Some [RINO] Republicans Want Review of Birthright Citizenship. But is it Simply a Cover Story for Another Cloaked more Sinister Objective?What Senator Lindsey Graham of SC with the backing of Senator John McCain of AZ is stating to the press with this new initiative of his is only half the story:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-Republicans-Birthright-Citizenship/2010/08/03/id/366508
Comments on What's Really Probably Up - The 6th Try Since 2001
by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Watch carefully how these key but sneaky Republican leaders (RINOs) such as Senator Lindsey Graham of SC and Senator John McCain of AZ will try to cleverly game this new initiative of theirs to make it look like on the surface that it appears they are trying to work on the very real "anchor baby" problem in the USA. But while they overtly say they are trying to correctly define who is a "born a Citizen of the United States" per the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to solve this "anchor baby" problem, they covertly in the process will also be trying to confuse the 14th Amendment part of the Constitution with another part of the Constitution, i.e., who is a "natural born Citizenship of the United States" as required in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, the Presidential eligibility clause. Watch them speak and how they switch Citizenship terms in mid-sentence and use them interchangeably. These two terms and parts of the Constitution have nothing to do with each other and are in the Constitution for two different purposes. The "natural born Citizen" clause in Article II was added by John Jay and George Washington as a national security protection clause required for eligibility to serve in the singular most powerful office in our new form of government, President and Commander of the Military. It was added as a higher level of qualification standards to the existing proposed eligibility clause proposed by Hamilton to provide a "strong check" against foreign influence on any future President after the founders were gone in order that the person in that office would have no "foreign influence" claims on them via birth. They wanted all future Presidents and Commanders of the Military of the United States to have sole allegiance at birth to only the USA. Only a natural law "natural born Citizen" meets that requirement. The "natural born Citizens", as defined by natural law, are people born in the country to two citizen parents of the country, and they are by far the most populous sub-group of those who are "Citizens by birth" of a country. The remainder who are not "natural born Citizens" were made "Citizens by birth" per Statutory Laws passed by Congress such as Title 8 Section 1401, the 14th Amendment, and U.S. court decisions interpreting those laws and amendments, not always correctly. To learn more on the difference between "Citizen by birth" and being a "natural born Citizen by birth" see the historic and scholarly legal treatise by Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This legal treatise was used by the founders of our nation and framers of the U.S. Constitution to write our founding documents The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Adjectives mean something in man-made law and in natural law. But watch how these double talking Senators interchange the two citizenship terms in the same discussion like these two terms mean the same thing. Those two terms do not mean the same thing and these two different terms are used in two different places in the U.S. Constitution for two entirely different purposes and these Senators know it. It's the old repeat the big lie long enough people will believe it routine. They are running another deception game on the American people like they did in 2008. See this article I wrote for more about the clever and deceptive cavalier interchangeable use by the Progressives and RINOs in Congress and in the media of the terms "Citizen by/at Birth" and "natural born Citizen by/at birth". These two legal terms do NOT mean the same thing. Even the U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual points this out. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html
These key Republican leadership and senators KNOW there is a difference in the wording, meaning, and intent of the 14th Amendment, the Wong Kim Ark 1898 and other Supreme Court decisions, and Statutory Laws as to whose is a "Citizen of the USA", ... and the wording in Article II as to who is a "natural born Citizen of the USA". They know that those two extra adjectives have very special meaning rooted deeply in natural law. But they are going to deliberately blur the lines on purpose because of what these same Senators and both political parties did in the 2008 election, i.e., both political parties putting up candidates for President who had suspect Article II "natural born Citizen" status. Both candidates from the two major political parties for the first time in history did not meet the historic law of nations and natural law Article II meaning of the legal term of art "natural born Citizen of the United States", which is being born in the USA to two citizen parents. McCain was born in Panama and Obama's father was not a Citizen of the USA, not even an immigrant to the USA.
These self serving clever politicians have tried five (5) times legislatively since 2001 to blur the meaning of "natural born Citizen of the United States" by statute but have failed. http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-democrats-failed-to-re-define.html
Why did they do that? They did it in an attempt to provide cover to run candidates for President who would otherwise not be eligible ... McCain and Obama. And maybe to also provide cover in the future for political figures like Gov. Jindal and others who are not "natural born Citizens of the United States" to run for President without amending the Constitution first. But instead of amending Article II of the Constitution to address the issue head on, they choose to obfuscate the issue and babble and lie and confuse the electorate about it in other ways. The reason they don't want to address amending Article II as to who can be the President head-on is because they know the We the People will not allow amendment of the "natural security" eligibility clause in Article II, i.e., that the person who would be President must be a "natural born Citizen of the United States" -- be born in the USA to parents who are both Citizens of the United States.
Ignore that clause and what do you get. You get what our founders and framers feared most ... a person not innately loyal to the USA by birth ... i.e. .... OBAMA a citizen of the world sitting in the Oval Office with more concern about his homeland of Kenya and the world than he does for the USA. Obama is NOT eligible to be the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our military. Americans have very good reasons to be concerned about Obama's exact legal identify and citizenship status. He may or may not be a Citizen of the United Stated depending on where he was physically born, but he is clearly NOT a "natural born Citizen of the United States' to constitutional standards. See this essay by Attorney Mario Apuzzo for more on the history and law and Supreme Court decisions on that point. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html
Man cannot redefine "natural law". These law were created by nature and nature's God. It is from natural law that our unalienable rights flow, some of which were written into the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. These corrupt politicians can try to redefine what the word "is" is. And one infamous one tried in the past to redefine what "sex" is in his political musings. But they cannot redefine common sense and the laws of nature and nature's God who created them. As Lincoln said they can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but they cannot fool all the people all the time. But these weasels in Washington DC keep trying it and will try it again, imo. And the willing and enabling and corrupt press exemplified by the "Journolist'as" will enable them to try and obfuscate the two legal terms of "born a Citizen of the United States" and "natural born Citizen of the United States". For these snakes, will try to ignore all parts of the Constitution which stand in their way of overthrowing our Constitutional Republic and turning it into a National Socialist state. Again, "natural born Citizens" are the most popular group and is a subset of the larger group of all Citizens. As per Vattel's The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, the "natural born Citizens" define the culture and very nature of a nation. It is from those 100s of millions of "natural born Citizens of the United States" that we must choose our Presidents.
See these charts and the Euler logic diagram and essay for the tools to educate others and fight back against this latest sneaky Republican Party ploy to try to work on one problem all the while hiding the real goal which is obfuscating what a "natural born Citizen of the United States" is, all the while pretending they are addressing of the "anchor baby" problem in the USA, which does indeed need to be addressed by defining the "jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html
What is the solution to the "anchor babies" problem? The real and correct way to solve the "anchor baby" issue is to simply address by a new law passed by Congress defining clearly and legally what the term "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment means when it says "All those born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States". It does not take a constitutional amendment to do that! Doing that 'definition law' for a legal term in the 14th Amendment, they would solve the "anchor baby" issue without messing with "natural law" terms such as exist in Article II or having to amend the Constitution.
You see "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means far more than just geographic location of birth. Lawyers know this. Senators know this. But they must write it into a law to straighten out poorly worded court decisions and bureaucratic decisions in the last 100 years or so. That "jurisdiction" term in the 14th Amendment is the term these Senators should address and define with statutory law to solve the "anchor baby" problem which has been created by poor court decisions over the last 100 or so years to enable many more individuals to be declared Citizen of the United States when the framers of the 14th Amendment never so intended the full words of that Amendment to be so loosely interpreted.
Citizenship of the USA is a cherished and highly desired status in this world. It should be better respected and protected. If the parents of a child want their child to become a Citizen of the USA they should legally emigrate to the USA and establish legal residency and become themselves Citizens of the USA, swearing sole allegiance to the USA via naturalization, and thus for their children in the right and proper legal way. They should not just be able to fly here from Brazil, have the baby in the USA, and then return home to Brazil and have that child be considered a U.S. citizen, a child who will grow up with little or no allegiance to the USA in return for the protection U.S. citizenship provides. Likewise two illegal alien Mexicans crossing the border into Texas and having the baby in Texas, that child should not automatically be considered a Citizen of the United States. With Citizenship of the USA comes the protection of the most powerful nation on earth. But in return for that protection, the nation expects full and sole allegiance to the USA. These "anchor babies" and their alien parents do not give that in return for the protection they seek in the Citizen of the U.S. status by their gaming the system as it is now operating.
Also, another key point when you listen to these obfuscating Senators speak on TV. Please note that the words "natural born Citizen of the United States" are not in the 14th amendment despite what the obfuscating politicians will try to imply or even say at times with a lying but straight face. The 14th amendment did not modify or amend Article II and did not modify or amend what the meaning of the natural law legal term of art "natural born Citizen of the United States" means.
Senator Graham is taking the lead on this because he trying to provide cover for his good friend and buddy Senator McCain on the "natural born Citizen" problem that Senator McCain had in the 2008 election and still has. This is all part of the continuing cover up of what the political parties did in the fraudulent Presidential election of 2008. The fix was in for the 2008 election and the cover up continues.
No Senator Lindsey Graham (good buddy RINO and right hand man of the RINO-in-Chief -- Senator John McCain) ... the proper way to fix the "anchor baby" problem in the USA is by passing a new law by Congress to define what the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment means, ... not to try and amend the Constitution or to blur the meaning of other legal terms in other parts of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our land and Republic.
The national security "natural born Citizen" clause in the eligibility requirements as to who can serve as President and Commander of our Military is very important and worth preserving. But if it is to be changed it should be proposed to be changed directly and head-on to try and convince the American people and 3/4th of the several states to do it, not by political subterfuge and obfuscation and hiding that objective within another stated initiative addressing our out of control border situation and lax and improper laws in granting birth Citizenship in this country. We don't need need double talking congressional secret purpose "earmarks" hanging on a proposed new change in the laws for one purpose, fixing the misinterpretations of the intent of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, to be secretly trying to amend or usurp another part of the Constitution, the national security protection afforded by the Article II presidential eligibility clause requiring natural law "natural born Citizenship" status for those who would be President and Commander in Chief.
America, we need to wake up and see what the Progressives in both parties are doing to damage our Constitutional Republic form of government in their continued efforts to usurp and/or ignore the Constitution. We are in great danger of losing our freedom and liberty if the trend in Washington DC continues much longer. If we allow these power hungry Progressives in both national parties to blatantly ignore the black letter law of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 they will eventually blatantly ignore every single part of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights and we will live in total tyranny. All the Dem Progressives and RINO Progressives should be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity. And the usurper Obama needs to be removed from the office he usurps. And those that participated in this illegality in allowing a usurper into the Oval Office and the continuing cover up to allow him to stay there need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the U.S. Constitution for what they have done.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
P.S. Do you want to do something to help the cause? Cast your votes to help the effort to get Attorney Apuzzo on the air with Judge Andres Napolitano to discuss the "natural born Citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution. Here are the two links to visit and click on the Vote button and case 3 votes at each link.
1st: Vote for Mario to be a Guest: Please add your vote here to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue. Here is the link to vote for Mario: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-
2nd: Vote for "natural born Citizenship" as a Show Topic: Please add your vote for this new TV Show topic suggested by JTX at the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show suggestion forum. Vote for the new show topic idea at this link:
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/969299-natural-born-citizen-meaning-in-natural-law-s?ref=title
####
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, more than a quarter of the public have doubts about Obama's citizenship
ReplyDeletehttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/?fbid=x4jpcnsHr13
This is hardly a "fringe" percentage .... even for a poll done by CNN. Other polls put the percentage over 60% of Americans have doubts about Obama's exact citizenship status and eligibility to be the President.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. See the two new and latest ads at -- including Woof! :-) ...
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/mostrecentad.htm
Charles you make a compelling insight in your posting. I would like to add my comments to enhance what you have written.
ReplyDeleteThe RINHOS you refer to are the Progrssive Republicans, most of us know who they are, and can count McCain as a lock step member thereof; what these Progressived do not understand is as I wrote in my blog recently and is a excerpt there of which I will shall with you and the readers.
-----------------------------------
“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.
Comment: Here President Washington is warning We the People that there are those among us who are not constitutionalist, who would take advantage of their offices in deference to We the People, and our nation as a Constitutional Republic, and would make changes in spite of our constitutional amendment process as long as We the People would shut our eyes, and mute our ears to what they were doing. We the People have allowed the migration of those so bent to inhabit our halls of congress, our administration, and our judicial branches of government to the point of abdicating our constitution, and our nation to them. This has all been done under the guise of Socialism, Liberalism, Marxism, and Communism, and Progressives; all of which years ago would have kept those ideologies out of our government, and sent everyone on a hunt to expose those so leanings. The House of Un-American Activities, circa 1950, was such a quest; but in their quest drove those unexposed deeper underground only to re-emerge in the 1960, in the forms of SDS, Weather Underground, Black Panthers, and several others, moving forward until today when you look at our halls of congress, our administration, and our judiciary, and see them sitting at the helm of our government all because We the People have slept our way to their success. Today, how many of these avowed Socialist, Marists, and Communists do you count in our administrative branch of government? It is alarming to say the least. We need to restart our movement back to our Constitutional Republic roots; and we need to start that this November.
The "anchor baby" issue in raised in my DC Circuit appeal in regards to the 2010 Census allotment of House seats to New York with 2 USC 2a denying substantive due process and equal protection as guaranteed under 14th section 2, see:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34386539/Strunk-Declaration-in-Opposition-to-Appellees-Motion-DCC-Appeal-Case-10-5082-071510
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work. Keep pointing out what these Progressives have been doing and what they are trying to do as we speak. We need to expose their double-talk and progressive socialist agendas ... in the leadership of both political parties.
Your expertise in the FOIA arena and FOIA work is excellent. Keep hammering away at them with that. You are a true patriot and hands on fighter in this cause.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
Hi Chris, thank you for your work.
ReplyDeleteplease write a post about what u found and what can be done next!
The people in congress and elected federal people have no honor.
ReplyDeleteOur fore fathers put a lot into their word.
An oath made you duty bound. They never thought we would have such scum as we have in office now with not a pinch of Honor among all of them.
No law can make a dishonest person an honest person. Look at our congress & you can see what I mean.
Edited and reposted by the blog moderator.
ReplyDelete--------------------------
BdWilcox said: Nice ads.
Ladies and Gentleman.
ReplyDeletePlease, let's keep the post on the legal subject and not get into issues of admixture or other irrelevant issues to the constitutional legal matter at hand. This is about a fundamental constitutional legal issue and whether Obama has conclusively proven he is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" or for that matter whether he has even conclusively proven where he was physically born. No matter where he was born his father was not a U.S. Citizen, not even and immigrant to this country, not even a permanent resident and he never intended to be. Obama's father was a British Subject. Obama was born a British Subject and cannot therefore ever be considered to be a "natural born Citizen of the United States" to Article II constitutional standards.
Links to the newest ads. One is a full page ad in the 2 Aug 2010 issue, page 5, of the Washington Times National Weekly edition and the other is a vertical block ad on the front page of The Post & Email online newspaper site.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/mostrecentad.htm
If you can, please visit this site and help the cause to do more advertising to get the word out in both print and online media about the eligibility issue. Any amount, large or small helps the cause.
http://www.protectourliberty.og
Synergy at Work! If we all do a little, together we can accomplish a lot!
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al
This merely seems to be more justification for ridding Congress of ALL incumbents and starting ovver ... anyone else game for it???
ReplyDeleteI have read that Stanley Ann was 18 when her son was born, and the laws in 1961 state that she must live in the country for 5 years after her 14th birthday in order to be able to pass on US citizenship to any offspring. Stanley Ann could not pass US citizenship to her son because she would have had to have been 19 years old, at least.
ReplyDeleteI understand that because Stanley Ann was not 5 years passed her 14th birthday, no US citizenship was passed on to her son.
If this is true, then your ads should not include a US flag on the silouhettes that represent Stanley Ann or her son.
Am I right, or am I merely missing something?
Lisa,
ReplyDeleteThere is an asterisk next to the American flag referring to the printed block to the right which says that he has American statutory law citizenship (but not constitutional natural born citizenship) via his mother when he was born IF he was truly born in Hawaii and not born elsewhere and falsely registered later as born in Hawaii. The scenario you describe in the law as to the age of mother having a child with a foreign nation applies only to the situation if Obama was born outside the USA, i.e., in Kenya or as some others suggest, in Canada. If he was born in Kenya as most of the circumstantial evidence and Kenyan government officials have stated, and was via an 18 year old American mother with a Kenyan national father, of which his mother's age at his birth and father's nationality are undisputed facts to my knowledge by even Obama, then he was not even a U.S. citizen at all when he was born and thus we now have an illegal alien as our Putative President. Regardless of the disputed facts as to where he was born since his father was not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama can never be considered to be an Article II "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standard. That is a key point a legal assertion in my lawsuit. Hope this clarifies thing and clarifies the ad graphic too. Go back an look for the asterisk next to the child's flags.
Hope this helps.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
I see my error. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteAnd, many thanks for all you do, Commander Kerchner.
When I first heard that McCain was talking about amending the 14th Amendment I thought the same thing about trying to sanitize his Non Natural Born Citizenship (like Chester Arthur and WKA). God forbid these cretins be allowed to have a Constitutional Convention and be given the keys to the sacred crypt of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteA key clause in WONG KIM ARK that is frequently overlooked is this:
ReplyDeleteWONG KIM ARK had two pieces of evidence in his favor: 1. he had a Birth Certificate, and 2. he had proof that his parents were 'permanently domiciled' in the United States at the time of his birth.
Without these two documents, the Supreme Court would certainly have agreed with the opinion of the Appellate Court.
WONG KIM ARK cannot be employed to establish a precedent for 'anchor babies.'
The key clause always overlooked in Wong Kim Ark is this: "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
ReplyDeleteHere they just said explicitly that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
That citizenship in this nation occurs naturally and by statute should be the first topic in the congressional move to alter the law. The boundary between natural and granted citizenship must be clearly understood so the purpose of granting citizenship can be reconciled with our natural rights preserved in the Declaration of Independence as well as in the Constitution as intended and discussed in the Federalist papers. Violating any law to arrive here does not respect our sovereign rights and should bar any grant of rights. The fact that we have many in offices who do not agree with our sovereign right to hold this land secure from all other people, influences and governments is obvious. They must be brought to heel to the purpose of our founding before any laws they create can be expected to respect our natural rights. I hope they have a view of those rights unlike Elana Kagan. We know who voted to admit that aberration to our high court too.
ReplyDeleteHere's hoping that more and more Americans awe awakening to the fact that many of the politicians we have elected and who now "serve" in Congress are actually "serving" only themselves and their own interests - and the rest of the populace be damned.
ReplyDeleteTo me, that means it's time to do 2 things:
Legally change the population for all Districts of those in the House of Representatives so that each District more nearly aligns with the original intent of the founders as shown in this document (which should be seriously studied):
http://www.Thirty-Thousand.org/documents/TTO_Pamphlet.pdf
This is an excellent and well-informed organization. Such chenges not only more nearly comport with the Founders intent, but would have MANY other practical benefits. e. g., making lobbying far more difficult and more ineffectual' making politicians more responsive to a MUCH smaller number of citizens who will vote them out of office much more easily if they do not represent the voters; and other things as well as stated in the *.pdf.
Repeal the 17th amendment, bouncing the election of Senators into the hands of the States as the Founders had originally devised the checks and balances system. This would make Senators far more responsive to their own states and less "regal" (in their own minds) than they are now thinking that they are, somehow, God's gift to all Americans and are totally entitled to be elected and enriched forever.
Taken together, both changes more nearly put We The People back in charge of our government as originally intended and would most certainly help eliminate such nonsense as we now see in our own government trying to punish Arizona for following Federal law.
Did anyone read about Lt. Lakin's court-martial hearing today? According to WorldNetDaily, after his preliminary hearing he was placed in military custody and escorted back to base to keep him from talking to the press or HIS OWN ATTORNEY. Can this get any more 1984?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=188649
Pray for Lt. Lakin. This guy is one of those true heroes, along with Mr. Apuzzo, Mr. Kerchner and Mrs. Taitz, who have put their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor on the line to rid this country of the pestilence that currently infects our White House. Godspeed to you all.
The key clause always overlooked in Wong Kim Ark is this: "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
ReplyDeleteHere they just said explicitly that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
-------------
This is absolutely correct. This is a key point that establishes that Wong Kim was not NBC.
The court clearly made a distinction that Wong Kim WAS NOT NBC but was a US Citizen at birth under the 14th Admendent and therefore was entitled to same respects and rights as a NBC.
Kenya Declares August 4th Public Holiday!
ReplyDeleteCoincidental? Uh don't we know someone in the White House who has that same Birth date?
Perhaps that's why he was acting so strange. With his Spouse and children gone on that day, he's left to spend his birthday with "friends in Chicago"... with no cake no candles and no presents! Oh wait there was an "imaginary' birthday cake with members of congrass.
Kenya Declares August 4 Public Holiday
ReplyDeletelink:http://www.qppstudio.net/public-holidays-news/2010/kenya_003709.htm
The Supreme Court has observed the difference in Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964):
ReplyDelete'We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.
'The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President.'
It's awfully hard to ponder that anything could be more clear than these sentences!
Chrissy Matthews was an original Birther!
ReplyDeletehttp://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/in-2007-on-msnbc-chris-old-school.html
Along with Professor Jonathan Turley, a Hillary Clinton operative.
http://birthers.org/misc/FOMB.html
It's OK for them to talk about these location of birth issues when it suits their attack machine political agendas. But when it doesn't, anyone who does is a crazy, un-American, nut-job, fringe tin hat wearer, and racist ... per Chrissy Matthews and the other outright propagandists for Obama on MSNBC and CNN.
They point to the Constitution when it suits their attack machine and throw it under the bus and ignore it the rest of the time. A variation of Saul Alinksy's rule #4. Make the enemy live up to the rules but you don't. Use the system rules when it helps you defeat the enemy and other than that ignore the rules and do what ever it takes to win.
What a bunch of two-faced, race-baiting, unprincipled, liars and Saul Alinskyite hypocrites these far lefties are when it comes to supporting and defending the Constitution.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
Matthews and Turley are simply and solidly Democratic party operatives and anything along those lines is "good enough" for them.
ReplyDeleteNot only does the truth not matter but their earlier beliefs when they were attacking someone they fely was of the "opposite" party (what a laugh ... there is only one party and they must surely know it).
These guys are just professional trash-mongers and their stances in defending a guy who is clearly trying to destroy this country clearly shows it. The fact that they are "voices" in forums the apublic had in the past been willing to listen to (and believe) is now worth less than it used to be as more and more Americans are beginning to tumple to the fact they've "been had" and that guys like Matthews and Turley are complicit in this crime along with Obama.
I wonder if any of this movement by the RINOs has anything to do with BobbY Jindal. From what I can tell his mother and father moved to the US while she was about 6 months pregnant with Bobby. There is no way that Bobby Jindal's parents were US citizens at the time of his birth as there was not enough time for them to have naturalized.
ReplyDelete