“We, the Heads of State and Government of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela [Willima Ayer's and Obama's friend Hugo Chavez]…

1. Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction…

2. Capitalism has caused the environmental crisis, by submitting the necessary conditions for life in the planet, to the predominance of market and profit…

3. The global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis are the result of the decay of capitalism, which threatens to end life and the planet…”

So, when does Obama apologize to the UN-Americans for the United States leading humanity and the planet to extinction, for the environmental crisis, for the global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis?

So, when does the DHS add “capitalists” to Obama’s list of “domestic terrorists”?

GHWB: “Not gonna happen”

Additionally, please let Susan’s boss know how unacceptable it is for a journalist to become a left-wing activist in trying to defame and denounce a legitimate and honest political movement by Americans who are being robbed blind by our government and spent into a debt from which will be unimaginably difficult to ever pay off.

So please also write to Philip Kent, the Chairman & CEO of CNN: phil.kent@turner.com

[Removed www's before emails; emails aren't web pages!]

Welcome to my “radical, right-wing” and “fringe” (actual verbiage from opponents of this blog) blog.

But let’s not confuse the two. The tax protests are right-wing and some are arguably radical; the fringe stuff of this blog is the birthers and their conspiracy theories. An off-center political stance is one thing, living in a fantasy world is another.

“Try hiring some actual Journalists to cover the news instead of just a person with a camera and microphone.”

I disagree. She was not just a (simple) person with a microphone. A simple person with a microphone with a simple question or 2 was all that was needed here. The people speaking were intelligent and emotionally charged and we don’t see enough of that in our news and our society. Too many intelligent citizens try to control their behaviors. When intelligent people get energized, something real is happening.

The American people are entitled to know whether or not Barack Hussein Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 as an Indonesian citizen, with an Indonesian passport.

The American people are entitled to know whether or not Barack Hussein Obama received grants as a foreign student while attending Occidental College.

In my opinion, the United States is now behind enemy lines…

The United States Constitution states the following: “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”.

Even if Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, he is not eligible “to the Office of President”, as his father was British citizen.

The Supreme Court of the United States in THE VENUS relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority in determining the citizenship status of a “domicil”.

With regard to Vattel, THE VENUS court specifically stated, “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

The natives, or natural born citizens, “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Barack Hussein Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. Thus, even if Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, he is NOT a “natural born citizen”.

Vattel’s Law of Nations

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot 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 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; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

U.S. Supreme Court, THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 (1814)

As this question is not only decisive of many claims now depending before this Court, but is also of vast importance to our merchants generally, I may be excused for stating, at some length, the reasons on which my opinion is founded.

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’ ‘The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants

[Page 12 U.S. 253, 290]

them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws, or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.’ ‘The domicil is the habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicil in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicil elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place, for the management of his affairs, has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicil.’

A domicil, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but ‘an intention of always staying there.’ Actual residence without this intention, amounts to no more than ’simple habitation.’

Although this intention may be implied without being expressed, it ought not, I think, to be implied, to the injury of the individual, from acts entirely equivocal. If the stranger has not the power of making his residence perpetual, if circumstances, after his arrival in a country, so change, as to make his continuance there disadvantageous to himself, and his power to continue, doubtful; ‘an intention always to stay there’ ought not, I think, to be fixed upon him, in consequence of an unexplained residence previous to that change of circumstances. Mere residence, under particular circumstances, would seem to me, at most, to prove only an intention to remain so long as those circumstances continue the same, or equally advantageous. This does not give a domicil. The intention which gives a domicil is an unconditional intention ‘to stay always.’

That arrogant woman should loose her job!

Those of you who are so thankful for Fox News’ reporting of these Tea Party events are forgetting the fact that Fox was just one of the gang while Obama was running for President. They refused to ask him the tough questions, refused to look further into Ayers and Wright, and did not properly vet him by requesting his college records and thesis papers. These were common place in previous elections — remember Bush and Kerry’s college and military records? Al Gore’s college records? Fox may be making it up now — but they were just as celebratory as CNN and MSNBC on election night. I couldn’t figure that out!

***************************************************************************

You are wrong Lori—-Sean Hannity repeatedly reported on Ayers, Wright, Rezco and anyone else connected to the IMPOSTER…he was and still does constantly hammer the Usurper with these connections!!! I don’t know what Fox News station you are watching but they are the only media that gives you both sides of the story so quit complaining about the only News channel which has some resemblance of FAIR and BALANCED!!!

“You can lead a liberal to the truth but you can’t make them think.” ~Unknown

I have heard and read that anywhere from 190,000 people (from Rush) to 800,000 people attended these parties. That is less than 1% of the population. I don’t think that these parties should have gotten as much attention as they did. There were too many people at these parties who did more to harm the “movement” than help it- with crazy signs, hats and odd, off the cuff statements. Many came across as the town loons- not patriotic protesters. If they got mocked it was more to do with their dis-jointed message than anything else. When there isn’t a single coherent theme no one will take them seriously.
***********************************************************************************

Oh really….says who…YOU OBOT???? This is only the beginning….this is bi-partisan…and as an Independent who voted for Bill Clinton but not the IMPOSTER…I think you need to wake up and realize…you have been duped and the government is stealing more and more of our freedoms and liberties with each passing day…it has only gotten worse with the Democrats in control of every branch of our government now……You need to WAKE UP and COME TO THE PARTY….THE TEA PARTY!!!!

There were too many people at these parties who did more to harm the “movement” than help it- with crazy signs, hats and odd, off the cuff statements. Many came across as the town loons- not patriotic protesters. If they got mocked it was more to do with their dis-jointed message than anything else. When there isn’t a single coherent theme no one will take them seriously.

Welcome to my “radical, right-wing” and “fringe” (actual verbiage from opponents of this blog) blog.

-Phil