Replies

"Well researched -- Thanks."

If by "well researched" you mean sophomoric and idiotic, then sure, it's "well researched".

Thousands of constitutional scholars and lawyers writing in a hundred law reviews and journals each month, and not one has proffered legal theory resembling the idiocy that BP2 just spouted, and yet you morons think it's "well researched". It's ridiculous.

April is a good time to concentrate on the advertising that America needs to realize that Obamacare either for or against is either way not a legal standing law.

For all those wanting healthcare what is going to happen the day its proven beyond a doubt and globally that Obama was an usurper?

The trolls do realize it will happen eventually, it may not be this year or the next but it WILL happen, and way before Healthcare becomes effective.

It would be better off for EVERYONE if it was proven NOW that Obama is an usurper, elect someone who has the STANDING to pen Healthcare Reform into law.

Everything he has signed means absolutely NOTHING, because he has no legal authority as President, America was conned and now being forced to lie about the truth.

How many years, decades or future generation will have to live our failure to be truthful?

What's ridiculous and moronic is your perpetual reliance on Wong Kim Ark for the support of your regimist, citing British law on "subjects" rather than American law on "citizens".

You quote Justice Gray as if he were your holy prophet and yet you ignore all the other Justices who give a clear definition of "natural born citizen" consistent with that of our founders. And where did Gray ever say that Wong is a "natural born citizen"??? Nowhere. That is what we call sophomoric and moronic.

If Wong Kim Ark is your constitution, then all your selective reading of it proves is that Obama is a "natural born subject" of Britain and fully qualified to run for the office of Queen.

You have been here less than one year!!!

What is your real agenda of posting here defending an unqualified usurper (illegal alien?) put in the White House by unknown(?) powers to take our nation down the Socialistic lanes. Your late postings here on this matter is very, VERY suspicious, Mr. Deck-Boy (Skyhook)???

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=deckboy

I laid out, very clearly and with citations, the flaws with people like yourself who hang their hat on US v. Ark, and Justice Gray's "research" therein — at the outset of the Progressive movement here in the US. It's very clear and straight-forward to anyone who can get their head out of the Obama punch-bowl and into the books.

Instead of refuting those facts — instead of going beyond what Loren or Tes may have spoon-fed you via half-baked research — you're left with the ol' standby ad hominem of "idiocy", "delusional" and "nuts".

It speaks VOLUMES, as you've obviously reached the limit of your knowledge on this subject, and must retort with ad hominems.

When you're ready, I'll school you on Vattel, also cited in DC v. Heller (2008) — unlike Dicey's "Conflict of Laws".

Note: The Colonists had access to an English version of Law of Nations — used by Patriot lawyer James Otis in 1765 — that pre-dates the 1797 English translation ... a fact lost on the Obots who wander through FR, who are too busy tripping over each other trying to defend Obama.