Wednesday, April 2, 2014

[Video] Chris Matthews Reports Obama Born In Indonesia

The video also provides background and a much needed update on Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigation into Obama's "fraudulent" birth certificate.




45 comments:

  1. Where has Matthews been (under a rock)? I've Known since Jan. 20th 2009. His name on an Indonesian Passport Cirtificate was
    Barack Hussein Obama Soetero Soebarkah. United States Justice Foundation has a Court date in a Motion to "REMOVE"
    Obama from Office of President. By removing him from office 'WE'
    remove "ALL" his signetures,thrus taking America back in time to Jan.20th 2009 at 12:01 AM. Impeachment would let his signetures stand, where Criminally Removal ERASES his signetures.
    ANY QUESTIONS ? Go to United States Justice Foundation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds great, however there is a problem in Anonymous' remarks. The only provision for removing a president under our constitution is by impeachment by the House then followed by a trial in the Senate. The court has no jurisdiction or grounds in the removal of a president. Yes, the court can convict BHO for treason but then the DOJ would have to enter the slaughter of BHO and ladies and gentlemen that isn't going to happen with this DOJ.

      Wayne the brain

      Delete
    2. And here's the deal: when he's removed, he and George Soros and the DNC should be sued in civil court by anyone effected by his tenure. And that should include the news networks, as well.

      Delete
    3. That sounds great, IF USJF is successful in getting that accomplished. Lots of years have gone by waiting for that, and my fingers have ossified in the "crossed" position.

      Delete
    4. I pray Wayne the brain is right and everything falls into place.

      Delete
    5. You can not impeach a person that is not the President of The United States of America. BHO is the president of the United States Cooperation, of which does not require citizenship.

      Delete
  2. This needs to get out to the general public. The know nothing gimme my goodies crowd will ignore it, but hopefully the people with more than 2 brain cells will listen & act, this includes the congress & senate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. Allen you're an idiot

      Delete
    2. I AGREE Allen you are an idiot Racist

      Delete
    3. I also AGREE - Allen you are brain dead!

      Delete
    4. I know Allen the obozo admin are very racist. In fact that obozo has put this country back 200 years. Or is that 400? Wasn't it waters dem from CA say this country is 400 years old. Yep she sure did not only are they racist Allen they dummer than a box of rocks.

      Delete
  4. April FOOL.

    Obama has shown both his Hawaii short-form BC (the Certification of Live Birth, COLB, which is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people to get their US passports every year), and he has shown his long form Hawaii BC.

    And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii----including the former REPUBLICAN governor of Hawaii (a friend of Sarah Palin’s)----have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to him, and that all the facts, repeat ALL the facts, on it are exactly the same, repeat, EXACTLY the same, as what they sent to him.

    And Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961 is also confirmed by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii (and ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, the "Health Bureau Statistics" section, where Obama's birth notice was published, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How would you like to buy some beach-front property in Death Valley?

      Delete
    2. Notice that Anonymous has not responded to the facts shown above? (I wonder why not????)

      Delete
    3. smrstrauss: You are a pathological liar. I invite all Conservatives to check him out on the web. I have nothing further to say to him. He is a useless asshole who is nuts.

      Delete
    4. Re "nuts."

      It is nutty to think that there was even a rational POSSIBILITY that Obama was born in a foreign country. For that to have happened:

      (1) Obama's mother would have had to have taken an expensive and risky trip abroad late in her pregnancy (which very very few women did in 1961), and there isn't even evidence that she had a passport at the time----and very few 18-year-olds did.

      (2) IF she did that and gave birth in a foreign country, then she would have had to have successfully SMUGGLED Obama from that country to Hawaii (we don't just allow children to be carried into the country, you know----and yet no application for him to be added to a US passport or for a US visa for him has been found, yet the Bush Administration was in charge of the State Department for eight years, and if there were such an application, they would surely have found it.

      (3) IF BOTH of those highly unlikely things had happened, then Obama's relatives would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii (which at the time as under a Republican governor) to issue a birth certificate that said right on it that Obama was born in Honolulu------despite (as birthers CLAIM) his being born in a foreign country.

      The odds of all three things happening are miniscule, tiny, nearly zip, so low as not to be considered a rational possibility. And the officials who have confirmed Obama's Hawaii birth certificate include two appointees of a Republican governor and that former Republican governor (a friend of Sarah Palin's) herself.

      Delete
    5. The long form clearly shows he was born in Indonesia.

      Delete
  5. I find it really amusing that when Libs have no answer to the question of Obama's birth or really anything else about him, his violation of the Constitution with his Exective Orders, etc, they can only say "Racist." This incorrect accusation no longer works with most of the American people. In fact, Obama is as much white as black so I guess they can have it both ways when they whine "Racist."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since you start off with Obama's birth, let's concentrate on that. The reason that there are any questions at all about Obama's birth is that birthers are willing to lie about it. That is all. In fact, it is nutty, loony, crazy, to think that there was even a rational CHANCE that Obama was born anywhere else than in Hawaii.


    For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

    (1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

    (2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

    (3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).

    If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

    So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?

    (Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )

    So, it is not racist to believe that Obama was born in a foreign country. It is STUPID.

    As for executive orders. Executive orders are allowed, and have been used by presidents for centuries. They are limited to orders to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. They are not laws. If Obama had used executive orders to exceed the powers granted him by the US Constitution, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would have commenced impeachment proceedings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no time in your rambling Hollywood response were you ever close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on you.

      Delete
    2. Notice that Anonymous has not responded to a single fact? Not one. Anonymous simply claims that it is "idiotic"---but no attempt to show that it is.

      Here are the fundamentals: For Obama to have been born in a foreign country and still have a birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii:

      (1) Obama's mother would have had to have made a rare trip for women late in pregnancy at that time, a trip to a foreign country. But we do not even know that she had a passport.

      (2) IF she had done that and given birth in that foreign country, she would have had to have successfully smuggled Obama from there to Hawaii----because we do not allow children to be just carried into the country without US travel documents, and there is no evidence that such a document was applied for.

      (3) IF both of those two EXTREMELY unlikely things were both done, then Obama's family would then have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to have issued a birth certificate that said that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital despite (as birthers claim), Obama having been born in Kenya or some other country than the USA.

      The chance of all three things happening is extremely low.

      And, BTW, the officials who have confirmed that Obama's birth certificate really says "Kapiolani Hospital" on it include the former Republican governor of Hawaii, a friend of Sarah Palin's.

      Delete
    3. Numb Nuts, The issue is that he is an Indonesian Citizen, READ THE STATEMENT!

      This is exactly true casue his daddy in Indonesia adopted him and he became a citizen of that country. His foreign student status that got him the Fulbright Scholarship REQUIRES the student to be a foreign student.

      It dees not matter if he was a citizen of the US prior to being an Indonesian Citizen, it matters that he was an Indonesian Citizen and there is no record of his immigrating and becoming a citizen of this country. At that point he is a naturalized citizen and again he is not eligible. He changed his allegence and the entire reason the rule that is in the Constitution exists is to ensure the absolute allegence to this country and no other.

      The reason for this was because King George was not English but German. He assumed the throne in England and instituted a system of laws foreign to our system of Jurisprudence. This is almost a verbatum statement in the Declaration of Independence.

      What you said about executive orders is exactly correct. However, the president cannot use these orders to circumvent the laws rightfully legislated. This would be a legislative authority and is not granted to the office of president in Article II of the Constitution.

      Also the Constitution does not say that removal from office be solely by impeachment. Empeachment was, at one time "the hint of impropriety". We are a long way past that. If this were the only limit the president could murder someone and the Senate could fail to convict and he could be free and still the presdent. Impeachment is wrongdoing in office that has to do with the office. Criminal acts are just that, there is no immunity from process of law.

      The legislature is granted qualified immunity by the Constitution itself. Do you actually believe that NOT putting similar provisions in the Constitution for the office of president entitles this ass immunity unless the senate convicts???? Are you brain dead or huffing something????

      The immunity stated in the Constitution granting the legislature immunity was for a specific cause. To make the process flow smoothly. It was limited to to, from, and during the legislative session. Also if the person was in DC which was a long way off during horse and buggy days. Responses to legal action has a limited time. Anyone could commence a legal action to a Representative. Some one could harrass a representative by filing an action and then getting a default while they were away. The Constitution states just after the grant of the immunity that: nevertheless they may be arrested for treason, felony and breach of the peace. The Constitution makes no such distinction for the president or the judges of the supreme court.

      Federalist Paper 45 states that the "powers delegated are few and defined". It does not mean unrestricted unless noted. Hamilton in Federalist 33 states that the laws enacted must be pursuant to the delegated authority and that the "necessary and proper" authorization must be inextricably tied to those delegated. They meant a LIMITED not unlimited government.

      Your position is based upon total supposition and appeal to authority. The people are the authority. Thats is why we have the guns to enforce it and to overthrow tyranny. That my friend is the last resort. So now can you even remotely respond with your original statement???? NOPE!

      Your entire position is based upon an appeal to authority. It is a logical fallacy. The people did not delegate such an authority, it does not exist except as usurpation, it is oout law and unlawful regardless of the form it takes and the trappings of officialdom. No substanative authority, period! The Constitution says We the People, not we he congress or we the court or we the who the hell ever.....

      "The people... the people are the rightful masters of the legislature and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution but those men who pervert it."
      Abraham Lincoln

      Delete
    4. Re: "Numb Nuts, The issue is that he is an Indonesian Citizen, READ THE STATEMENT!

      This is exactly true casue his daddy in Indonesia adopted him and he became a citizen of that country. His foreign student status that got him the Fulbright Scholarship REQUIRES the student to be a foreign student."

      First, the "Fulbright Scholarship" story came from AN APRIL FOOL'S ARTICLE- way back on April 1, 2009--are you in the habit of believing April Fool's articles??? (And, BTW, Fulbright Scholarships are available only to graduate students, and Obama was not a graduate student at the time, and there is an association of Fulbright Scholarship alumni, and you can call them up---and they will tell you that Obama never received one.)

      Now turning to the Indonesian citizenship crap. You can call the Indonesian Embassy in Washington, and they will tell you that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen. And they will tell you that to be adopted in Indonesia (and for that matter in Hawaii), papers have to be filed and a district court must approve the adoption. But there are NO such papers. The "adopted" claim is simply another birther myth.

      Re: "What you said about executive orders is exactly correct. However, the president cannot use these orders to circumvent the laws rightfully legislated. This would be a legislative authority and is not granted to the office of president in Article II of the Constitution."

      Answer: Of course, but then there is no evidence that Obama did do that, and if there were such evidence the Republicans in Congress would have made it obvious that there was----but there wasn't.


      Delete
  7. I and million othrs have SEEN the light at the end of the tunnel, & friend it's a North-end of a South-bound freightrain. Things are gonna happen V soon, my fingers too are petrified, 6 long yrs.

    Just watch the character, quality of those who yet give HIM support
    'cant wait !!

    ReplyDelete
  8. According to the Law of Nations, the significance of BOs Birth certificate is not where he was born, but whether his father was a citizen of the USA, which he was not. This is the definition of "natural born in the L of N. "The citizenship of a child is the same as the father's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen does not come from the SWISS philosopher Vattel's book, The Law of Nations. It comes from the common law, and in the common law every child born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born Citizen.


      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      Neither the Law of Nations nor Vattel is mentioned in the Federalist Papers even once, while the common law is referred to about twenty times, and always with praise.

      Delete
    2. More reading on the subject:

      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

      Delete
  9. To all posters who reply to smrstrauss: Give him a big hand for keeping the Conservative fire burning. Then feed the pathological liar some more s- - - t to eat to keep him stoked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Notice that Anonymous has not replied either to the facts showing that Obama was born in Hawaii or to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen coming from the common law and referring to the place of birth. (I wonder why not??)

      Delete
    2. Actually his last postin is exactly correct. But again we are not dealing with a Kenyan birth we are dealing with an Indonesian Citizenship. That makes the question of allegence applicable and the very reason "Natural Born Citizen" is the standard. The intent must follow the letter of the Constitution or the argument is unreasonable and all precidents to the contrary are therefore "unreasonable". This is the doctrine of presidents. Mr. smrssstrauss is showing himself to be well read but suffering for some sort of dissconnection. My take is that the historical context is not considered in his presentment. Indeed the Common Law is paramount to our consideration. Even Blackstone is mentioned in the Federalist. You will find it also in the Declaration of Resolves which predated the Declaration of Independence and states in relative detail those issues which are in brief in the Declaration of Independence.

      More importantly, aswaging strauss' position, all this factual assumption about those who appear as authority figures in Hawaii is not proven to be consistent. There are great blocks of information that has not been proven and there are even contraverting facts in circulation. The term African American for the birth father is abbsolutly out of context. It is not the term used during the era. Further the country of Kenya did not exist at the time. Under British law the nationality of the Father followed to the son. The present country of Kenya was a British possession. These issues appear on the so called brithcertificate and make it absolutely fraudulent. There is no room for error there. So who are the liars??? The so called officials strauss presents or the people who created the "birth certificate".

      "Fraud destroys all that it touches." This axiom of the law is relentless and is the basis and foundation of the Law of Contracts and all relations whos subject matter is under the jurisdiction of the Common Law. Where there is fraud there is no truth to be found. This utterly destroys the so called birth certificate. So it follows that the document presented by the White House is a fraudulent document. Since the White House presented this to the American People the rightfull sovereign, as proff of this varmint's right to even run for office, and since the document is proven to be an outright fabrication and devoid of discernable verification, it is rightfully challenged and on its face shown to be an attempt to deceive and access the highest office of government of this country by fraud and deception. The entire operation of this administration as stated by the two legged varmint was to "fundamentall change" this country. We have seen the Marxist rethoric and the operation of Marxist ideology and methodology which subverts the nation it targets and the fast track to socialism with which this varmint presses us on toward. Article IV Section 4 gaurantees a republican form of government. Any departure from this mandate is an unconstitutional use of authority. No one has the authority to unilaterally change our system. This my friends is treason. The Comon Law as our friend points out authorizes the use of force for all its citizens to rise up and put down this unlawful use of authority. We do not overthrow a lawful government or a Constitutional one; we overthrow tyranny, it is our duty and our right.

      How does Mr. stauss think on this????

      Delete
    3. Re: "The term African American for the birth father is abbsolutly out of context. It is not the term used during the era. "

      However, it does not say "African American." It says "African." Only African.

      And the explanation is quite simple. In HAWAII, you were allowed to write in any word or group of words that you wanted to describe your race. You were not given a list of races nor did someone stand over your shoulder and tell you what to write.

      Some people listed their race as "American" (which is not a race). Others said that they were "Italian" (ditto) or "colored" or "mixed race" or "Korean-Japanese" or whatever. IN short you could use any word that you wanted.

      And what was the word that AFRICAN exchange students normally used in the 1960s to describe their race? Answer: African. And what was the word that the colonial government in Kenya (which btw existed in 1961 and was called Kenya, short for "The Kenya Colony") used to describe the race of the black residents of that colony? Answer: Africans. In short, Obama's father could put down "African"---and it is a word that he would use.

      Re: "we are dealing with an Indonesian Citizenship."

      Answer: A telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy will confirm that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.

      Re: "Further the country of Kenya did not exist at the time."

      Answer: Of course not. It was a COLONY, and it was called "The Kenya Colony" (NOT the British East Africa Protectorate; that title was changed in 1920). So the PLACE called Kenya (short for "the Kenya Colony") did exist. And now, wait for it, guess what, it is possible to come to the USA from a colony. It does not have to be a country.

      Re: "How does Mr. stauss think on this???? "

      I think that Obama really was born in HAWAII and that it is truly nutty to think that there was even a rational POSSIBILITY that he could have been born anywhere else. It is DUMB to think that it could have happened because: (1) Obama's mother would have had to have traveled late in pregnancy, and such trips were extremely rare at the time because of the risk of stillbirth (and we do not know that she even had a passport in 1961---and very few 18-year-olds did); (2) IF she had made the trip (and it would have had to have been ALONE BTW because WND has proven that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961), for the myth to be true she would then have had to have successfully SMUGGLED Obama from that foreign country to Hawaii because we do not just allow infants to be carried into the country without valid US travel documents----and there isn't any for Obama (and the Bush Administration would have found any such document if it existed---are you saying that the Bush Administration was part of the plot???); (3) And, IF both of the first two extremely unlikely things had happened, then Obama's family would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii (which was in 1961 under a REPUBLICAN governor) to issue a birth certificate for Obama that said that he was born in Honolulu, in Kapiolani Hospital, despite---as they claim---his being born in some other country. ALL three extremely unlikely things would have had to have happened.


      Delete
  10. Frankly, I don't give a rats ass where the worthless socialist fraud was born. He is by far the worst President of all time and makes Jimmy Carter look like Einstein. Obama is a racist, corrupt, lying sack and his departure from office, no matter how, is long over due. He can take the likes of Pelosi, Reid, et. al. with him. By the liberal a$$holes, you have abused the spurious term "racist" to the point that it means nothing, so F$#k you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love your response!!!!!

      Delete
    2. We didn't like George W. Bush either. Not liking a president does not make him not a president, and Obama was eligible since he really was born in Hawaii and really never became an Indonesian citizen and really is a Natural Born US Citizen, and really was elected president in 2008 and re-elected in 2012 (with nearly five million more votes than Mitt Romney), and his term of office will run until January 20, 2017.

      Delete
    3. The sooner Obama is impeached, the better for us all who love liberty and are patriots in the U.S.A. His actions prove he does not love this nation or have any desire to serve it honorably.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous, I agree with all you and have fought your battle for over 6 years. Sadly many do not understand our constitution and misunderstand its' meaning. Both parents must be citizens of the United States and this is not the case with our present usurper.
    Our problems are not just proving this but with our members of Congress of both parties. All are guilty and should be removed from office.
    We the citizens are the ones that have paid and will continue to pay for their indiscretions!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neither parent has to be a citizen. NEITHER. Birth in the USA is sufficient.



      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

      Delete
    2. More reading on the subject:

      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

      Delete
    3. Whatever anyone may say, Obama has proved repeatedly that he is no lover of liberty and is not fit to serve as leader of a free nation.

      Delete
    4. Obama is the president of the USA. You have the right to ask your congressman and senators to impeach on your CLAIM that Obama is not a lover of liberty and not fit----and they have the right to ignore you. Oh, and if anything at all were to happen to Obama, Joe Biden---who is even more liberal than Obama----would become president.

      Delete
  12. HURRY! Go to Constitutional Emergency and sign up for the surge onto DC led by US Colonel Harry Riley on May 16, 2014 called OPERATION AMERICAN SPRING! All signers are vetted!

    ReplyDelete
  13. So, now it seems that the vast majority of our Congress is behaving in a treasonous manner. Certainly those who have accepted the Obama presidency as legitimate have. Perhaps there are a few in the halls of government who have tried to reverse this insurgency, but too many haven't made their voices heard. One must assume that they aren't troubled by these elections. So, these, who go about their business under a fraudulent regime, are co-conspirators, and also treasonous.
    I'm calling for an outcry from the members of congress who have the cajones (literally or figuratively) to call a - - well I guess that allusion isn't called for, or is it? Nonetheless, our government is currently operating under a foreign insurgency. The entire executive branch should be jailed. Many congress members and bureaucrats should be investigated, and perhaps also jailed.
    As for Mathews? Certifiable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason that the US Congress UNANIMOUSLY voted to confirm Obama as president is that (1) he really was born in Hawaii; (2) the meaning of Natural Born Citizen really comes from the common law and really refers to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents; (3) Obama really did win the election with close to five million more votes than Mitt Romney. That unanimous vote included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul. They are not "treasonous." They are RATIONAL.

      Delete
  14. " . . . a spade a spade!"

    ReplyDelete

Posted By: Chris Carmouche