme court's intransigence are less clear. Perhaps someone will explain, Justice Thomas perhaps, who let us know that evasion was not a paranoid illusion? We will always wonder at the closed door meeting with the justices in January of 2009.
All three branches are cooperating, if they are not colluding, to weaken the trust our citizens have in its core institutions. They have had some success. That is part of why corporations are leary of taking risks. Small business deal mostly with private citizens. Only large businesses can tolerate the overhead necessary to dealing with government drones. Every business knows its future depends upon the next edict from our politburo, headed by a man whose past is secret, and by whose own definition, is a "native born citizen of the U.S." and not a "natural born citizen."
Is this not a coup? Has not our military chosen to obey a commander without Constitutional authority? Would the military, already operating outside of our Constitution, obey, defend and protect an extra constitutional leader? How far would the military, since every dictatorship depends upon its military to control its citizens, go to implement the current coup?
It is no surprise that GE, GM, Google, etc collude with a dictator. Their leaders will be removed by investors if they don't generate positive cash flow, even if GE is being paid by unwilling taxpayers to build idiotic monuments to graft and corruption like windmill farms, which to survive, will always need to be subsidized, and always run at a loss. That the the government becomes their largest customer was always the plan. The government will eventually put Ford out of business, or, take them over too. With no one trustworthy measuring profitablility, no private corporation can survive. Neither can dictatorships compete economically, so they use subterfuge to undermine free countries, as we are seeing.
Google and Cisco already have billions to spy on our energy use, and soon, to allow the government to ration energy, while we become more and more dependent upon foreign sources.
Was the missile off the Los Angeles coast a message to Obama to stay the course, in spite of the recent politicallosses? With our agencies, with IR satellites monitoring the surface of the earth claiming to have seen and done nothing, are we simply pawns in a larger negotiation? If Clinton, after the Flight 800 SA missile attack, could silence two hundred eye witnesses, confiscate all private video recordings, gag major airplane manufacturers, and deploy the CIA to manufacture a smokescreen to insure his reelection, who is protecting our nation and from whom? We are currently not a government of laws, to paraphrase John Admas, but are being governed by a man legally without allegiance, as his father was not a citizen, to our Constitution.