PDA

View Full Version : Alan Keyes lawsuit on Obama birth




BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 03:43 AM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80931
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location
Alan Keyes lawsuit warns America may see 'usurper' in Oval Office
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily

Alan Keyes
The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others.

------
FYI: I have changed my mind slightly over this, and feel that some more research about what the Constitution meant by "natural born" when it was passed needs to be done.

Still researching - see rest of thread.

hotbrownsauce
11-15-2008, 03:55 AM
Wow, Alan Keyes.... I guess I don't know the man well enough.

werdd
11-15-2008, 07:00 AM
keyes is a crazy bastard, but i gotta support him in this endeavour.

Chester Copperpot
11-15-2008, 07:23 AM
Alan Keyes seems to have gotten very unpopular and lost his senate seat when he started talking about Income tax being a slave tax... That EVERYBODY who paid it was a slave...

he either lost his senate seat to obama or obama was like the other senator in the state after keyes lost.

Truth Warrior
11-15-2008, 07:30 AM
Saturday, November 15, 2008
WorldNetDaily
Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth

'This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months'

Posted: October 23, 2008
11:33 pm Eastern



WorldNetDaily



Philip J. Berg
The Pennsylvania Democrat who has sued Sen. Barack Obama demanding he prove his American citizenship – and therefore qualification to run for president – has confirmed he has a recording of a telephone call from the senator's paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya.

The issue of Obama's birthplace, which he states is Honolulu in 1961, has been raised enough times that his campaign website has posted an image purporting to be of his "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii.

But Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, told the Michael Savage talk radio program (http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/) tonight that the document is forged and that he has a tape recording he will soon release.

"This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage. "I'll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States."


He said the telephone call was from Obama's paternal grandmother affirming she "was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961."

Berg said he's pursuing the issue because of "the most important document in the United States," the U.S. Constitution.

"Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution," he said. "The Constitution's provisions are very small for qualifying for president. One, be over 35, and he is. Two, be in the country 14 years, and he has been. Three, be a natural-born citizen. He is not."

Obama campaign officials acknowledged the dispute by posting the image purporting to be a copy of his certification of live birth earlier this year. But they've declined to return WND requests for comment on the issues.

WND reported earlier this week (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78671) Berg's claim that Obama has legally "admitted" the accusations included in his lawsuit, including that he was born in Mombosa, Kenya, by not responding to the allegations.

Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214) alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

His lawsuit is demanding that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate.

Berg has cited Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.

Since Obama filed only motions to dismiss the case and did not actually answer the claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen., asserted Berg, who has taken his information public through his website. (http://www.obamacrimes.com/)

Berg addressed the existence of a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, featured on the Atlasshrugs2000 website, (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/obamas-birth-no.html) that suggests Obama was born in the city Aug. 4, 1961.

But Berg explained to Savage he believes Obama's mother was near the end of her pregnancy and unable to travel by plane, so Obama was born in Kenya. The family then traveled to Hawaii and registered the birth and submitted the newspaper announcement.

Besides Berg's lawsuit, several other court challenges also have been filed, including one in Washington state where petitioners are seeking to have the Washington secretary of state "verify Obama's eligibility" to serve prior to the election.

The claim states, "The 'certificate' that Mr. Obama has posted on his official Website is a 'Certification of Live Birth,' and not a 'Birth Certificate' from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place."

Berg also told Savage there is no information available on which hospital Obama's mother used in Hawaii.

The Washington state case also alleges, "Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen.

When Jerome Corsi, senior WND investigator reporter, recently traveled to Kenya to investigate several questions about the candidate, he was told the records were sealed and would not be made available.

Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate.

"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website (http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate), "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

"The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of the Hawaii certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II.

The Washington claim states, "If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of 'natural born.'"

Berg said he believed it also was a complication that Obama's mother divorced his father, married and moved to Indonesia for several years and Obama attended school there at a time when, Berg said, only Indonesia citizens were allowed in schools. Records that are available from Indonesia revealed Obama was registered in school as Barry Soetoro, and his religion was listed as Islam.

When Obama later returned to Hawaii, within the United States, there should have been a government document affirming his citizenship, but that also cannot be found. If that was not processed properly, Berg said, Obama would be in a situation even worse than not being a natural-born citizen.

"If he didn't go through immigration, he now is illegal and has been an illegal alien. He couldn't even hold the position of senator for Illinois," Berg said.

Further, Berg said he suspected Obama's college records may indicate he received aid as a foreigner, and that's why those records have been withheld by the campaign.

"I really think it's because it probably indicates he's from Kenya, or Indonesia, or received foreign aid," Berg said.

"I feel very confident saying these things," Berg told Savage.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931)

Madison
11-15-2008, 07:37 AM
Arguing the fact that Obama's father is not a citizen is not going to get you anywhere. There is no way to prove the founders intended parents to be a factor and this is never going to sell to the American people in the time we live in and the number of people whose parents aren't American born.

Truth Warrior
11-15-2008, 08:03 AM
Arguing the fact that Obama's father is not a citizen is not going to get you anywhere. There is no way to prove the founders intended parents to be a factor and this is never going to sell to the American people in the time we live in and the number of people whose parents aren't American born. Under current law ( so called ), as I understand it, if a pregnant "criminal alien" from Mexico or elsewhere gives birth in the USA, the child IS a "natural born" US citizen automatically.

Is this correct?

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 08:09 AM
Arguing the fact that Obama's father is not a citizen is not going to get you anywhere. There is no way to prove the founders intended parents to be a factor and this is never going to sell to the American people in the time we live in and the number of people whose parents aren't American born.

Lol, then lets throw the constitution right out the door and give it to the masses of non-American children who don't care for our form of government anymore. That is a fighting issue.

There is no need to prove that what natural born means is parentage, that is a historic fact. *edit - actually, blackstone mentions both.

The question is do both parents need to be American, or can only the mother be American.

People keep saying that Obama is or is not a citizen because although his father is not, his mother is or isn't old enough and has/hasn't been in the country long enough and he was / wasn't born in the country. Ok, those are all criteria to be a citizen under statuary law, but that very fact implies he is not natural born no matter how you ask it or what the answer is, because natural born means it does not fall under statutary law and you don't need to be naturalized - you are already a citizen.

So yes, it is implying to me that not having both parents a citizen means you are not naturally born. That you have dual citizenship and the conflict of interest that the very qualification in the constitution was designed to prevent.

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 08:13 AM
Under current law ( so called ), as I understand it, if a pregnant "criminal alien" from Mexico or elsewhere gives birth in the USA, the child IS a "natural born" US citizen automatically.

Is this correct?

No, they are a citizen under the 14th Amendment - as it is currently interpreted - Ron Paul says its a modern wrong interpretation of the 14th, but they are not what was originally meant by natural born.

The slaves were not citizens until the 14th even though they were born here (something is operating other then where you are born by itself). The 14th created a different way to be a citizen, but it didn't change the natural born citizenship that was already in place, nor did it modify the presidential qualification of being natural born. It should be noted that after the 1st generation, the distinguish was by and large moot, except for modern interpretations of illegal imigrates coming over to give birth (bad interpretation of 14th) or presidential requirements (confusing the 14th with the natural born qualification of the original constitution).

me3
11-15-2008, 08:29 AM
They don't follow any laws.

Helllooooooooo?

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 08:30 AM
Section 1. 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. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Born in - citizenship is by where you are born.
14th Citizenship is Jus Soli. Before this amendment, even though slaves where born in the united states, they weren't citizens. This did not eliminate Jus Sanguinis, it just added another way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli


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.

This is (edit - includes) citizenship by blood or inheritance, Jus sanguinis. If your parents are american citizens, you are. We still have this type of citizenship too - which is why you are a citizen if you are born of american parents no matter where. This is (edit - includes) natural born as in the original constitution. Natural born was already legally defined and well understood at the time of the passing of the constitution, and was passed on through our english / european tradition and common law (edit - which used both).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

The 14th amendment doesn't modify the natural born qualification. It makes citizens of where a person is born or naturalized. The presidential qualification does not require just citizenship but citizenship and natural born status and it does not allow naturalization.

The question is, is Obama a natural born citizen if only one of his parents is? Since this would make him a dual citizen, and would go against the original intent of the constitution, I'd guess no. Dual citizenship and conflicting foreign loyalities is what the framers had in mind when they wrote that clause.

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 09:01 AM
i.e.


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.


Constitution Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

AdamT
11-15-2008, 09:05 AM
they don't follow any laws.

Helllooooooooo?

qft

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 09:07 AM
Keep putting a light on it until everyone knows they don't follow the laws :)

Roxi
11-15-2008, 09:14 AM
keyes is INSANE, watch his speeches, or at the debates hes totally and utterly INSANE

not only that but do you realize how powerful obama is? the certificate that was already produced, (and no i don't mean the first copy, i mean the second one that is featured on snopes) looks authentic, and if it isn't authentic is the best fake i have ever seen.... hes powerful enough to pull it off either way

not only that, but do you know what would happen if he didn't become president? or if he got shot? we would be in the next civil war, there would be major riots, and we would all be screwed.

Pete
11-15-2008, 09:21 AM
Under current law ( so called ), as I understand it, if a pregnant "criminal alien" from Mexico or elsewhere gives birth in the USA, the child IS a "natural born" US citizen automatically.

Is this correct?

Google 'anchor babies' and you'll see a lot of material.

RP's position is that the term 'under the jurisdiction' of the US according to the 14th amendment is not there just to sound good, but means to be here legally. I agree.

Truth Warrior
11-15-2008, 09:34 AM
keyes is INSANE, watch his speeches, or at the debates hes totally and utterly INSANE

not only that but do you realize how powerful obama is? the certificate that was already produced, (and no i don't mean the first copy, i mean the second one that is featured on snopes) looks authentic, and if it isn't authentic is the best fake i have ever seen.... hes powerful enough to pull it off either way

not only that, but do you know what would happen if he didn't become president? or if he got shot? we would be in the next civil war, there would be major riots, and we would all be screwed.

EXACTLY how the US Constitution FELL and DIED ( above ). :p :rolleyes: :(

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

Truth Warrior
11-15-2008, 09:40 AM
Google 'anchor babies' and you'll see a lot of material.

RP's position is that the term 'under the jurisdiction' of the US according to the 14th amendment is not there just to sound good, but means to be here legally. I agree. OK! Thanks! :)

Anchor baby is a derogatory[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#cite_note-weekinreview-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#cite_note-chicagotribune2-2) term for a child born in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) to immigrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States) or other non-citizens, regardless of the immigration status of the parents.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#cite_note-doubletongue-3) The term refers to the supposed role of the child, as a U.S. citizen, in facilitating immigration through family reunification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_reunification) under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby)

Born in Kenya? :p SORRY! :D

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 09:44 AM
Google 'anchor babies' and you'll see a lot of material.

RP's position is that the term 'under the jurisdiction' of the US according to the 14th amendment is not there just to sound good, but means to be here legally. I agree.

I'd have to agree that that is reasonable, else indian tribes would have had citizenship too.

torchbearer
11-15-2008, 09:53 AM
natural born in these united states.
that is all that is required. besides the age limit.
14th amendment gave parentage birth outside the u.s. federal citizen status.
a federal citizen does not have the same rights as a citizen of a state.
the op has it backwards.

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 09:57 AM
natural born in these united states.
that is all that is required. besides the age limit.
14th amendment gave parentage birth outside the u.s. federal citizen status.
a federal citizen does not have the same rights as a citizen of a state.
the op has it backwards.

I quoted relevant passages later in the thread. The sole reason for the 14th amendment is to give slaves who were born here (actually already born here) citizenship because their parents weren't citizens. A similar problem is mentioned in one of the wikipedia articles of classes of citizens in europe who never attained citizenship because they don't inherit it from their parents. Inheritance was the traditional form in most of europe. England had both forms. Age wouldn't normally have anything to do with it unless you are naturalizing and not natural born.

Edit:
Question: does one parent or both have to be american citizens to be a natural born citizen under inheritence?

3rd definition down for natural.

3 a (1): begotten as distinguished from adopted ; also : legitimate (2): being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents> b: illegitimate <a natural child>

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 10:06 AM
...

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 10:50 AM
FYI: Researching old law; the mix between where you are born and descent goes down through the ages, and blackstone mentions both. I personally have no intention of researching it much more.

However, if you are born of one american parent abroad, it appears you fall under neither system and are usually naturalized.

Truth Warrior
11-15-2008, 10:55 AM
FYI: Researching old law; the mix between where you are born and descent goes down through the ages, and blackstone mentions both. I personally have no intention of researching it much more.

However, if you are born of one american parent abroad, it appears you fall under neither system and are usually naturalized. AKA No Kenya born POTUS. ;)

scandinaviany3
11-15-2008, 11:04 AM
Wow, Alan Keyes.... I guess I don't know the man well enough.

the man has a ego a mile wide...he will be heard

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 11:11 AM
the man has a ego a mile wide...he will be heard

And ignored! Still I wonder if this will make it anywhere. Someone could steal the document. Then it would be hard to ignore and would probably at least be heard in court.

FYI: I re-edited the thread to reflect that blackstone shows that both methods and/or a mixture of the two types of citizenship were in use - and there are long running debates on this on other forums. Not sure how the 14th affected the one, although it clearly affects the other.

Edit: although by the soil reflected allegience to the king, and america had no king after the revolution. By descent is obviously what the king used for his own descendents.

Matt Collins
11-15-2008, 03:15 PM
No, they are a citizen under the 14th Amendment - as it is currently interpreted - Ron Paul says its a modern wrong interpretation of the 14th, but they are not what was originally meant by natural born.
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was never ratified.

torchbearer
11-15-2008, 03:20 PM
Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was never ratified.

The southern states were forced to ratify it as conditions of their surrendor and readmittance.
I wouldn't say any law made at the end of the barrel of a gun is legit.

melissa22
11-15-2008, 03:32 PM
No, YOU are insane!



keyes is INSANE, watch his speeches, or at the debates hes totally and utterly INSANE

not only that but do you realize how powerful obama is? the certificate that was already produced, (and no i don't mean the first copy, i mean the second one that is featured on snopes) looks authentic, and if it isn't authentic is the best fake i have ever seen.... hes powerful enough to pull it off either way

not only that, but do you know what would happen if he didn't become president? or if he got shot? we would be in the next civil war, there would be major riots, and we would all be screwed.

melissa22
11-15-2008, 03:33 PM
Alan Keyes seems to have gotten very unpopular and lost his senate seat when he started talking about Income tax being a slave tax... That EVERYBODY who paid it was a slave...

he either lost his senate seat to obama or obama was like the other senator in the state after keyes lost.


Keyes is an african-american patriot imo.

Roxi
11-15-2008, 03:39 PM
No, YOU are insane!

care to elaborate? i don't know you, you don't know me, and because you disagree with my opinion of mr keyes, you call me insane?

hmmmm makes tons of sense

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 03:39 PM
The southern states were forced to ratify it as conditions of their surrendor and readmittance.
I wouldn't say any law made at the end of the barrel of a gun is legit.

I agree.

And delving into the murky waters of speculative legal history, after consulting several old volumes of law online - btw you can read blackstone for free through google books, I believe the following is true:

Jus Sanguinis goes back to the Romans, which is why most of Europe uses it. England also has it, explicitly if both parents are citizens, or if the father is. England also has Jus Soli, with the idea if you were on the kings soil, you owed him allegiance, you were his property. Jus Soli was added later.

Although the 14th amendment is Jus Soli and came later, our interpretation idea seems to come from that. I am not so sure that the founders in the original didn't really mean it as natural born instead of "native born" if talking by land.

Why? First, Jus Soli is an English idea apart from most of europe that really ties people back to the idea of being owned by the state or sort of as property. But at the end of the revolution the people were sovereigns, and it seems that their inheritance should then be acting like that of kings, or by blood inheritance. Furthermore, the constitution was by the people, not the other way around, presuming they created the borders already as a people - and people generally are by blood inheritance not as servants on land. Second, it is implied in the preamble of the Constitution itself, as the concept of posterity is like Jus Sanguinis.

So following the concept of individual sovereignty, I'm not sure you would want citizenship to flow from Jus Soli, as Jus Soli implies vassalage to a king or state, instead of the sovereignty of the people creating the state.

Edit: Regardless, since neither both parents or his father alone is a citizen, I don't think Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen under Jus Sanguinis under common law from what I've read. That leaves where he was born as a possible issue.

melissa22
11-15-2008, 03:42 PM
care to elaborate? i don't know you, you don't know me, and because you disagree with my opinion of mr keyes, you call me insane?

hmmmm makes tons of sense

Because you are the insane and rebarative moron that made no claims to his insanity. Just because the man is a bit of a goober in his speeches and lacks power in his voice, he is for the constitution. What do you know of Alan Keyes Miss "Location: somewhere in BFE, MO"

Don't make me laugh.

Matt Collins
11-15-2008, 04:38 PM
The southern states were forced to ratify it as conditions of their surrendor and readmittance.
I wouldn't say any law made at the end of the barrel of a gun is legit.Exactly. Coercion at it's finest.

Also, it should've never made it out of Congress because they illegally ejected someone from the chamber who was going to vote against it and break the tie.

Roxi
11-15-2008, 04:59 PM
Because you are the insane and rebarative moron that made no claims to his insanity. Just because the man is a bit of a goober in his speeches and lacks power in his voice, he is for the constitution. What do you know of Alan Keyes Miss "Location: somewhere in BFE, MO"

Don't make me laugh.


and now you resort to insults, makes a good case for your maturity so say what you want.

what i know about alan keyes, i learned from campaigning for ron paul for the last 18 months... like watching ALL of the debates, some of them in person, watching many of his speeches and reading his writings, listening to supporters and opponents of his, etc

you never asked me WHY i thought he was insane, a lot of people here think he is insane as well, if you don't believe me take a poll. Instead you just made the statement that I was insane. I didn't find it necessary to elaborate why I thought he was insane, just like I don't find it necessary to elaborate when i say Sean Hannity is a douchebag either.

Not only that but I didn't say Alan Keyes wasn't for the constitution. There are a lot of people out there that are for freedom, liberty, and the constitution, that also happen to be insane, and do rediculous things to make themselves appear insane. I happen to agree with a lot of what he says, but he chooses to say kooky things, in that rediculous marvin the martian preacher voice, that make him appear insane. He makes Ron Paul look bad by saying similar things and then acting like an idiot,

oh but thanks for attacking me for my opinion instead of giving reasons why you think hes not insane, why don't you do some googleing before your next response

Grimnir Wotansvolk
11-15-2008, 09:00 PM
he is for the constitutionConstitutionalism and christian dominionism are about as compatible as constitutionalism and welfare-statism

JeNNiF00F00
11-15-2008, 09:08 PM
Because you are the insane and rebarative moron that made no claims to his insanity. Just because the man is a bit of a goober in his speeches and lacks power in his voice, he is for the constitution. What do you know of Alan Keyes Miss "Location: somewhere in BFE, MO"

Don't make me laugh.

Who knows Miss "I have 26 posts". Jeesh. :rolleyes:

Leroy_Jenkems
11-15-2008, 09:34 PM
The outright blackout (no pun intended) of Alan Keyes from all MSM news networks during his entire crusade of campaigning for President is a VERY obvious indicator of the media being line-step with the statists...just not that obvious to the sheeple.

I happen to like many of Keyes' positions. This tired song-and-dance of Obama being "the first" African-American (more like Amerikan-African) presidential candidate is really chaffing.

tremendoustie
11-15-2008, 09:43 PM
The outright blackout (no pun intended) of Alan Keyes from all MSM news networks during his entire crusade of campaigning for President is a VERY obvious indicator of the media being line-step with the statists...just not that obvious to the sheeple.

I happen to like many of Keyes' positions. This tired song-and-dance of Obama being "the first" African-American (more like Amerikan-African) presidential candidate is really chaffing.

Yeah, when I was a kiddo, I sign waved for Keyes a couple of times. I've become quite a bit more libertarian since them, but I still think he makes a lot of sense on certain issues.

I think he's a sincere person, who really believes what he says is right, and argues for it to the best of his ability, without trying to slime his way into popularity. This puts him in a rare and high category of politician right there, in my book. You know, one who stands for something, and has actual principles they are supporting.

steve005
11-15-2008, 10:56 PM
Because you are the insane and rebarative moron that made no claims to his insanity

calling you a retard would be an insult to retards

qh4dotcom
11-15-2008, 11:27 PM
Ok...let's suppose a miracle happens and Obama is declared ineligible to serve as President because of this birth issue....would we be better off with the socialist President Biden?

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 11:41 PM
Ok, support for what I've been saying about by the land citizenship not being desirable, from Thomas Jefferson no less, and Virgina specifically rejected it. (The below commentary is a little wrong, England had both forms of citizenship - by where born and by inheritance - and somehow I'll make a wild guess that freemen had the form I'm talking about.


After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. In England at the time every person born within the realm of the King was considered a natural born subject under the maxim every man owes natural allegiance where born. This natural allegiance was perpetual and difficult to severe or alter (Once a English subject, always a English subject) and was found odious in this country (America went to war against this “natural allegiance” in 1812) .

The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1777 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:

[A]ll infants, whenever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

BeFranklin
11-15-2008, 11:57 PM
Kostakopoulou

In his "defense of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith", for instance, Suarez states that the Pope has the power to "remove a prince, deprive him of his dominion in order to prevent him from harming his subjects, and absolving his subjects from their oaths of allegince...

In regards to the connection between land tenute (land) and personal homage (loyality), the medieval rule was that birthplace determined the contract of subjecthood (note: see the term "and subject to" in the 14th amendment and compare to the meaning of subjecthood and what citizenship by the land means). Every person born a landlord's land was landlord's subject and owed allegiance to him, that is, fidelity and obedience.

I'm seeing a definate reversal here between 14th amendment citizenship and sovereign citizenship our forefathers had at the time they defeated the King. An attempted reversal, apparently, back towards the days of divine rights of kings, and vassalage and subjects living on the land.

Looks kindof intentional actually.

BeFranklin
11-16-2008, 12:07 AM
Ok, I'll quit in a bit, but these things have ramifications...

Magna Carta. Note it is for the heirs by descent as well, and looks a little like the US Constitution in that form. Also, as guessed above, freemen inherited these rights by the blood, not land. SO IN OTHER WORDS YOU CAN BET THE FOUNDERS KNEW THE DIFFERENCE. What is up with that.

Magna Carta

1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

LibertiORDeth
11-16-2008, 12:19 AM
Who knows Miss "I have 26 posts". Jeesh. :rolleyes:

LOL that's my girl *high fives*.

kirkblitz
11-16-2008, 12:35 AM
A new challenge to Senator Barack Obama’s citizenship was filed November 12th in California demanding that the court stop certification of the election results until the state’s secretary of state can ascertain from Senator Obama his legal qualification to be a candidate for President. This 18 page petition is a quick read. It offers a good summary of what is at stake and the questions that surround Senator Obama’s citizenship.


A few points:

Petitioners Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr., and Markham Robinson, establish their standing to file the petition as members of the American Independent Party, for which Drs. Keyes and Drake were presidential and vice-presidential candidates on California’s ballot, respectfully. (This is a technical point that doomed some other lawsuits.)


Petitioners note that Senator Obama has not provided proof of his citizenship eligibility despite repeated requests during the primary and general election campaigns.


Petitioners note that action in at least 10 states is underway challenging Senator Obama’s eligibility.

Petitioners note that the 2007 birth certificate offered by Senator Obama is of questionable credibility for several reasons, including that it is a copy of suspect authenticity and that it does not detail actual birth location.


Petitioners note that the only person claiming witness to Senator Obama’s birth is his own paternal grandmother who claims he was actually born in Kenya, then the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar. Other records and recollections of family members suggest either Queens Hospital or Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii. The disclosed Registry of Live Birth is a short-form of the birth certificate that does not state whether Obama was born in Hawaii or that his birth was subsequently registered there within the year following birth as then allowed by state law.

Petitioners note that around 1967, Senator Obama moved to Indonesia with his mother and new stepfather. Records indicate that once in Indonesia he adopted his stepfather’s name and citizenship. Since dual citizenship was not allowed by Indonesian law, and U.S. law and treaty obligations required respect of this, Mrs. Obama-Soetoro had to relinquish her minor son’s U.S. citizenship. Elsewhere, they note that if he later recovered it, and no records apparently substantiate this, it would by law be as a “naturalized” citizen, not a “natural born” and, thus, ineligible for the office of President under the Constitution.


Petitioners also note that in 1961 what is now known as Kenya was then the British Protectorate of Zanzibar which, if he was born there as his paternal grandmother claims, he would be a British citizen based on his father’s citizenship.

Petitioners also note that in 1981 Senator Obama traveled to Pakistan, which was then banned by the U.S. Since he could not legally travel with a U.S. passport, they question whether he used one of his other passports: Indonesian, Kenyan, or British. (Interesting point is that the petitioners state affirmatively that he had other passports.)I am curious to see how this case fares in the courts. The question of Senator Obama’s citizenship and constitutional eligibility have never been settled. In fact, Senator Obama has resisted at every step to release his birth certificate and other relevant records that would resolve this matter. That he has fought this suggests the information is at least embarrassing, if not disqualifying.
http://www.theindependentview.com/fi...es_v_bowen.pdf

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 05:16 AM
http://www.theindependentview.com/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf (http://www.theindependentview.com/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf)

Damn, I just really love this goofy shit, watching the corrupt sociopathic bogus system devouring it's own.

Let's see, a government investigation will probably eventually be called and established. The final "OFFICIAL" conclusion will be .................. wait for it ................... "incompetent and inept". ;)

SURPRISE!!! :rolleyes:

You can't make this stuff up. :D

"The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial and savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good. But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a devil in history, it is this power principle." -- Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin

scandinaviany3
11-16-2008, 11:02 AM
They don't follow any laws.

Helllooooooooo?

that is the real problem....:confused:

scandinaviany3
11-16-2008, 11:07 AM
Exactly. Coercion at it's finest.

Also, it should've never made it out of Congress because they illegally ejected someone from the chamber who was going to vote against it and break the tie.

if there isnt there should be a chronical made on all this stuff...would make an ugly picture

scandinaviany3
11-16-2008, 11:49 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_v._Rusk

IT appears from this previous supreme court ruling that Barack if born in the US would still be a natural born citizen.

If not born physically in the US would not be a natural born citizen...

So Kenya or Hawaii is the focus after that the arguement is gone.

So the microfish records and signatures of copy of the doctors of the live birth should be reviewed and the matter closed by the supreme court and all the challengers.

I guess there is the other chance to say he is not a citizen at all because of loss of citizenship with the move to indonesia and failure to renaturalize when he returned....boy would that send shock waves through the system of total corruption being present..

Lol...too sad...not to be funny

scandinaviany3
11-16-2008, 12:47 PM
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/08/barack-obama-born-in-hawaii/

Interesting points raised about the means to travel between kenya, the papers announcement days after his birth and requirement of an official certificate for announcing the birth(dont know on this...someone should comment on this)

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 02:57 PM
Ok...let's suppose a miracle happens and Obama is declared ineligible to serve as President because of this birth issue....would we be better off with the socialist President Biden? Sock puppets tend to be pretty interchangable, just plug 'n play. :p :rolleyes:

Gin
11-16-2008, 04:24 PM
keyes is INSANE, watch his speeches, or at the debates hes totally and utterly INSANE

not only that but do you realize how powerful obama is? the certificate that was already produced, (and no i don't mean the first copy, i mean the second one that is featured on snopes) looks authentic, and if it isn't authentic is the best fake i have ever seen.... hes powerful enough to pull it off either way

not only that, but do you know what would happen if he didn't become president? or if he got shot? we would be in the next civil war, there would be major riots, and we would all be screwed.


Either way this goes... there is going to be trouble.. Either riots over Obamanation losing or protests ([probably not peaceful) if the Rule of Law is ignored...

It's going to be messy plain and simple...

Cinderella
11-16-2008, 04:45 PM
protests ([probably not peaceful) if the Rule of Law is ignored...

It's going to be messy plain and simple...


doubt there will be riots if the rule of law is ignored.....there hasnt been any riots yet so why would this be any different....

Gin
11-16-2008, 05:34 PM
doubt there will be riots if the rule of law is ignored.....there hasnt been any riots yet so why would this be any different....

I dunno... by the time it's all said and done you may be surprised... so far over 100,000 people have sign this petition...

Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis
Sign the Petition : 101,667 Letters and Emails Sent So Far

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/

FOX is already getting folks fired up stating that we may soon see a Revolution or Tax Revolt

libertarian4321
11-17-2008, 02:24 AM
Alan Keyes seems to have gotten very unpopular and lost his senate seat when he started talking about Income tax being a slave tax... That EVERYBODY who paid it was a slave...

he either lost his senate seat to obama or obama was like the other senator in the state after keyes lost.

Keyes ran against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.

Keyes proved to be about as popular as rectal cancer, garnering a whopping 27% of the vote in receiving one of the most lop sided ass-whippings any major party candidate has ever received for statewide office in IL (which probably explains his bitterness toward Obama).

I guess the voters of Illinois noticed that Keyes is batshit crazy.

If you ever get a chance to see Keyes speak or debate, watch him- its pretty comical. He starts out pretty rational, but he always manages to work himself into a lather- and by the end, he's ranting and his eyes are bulging out like a lunatic (you won't see this in older video - say 2000 or before when he would sometimes speak well- but he's really lost touch with reality in recent years).

LibertyEagle
11-17-2008, 05:36 AM
I guess the voters of Illinois noticed that Keyes is batshit crazy.

That and the fact that Illinois is liberal as all heck. :rolleyes:

melissa22
11-17-2008, 01:27 PM
calling you a retard would be an insult to retards

lol How about creating a coherent argument so that I can understand your inane and retarded diatribes, plebeian.

Gangularis
11-17-2008, 04:36 PM
Keyes ran against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.

Keyes proved to be about as popular as rectal cancer, garnering a whopping 27% of the vote in receiving one of the most lop sided ass-whippings any major party candidate has ever received for statewide office in IL (which probably explains his bitterness toward Obama).

I guess the voters of Illinois noticed that Keyes is batshit crazy.

If you ever get a chance to see Keyes speak or debate, watch him- its pretty comical. He starts out pretty rational, but he always manages to work himself into a lather- and by the end, he's ranting and his eyes are bulging out like a lunatic (you won't see this in older video - say 2000 or before when he would sometimes speak well- but he's really lost touch with reality in recent years).


No doubt.. Anyone that thinks Keyes jumped on this "Prove your birth, Obama" wagon ride, just to be an uber patriot, is niave. This lawsuit, on Keyes' behalf, WREAKS of ulterior motives.

I've come to be a strong Ron Paul supporter, but I also support Obama.. This lawsuit is ridiculous.. If there were any credible truth to this issue, do you really think Obama would have made it this far? Wouldn't that be a national security risk? Don't you think the FBI, or the CIA, or the NSA would've been all over it, behind the scenes? These guys would be in so much trouble if they let this guy slip through their fingers, all the way to the presidency.

Common sense, people.. This is conspiracy theory at it's worst.

Read here for the extensive, rational debunking on this issue:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

Grimnir Wotansvolk
11-17-2008, 04:38 PM
That and the fact that Illinois is liberal as all heck. :rolleyes:Keyes is a dominionist and an interventionist, and therefore, a liberal at heart.

I gained a new found respect for Obama after seeing him debate that sniveling piece of shit.

Lord Xar
11-17-2008, 05:03 PM
No doubt.. Anyone that thinks Keyes jumped on this "Prove your birth, Obama" wagon ride, just to be an uber patriot, is niave. This lawsuit, on Keyes' behalf, WREAKS of ulterior motives.

I've come to be a strong Ron Paul supporter, but I also support Obama.. This lawsuit is ridiculous.. If there were any credible truth to this issue, do you really think Obama would have made it this far? Wouldn't that be a national security risk? Don't you think the FBI, or the CIA, or the NSA would've been all over it, behind the scenes? These guys would be in so much trouble if they let this guy slip through their fingers, all the way to the presidency.

Common sense, people.. This is conspiracy theory at it's worst.

Read here for the extensive, rational debunking on this issue:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

Like I have said before, let this get before a legitimate court and have the truth be told/heard. Where is the harm in that? If you are asking for the abandonment of this lawsuit, then one can conclude you have ulterior motives. Also, why does it matter that Keyes has motives -- truth is truth is truth. If his motives are fullfilled, yet the truth is revealed, I don't care - neither should you.

Also, with a whopping one post and saying "I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul, and I also support Obama" is so disengenuous. That is like saying, I support clean living but I also support cancer. You can't support one without abhoring the other, imho.

Truth Warrior
11-17-2008, 05:06 PM
No doubt.. Anyone that thinks Keyes jumped on this "Prove your birth, Obama" wagon ride, just to be an uber patriot, is niave. This lawsuit, on Keyes' behalf, WREAKS of ulterior motives.

I've come to be a strong Ron Paul supporter, but I also support Obama.. This lawsuit is ridiculous.. If there were any credible truth to this issue, do you really think Obama would have made it this far? Wouldn't that be a national security risk? Don't you think the FBI, or the CIA, or the NSA would've been all over it, behind the scenes? These guys would be in so much trouble if they let this guy slip through their fingers, all the way to the presidency.

Common sense, people.. This is conspiracy theory at it's worst.

Read here for the extensive, rational debunking on this issue:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ Ron Paul AND Obama, who's being naive? :p :rolleyes:

Gangularis
11-17-2008, 05:41 PM
Like I have said before, let this get before a legitimate court and have the truth be told/heard. Where is the harm in that? If you are asking for the abandonment of this lawsuit, then one can conclude you have ulterior motives. Also, why does it matter that Keyes has motives -- truth is truth is truth. If his motives are fullfilled, yet the truth is revealed, I don't care - neither should you.

Also, with a whopping one post and saying "I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul, and I also support Obama" is so disengenuous. That is like saying, I support clean living but I also support cancer. You can't support one without abhoring the other, imho.

I didn't ask for the abandonment.. Just stated how obviously silly and futile it is.




Ron Paul AND Obama, who's being naive? :p :rolleyes:

You are. You do realize there's a good segment of Obama supporters that overlap into being Ron Paul supporters, right? Do you know the reasons for why I support either candidate? Nope.. you don't, now do you? Your statement based on ignorance illustrates your naivity. I don't agree with either candidate on all the issues. I like Ron Paul's fiscal approach, and his desire that we stop policing the world. I think he's a very sensible, and intelligent guy. That said, I think he would go too far in gutting government out of everything. I like Obama's approach to foreign policy. I like that he's given the U.S. a virtual clean slate with regards to our standing on the world stage. I like that he's a person that is capable of listening to more than one point of view. I like that he is a self made man, as is his wife, and they really do understand the perspective of the every day man. I like that he truly cares, and I would love it if he was able to abolish lobbyism.. although if he did succeed in that arena, he'd probably get killed.

Cinderella
11-17-2008, 05:50 PM
I like Obama's approach to foreign policy. I like that he's given the U.S. a virtual clean slate with regards to our standing on the world stage. I like that he's a person that is capable of listening to more than one point of view.

Oh, u mean u support this foreign poilicy?

obamas Foreign Policy


- SUPPORTS an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy

- SUPPORTS the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war on sovereign nations

- DOES NOT SUPPORT scaling down the enormous expenditure of policing and occupying the world by closing any one of the 700 bases we have in over 140 countries worldwide

- WILL EXPAND the war in Iraq into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria

- WILL EXPAND U.N.

- WILL pay lip service to our continued support of Israel, while not mentioning the fact that we give 3 times as much monetary aid to its enemies

- HAS NOT MENTIONED the idea of not sending any monetary aid to other countries while the People of America suffer the consequences of a $1 trillion deficit and a $10 trillion + debt

- TOOK AN OFFENSIVE STANCE TOWARDS RUSSIA, while supporting Georgia, the true aggressors in the Russian/Georgian conflict.. and of course neither has talked about just staying out of the situation all together

- HAS NOT taken anything, including a preemptive nuclear strike, off the table when dealing with Iran

- DOES NOT SUPPORT the humble, non-interventionist foreign policy that our Founding Fathers prescribed

StateofTrance
11-17-2008, 06:01 PM
He's another closet *** who faps on Jesus.

Gangularis
11-17-2008, 06:03 PM
Oh, u mean u support this foreign poilicy?

obamas Foreign Policy


- SUPPORTS an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy

- SUPPORTS the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war on sovereign nations

- DOES NOT SUPPORT scaling down the enormous expenditure of policing and occupying the world by closing any one of the 700 bases we have in over 140 countries worldwide

- WILL EXPAND the war in Iraq into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria

- WILL EXPAND U.N.

- WILL pay lip service to our continued support of Israel, while not mentioning the fact that we give 3 times as much monetary aid to its enemies

- HAS NOT MENTIONED the idea of not sending any monetary aid to other countries while the People of America suffer the consequences of a $1 trillion deficit and a $10 trillion + debt

- TOOK AN OFFENSIVE STANCE TOWARDS RUSSIA, while supporting Georgia, the true aggressors in the Russian/Georgian conflict.. and of course neither has talked about just staying out of the situation all together

- HAS NOT taken anything, including a preemptive nuclear strike, off the table when dealing with Iran

- DOES NOT SUPPORT the humble, non-interventionist foreign policy that our Founding Fathers prescribed


It's aggressive intervention when you try to engage both sides of a situation in talks? Most of those things you quote are things he did on the campaign trail to come off as tough, and leaderish.. I honestly cannot see Obama premptively attacking a nation. The day that happens is the day he loses the support of a majority of his followers..The majority of this nation want to see Bin Laden captured and destroyed, hence Obama, as a representative of the majority of people, will do what it takes to get him.

When has he ever talked about expanding a war into syria? And how could he "expand the UN" ?? The UN may have it's issues, but it's a necessary institution in the globalized world we live in, today.. I know that's debatable.. but that's how I feel about it.

The "true aggressors" in the Russian/Georgian conflict is in question. You really think Putin is a swell guy, above doing something like that, and making the first move?

He supports closing guantinamo bay.. You don't think he will close other military outposts littering the world?



Why can't you just be happy with the fact that I support them both, for various reasons? I support your guy, too.. Why do you have to sit here and blast my guy? You're not changing my mind about him, and I still think this little lawsuit is ridiculous, and based entirely in conspiracy skepticism. The election is over.. get over it, already..

Cinderella
11-17-2008, 06:16 PM
Why can't you just be happy with the fact that I support them both, for various reasons? I support your guy, too.. Why do you have to sit here and blast my guy? You're not changing my mind about him, and I still think this little lawsuit is ridiculous, and based entirely in conspiracy skepticism...


ur a fool...how can u support ron paul and obama when they are polar opposites?????? u make no sense and u have clearly came out of the troll closet....


- OBAMA SUPPORTS THE PATRIOT ACT

- OBAMA SUPPORTS the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

- HE WILL increase Federal spending

- HE SUPPORTS the expansion of our borders 100 miles inland effectively creating a "Constitution Free Zone" that encompasses 2/3 of all Americans

- HE DOES NOT PLAN to abolish any one of the unconstitutional or redundant departments of the Federal government

- OBAMA SUPPORTS the militarization of our police

- OBAMA SUPPORTS the construction of hundreds of FEMA controlled detention camps across the US

- OBAMA DOES NOT PLAN on reinstating the Constitutional principle of property rights as a way of combating pollution

- OBAMA SUPPORTS amnesty for illegal immigrants

- OBAMA SUPPORTS the North American Union

- OBAMA SUPPORTS NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO as opposed to truly free trade

- HE DOES NOT SUPPORT the 10th Amendment of our Bill of Rights by continuing the many unconstitutional programs and laws that do not fall under the authority of the Federal government

- OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT a healthcare or education system controlled by the People as opposed to government bureaucracies and corporations

- OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT states' rights in regard to drugs, education, abortion or marriage

- DOES NOT SUPPORT an un-infringed 2nd amendment

so clearly u DO NOT support "my guy"....

Gangularis
11-17-2008, 07:10 PM
ur a fool...how can u support ron paul and obama when they are polar opposites?????? u make no sense and u have clearly came out of the troll closet....


- OBAMA SUPPORTS THE PATRIOT ACT

- OBAMA SUPPORTS the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

- HE WILL increase Federal spending

- HE SUPPORTS the expansion of our borders 100 miles inland effectively creating a "Constitution Free Zone" that encompasses 2/3 of all Americans

- HE DOES NOT PLAN to abolish any one of the unconstitutional or redundant departments of the Federal government

- OBAMA SUPPORTS the militarization of our police

- OBAMA SUPPORTS the construction of hundreds of FEMA controlled detention camps across the US

- OBAMA DOES NOT PLAN on reinstating the Constitutional principle of property rights as a way of combating pollution

- OBAMA SUPPORTS amnesty for illegal immigrants

- OBAMA SUPPORTS the North American Union

- OBAMA SUPPORTS NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO as opposed to truly free trade

- HE DOES NOT SUPPORT the 10th Amendment of our Bill of Rights by continuing the many unconstitutional programs and laws that do not fall under the authority of the Federal government

- OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT a healthcare or education system controlled by the People as opposed to government bureaucracies and corporations

- OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT states' rights in regard to drugs, education, abortion or marriage

- DOES NOT SUPPORT an un-infringed 2nd amendment

so clearly u DO NOT support "my guy"....


yeah.. being called a fool by someone that uses "ur" instead of "you're".. is a real insult. How long before you get your first car, anyway?

I'm not going to go point by point down your list of unsubstantiated talking points.. it's a waste of my time.. but I will say, the fact that you think Obama supports the North American Union, and you think he wants to "militarize our police" says wonders about what you're willing to believe. Also, your argument is greatly flawed in it's premise that if Obama supports things that ron paul does not, that diqualifies me from supporting things about Ron Paul that I do like.

It's fine. Thanks for letting me see how all inclusive Ron Paul supporters are.. With supporters like you, who needs support from outsiders on the other side of the aisle.. Surely you guys will get him elected next time around by being jerks to people with different points of view. Way to win hearts and minds, and establish common ground.

Peace..

Leroy_Jenkems
11-17-2008, 09:35 PM
Yeah, when I was a kiddo, I sign waved for Keyes a couple of times. I've become quite a bit more libertarian since them, but I still think he makes a lot of sense on certain issues.

I think he's a sincere person, who really believes what he says is right, and argues for it to the best of his ability, without trying to slime his way into popularity. This puts him in a rare and high category of politician right there, in my book. You know, one who stands for something, and has actual principles they are supporting.

Exactly. Even though I don't agree with Nader, and even less so Kucinich, they're worthy of respect IMO for walking the path that each says he walks. None of this get-inside-the-beltway-and-join-the-fraternity BS.

Leroy_Jenkems
11-17-2008, 09:37 PM
It's fine. Thanks for letting me see how all inclusive Ron Paul supporters are.. With supporters like you, who needs support from outsiders on the other side of the aisle.. Surely you guys will get him elected next time around by being jerks to people with different points of view. Way to win hearts and minds, and establish common ground.

Peace..

Cinderalla just dropped a turd and it's stinking up the statist air :D


Even with the bad grammar and "texting-typos" from Cinderalla, Obama's record is what it is. I hope that you do not base your perceptions and/or convinctions of Ron Paul's message on the ambush of some disagreeing individuals in an internet forum. The real-world consequences of Obama's policies will further destroy the prosperity of humankind, wealthy and poor alike. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not moral. But, in all fairness, Republicans and Democrats alike from the last several decades are all guilty of said crimes.

Cinderella
11-18-2008, 08:48 AM
i do alot of txt messaging as evidenced by my typing here....well hes a troll...i wont be feeding any trolls....its obvious hes only here to start trouble