News the Stars Bring Today

&
 

Jan 16 2009

Inauguration The Day of the Joker?

Published by vrajavala at 12:45 am under history, international, politics Edit This

obamascotus.jpg

In order to make January 20, 2009 a most historical date, Rev. Dr. James Manning has formally asked that Chief Justice Clarence Thomas swear in Barack Hussein Obama. As
Rev Manning says: “Bro to Bro”, “homey to homey“.

But whichever Justice does this infamous act will reap the wrath of history for swearing in an impostor, an illegal alien. So far, after numerous lawsuits imploring and demanding that Barack Hussein Obama/ Barry Soetoro produce his birth certificate and give an open “transparent” accounting of his medical records, his school records and his citizenship, obama has not yielded. Instead he has hired a few law firms to erase each suit on legal technicalities.

In truth, however, he is not a “natural born citizen”, even by his own admission, as he said on his website his father was a British citizen. Now, looking over years of Supreme Court decisions, it is apparent that in order to qualify as a “natural born citizen”, one has to have two American parents and to be born on American soil. There was one exception, according to legal scholars, Larry Tribe and Ted Olsen, and that is to be born to two Americans who are serving in the military, like John McCain’s parents were. However, that was their “legal” opinion, not a Supreme Court decision.

But there seems to be a new shift in the air, as Congress, the Senate and the supreme Court may fear that to point out the obvious will evoke the famous “race card,” manipulated so well by Obama in the election.
So, with one more case to be heard today, Hollister v. Soetoro/Obama, involving the question of whether the military will have to follow a commander-in-chief Obama’s orders, the country seems to be on the verge of a complete collapse of the Constitution. The difference today is that prior to Congress confirming the electoral college (Jan 8th), Hollister/Berg did not have “standing”, as SCOTUS does not interfere in the political process.

In the picture above, you can see Obama/Biden having an informal meeting on January 14th. The meeting was pretty much in closed doors, and no information about any conversations given. However, according to the Obama files “the constitution does not establish who vets the candidate. Part of their decision will determine who, or what will be held responsible in the future, if not now. It could destroy the Democratic Party if they are proved to be part of an intentional fraud. If Obama does not provide the documentation they request, he will be held in contempt, and they WILL obtain it.”

As Thomas Jefferson said: “sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of the patriots and tyrants.” In the case of the U.S., what we have is a greedy Wall Street that has forced its candidate and front men on the American people. In other words, it’s time for another Boston Tea Party. Rev. Dr. Manning has declared that if Obama is inaugurated, it will be the Day of the Joker.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
Possibly-related Articles:                                        (auto-generated)

3 Responses to “Inauguration The Day of the Joker?”

  1. truth2uon 16 Jan 2009 at 7:35 am edit this

    “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 the wording of the rule from the constitution - before you spread untruths be informed. It does not say 2 parents - it does not even say born on American soil but Hawaii was American soil.

    Racist propaganda is what this sounds like.

    Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

    Get a Life and stop spreading negativity

  2. truth2uon 16 Jan 2009 at 7:39 am edit this

    I have to say this too - your post really irritated me. With cops shooting blacks like it’s open season and you sprouting racist words I know that change is a long way off - the more things change the more they stay the same.

  3. truth2uon 16 Jan 2009 at 1:58 pm edit this

    My point is this, yes, I read the article you directed me to. Based on where Obama was born, and the law at that time, he is a citizen. Based on previous rulings he is still a citizen. He was primarily raised by his grandmother in Hawaii and has lived in the US since that time.

    In terms of what kind of blood he has racing through his body - you claim he is 50% white, 7% African and 43% Arab (are you saying his father was part Arab?)

    When it comes to blood line, there was a time in the US if you had 1% black blood you were 100% black. Not only that, there is so much mix in the world at this time - why is that even relevant.

    Obama was born in America, for the most part grew up in America and as far as I’m concerned he is a “natural born citizen” meaning he was born in the USofA - anything else is knitpicking and even Justice Gray did not make a clear distinction between “natural born citizen” and “citizen”.

    There are other things that are more important in life than this discussion on whether Obama is “natural born” this whole conversations is unbelievable and you tried to make him into a militant person threatening to take over the US.

    If my husband and I had just passed the test for citizenship but I was from another country. I had a child, that child would be a “natural born citizen” - that would make him a natural born citizen being born from two American citizens - however in his home he may not even speak english.

    These things are just a play on words and to get caught up in the word game is silliness to me.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Some Today.com contributors may have received a fee or a promotional product or service from a manufacturer for promotional consideration, while others receive no consideration at all. Each contributor is responsible for disclosing any such promotional consideration.