Maj,Gen. Jerry R. Curry (Ret.) speaks out on the Obama eligibility issue and calls on the US House and Senate to settle the controversy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO8n4Pij158
    | ||
Video:Another General Calls out Obama on Eligibility | ||
|
National Campaign Fund Managed and Designed by Key Web Consulting | ||
Frankly,I would not care if he were born in
a cattle stall,in Africa,*aside from the
laws of our land specifying otherwise,
if he were any good as a leader of our
nation. The problem is that he is
the worst there is;on a par with the
other tyrants in history,only he has
not yet enforced the guillotine on us.
Just give him time and we will face
the wrath of Obamanation.
Amen to your thought. You have it right. When will the cloudy-minded folks
wake up?
This imposter and divider of our Nation should be lynched
I don't care if he were born at 14th and Dodge Streets in Omaha NEB at high noon on the 4th of July. The fact that his FATHER was not a citizen of this wonderful country,but a Brithish/Kennya subject at his birth disqualifies him from the office as POTUS. Period! Birth Certificate is irrelveant because of this fact.
I do not feel that this man that we are suppose to address as Chief &Commander is deseving of this title. He has spent so much money to cover up his past &refuses to even show a real birth certificate..where there is smoke there is fire &I feel that there is something fishy with this man. Otherwise,why would he have gone to all th trouble to cover up his past? There are some who want to play the race card when it comes to O &that has absolutely NOTHING to do with him holding this office!! I truly resent all the lies which he has told to us. I resent the fact that he wants everything his way &will pay to get it that way. In all my years,I have never seen any prez who has done the things that this prez has done. I'm here to tell you..wait until his health care takes over in America. There will be a lot of people crying b/c they will not be cared for. If you want to read something to get you thinking go to:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7908742/Ax-fall… Read this &then think about how it's going to be in the U.S. after we begin with Socialized Health care…b/c that's what we are going to get!!
That is so true,AZjenn,and I noticed that not many
of the citizens were aware of how much he has
destroyed,until he pushed the Health Care bill
and it hit the wallets and purses of said citizens.
That is when they woke up and paid attention.
I don't believe we will ever have that foisted
upon us in all its entirety because he will
be gone and hopefully,executed as a
traitor and a fraud,and a war criminal.
Besides,I read that it is unconstitutional
for federal gov't to force a health insurance
program upon us. I think we need to
just say 'no'when the tax bill comes due.
(that is if he IS still here and that had
better not be the case or there will be
a grassroots revival like there was
in the 'old days'in the U.S.
MJ Martin (2 Jan 2010)
"Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional"
Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance,it can do anything.
ORRIN G. HATCH,J. KENNETH BLACKWELL AND KENNETH A. KLUKOWSKI
President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end,but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking,this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First,the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point,exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing,however,for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage;it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree,but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact,the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare."Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution,but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather,the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.
A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states'obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture"because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.
A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges,which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds,which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No,this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
concluding paragraphs:
This violates the letter,the spirit,and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance,perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997),the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is,by drafting and by deliberate design,exactly what this legislation would do.
The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why,for example,states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car,but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.
This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation,which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts,scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.
America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this,then it can do anything,and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.
When obama ran for the Illinois Senate………….the AP and newspapers ran a a announcement that……….."a Kenya-born person was running in Illinois for the Senate"……how come NONE of this is addressed and brought forward…??
When obama was asked by Allen Keys in a debate as if he was born in the United States………..obama answered………"It doesn't matter I'm running for the Senate NOT the president"……….!!!!!!
It has been brought forward and the remark
about being a non-citizen of US was made
to Alan Keyes at that time. It has been
published by Associated Press.
Just another one of many pieces of
evidence that the Congress,Senate,
etc. swept under the dirty rugs.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/15/obama-conc…
It has been brought forward and the remark
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastand…
http://davidoconnor.ning.com/profiles/blogs/aps-k…
http://www.nigerianobservernews.com/4112008/41120…
(excuse the unfinished sentence above.. )
That's okay elizabeth.
He may actually be natural born —a love child of MalcolmX with some unknown girlfriend. MX had a number of such by-blows;Obama was probably fostered out to the Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann common-law couple-of-convenience for some consideration or other,and O Sr took off 2 months later,leaving SA to carry on. There are e.g. eyewitness reports of her on a beach,slim,in a bikini,1 month before his "birth". He has several times slipped and referred to his birth in '58 or so,too.
There are so many layers of deceit and fraud surrounding him that it has boggled the minds of the nation.
IMPEACH OBAMA IN 2010 http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/…
This may be in a sensationalist newspaper
but that doesn't make it less authentic.
What should be exposed from the standpoint of the military,is that if the Commander-in-Chief (the "sovereign") is not lawful,those serving in the military can be held personally responsible for their actions in line of duty,as they have no lawful "principal"under whose authority they acts as his "agents".
If they kill someone on the battlefield,they could be charged in a foreign court with war crimes and murder. They could be held responsible for damage to property incurred in battle. Their uniform,identifying them as "lawful combatants",is their "license to kill".
This is the most aggregious offense that any commander can inflict upon those who serve him,hanging them out to dry as punishment for their patriotism.
This fraud needs to be stood up before a firing squad and shot for committing treason against this country in time of war.
Agreed.. and more military officers,albeit retired,
are coming out with their support of the
downfall of Obama. I think active military
are still valuing their careers more than
they should be doing,because this is a crisis.
The egregiously incompetent Holder gets to stay on because he guarantees to deep-six any legal challenges to Obungler's eligibility.