See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama Citizenship Accusations Come to a Head
Source:
The New American
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/562
Published: Dec 2, 2008
Author: Written by Kurt Williamsen
Post Date: 2008-12-02 22:57:52 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: Obama, Berg, Citizenship Scandal, Birth Certificate Fraud
Views: 4596
Comments: 225
Obama Citizenship Accusations Come to a Head Written by Kurt Williamsen Tuesday, 02 December 2008 20:54 As we have reported earlier in our article "Barack Obama and the Citizenship Scandal," it has been alleged that Barack Obama is ineligible to become president for two reasons: evidence has come forward that Obama was born in Kenya, not the United States as required by the Constitution (because only one of Obama's parents is an American); and even if he was born here, his mother relinquished his citizenship by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen. This story has gained credence, separating it from Internet rumors, because Obama has reputedly hired three law firms (firms, not lawyers) to make sure that no one gets access to his birth records in Hawaii or his college transcripts from Occidental College and Harvard. (It is speculated that the transcripts will show he applied for aid to foreign students.) Philip J. Berg, a lifelong Democrat, sued to see Obama's original birth certificate, but a court ruled that because Berg was not in some way harmed by Obama — monetarily, physically, or reputation-wise — he was not a plaintiff in good standing. This action by the court put a temporary end to the belief that we would ever know the answer to the accusations. But now the claim is flaring up again for several reasons: • Alan Keyes, a presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, and Markham Robinson, a California elector, have now sued to see Obama's birth certificate (these men would definitely have legal "standing" to sue as plaintiffs in this case). • The We the People Foundation took out a full-page ad in the Chicago Tribune about the scandal. • On Friday, December 5, the Supreme Court will have a "conference" on the question of Obama's citizenship. (If four out of the nine justices vote to hear the case, oral arguments may be scheduled.) Obama supporters have derided attempts to challenge Obama's citizenship as merely sour grapes by sore losers, and they point to the website FactChect.org, as well as a statement by Hawaii's Department of Health Director who said Obama has a legitimate birth certificate, as proof of their rightness. (Various quotes by Obama's supporters also make it clear that they don't care whether or not he was born in the United States, or whether or not the Constitution is upheld.) Those pressing the issue note that FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and that Obama was on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. They note also that Hawaiian Health Department officials did not state that Obama has an original birth certificate from Hawaii. In fact, what Obama has given to FactCheck.org to prove his citizenship is not a birth certificate, but a certificate of live birth, something that would not ordinarily be accepted as legal proof of citizenship. Also, it is suspicious that no doctors or nurses have come forward and said that they were at Obama's birth in Hawaii, but Obama's grandmother in Kenya has been taped saying that she was at his birth in Kenya. Is Obama hiding something? Most likely yes. A person just doesn't spend something on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep one's birth records a secret unless one has something to hide. I personally have had to provide my birth certificate to several employers before they would agree to hire me. For a normal person, showing one's birth certificate is not a big deal. I've also had to give out my college records — again, not a big deal. But that leads to important questions: should this be pursued, and will it succeed? Yes, it should be pursued because to ignore it is to say that the Constitution is no longer the law of the land and is instead just an old piece of paper. Will it succeed? In my opinion, no. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the electors who will soon cast their votes for president, are impartial bodies. But that is not an argument for not pursuing it. — AP Images
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 94.
#12. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
Why didn't the RNC bring this issue up? They were trying to find anything they could to discredit Obama. Why didn't the McCain/Palin campaign bring this issue up? Why didn't the current president (moron bush) bring this issue up? Why didn't roody julieannie or any of the others campaigning for the Republican party nomination bring this issue to the attention of the public? Why didn't the Dept. of Justice address this issue? Why didn't Ron Paul directly address this issue? Is he part of the conspiracy? Oh and by the way, did you see these? Lawsuit blames the September 11 attack on a RICO conspiracy involving, among others, the first President Bush, Condoleeza Rice, the Council for Foreign Relations, and Kenneth Feinberg. News Conference – Wednesday - 11/26/03 – 12 Noon 5th & Ranstead Streets, Philadelphia [corner of Bourse Building with Independence Hall in background] 911 Victim’s Wife, Ellen Mariani, files RICO Act [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] Federal Court Complaint against President Bush and Cabinet Members (Philadelphia, PA – 11/26/03) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, announced today that he, attorney for Ellen Mariani, wife of Louis Neil Mariani, who died when United Air Lines flight 175 was flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9-11 at a news conference regarding the filing of a detailed Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 11/26/03 in the case of Mariani vs. Bush et al that he is alleging President Bush and officials including, but not limited to Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Feinberg that they: 1. had knowledge/warnings of 911 and failed to warn or take steps to prevent; 2. have been covering up the truth of 911; and 3. have therefore violated the laws of the United States; and 4. are being sued under the Civil RICO Act. Berg stated: “I will be detailing the charges against Bush and others and handing out copies of the: 1. Amended Complaint; 2. a Letter from Ellen Mariani to President Bush that sets forth her beliefs that President Bush knowingly and willfully failed to act and prevent the murder of her husband on 911 and the ongoing obstruction of justice; and 3. a Sworn Affidavit that the United States government twenty-eight [28] years ago undertook a study to prevent the very events of 911. Mrs. Mariani was the first victim family member to bring civil action regarding the events of 911 against United Airlines. Since then, the “truth” of 911 has not been forthcoming and Mrs. Mariani, for the good of her country, now seeks the truth via this courageous action under the RICO Act. Berg said: “The events surrounding "911" to date have yet to be uncovered. While America was under attack, for approximately the next seven (7) to eighteen (18) minutes Defendant GWB continues to listen to the goat story while Plaintiff's husband was just murdered and does not immediately assume his duties as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Plaintiff, with her amended complaint intends to expose the truth to remember the dead and to prevent continued deaths of American military personnel due to President Bush's "failure to act and prevent" the worst attacks on our nation since Pearl Harbor. Plaintiff hereby asserts Defendants, officially and individually are exclusively liable to answer the Counts in this Complaint under the United States Constitution and provisions of the 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) and (c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter "RICO Act") for "failing to act and prevent" the murder of Plaintiff's husband, Louis Neil Mariani, for financial and political reasons and have "obstructed justice" in the aftermath of said criminal acts and omissions. Defendant GWB has purported to the American People and the Plaintiff that the infamous attacks of "911" were directly masterminded by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda Network terrorists (hereinafter "OBL"), almost immediately after the attacks. Yet, Defendant GWB has not been forthright and honest with regard to his administration's pre-knowledge of the potential of the "911" attacks and Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant GWB to justify why her husband Louis Neil Mariani died on "911.' Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB is invoking a long standard operating procedure of invoking national security and executive privilege claims to suppress the basis of this lawsuit that Defendant GWB, et al., failed to act and prevent the "911" attacks. Plaintiff asserts, contrary to Defendant GWB's assertion that OBL is responsible for "911," the compelling evidence that will be presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power by this Court and testimony at trial will lead to one undisputed fact, Defendant GWB failed to act and prevent "911" knowing the attacks would lead to our nation having to engage in an "International War on Terror (IWOT)" which would benefit Defendants both financially and for political reasons. There are significant business ties that will be proven between Defendants and OBL's family which raise serious conflict of interest and other matters wherein "failing to act and prevent" the "911" attacks have benefited Defendants. Reports have emerged and will be confirmed through discovery that the Carlyle Group, the giant U.S. defense contractor until recently employed Defendant and former President GHB. Hence, the "Bush Family" and other Defendants financial profiting by war goes to the heart of Plaintiff's RICO Act claim. Plaintiff asserts, in the late 1970's and throughout the 1980's, Defendants were allies with OBL and Saddam Hussein during the former Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and Iran-Iraq war respectively, wherein, personal and political deals were made and it is believed upon discovery, these dealings hold the truth about "911." In sum, Plaintiff will call to trial former federal employees with firsthand knowledge and expertise with military intelligence and other duties to support the underlying RICO Act foundational basis to prove Defendants have engaged in a "pattern of criminal activity and obstruction of justice" in violation of the public trust and laws of the United States for personal and financial gains. Plaintiff will prove, Defendants have engaged our nation in an endless war on terror to achieve their personal goals and agendas. /////// ** Copy of sixty-one [61] page Amended Complaint available by e-mail” – contact Phil Berg at PJBLAW@aol.com /////// [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA.] www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0311/S00261.htm PHILADELPHIA ATTORNEY PHIL BERG DEMANDS DISBARMENT OF (3) U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES - O'CONNOR, SCALIA and THOMAS ON THE ONE (1) YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF BUSH vs. GORE, THE CASE THAT "ANOINTED" BUSH AS PRESIDENT (Philadelphia, PA - 12/12/01) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and political activist, an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA today, on the 1st anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush vs. Gore which "anointed" Bush as President writes to three (3) U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Justices O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas requesting that they agree to "Voluntary Disbarment" for failing to "recuse" themselves in said case and other violations. Berg said: "The attached letter is self explanatory requesting three (3) U.S. Supreme Court Justices to agree to voluntary disbarment from the practice of law. It is the appearance of impartiality not the reality of bias or prejudice that dictates and in this case, there was not only appearance but also actual conflict of interest. They violated the rules of conduct and must accept the consequences of their partisan action. The three (3) Justices of The Supreme Court of the United States should voluntarily turn in their licenses in their respective states or we will ask that disciplinary action be undertaken including disbarment as well as summary suspension in their respective states for violating the Rules of Court and not 'recusing' themselves in the case of Bush vs. Gore and other violations Specifically, Justices O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas. groups.google.com/group/phl.media/msg/2e1564f62484903f Pictures of the Phillip Berg Team and those who buy into this wacko conspiracy theory
Very cute: Where's the Birth Certificate ???
Try to get a passport without a birth certificate. How can anybody believe this crap? It is propaganda, probably created and refined by Karl Rove and the propaganda experts in the Republican and Democrat parties. WAKE UP!
news.aol.com/political-ma...rth-certificate-doubters/ Q&A With Obama Birth Certificate Doubters By Liza Porteus Viana Dec 2nd 2008 12:31PM Filed Under:eBarack Obama, 2008 President We here at the Machine told you yesterday that the controversy over Barack Obama's birth certificate is still raging. The latest is that the We The People Foundation have taken out a full-page ad in the Chicago Tribune two days this week - Monday (yesterday) and Wednesday. I e-mailed Bob Schulz, chairman of the foundation, to ask him a few questions about why his group and some other right-wing blogs and individuals still aren't convinced of the authenticity of the Hawaii birth certificate provided by the president-elect, and vouched for by Hawaii officials. Here's the Q&A: Q.) Why don't you believe that the Hawaiian authorities have vouched for the authenticity of the birth certificate filed with that state for President-elect Obama? The state's Department of Health director on Oct. 31 released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. A.) Yes, Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they possess Obama's original birth certificate, however in their official press release they fail to state it is an original birth certificate from Hawaii. In fact, under Hawaiian law, a foreign born child can be registered as a naturalized (but not "natural born") U.S. citizen following application of the parents, (See, Hawaiian law provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. ). Such persons would be eligible to receive a "Certification of Live Birth" from the state, such as the document Obama has proffered. "Naturalized" citizens, such as the Governor of California, cannot hold the office of President. This of course, does not resolve the thornier issue as to the content of Obama's birth document. Specifically the stated "place of birth" may not in fact reflect the physical location of Obama's birth (as evidenced by the "original" certificate of Live Birth claimed to be in the possession of Hawaii officials), but rather the local Hawaii residency of the U.S. parent claimed in a birth registration application such as that provided by HRS 338-17.8 (See above). In any event the document is simply a computer-created document based upon the entries in a computer database, which may have been conceivably tampered with at some point. Hawaii law also provides for "amending" birth certificates. From the official web page: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country." In short, the document proffered by Obama does not contain all the information needed to conclusively verify that he is legally eligible to hold the Office of President. Additionally, beyond their refusal to minimally confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii, state officials also refuse to comment on the authenticity of Obama's birth document. All these questions could be resolved by Obama by simply providing access to his original birth certificate. Q.) What reputable sources have discredited the birth certificate already produced by Obama? A.) Attorney Phil Berg states in his lawsuit against Obama, "...three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive Forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's campaign website." He has not publicly identified his sources but one of them is reported to be a reputable professional forensics expert going under the pseudonym "Polarik" for his family's protection. His latest comprehensive report concluding Obama's document is a forgery can be found here. He has also posted a short YouTube video. Q.) How much did you pay for these 2 full-page ads (on Dec. 1 and 3)? A.) Tens of thousands of dollars. It was a negotiated amount. Q.) What sort of reaction have you received so far to the ads? A.) We have experienced significant media interest from primarily talk shows and newspapers, including some well-known media entities. We have hoped that our ads would spur public debate on this topic and hopefully, this may have begun. In the end, there is no practical reason why Obama refuses to produce his original birth certificate. He is seeking the Office of President and has a duty to provide evidence that he meets the explicit requirements established by the Constitution.
This of course, does not resolve the thornier issue as to the content of Obama's birth document. Specifically the stated "place of birth" may not in fact reflect the physical location of Obama's birth (as evidenced by the "original" certificate of Live Birth claimed to be in the possession of Hawaii officials), but rather the local Hawaii residency of the U.S. parent claimed in a birth registration application such as that provided by HRS 338-17.8 (See above). In any event the document is simply a computer-created document based upon the entries in a computer database, which may have been conceivably tampered with at some point. Hawaii law also provides for "amending" birth certificates. From the official web page: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country." In short, the document proffered by Obama does not contain all the information needed to conclusively verify that he is legally eligible to hold the Office of President. Mr. Half Brain Opile, Do we need to get out the crayons ? Are you going to cry if messiah is deported ?
[deleted by request of the poster]
Sir, you're way out of line here.. I've, to my regret, flamed out here before but I have never seen anything like this..
I've, to my regret, flamed out here before but I have never seen anything like this.. I've seen just as bad posted to him and no one said a word.
Thank you. My point is simple; this place has become a Lynch mob where one side is out to browbeat anyone that disagrees with the majority here into submission and silence. Tara here even has done death threats. I am in forums to discuss and engage in lively discussion where after the disagreement, people still respect another's right to their point of view and humanity. I am not here because to engage with intolerent and cruel people with narrow minds. The mission statement of this forum has been made a farce by those who promote a FReeper mindset of intolerance, cruelty and intimidation. This place was unfortunately become a waste of time, it is choir for one side of a mindset of opinions only.
Believe it or not, Truth really exists. I'm not sure anyone can recognize it in an atmosphere of subterfuge, controlled media, brainwashing/psychological manipulation, and treason. But I do know one thing. There are people on the 4um who recognize the one Truth: Liberty. They also recognize it has been lost.. which changes the rules of the game. The strategy now must be to regain those Liberties or forever give them up for lost. There can be few differences of opinion on this goal, other than how best to achieve it. You have a choice. Rather than defect, I hope you stay. May Peace be with you.
Listen, you have an arrogance here that has Tara doing soliloquies about how he has tried to bring people around to his point of view, and because they would not listen, they deserve that they get. This sort of belittling, browbeating and arrogance is very much designed to end discussion, not promote it. I also am sure the classic FReeper tactic of organizing behind the scenes to pour complaints to the forum administration about opponents is in play here as well. People are doing here what they learned to do in FReeperland. I have been around a long time and seen all these tactics and I an hip to them. I am here because I like debate and lively talk. But I am no whips and chains groupie that goes places where there is a 'mercy is for the weak' attitude in play where all opposition must absolutely be silenced or else. I am patient, but to a point. There is no will here to make this forum work. A critical mass has been reached of one side where it is useless to debate or discuss if moderators don't enforce a level playing field. Your exploration is to the wrong man. Send it to he or she who referees things here. Only they can decide whether things will work or not. I see an awful lot of people telling me I don't understand the U.S. Constitution and only they do. I am here to tell you that the Constitution is there to protect minority positions and groups from the whims and caprice of majorities they are not part of. For example, freedom of religion is there because of the tendency for majority religions to push to scorch the earth of the lives of those who do not comply by joining up. People who are ruthless and intolerant of another's position saying they are doing so because those who say defend Barack Obama don't understand the Constitution themselves show a core lack of comprehension how that document works and why it is supposed to do so that way. When you see the argument's cognitive shift move to where you see a Tara calling for the deportation of a U.S. citizen because his guilty before innocent mindset is not getting the high profile nationally he wants, there is something wrong with a forum. I know exactly what is wrong here and why, and me merely staying and watching it get worse is not a useful and constructive thing to do.
Listen, you have an arrogance here that has Tara doing soliloquies about how he has tried to bring people around to his point of view, and because they would not listen, they deserve that they get. My arrogance? Because I excercise my freedom to speak? Is that now arrogant??!! You said I made Tara do what? Liar. This sort of belittling, browbeating and arrogance is very much designed to end discussion, not promote it. There is neither a duty or any intelligent reason (or law..YET) to promote equal discussion of ideas ..even when diametrically opposed to Liberty. Did you even read my post? Ahhh..it was beyond your IQ...I understand. I also am sure the classic FReeper tactic of organizing behind the scenes to pour complaints to the forum administration about opponents is in play here as well. People are doing here what they learned to do in FReeperland. I have been around a long time and seen all these tactics and I an hip to them. You know damn well you have no fear of being banned here as you insinuate, and that Christine would never condone it. I am here because I like debate and lively talk. But I am no whips and chains groupie that goes places where there is a 'mercy is for the weak' attitude in play where all opposition must absolutely be silenced or else. You do like debate? Then why do you whine? You have a choice. Did you read my post? And I said nothing about silencing you in my post. What I did say was that the voices of reason who stand against you need not be silenced because free speech means just that. I also said voices diametrically opposed to Liberty are fair game for free speech and verbal attack because this is a war of words to reclaim Liberties lost. If you take issue with that, then you are on the wrong side in this struggle. You are no allie. And noone here has to treat you like an allie. It's called the 1st Amendment. You just can't handle it, commie. I am patient, but to a point. There is no will here to make this forum work. A critical mass has been reached of one side where it is useless to debate or discuss if moderators don't enforce a level playing field. There is no such thing as a level playing field except that which exists in the imagination of communists like yourself and Stalin. There is also no duty or responsibility to "make this forum work" because..it already does by virtue of free speech!! Your exploration is to the wrong man. Send it to he or she who referees things here. Only they can decide whether things will work or not. Ahh so we need a referee to make sure you win your arguments. You know damn well you have the ability to argue your case. Your problem is the inability to defend your communist ideals under the light of truth. I see an awful lot of people telling me I don't understand the U.S. Constitution and only they do. I am here to tell you that the Constitution is there to protect minority positions and groups from the whims and caprice of majorities theey are not part of. I am speechless. Totally speechless. For example, freedom of religion is there because of the tendency for majority religions to push to scorch the earth of the lives of those who do not comply by joining up. People who are ruthless and intolerant of another's position saying they are doing so because those who say defend Barack Obama don't understand the Constitution themselves show a core lack of comprehension how that document works and why it is supposed to do so that way. You segue from "religious freedom" to an argument that people have said that your vote for Obama means you do not understand the Constitution? No, I think it's actually worse than you suspect. But those who can read and understand know what I mean. When you see the argument's cognitive shift move to where you see a Tara calling for the deportation of a U.S. citizen because his guilty before innocent mindset is not getting the high profile nationally he wants, there is something wrong with a forum. Well, I never saw any such post. So I can not comment on it. I can assume it was poetic license to score debate points. Regardless, no such law exists to deport you for your beliefs, so that person can say whatever they want without you having to fear it will take place. There IS the bozo feature, remember? I know exactly what is wrong here and why, and me merely staying and watching it get worse is not a useful and constructive thing to do. I digress to my original post and refuse to even respond to the rest. Yeah, my original post.. the one you did not comprehend, but yet somehow addressed. What IS it that you really want Ferret? You have an equal opportunity to speak. You just want to win, even if it means silencing US with a "referee"!! (Hypocrite leftist attitude) Like all leftists, what you want is not equal opportunity, but preferential treatment, where no such right or duty to give it exists. All of your complaints are strawmen. The name of this forum is FREEDOM 4um. You have no love of Freedom, nor do you wish it restored. I will fight you and yours with every word I can muster, now that you have reinforced your true colors.
I am speechless. Totally speechless. This tells me all I need to know. Great response Indie. We know them by their fruits and the jackboots they adore.
There are no replies to Comment # 94. End Trace Mode for Comment # 94.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest.jpg)
#24. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#12)
#25. To: noone222 (#24)
#38. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#25)
#39. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#38)
In fact, under Hawaiian law, a foreign born child can be registered as a naturalized (but not "natural born") U.S. citizen following application of the parents, (See, Hawaiian law provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. ). Such persons would be eligible to receive a "Certification of Live Birth" from the state, such as the document Obama has proffered. "Naturalized" citizens, such as the Governor of California, cannot hold the office of President.
#47. To: Rotara (#39)
#50. To: Ferret Mike (#47)
#52. To: Lady X (#50)
Sir, you're way out of line here..
#58. To: farmfriend (#52)
(Edited)
"I've seen just as bad posted to him and no one said a word."
#60. To: Ferret Mike, ALL, christine, farmfriend, x-15, lodwick, jethro tull, cynicom, rotara, original_intent, noone222 (#58)
(Edited)
This place has become.....blah blah
In this regard, the diversity of opinion that you laud and extol is too often an opinion diametrically opposed to the very existence of the fact that Liberty has been infringed at all.
And in the cold cruel face of reality and the gravity of the situation with which we are faced, such thoughts, which are considered opposed to the new goal of regaining our lost Liberty, are not allies. This has now become a war of words. And everything and everyone who opposes Liberty is fair game for verbal assault.
You can stay on the right side (there is one) and try to help us find solutions.
You can leave believing that no Liberty is lost, and all is well, and that we here at 4um are the problem, and leave to become a bewildered casualty of the totalitarian war that has already been waged against everything that we know is moral and just. Liberty is in the ICU.
#65. To: IndieTX (#60)
(Edited)
#71. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#65)
(Edited)
Attention: The following deconstruction of the bullshit posted is intended for the masses who did not read my post and the responder.
Your idea of "make it work" is merely your own frustration at being out-debated and verbally torn to shreds with logical arguments.
You are also totally avoiding any point I made in my post and deflecting and dodging all of it. You are trying to create a non issue: That something here "doesn't work." You espouse communist ideals of "level playing fields" and equal results. Not only did you not comprehend my post, you totally disregarded it.
Those who care about Liberty and the ignorant alike are at this very moment being threatened with the most powerful totalitarian machinery in the history of this nation. Do people get emotional about that when you oppose them? Yes. And they should.
Somewhere in there I thought there might be the flickering glimmer of Patrick Henry. It's obvious I had way too much faith in you.
#94. To: IndieTX (#71)
I am here to tell you that the Constitution is there to protect minority positions and groups from the whims and caprice of majorities theey are not part of.
Replies to Comment # 94.