Impeach Obama?! New vid lays out a pretty good case.

Although the the video contains many facts and is laid out in a comprehensible manner, supporters of Obama are yet again saying "no facts". It is, and has been for some time, obvious, that no matter what facts are presented Obama stooges are not going to admit to their validity. I don't even argue with Obamanation supporters. If they are so blind or just not intelligent enough to see what's right in front of them by now, why try. If they enjoy higher taxes, continuing wars, losing their rights, how smart can they be? Moving on.

Originally posted by Youmakemewonder
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Where is that requirement now?
I think you just made that one up.

Go read the attempt to change the requirement .

Library of Congress

Why were they trying to change something that you're inferring wasn't there?

You have a huge problem with Blacks law. It was never used to write our documents.

In fact it was The Law Of Nations. Not only the existing copies Brought from France, But Ben Franklin put in a special order for three new copies to be used by the committee, for the writings.

They refused Blacks because the subject matter of the text related to persons who were subjects of a queen or king. So instead they used the book governing the rights of free men.

Sorry. The whole Dem/Obama argument doesn't hold up. Not even a couple drops in the bottom.


That is the reason for the concerted conspiracy to change the requirements 8 times. People in law know this is the truth and the know Law of Nations was the founders referenc document.

It is in fact, the encyclopedia of what every single thing means in the documents.

A revolutionary era wikipedia.

Originally posted by DAVID64
Although the the video contains many facts and is laid out in a comprehensible manner, supporters of Obama are yet again saying "no facts".

Originally posted by Youmakemewonder
I cannot watch any videos from where I am at the moment. Could you just list a few of the more important and most salient facts, please?

Not even an Obama supporter and yet I could not get an answer to my question. You got one?

reply to post by Senteri


Barry Soetoro is our 'commander and thiefs' real name, before he became the manchurian candidate.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
they mave get the votes in the house, but won't have them in the senate

moot point really

You people really don't understand what this is all about do you?

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Go read the attempt to change the requirement .

Library of Congress

Why were they trying to change something that you're inferring wasn't there?

edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

Just a link to the library of congress? Where are the bills again? Have you read them? Can you explain them? Why can't you just show where that requirement is instead of playing footsie like this?

It is a simple and direct question.

Originally posted by Senteri

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Why do you think that their attempts were to eliminate or redefine the natural born clause goes to the elimination of the requirement that the president is born to two legitimate American citizens?

Even if that were anyone's intention that would not prove one thing about Obama.

Hmmm.... maybe because they knew, as we know now and commonly accept as fact that Obama's father is not / was not an American citizen??

We all knew Obama's father was not a citizen.

For God's sake, that's the whole point! Are you being intentionally dense??

To those of you who are saying that a natural born citizen must have both parents born in the US... This is WRONG.

Only one parent has to have been born in the US.

I will prove it.

www.usconstitution.net...

The 14th amendment defines citizen ship as: "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."

Now that is a bit vague.... Let's take a look at Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Specifically section 1401.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Particularly this:

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

In simple terms, only one of his parents must be a citizen of the United States and has to have lived in the US for at least a total of one year before the birth of the child.... His mom was born and raised in the US....

Obama is a natural born citizen.

Sorry birthers. :/

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Senteri

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
You don't think that the Library of Congress' congressional record is hard evidence?

Conjecture?

Where is the link?
Your quote sources back to a blog.
JB Williams

I didn't link to anything, must have me confused with someone else.

Um...no. That is probably why I said, where is your link? Did you have a hard time understanding that? I looked up your quote myself because you left no link.

Here's the Library of Congress link, I wish I could link the individual bills but the website doesn't allow you to. You have to search using the individual bills' numbers.

Library of Congress

What are the individual bills?

Originally posted by Youmakemewonder

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Go read the attempt to change the requirement .

Library of Congress

Why were they trying to change something that you're inferring wasn't there?

edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

Just a link to the library of congress? Where are the bills again? Have you read them? Can you explain them? Why can't you just show where that requirement is instead of playing footsie like this?

It is a simple and direct question.

Yes, just a link to the library of congress. You obviously have never used the library of congress because you would know that you cannot link to individual bills in the library of congress. If you really had any interest at all in investigating these claims with an open mind, you would not be asking me to do your work for you. Yes, I have read them. You can too, it's all there for you to read, just like anyone else.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Senteri

 

Barry Soetoro is our 'commander and thiefs' real name, before he became the manchurian candidate.

Why can't I find one instance of that being legally used as his name then?
Why can't I find one instance of him using that name himself?
Why was he not born under that name?

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
For God's sake, that's the whole point! Are you being intentionally dense??

What is the whole point? His dad does not need to be. Seeing as how this was well known before he was elected by people smarter and more capable of doing something about it than you I do not see what you are trying to convince me of with no sources.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Yes, just a link to the library of congress. You obviously have never used the library of congress because you would know that you cannot link to individual bills in the library of congress.

How the hell am I supposed to do that exactly? Should I put birther bill in the search box or what?

If you really had any interest at all in investigating these claims with an open mind, you would not be asking me to do your work for you.

I am not. I am asking you to provide me with the sources you use to come to your erroneous conclusions. That only seems fair to ask you where you get your BS from.

Yes, I have read them. You can too, it's all there for you to read, just like anyone else.

Then you can start by simply answering my very simple question. Why should I chase around a bunch of bill when the main source for your claim is all I want. Can you not provide one?

reply to post by Senteri


It's the name he went by as a youth in Hawaii.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Senteri

 

It's the name he went by as a youth in Hawaii.

Source?

reply to post by Senteri
My flawless memory.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Senteri

 

My flawless memory.

So your claim is BS and you cannot back it up even a little bit?
Weak sauce.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Senteri

 

My flawless memory.

Of....?

www.thecomingattack.com...

Tom Fife, an American computer networking specialist and international businessman, reported the alarming facts about the Kremlin’s connection to Barack Obama. The boast from a Communist Party official reportedly occurred during a business trip to Russia, 16 years before Barack Obama was ushered into the presidency of the United States. “It was like an elastic band snapping all the way from 1992,” Fife shakily admitted, upon recall of the exact moment he realized the Communist official had been telling the truth. “It was a very, very scary feeling.”

sorry Obama suppoters but your suckers.... still dont feel bad he fooled us all in the beginning. Man how many of us bought that change line sigh the traitor did the opposite of everything he promised and all to destroy ya and he's not done yet.