Obama’s Failed Presidency Summed Up in Two Words; Let’s Pretend

SHREADING THE CONSTITUTIONWatching what has taken place in the world since Barack Hussein Obama fraudulently entered the White House has been horrific enough. Countless millions have been displaced in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Libya because of his meddling and inaction when most urgently needed.

Yesterday was the breaking point.Russia bombed Syrian freedom fighters instead of ISIS, thus propping Assad and strengthening IRAN.

 

As the U.S. leads from behind (an oxymoron if ever there was) Obama’s chaotic policy, has brought the rise of ISIS with mass murders on a scale not seen since WWII. And if all of this hasn’t been bad enough, the world has had to suffer watching the barbaric destruction of ancient sites and priceless artifacts along with the ethnic cleaning of Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.

 

All of this was unnecessary. All of this could have been prevented had the media, political classes, and the legal profession had been truthful about Obama’s eligibility to run for the office of U.S. president.

 

Instead we have Let’s Pretend that:

 

  1. a man whose father was British subject when he was born, making him a dual citizen at best, met the legal requirement of Natural Born Citizen for the office of POTUS
  2. his upbringing in Indonesia living in a Muslim country during his formative years, going to school and reciting Muslim prayers had no impact on his adult view of the world
  3. the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee that persons not born as Natural Born Citizens (NBC) would face the challenge of divided loyalties
  4. the person holding the single most important position in the world shouldn’t be absolutely clear that his/her loyalty belongs 100% to this country and the Constitution
  5. a community organizer and part-time Constitutional law instructor with radical friends like Bill Ayers, a man with one year in the U.S. Senate was ever qualified for the office
  6. members of both political parties weren’t aware Obama was ineligible because of their own selfish political motives … McCain, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal all ineligible
  7. progressives in politics, the media, and in the legal community haven’t been trying to eliminate the NBC Constitutional qualification for years by ignoring current laws, passing resolutions and private laws designed to side step it
  8. Obama’s draw-down of the military, cuts in defense, obsession with getting an Iran treaty at all costs, giving lip service help our Mideast allies including Jordan, Israel, the Kurds hasn’t helped Iran and strengthened Russia
  9. Obama should remain in office one minute longer!

 

The fraud at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue needs to resign or be removed as quickly as possible. His residency in the White House is a threat to the safety and security of this country and the civilized world.

 

Obama’s actions and inactions have proven conclusively his is incapable of carrying  out the duties of POTUS.

20 thoughts on “Obama’s Failed Presidency Summed Up in Two Words; Let’s Pretend

  1. vet clinic

    Your story may be very thrilling, my pals are also concerning approximately this difficulty count. Your challenge depend deliver me extra facts to share with my pals. Thanks for that.

  2. huyenthoi

    For starters, I\'m a registered Dem so quoting any GOP/conservative sources has NO effect on me nor does it speak to the issues. I supported HRC in 2008 and watched in disbelief as the nomination was stolen from her. If she wanted to really do something for this country she would have sued Obama and the DNC. No one could question her standing.

    BOTH parties have hated the NBC clause for many years which is why no one from the GOP said anything about Obama. Of course McCain being ineligible was the kicker. Obama\'s \"presidency\" was to establish precedent with the ultimate long term goal being even anchor babies could run. Never mind Minor v Happersett represents binding precedent, right?

    I notice you never mentioned Turley, Spiro, SR 511 or JustiaGate. Hmmm, no answers? Why don\'t you come back when you can respond to those issues?
    how to get help in windows 10

  3. MyFundNow Blog

    Though I support Hillary Clinton as American future president but it's also true that Obama sacrificed a lot & was able to bring success for America.

  4. buy essays in uk

    It’s is the responsibility of the every president of any country to understand their task and do it properly. People should use it an accurate manner and essay writing services help them which tactics should be use to fulfill their tasks. In this their country prospers and people appreciate their presidency.

  5. smrstrauss

    Every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of an invading army is a Natural Born US Citizen.

    1. smrstrauss

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

      "Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

    2. sandstone Post author

      Ah, still spreading disinformation I see.

      For the record, O’s birth certificate has always been secondary to the fact he was born a Brit. His father was a British subject; like Cruz the best case scenario for O is born dual citizen although a case can be made because of his other’s age she was really a British “war bride” as it were.

      As you and I and millions of other people know BOTH parents have to be US citizens at the time of birth. Know who else knows this? HRC and BHO when they signed SR 511 declaring that John McCain was a NBC. It clearly states McCain’s

        parents

      were US citizens. PARENTS … plural

      Jonathan Turley considered McCain ineligible with BOTH parents US citizens though born in Panama. Know what else we have the scandal called of “JustiaGate” — the “mangling” of text and citations, for approximately a three-year period beginning mid-2008, on Justia’s database for 25 Supreme Court decisions that directly cited the particular case of Minor v Happersett.

      No need to pass HR 511 if McCain were really a NBC. In the same manner, no need to change text citations from SC decisions if the NBC clause wasn’t a threat to those who have already hated the clause but didn’t want to change it through the amendment process.

      BTW, this stopped being just about Obama a long time ago. Cruz, Rubio, Jindal … all ineligible.

      What we have here is an outline of the Obama Hoax worked, spelled out in detail by Peter Spiro where he asserted: “Constitutional questions do not require constitutional decisions. If non-judicial actors — including Congress, editorialists, leading members of the bar, and the People themselves — manage to generate a constitutional consensus, there isn’t much that the courts can do about it.”

      1. smrstrauss

        Re: "Obama's birth certificate has always been secondary."

        Answer: Are you saying that you accept the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii? (If so, you are showing a modicum of sense. If not, I'll start posting the evidence—-which is OVERWHELMING.)

        Re: "He was born a Brit."

        Answer: He was a dual citizen at birth British/American, or American/British if you prefer. The fact that he was born a dual citizen has absolutely NO effect on his Natural Born Citizen status whatever.

        ALL children born on the soil of the United States—-except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of an invading army—–are Natural Born US Citizens. That is why, duh, the Chief Justice of the United States swore in Obama and John McCain and Mitt Romney and Karl Rove and the Republican Party and Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck and Rand Paul and Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann did not object.

        Why didn't they object. Because the Heritage Foundation book is right and birther lawyers are wrong.

        See quotations above.

        Re: "As you and I and millions of other people know BOTH parents have to be US citizens at the time of birth."

        Answer: Actually, you are wrong and so are those "millions." The Heritage Foundation book is right (see above.) The rule refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born child. (see quotations above.)

        And in fact the "you gotta have two citizen parents" side took their claim that two citizen parents are required to more than TWENTY appeals courts, and lost in every single one of them—-and the cases were not thrown out for lack of standing. The birther site lost on the meaning of the Constitution. Every single case ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen includes EVERY child born on US soil (Yes, that means including anchor babies. If one runs for president, all that you can do is vote against her or him.)

        Would you like me to show some of the more than TWENTY rulings?

        1. sandstone Post author

          For starters, I\’m a registered Dem so quoting any GOP/conservative sources has NO effect on me nor does it speak to the issues. I supported HRC in 2008 and watched in disbelief as the nomination was stolen from her. If she wanted to really do something for this country she would have sued Obama and the DNC. No one could question her standing.

          BOTH parties have hated the NBC clause for many years which is why no one from the GOP said anything about Obama. Of course McCain being ineligible was the kicker. Obama\’s \”presidency\” was to establish precedent with the ultimate long term goal being even anchor babies could run. Never mind Minor v Happersett represents binding precedent, right?

          I notice you never mentioned Turley, Spiro, SR 511 or JustiaGate. Hmmm, no answers? Why don\’t you come back when you can respond to those issues?

          1. smrstrauss

            There are a few birther lawyers, like Turley, but they are wrong. That's all,. The "you gotta have two citizen parents" side has lost every single lawsuit—and they were not thrown out; they were decided on the meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen. It really does come from the common law and really does include every single child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of an invading enemy army.

            SR511 was specific to McCain and it said that he was born on a US naval base (which none but an unpatriotic American would not consider to be US soil) and that both of his parents were US citizens. That act by one house of congress is not even a law much less a change in the US Constitution. But the fact is that McCain was born on a US Naval Base—–under the control of the USA where the US flag flew, and that is sufficient.

            Obama, however, was born IN HAWAII, a US state, and his mother was a US citizen, and the fact that his father was never a US citizen has no effect whatever because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen really does come from the common law and really is based on the place of birth.

            THAT, duh, is why the chief justice of the USA swore in Obama, and that is why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican Party did not object.

            In addition, there have been these appeals court rulings, all of which confirm the fact that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen includes EVERY CHILD born on US soil except for the families of foreign diplomats and members of an invading enemy army.

            Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…"

            Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, 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.”

            Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

            1. smrstrauss

              Continuing:

              Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

              Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."

              Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

              Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

              And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

              In addition to those rulings specifically on presidential eligibility, there are these:
              Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

              “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

              “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

              Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

              “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
              That makes about 13 courts that I can cite easily that have ruled that the US born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens.
              In addition, there are articles like this: http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is
              and this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica
              and this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204
              And the Congressional Research Service and Black's Law Dictionary, and the opinions of two legal scholars who knew the writers of the US constitution:

              BTW, even anchor babies are Natural Born US Citizens, and they can run for president—–and if you don't like it, you can vote against them (or you can ask your congressman and senators to change the US Constitution), but currently they can run—-when they reach the age of 35, of course.

              1. sandstone Post author

                Thus far I\’ve only time to review two rulings … not very impressive. Both were \”argued\” pro se and the ruling spoke to the standing of the litigants.

                Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana was fun given the fact the judge kept stating “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 …\” Interesting since the NBC clause is 5 not 4. Clause 4 is about election day. In other words this ruling is a joke. Perhaps this jurist should have taken out a copy of the Constitution & actually read it.

                I\’ll review the other rulings you\’ve provided, but as we both know the SCOTUS has never ruled on the NBC clause specifically, in fact they run as far away from it as they can.

              2. smrstrauss

                YOUR opinion about the rulings is irrelevant, given that both John McCain and Mitt Romney have accepted that Obama was really born in Hawaii AND that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was really corectly described by the Heritage Foundation book and other Constitutional scholars as coming from the common law and including EVERY child born on US soil. AND, the ruling is that I provided are only a relative few of the MORE THAN twenty appeals court rulings all of which really did decide that the Wong Kim Ark supreme court ruling really had defined Natural Born Citizen and that it defined it the same way that the Heritage Foundation book said.

                Re: "as we both know, the SCOTUS has never ruled on the NBC clause specifically."

                Answer: That is where you are wrong and Ankeney and the other TWENTY appeals court rulings and Mitt Romney and John McCain who accepted Obama's being sworn in are right. The Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling (which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, so it would overturn Minor, if Minor v. Happersett were really a ruling on the matter, which it was not), really ddi state that EVERY child born on US soil except the children of foreign diplomats and members of an invading enemy army is a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN.

                The simple fact is that your statement: "the SCOTUS hs never ruled on the NBC clause specifically" is WRONG, and the Ankeney ruling and the other TWENTY rulings and the chief justice of the USA who swore in Obama and John McCain and Mitt Romney and the Republican Party who did not object are right/

Comments are closed.