” Now, here we have a President who swore an oath that he was qualified to be president, and yet he refuses to allow the American People to verify the veracity of that claim and his refusal has cost him a million dollars.
Is this a case of perjury? President Clinton was impeached for perjury.
The media used to howl about the “public’s right to know” yet remain silent here.
Many good conservatives are telling the disclosurists to shut up, to stifle themselves (you gotta love Archie Bunker) in a manner almost identical to the Obama Administration, which is demanding silence from critics. Now, I’m not impugning their motives, but I am saying they are wrong to attempt this; it suggests an embarrassment, a sense that, yes, we are a bunch of kooks who are trying to keep quiet lest the general public get wise. But this is about more than just politics (though it is a solid political weapon); this is about the rule of law.
We heard much about the rule of law during the Clinton impeachment. The whole reason the House went forward was to uphold the rule of law. The Constitution lays out the qualifications for office holders, and Congress codifies those qualifications. One qualification is that a person must be either born here, or be born to citizens. In the case of Obama the law at that time specified that a woman could not pass on her citizenship if the father was a non-citizen and the child was born overseas, if she had not reached the age of majority. Under U.S. law at that time Barack Obama would not be a citizen, since his mother was only 18 IF he was born in Kenya something his maternal grandmother has claimed. Oh, and Obama was a dual citizen of both Kenya and the U.S., a point he neglected to tell the American voters.”
and they know it