8 Responses to “please, send this moron all my pleadings from Taitz v Astrue, confront him on camera and demand action”

1. speedy
   June 13th, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

   What a lying idiot. I can’t believe he said that that forgery is legal and it was checked by snopes, factcheck, politifact and the media??? What? Oh, really reliable sources. That man really needs to get a clue. That was found to be a forgery by many people. Even a 5th grader can see it’s a forgery. He really needs to get a clue. How many people have a misspelling in a stamp and all those different letters and fonts and a smiley face on the registrar’s name? That is not legal. Bo should be behind bars for defrauding the American people and the world with that poor excuse of a fake LFBC.

2. speedy
   June 13th, 2011 @ 1:00 pm

   By the way, would he be willing to testify that pack of lies in court? He would commit perjury. They think they could get away with those lies. Since when is someone NBC just by being born on the soil? Bo is a dual citizen at best. I think that Bennett is now guilty of obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting in fraud. He should be arrested for lying to the woman who wrote that letter.

3. Linda
   June 13th, 2011 @ 3:23 pm

   You sir are without a doubt a moron!!

   What we are asking for is an investigation into the matter.

   Those birth certificates obama provided were FAKE. Any moron can see that. If here were a legally sitting president than we would have to accept the fact that he is trampling our constitution (which you by the way swore to uphold) trashing our country and turning it into a communist, islamic country and that we brought it upon ourselves for electing this usuper. But we can not accept it because he is not even american.

   “We the people are going to make it our business to see that people like you are not elected again” Good luck finding a job.

   The blood of the American people will be on your hands. May God have mercy on you.

4. tina
   June 13th, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

   Bennett is guilty,just like the rest of the RINOS,justice is sweet and it is coming.

5. John
   June 13th, 2011 @ 6:29 pm

   Careful with those threats of violence, Linda – Orly is very sensitive about that.

6. Veritas
   June 13th, 2011 @ 8:15 pm

   How did this person get elected if he only regurgitates talking points out of the Obama camp without following pending court cases, affidavits, etc.?

   Perhaps he would like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? Typical of the mediocrity (OR WORSE) in D.C!

7. Anonymous
   June 15th, 2011 @ 8:13 am

   It’s clear none of you idiots would even believe Jesus if he came back. You would crucify him all over again.

8. Jon
   June 17th, 2011 @ 7:56 am

   It seems there are senators who don’t know their own constitution?… Maybe this senator should read this below, which explains what a natural born citizen, as defined by the constitution, really is…

   “EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:
   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;

   EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:
   The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

   Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

   EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
   The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

   Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel.”

   “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution).

   The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native-born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct. (Native born is NOT natural born)

   In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen,” and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett.

   Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168
   “‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

Leave a Reply