Obama is not my president anymore

[O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and The American Way]

Obama is not my president anymore. He DOES NOT represent the will of
the American people, and that is how the job of the president is
defined:

TO HONOR THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Want proof? Here it is:
American people want government OUT OF THEIR LIVES
American people want LOWER TAXES
American people DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE

On the other hand:
Obama wants HIGHER TAXES
Obama wants government IN EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES
Obama wants GAY MARRIAGE

~~~November 2012...COMING SOON~~~

[Alias]

On 11/23/2011 05:02 PM, O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for

Truth, Justice, and The American Way wrote:
> Obama is not my president anymore.

Yes he is unless you've pledged allegiance to another country and
forfeited your US citizenship. Have you?

> He DOES NOT represent the will of
> the American people,

He represents the intelligent Americans.

> and that is how the job of the president is
> defined:
>
> TO HONOR THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Not all "American People" think the same as you, doofus.

>
> Want proof? Here it is:
> American people want government OUT OF THEIR LIVES

Until they need something like a cop, firefighter, school, hospital,
roads to drive on, bridges to cross rivers, etc.

> American people want LOWER TAXES

The rich are forming a group that wants to be taxed more, liar.

> American people DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE

Bullshit. Only bigots like you think that way.

>
> On the other hand:
> Obama wants HIGHER TAXES

For the rich.

> Obama wants government IN EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong!

> Obama wants GAY MARRIAGE

Of course, only bigots like you don't.

>
> ~~~November 2012...COMING SOON~~~
>

Yep, and you will have to live with four more years of the Obama
presidency.

--
Alias

[Jerry Okamura]

You don't have a choice in the matter....

"O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and The

American Way" wrote in message
news:b778a0cf-20c7-49da...@da3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

[Earl Evleth]

On 23/11/11 18:18, in article IV9zq.32710$Pm3....@newsfe12.iad, "Jerry

Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> You don't have a choice in the matter..

I have two of them.

[O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and The American Way]

On Nov 23, 12:18 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:

> You don't have a choice in the matter....
>

Ah but Mr. Okamura I do have a choice...and so do you...and so does
everyone. This choice is called a "vote" and we will be voting for
someone other than Obama in November 2012. It's looking like Newt
right now, he has the lead among all candidates (including Obama).

[Z...@gmail.com]

I corrected your post. No need to thank me..


>Bush was not my president. He did no represent the will of

>the American people, and that is how the job of the president is
>defined:
>
>TO HONOR THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
>
>Want proof? Here it is:
>American people want government OUT OF THEIR LIVES
>American people want LOWER TAXES
>American people DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE

Except that a majority is now in favor of gay marriage.

[CC2...@gmail.clom]

>> Obama is not my president anymore.

George W. Bush was never my president.

[Jerry Okamura]

"O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and The
American Way" wrote in message

news:7dca6aea-e276-410a...@da3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

Until that happens, he will be the President.... As for Newt, I simply do
not understand, why a republican thinks he is a good choice. I cannot think
of any of the other candidates, who is hated by democrats more. If we want
to pick someone, who would most likely energize democrats more, I would
think that would be Newt.

[O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and The American Way]

On Nov 23, 3:37 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and TheAmerican Way"  wrote in message

Democrats hate every single Republican, regardless of who they are.
But that doesn't matter. The majority of Americans side with
Republicans anyway, so whoever the Republican nominee is in 2012, is
most likely going to be our next president.

[ray]

In article <skkqc790p7n4c31ir...@4ax.com>, Z...@gmail.com
wrote:

Is that why all states who had the issue on the ballot voted it down
during the Bush years?

--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.

[ray]

In article <yQczq.45962$0s1....@newsfe11.iad>,

The more the Democrats hate somebody, the better that person is for the
country. Republicans are not focused on making Democrats happy, they
are focused on making Independents happy.

[PETER SHORTS]

On Nov 23, 6:18 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <skkqc790p7n4c31ir44r9k73h87t4va...@4ax.com>, Z...@gmail.com

i believe he used the word 'now,' not 'during the bush years.' why
don't you trot out some stats from the eisenhower era?

[Alias]

On 11/23/2011 10:23 PM, O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for

Truth, Justice, and The American Way wrote:
> Democrats hate every single Republican, regardless of who they are.
> But that doesn't matter. The majority of Americans side with
> Republicans anyway, so whoever the Republican nominee is in 2012, is
> most likely going to be our next president.

Not gonna happen. Five more years. Live with it.

--
Alias

[Alias]

No, they are focused on making their masters happy: big business and
evangelical churches.

--
Alias

[ray]

In article <4ecd...@news.x-privat.org>,

And where did BIG BUSINESS place their money on last Presidential
election again?

[ray]

In article
<1dedb6e7-ca6d-4a4c...@q11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,

"Now" by who's standard? Some left-wing poll or something?

The last REAL decision on gay marriage was struck down in (I may not
have this figure correct) a dozen states or so. Polls mean nothing
compared to real votes.

[Z...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:18:53 -0500, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:

>In article <skkqc790p7n4c31ir...@4ax.com>, Z...@gmail.com
>wrote:
>
>> I corrected your post. No need to thank me..
>>
>>
>> >Bush was not my president. He did no represent the will of
>> >the American people, and that is how the job of the president is
>> >defined:
>> >
>> >TO HONOR THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
>> >
>> >Want proof? Here it is:
>> >American people want government OUT OF THEIR LIVES
>> >American people want LOWER TAXES
>> >American people DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE
>> Except that a majority is now in favor of gay marriage.
>
>Is that why all states who had the issue on the ballot voted it down
>during the Bush years?

Except that in states like California if the question was on the
ballot today gay marriage would be allowed.

Other states appear to be following suit.

[ray]

In article <i46rc7t8uf7p1ocsb...@4ax.com>, Z...@gmail.com
wrote:

Great! Bring it back to the ballot box again.

[Jerry Okamura]

"Alias" wrote in message news:4ecd...@news.x-privat.org...

That also. After all both parties need to have the support of large groups
of people to win. But democrats do not really want big business to be
unhappy. Bit business has a whole lot of money, and they don't want them to
be contributing big time, for the republicans. And they need the money that
big business makes, because without big business making a ton of money, they
won't collect as much money from big business.

[Jerry Okamura]

"O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and The
American Way" wrote in message

news:071daea6-c414-4464...@gl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

My advice is, don't count your chickens until they are hatched.....

[ray]

In article <Gphzq.35944$Us1....@newsfe16.iad>,

Exactly. It is estimated that DumBama will receive more than one
billion dollars in campaign contributions. How does he manage to
collect that kind of money from the poor and the struggling
middle-class?

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 23, 11:02 am, "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for
Truth, Justice, and The American Way" <accoun...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:

You are absolutely right. Alias is absolutely wrong.

[Tell it like it is.]

The taxes Americans pay make sense. The hole in the bucket is the
Pentagon's budget.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 23, 9:17 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <Gphzq.35944$Us1.11...@newsfe16.iad>,

> Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.  - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Obama was born in Mombassa, Kenya. He is not qualified to be President
on a Constitutional technicality.
About anybody including illegals giving birth in America. I spoke with
a Bosnian immigrant who could not speak english , and her son had to
translate for his mother. He sounded like any other American kid. If
they are born here they are American.

[O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Buck Ofama]

WOW! It's the Thanksgiving Parade. . .

OF DUPES!!!
:D

[SNORDO]

"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2rhzq.40413$v_4....@newsfe21.iad...
:
:
: "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and The

: American Way" wrote in message
: news:071daea6-c414-4464...@gl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
:
: On Nov 23, 3:37 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
: > "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and
: > TheAmerican Way" wrote in message
: >
: > news:7dca6aea-e276-410a...@da3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > On Nov 23, 12:18 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
: > wrote:> You don't have a choice in the matter....

: >
: Democrats hate every single Republican, regardless of who they are.

: But that doesn't matter. The majority of Americans side with
: Republicans anyway, so whoever the Republican nominee is in 2012, is
: most likely going to be our next president.
:
: My advice is, don't count your chickens until they are hatched.....

:

how about the ones who are laying the eggs ?

[SNORDO]

"ray" <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote in message news:jajv4...@news3.newsguy.com...
: In article <yQczq.45962$0s1....@newsfe11.iad>,

:
they are focused on making their wealthy owners happy

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 24, 9:08 am, "SNORDO" <SNOTH...@Teranews.com> wrote:
> "ray" <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:jajv4...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> : In article <yQczq.45962$0s1.40...@newsfe11.iad>,

> : "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> :
> : > "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and The
> : > American Way"  wrote in message
> : >news:7dca6aea-e276-410a...@da3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> : >
> : > On Nov 23, 12:18 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>: > wrote:
>
> : > > You don't have a choice in the matter....
> : > >
> : > Ah but Mr. Okamura I do have a choice...and so do you...and so does
> : > everyone. This choice is called a "vote" and we will be voting for
> : > someone other than Obama in November 2012. It's looking like Newt
> : > right now, he has the lead among all candidates (including Obama).
> : >
> : > Until that happens, he will be the President....  As for Newt, I simply do
> : > not understand, why a republican thinks he is a good choice.  I cannot think
> : > of any of the other candidates, who is hated by democrats more.  If we want
> : > to pick someone, who would most likely energize democrats more, I would
> : > think that would be Newt.
> :
> : The more the Democrats hate somebody, the better that person is for the
> : country.  Republicans are not focused on making Democrats happy, they
> : are focused on making Independents happy.
> :
> they are focused on making their wealthy owners happy

http://www.thepowerhour.com/news4/obama_kenyan_birthcertificate.htm
also,
article II sectionI
http://www.presidentusa.net/qualifications.html

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 23, 11:47 pm, "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Buck Ofama"

Lawyer's talk about the grey areas in the Law. For example, I don't
believe in war, but I believe without an adequate and prepared defense
you will have a war. Life isn't black and white - taxes or no taxes.
Human nature hasn't changed in five thousand years, and it's not
likely to change - ever.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 25, 10:49 am, "Tell it like it is."

> article II  sectionIhttp://www.presidentusa.net/qualifications.html- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

In the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution it would seem reasonable that
the President is an American citizen. Can an American have dual
loyalties?
The birth issue one would think would be to preclude a President whose
allegiance is to a foreign power. Meanwhile we can discuss martian
invaders and illegals, not illegal immigration from Mexico, but from
outer space.

[Tell it like it is.]

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 9:08 am, "SNORDO" <SNOTH...@Teranews.com> wrote:
>
> > > "ray" <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:jajv4...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> > > : In article <yQczq.45962$0s1.40...@newsfe11.iad>,
> > > : "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> > > :
> > > : > "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and The
> > > : > American Way"  wrote in message
> > > : >news:7dca6aea-e276-410a...@da3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> > > : >
> > > : > On Nov 23, 12:18 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>: > wrote:
>
> > > : > > You don't have a choice in the matter....
> > > : > >
> > > : > Ah but Mr. Okamura I do have a choice...and so do you...and so does
> > > : > everyone. This choice is called a "vote" and we will be voting for
> > > : > someone other than Obama in November 2012. It's looking like Newt
> > > : > right now, he has the lead among all candidates (including Obama).
> > > : >
> > > : > Until that happens, he will be the President....  As for Newt, I simply do
> > > : > not understand, why a republican thinks he is a good choice.  I cannot think
> > > : > of any of the other candidates, who is hated by democrats more.  If we want
> > > : > to pick someone, who would most likely energize democrats more, I would
> > > : > think that would be Newt.
> > > :
> > > : The more the Democrats hate somebody, the better that person is for the
> > > : country.  Republicans are not focused on making Democrats happy, they
> > > : are focused on making Independents happy.
> > > :
> > > they are focused on making their wealthy owners happy
>

http://www.thepowerhour.com/news4/obama_kenyan_birth_certificate.htm
also,
article II  section I
http://www.presidentusa.net/qualifications.html-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -

About the birth issue:

In the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution it would seem reasonable that
the President is an American citizen.
Can an American have dual
loyalties?

The birth issue one would think would be to preclude electing a

President whose
allegiance is to a foreign power. Meanwhile we can discuss martian

invaders and illegal aliens, not illegal immigration from Mexico, but
from
outer space.- Hide quoted text -

[Dano]

"Tell it like it is." wrote in message
news:6c199551-a062-4a5f...@u6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

In the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution it would seem reasonable that
the President is an American citizen. Can an American have dual
loyalties?
The birth issue one would think would be to preclude a President whose
allegiance is to a foreign power.

==========================================

This issue has been settled in any sane person's mind quite some time ago.
But I would suggest an addendum to the rule of law. Once a president has
been elected to office...there should not be any further questioning of
citizenship. That should be settled before a candidate is placed on any
ballot. To do otherwise would be to disenfranchise voters and THAT would be
the greatest threat to the legitimacy of the government. Those who can't
understand THAT are supremely lacking in any logic whatsoever.

[Earl Evleth]

On 25/11/11 16:57, in article
efc4f14d-fd49-4f56...@p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Tell it

like it is." <DanielAlbe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> but I believe without an adequate and prepared defense
> you will have a war.

There are exceptions, like Costa Rica

Military of Costa Rica
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


On December 1, 1948, President José Figueres Ferrer of Costa Rica abolished
the military of Costa Rica after victory in the civil war in that year.[1]
In a ceremony in the Cuartel Bellavista, Figueres broke a wall with a mallet
symbolizing the end of Costa Rica's military spirit. In 1949, the abolition
of the military was introduced in Article 12 of the Costa Rican
Constitution.
José Figueres Ferrer breaking a wall of the Cuartel Bellavista symbolizing
the abolition of the Military.

The budget previously dedicated to the military now is dedicated to
security, education and culture; the country maintains Police Guard forces.
The museum Museo Nacional de Costa Rica was placed in the Cuartel Bellavista
as a symbol of commitment to culture.

In 1986, President Oscar Arias Sánchez declared December 1 as the Día de la
Abolición del Ejército (Military abolition day) with Law #8115.

Unlike its neighbours, Costa Rica has not endured a civil war since 1948.

Costa Rica maintains small forces capable of law enforcement and foreign
peacekeeping, but has no permanent standing army.


******

Realistically an national armed force may be necessary to help
carry out foreign policies. But there are situations where they
are not necessary. As Stalin said, remarking on on international
force "How many divisions does the Pope have",

Next the founding fathers were distrustful of a standing Federal army
so depending on the state militias in the case of war. The war of 1812
demonstrated that the militia system did not work well enough for
that conflict so a small standing Federal Army was created. The founding
fathers had to fear of a standing Navy, it appears.

In many countries the army appears to be useful only as a force of
repression, not national defense.

But a world of Costa Ricas seems like an ideal solution. But unrealistic.

I think it also probable that too strong an armed forces leads to
"adventures" except in certain cases. The supposed philosophy of
martial arts is that they are used only in defense, and that aggressive
use of same is against principles. In fact, arrogance is always a problem
in human nature.

[Josh]

On 11/25/2011 11:08 AM, Tell it like it is. wrote:
>
> In the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution it would seem reasonable that
> the President is an American citizen. Can an American have dual
> loyalties?

I don't see where the Constitution says the President can't have dual
loyalties.

[CC2...@gmail.clom]

Right now republican voters are throwing a temper tantrum. They want
Chris Christie to run and they'll threaten to not vote in 2012 unless
he runs. Even though he has said he is not running.

[Tell it like it is.]

Then you're not as bright as this woman:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com

[Dano]

wrote in message news:c7jvc79p9esnfdfil...@4ax.com...

Right now republican voters are throwing a temper tantrum. They want
Chris Christie to run and they'll threaten to not vote in 2012 unless
he runs. Even though he has said he is not running.

==========================

Good. Fine by me.

[tom.ch...@charter.net]

On Nov 25, 10:57 am, "Tell it like it is."

you don't believe in war? how much evidence do you need to be
convinced that war exists?

[Josh]

That's a link asking for a donation. I was hoping for an argument as to
where in the Constitution it says the President can't have dual loyalties.

[Tell it like it is.]

There is a great one hour video showing Dr. Taitz in court testifying
as to whether or not Obama fulfilled the requirement sof law in filing
for a candidacy to the U.s. Presidency. Of course he fulfills the
requirement. he even had Joe Biden his vice president fill out the
forms for him. So the case concluded the Presidency filed as required.
however, Mrs. Taitz was given the hearing time necessary to inform us
of the questionable social security number used and a great deal of
other facts which are OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.
Thankyou, Mrs. Taitz, for the info it's on the tape at your website
above.

[Tell it like it is.]

Article II Section I
U.S. Constitution

[Tell it like it is.]

That's why I believe in defense to fight against those who believe in
war.

[tom.ch...@charter.net]

On Nov 23, 8:01 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <1dedb6e7-ca6d-4a4c-beba-d94b15dd9...@q11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
>  PETER SHORTS <petersh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 6:18 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > In article <skkqc790p7n4c31ir44r9k73h87t4va...@4ax.com>, Z...@gmail.com

> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I corrected your post.  No need to thank me..
>

> > > > >Bush was not my president. He did no represent the will of
> > > > >the American people, and that is how the job of the president is

> > > > >defined:
>
> > > > >TO HONOR THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
>

> > > > >Want proof?  Here it is:
> > > > >American people want government OUT OF THEIR LIVES

> > > > >American people want LOWER TAXES

> > > > >American people DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE

> > > > Except that a majority is now in favor of gay marriage.
>
> > > Is that why all states who had the issue on the ballot voted it down
> > > during the Bush years?
>

> > > --
> > > Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
>

> > i believe he used the word 'now,' not 'during the bush years.'  why
> > don't you trot out some stats from the eisenhower era?
>
> "Now" by who's standard?  Some left-wing poll or something?
>
> The last REAL decision on gay marriage was struck down in (I may not
> have this figure correct) a dozen states or so.  Polls mean nothing
> compared to real votes.

>
> --
> Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.

i believe that a number of states now allow gay marriage. it's a
state issue. and it's not a left-right issue, as i believe both sides
(and those on neither side) have gay members who presumably would like
to marry.

[ray]

In article <c7jvc79p9esnfdfil...@4ax.com>,

CC2...@gmail.clom wrote:

> >> : > Until that happens, he will be the President....  As for Newt, I
> >> : > simply do
> >> : > not understand, why a republican thinks he is a good choice.  I cannot
> >> : > think
> >> : > of any of the other candidates, who is hated by democrats more.  If we
> >> : > want
> >> : > to pick someone, who would most likely energize democrats more, I
> >> : > would
> >> : > think that would be Newt.
> >> :
> >> : The more the Democrats hate somebody, the better that person is for the
> >> : country.  Republicans are not focused on making Democrats happy, they
> >> : are focused on making Independents happy.
> >> :
> >> they are focused on making their wealthy owners happy
> >
> >http://www.thepowerhour.com/news4/obama_kenyan_birthcertificate.htm
> >also,
> >article II sectionI
> >http://www.presidentusa.net/qualifications.html
> Right now republican voters are throwing a temper tantrum. They want
> Chris Christie to run and they'll threaten to not vote in 2012 unless
> he runs. Even though he has said he is not running.

The last time I heard the name Christie, it was when he finally said he
isn't going to run. Who are these Republicans you're talking about that
say they will not vote? If anything, Obama should have that worry since
he's doing such a crappy job.

[curiousd]

Check This Out: relates to intelligence, behavior, and political
party

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/high_iq_liberal_atheist_monogamous_/

[ray]

In article
<82b80afe-131c-44c4...@s7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

tom.ch...@charter.net wrote:

> > > i believe he used the word 'now,' not 'during the bush years.'  why
> > > don't you trot out some stats from the eisenhower era?
> >
> > "Now" by who's standard?  Some left-wing poll or something?
> >
> > The last REAL decision on gay marriage was struck down in (I may not
> > have this figure correct) a dozen states or so.  Polls mean nothing
> > compared to real votes.
> >
> > --
>

> i believe that a number of states now allow gay marriage. it's a
> state issue. and it's not a left-right issue, as i believe both sides
> (and those on neither side) have gay members who presumably would like
> to marry.

I haven't been keeping track on the issue since then, but I also don't
recall any states voting on the matter. They may have been forced into
gay marriage by a court or perhaps legislation, but not by the vote of
the people.

[Dano]

"Tell it like it is." wrote in message
news:ded987e8-42b8-492c...@u5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

=====================================

Yeah. Well...the relative paragraph therein reads: "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;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have
attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States."

Where did you THINK you read that other nonsense? Not a thing about "dual
loyalties", whatever you determine THAT to be.

[Josh]

Care to be a little more specific? How did you get from Article II,
Section I to "can't have dual loyalties"?

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 25, 12:41 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:c7jvc79p9esnfdfil...@4ax.com...

You can't have him as President in a nation of obese people looking
like the Goodyear BLIMP.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:77c16950-afeb-4c5b...@n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

=======================================================================


Orly Taitz, who is not an American but an Israeli is a whackjob and the only
people who listen to her are uber-whackjobs.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:77c16950-afeb-4c5b...@n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

===============[reply]====================

Dr. Orly Taitz is a great American and a genuine patriot!!!

--
Gregory Hall

[Dano]

"Josh" wrote in message news:jaontv$85r$1...@josh.motzarella.org...

================================

He can't of course. He clearly hasn't found anyone to explain the big
words.

[Dano]

"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message news:jaot82$bvf$1...@dont-email.me...

=========================================

She certainly is. One example.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/10/13/judge-lands-hard-on-orly-taitz-esq-itll-cost-her-20000/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog


Judge Land’s hard on Orly Taitz, Esq. It’ll cost her $20,000

11:25 am October 13, 2009, by Jay Bookman


U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land, in Columbus, has come down hard on
birther attorney Orly Taitz, fining her $20,000 for willfully abusing her
right to practice law. I suspect Taitz won’t have that right much longer.
(h/t Washington Independent)

“The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely
negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is
deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to
respect the Court. Counsel’s pattern of conduct conclusively establishes
that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly
violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court’s show cause order is
breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional.”

My only quibble with the good judge is his use of the phrase “borders on
delusional.” This is the full Monty of delusion, and I suppose the poor,
deluded fools who support this woman will rush to defray her fine.

[mario in victoria]

And born in the USSR.
Wonder what means?

mario in victoria
--
dual loyalty, anyone?

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 25, 4:20 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Josh"  wrote in messagenews:jaontv$85r$1...@josh.motzarella.org...

> words.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The reason for birth required in the country is so to preclude a
citizen of a foreign country eg. Israel, becoming President of the
United States.
Dano,
Judge Clay may be black. Don't want to bring a suit
against a black President.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 25, 6:57 pm, mario in victoria <mario5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/25/2011 12:24 PM,  Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Tell it like it is."<DanielAlbertDesfos...@yahoo.com>  wrote in message

> dual loyalty, anyone?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That means she knows what she is talking about. She is not born in
Mombassa, Kenya. Registered five days later in Honnolulu, Hawaii.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 25, 4:31 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Ray O'Hara"  wrote in messagenews:jaot82$bvf$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbertDesfos...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:77c16950-afeb-4c5b...@n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...> On Nov 25, 12:10 pm, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution it would seem reasonable that
> > > > the President is an American citizen. Can an American have dual
> > > > loyalties?
>
> > > I don't see where the Constitution says the President can't have dual
> > > loyalties.
>
> > Then you're not as bright as this woman:
>
> http://www.orlytaitzesq.com
>
> There is a great one hour video showing Dr. Taitz in court testifying
> as to whether or not Obama fulfilled the requirement sof law in filing
> for a candidacy to the U.s. Presidency. Of course he fulfills the
> requirement. he even had Joe Biden his vice president fill out the
> forms for him. So the case concluded the Presidency filed as required.
> however, Mrs. Taitz was given the hearing time necessary to inform us
> of the questionable social security number used and a great deal of
> other facts which are OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.
> Thankyou, Mrs. Taitz, for the info it's on the tape at your website
> above.
>
> =======================================================================
>
> Orly Taitz, who is not an American but an Israeli is a whackjob and the only
> people who listen to her are uber-whackjobs.
>
> =========================================
>
> She certainly is.  One example.
>

> http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/10/13/judge-lands-hard-on-...

>
> Judge Land’s hard on Orly Taitz, Esq. It’ll cost her $20,000
>
> 11:25 am October 13, 2009, by Jay Bookman
>
> U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land, in Columbus, has come down hard on
> birther attorney Orly Taitz, fining her $20,000 for willfully abusing her
> right to practice law. I suspect Taitz won’t have that right much longer.
> (h/t Washington Independent)
>
> “The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely
> negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is
> deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to
> respect the Court. Counsel’s pattern of conduct conclusively establishes
> that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly
> violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court’s show cause order is
> breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional.”
>
> My only quibble with the good judge is his use of the phrase “borders on
> delusional.” This is the full Monty of delusion, and I suppose the poor,
> deluded fools who support this woman will rush to defray her fine.

I believed the woman who was in the news recently claiming and in
detail how an innocent 17 year old pop star knocked her up. Then the
kid appeared on the David Letterman Show saying he had to have his
mouth swabbed out for DNA and never heard of the bitch (raping a
minor).
Poor Orly Taitz. The C.I.A. and F.B.I can't
figure out what happened on 9/11/01. The NSA can't figure it out, and
Henry Kissinger with two security cabinet posts in Nixon's
administration can't figure out Watergate. You're all geniuses.
Everybody believes the guidance system attached to the Boings
malfunctioned on 9/11/01, and Orly Taitz doesn't remember what she
went through to gain American citizenship? and we can't solve the
illegal immigration problem because our bi-partisan Congress is too
busy feathering their own nests to solve crises affecting the entire
country.
Martha Stewart was
jailed for "insider trading" while it is legal in Congress because
they can't be prosecuted for it. That's why half the Congress are
millionaires voting on bills everyday involving corporations in which
they own stock. I believe what the relatives and natives sayin Kenya
said about the President - born in Mombassa registerd five days later
in Honolulu.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 25, 11:29 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Tell it like it is."  wrote in messagenews:6c199551-a062-4a5f...@u6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

>
> In the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution it would seem reasonable that
> the President is an American citizen. Can an American have dual
> loyalties?

> The birth issue one would think would be to preclude a President whose
> allegiance is to a foreign power.
>
> ==========================================
>
> This issue has been settled in any sane person's mind quite some time ago.
> But I would suggest an addendum to the rule of law.  Once a president has
> been elected to office...there should not be any further questioning of
> citizenship.  That should be settled before a candidate is placed on any
> ballot.  To do otherwise would be to disenfranchise voters and THAT would be
> the greatest threat to the legitimacy of the government.  Those who can't
> understand THAT are supremely lacking in any logic whatsoever.

You can't find a judge with the balls to take the case. That's why it
got by the first Presidential election.
Supreme court Justice Roberts isn't interested. The Supreme Court
picks and choose their cases. We recently voted a woman to the Supreme
Court who contradicted Thomas Jefferson's written words and no one
even blinked. Our documents say what isn't explicitly in our founding
documents is left to the discretion of the citizenry and to their
several states. The Supreme Court nominee was voted into office after
saying if it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution those rights
do not exist. That's called SOCIALISM. I'm a Christian not a
socialist. She contradicted Thomas Jefferson and got away with it.
She's a socialist. They don't believe in CHRIST. Believe it or not,
Dano, we are not a secular nation. We merely separate the business of
the Church from the business of the State. A Christian doesn't cease
being a Christian when he walks outside the Church building on Sunday
morning.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 25, 3:19 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You're right. The President is an American citizen, and like the
President who was born in Mombassa and registered by his white mother
five days later in Honolulu, Orly taitz is an American citizen. So she
is in a position to understand what she is talking about and the
seriousness of acquiring LEGAL citizenship..
A few days ago a 17 year old kid was in the news having been accused
of knocking up a woman. Justin Bieber, the pop star, appeared on the
David Letterman Show and said he doesn't know who the hell she is, and
was subjected to a mouth swab for DNA!
I believed her at the time not the kid. Now we find out he's an
innocent kid and she 's a...liar.

[Tell it like it is.]

>
>
>
>
>
> <DanielAlbertDesfos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 9:08 am, "SNORDO" <SNOTH...@Teranews.com> wrote:
>
> > > "ray" <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:jajv4...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> > > : In article <yQczq.45962$0s1.40...@newsfe11.iad>,
> > > : "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> > > :
> > > : > "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate: Republicans are for Truth, Justice, and The
> > > : > American Way"  wrote in message
> > > : >news:7dca6aea-e276-410a...@da3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> > > : >
> > > : > On Nov 23, 12:18 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>: > wrote:
>
> > > : > > You don't have a choice in the matter....
> > > : > >
> > > : > Ah but Mr. Okamura I do have a choice...and so do you...and so does
> > > : > everyone. This choice is called a "vote" and we will be voting for
> > > : > someone other than Obama in November 2012. It's looking like Newt
> > > : > right now, he has the lead among all candidates (including Obama).
> > > : >

> > > : > Until that happens, he will be the President....  As for Newt, I simply do
> > > : > not understand, why a republican thinks he is a good choice.  I cannot think
> > > : > of any of the other candidates, who is hated by democrats more.  If we want
> > > : > to pick someone, who would most likely energize democrats more, I would
> > > : > think that would be Newt.
> > > :
> > > : The more the Democrats hate somebody, the better that person is for the
> > > : country.  Republicans are not focused on making Democrats happy, they
> > > : are focused on making Independents happy.
> > > :
> > > they are focused on making their wealthy owners happy
>
> >http://www.thepowerhour.com/news4/obama_kenyan_birthcertificate.htm
> > also,

> > article II  sectionIhttp://www.presidentusa.net/qualifications.html-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>

> In the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution it would seem reasonable that
> the President is an American citizen. Can an American have dual
> loyalties?

> The birth issue one would think would be to preclude a President whose

> allegiance is to a foreign power. Meanwhile we can discuss martian
> invaders and illegals, not illegal immigration from Mexico, but from
> outer space.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That's a joke, moron.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 25, 3:19 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Orly Taitz has American as well as Israeli citizenship. Henry
Kissinger wants to know what happened at the WaterGate Hotel. The
F.B.I, the N.S.A. and C.I.A. can't figure out 9/11/01, I know some
loyal government employees who can explain everything. The Muslims
dunnit they smarter than the Massad. Incompetence. I'm just glad to
know O'Hara Myers wasn't in Command on 9/11/01 when it happened, and I
mean that.
Nobody is as stupid as all that. The military is about loyalty. They
leave having guts to innocent kids.

[Michael Walker]

On Nov 25, 10:05 pm, "Tell it like it is."

He's Canada's Justin Bieber, and the accusation failed big time
because the kid's Agents are not stupid.

They remember all the shit that happened to the others like him (kid
pop stars), so (it was pointed out reliably) that there is no f**king
way that kid would be allowed to be in the presence of a teenager
alone without an adult.

I can't say that I'm a fan of Justin Bieber, but know this. There is
no f**king way that kid would have a doughnut with a fan without a
freaking chaperone.

[Tell it like it is.]

> to marry.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Nobody believes in gay rights. We all believe in human rights. The gay
issue in my opinion is the right for a fag to walk down the street
without getting his ass kicked by a psycho who thinks he's better than
queers.

[Dano]

"Tell it like it is." wrote in message
news:5c9a1965-7a4e-4eb3...@cu3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

======================================

I'm not even sure what you're talking about now. You made an incorrect
point referencing the US Constitution. That was the reason for MY comment.
Again. It doesn't say what you claimed. Period.

[Dano]

"Tell it like it is." wrote in message

news:5f50cd02-c137-435f...@s7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

================================

You are utterly batshit. Nothing more to see here. So long insane
humanoid.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:54625614-ae20-46b7...@cc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

==========================================================================

I can see why you don't sign your name,
your poor mothwer would die from embarrassment if anybody found out what a
moron you are.

[Josh]

> The reason for birth required in the country is so to preclude a
> citizen of a foreign country eg. Israel, becoming President of the
> United States.

You can be born in the USA and still be a citizen of Israel.

[Tell it like it is.]

> You can be born in the USA and still be a citizen of Israel.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That's true. History keeps repeating itself. In 1936 Catholic Spain
fought to get rid of their Communist Government. The Jewish Blum,
Prime Minister of France, shipped out France's arsenal to help the
Communist Government in Catholic Spain. Catholic France's infantry
defending against N.A.Z.I. Germany at their eastern border had nothing
to cover them. Germany drove their tanks right over the french
infantry[ "a cake walk"]. The whole world watched as Germany's NAZI
Army filed through France's Arc de Triomphe. It was the greatest day
for ADOLF HITLER.
In 1973 the Yom Kippur
war began and Israel received the U.S. arsenal -tanks and all. That
effectively ended the Vietnam war. My stepfather, Ernie Taylor, died
of a heart attack at his desk in 1975 Saigon with red tanks rolling
into Saigon [ renamed Ho Chi Minh City].
Aipac periodically has the
President and others appear before them to assure them of the loyalty
of the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
http://aipac.org

[Josh]

> That's true. History keeps repeating itself.

Why did you change the subject? How about addressing why Article II,
Section I means the President can't have dual loyalties when it is very
possible for a person born in this country to be a citizen of another
country?

> In 1936 Catholic Spain fought to get rid of their Communist Government.

{rest of red herring snipped}

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 25, 11:38 pm, Michael Walker <chaotica...@live.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 10:05 pm, "Tell it like it is."
>
>
>
>
>
> <DanielAlbertDesfos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 4:31 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Ray O'Hara"  wrote in messagenews:jaot82$bvf$1...@dont-email.me...
>

> freaking chaperone.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 26, 12:52 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Tell it like it is."  wrote in messagenews:5f50cd02-c137-435f...@s7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> humanoid.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I walk by a monument every day to a city kid who died in combat at
Hickham Field Hawaii. No one had to tell him they were under attack on
December 7, 1941.

[Tell it like it is.]

> {rest of red herring snipped}- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I was in jail with a Cuban who earned his living trapping red herrings
for a living. he drew a diagram for me of a red herring, and showed me
in another diagram what the traps look like and how they work. the
Herring swims in to get the bait, but can't get back out of the trap.
Somebody was running for office and gave
the state enormous sums of money to build a jail which they din't
need, so New England started sending immigration problems to the jail
to fill the jail. I met a lot of people and listened to their stories.
Including two guys who refused to fight for SADDHAM HUSSEIN, and were
subject to execution if deported. it seems their lawyer took their ten
thousand dollars, and was never heard from again. I brought their case
to the attention of my buddy at the time - a lietenant on the police
department in Brentwood New Hampshire, and I'm sure he saved their
asses by contacting their lawyer.
There is a video in this thread of Mrs. Orly
Taitz in a New Hampshire Court questioning the legitimacy of the
President. The court concluded when Joe Biden regitered for the
President, President Obama fulfilled the requirements for a
Presidential Candidacy. Basically, anyone who shows a SSA Card # and
pays a thousand dollars can run for the office of PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
However, the court told her the court doesn't have jurisdiction as to
his qualifications for the office of the Presidency. but he did
register through his vice president honest Joe Biden.
At least she was able to use the court as a platform for the video and
mention the reasons that one should question eligibility for the
highest office in the land.

[Tell it like it is.]

> {rest of red herring snipped}- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The reason for the requirement, one would think, in the spirit of the
U.S. Constitution, that they wrote the requirement for birth in the
country, is so as to preclude a person of dual loyalties subverting
the Presidency of the United States to a foreign power.
I don't know for sure that you cannot have dual citizenship in the
USA. If that's true, why is Israel an exception?
And, I know, that when the Federal Reserve was created on December 23,
1913, they put in the charter that they may be dissolved at anytime,
then they wrote that they are above Country, Congress, President and
citizens of the USA.
"Give me control of a nation's finances, and I care not who writes her
laws."
- duh!

[Josh]

> The reason for the requirement, one would think, in the spirit of the
> U.S. Constitution, that they wrote the requirement for birth in the
> country, is so as to preclude a person of dual loyalties subverting
> the Presidency of the United States to a foreign power.
> I don't know for sure that you cannot have dual citizenship in the
> USA. If that's true, why is Israel an exception?

You can have dual citizenship in the USA.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"mario in victoria" <mari...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qXVzq.74829$SW4....@newsfe08.iad...

That means, considering how Obama lied about his Kenyan birthplace, that
Orly Taitz can also be president of the United States.

--
Gregory Hall

[Ray O'Hara]

"Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:adb8505c-75a3-404e...@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...

============================================================


only racist loons dispute Obama's birthplace.
yes, I just called you a racists, and no this is not a christian country,

from the Treaty of Tripoli 1797
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen...",

and this signing statement by then President John Adams.
"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of
America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and
every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be
observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I
have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and
require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United
States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe
and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."


so the men who wrote the U.S.Constitution didn't think we were a christian
country, but you know better than them right?
god is a myth like the Easter Bunny and Paul Bunyan.

[eric]

On Nov 26, 8:46 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> only racist loons dispute Obama's birthplace.
> yes, I just called you a racists, and no this is not a christian country,

I'll just go with batshit crazy. Who knows there may be non-racists
who believe Obama was not born in the US.

> from the Treaty of Tripoli 1797
> "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
> sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character
> of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen...",

Interesting reference. All to few people think the Founders of this
country were all Christians, which is of course is not true. Most of
them were deists. The Constittion itself forbids any religious
requirements for service in the US government : "no religious test
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3).

> so the men who wrote the U.S.Constitution didn't think we were a christian
> country,  but you know better than them right?
> god is a myth like the Easter Bunny and Paul Bunyan.

If that were true we would be far better off. Unfortunately god is a
far more destructive myth that either the Easter Bunny or Paul Bunyan.

Example:

The United Nations World Health Organization is engaged in a campaign
the eradicate polio by vaccination. Until recently they had been
successful in eliminating the disease in all but 4 countries,
Pakistan, India, Nigeria and Afghanistan. Unfortunately Nigerian
Islamic fundamentalists have recently been spreading the lie that
polio vaccines are a campaign to sterilize Muslim men, As a result
polio is growing in frequency in Nigeria and is spreading from Nigeria
to other countries, setting back this program.

[eric]

On Nov 25, 1:38 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:

> I haven't been keeping track on the issue since then, but I also don't
> recall any states voting on the matter.  They may have been forced into
> gay marriage by a court or perhaps legislation, but not by the vote of
> the people.

I expect that eventually the Supreme Court will rule on the California
prop 8 case and make laws banning same sex marriage unconstitutional.

It is likely inevitable that same sex marriages will be legal. Over
the past 10 years polls have shown a steady increase in the number of
people supporting same sex marriage rights. Eventually the courts will
realize the government has no business defining what marriage is or is
not. That is a religious question to which the answer varies depending
on the adherence of the participants.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 26, 8:46 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbertDesfos...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:adb8505c-75a3-404e...@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...

> god is a myth like the Easter Bunny and Paul Bunyan.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

God is not a myth, you monkey ( sorry, I couldn't resist that). The
reason the entire nation celebrates Easter and Christmas and not
hunnakuh and the Jewish Passover and or Ramadan is because the
majority rule in a democracy, and the culture, religious or
ortherwise, reflects that majority rule. We are a Christian nation.
Even the 20 million illegals from Mexico are Christians.
I believe in the tooth fairy.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 26, 8:46 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbertDesfos...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:adb8505c-75a3-404e...@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...

> god is a myth like the Easter Bunny and Paul Bunyan.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

God is not a myth, you monkey ( sorry, I couldn't resist that). The
reason the entire nation celebrates Easter and Christmas and not
hunnakuh and the Jewish Passover and or Ramadan is because the
majority rule in a democracy, and the culture, religious or
ortherwise, reflects that majority rule. We are a Christian nation

(not a jewish or Muslim nation) we are majority rule CHRISTIAN. Even

[Tell it like it is.]

A nation has mores and a culture. We are a majority Christian people
and our culture celebrates that majority rule. Get that straight.
The Constitution has no jurisdiction over queers.

[ray]

In article
<b568ea5c-add1-4895...@cc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Except for the fact nobody is banning gay marriage. The law against
same sex marriage only means the state does not have to recognize such
marriage.

I live in Ohio where we voted against SSM. One of my former tenants
decided to go lesbian, found a church that married she and her friend,
and the state of Ohio did not and could not stop the church of their
choice from performing the ceremony. They even adopted two children.

If the Supreme Court rules SSM is protected by the constitution, then
nobody can stop me from marrying one of my cousins or my sister. They
cannot stop me from marrying my daughter. Because if there is such a
ruling, then that ruling would have to mean that states are forced to
recognize any two people who wish to marry, not gays exclusively. If
they do rule gays exclusively, then that would be judicial activism
because the Constitution makes no mention of gay people. Marriage
either applies to heterosexuals only, or to all people.

So the question is, do we really want the SC to go in that direction?

[Josh]

On 11/27/2011 9:18 AM, ray wrote:
>
> If the Supreme Court rules SSM is protected by the constitution, then
> nobody can stop me from marrying one of my cousins or my sister. They
> cannot stop me from marrying my daughter. Because if there is such a
> ruling, then that ruling would have to mean that states are forced to
> recognize any two people who wish to marry, not gays exclusively. If
> they do rule gays exclusively, then that would be judicial activism
> because the Constitution makes no mention of gay people. Marriage
> either applies to heterosexuals only, or to all people.

How did you reach that conclusion? On the one hand, you can't draw the
line at same-sex couples, but on the other you can draw the line at
opposite-sex couples. Why is the latter line constitutionally OK, while
the former line is not?

[ray]

In article <jathpu$ff6$1...@josh.motzarella.org>, Josh <us...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

The truth is that there is no constitutional protection of any marriage
gay or not. Marriage (at the time of the Constitution) was strictly a
religious issue and should still be that way today. As time went on,
government became more active in marriage.

How did I draw the line? Because words have definitions to them. In
the United States, marriage is defined as the legal and religious union
of one man and one woman. It's not a club, it's not a rite. It's the
definition of the word.

So the real issue with SSM is changing the definition and centuries old
tradition of marriage. If citizens of a state decide to do that, I have
no problem with it. But for the Supreme Court to force states to accept
SSM is something I do have a problem with.

[Josh]

On 11/27/2011 10:12 AM, ray wrote:
> In article<jathpu$ff6$1...@josh.motzarella.org>, Josh<us...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2011 9:18 AM, ray wrote:
>>>
>>> If the Supreme Court rules SSM is protected by the constitution, then
>>> nobody can stop me from marrying one of my cousins or my sister. They
>>> cannot stop me from marrying my daughter. Because if there is such a
>>> ruling, then that ruling would have to mean that states are forced to
>>> recognize any two people who wish to marry, not gays exclusively. If
>>> they do rule gays exclusively, then that would be judicial activism
>>> because the Constitution makes no mention of gay people. Marriage
>>> either applies to heterosexuals only, or to all people.
>>
>> How did you reach that conclusion? On the one hand, you can't draw the
>> line at same-sex couples, but on the other you can draw the line at
>> opposite-sex couples. Why is the latter line constitutionally OK, while
>> the former line is not?
>
> The truth is that there is no constitutional protection of any marriage
> gay or not. Marriage (at the time of the Constitution) was strictly a
> religious issue and should still be that way today. As time went on,
> government became more active in marriage.

I understand that argument (no line is permitted). Unfortunately, that
opinion conflicts with binding SCOTUS precedent.

> How did I draw the line? Because words have definitions to them. In
> the United States, marriage is defined as the legal and religious union
> of one man and one woman. It's not a club, it's not a rite. It's the
> definition of the word.

I think you have assumed your conclusion.

[eric]

On Nov 27, 2:50 am, "Tell it like it is."

Nonsense. Lots of people don't celebrate Easter or Christmas. There is
a predominately Jewish town not far from where I live where the public
schools are open on Christmas Day.

[eric]

On Nov 27, 9:18 am, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <b568ea5c-add1-4895-ab4c-3da4bd3ac...@cc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  eric <warth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 1:38 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > I haven't been keeping track on the issue since then, but I also don't
> > > recall any states voting on the matter.  They may have been forced into
> > > gay marriage by a court or perhaps legislation, but not by the vote of
> > > the people.
>
> > I expect that eventually the Supreme Court will rule on the California
> > prop 8 case and make laws banning same sex marriage unconstitutional.
>
> > It is likely inevitable that same sex marriages will be legal. Over
> > the past 10 years polls have shown a steady increase in the number of
> > people supporting same sex marriage rights. Eventually the courts will
> > realize the government has no business defining what marriage is or is
> > not. That is a religious question to which the answer varies depending
> > on the adherence of the participants.
>
> Except for the fact nobody is banning gay marriage.  The law against
> same sex marriage only means the state does not have to recognize such
> marriage.
>
> I live in Ohio where we voted against SSM.  One of my former tenants
> decided to go lesbian, found a church that married she and her friend,
> and the state of Ohio did not and could not stop the church of their
> choice from performing the ceremony.  They even adopted two children.

Yes, and the amendment passed by the residents of Ohio states:

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in
or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions.This state
and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal
status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to
approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of
marriage."

So in fact the marriage or any similar civil union you are discussing
is NOT valid or recognized according to Ohio law. Civil benefits that
are available under Ohio law are not available to the couple you
described. Now if you want to set up a system where civil unions are
the determinant of legal treatment under Ohio law, and marriages are
strictly left to the purview of churches that would be fine with me.

The issue to me is not the word marriage. That to me is a religious
idea in which the state should have no part defining. It is equal
rights.

> If the Supreme Court rules SSM is protected by the constitution, then
> nobody can stop me from marrying one of my cousins or my sister.

That is ridiculous. There are other laws preventing incestuous
marriages. They are not on the table.

>  They
> cannot stop me from marrying my daughter.  Because if there is such a
> ruling, then that ruling would have to mean that states are forced to
> recognize any two people who wish to marry, not gays exclusively.  If
> they do rule gays exclusively, then that would be judicial activism
> because the Constitution makes no mention of gay people.  Marriage
> either applies to heterosexuals only, or to all people.

The Constitution includes a little something known as the 14th
Amendment which includes the equal protection clause.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws."

Since state laws normally provide many benefits to legally established
couples the failure to recognize SSM as valid is a case where equal
protection is not being made available. It is not judicial activism to
recognize that the 14th amendment applies to this. It is as plain as
day.

Personally I believe any law that defines marriage in the US is also a
violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, but that
is a more progressive view that will take time to become a topic for
discussion. Ultimately I think government should concern itself with
civil unions only and leave marriage solely to religious groups.

> So the question is, do we really want the SC to go in that direction?

I think that given the 14th amendment it is inevitable.

[ray]

In article
<ae848589-6d31-420a...@u5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,

This is exactly my point. If the equal protection clause is warranted
for marriage, then it means equal protection for all--not just gay
people. To say that equal protection applies only to gay couples is
judicial activism. No laws can be created against the Constitution,
therefore, incestuous marriages would gave to be stricken from the
books.

If the argument made for SSM are government benefits, then why should my
daughter or cousin be declined of such benefits? When I die, my
daughter can live off my social security since we would be married.

The real solution to the problem is to get government entirely out of
the marriage business. No extras or different laws for married people.

[Anonymous]

"Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbe...@yahoo.com> wrote :

You're a treasonous socialist thug to even say that!

"The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by
ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and,
like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter
it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act
contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then
written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to
limit a power in its own nature illimitable." Thus, the Constitution is
either The Supreme Law of the Land, superceding all other laws, or the
Constitution is a worthless piece of paper. If the latter, government can
do as it pleases. If the former, tyrants have seized sovereignty illegally,
it is the duty of the people to put them in their proper place in history.
- Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall - 1803

Article VI.

2 This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or which shall be made, under
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Anonymous]

Josh <us...@nowhere.com> wrote :

The Constitution doesn't say one word about orientation, but it IS the
supreme law of the land!

Amendment XIV.

1 ***All persons*** born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which

shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[eric]

On Nov 27, 1:47 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <ae848589-6d31-420a-a5dc-6a8b1f34b...@u5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,

> The real solution to the problem is to get government entirely out of
> the marriage business.  No extras or different laws for married people.

I am ok with that.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:6657a406-6e9d-4363...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

============================================================

God is a myth, all gods,
cute stories the ancients thought up in their ignorance to explain why
things go bump in the night.

[Anonymous]

"Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote :

> God is not a myth, you monkey ( sorry, I couldn't resist that).

No proof either way. Sorry, you lose.

> The
> reason the entire nation celebrates Easter and Christmas and not
> hunnakuh and the Jewish Passover and or Ramadan is because the
> majority rule in a democracy, and the culture, religious or
> ortherwise, reflects that majority rule.

So you believe in mob rule democracy instead of our Constitutional
Republic.

> We are a Christian nation
> (not a jewish or Muslim nation)

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."- Thomas
Jefferson, February 10, 1814

"The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the
Christian Religion." - George Washington, The Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find
in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this
coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites;
to support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in
fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ." - Thomas Jefferson

You were sayin'?

> we are majority rule CHRISTIAN.

So you believe in mob rule democracy instead of our Constitutional
Republic.

> Even
> the 20 million illegals from Mexico are Christians.
> I believe in the tooth fairy.

I guess.

[ray]

In article <jaupa...@news2.newsguy.com>,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

[eric]

On Nov 27, 9:11 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <jaupa901...@news2.newsguy.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Anonymous <Anonymous@Anonymous> wrote:
> > "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>  wrote :

It is a great mistake to conflate religion with Christianity as this
video does at the beginning. There is no evidence for it and this
video is making completely unwarranted links between Christianity and
the Founders. While the Founders were generally religious people they
were not in general Christian. Most were in fact Deists.

Such as -

George Washington went to an Anglican church ever day but never
participated in the communion . When Rev. James Abercrombie, rector of
the church that Washington attended, was asked by Rev. Bird Wilson as
to Washington's beliefs, Rev. Abercrombie replied:
"Sir, Washington was a Deist."

Later in a sermon in Oct. 1831, Rev. Bird Wilson said:
"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the
presidents who had thus far been elected not a one had professed a
belief in Christianity...."

The presidents who had been elected by that time were Washington;
Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson. He said our first
seven presidents were not Christian.

Benjamin Franklin once said:
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented
myself from Christian assemblies."

Here's an excerpt from John Adams in a letter to FA Van der Kamp,
December 27, 1816:

"Jesus is benevolence personified, an example for all men. Dupuis has
made no alteration in my opinions of the Christian religion , in its
primitive purity and simplicity, which I have entertained for more
than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it
is the religion of the head and of the heart."

Sounds like he's a Christian but later in the same letter he writes:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation.
But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have
been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made
them the most bloody religion that ever existed? How has it happened
that all the fine arts, architecture, painting, sculpture, statuary,
music , poetry, and oratory, have been prostituted, from the creation
of the world, to the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition
and fraud?"

In the first quote, the phrase "in its primitive purity and
simplicity" means as it was before it was corrupted by superstitions
and actions of the church leaders. Thomas Jefferson had similar ideas
about Christianity. These guys liked the Jesus character to the point
of considering him to be the greatest philosopher who ever lived.

But they disliked the myths surrounding him such as the miracle
stories, supernatural myths (that he was a god) and they greatly
disliked what Christianity became after Jesus' death . They thought
Jesus was a good person but not a god. This is typical of Deistic
thinking of the time, to which several of the founding fathers
subscribed. Deists believe in both a god and reason. They accept the
findings of science . They believe that any and all revealed religions
(Abrahamic) are superstition. They also make spiritual references such
as God, Creator, Divine, Providence, Heaven and nature. Christianity
does not own these kind of references.

[PETER SHORTS]

On Nov 27, 1:47 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <ae848589-6d31-420a-a5dc-6a8b1f34b...@u5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,

the federal government already is out of the marriage business. it's
the anti-gay marriage amendment people who want to pull the government
into it.

[nate]

On Nov 27, 8:48 pm, Anonymous <Anonymous@Anonymous> wrote:
> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>  wrote :

>
> > God is not  a myth, you monkey ( sorry, I couldn't resist that).

....[].....
>
> I guess.

Oh no!
...you missed the correct attribution in your reply, you doofus.

it was

On Nov 27, 2:51 am, "Tell it like it is."
<DanielAlbertDesfos...@yahoo.com> wrote:


get your shit together, Ray O'Hara is on your side of the argument.
and so am i.

- nate, not a Deist yet, nor expecting to become one

[Tell it like it is.]

> On Nov 25, 3:19 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
74949c...@n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.c­om...> On Nov 25, 12:10 pm,

Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution it would seem reasonable that
> > > > > the President is an American citizen. Can an American have dual
> > > > > loyalties?
>
> > > > I don't see where the Constitution says the President can't have dual
> > > > loyalties.
>

> > > Then you're not as bright as this woman:
>
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com
>
> > There is a great one hour video showing Dr. Taitz in court testifying
> > as to whether or not Obama fulfilled the requirement sof law in filing
> > for a candidacy to the U.s. Presidency. Of course he fulfills the
> > requirement. he even had Joe Biden his vice president fill out the
> > forms for him. So the case concluded the Presidency filed as required.
> > however, Mrs. Taitz was given the hearing time necessary to inform us
> > of the questionable social security number used and a great deal of
> > other facts which are OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.
> > Thankyou, Mrs. Taitz, for the info it's on the tape at your website
> > above.
>

> > =======================================================================
>
Orly Taitz, who is not an American but an Israeli is a whackjob and
the only people who listen to her are uber-whackjobs.

Orly Taitz has American as well as Israeli citizenship.
> Kissinger wants to know what happened at the WaterGate Hotel. The
> F.B.I, the N.S.A. and C.I.A. can't figure out 9/11/01, I know some
> loyal government employees who can explain everything. The Muslims
> dunnit they smarter than the Massad. Incompetence. I'm just glad to
> know O'Hara Myers wasn't in Command on 9/11/01 when it happened, and I
> mean that.
> Nobody is as stupid as all that.
The military is about loyalty. They
leave having guts to innocent kids.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyYOo-1w1_o&feature=related

[Ray O'Hara]

"Anonymous" <Anonymous@Anonymous> wrote in message
news:jaupa...@news2.newsguy.com...

dear shitstain. nothing you quoted and replied to was written by me.
learn to post and then go fuck off.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Nov 28, 4:57 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@Anonymous> wrote in message
>
> news:jaupa...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>  wrote :

> learn to post and then go fuck off.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Now i'm gong to show you just how stupid you really are. If I refered
to blacks as niggers and whites as honky crackers you're mind is so
narrow that you call such a person a racist or bigot. Ain't that
right? My niece married a nigger got 4 beautiful nigger kids.
Now let me tell you something else, and I'm no liar.
In skid row in the 70's I watched a black man call
another black man a nigger right to his face, and I learned the
difference. You don't know the difference, and you're like the guy who
jumps because some people can't take a joke.
Barack Obama is an Afro-American in the technical sense. Michelle his
wife is slave ancestry black. Do YOU understand the difference? Don't
answer.
Military is about loyalty. Not brains.