The State of Hawaii sent this certificate and this certificate under seal directly to Congress, but refuses to send them this certificate.
Who is the employer of the President of the United States?
Isn’t it “We the People”?
Don’t “We the People”, as the President’s employer, have not only a right but a LEGAL OBLIGATION to inspect the documents required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act?
You betcha.
Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness. Pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.
- President Ronald Reagan
From the 14th Amendment:
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.
Children born on U.S. soil to parents who are foreign tourists should NOT be given U.S. citizenship! While they meet the “born in the U.S.” condition, they do NOT meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” condition, and they do not “reside” in any State.
We need to put an end to “birthright citizenship”. Just being born on U.S. soil is not sufficient for U.S. citizenship. If both parents are citizens, then yes, that child is a U.S. citizen (a natural born citizen). If both parents are not U.S. citizens, we must look at whether or not the parents and the child are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States. In the case of tourists, it is clear they are not. In the case where one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other is not, I think that frequently leads to the scenario of “dual citizen”, where the child is a both a U.S. citizen and a subject/citizen of a foreign country (that of the other parent). Such a child is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen, of the U.S.
On March 13th, 2010 at 11:14 pm, mattm said:
Kinda OT
A new Coffee Party has formed, by a fmr. Obama campaign staffer or vol. They claim the are for small gov’t/less taxes but discussed climate change/crisis, medicare for all and reducing the military budget. Apparently CNN was covering it. They literally has focus groups at coffee shops with groups of 15-20 people.
On March 14th, 2010 at 10:27 am, granite said:
Anyone else heard about the “coffee party” movement?
Or, am I late to the game, an bringing up something old?
http://hotair.com/?s=%22coffee+party%22
We’ve known about it for a few weeks.
It’s ASTROTURF, and their numbers are laughable.
Interesting name though,
Coffee Party USA
as in
CPUSA
as in
Communist Party USA (cpusa.org)
And oh, did you know that Obama is a “teabagger”?
But my journey is part of a larger journey – one shared by all who’ve ever sought to apply the values of their faith to our society. It’s a journey that takes us back to our nation’s founding, when none other than a UCC church inspired the Boston Tea Party and helped bring an Empire to its knees.
…except that the Tea Parties I’ve attended were about restoring our Constiutional Republic, not about bringing “an Empire to its knees”.
It sounds like Obama shares his “journey” with Marist Revolutionary “fellow travellers”, not with those who want a Constitutional Republic.
Obama on “the Final March for Reform”
Note the purple tie (shout-out to SEIU).
Hold Obama and the other Democrats accountable for what they themselves have said:
Obama ‘American Agenda’ Flashback: Dems Should Not Pass Healthcare With a 50-Plus-1 Strategy
Obama & Dems in ‘05: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founders’ Intent
———————————————————-
TO: Moderate House Democrats
SUBJECT: How to take the High Ground
All you have to do is say that you are going to hold President Obama accountable to what he himself said:
Change to Win Convention 9/25/07
The bottom line is that our healthcare plans are similar, the question once again is, who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we’re going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We’re going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk. That is not just a fifty plus one majority.
Obama Interview with the Concord Monitor 10/9/07
You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of fifty plus one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of fifty plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal health care with a fifty plus one strategy.
Center for American Progress Conference 7/12/06
Those big-ticket items: fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives, and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion, is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove where we identify our core base, we throw ’em red meat, we get a fifty plus one victory. See, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizeable majority.
If Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are not willing to work with you and Republicans to create a bill that can pass BOTH houses of Congress with at least 60% of the vote, then the “Healthcare Reform” bill WON’T PASS.
There is no excuse for Obama, Pelosi, and SEIU to be putting extreme pressure on you to achieve a “50 plus 1″ outcome that Obama himself said means “you can’t govern”.
Remind him of what he said, and hold him accountable to what he said!
You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of fifty plus one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of fifty plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal health care with a fifty plus one strategy.
The Democratic Socialists want to use the “Byrd rule” to pass “Healthcare Reform” with only 50 votes (rather than 60) in the Senate.
The “dirty little secret” is that Senator Byrd HIMSELF stopped President Clinton from using reconcilation to pass Hillarycare!
————————————————————————————————–
UPDATE:
I’ve been think ing about how Nancy Pelosi played a significant role in the creation of the Tea Party movement.
Remember this?
“How many of you remember the Boston Tea Party?”
Republican Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona asked the raucous crowd. “This is the Boston Tea Party!”Pelosi reportedly moves to shut down House revolt
By Michelle Malkin • August 1, 2008 04:03 PM
In my opinion, it began there…
Over the next 5 weeks, as Pelosi toured the country on her book tour, people protested in cities around the country, and many (myself included) travelled to Washington, D.C. to take part in the revolt that went on on a daily basis on the floor of the House of Representatives.
If you believe the Bible, we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. And Eve was created from the rib (DNA) from Adam.
If we look at the 8 people who were on Noah’s ark and survived the flood, (Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and the sons’ wives), the common ancestor for all of the Y chromosomes was Noah, but the common ancestor for all of the X chromosomes was Adam.
It makes perfect sense that Y-chromosomal Adam (really Y-chromosomal Noah) is younger than Mitochondrial Eve (really Mitochondrial Adam).
Now, I don’t accept wikipedia’s description of exactly how old they are (*), but it is interesting to note that the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living men are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of their family tree only) is younger than the matrilineal most recent common ancestor for all living humans.
(*) The problem with believing that Y-chromosomal Adam lived “between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago” and Mitochondrial Eve lived “around 200,000 years ago” is that while you could still believe in God in general, evolution and those ages are in conflict with the Biblical account. They can’t both be true.
For example, if you believe that Jesus is who the Bible says He is, then it makes sense to believe that Joseph was who the Bible says he was, and his father, and his father, all the way back to Adam. The Bible gives the Genealogy of Jesus Christ and links Jesus Christ to “Adam, the son of God”. If you believe the Biblical account of Jesus, you need to believe the Biblical account of Adam. If you don’t believe the Biblical account of Adam, then you really don’t believe the Biblical account of Jesus.
George Washington on questioning patriotism:
With such powerful and obvious motives to Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason, to distrust the patriotism of those, who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
…
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens.
…
…guard against the Impostures of pretended patriotism…
Nominee for Best Conservative Actor
Golden RINO for Best Supporting Role Democratic Party:
(Hat Tip to the creator of this award: jrgdds )
Somebody replaced his koolaid with TEA?
Sneaky!
TN Mom on March 5, 2010 at 11:50 AM
