Second General backs Lakin, says President should produce birth certificate

By Jack Minor

MGen Jerry Curry who has recently come out in support of Lt. Col. Lakin saying the President needs to show proof of his eligibility to the American people

A second General has come out in support of former Greeley resident Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin, who is challenging in court President Obama’s eligibility to be President, saying a good leader would gladly produce the documentation and put this issue to rest.

This past Friday, Lt. Col Lakin attended a military hearing to face several charges including missing a movement. Following the hearing, Lakin was ordered not to speak to the press and was immediately taken by military escort back to Walter Reed Medical Center without even being permitted to speak to his lawyer.

Lakin is being represented by both military and civilian counsel. Margaret Hemenway, spokeswoman for Lt. Col. Lakin said one of his attorneys Paul Rolf Jensen is considering filing a complaint over the manner his client was treated following the hearing.

Army Major General (Ret) Jerry Curry a decorated combat veteran has issued statement saying he agrees with Lakin that the President should provide proof of eligibility. Curry served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Carter Administration, as Press Secretary to the Secretary of Defense for the Reagan Administration, and has worked in international relations, public affairs, management, aviation, and research and development.

While on active duty, General Curry’s other duties included commanding the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM) headquartered at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. TECOM is responsible for performing Engineering Development Testing to determine whether all Army equipment including jeeps, trucks of all types, self propelled artillery, tanks, electronics, airplanes, helicopters and missiles is safe to operate, free from defects and is in compliance with all of the Army’s technical specifications.

General Curry lamented that members of the military were having to raise the issue “It shouldn’t be the Lieutenant Colonels, Sergeants and Generals in the Army it should be the Congressman and Senators on both sides of the issue asking this man to step up to the plate” and provide the proof to the American people. Curry expressed concern for Lakin telling the Gazette “the administration will do its best to destroy him personally.”

A recent CNN poll showed that only 42 percent of Americans feel that the President was definitely born in the United States. When asked how he feels the president should respond to the many Americans who have expressed doubt about his eligibility, Curry said as a leader the President should “look the American people in the eye” and say “I am under a cloud because there are some folks that think I am illegitimate. If you will tell me what you think I need to provide to cause you to throw this mess out the window, and to understand that I am legitimate then I will provide what you folks want because the most important thing is this country and carrying out the constitution.”

Many of the President’s supporters have encouraged Obama not to release the information claiming it would not silence the critics. Curry dismissed that claim saying the President should say “here it is, you wanted it you got it, now get off my back.”

As the Gazette previously reported, Major General Paul Vallely has also publically supported Lt. Col. Lakin saying in a radio interview “I think many in the military – and many out of the military – question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama. … I’m not convinced that he’s a natural-born citizen.”

Vallely said he was concerned over the Certification of Live Birth that was released online instead of the long form certificate showing the doctor’s name and hospital “His unwillingness to do it also concerns me. I think Lt. Col. Lakin has a valid point it’s a concern and I’m not sure it has been addressed properly. … He refuses to produce a birth certificate that states the witnessing of the birth, the date and who is the doctor. We don’t know why he won’t come out with that.”

A recent CNN poll revealed that 6 in 10 Americans are uncertain if the President was born in the United States. The poll taken July 16-21 asked the following question “Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country?”

Only 42 percent of the respondents said they believed the President was definitely born in the United States while probably in the United States received 29 percent meaning 6 in 10 Americans are uncertain about Obama’s birth.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews commenting on the CNN poll seemed to admit the president has not released his birth certificate. During the editorial Matthews showed a copy of the Certification of Live Birth and did not refer to it as the President’s birth certificate, instead simply calling it a “standard certificate released by the state of Hawaii.”

Matthews went on to say those who continued to doubt Obama’s eligibility were guilty of racism saying they want “to destroy this president not because of what he does but because of who he is, not because of where he was born but what his race is when he was born” and wanting to “assassinate him with their lies.”

Curry disputed Matthew’s claim saying if Obama is truly eligible producing the documentation would only strengthen his hand politically. Curry said people need to understand the purpose of pushing for the information is for the good of the country, not for personal reasons saying he does not want “to hurt Obama, we want the truth out so we don’t hurt the country.”


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback  •  Posted by Jack Minor in General News category

 
  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    “I have further twice telegraphed my willingness to move on from your apparently racist comment, declare it merely “unfortunate” and accept a retraction from you. “

    Apparent racist comment? How so? Does taking notice of a man’s ability to identify himself any way he wants, depending on how it suits him at the moment now consitute racism? I’ll have to make sure to add that the the extremely long list of other, just as arbitrarily included offenses. Why move on, let alone retract it, when it is worth mentioning, hardly “unfortunate” except in that it applies, and says far more about Obama and you by your arbitrary response than it does about me for taking notice of the obvious, especially when I can explore how your insinuation fits in with your hypocrisy below?

    All the oaths you listed are to one’s fellow free men, not to any governor or government. You communicated that one’s “due” allegience is to the government, which is incorrect. “Owing” allegience to a government is far different from “giving” one’s allegience to one’s fellow free men. I explained the difference, you appear to have missed it.

    The only reason Jefferson used the word “subject” to begin with was by mistake. That is why he crossed it out. We might as well be debating the sum of two plus two at this point. The clue you’re apparently missing is the entire rest of the text of the declaration.

    “If the former, I would have considered the law of the land to be in need of change, and then made whatever efforts were within my power to change it. “

    Wait, you would have tried to change it? That’s it? What in the meantime? Enforce it? Honor it? Defend it? How about utterly reject it?

    “If the latter, I would probably have not given it a second thought. After all, the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, and the Constitution at that time clearly had no problem with slavery”

    I wasn’t asking about the latter, I was asking how you as you are would reconcile that “law of the land”, based solely on a panel of judges, not free men or their representatives and your blind “allegience” to “the law of the land” with its clear conflict with the natural law principle of liberty that trumps it. However, I do submit that, in your case, it definately would have been the latter, as you have made clear that you would not have questioned their authority or wisdom no matter how antithetical it was to the founding principles of the country. Without hesitation, you would have fallen in line with and probably defended as vigorously as you are here your perception of the prevailing “wisdom” and “law” of the moment, that the person in question was safely on the other side of an arbitrary line, just as you have fallen for adopting the most absurd and unproductive nonsequitur of all time repeated above.

    As far as the constitution not having a problem, here again where although you can arguably make the statement you have made if you look at it very narrowly, I again think you have been less than fair. The constitution called for an end to the slave trade in America twenty years after the fact, which it was. The 2/3 count compromise was also a result of an obvious discomfort with the hypocrisy of slavery given the entire context of and prevailing values of the revolution.

    “I would not be surprised if you were of the “sovereign citizen” faction that rejects every Amendment post Bill-of-Rights to include the 13th.”

    I find your suggestion that I would have opposed the 13th a bit ironic coming from the guy who takes the side of the government against a fellow free man and officer for simply trying to be true to his oath by evdeavoring to insure that the President is not an imposter. Even more so coming from the guy who uses the same dehumanizing logic as Dred Scot and adopts the same tactic virtually every genocide in history has used to rationalize itself to rationalize abortion. If a “fertilized Ovum” were not a human being, it would not be necessary to interrupt its natural life in the first place in order to prevent it from living a full human life. Prior to conception, no such action is needed, only inaction. Once it is inevitably going to live a full human life unless killed, it has made the transistion into a human no less than a born baby or an eighty year old has. Any line drawn after that transition into a human would be arbitrary. A catterpiller may not look like a butterfly, but it is certainly the same entity. If you kill one, you have definately killed a butterfly, just one that deprived up its opportunity to grow its wings and fly. Given that your “president” doesn’t even believe a born baby is entitled to life, I don’t find your position surprising, just, along with your belief that we are still no more than “subjects” anyway, completely at odds with your unbelievable claim that you would make any exception whatsoever to your total disregard for the founding, natural law principles of the nation for just another master’s “legal” piece of property that was far short of being a human being anyway. To me, your acceptance of Dred Scott would be no less than that of the 13th or Roe v Wade, as long as it remained “the law of the land”. You’ve said as much here. It is obvious that you are an enemy of free men. No surprise that you are defending a phony president against real Americans. Enjoy it while you can, the reckoning is coming.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    I mean to say that the constitution ended the importation of slaves twenty years after it was ratified, not the trade itself. I also meant to use the phrase “considered at the time to be” when referencing the wisdom and law you would have embraced as to a slave.

    Meanwhile, although you have yet to quote the exact comment which you feel meets it, based on your apparent standard for what is racist, the next time I find myself in bed together with a woman of one race and another woman of another, I will be sure to think of myself as having racist sex, (not to mention sexist sex.) I will also think of Obama, for the mere offense of being multiracial himself, plus his supposedly being from a place populated by people of various races, as being a Natural Born racist.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    Stop picking at the scab, RA. I have already taken you completely off the hoof for your unfortunate comment regarding Obama’s mixed race. You really should have accepted that gifet long ago.

    All the oaths you listed are to one’s fellow free men, not to any governor or government. You communicated that one’s “due” allegience is to the government, which is incorrect. “Owing” allegience to a government is far different from “giving” one’s allegience to one’s fellow free men. I explained the difference, you appear to have missed it.

    Now you have leaped into full Bill Clinton mode. The contagion of your linguistic abuse now has you posing and parsing “owing” and “giving” along the previous violence you did to the words “allegiance,” “subject” and citizen.”

    The Pledge of Allegiance (which is, in case you have not noticed, an oath) pledges allegiance to an object (the flag) a specific nation (the United States of America) and to a specific form of government (the republic).
    The other oaths all pledge allegiance to a document (the Constitution) which establishes a government.

    You really need to learn to abandon arguments once you have lost them. But as we both know…. Birthers never do. Birther lies never die, Birthers file the same doomed lawsuit scores of times, and Birthers never reject a position once it has left their keyboard.

    Wait, you would have tried to change it? That’s it? What in the meantime? Enforce it? Honor it? Defend it? How about utterly reject it?

    “In the meantime?” You really don’t think very hard about things do you. “In the meantime,” I would be trying to change it just as I said. if you want a detailed imaginary plan of strategies and tactics to get that done, you’re in the wrong comment thread. We’re done with this particular red herring, please try to catch back up with the subject of the article.

    I wasn’t asking about the latter.

    Oh I see. Your hypothetical question was even more meaningless than I first gave you credit for. You may as well have asked me what chairs would look like if our knees bent the other way.

    I find your suggestion that I would have opposed the 13th a bit ironic coming from the guy who takes the side of the government against a fellow free man and officer for simply trying to be true to his oath by evdeavoring to insure that the President is not an imposter.

    Please, RA. We are all starting to choke on the straw out of which you insist on building your arguments. In your apparent inability to argue against what I have actually said, you persist in inventing things I have never said and then argue against them.

    I cannot possibly have “taken sides” as you assert here, because no such sides actually exist.

    I will remind you that LTC Lakin is on trial here, not President Obama. Lakin is not on trial for questioning the president’s eligibility. This is proven by the simple fact that he was formally and explicitly doing so for more than a year with no professional repercussions at all… in fact he had even been listed for promotion to Colonel during the period of his questioning.

    Lakin is on trial for four serious violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, at least three of which he has admitted. If I have taken sides it is on the side of military integrity, duty and professionalism. Something that you apparently have no personal experience regarding.

    So it is fair to grant you a certain latitude for your inability to understand. Lakin does not occupy the moral high ground here.

    I will now also do what should have been done previously… ignore your attempt to hijack the discussion in pursuit of still more red herring such as the abortion issue. If Jack Minor gets around to posting an article on abortion, maybe then we can have a discussion on that issue too.

    But not here.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    I mean to say that the constitution ended the importation of slaves twenty years after it was ratified, not the trade itself.

    Why are you still chasing red herring?

    If you have nothing else to say regarding the subject of the article, then please stop wasting all our bandwidth.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    I appreciate your interest in military integrity. However, if anything, I am a culturalist. I hold mine above that of most others. My respect for the military hangs on its respect for the freedom and sovereignty of the men it is supposed to protect. When a man comes in seeking power over us and claiming to subscribe to our culture when he does not, I would see him called, whether by Lakin or another. The man claims to be a Christian, but acts otherwise. He claims he is not a socialist, but clearly is. He claims to embrace the founding values of the country and yet he does not believe a born baby has a right to live. He thinks foreign terrorists deserve constitutional protections but places US citizens on assasination lists without the benefit of a trial. He would have us perceive him as “post-racial” yet we have now come to the point where eight people have been branded “racists” for the offense of being murdered by a theif that they worked with. Sound familiar? Why not deem a victim a racist for resisting a black rapist? When did this dishonest hypocrisy begin? With a racist president and you as his accomplice in knowingly participating in and perpetuating the dishonesty by suggesting that anyone who questions him or opposes his politics must be a racist. Odd that the same people supported Alan Keyes in his race against him. Am I to take his or your word that he was not violating the constitution at the precise moment he was taking an oath to protect it, (retries included), based on lies, smoke and mirrors as to his citizenship status while he refuses to substantiate it, I think not. You cannot fool all the the people all of the time. Ours is a government that only legitimately governs with the consent of the governed. We are not subjects and until he reasonably proves that he is more than his suspiciously uncandid behavior proves otherwise, he is not a natural born citizen or a legitimate president. I would rather have a soldier who disobeys orders and is loyal to his free men than one who obeys those of an imposter tyrant any day. God bless LTC Lakin, an American hero and shame on his fellow officers for not following his lead.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    I appreciate your interest in military integrity. However, if anything, I am a culturalist. I hold mine above that of most others.

    A “culturalist” you say? As euphemisms go, I guess that is as good as any. Each generation seems to find a new label with which to justify their personal prejudices. It appears you have found yours.

    My respect for the military hangs on its respect for the freedom and sovereignty of the men it is supposed to protect.

    Then perhaps you are currently in the wrong “culture.” Because in our “culture,” the American “culture” does not recognize “sovereignty” of the sort you pretend to possess. Note again the oaths of commissioning and enlistment. They say exactly nothing about protecting any “men,” sovereign or otherwise. The military is supposed to defend the Constitution. Full stop.

    You appear to have woken up in the wrong country. Maybe you would be more at home in Costa Rica where there is no Army at all.

    I took the liberty of snipping without comment your latest school of irrelevant red herring. We all know that you hate Barack Obama and you adhere to the whole list of thinly considered right-wing myths and conspiracy theories. But your hatred and the excuses you make for it have no bearing on either Presidential eligibility or LTC Lakin’s court martial.

    Am I to take his or your word that he was not violating the constitution at the precise moment he was taking an oath to protect it, (retries included), based on lies, smoke and mirrors as to his citizenship status while he refuses to substantiate it, I think not.

    Then do not vote for him.*

    * I would normally have instead suggested “Then come up with evidence otherwise,” but we both know that such a challenge just saddens and confuses you.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    What do you think the constitution is, other than an instrument through which the will, interests, powers and authority is channeled? What would be the point of your oath other than to observe the people’s interests? Its just a piece of paper. Are you loyal to a piece of paper? No. Its the ideas. Who’s ideas? The peoples. Who are the people? The free men who’s interests it serves. Certainly not the politicians. How exactly do you go about defending it? By making sure that it is respected. By who? By the servants it applies to. Certainly not the people. They are the ones it serves by their consent. What the hell else do you think you are doing?

    As far as preferring one culture over another, this is not a question of pre-judging. It is simply a matter of simply judging and preferring with the emphasis on preference. There is no “pre” before the judging. Everyone is partial to particular cultures, race notwithstanding. I suspect that Obama is partial to that of the Madarin Chinese.

  • HistorianDude says:

    What do you think the constitution is, other than an instrument through which the will, interests, powers and authority is channeled?

    It is the system of fundamental principles according to which our nation is governed.

    What would be the point of your oath other than to observe the people’s interests?

    Constitutions do not necessarily give the slightest bit of deference to “the people’s interests.” You will certainly note that even some dictatorships and monarchies have constitutions. Good ones such as ours have a bias for individual liberty, but still balance those individual freedoms with the shared communal interests in stability, safety, and opportunity.

    Constitutions are created in the consensus that individuals cannot be trusted to do what is right. It is the individuals who disagree with that consensus (like yourself) that Constitutions are designed to protect the rest of us from.

    There are no “sovereign” persons under our Constitution. In order to afford the greatest good to the greatest number, we all subordinate ourselves to the rule of law. Every single one of us from pauper to president.

    A nation of laws, not of men. Remember?

    As far as preferring one culture over another, this is not a question of pre-judging. It is simply a matter of simply judging and preferring with the emphasis on preference. There is no “pre” before the judging. Everyone is partial to particular cultures, race notwithstanding. I suspect that Obama is partial to that of the Madarin Chinese.

    This is pure unadulterated rationalization. But you are welcome to it.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    I really think you should make an effort to research and empathize with exactly what was in the minds of the founders. You appear to think that all the revolution accomplished was trading one master for another. You need to read Leibniz and Locke and get your mind around some natural law philosophy and familiarize yourself with just how thoroughly it is part of our creed. Your oath to the constitution is really meaningless if you fail to embrace the true underlying principles of liberty that it was designed to compliment. Your suggestion that “our culture does not recognize the sort of sovereignty I pretend to posess” suggests a major ignorance as to what it really means to be an American even if, sadly, it may have some truth to it as to our culture recognizing it. I don’t presume to think I can just opt out of the contract at will, (certainly not without being subjected to a considerable amount of tyranny), but I know which way the authority is supposed to flow and who my allegience is to and what is owed to me by our servants. You seem not to. We are not subjects who are supposed to know our place and bow to the master. We have no Earthly master. All are equal. When we threw off the sovereign, we all became kings. We apprehensively formed a limited government based on our consent. My liberty was paid for with blood. I’m not about to just voluntarily waive it in ignorance. You shouldn’t either. It is very foolish to be on any other side than that of free men. Government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master. A necessary evil. Stop covering for the would be tyrant. To the extent that you are not one too, (or a happy slave), he is your sworn enemy. He has no respect for the constitution at all.

    Check this out:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/we_the_serfs_1.html

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    I really think you should make an effort to research and empathize with exactly what was in the minds of the founders.

    I have done so. I have done so with great attention and depth. And I clearly come up with a dramatically different understanding than you do. What does this tell us?

    It tells that trying to read the minds of dead people is not as reliable exercise as either your side or my side might occasionally pretend. We cannot in final measure depend upon speculation regarding what was “in their minds.” We can only go by what they actually left us: their Constitution, their laws, and their writings on those subjects.

    The bottom line remains that nothing in their Constitution, their laws, or their writings support the anomalous personal beliefs that drive you to such apparent unhappiness. Alas, the Declaration only asserts that we have the unalienable right to pursue happiness, not to attain it.

    Go have an ice cream cone. It will not make your false ideas regarding our nations and our culture any less false. But it make them taste better, just for a moment.

    Your suggestion that “our culture does not recognize the sort of sovereignty I pretend to posess” suggests a major ignorance as to what it really means to be an American even if, sadly, it may have some truth to it as to our culture recognizing it.

    Nonsense. It is simply a statement of fact as you seem to recognize in that very statement.

    Since it has nothing further to do with the issue of President Obama’s eligibility or LTC Lakin’s trial, I again decline to waste my time slaying again the already slain.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    Everything in the constitution and their writings support my belief on the subject.

    “I have done so with great attention and depth.”

    So much knowledge, so little comprehension and wisdom. I would suggest doing it again, but I don’t think it will do any good.

    “Nonsense. It is simply a statement of fact as you seem to recognize in that very statement.”

    Your ability to miss what was really said in my statement is typical of you. It really says it all.

    Your take on history leaves no room for the phrase “consent of the governed”. “Consent” implies a lot more say in the matter than that of a subject. I will leave it at that.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    Everything in the constitution and their writings support my belief on the subject.

    You keep saying that… and yet when challenged you merely spout ambiguities and wave your hands in frantic attempts to redefine common English nouns into meaningless paste. Your assertions have repeatedly been shown to be as thin as onion skin.

    Your take on history leaves no room for the phrase “consent of the governed”.

    Nonsense. You have gone from merely wrong to aggressively wrong. And again, it boils down to your idiotically false conception of yourself as a “sovereign” individual under the Constitution. Such “sovereignty” is the exclusive contention of tax-protesters, right wing nut jobs and dangerous misanthropes of the sort who periodically find themselves in armed stand-off with the government that actually does possess the consent of which we speak. “Consent of the governed” is a communal concept, not an individual one.

    The only reason people like you are not merely ignored along with more benign crackpots like “hundredth monkey” pacifists and crop circle “scientists” is because you guys tend to be really angry and heavily armed. Among the things “the governed” have given “consent” for is the use of force to protect us from people like you.

    There. Are you happy? You again managed to elicit a response that has nothing to do with the thread. So I will part again by bringing things back onto topic.

    1. Obama proved his eligibility for the presidency more than two years. He has released absolute legal proof of his status as a natural born American citizen in the form of the only document legally required for the demonstration; a state issued and certified birth certificate.

    2. LTC Lakin is a disloyal and disobedient soldier who has idiotically pissed away his career in a futile act of political grandstanding. He has admittedly and willfully violated the UCMJ (and his oath) at least four different ways.

    3. He will be convicted, imprisoned, will forfeit his pay, retirement and benefits, and will be separated from the service (the commissioned equivalent of a dishonorable discharge). And at no time during his court martial will President Obama or his eligibility be considered the tiniest bit relevant to the proceedings.

    4. That outcome is the only just and correct outcome possible.

    Ciao.

    “Consent of the governed” is a communal concept… not an individual concept.

  • Real American says:

    Historain Dude,

    Given that you are the guy who, despite the obvious counter intuitiveness, thinks:

    “Citizen” is synonous with “subject”,

    Jefferson scratching out “subject” and properly replacing it with “citizen” shows this,

    That anyone on the planet other than you thinks this,

    The prior “release” of an un-authenticated, online image of a substitute document from the “transparent president” somehow explains or rationalizes going to court over seventy times to oppose the release of it rather than simply releasing the genuine original and saving everyone the trouble as his opponent reasonably did,

    That a court ruling regarding “citizenship” based on an amendment that didn’t exist at the time the “natural born citizenship” clause was writting is conclusive as to what the clause means,

    That, even though to this day almost every country, with a few exceptions, on Earth, including many US states up until the 14th amendment, tie citizenship to that of the parents, that “natural born citizenship” has nothing to do with citizenship of the parents and everything to do with an interpretation of an amendment that did not yet exist that, itself, is inconsistent that the express declarations of its own author,

    That Obama’s being born a British subject is irrelevant to his eligibility,

    That, even though we had just fought a revolution in order to throw off a tyrant, we would be happy with one of his “subjects” as president,

    That, even though Vatell clearly writes about the importance of citizens born of parents who are citizens in the very paragraph he was discussing the conferring of citizenship, that the natural law of nations that he was writing about in no way considers the citizenship of parents when they confer citizenship even though they, in fact, do to this very day almost unanimously,

    That, even though there has never been a hearing on the merits before any trier of fact, a call for objections to be heard in congress, or the release of any authenticated documents demonstrating it to the be case, Obama has somehow “proven” his eligibility,

    That Lakin’s motive for his missing movement was anything other than to give himself “standing” in a discovery request for Obama’s credentials in his quest of proof of Obama’s eligibility and the legality of orders who’s authority and legitimacy flow from him to the extent that he has any legitimate claim to any such authority in the first place,

    That a military order has legitimacy and authority even in the absence of a legitimate or living commander in chief,

    I’ll be sure to give your most recent comments above the appropriate weight they deserve.

    Ciao yourself.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    Let’s drill right down to the now explicit delusions under which you suffer:

    Regarding “subject” and “citizen” you write:

    That anyone on the planet other than you thinks this.

    We already know (and you have acknowledged) that at least six members of the US Supreme Court has said this. Thye certainly count as someone on the planet.

    Real American Fails again.

    The prior “release” of an un-authenticated, online image of a substitute document from the “transparent president” somehow explains or rationalizes going to court over seventy times to oppose the release of it rather than simply releasing the genuine original and saving everyone the trouble as his opponent reasonably did.

    Here we discover another Birther lie that never dies. McCain never released his birth certificate. He still, to this day, has not done so.

    Real American fails again.

    That a court ruling regarding “citizenship” based on an amendment that didn’t exist at the time the “natural born citizenship” clause was writting is conclusive as to what the clause means,

    Not just any court ruling. The US Supreme Court’s ruling. And no, they did not base that on the 14th Amendment. You need to read the ruling… probably for the first tim.

    Real American fails again.

    That, even though to this day almost every country, with a few exceptions, on Earth, including many US states up until the 14th amendment, tie citizenship to that of the parents, that “natural born citizenship” has nothing to do with citizenship of the parents and everything to do with an interpretation of an amendment that did not yet exist that, itself, is inconsistent that the express declarations of its own author,

    The only definition of natural born citizen that existed in the English language when the Constitution was framed applies jus soli exclusively.

    Real American Fails again.

    That Obama’s being born a British subject is irrelevant to his eligibility,

    Exactly as decided by the US Supreme Court.

    Real American fails again.

    That, even though we had just fought a revolution in order to throw off a tyrant, we would be happy with one of his “subjects” as president,

    Again, you pretend to read the minds of dead men. I don’t. I read their written words.

    Real American fails again.

    That, even though Vatell clearly writes about the importance of citizens born of parents who are citizens in the very paragraph he was discussing the conferring of citizenship, that the natural law of nations that he was writing about in no way considers the citizenship of parents when they confer citizenship even though they, in fact, do to this very day almost unanimously,

    You might have been referring to Muhammad and the Qur’an. They hads exactly as much influence on US Citizen law as Vattel and the Law of Nations.

    Real American fails again.

    That, even though there has never been a hearing on the merits before any trier of fact, a call for objections to be heard in congress, or the release of any authenticated documents demonstrating it to the be case, Obama has somehow “proven” his eligibility,

    Absolutely, as testified to in court under oath by the US State Depapartment,; the highest executive authority ion the nation tasked with making determinations of citizenship.

    Real American fails again.

    That Lakin’s motive for his missing movement was anything other than to give himself “standing” in a discovery request for Obama’s credentials in his quest of proof of Obama’s eligibility and the legality of orders who’s authority and legitimacy flow from him to the extent that he has any legitimate claim to any such authority in the first place,

    Defendants don’t ever have “standing.” There is no “standing” in criminal cases at all. You apparently have no idea what “standing” means.

    Real American fails again.

    That a military order has legitimacy and authority even in the absence of a legitimate or living commander in chief,

    As has been established law under our COnstitution for more than two centuries. Yes.

    Real American fails again.

    One can only ponder the complete cluelessness that inspired you to catalog such a robust recitation of your personal failings, misunderstandings, prevarications and false beliefs.

    But I gotta tell you… it’s no way to go through life boy.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    They are your positions, not mine. You acknowledged half of them. After that, you are just a liar. The others, you mischaracterized. Example: the court may have seen that subject and citizen are analgous, they did not say that they were synonous, you did. You own all of them.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    Even if I were to take your word that I am misinformed as to McCain and his birth certificate, which I won’t, it hardly takes away from the rest of my comment.

    Your first lie was that Vatell never defined natural born citizenship, now its that the founders had no regard for Vatell or the literal law of nations that he wrote about.

    Whether or not Lakin has “standing” is not my point either. Its that he has enough to lose to potentially warrant a discovery request of Obama’s credentials where others have been deemed not to. Of course, you and I both know that you know this. You’re only pretending to miss the point because you are intellectually dishonest through and through. You pretend to miss the point, take issue with irrelevant side issues while evading the larger one. Then you somehow think you’ve changed something material. Like I said, I’ll give it the weight it deserves.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    Of course I acknowledged that I hold many of these positions. But what was pointed out by your catalog is that you are wrong about every single one of them.The sources of your errors range from illogic to simple factual error. Others boil down to nothing more than pathetic quibbles in your attempt to salvage a tiny bit of dignity from arguments in which you have been soundly and repeatedly thrashed. But it is a tour de force when someone like you can provide a list of positions that long and be demonstrably wrong in every one of them.

    That is an accomplishment of some sort.

    Now here you have accused me of lies regarding Vattel. Part of that accusation comes from just the latest example of your complete inability to read simple English. For example, I never said that “the founders had no regard for Vatell or the literal law of nations.” I said that Vattel had exactly zero influence on American citizenship law.

    And this is an absolute, non-controversial (among real scholars) fact. Vattel was never once reference by any founder or framer in any document or writing on the issue of citizenship. On that subject they ignored him completely.

    As to whether or not he ever defined the term “natural born citizen,” okay… prove it. Show me a single edition of Law of Nations that was published before 1797 that even included, let alone defined the term “natural born citizens.”

    A single one.

    You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

    This is more than a non-controversial fact. It is an objective statement of reality for which there can be no debate without imploring time travel.

    Now, regarding McCain and his birth certificate… you really think that the fact that you lied in your argument “doesn’t take away from it?” Of course it does. McCain too was challenged on his citizenship. And he too did exactly the correct, least costly thing in response. He never released his BC and he had the cases dismissed for standing.

    Exactly as the President has done. Why? Because it is the right thing to do.

    The further point is that it takes away from you. It shows that you make arguments that are false, based on inventions, and they serve as the foundations of your equally false beliefs. I remain astounded at the near perfect consistency of your error and delusion.

    And finally, back to Lakin and you back pedaling regarding your hopeless confusion over any of the legal issues relevant to his court martial. I will remind you for at least fifth time:

    Lakin’s court martial is not an eligibility case. Read the charges, they are available on his web page. They never mention the President or his eligibility once. Obama is not on trial. None of his documents are relevant to the trial. Lakin has already been told once that there will be no discovery. In another month he will be told that a second and final time.

    Have a very nice day.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    Well, I’ll give you this: You’ve certainly corrected me on some matters of fact I had wrong. Most were not very material or relevant, some were. It would appear that I was duped by what I had previously read regarding McCain’s BC. For what its worth, I remain equally unconvinced of McCain’s “natural born” status as I do Obama’s. The same judge that threw out the lawsuit suppesely also “declared him a NBC”, but that means no more to me than Obama’s untested assertions. I must also concede that there is no source making a direct link to the NBC clause and Vattel. On the alother hand, I find your take on some of these “facts” impossible to accept. Your disregard for the common practice of the time, here and elsewhere, right up to today, of linking parentage and citizenship seems intentionally naive. Your suggestion that one has to be a mind reader vs simply rely on common sense that the founders would never have wanted a British citizen any more than a person with titles of nobility to be president is also deeply suspect. The notion that Obama has already released his birth certificate will, now and forever be at odds with reality. Also, if you want to call it “back pedaling” regarding Lakin, that’s fine. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve always said the same thing, that his obvious sole motive for missing movements has has been to give himself enough of a personal stake in the matter to sufficiently warrant a request, (whatever you call it), to have Obama’s eligibility proven to him. If he has miscalculated and chosen a strategy doomed to failure then that is too bad for him. What a shame that no one seems to be able to be considered entitled to obtain sufficient evidence to satisfy themselves regarding this important matter. What a shame such a pitance has been offered from the “transparent” president while so much has been kept confidential. It remains as suspicious as some of your positions are dubious.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    Have a very nice day yourself.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    Only two comments in your last post are really deserving of a response. Not in the order they were made.

    What a shame that no one seems to be able to be considered entitled to obtain sufficient evidence to satisfy themselves regarding this important matter.

    “No one,” you say? The State Department is certainly satisfied “regarding this important matter.” They have said so under oath in a court of law, and also issued him a passport. They are certainly more than “no one.”

    “No one,” you say? The McCain campaign, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the RNC, the entire Congress, the US Supreme Court and by now a raft of Federal and State Judges and Justices… all of these people, many of whom with a vested interest in making Obama look bad appear to have been satisfied “regarding this important matter.” They are certainly more than “no one.”

    “No one” you say? Birthers have distributed thousands of “presentments” to law enforcement and other organizations, bombarding them for more than two years to no effect. Because they are apparently quite satisfied “regarding this important matter.” They are hardly, “no one.”

    And most importantly, the most recent polls on this very issue shows that more than 70% of Americans are satisfied “regarding this important matter.” Many of those (at least 20%) didn’t even vote for him. After having made you previous stand on the issue of their “sovereignty.” I’m sure that you would agree that they are certainly more than “no one.”

    You , on the other hand, are not satisfied. So don’t vote for him. Because ultimately, that is the tool that the Framers gave you for the purpose of expressing your satisfaction or lack thereof

    The other comment that needs to be addressed is this one:

    Your disregard for the common practice of the time, here and elsewhere, right up to today, of linking parentage and citizenship seems intentionally naive

    If you lived in France…. that might be a true statement. If you lived in Switzerland. Or Japan.

    But we don’t. We live in the United States. And the only “common practice” that has ever prevailed in this country and in the the centuries of English common law that preceded it explicitly declared that there was no such link. A half millennium of Anglo-American law is clear… a natural born citizen is anybody born on national soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation.

    Even the children of aliens.

    In the United States, you are and always have been wrong on this issue. If you want to emulate France… then expatriate.

    Ciao.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    I didn’t say that no one was satisfied. I said that no one has been able to persuade a court of law that they are entitled to proof of Obama’s eligibility. Hence Lakin’s desperate act. Meanwhile, I’m curious what you think is the source of the authority of a military order in the absence of a legitimate or living commander. Who else have the people delegated their authority to?

    The individual states certainly have a history of linking citizenship to parentage. The US does to this day. This is why if you have a child on foreign soil, it would still be a citizen here. It has been the law of nations for centuries. It has been the primary determining factor of citizenship here. The fourteenth amendment was aimed at ensuring the citizenship rights of blacks, not aliens or children of aliens. I’m assuming you’re familiar witht he comments of its author. Before the 14th amendment, being born here did not mean that much. It still doesn’t. Being born of citizen parents, then and now, does.

    Obama wants to assasinate a civilian US “citizen” living in Pakistan without regard to his constitutional right to due process. How does this square with your oath?

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    Meanwhile, I’m curious what you think is the source of the authority of a military order in the absence of a legitimate or living commander.

    The rank and position of the individual giving the order.

    The individual states certainly have a history of linking citizenship to parentage.

    Oh? What states do you have in mind? Certainly not Virginia, where Thomas Jefferson himself wrote jus soli into “A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth,” in 1779.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html

    The US does to this day. This is why if you have a child on foreign soil, it would still be a citizen here.

    This is, of course, a red herring. You are changing the subject because you have no other choice. We are not speaking of births on foreign soil. We are speaking of the status of an individual born on American soil and whether or not that alone grants natural born citizenship.

    It has been the law of nations for centuries. It has been the primary determining factor of citizenship here.

    It has absolutely been the law of many nations for many centuries. But even de Vattel points out that it was not the law in England. And if you remember your history, we adopted English common law as the foundation for our own nation, not continental “Roman” law.

    49 of the 50 states even have formally adopted English common law in “reception statutes,” the only exception being Louisiana because of its French history adopted Napoleonic codes instead.

    The fourteenth amendment was aimed at ensuring the citizenship rights of blacks, not aliens or children of aliens. I’m assuming you’re familiar witht he comments of its author. Before the 14th amendment, being born here did not mean that much. It still doesn’t. Being born of citizen parents, then and now, does.

    I am not really concerned with the 14th Amendment here. I am concerned with Article 2 of the original Constitution. But as long as you bring it up, the 14th Amendment never once makes any mention, let alone places any conditions on the citizenship of the parents. As the US State Department points out in their own regulations:

    U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:

    (1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) – a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.

    (2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) – a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called
    “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

    Certainly you would not pretend that derivative citizenship (the result of mere statute) can amend the meaning of the Constitution itself, right? And that’s what we’re talking about… the Constitutional definition of natural born citizen. But as the State Department points out, jus sanguinis “is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution.”

    Obama wants to assasinate a civilian US “citizen” living in Pakistan without regard to his constitutional right to due process. How does this square with your oath?

    It doesn’t. I oppose it.

  • Real American says:

    “The rank and position of the individual giving the order.”

    Yes, but what is the source of their authority? The president gets his from the people by way of the constitution. Where does the person giving the order get their authority from if not from a legit, living president who has delegated it to them as the people did to him? I’m just trying to understand your position that an order or anyone giving it has legitimate authority in the absence of an individual who has been legitimately vested with it.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    Yes, but what is the source of their authority? The president gets his from the people by way of the constitution. Where does the person giving the order get their authority from if not from a legit, living president who has delegated it to them as the people did to him?

    The same exact place. They get their authority from the people as outlined in the Constitution.

    Authority does not flow from the people through the Constitution through the President down the chain of command like water through plumbing. Command authority is inherent in the rank and position of the individual issuing the order.

    Let me pose a scenario to you. Let’s say we are at war with a genuinely serious adversary. Day… China or a resurgent Russia.

    Let’s then say that President is assassinated by an enemy agent in the midst of an offensive, and the Vice President cannot be found because he is with his mistress in their love nest on the Appalachian trail.

    Are you seriously suggesting the entire US military stop in its tracks and stop fighting until the VP can be found and given the oath of office?

    Seriously?

  • HistorianDude says:

    This just in:

    http://wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/Md.judge.denies.2.1892398.html

    Lakins request for discovery into Obama’s records is denied.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    I am not suggesting that. If the VP could not be found, then the nation would look to the Speaker of the House and so on. Otherwise, yes, there would be no legitimate authority. I didn’t make up the scenario, you did, but, if not for the chain of succession, there would be no legit authority for anyone to carry on in a war. Of course, in practicality, the war would not stop as there would be no one to give an order to stop while the next in line was being cued up. The people on the ground would probably not even be aware of it until another legit commander was sworn in. Then again, if everyone down the line was taken out, the only authority at that point would be a strongman, who’s authority would not in any way be constitutional or legitimately derived from the people.

    “The same exact place. They get their authority from the people as outlined in the Constitution.”

    This strikes me as a very un thought out assertion.

    “Authority does not flow from the people through the Constitution through the President down the chain of command like water through plumbing. Command authority is inherent in the rank and position of the individual issuing the order.

    What is the basis of this assertion? I certainly never saw that in the constitution. The only executive power conferred by the people through the constition is to the person of the president himself and no one else. I submit that authority absolutely flows like water from the people through the Constitution, through the President, down the chain of command. This is exactly how it works. All the authority of the executive branch is delegated by the president, including that of any officer in the military. Only the president has legitimate authority which is given to him through the constitution like a limited power of attorney. Sure, you can throw out precedent that says that an order that appears legit may be considered to be so, but unless it is truly backed up by a legitimately conferred and delegated authority that starts with the people and flows through and from the predident on down, it is pure nonsense. The judge in the case of Lakin, in failing to observe this delegitimizes her own authority which comes from above the pentagon as well.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    “The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” As far as I can see, only one person is vested with executive authority by the constitution. Everything else is a delegation.

  • Real American says:

    “Are you seriously suggesting the entire US military stop in its tracks and stop fighting until the VP can be found and given the oath of office?”

    The 25th amendment cleared up any confusion as to the need to flush the vp out of his love nest in order to swear him in. He would automatically become president no matter where he was and the army could assume that, until the vp said otherwise, their acting orders had the blessing of the new president, (unless, of course, they suspected that the new president was an imposter like the one we have now, whatever his real name, religion, race, citizenship, place of birth, real parents, loyalties, agenda are.)

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    Your opinion regarding the source of military authority is noted. It is false in every respect, but you have every right to hold false beliefs. Thankfully, the people making actual decisions in this case do not share them. The authority of Lakin’s commanders to order his deployment do not derive from some “trickle down” from the President.

    The military judge found instead that Congress through its power to regulate the armed forces appointed the service secretaries and their service leaders to carry out functions such as order people to deploy, etc. It is their authority by which military authorities issue orders, not the Presidents. She found there was independent authority in law, regulation, and custom to support the issuance of orders in this situation. She also gave passing reference to the de facto officer doctrine. but then focused more on the political question doctrine as a justification for denial of discovery and witnesses on the strawman that the presidents status might be relevant in some fashion.

    It’s over.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    That is interesting. I will have to read her decision. Without having yet done so, “vesting the executive power in a president” seems pretty clear to me. If a compelling argument can be made that the authority flows from the people, through the constitution, to the congress, and from it to the officers, I will consider that. Either way, it would certainly be a “trickle down” of authority as there is no other way for it to get to the officers in question, except directly from the people on down, not that this seems consistent with the notion of an unbroken chain of command. Notwithstanding, on its face, it strikes me as inconsistent with the plain language of the constitution as to who is vested with the executive authority by the people. The notion that officers who give deployment orders are creatures of congress at least doesn’t attempt to make up an officer’s authority out of thin air like you seem to prefer. “Tower to regulate” is hardly “executive power” though. Either way, this will be an interesting precedent. Especially if Congress attempts to assert itself and start directing their people in the military as to who and when to deploy. As far as it being over, tell that to the free men to whom this government is beholden. It wouldn’t surprise me as to this case, but it certainly has not made anyone less suspicous as to Obama’s credentials or lack thereof. Its simply another case of Obama not providing them, regardless of how it looks. All the nonsense about “strawman” and political question is just obfuscation while the kid in the candy store continues to refuse to empty his pockets. Everyone sees it for what it is. No one is fooled. Do you happen to have a link to the judges decision? I would like to examine it.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    Persistence in error cannot salvage either your argument or LTC Lakin’s career.

    This case is essentially over. All that’s left is the sentencing.

  • Real American says:

    to Historian Dude,

    You didn’t respond to what I wrote. Earlier, you embraced the notion that there is no difference between a subject and a citizen. Now, like a good little subject, you happily accept the idea that a congress’ “power to regulate” trumps a commander in chief’s constitutionally exclusive “power to execute” when it comes to the source of authority to give deployment orders and how it gets from We the People to the person giving them. Like I said, if you have a link to the decision, I’d be very interested in studying this logic. I did not realize that congress was part of the chain of command. As far as congressionally appointed “service secretaries” and their orders having “independent” authority, what happened to the notion that the chain of command shall not be broken? “Independent” authority indeed. The constitution, in plain language, places all power and authority to “execute” exclusively in the person of the president, the ultimate source of which is We the People. There is no “independent” authority except in her and your mind.

    Like I said, regardless of the judge’s puny “decision” in this case, no one is fooled by it and nothing is changed. Eventually there will be a reckoning with the truth and Obama will have to answer to it. Luckily for you the judge didn’t rule that the sun doesn’t rise in the morning. It would be fun watching you try to jump in line with that, although I’m sure you’d find a way.

  • Real American says:

    to Historian Dude,

    And by the way, our constitution is not a “system of fundamental principles according to which our nation is governed”. It clearly operates exactly like a limited power of attorney in which powers to make and enforce law are delegated to public servants by We the People, the original source, as noted in it, of all the power and authority delegated through it. Any oath to the constitution is an oath to protect the interests of the only principles to the contract, as enumerated in the contract, who’s protection is warranted. Your allegience to the nation is to the free men who make up the nation, not to the servants, let alone servants who would be masters. Your oath is to make sure that the contract is observed and adhered to by the servants. If Obama is, in actuality, not a NBC, every act that has enabled him to operate as president while hiding this fact has had the effect of giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the constitution.

    Have you seen the Kenyan BC that was sent to every member of congress? Its not an online image of a laser generated abstract, by the way. Its a certified copy of an original. Just sayin.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    I have no idea why you keep coming back to this.

    You expressed your opinion. I expressed mine.

    Then the actual court made its decision.

    I was right. You were wrong.

    It’s over.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    The “Kenyan BC” of which you comment is… well… sad or funny, maybe both at the same time.

    1. It was produced by a person (Lucas Smith) who already has at least one conviction for felony forgery.

    2. It resembles no other Kenyan BC. This is because Kenya is like most of the world (and different from the US) in that they do not actually have BCs at all. They have birth registers… bound books in which births are recorded several to a page. Here’s what a real Kenyan birth record looks like (photo sourced from an appropriately RWNJ on-line pub.):

    http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/image.KenyaBC1two.jpg

    3. The “Chief Administrator” who supposedly signed the certificate was not Chief Administrator at the time the copy was supposedly made. Not only did he not become CA until several months later, on the fake BC he managed to misspell his own name.

    4. The forger has created several videos that pretend to document his presence in Kenya to obtain the BC. The videos were all actually taken in the Dominican Republic.

    Have a nice day.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    As far as the birth certificate, I’ll take a questionable copy of an original over a questionable copy of an abstract. As far as the case in question, its just another example of a stonewall of someone attempting to get to that which Obama is desperately hiding. Only this time, you and the judge have given some command of the military to congress in order to do it. No one is fooled. Everyone sees it for what it is. Everyone knows that Obama is an imposter. Its pretty obvious at this point without seeing his hidden BC. We already know he was born with dual citizenship. The only question is whether any of those citizenships were American. Either way, anyone can see that his allegience is not to the true citizens of the country. To the extent that he is not natural born, he is a criminal. I’d still like to read that decision though. Do you have access to it or not?

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    “I have no idea why you keep coming back to this.”

    I’m trying to help save you from being hung with the rest of them. Right now you are with enemies of free men. Dangerously foolish, not to mention scummy.

  • HistorianDude says:

    @ Real American

    Re: The fake Kenyan Birth Certificate.

    Birther blog “The Post and E-Mail” has not published an article proving the Lucas Smith certificate is fake:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/10/kenya-birth-certificate-a-forgery/

    Re: Your gratuitous insults.

    Call me anything you want. The court has ruled. You are wrong. I am right.

    Ciao.

  • HistorianDude says:

    That was supposed to be “has now published,” not “has not published.”

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    Coming from an enemy of free men, who’s for putting decorated patriots in jail while defending an imposter in the white house, I’ll happily take “being wrong” as a compliment. You can dress it any way you want. It is what it is. Thank you.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    As far as I’m concerned, anyone who didn’t get a clue from the fact that the Saudi king bower’s name is a combination of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin is not going to get a clue anytime soon. Some people just yearn for tyranny. Is it Stockholm syndrome or is being enslaved just consistent with your true nature? Regardless, bizarre moments in history like this are typically short lived before the public regains its sanity. Enjoy it while it lasts. After that, I’m sure North Korea will have you.

  • HistorianDude says:

    As far as I’m concerned, anyone who didn’t get a clue from the fact that the Saudi king bower’s name is a combination of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin is not going to get a clue anytime soon.

    That’s a clue? A clue of what? That your are off your clozapine?

    I have to tell you… that comment is just a little bit… insane.

  • Real American says:

    To Historian Dude,

    Yes, that was a clue. Apparently, the way to appeal to those who voted for Obama is to run a transvestite clown from outer space and have it promise to nuke America if elected president. It will win by a landslide. In an insane world, the sane man will appear insane.

  • HistorianDude says:

    That’s what all the crazy people say.

  • Truth says:

    Wait and see!!! The Democratic cover-up will be expossed just before the next election. Obama will be forced to step down or not seek re-election. The Democrats are embarrased for their stupidity and ignorance of first of all nominating a non-born US citizen for the Presidency, and secondly getting him elected by bogus ACORN votes. Most of the idiots involved are attempting to save face by distancing themselves from the upcomming scandal by delaying it as long as possible. Obama’s Socialist Czars will not be able to keep the truth from disclosure. The exposssed secrets and the ugly mudslinging following this disgrace will be movie material.

Please leave a reply...



You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>