3 Responses to “”

1. Alexander Gofen
   October 5th, 2016 @ 10:20 pm

   Even this surely decent person Mr. Wiley Drake (or the author of the article) obfuscate and confuse the readers with their phrase: “first surfacing questions about whether or not President Obama was born in the United States”. Wrong! First surfacing question ought to be a non-question that Obama officially presented himself as being born to a never US citizen Obama-senior!

   The birther issue is a way bigger than a questionable birth place of the impostor because it begins with a confusion of the concept US Natural Born (never questioned before the 2008 imposture)!

   The 2008 Senate Resolution 511 on McCain happened to be a huge “blunder” because inadvertently it “leaked” the true Law of Nation’s definition of the “Natural born” as “born to citizen parents on the soil.”

   Just as crook Cruz leaked it during his senatorial campaign.

   Just as the “first birther” Obama did in polemics with Dr. Keyes in 2006 on his own, acknowledging of not being a natural born, but so what? For the senatorial campaign it was not required. Obama (whoever he really is) officially is NOT born to two citizen parents! And Dr. Keyes must well remember his interview, and the 2008 Res. 511.

   And only then follow other acts of plain criminality such as the 2011 “paint art” birth certificate (a 3 dollar bill), the stolen SS#, and the suspicious death of Ms. Fuddy of Hawaii in 2013 (which hand delivered the 3 dollar bill in 2011).

2. Larry
   October 6th, 2016 @ 6:33 am

   Not Hillary or Drake or Alan Keyes are the first “birthers”, rather Obama’s literary agent is and, do you really think, it was done without Obama’s blessing? Was it a lie then or is it now? It’s always about the money folks, always! Even the liberal Snopes (and we know who controls them) agrees the booklet came first https://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp

   Honestly, a careful reading of “This Constitution for the United States of America” https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html proves there are no qualifications required for the “Office President of the United States”. Check where that office first occurs in that deceitful (yes, I said it, and it causes me great despair to think much less say it though the proof is everywhere) document and the oath thereof. Now check where the “President of the United States of America” first appears. Was there a President of the United States of America prior to that constitution?

   Most of those at the convention were lawyers https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html for Christ sake and the rest were not novices at such writings “The group, as a whole, had extensive political experience.”! Do you really believe they didn’t know the difference? Words and terms (such as United States of America vs United States) and their definitions (many have multiple definitions so you must consider which to use) have a huge impact on the meaning of all documents but even more so legal ones. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

   Have a great day

3. Frank_O'Pinion
   October 6th, 2016 @ 7:07 am

   SBC article is all over the wall like a shotgun blast with no direction.

   KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).

   A natural born U.S. citizen is an individual born on U.S. soil to two (2) U.S. citizen parents. Any other variations are contrary to the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

Leave a Reply