8 comments:

Anonymous said...[Reply]

CNN is clearly protecting Obama on many fronts!!

October 22, 2011 3:38 PM

Anonymous said...[Reply]

CNN

Commie News Network

October 22, 2011 4:31 PM

Mairi said...[Reply]

My response to CNN follows:
"When we first started cable TV service MANY years ago, CNN was "The Most Trusted Name in News". I quit watching you in 2008 when you began your lies and cover-up about the criminal fraud usurping OUR White House.
There have been numerous videos posted across Patriot sites that prove you are just "useful idiots" for this fraud. That's fine. You may have your reasons to want to be on the usurper-in-chief's side, but just remember this, once you are found to be liars and dishonest, it is virtually impossible to ever gain back the trust and respect of others.
Telling your lies over and over again has not made them truth, nor will they ever become the truth. You have done many a disservice including yourselves. I know I will NEVER trust you again. There are people across this land that have, and KNOW the truth, the numbers grow daily. Soon, I guesstimate that CNN will end up on the dust heap of history. A news outlet that had a great idea in the beginning, and then fell prey to political ideology and expediency. You won't be missed."

October 22, 2011 5:50 PM

Anonymous said...[Reply]

IMHO FOX News' reporting on the birthers has been even more dispicable than CNN's simply because we birthers believed FOX News' was on our side.

RacerJim

October 23, 2011 7:55 AM

Anonymous said...[Reply]

HELP us U.S. military stand up and own up to your Oaths remove the Usurper from the White House...Protect "OUR" country.....
I am losing faith in our military

October 23, 2011 12:09 PM

Anonymous said...[Reply]

When do you dupes of the MSM get it? ARe you so hardened to truth that you can't recognize it when it stares you in the face, hits you across the side of your head with a 2 x 4 and screams at the top of its lungs?

October 23, 2011 2:24 PM

AR925 said...[Reply]

@AnonymousFret not, our Military Veterans are on the case!

http://www.standupamericaus.org/politics-washington-dc/veterans-day-march-the-oath-and-a-call-to-action/

October 24, 2011 9:57 PM

Anonymous said...[Reply]

Confusion reigns over eligibility issue

There's a brand-new "birther" in town, the media would like you to know.

It's Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who suggested in an interview he's not sure if he has seen Barack Obama's real birth certificate – yet, he adds, has no reason to doubt his birth story.

Why are the media so determined to smoke out high-profile skeptics on the issue of Obama's truthfulness about his birth narrative?

Very simple.

Because the Big Media are engaged in a classic disinformation campaign to intimidate anyone who is serious about the Constitution and its requirements for the office of the presidency – or, for that matter, what the Constitution says about anything.

Any serious debate about Obama's eligibility should have ended a long time ago. He's not eligible. It matters not where he was born – which, ironically, is still very much in doubt. What matters is that he was not born of parents who were American citizens at the time. That's what "natural born citizen" means. It does not mean "born in the USA," much as Obama and his protectors in the media would like you to think.

Not only do the media activists attempt to obscure the clear meaning of the Constitution in their breathless assertion that anyone born in the USA is "natural born," they also, I believe, seek to attack at its root the reliance on "original intent," which couldn't be clearer.

Keep in mind, the American colonies were just that – colonies of the British crown. Prior to the Magna Carta, natural born subjects were those born under the jurisdiction of the king. But that definition changed with the Magna Carta and the British Nationality Act of 1772, which declared that children born of British subjects outside the jurisdiction of the crown be natural born subjects. That would thus be the undeniable interpretation of the framers of the Constitution – substituting only the word "citizen" for "subject."

To underscore this point, the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, passed just one year after the Constitution was ratified, defined minor children of aliens as U.S. citizens only upon naturalization of the father.

"Natural Born Citizen" was defined by an 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v. Happersett) as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

This legal principle was restated, ironically, in 2008 by the U.S. Senate in confronting concerns over the eligibility of presidential candidate John McCain. The U.S. Senate resolved by a 99-0 vote, which included one cast by Obama himself, that McCain was indeed eligible because both his parents were U.S. citizens. It mattered not that he was born in Panama. It wasn't even an issue.

Neither does it need to be an issue of where Obama was born.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=360085

October 25, 2011 6:08 PM