It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Corsi To File Criminal Charges Against White House Over Obama Birth Certificate

page: 16
35
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
*sigh* No, it definitely seems like you don't understand.. nor do I think you really want to. Obama's mother was a natural born citizen, who gave birth in the united states. Barack Obama Sr was not an ambassador, nor royalty, nor was he an agent of an enemy nation, when in the US, he would be under US jurisdiction, Obama jr was born in the US, did not owe allegiance to a foreign nation and was under jurisdiction of the USA (if his father had diplomatic immunity, was royalty, etc, you might have some kind of point, but he didn't/doesn't so therefore it's a moot point.) For one to owe allegiance to a foreign nation does not simply mean they are a foreign national, I believe this is where the "disconnect" is coming from.

BTW, I am not an obama supporter, nor have I ever been. It simply boggles my mind that a group of people can be so willfully ignorant. You may be able to lie to yourself, but when I spot BS, I have to call it like I see it. Left/right/republican/democrat, it matters not. When someone is being deceptive, and purposely putting forth numerous false and misleading statements, I will call them out on it.




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Yea, that's why I'm trying really hard now to just step back and not waste any more of my time on it. All that needs to be said HAS been said, and in the lack of any real incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing, everything else is redundant garbage.

I guess though, it never occurred to me that those who I THINK aren't seeing how ridiculous they are being, actually do and want it to be that way....classic, by baffling with BS.

But for all, here are some facts and like em or not, they ARE facts and facts you will never change:

Barack Obama IS President of the US
He IS a citizen.
Dissenters cannot and have not proven otherwise (else he would NEVER have gotten there).
Dissenters dont have arms that reach high enough or enough influence by correctness to remove him.
I voted for Ron Paul.


So, birthers, flap your gums all you want, it's going nowhere and you don't have a chance in hell of effecting a change to the contrary of the current situation. Have fun in your fantasy land



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You just don't get it. This is patently false.
No, it is you who doesn’t seem to get it.


Barack Sr was never a US Citizen and that is a requirement under Article II.
It’s a requirement for the person, not the person’s parents!

The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, that is declaratory of the common law principle of birth right citizenship, says “all persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” It’s targets all persons who are born in the United States, it says nothing about the parents.

Both Obama’s parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Were they foreign diplomats entitled to diplomatic immunity? No. Were they enemy soldiers? No. Then they were subject to the jurisdiction! And by consequence so was Obama.


You are wrong. You keep insisting that a person only need be a citizen at birth and not a natural born citizen to be POTUS. The requirement of the natural born clause in Article II states unquivocally that a person needs to be born in the country of citizen parents.

What you are trying to say it seems that because the Court granted Wong Kim citizenship, that also grants him eligibility as POTUS, and you are citing jus soli as support. You are asserting also by logical conclusion that all persons born in the US are eligible to be POTUS even if their parents are not citizens, and that they only need be domiciled in the States. But again that is the 14th amendment requirement for citizenship. How many times must we go round the merry go round?

edit on 25-5-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   


Once again, as other liberals have used that same argument, you are attempting to declare that Native Born is equal to Natural Born.


And again - what does the SCOTUS say about the issue?


My agenda is nothing but staying within the realm of the Constitution and the intention of the Founding Fathers, which was to preserve the safety and sovereignty of the newly found Republic.


Refresh my memory - what qualifications did you have to be able to completely disregard the rulings of the SCOTUS?

I'll make it simple - in deference to you:
1 - If this was the decision of the Founding Fathers, why didn't they say so WITHIN the Constitution?
2 - Again, how can United States Code be at odds with the Constitution - IF what you say is true?
3 - Why has even Orly Taitz given up this line of reasoning with her "law suits"?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Syyth007
 


Well, I'll tell you what, the Wong Kim Ark establishes citizenship as per the 14th Amendment. You want the 14th to somehow replace the Natural Born clause of Article II of the Constitution. Article II states that the person must have citizen parents. Wong's parents were domiciled in the States, but there is the question of them having been subjects of the Chinese empire. Being domiciled here does not equal citizen. Perhaps you could just go to France and stay there for a few years and claim to be a French citizen. And have kids there and have them be eligible to be President. But then again, I do not know what is in the French constitution.

If and when SCOTUS will hear the case of Obama and declare him eligible then we can say the precedent is set.
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1


Once again, as other liberals have used that same argument, you are attempting to declare that Native Born is equal to Natural Born.


And again - what does the SCOTUS say about the issue?


My agenda is nothing but staying within the realm of the Constitution and the intention of the Founding Fathers, which was to preserve the safety and sovereignty of the newly found Republic.


Refresh my memory - what qualifications did you have to be able to completely disregard the rulings of the SCOTUS?

I'll make it simple - in deference to you:
1 - If this was the decision of the Founding Fathers, why didn't they say so WITHIN the Constitution?
2 - Again, how can United States Code be at odds with the Constitution - IF what you say is true?
3 - Why has even Orly Taitz given up this line of reasoning with her "law suits"?



What SCOTUS rulings? The Wong Kim ruling? what qualifications am I disregarding? The qualifications set out in the 14th are for citizenship.
This is just getting ridiculous.
Wong Kim does not make Obama eligible.

KJ Kaufman (aka: curi0us0nefromthe60s)



Wong Kim Ark alleged that he was born in the United States in 1873 to parents of Chinese decent whom were subjects of the emperor of China. In August of 1895, Wong Kim Ark was returning to the United States from a temporary visit to China wherein he was refused permission to land (dock) at the port of San Francisco by the collector of customs and was restrained of his liberty based solely upon the pretense that he was not a citizen of the United States.
This case, like the Minor v. Happersett case, occurred after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Proponents of Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship status point to the following passage from the opinion written by Justice Gray[ii]:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.[iii] (Emphasis added)
Proponents that say Barack Obama is a natural born citizen point to the highlighted portion above concluding that is as much a citizen and the natural born child of a citizen are equivalents in that sentence. Thus, a child born in the United States of a foreigner domiciled in the United States is a natural born citizen child.
First, it can be unequivocally argued that the justices in their affirmative opinion above found Wong Kim Ark to be a 14th Amendment U.S. Citizen. There can be no dispute of this fact regardless of the soundness of the Justices’ arguments. It should also be noted that while domiciled in the U.S. and again in accordance with the 14th Amendment that “every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States” was the additional argument that the opinion of the court was making.
First, it can be unequivocally argued that the justices in their affirmative opinion above found Wong Kim Ark to be a 14th Amendment U.S. Citizen. There can be no dispute of this fact regardless of the soundness of the Justices’ arguments. It should also be noted that while domiciled in the U.S. and again in accordance with the 14th Amendment that “every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States” was the additional argument that the opinion of the court was making.
The crux of the ruling though for our purposes is how it relates to the natural born citizen status of an individual and in the highlighted text above, the Justices clearly state: and his child (snip) f born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. These twenty-seven words may ultimately decide the eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the Office of the President of the United States.


The problem with the original quoted passage from Wong Kim Ark and in particular the sentence that we have been deconstructing is that the sentence is just poorly constructed especially for use within a precedent setting legal opinion. This sentence could have been constructed in a much clearer fashion which would have obviated the confusion we have today regarding Wong Kim Ark’s case and its relationship to the natural born citizen subject. And as stated in the last paragraph, Justice Gray could have removed all doubt in the final paragraph of his written opinion. In fairness to the Justice, the Wong Kim Ark case was not a case that required Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. The case simply needed to prove that Wong Kim Ark was a 14th Amendment citizen. It would have been convenient today if the quoted passage was more clearly defined in terms of natural born citizen status in a subsequent sentence by the Justices, but they felt no compelling reason to clear up any issues with regard to natural born citizens as their case did not require such a ruling.


Anyway, I've had enough of this.

Have a good night.
edit on 25-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Syyth007
 


Well, I'll tell you what, the ong Kim Ark establishes citizenship as per the 14th Amendment. You want the 14th to somehow replace the Natural Born clause of Article II of the Constitution. Article II states that the person must have citizen parents.


Simple question - where does it say that in the Constitution? I can't find it - and I'll bet you can't either.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Syyth007
 


Well, I'll tell you what, the ong Kim Ark establishes citizenship as per the 14th Amendment. You want the 14th to somehow replace the Natural Born clause of Article II of the Constitution. Article II states that the person must have citizen parents.


Simple question - where does it say that in the Constitution? I can't find it - and I'll bet you can't either.


Is this what you say you can't find?


Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.



?
Or you cannot find the definition of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution? That is the crux of the argument, whereas people keep asserting that the 14th is the definition of eligibility, it defines what is allowable as Citizenship.
If you want to go there, then the 14th Amendment is in the Bill of Rights but does not say it is a definition of Natural Born.
This is just going round and round. You say there is no definition of Natural Born anywhere yet you want to say that the 14th Amendment says what can be eligible as POTUS. I see nothing in Amendment 14 that states what constitutes POTUS eligibility. Then to further obscure things, you keep saying that it is not Vattel which the Founders used for their definition of Natural Born. Yes we have seen in some of our Founding Fathers writings evidence they knew of Vattel's definition and considered it as well as Blackstone.
Perhaps this is why SCOTUS does not want to handle the case.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
What SCOTUS rulings? The Wong Kim ruling? what qualifications am I disregarding? The qualifications set out in the 14th are for citizenship.
This is just getting ridiculous.
Wong Kim does not make Obama eligible.


Absolutely correct - it IS getting ridiculous. You've been challenged time and again to answer specific questions and somehow they never get answered.

1 - explain how Wong doesn't answer the mail about citizenship? (There are only two kinds - naturalized and natural born). Which was Wong? Prove your point based on the case.

2 - You keep dodging the fact that US Code CANNOT conflict with the Constitution - but you have no response. Again, explain Title 8 section 1401-a and how it supports your argument.

3 - Wong does not make Obama eligible? Well the the fact that the SCOTUS disagrees with you and your interpretation of what the Founding Fathers might have meant seems to mean *nothing* to you. Why is that? If you disagree - you NEED to cite current law to support your argument. Keep in mind that - as mentioned, even Orly Taitz has dropped this argument. Think there *might* be a reason?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


1 - When this was written - it was understood that most (if not all) of the founding fathers were actually born in England - this was a "grandfather clause" that allowed them to hold office. You KNOW THIS so stop acting like this is a "hidden definition" or "clause"
2 - As mentioned before - there are ONLY two kinds of US citizens - "Naturalized" (Schwarzenegger) and "Natural Born" (Obama).
edit on 25-5-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
BUT,

what if it is later proved that

Obama's real father is an American ?

i don't think His mother or Obama Sr was a very good public speaker.

his real father had to be.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorKarma
 





GO GET 'EM Corsi, it is time to run this :Judas Goat" to ground and expose him for the fraud he is.


Thanks for your post MajorKarma. After only reading a portion of Mr. Corsi's book I am now convinced that that is exactly what will happen. I can't wait to finish reading it.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by PunchingBag80
 





Why did it take 3 years to produce a birth certificate if there was nothing to hide in the first place? That is just too supicious to be called coincidence.


Excellent point which seems to get ignored a lot. As Mr. Corsi stated in one of his recent interviews, this latest BC release was prepared to be released as an "October surprise" in order to boost Obama's chances for re-election. But, as WND learned around Feb.24th., the Obama team rushed to put the BC together before Mr. Corsi's book came out in a vain attempt to dissuade people from reading his new book, as it contains a great deal of substantiated evidence damaging to Obama. This is why some posters are attempting to continue the campaign of discouraging people from researching Mr. Corsi's book even now. If people read it, a lot of the misinformation being disseminated by people will be silenced and a solid case made for disqualifying Obama's presidency. This is obviously disconcerting to a few people that don't want the truth to come out.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


1 - When this was written - it was understood that most (if not all) of the founding fathers were actually born in England - this was a "grandfather clause" that allowed them to hold office. You KNOW THIS so stop acting like this is a "hidden definition" or "clause"
2 - As mentioned before - there are ONLY two kinds of US citizens - "Naturalized" (Schwarzenegger) and "Natural Born" (Obama).
edit on 25-5-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)


The second part was the grandfather clause. The first part (no one but a natural born Citizen) is for succeeding generations. It should be evident what this was about. It means that while those who were born under British rule(that should be obvious since all the colonists were under British rule) are grandfathered in they had to start somewhere but that in succeeding generations, they must be natural born with citizen parents. It's just not that difficult.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syyth007
*sigh* No, it definitely seems like you don't understand.. nor do I think you really want to. Obama's mother was a natural born citizen, who gave birth in the united states. Barack Obama Sr was not an ambassador, nor royalty, nor was he an agent of an enemy nation, when in the US, he would be under US jurisdiction, Obama jr was born in the US, did not owe allegiance to a foreign nation and was under jurisdiction of the USA (if his father had diplomatic immunity, was royalty, etc, you might have some kind of point, but he didn't/doesn't so therefore it's a moot point.) For one to owe allegiance to a foreign nation does not simply mean they are a foreign national, I believe this is where the "disconnect" is coming from.

BTW, I am not an obama supporter, nor have I ever been. It simply boggles my mind that a group of people can be so willfully ignorant. You may be able to lie to yourself, but when I spot BS, I have to call it like I see it. Left/right/republican/democrat, it matters not. When someone is being deceptive, and purposely putting forth numerous false and misleading statements, I will call them out on it.


You are right, he was NOT an ambassador. He was not a US citizen. He was under the jurisdiction of Britsh law, and he was a British subject. The 1948 law confers kenyan/British citizenship to Barry Jr. If you want to bring in dual citizenship, then do that. You will run into some arguments there, as dual citizenship seems to imply dual loyalties. That is why when you become Naturalized you are expected to swear you give up loyalties to any other country. And that still does not make one eligible for POTUS.

So speaking of disconnect. look in the mirror.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Perhaps this is why some here keep talking about how many times "natural born" is inserted into the Wong Kim case, and they use that to show precedent that anyone born on US soil is eligible to be POTUS regardless of parents status.

"The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States;" and "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." The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," also declares that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude."

hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com...


I would like for anyone to show me how this statement means that Wong Kim is eligible to become POTUS.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Are there more than two types of citizens of the United States? I can't find any evidence of more than two. You're either naturalized or you're a natural born citizen, correct?

If Obama went through any kind of legal procedure to become a citizen, then he'd be naturalized and be ineligible for the Presidency. Otherwise, he's a natural born citizen based on his parent(s).

He might possibly qualify for dual citizenship, but that would have been up to his mother/father to pursue until he was of age (usually 18) to determine if he wanted to pursue that himself. Did he ever do that?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


1 - When this was written - it was understood that most (if not all) of the founding fathers were actually born in England - this was a "grandfather clause" that allowed them to hold office. You KNOW THIS so stop acting like this is a "hidden definition" or "clause"
2 - As mentioned before - there are ONLY two kinds of US citizens - "Naturalized" (Schwarzenegger) and "Natural Born" (Obama).
edit on 25-5-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)


The second part was the grandfather clause. The first part (no one but a natural born Citizen) is for succeeding generations. It should be evident what this was about. It means that while those who were born under British rule(that should be obvious since all the colonists were under British rule) are grandfathered in they had to start somewhere but that in succeeding generations, they must be natural born with citizen parents. It's just not that difficult.


No, no, no...it is NOT obvious - that's just your personal interpretation. If they had MEANT to say with AMERICAN Parents - they would have said it. Why didn't they? The opportunity to clarify this was presented in article II and the 14th - and STILL it does not specify this. You cannot WISH it so - no matter how many times you repeat it.

And STILL you refuse to address the US Code clause that directly refutes your claims. Give it up - you've got no case - just like Orly realized long before you.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
Are there more than two types of citizens of the United States? I can't find any evidence of more than two. You're either naturalized or you're a natural born citizen, correct?

If Obama went through any kind of legal procedure to become a citizen, then he'd be naturalized and be ineligible for the Presidency. Otherwise, he's a natural born citizen based on his parent(s).

He might possibly qualify for dual citizenship, but that would have been up to his mother/father to pursue until he was of age (usually 18) to determine if he wanted to pursue that himself. Did he ever do that?


Yes, there is Native Born and Natural Born. That is the whole point here. It says right in Article II you must be NATURAL BORN. Then right in the Wong Kim suit it even distinguishes between who can serve as a member of Congress and who can serve as President.

Sorry I misread your post. But I am wondering if there needs to be more than two?
If you go through a process to be naturalized, that means you were not Natural Born


To my knowledge, after Barry came back to the States after attending grade school in Indonesia, he did not go through any naturalization process. But on Fight The Smears, it was admitted that Barry was under British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, he admits he was a Kenyan citizen. Interestingly, the kenyan Parliament made it a new law that Barry is eligible to be President of Kenya. FighTheSmears scrubbed their page after the breuhaha though as they realized the mistake they made.
edit on 26-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


1 - When this was written - it was understood that most (if not all) of the founding fathers were actually born in England - this was a "grandfather clause" that allowed them to hold office. You KNOW THIS so stop acting like this is a "hidden definition" or "clause"
2 - As mentioned before - there are ONLY two kinds of US citizens - "Naturalized" (Schwarzenegger) and "Natural Born" (Obama).
edit on 25-5-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)


The second part was the grandfather clause. The first part (no one but a natural born Citizen) is for succeeding generations. It should be evident what this was about. It means that while those who were born under British rule(that should be obvious since all the colonists were under British rule) are grandfathered in they had to start somewhere but that in succeeding generations, they must be natural born with citizen parents. It's just not that difficult.


No, no, no...it is NOT obvious - that's just your personal interpretation. If they had MEANT to say with AMERICAN Parents - they would have said it. Why didn't they? The opportunity to clarify this was presented in article II and the 14th - and STILL it does not specify this. You cannot WISH it so - no matter how many times you repeat it.

And STILL you refuse to address the US Code clause that directly refutes your claims. Give it up - you've got no case - just like Orly realized long before you.




What other interpretation have you heard of this? That anyone can be POTUS? please no YOU give it up. Show me where the 14th says it clarifies who can be POTUS.
edit on 26-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join