I agree with Charles Kerchner's comment that it would be more representative on the child image to place the Union Jack above the Stars & Stripes image (due to Obama's "Dreams From My Father" - and daddy was a communist, too!).
Thank you - I've noted your 3rd (I think) version of the graphics and they are just improving as you go along.
The poster smrstrauss is one of the Obot Flying Monkeys who posts the same (and other) hypotheticals on many pro-O blogs in case you've not "seen" him before. His intention is to try to obfuscate and confuse the issue - which is one of the mandates in Alinsky's Rules For Radicals.
As the term NBC becomes formally and definitively defined by SCOTUS, it would be their job (and not that of some biased political operative such as smrstrauss) to make such a determination. I believe they will do so as the founders would have done but predicting what that definition might be is not meaningful until such a case is before them - which the Kerchner et al case bids fair to be.
As for existing information, precedent, and law, the poster is misinformed in the extreme since from the historical record - including Supreme Court decisions - it is quite clear that it is the "Vattel definition" that was used by the founders ... which Mr. Obama does not meet according to his own statements.
The man has never shown himself eligible to hold the office he now occupies and until he does he can only be a putative president.
Thank you - I've noted your 3rd (I think) version of the graphics and they are just improving as you go along.
The poster smrstrauss is one of the Obot Flying Monkeys who posts the same (and other) hypotheticals on many pro-O blogs in case you've not "seen" him before. His intention is to try to obfuscate and confuse the issue - which is one of the mandates in Alinsky's Rules For Radicals.
As the term NBC becomes formally and definitively defined by SCOTUS, it would be their job (and not that of some biased political operative such as smrstrauss) to make such a determination. I believe they will do so as the founders would have done but predicting what that definition might be is not meaningful until such a case is before them - which the Kerchner et al case bids fair to be.
As for existing information, precedent, and law, the poster is misinformed in the extreme since from the historical record - including Supreme Court decisions - it is quite clear that it is the "Vattel definition" that was used by the founders ... which Mr. Obama does not meet according to his own statements.
The man has never shown himself eligible to hold the office he now occupies and until he does he can only be a putative president.
Another wonderful graphic, thanx loads!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Charles Kerchner's comment that it would be more representative on the child image to place the Union Jack above the Stars & Stripes image (due to Obama's "Dreams From My Father" - and daddy was a communist, too!).
jayjay,
ReplyDeleteIf you downloaded this graphic, make sure it's the latest revision. I made several changes this morning.
Thanks.
Erica:
ReplyDeleteThank you - I've noted your 3rd (I think) version of the graphics and they are just improving as you go along.
The poster smrstrauss is one of the Obot Flying Monkeys who posts the same (and other) hypotheticals on many pro-O blogs in case you've not "seen" him before. His intention is to try to obfuscate and confuse the issue - which is one of the mandates in Alinsky's Rules For Radicals.
As the term NBC becomes formally and definitively defined by SCOTUS, it would be their job (and not that of some biased political operative such as smrstrauss) to make such a determination. I believe they will do so as the founders would have done but predicting what that definition might be is not meaningful until such a case is before them - which the Kerchner et al case bids fair to be.
As for existing information, precedent, and law, the poster is misinformed in the extreme since from the historical record - including Supreme Court decisions - it is quite clear that it is the "Vattel definition" that was used by the founders ... which Mr. Obama does not meet according to his own statements.
The man has never shown himself eligible to hold the office he now occupies and until he does he can only be a putative president.
Erica:
ReplyDeleteThank you - I've noted your 3rd (I think) version of the graphics and they are just improving as you go along.
The poster smrstrauss is one of the Obot Flying Monkeys who posts the same (and other) hypotheticals on many pro-O blogs in case you've not "seen" him before. His intention is to try to obfuscate and confuse the issue - which is one of the mandates in Alinsky's Rules For Radicals.
As the term NBC becomes formally and definitively defined by SCOTUS, it would be their job (and not that of some biased political operative such as smrstrauss) to make such a determination. I believe they will do so as the founders would have done but predicting what that definition might be is not meaningful until such a case is before them - which the Kerchner et al case bids fair to be.
As for existing information, precedent, and law, the poster is misinformed in the extreme since from the historical record - including Supreme Court decisions - it is quite clear that it is the "Vattel definition" that was used by the founders ... which Mr. Obama does not meet according to his own statements.
The man has never shown himself eligible to hold the office he now occupies and until he does he can only be a putative president.