If you buy that argument, how
can you expect to really find anything anyway? 
Originally posted by ZindoDoone
There is NO garruntee of privacy ANYWHERE in the Constitution.
The Right To Privacy
The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. ... In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.
It only says that you must be secure in your papers and persons and houses and can only be searched and seized by warrant.
We as citizens must know who our leaders are and have the absolute right to know backgrounds and possible conflicts of interest.
Originally posted by Tinkabit
reply to post by kosmicjack
I am not even from your country, nevermind political bias of any sort. Do you think this thing is limited to bipartisan sqabbling? This is international.
What happens to the US affects us all.
Originally posted by Tinkabit
reply to post by kosmicjack
You have no idea how down the wrong path you are.
I am not even from your country, nevermind political bias of any sort. Do you think this thing is limited to bipartisan sqabbling? This is international.
What happens to the US affects us all.
The best of social engineering. You are being played. This is a farce, and the men behind the curtain are having a good giggle at your expense.
The sad truth is that it does not matter when they own both sides, and all you are given is the illusion of free choice.
I just hate to see the deception. I don't get my jollies from being negative. I get my jollies from exposing the truth.
And the truth is that we have more quesitons than answers.
It should at least concern you.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It only says that you must be secure in your papers and persons and houses and can only be searched and seized by warrant.
And there has been no warrant or other legal demand for Obama's vault copy of his BC or any of these other papers. They are HIS papers. And he has the legal right to keep them private unless ordered to release them by a court. And even then, they will be released to the COURT and not to us. (as we have no right to see them)
We as citizens must know who our leaders are and have the absolute right to know backgrounds and possible conflicts of interest.
And where is that right enumerated or implied?
Originally posted by kosmicjackar
reply to post by Tinkabit
Dude, this is ATS and that doc, though highly interesting and seemingly accurate, is sooo last year.
You are derailing your own thread. Pick a topic and stick to it.
Originally posted by jsobecky
He's hiding them for a reason.
We have a right to know under the FOIA.
That's for GOVERNMENT records. FOIA
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Title 5 of the United States Code, section 552, generally provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information.
...
The FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies.
Why is he hiding them? Because his step-daddy Barry Soetero adopted him and that made him a citizen of Indonesia.
Hah! There you go again, interpreting the Constitution for your own personal gratification.
Originally posted by ZindoDoone
I've asked this before and got no answers from anybody. Does anyone here know of anyone who was taught by this man in the coledge he had a profesorship with.
Legal affairs reporters sought out Obama for years before he ran for U.S. Senate or president. CBS News quoted him as "Professor Barack Obama" in a 2000 story on whether African Americans deserve reparations for slavery.
source: www.suntimes.com...
