What could go wrong?
I remember a movie from 1969 named “100 Rifles”. Burt Reynolds plays Yaqui Joe, an Indian who robs a bank in order to buy guns for his people who are being savagely repressed by the government. Set in turn of the century Mexico, it tells the story of his flight into Mexico and his pursuit by an American lawman. They eventually become allies and team up with Raquel Welch to take up the cause of the Indians.
The funny thing about this movie is that it is the perfect doppelganger to the Fast and Furious Operation that was recently perpetrated by the DOJ and BATFE. How so, you say? Let’s rewrite the script a little, well, ok, a lot!
Yaqui Joe, played by Eric Holder, a rebel leader robs the government to pay for illegal guns for the rebels of another country who are savagely suppressing their own government and murdering Yaqui Joe’s own people without fear of prosecution. Set in “turn of the modern century” Mexico and the US, it tells the story of the fight against him and the cover-up initiated by those under his supervision, and the struggle of one lawman, Darryl Issa, to bring them all to justice. It is eventually learned that the President has long been allied with Yaqui Joe, and the two team up with DOJ official Patrick Cunningham to plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating themselves in response to a bevy of subpoenas House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa has served on them that will compel them to appear before Congress about Fast and Furious.
Read the rest here: What could go wrong in a second Obama presidential term?
Permalink Reply by Walter Bowen on "SEVERE TOTAL STUPID LUNACY!" is what will go wrong with another term of prez bam obozo odumdo obummer obamy the "Vulture Socialist! Things will go so wrong he will declare Martial Law and eventually instate himself as permanent prez! We will be turned over to United Nation's Sovereignty under Agenda 21(funny thing here The Senate has not voted on these "TREATIES" yet.)--------****** So people lets not forget about winning a Republican filibuster proof Senate in 2012!************
Oh look for prez bam obozo odumbo obummer obamy to try this during the 2012 Elections so that he retains his Majority Senate! Or do you think that Governor of that state was not serious! and Oh!--OH! He must appear in A Geogia Court Room on the 26th to prove he is "NATURAL BORN" and elgible to hold the Office of the President or his name cannot be certified to be put on any "Ballot" in Novemder. How is prez bam going to get out of this!---Hold on to your shorts people!----You may lose them altogether after this wild ride.
Permalink Reply by John S Bacsenko IV on Speaking of movies.......THIS channel in Philadelphia just ran the film 1984........funny how O'Brian and Obama sound alike?
Permalink Reply by Bobby C on Just so everyone has the evidence that Obama is not a natural born citizen....based on a Supreme court ruling.
OBAMA'S FATHER WAS BORN IN KENYA AND WAS A BRITISH citizen.
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162
OCTOBER, 1874, Term
This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
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. 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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
That exchange led me to Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
In the decision in section IV, the statutes culminating in 301 merit review. They list seven statutes to review to apply to the case, beginning with the the 1790 Naturalization Act which was repealed in 1795:
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…
The language the Supreme Court used to apply to the case also appears in the 1795 statute:
That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on Well, then, there you go!
If neither his father nor his step father were citizens, he cannot possibly be qualified.
Permalink Reply by Dennis Poulsen on What happened to the TEA party I know and love? Anyone out there who loves America and the Constitution?
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on It sure isn't Romney! He doesn't believe in America enough to keep his money here...
Permalink Reply by Matt Maness on We all got screwed by him in his first time, I guess we all will get the shaft on his 2nd term.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
