Links in “2008 Election”
-
Drake v. Obama: C-SPAN, LA Times Coverage of 9th Circuit Oral Arguments
On Monday, May 2, 2011, oral arguments were heard on the appeal of Drake v. Obama (some history is also under Barnett v. Obama) at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Los Angeles Times has coverage, and the Ventura County Tea Party has an opinion piece from someone who was in the Court room.
Video:
I disagree with the opinion of the VC Tea Party individual with respect to the Judges “badgering” anyone. In my opinion, Mr. Kreep needed to stay with the standing question and should have performed sufficient research to know whether or not his (Mr. Kreep’s) perspective was correct. It may not have been, based upon (1) his client’s class of ability to bring the question; and (2) the timing that the case was brought before the Court.
Here’s the problem, per excellent questions by the Ninth District panel: If you’re not a candidate for the election in question, and if you haven’t filed a question with the Court during the actual campaign (e.g.: prior to the presidential candidate becoming a President-elect and, subsequently, President), there may not be a whole lot that anyone can do, short of pressuring Congress to actually do something about the question.
Having said all that, it also appears that the Judges asked the US Attorney a number of very good questions, definitely worth watching.
There are two questions at hand — one factual, and one legal. The factual question is where Mr. Obama was born; it would appear that he was physically born in Honolulu, Hawaii. The legal question that remains, at least in my mind, is whether or not both of his parents have to be US citizens for Mr. Obama to be a natural born citizen with respect to the presidency.
We know that Mr. Obama Sr. never naturalized as an American citizen, and we further know that as Kenyan citizen of a British protectorate, Mr. Obama Sr.’s children — no matter where, geographically, they were physically born — were British subjects until their respective ages of majority whereby they had the opportunity to let such British citizenship lapse, declare British citizenship, and/or take on other citizenship.
My question: can someone be born on US soil and, under any other circumstance become a natural born citizen, while at the same time taking on the citizenship of another country, and this taking on of additional citizenship does not affect their right to be a natural born citizen? If the answer is yes, then Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the US and is therefore constitutionally qualified to be President.
-Phil
-
#eligibility: No Deal Response; More States Create Bills; Arizona Responds
Thursday, January 21, 2010 Update:
Commenter “slcraig” received the following response from sources in Arizona via email:
“To: SL Craig
Thank you so much for your great efforts to assist us in our understanding(s) as again evidenced by the detail of what you wrote below.
In my prepared statement which will be delivered before the committee(s) of the Az. Legislature, I do cite Vattel and the four Supreme Court cases that both you and the Post & Email (which I have mostly read) have mentioned. However, your summaries of them below are so precise and succinct that understandings become even easier.
I think the biggest matter you have raised for us is whether or not to go more than “halfway” as you put it and place the actual definition of natural born citizen directly into our proposed legislation HB2441
—-
Back on Friday, January 8, Georgia GOP Representative and gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal had sent a letter to the President, presumably to ask him about his birth certificate (to date, the actual content of that letter is still unknown).
Today, at a University of Georgia gubernatorial debate, Mr. Deal downplayed both the letter and the entire eligibility question. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
– The next shot came from state Rep. Austin Scott of Tifton, who said it was “childish” to question President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. That, of course, was aimed at U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal of Gainesville, who has written a letter to the White House on that very same topic.
Deal responded that he had no interest in Obama’s birth certificate, and that his letter was “not an issue in the governor’s race.” The congressman said his letter only asked Obama to “tell me where I can refer the people” who are asking him questions.
Obama had not answered, he noted.
The Athens Banner-Herald reported more specifics from the Congressman:
Deal, who represents North Georgia in Congress, sent Obama a letter in December asking him to address lingering concerns that he actually was born in Kenya and thus is constitutionally barred from being president.
“I think that is a reasonable proposition, and certainly something I think the president should respond to, although at this point, he has not,” Deal said.
Deal said he was responding to constituents’ questions, and the letter should not be an issue in a state-level campaign.
Post continues below
Advertise on this siteAt the State level, Arizona Republican State Representative Judy Burges and 39 other State Legislators had filed a candidate eligibility bill for consideration of the 2010 Legislature. Now, as WorldNetDaily reports, several other States are also considering various eligibility initiatives:
The demand for documentation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is surging, with lawmakers in several states now working on legislation that could be used to require future presidential candidates to reveal precisely how they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural born citizen.”
WND already has reported on a bill co-sponsored by some three dozen lawmakers in Arizona who want to require candidates not only to submit the information, but state officials to independently verify the accuracy.
Bill sponsor Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND she already has started getting questions from other states who want details about the proposal.
A separate proposal has been created by a freedom of information action group in New York state, and now the National Conference of State Legislatures, which monitors and tabulates the work of legislative bodies, confirms through its database that several other plans are in the works.
Some of the proposals are very clear even without the full text. In New Hampshire, for example, a pending plan would require “certified copies of birth certificates for nominees for president and vice president.”
Others are a little more oblique. In Georgia, for example, lawmakers propose a bill “relating to procedures for qualification of candidates generally, so as to require each candidate for public office to be in compliance with certain disclosure requirements.”
There is no definitive word on what that would mean to presidential candidates.
An Indiana proposal is equally unclear, because it “authorizes a challenge to a candidate’s eligibility to seek an office to be filed by a registered voter of the jurisdiction conducting the election.” It could apply only to local elections.
In Virginia, a summary says the proposal “provides that candidates shall provide evidence of their qualifications for office to have their names printed on the ballot. The State Board of Elections shall provide a list of acceptable forms of evidence.”
And in the New York state plan proposed by a freedom of information organization to state lawmakers would provide that “an individual seeking placement on the New York State’s election ballot(s) for the office of president or vice president of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.”
WND followed up on legislator thoughts regarding the Arizona bill:
In Arizona, state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.
“It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen,” she told the Arizona Capitol Times.
If states start adopting such election requirements, their laws possibly could have an impact similar to federal legislation, since the information submitted to meet the requirements presumably would be public.
As referenced, above, the Database of Election Reform Legislation is relatively simple to use in looking up bills. Go to the link and then select “Candidates-Qualifications for Office” in the “Subtopic” multi-select form.
The New York proposition reads as follows:
The Accountability Bill
A Bill To Be Entitled
New York State Presidential Candidate Qualification Verification
Accountability To NYS Citizens Act1 Section 1: An individual seeking placement (ISP) on New York State’s election ballot(s) for the
2 office of President or Vice President of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per
3 requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
4 A) Hard-copy proof is to be submitted to the New York State (NYS) Board of Elections
5 Executive Director(s) office.
6 B) Determination of age, natural born citizenship and past fourteen years residency is by
7 information on or within an individual’s official birth certificate, school and work records, social
8 security information, documentation of international travel history that the ISP knows of to
9 the best of his/her ability and his/her past seven years of tax records.
10 (1) Written and signed permission by an ISP must be granted to the NYS Board of Elections
11 Executive Director(s) office to obtain proof of documents submitted to its office from various
12 sources listed within the documents.
13 C) The NYS Board of Elections Executive Director(s) office is to make its determination
14 within four weeks from the date of an individual’s full submission of documents, confirmation of
15 such full submission by the ISP and his/her signed statement, granting the office
16 permission to obtain proof of documents submitted to its office, as per Section 1 B (1).
17 D) With the exclusion of social security numbers, contained on documents, all pertinent
18 information obtained and pertinent findings that are obtained from such documents of
19 an ISP who is approved are to be made available to the public for viewing, in order for
20 the office’s approval to be enacted and the ISP to be placed on New York State’s ballot(s),
21 pending the fulfillment(s) of other current and future New York State requirement(s).
22 (1) An ISP must first view the information and findings of the NYS Board of Elections
23 Executive Director(s) office that it deems pertinent and approve such findings to be made
24 public, in order for such to be made available to the public for viewing.
25 E) Compliance with this act and the burden of proof of eligibility is fully on the ISP.
26 F) Disputes are to be handled through the New York State courts, with all legalities applicable.
27 Section 2: This act will be instituted in the State of New York.
28 Section 3: This act is to be instituted on or before November 1, 2010.
Written by Debra J.M. Smith – September 17, 2009
References: The U.S. ConstitutionCharles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, has announced that attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed an Opening Brief with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals:
Kerchner v Obama & Congress – U.S. 3rd Circuit Appeal – Appellant’s Opening Brief – Filed 19 Jan 2010
Attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed the Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al lawsuit appeal. The Brief was filed with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA. See this link to download and read it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25461132/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-FILED-2010-01-19We look forward to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing this matter and ordering a trial on the merits as to the Article II Constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.
We say Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” of the USA and thus is not eligible to serve in the Oval Office. Obama is a Usurper and must be removed to preserve the integrity and fundamental law of our Constitution and our Republic.
“We the People” will be heard on this matter! As the People in Massachusetts have demonstrated, “We the People” are the Sovereigns in this country and the Constitution is the fundamental law of our nation, not Obama or Congress. We will not be silenced. The chair Obama sits in in the Oval Office is not his throne. It is the People’s seat too. And Obama despite all his obfuscations to date must prove to Constitutional standards that he is eligible to sit in that seat.
This is not going to go away until Obama stops hiding ALL his hidden and sealed early life documents and provides original copies of them to a controlling legal authority and reveals his true legal identity from the time he was born until the time he ran for President. Obama at birth was born British and a dual-citizen. He holds and has held multiple citizenship during his life-time. He’s a Citizenship chameleon as the moment and time in his life suited him and he is not a “natural born Citizen” with sole allegiance andUnity of Citizenship at Birth to the USA as is required per the Constitution per the intent of our founders and the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” to Constitutional standards.
Attorney Apuzzo will comment more on this Appellant’s Brief in the next few days.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.orgSee the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com
-
Barnett v. Obama: Case Dismissed; "A Teachable Moment"
Today, US District Judge David Carter dismissd the eligibility case Barnett v. Obama, ultimately taking into conclusive account the Defense’s motion to dismiss. Judge Carter issued a 30-page opinion, below. “Opposition” site NativeBornCitizen covers a number of media links about this case.
As Mr. Obama has quipped in the past, I think that this opinion provides for a very poignant “teachable moment” regarding the eligibility movement. As a concerned citizen who has officially been opining about the eligibility movement since October 24, 2008, I am going to address some issues brought up in the opinion that are very likely to show that I am an Equal Opportunity Offender ™; when you’re as interested as I am in getting to the truth, you’re bound to upset individuals on all sides of an issue.
Let’s begin on page 23:
…Furthermore, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment sets forth the line of succession “in case ofthe removal of the president from office” or in case of his or her death, resignation, or inability to serve. The Amendment specifies a role for Congress in this process, but no role for the judiciary. The combination of Article I and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment leads the Court to conclude that there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue of the removal of a sitting president to a coordinate political department–the Legislative branch.
Judge David Carter (via OustTheUsurper)
In Nixon, the Court also discussed prudential considerations that counseled against judicial review of Senate impeachment proceedings. 506 U.S. at 252 n.4. While Nixon involved the impeachment of a judge, the Court commented on the dangers of judicial review of impeachment of the President:
This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence its effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated.
506 U.S. at 236. The potential upheaval to this country that would result from a branch other than Congress ruling on the removal of the President weighs heavily in this case as well. The founders of the Constitution created impeachment to allow an orderly process of transition and succession during which the country can continue to function. Plaintiffs’ request, asking this Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the founders.
Guess what? In this section (and I have attempted to preserve as much of Judge Carter’s context as this non-attorney concerned citizen can muster to make a point), Judge Carter is precisely right about not having the Judiciary actually remove a sitting President, and here’s why.
First of all, anyone would be absolutely hard-pressed to find any constitutional provision whereby the Judiciary is tasked with the power to actually remove a sitting President. After all, do you really want completely unelected individuals being able to almost arbitrarily (depending on the petition before them) make such absolutist decisions with respect to an elected individual? I can absolutely guarantee you that I wouldn’t want to live under such an oligarchy.
Secondly, Judge Carter makes an excellent observation: If the Judiciary were to remove a sitting President for whatever reason, how is that supposed to factor into an orderly succession of government? Remember: all aspects of impeachment are solely under the auspices of the Legislative branch, not the Judicial; the latter are elected, the former are selected. Therefore, what does it say about a government whereby the Legislative confirms the Electoral Votes for a presidential candidate, then the Judiciary removes such an individual, and then the Legislative goes about the process of installing a new President? Surely you can see the illogic — much less the unconstitutionality — of this thought process.
Have I sufficiently offended some of you yet? I have? Good! Because I’ve only gotten started. There’s still time for the rest of you currently unoffended or overjoyed individuals to become offended. Let’s continue.
From page 24:
At oral argument, Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson encouraged the Court to find that the redressability prong has been satisfied on the basis that President Obama’s removal from office would not require impeachment, which they agree is reserved by the Constitution for Congress. Because President Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for President, they argue, he was never a valid candidate and could not be validly elected. Because he does not validly hold the office of President, he would not be subject to the Constitution’s requirements regarding the removal of a president from office through impeachment. Finally, they reasoned that, because whatever alternative process would be required to remove the President is not set forth in the Constitution, it is not clearly reserved for another branch and is therefore within the province of this Court.
There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the naturalborn citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.
Guess what (number 2)? Mr. Obama is the President of the United States. I don’t care what you think about the guy, or if you think he has usurped the office (for all anyone knows, that is always a possibility), or whatever. Nevertheless, as far as our Constitution is concerned, he still remains the President. Therefore, to try to impeach the President for no matter what the reason can and never will be under the auspices of the Judiciary.
However — however! — all is absolutely not lost in terms of determining the legitimacy of Mr. Obama to be President. I’ll explain.
You see, as I’ve already profusely commented on my site, I’ve never thought that this issue has been about impeachment; I have always thought this is has been about eligibility; our fervent opposition to questioning this President’s bona fides really need to understand this fine point. As has been quite succinctly laid out by Judge Carter, while it is true that the Judiciary could actually step in and try to impeach the President (I can only imagine what kind of smack-down would politically occur in that respect), the Judiciary should not do this, because that’s not its power, per the Constitution (and we’re about following the Constitution, right? Yes, you are).
OK, then, instead, what should happen, going forward? A few things:
- If an eligibility attorney were to read this post, I would encourage them to consider filing a petition with the Court addressing the ineligibility of the President and — in no uncertain terms — do not mention a thing about impeachment. In fact, the very word “impeachment” should only ever appear in full context that such a petition is not about removing the President. Instead, it is about determining the eligibility of the President. Need evidence? Challenge the authenticity of the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth — that might be one way to get the actual document into Court — and then challenge its ability to determine eligibility;
- As attorney Leo Donofrio points out in his own take concerning this story, push for a quo warranto action. Immediately after what I last quoted from Judge Carter, there was full and relatively complete discussion concerning this provision as an aspect of office entitlement from within the District of Columbia. It’s interesting to me that this hasn’t really been pushed much at all; it’s perfectly legal and appears to be a potentially useful tool to determine eligibility;
- Push for the federal Legislative branch to seriously consider presidential eligibility, specifically via HR 1503;
- Last but not least, 2012 presents the next time that these types of eligibility cases would be taken “seriously” by the Judiciary; Judge Carter as much said so. And if the opposition thinks that these questions are going to go away by then, well… let’s just let them keep on thinking that way!
In conclusion, I am going to broach another subject about which I’ve previously cooled heated commentary, because it has to do with a private individual. That is the subject of Mr. Siddarth Velamoor having become one of the newest law clerks for Judge Carter (h/t WND).
I had previously said in a comment that Judge Carter was perfectly within his right to bring on board anyone he wished to clerk with him. However, after further thought on the Judge’s move, I am officially considering this a very questionable and potentially unethical move on his part.
Why? As the link to WorldNetDaily details, while Mr. Velamoor may possess a perfectly capable and able legal mind, he hails from the same law firm that has been retained in the past to defend Mr. Obama regarding eligibility lawsuits. Furthermore, it has also been reported that edits on Judge Carter’s Wikipedia page show that the maintainers are clearly biased against “birthers,” which I find in anecdotally very bad taste.
While it is true that the US Attorney’s office has been representing the Defendants in this case and not a specific law firm, I think it can be reasonably assumed that Judge Carter knows from whence Mr. Velamoor comes and should have realized the potential conflict of interest that this could have caused.
All of that being said, I would again urge that if you have something to say concerning the private citizen Mr. Siddarth Velamoor and you simply cannot keep it to yourself, please be civil about your misgivings, else I’ll have to quash any such uncivil discussion ASAP.
Besides — I’ve already said enough in this posting to get virtually everyone mad at me, so remember to keep it civil.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
-
Barnett v. Obama: Judge Confirms Hearing Dates; Official Transcript Added
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 Update:
On the same day as this posting was originally published (10/5/09), Judge Carter ordered the remainder dates for this case to be finalized, per the Civil Minutes, below:
Dr. Alan Keyes — one of the key Plaintiffs in this case — says on his blog that the case is moving forward and has not been stopped by a motion to dismiss. WorldNetDaily interviewed both the Plaintiffs and the Defense and they also seemed to confirm that no dismissals of any sort have yet to be granted.
In fact, in an interesting opinion, attorney Leo Donofrio states that Judge Carter has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the quo warranto complaint contained within this case and doesn’t understand why the US Attorneys haven’t grasped this aspect of the case as a means to sink it. After all, as he points out, according to federal statute, quo warranto is only to be heard in the US District Court for DC, the seat of government (which, incidentally, is not a State).
In my non-attorney citizen reporter opinion, what Judge Carter has done is taken the motion to dismiss “under submission” and likely as a part of one of the upcoming dates concerning summary judgment (that aspect of law, per the Conference Schedule, that attempts to ascertain whether or not a trial is needed to satisfy the grievances stated in the petition or whether or not the case should legitimately proceed to trial).
This would mean that the motion to dismiss has been neither granted nor denied, but can still be considered during a future date. Nevertheless, the case is moving forward, and as long as the case moves forward, there’s always a chance that it will continue to summary judgement and/or discovery and/or a trial.
In related news, commenter “reps” brings the following to our attention:
An interesting decision in the Arkansas Supreme Court that applies to Barnett v. Obama and may help Judge Carter with some of the decisions he has to make; an election issue regarding eligibility, subject matter jurisdiction, precedent and after election judicial action. Hopefully Taitz and Kreep will use this in a follow-up to Judge Carter.
The saga continues…
Sunday, October 18, 2009 Update: Here’s the official transcript (via NativeBornCitizen):
Keyes|Barnett v. Obama – Official Court Transcript From 10-5-2009 Hearing
As had been discussed on this blog, attorney Dr. Orly Taitz’ case, Barnett v. Obama, hit its next major milestone with US District Judge David Carter making no new motions today except a promise to consider submissions from both sides and making known his concerns for both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. This was revealed in a transcript of sorts by the opposition forum site, Politijab.com, via the site NativeBornCitizen:
Barnett v. Obama – Report on 10-5 Hearing
While the above document is a bit long at 33 pages, it is really the 32 page that I found the most informative of the entire document:
Carter then essentially cut off further argument saying that he needs more time. He did not make a tentative ruling today. He wants to consider the arguments that have been made both in the written papers and during the hearing.
He turned to plaintiffs and said, I’m most concerned about standing.
To the defendants he said, I’m most concerned about justicability, correct venue, political question, and how far do the courts go.
He turned back to plaintiffs and said, if I rule against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future.
To the audience he said, your applause has not influenced me at all, one way or the other.
To Orly he said, apparently you’ve encouraged people to call me on your blog. Please discourage the phone calls. They don’t help. It was inappropriate for you to do that. However, it won’t bear on my decision.
He then stated, obviously you’ve had no scheduling conference, but we’ll stick by the dates previously set for now.
He thanked everybody and the hearing ended. [emphases added]
I’ll come back to some of these points in a minute. In the meantime, here’s a collection of sentiments regarding today’s hearing:
- John Charlton at The Post & Email summarizes the day’s events;
- Mr. Charlton also posted an interview with the case’s lead Plaintiff, Captain Pamela Barnett;
- WorldNetDaily posted their interview with one of the eligibility attorneys, Mr. Gary Kreep;
- The OCRegister.com provided relatively reasonable mainstream media coverage;
- The GiveUsLiberty blog sports a number of postings on today’s activity.
Getting back to Politijab.com’s “transcript” of the hearing, I will reiterate once again that The Right Side of Life’s position on contacting a Courthouse for the purpose of attempting to sway any official in any direction is to completely discourage such behavior. While the “transcript” is not an official one, considering the source, it is highly likely to be true to the Court reporter’s official one.
Instead of potentially causing further issues with the Court through political activism within the Judiciary, it is my view that a far wiser and significantly more powerful means of persuasion is prayer. It isn’t glamorous, it doesn’t necessarily provide the instant gratification of an ultimate decision on a moment’s notice (but then again, are you operating on God’s timing or your own? Be honest!), but at least you’ll recognize Who’s really in control in all of this.
Plus, you’ll keep your blood pressure down, it’ll give you a few moments of respite from your daily worries, and you’ll become more focused on what the Main Thing In Life ™ really is. Yeah, I know — the opposition will continue going on about how this case might get dismissed and so forth, but if you’re like me, you really don’t care about that, because this issue is and always has been about much bigger things in life, such as political accountability.
And where does political accountability come from? It comes from a sense of justice and morality that has been bestowed upon us via not only the Constitution but that even greater collection of literature, the Bible.
So, again — do you want to make a difference? Then get praying. Then think about what what skills and talents you have and start taking that first step, on faith (based on the fact that since you are created in the image of God, you do have at least one skill and talent bestowed upon you!), and be the change you want to see.
Oh, yeah — and if you don’t think that a handful of people can’t make a difference, then apparently you’re simply refusing to see the results of what happened with 12 guys that got together without any technology except sheets of paper and word of mouth roughly 2,000 years ago.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy GiveUsLiberty1776