Obamafiles.com on "natural born citizen"
Obamafile.com has the following about natural born citizenship.
[size=117]_____________________________________________
The Issue...
The question that the court must decide is whether a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth could be considered a natural "born citizen" of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of our Constitution.
The question remains unanswered in any United States court.
People are confused because they don't understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms. This chart that shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in caselaw by the Supreme Court.
_____________________________________________
The Chart...
For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. under the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the 14th Amendment, Section 1, and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). As you can clearly see, Obama is a citizen of the United States, but he's not a "natural born citizen" of the United States, and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was not a U. S. citizen.
Constitutional Term....Parents...Conjunction(And, Or)...Location of Birth...Conjunction (And,Or)...Other...
Legal Reference
_____________________________________________
Natural Born Citizen...Both are U. S. Citizens...AND...Born in the U.S. mainland
US Constitution Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Perkins v. Elg,, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Citizen.....Born to at least 1 US Citizen Parent (under federal statute)...OR...Born in the U.S. mainland...OR...Naturalized
US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Sec. 1
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Native Born Citizen....Born in the U.S. mainland
US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Sec. 1
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
_____________________________________________
Obama...
is not a "natural born citizen" because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject. To be a natural born citizen, a person's parents must BOTH be citizens of the United States of America. Further, that person must be born in the United States.
is a "citizen" because his mother was an American citizen. There are question about his birthplace and whether he was naturalized after his period of time as an Indonesian citizen.
may be a "native born citizen" -- a child born in the United States of foreign (non-citizen) parents. He will have to release his birth certificate, which he hasn't, to ascertain this status.
_____________________________________________
John Jay...
The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book "Law of Nations."
That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.
John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
_____________________________________________
Law of Nations...
Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work -- The Law of Nations -- applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.
The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.
Many have said that de Vattel's Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel's Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the "Natural Born Citizen" phrase. It nails what is meant by the "natural born citizen" phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.
It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."
_____________________________________________
It's About Loyalty...
The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.
At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE "presidents" in the Executive for "checks and balances." They considered a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to "jump start" the newly-formed republic.
In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the "natural born citizen" clause for the office.
The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to ensure "checks and balances," the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: "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..."
The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn't just a "political" issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.
_____________________________________________
1st U.S. Congress...
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/1stUSCongress.png
_____________________________________________
Parents (pl)...
In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).
Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.") See Attachment A.
Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
"...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.") See Attachment B.
Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
"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…" See Attachment C.
Source
_____________________________________________
John Bingham...
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."
Bingham is also quoted saying in the Spring of 1868 some serious warnings:
"May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law..."
_____________________________________________
14th Amendment...
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.
The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The 14th Amendment does not address the "natural born citizen" issue, only citizenship.
_____________________________________________
Chester Arthur...
Chester A. Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843, but Arthur was born in 1829 -- 14 years before. Therefore, Arthur was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a "natural born citizen" and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
Historical facts here.
_____________________________________________
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark...
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.
In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
"'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 [plural] who were its citizens [plural], 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.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."
_____________________________________________
Perkins v. Elg...
Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native born citizen" of the U. S.
In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Citizen:
On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. --. First.-- On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866:
Ms. Elg was found to be a "citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York)
Native Born citizen:
This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: 'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.
Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a "native born citizen" because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis)
Natural Born Citizen:
U. S. Supreme Court's Relevant Facts: Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).]
U. S. Supreme Court's Holding: The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000) declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 350 (1939).]
Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907. The Expatriation Act of 1907 extended the logic linking a woman's citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse.
Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.
As the above chart clearly shows:
You can be a "citizen" under the following circumstances:
1. You were born of one citizen parent (Obama), or
2. You were born in the US mainland (anchor babies -- DEL), or
3. You were naturalized (Schwarzenegger).
To be a "natural born citizen" you must be born in the US mainland of two US citizen parents.
Obama is a citizen -- not a natural born citizen because he was (probably) born in the State of Hawaii of one US citizen parent.
_____________________________________________
Post Script...
Elg's Mother derived US citizenship when her father was naturalized. This was automatic -- it's called derivative citizenship. These are the forms of derivative citizenship that were effective due to federal statute at the time Elg was born:
1. An alien woman obtained automatic US citizenship when she married a US citizen male.
2. An alien woman obtained automatic us citizenship when her alien husband became naturalized.
So, in 1907 when Elg was born on US soil, both of her parents were US citizens, therefore she was a "natural born citizen."
Funny thing is, when the US Supreme Court decided the case, the derivative citizen laws had changed, however, they retroactively applied them... because they had to. They had to use the law at the time of Elg's birth... because that's when she was born, hence she was a natural born citizen at the time of her birth and nothing could change that.
_____________________________________________
The Acts of 1906 and 1907...
After the Naturalization Act of 1906 created the Naturalization Standards for U.S. Citizenship, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1907 to allow SPOUSES of naturalized U.S. citizens to be considered naturalized U.S. citizens as well.
Perkins v. Elg doesn't explain that but that was THE LAW ENACTED at the time when Elg was born in New York. The Court's job is to apply the relevant facts to the law. The law as discussed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was that in order to be a "natural born citizen," you had to be born in the U.S. Mainland AND born to U.S. Citizens PARENTS (PLURAL NOT SINGULAR). The key here is BOTH PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS at the time of Elg's birth. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1939, ruled that Elg was a "natural born citizen" using DEDUCTIVE REASONING to clarify why. The law is corroborated.
All you have to do is read the Expatriation Act of 1907 (federal statute) as proof. Remember, Elg was born prior to enactment of the U. S. Constitution's Nineteenth Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, and a woman's status was tied to that of her husband.
_____________________________________________
Immigration and Naturalization...
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title 3 Chapter 1, Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization.
_____________________________________________
All Ineligible...
All three of the 2008 presidential candidates, Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero were not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
Just like a residential purchase of a home is void if fraud in the inducement (where one party conceals a material fact that if people knew about it ahead of time, they would not enter into a residential purchase of a home), the same thing has occurred with the primaries and presidential election on November 4, 2008.
Because these three candidates (Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero) were ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, then the 2008 presidential election and its results are void.
Obama has only one US citizen parent. His father was British subject and a Citizen of Kenya.
McCain was not born in the mainland US. He was born in Panama.
Calero was not born in the mainland US. He was born in Nicuragua.
Regardless of what game of charades people in the mainstream media and people within our federal government are trying to pull. That is a legal fact that is not in dispute.
_____________________________________________
Rule of Law...
All U. S. military personnel and every other American under oath to protect and defend the U. S. Constitution will be duty bound to remove the fraudulent usurper. This situation is REGARDLESS of votes, electors, media blackouts, high profile embarrassments, state court decisions, supreme court actions or inaction, birth certificates real or forged, or any other documents -- Obama CANNOT LEGALLY BE The US President.
No documentation is required. Everyone should understand and KNOW the answer to the question of what country is the country of which Obama was a natural born citizen. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Barry Obama, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama II, to be a natural born United States citizen. Obama can NOT POSSIBLY be a "natural born citizen" of the U. S. because his father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, was a subject of Great Britain and a citizen of Kenya. He was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed Obama's status until he was 21 years of age.
Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.
Whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the moon, is irrelevant. Birth documents, real or forged, are irrelevant. Yes, even VOTES ARE IRRELEVANT. Even Supreme Court action, or inaction, is irrelevant. It is simply FRAUD and illegal for Obama to be put in the office of U. S. President by any means or reason.
Obama is at the epicenter of the greatest national disaster in the history of the United States. NOTHING that Obama would ever do in the office of U. S. President could ever be anything other than FRAUD and ILLEGAL.
_____________________________________________
Even Wikipedia...
Even Wikipedia gets it right:
"It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a "natural born citizen" eligible to someday become president or vice-president..."
Two American parents and on American soil -- simple as that.
_____________________________________________
Spiked!...
Charges that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. and, therefore, constitutionally ineligible to serve as president top the list of the 10 most "spiked" or underreported stories of the last year, according to an annual survey.
At the end of each year, news organizations typically present their retrospective replays of what they consider to have been the top news stories in the previous 12 months.
The authors have long considered it far more newsworthy to publicize the most important unreported or underreported news events of the year -- to highlight perhaps for one last time major news stories that were undeservedly "spiked" by the establishment press.
Joseph Farah has sponsored "Operation Spike" every year since 1988.
Here are the picks for the 10 most underreported stories of 2008 -- and four of them are about Obama.
_____________________________________________
Obama's Birth Status...
If born in Hawaii, British jurisdiction through Obama's father lasted for one year because Obama, Sr. failed to register his foreign born child with the British secretary of state.[26] Registration recorded the intent of the father to support the child. As we know, Obama, Sr. abandoned mother and child to accept a Harvard scholarship.
Under U.S. law, specifically 8 U.S.C. 1101, the "parent" status of Obama, Sr. expired when he officially abandoned the mother and child.
Because of a father of foreign nationality, the 14th Amendment only conferred native born status. This voids sole allegiance at birth required for natural born status.
As discussed above, until the original 1961 birth registration proves to be a witnessed Hawaii hospital birth certificate, the affidavit direct testimony of his Kenyan birth is more probative.
If born in Kenya, Obama was a British subject up to age six, when naturalized by the mother as Indonesian.[27] Obama was returned to Hawaii at age 10 to live with his grandparents. At age 14, Obama began fulfilling the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) 349(a)’s five-year continuous residency requirement to become a U.S. citizen, a birthright he obtained because his mother married a bigamist and Obama was born out of wedlock. See 8 U.S.C. 1409(c)
Obama was born with inchoate U.S. nationality through his mother, but only because the Obama-Dunham marriage was void ad initio per bigamy.[28] He only became a full-fledged U.S. citizen at age 19. At best, if the hidden Hawaiian certificate is probative of U.S. birth, Obama is only native born.
Berg vs. Obama et al 08-cv-04083 claimed Stanley Ann Dunham failed to meet the statutory five-year residency U.S. requirements post 14 years of age.[29] Therefore, if born in Kenya, Obama not only was a British subject, but had no U.S. nationality at birth. This is his reasoning for Obama today being an illegal alien. I challenged Mr. Berg with the out-of-wedlock provision of 8 U.S.C. 1409(c) that reduces the residency requirement to only one-year, but Berg insisted he was correct because the Obama-Kezia Kenyan marriage was a “village marriageâ€
U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeffrey Taylor resigns
[size=117]U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor Resigns
Posted by Jason Cherkis citydesk@washingtoncitypaper.com on May. 28, 2009, at 11:31 am
U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor has announced that he is resigning effective May 29. The top prosecutor intends to join the private sector. He served as U.S. Attorney since September 2006. There had already been much speculation about who would fill Taylor’s position. [Channing Phillips is the interim appointment]
The U.S. Attorney’s Office issued a press release - NOT AVAILABLE. It reads in part:
[list]Mr. Taylor has served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia since September 29, 2006. He currently serves as a member of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee and serves on the White Collar/Fraud and Terrorism and National Security Subcommittees.
“Serving the residents of the District of Columbia has been the most rewarding experience of my professional life,â€
Joseph Farah & Rusty Humphries ;)
I was listening to Rusty Humphries last night speaking w/Joseph Farah of World Net Daily about this:
www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100022
(MANY embedded links at the source) :wink:
..come one, come ALL, including our REAL leaders in Talk Radio: start talking about this and SAVE our Country..
..or suffer the consequences..!!! 8O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin James & other Radio etc: www.alipac.us/ftopict-139157.html :wink:
Re: Joseph Farah & Rusty Humphries ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by iQuestionEverything
..come one, come ALL, including our REAL leaders in Talk Radio: start talking about this and SAVE our Country..
..or suffer the consequences..!!! 8O
[size=117]
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.â€