See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #301
   On August 8th, 2009 at 5:04 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   Michelle Malkin, December 5, 2008 (in the post above):

   There may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here (how is the citizenship requirement enforced for presidential candidates, anyway?)

   It’s not just a “citizenship” requirement, which is sufficient to be a Senator, it’s a “natural born citizenship” requirement, which is necessary to be President.

   Thursday, August 6, 2009

   Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving

   Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving

   by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

   Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “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. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

   That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in, _The Law of Nations_ (1758), Vol.1, Section 212, Des Citoyens et Naturels, a “citizen” is a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, Vattel wrote that a native or indigenes (written in French as /les naturels/ or /indigenes/) or “natural born Citizen” as the term later became translated from French into English, is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.) With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation).

   The original definition of “natural born Citizen” gives our Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other foreign citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. Having all other means of acquiring other foreign citizenships or allegiances cut off is unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth. Additionally, by requiring the child’s parents to be U.S. citizens best assures that those parents most likely will have absorbed American customs and values which, in turn, they will transmit to their child.

   The “natural born Citizen” clause serves a critical purpose today and must be enforced in every Presidential election. The President has immense power, both civil and military. The clause assures the American people that their President does not have any conflicting allegiances or loyalties. In our nuclear world, it will avoid having a President who may hesitate to act quickly and decisively in a moment of crisis due to some internal psychological conflict of allegiance or loyalty. It will avoid any foreign nation expecting and pressuring the President to act in their best interest instead of that of America. The clause gives the American people the best chance that they will not be attacked from within through the Office of President. Knowing the President is a “natural born Citizen,” the American people will trust their President with their lives. Finally, such a President can expect that the military will give him or her full trust and obedience.

   When President Obama was born in 1961, under the British Nationality Act 1948, both his father and he were British subjects/citizens. In 1963, they both became Kenyan citizens. In fact, Mr. Obama’s father was never even a legal resident or immigrant of America. Hence, regardless of where Mr. Obama was born or that he may be a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President. This ineligibility has absolutely nothing to do with his race or class but all to do with his being born with multiple citizenships and allegiances and not satisfying the strict eligibility requirements of Article II. If someone believes that today the “natural born Citizen” clause no longer serves any useful purpose, then the proper way to change or abandon it is by way of constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, not by usurpation.

   Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
   185 Gatzmer Avenue
   Jamesburg NJ 08831
   Tel: 732-521-1900
   Fax: 732-521-3906
   Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
   Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

2. #302
   On August 8th, 2009 at 5:40 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   Michelle Malkin:

   Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama was altered or forged.

   You acknowledge that the “Certification of Live Birth” was “produced by Obama”. It was not produced by the State of Hawaii; it was produced by, and at, the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago.

   After writing a #1 bestselling book on the Obama “Culture of Corruption”, why do you accept anything that comes from Team Obama?

   Even if you believe that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama is authentic, don’t you think that due diligence requires that we get a certified authentic copy of Obama’s original birth certificate from the State of Hawaii?

   If the data on the two documents matches, great!
   If not, this is bigger than Watergate.

   I simply cannot comprehend how or why you accept without doubt anything that comes from Team Obama.

   They claim that the contemporaneous birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there.

   Do you know why? It’s because all that was required to create a “Vital Record” of Obama’s “Hawaiian birth” was the sworn statement of one of Obama’s relatives. His Grandmother could have given a sworn statement, and that would have led to the newspaper announcement. But if that is the “original Vital Record” of Obama’s birth, something is very “fishy”…

   Why? Because Obama claims to have been born at Kapi’olani Medical Center. If that is true, then the “original Vital Record” of Obama’s birth should be a hospital birth certificate, not a sworn statement from one of Obama’s relatives.

   (Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?). And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.

   Nice smear, Michelle. It didn’t take “a fortune-teller… knowing he would run for president”, and none of the “birthers” claim that. All it took was a relative of Obama’s who wanted to ensure he would have the benefits of U.S. citizenship. The newspaper announcements are proof of nothing more than that, and not even a 16 year-old could get a job at McDonald’s with a newspaper announcement instead of a state-issued birth certificate. Obama has never released a state-issued birth certificate directly from the State of Hawaii. That is a fact, and you should not trust anything less than a state-issued birth certificate.

   But that’s not even the main point!

   Michelle, to be undoubtedly a “natural born citizen”, one must be:
   1) Born on U.S. soil
   2) Born to a U.S. citizen father
   3) Born to a U.S. citizen mother

   Obama has openly admitted that he doesn’t meet condition #2, and that AT BIRTH he was a British subject. That alone disqualifies him from being a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

   I believe Trig was born to Sarah Palin. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on U.S. soil.

   And you completely ignore that birth on U.S. soil is not sufficient to make someone a “natural born citizen” of the United States. My concern is not about Barack Obama’s citizenship. My concern is that even with Hawaiian birth, Obama was born a British subject, which became Kenyan citizenship, which he held until his 21st birthday. That is not “conspiracy theory”. That is undisputed fact, admitted by Barack Obama’s own campaign, on their “FightTheSmears.com” web site. Again, this is undisputed. Regardless of where Obama was born, he was born with foreign citizenship, which raises serious Constitutional doubts about whether or not he is a “natural born citizen”. That is not just my opinion; that was the opinion of the Supreme Court in the 1875 case of Minor v Happersett:

   “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

   You are focused on the wrong thing. You chose to focus solely on Obama’s birth location and assumed that if he was born a citizen per the 14th Amendment, then he was born a “natural born citizen”. That is a faulty assumption. The 14th Amendment was already part of the Constitution when the Supreme Court said, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” In other words, neither the 14th Amendment nor any other part of the Constitution defines “natural born citizen”. The Supreme Court also made it clear that the 14th Amendment does not resolve the “doubts” about whether people in Obama’s situation (born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents) can be considered “natural-born citizens”.

   You also failed to verify the birth document of the President-elect. It is not acceptable to “outsource” this to an unelected, unaccountable, untrustworthy third party. Annenberg Political Fact Check is neither elected by, nor accountable to, “We the People”. Annenberg Political Fact Check claimed that they had examined Obama’s “original birth certificate”, but that is untrue. They examined a “Certification of Live Birth” (a completely different document from the original birth certificate), a document that was produced by and at the Obama Campaign Headquarters in Chicago.

   Ignoring this issue will not make it go away. It has only gotten more serious as time has gone by. To put this issue to rest, once and for all, here are the two simple things that must be done:

   1) Congress must inspect a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, sent to them under seal directly from the State of Hawaii. (Just as was done with the certification of the Electoral College vote)

   2) Ask the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of the Constitutional phrase “Natural Born Citizen”, so that it can be clearly seen whether or not Barack Hussein Obama II is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces.

   This is a serious Constitutional issue.

3. #303
   On September 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   Michelle Malkin said:

   On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court considers one of those suits filed by New Jersey citizen Leo Donofrio, who maintains that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because his father held British citizenship.

   There may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here (how is the citizenship requirement enforced for presidential candidates, anyway?) And at least Donofrio concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii.

   1) Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because HE HIMSELF was born a British subject. And he admitted so on his “Fight the Smears” web site.

   2) Thanks to the persistent efforts of “MissTickly”, who forced Dr. Fukino into making her second Press Release, Leo Donofrio is now engaging the Hawaiian officials:

   Let’s prove Obama Was Born In Hawaii So we Can Move Onto His British Birth.

   Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended

4. #304
   On September 24th, 2009 at 11:15 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

   The entire Presidential eligibility movement has been ridiculed as a fringe “conspiracy theory” by main stream media, members of Congress and even Judges speaking directly from the bench. This ridicule is largely due to public statements made by Hawaii Department of Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (see below) which testify that she has seen vital records maintained by her office which prove President Obama was born in Hawaii and that he has an original birth certificate on file there.

   The ridicule has been broad, extending even to public investigators like myself who believe that President Obama was actually born in Hawaii. But reliance on Director Fukino and her Communications Director Janice Okubo are sadly misplaced. They are guilty of misdirecting the public away from vital records information made expressly available by statute where no privacy exceptions apply.

   These accusations are not a matter of conjecture. They are a matter of fact and shall be proved. This, Part 1 of the full report, will illustrate multiple instances of misdirection.

5. #305
   On September 24th, 2009 at 10:11 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   A Response to Michelle Malkin

6. #306
   On October 1st, 2009 at 10:28 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   It appears that a cover-up bigger than Watergate is currently underway in Hawaii in order to protect the man currently acting as President…

   Hawaii AG Mark Bennett Approved Fukino’s Natural-Born Citizen Statement; All Records Should Be Made Public According To Law.

7. #307
   On October 5th, 2009 at 12:14 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   If you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.

   - Mohandas K. Gandhi

   Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

   - attributed to Albert Einstein

   The articles below are suggested, roughly in this order, to understand the events, aspects, and nuances of the attempt to understand what the alleged “Hawaiian Birth Certificate” of Barack Obama is, what has been done with it, and by whom, over the years.

   Arthur Conan Doyle originally wrote his Sherlock Holmes stories as serials, published in a magazine. That art imitates the real life of a journaled investigation.

8. #308
   On October 7th, 2009 at 11:41 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   QUESTION: Which government organization was the first to say:

   “Obama was born in Hawaii”

   Is your answer, “The Hawaii State Department of Health”?

   Sorry, that answer is not a winner.

9. #309
   On October 14th, 2009 at 10:45 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   Sunday, June 27, 2004
   The Standard Ltd
   I & M Building, Kenyatta Avenue,
   P.O Box 30080, 00100 GPO, Nairobi-Kenya.

   Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

   Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

10. #310
    On October 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Michelle, you said:

    …at least Donofrio concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    That is not true. When a U.S. Senator claimed “Mr. Donofrio’s case concedes that President Obama was born in Hawaii”, here is what Leo Donofrio had to say:

    tell him Mr. Donofrio never “conceded” Obama was born in Hawaii. It is my opinion he was, but I still demand proof that he was born in Hawaii and the Hawaii authorities have not proved they can be trusted with the administration of their own open government laws. Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not say why my case was not accepted – it was an emergency stay pertaining to the national election – not a petition for Cert on the nbc issue. It may have been a procedural issue which caused them to deny the stay application. Please ask the public servant to refrain from using my name in response and to refrain from making assumptions about my case which SCOTUS has NEVER spoken about.

11. #311
    On October 16th, 2009 at 11:24 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    The quote from Leo Donofrio in my last comment can be found in the bold yellow print here, in this comment on Leo’s blog.

12. #312
    On October 16th, 2009 at 11:37 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    President Obama Admitted He Was “Kenyan-Born”.

13. #313
    On November 15th, 2009 at 1:16 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    The Indiana Court Of Appeals said:

    …we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

    But even those who agree with what the Indiana Court Of Appeals said must admit the following:

    There were 1,075 people involved in the election, certification, and swearing-in of Barack Hussein Obama II:

    538 Electoral College Electors,
    435 Representatives,
    100 Senators,
    1 Vice-President, and
    1 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

    Not a single one of them inspected a hard copy Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II, to verify that he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawaii as he has claimed.

    All 1,075 of them, representing all three branches of our federal government, had sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but failed to do so. Not a one of them did their due diligence to ensure that “a President shall have qualified”.

    Even those who agree with what the Indiana Court Of Appeals said, must admit that a Quo Warranto case is necessary, since not one of those 1,075 people upheld their sworn oath to support and defend their Constitutional responsibility to ensure the President-Elect qualified.

14. #314
    On November 15th, 2009 at 1:21 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    It is my opinion that the Indiana Court of Appeals misinterpreted the Constitution multiple times… not once, not twice, not three times, but four times in just this one sentence alone:

    For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

    My reasoning is contained in this comment on my blog, in response to an O-bot’s comment. While I am not an attorney, attorney Leo Donofrio said I “did fine” in my comment.

15. #315
    On June 4th, 2010 at 2:54 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    It has been advanced that both papers printed identical lists as the general rule. As I mentioned before, this was pointed out to add more “weight” to the (ahem) proof these newspaper birth announcements lend to obama’s birth story. As it turns out it was done more or less sporadically. You see, when I decide to research something I don’t do a half- assed job of it. So I pulled a sample size of ten days from each paper. I began the splendidly tedious process of comparing the incidence of the same birth announcements being listed in both papers. Mainly with an eye towards how often they matched in exact order.The only time this occurred in that particular way within the ten days that I researched, was on the dates that had obama’s birth announcements.

    And I even took the extra steps of comparing editions to a three day range (edition before, same date, edition after) of the sister publication. So, I tried to cover all the bases in a fair comparison.

    Well, OK. The ONE and ONLY time that the two papers published the birth list, beginning at the first announcement, in order, was in the editions that obama’s birth announcement appeared.

16. #316
    On June 4th, 2010 at 2:56 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Michelle, I realize you are currently on vacation, and I realize what you wrote in this post, but:

    1) You support and defend the Constitution.

    2) You support and defend our military.

    3) This Lt. Col. is asking something very basic, and he is being stonewalled.

    If there is documentary evidence to prove every bit of the “Obama birth narrative”, then it should be a very simple matter to present it.

    And if “natural born citizen” means nothing more than “native born citizen”, then it should be a very simple matter to show that with prior legal precedent.

    President Ronald Reagan was famous for (among many other things) saying, “Trust, but verify”.

    That is all we are asking for, as well.

    Please support the efforts of this Lt. Col. to “trust, but verify” that his military orders, which originate from Obama’s decision to send troops to Afghanistan, are legal orders. If Obama is not eligible to hold the office of Commander in Chief, then those deployment orders are illegal orders originating from an illegal usurper of the office.

17. #317
    On June 7th, 2010 at 12:04 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    So, we can safely surmise that when Lori Starfelt, the person who claims to have been the first to discover obama’s Honolulu Advertiser birth announcement, made this statement:

    “In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records – we know this because this particular section reflects those records”

    SHE WAS EITHER GROSSLY MISLED OR OUTRIGHT LIED!

18. #318
    On August 5th, 2010 at 11:40 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Obama’s Eligibility: It’s a Matter of Faith

19. #319
    On August 5th, 2010 at 11:43 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    The Contrapositive: If No Long Form Birth Certificate, Then Obama “Birth Narrative” is Fraudulent

20. #320
    On August 8th, 2010 at 11:11 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    CNN Edits Governor Lingle’s Words to Conceal her Lie
    and Create their own Lie

21. #321
    On August 8th, 2010 at 11:11 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Did you know that Obama had an adopted older sister in Indonesia?

    The MSM never told you about her.

    On February 16, 2010, “An American Expat in Southeast Asia” shared some of what was being shared in the Indonesian media. His comments included:

    The Indonesian story of Lia (Mbak Nun) is not kind at all to Obama’s mother Ann at all.

    You can expect to see a lot more of these stories from the Indonesian media, none of them will be covered by the US MSM you can be assured of that.

    There is a LOT more you are going to learn about Obama in the days ahead including a lot concerning his religion.

    10 days later she was dead.

    Follow the link above and the link below to learn more about
    HOLIYAH SOETORO SABAH, “LIA”, Obama’s Adopted Sister who Died Suddenly.

22. #322
    On March 21st, 2011 at 1:34 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On March 21, 2011, Michelle Malkin said:

    I was one of the first conservatives to criticize Birthers who go to the extreme

    How is it “extreme” to expect Congress to support and defend section 3 of the 20th Amendment?

    3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    Do tell me, Michelle, what did members of Congress do to ensure that the President elect and Vice President elect qualified?

    Michelle, please name the members of Congress who supported and defended the Constitution of the United States and current immigration law – the Immigration Reform and Control Act, signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, which requires that:

    All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

23. #323
    On March 21st, 2011 at 1:35 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    The I-9 Form refers to the M-274 Handbook.

    Here is one of the Q&A’s in that handbook:

    4. Q. May I fire an employee who fails to produce the required documents within three business days of his or her start date?

    A. Yes. You may terminate an employee who fails to produce the required document or documents, or an acceptable receipt for a document, within three business days of the date employment begins.

24. #324
    On March 21st, 2011 at 1:37 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Repeating for emphasis…

    On March 21, 2011, Michelle Malkin said:

    I was one of the first conservatives to criticize Birthers who go to the extreme

    Since when did it become “extreme” to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law?!?

    Michelle, what evidence do you, or any member of Congress, have that Obama produced a hard copy birth certificate for inspection by the Congress to prove that he is eligible not only to work in the United States but also to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief?

25. #325
    On March 21st, 2011 at 5:09 pm, Christie said:

    “Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama was altered or forged.” (This is true and many more people have brought this up before many courts, to no avail.) “They claim that the contemporaneous birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there. (Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?)”–This is a silly thing to say;it is beneath your intelligence to say it. A birth a announcement, put in a paper by Obama’s granny is not proof of anything; it is not a legal diocument. ‘And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.’ No. We simply understand that no one wants to be the one who starts the fire in every major city in the US. We understand how dangerous it is to speak the WHOLE Truth about the Fraud, Felon and Treasonous Usurper, but must you and every other ‘conservative’ pundit/blogger/politician throw informed patriots under the bus to prove that you don’t believe the obvious? Yes, it is obvious and there is so much more wrong with Barry than just a non-existent long form birth certificate…Perhaps you know about his records, protected by $2Mil until he sealed them with Exec. Order 13489? ‘Nothing there’, you say, ‘let’s move on’?
    I accept the way things are and choose to ignore this complicity, as long as you don’t throw salt in the wounds you have helped to create.
    I will remain a loyal reader and supporter. That doesn’t mean I can’t stick up for myself and millions of More Than Birthers.

26. #326
    On March 21st, 2011 at 5:20 pm, Christie said:

    God Bless You, I Took The Red Pill and everyone else who defends our right to point out a monumental crime perpetrated right under our noses and with the complicity of the Repubs and the media.
    David Horowitz said “So what?” when confronted by these FACTS. He, like everyone who knows the truth is fulfilling the prophecy that ‘nothing will be done’. I have nothing but bile for cowards such as he.
    Only Donald Trump, so far, has the courage to bring this up in front of a camera. I was not a Trump fan until I found out about that. Perhaps others will sprout a pair and then Humpty Dumpty will fall from his throne so that we can get to the task of restoring our beloved Republic. THAT’s why we keep on asking: WHO IS BARRY SOETORO?