BREAKING: After Cop Killing, Trump Does What Obama’s Never DARED To Do

[Suzuki Johnny]

Trump Does What Obama’s Never DARED To Do… Media SILENT


(GP) San Antonio Police Department Detective Benjamin Marconi was murdered in an ambush attack on on Sunday while he was sitting in a police vehicle.

31 year-old Otis Tyrone McKane was arrested on Monday in the fatal ambush shooting of Detective Marconi.

President-elect Donald Trump called the Marconi family on Monday.
News 4 San Antonio reported:

The family of slain San Antonio Police Department Detective Benjamin Marconi says President-Elect Donald Trump contacted them Monday to offer his condolences.
Annie Patterson Campos, who identifies herself as a “CSI (Crime Scene Investigator) at San Antonio Police Department” on her Facebook page, shared a post from Detective Benjamin Marconi’s “son” Dane Gregory Marconi. Marconi’s message states “Just got off the phone with the future president Trump, he sends his condolences to our family.”

Obama never did this.
However, obama did send five representatives to robber Michael Brown’s funeral in Ferguson.






http://thetruthdivision.com/2016/11/bre ... ver-dared/

[Designer]

This demonstrates exactly just how LOW A LEVEL The left-wing is today.

Add this to the other left-wingers in the the Thread about the Caliber Of Individuals within the dem-o-CRAP party today.

[VRH]

As you may recall, Trump did say we had to have law and order. It I good to see in action, which side of the law he supports.

[Travlin]

He has done this call before as well. It isn't his first.

Homie the clown in Chief could take a lesson. Not really needed though, we are done with that POS soon emough.

I would like to thank so many who live here for inflicting that POS on our Country for 8 years.

May our enemies cower in terror.

[Herb]

He has done this call before as well. It isn't his first.

Homie the clown in Chief could take a lesson. Not really needed though, we are done with that POS soon emough.

I would like to thank so many who live here for inflicting that POS on our Country for 8 years.

May our enemies cower in terror.

I wish we were done with him, but, I know we are stuck with him being around, stirring shit, and causing problems, for the next 40 years.

He, and his insignificant other, will be al sharpten, jessie jackson, and jimmie carter, all rolled up in a single package.

[BlacktopTravelr]

I wish we were done with him, but, I know we are stuck with him being around, stirring shit, and causing problems, for the next 40 years.

He, and his insignificant other, will be al sharpten, jessie jackson, and jimmie carter, all rolled up in a single package.

Not if Trump does what needs to be done. Obama has used a SS # that does not belong to him. That is ID theft and calls for jail time. He also misrepresented himself as an American citizen and calls for deportation as soon as he has completed the jail time. If we could only be so lucky to have Trump do what the law says to do concerning those two things. Then there is the BS concerning what Hillary has done over the years.

[Herb]

I wish we were done with him, but, I know we are stuck with him being around, stirring shit, and causing problems, for the next 40 years.

He, and his insignificant other, will be al sharpten, jessie jackson, and jimmie carter, all rolled up in a single package.

Not if Trump does what needs to be done. Obama has used a SS # that does not belong to him. That is ID theft and calls for jail time. He also misrepresented himself as an American citizen and calls for deportation as soon as he has completed the jail time. If we could only be so lucky to have Trump do what the law says to do concerning those two things. Then there is the BS concerning what Hillary has done over the years.

As much as I hate to admit it, obama is a US citizen. He is NOT a natural born citizen. So deportation is not an option. While he has committed many crimes, everything from abuse of power, to covering up crimes, to depriving people of their constitutional rights under color of law, I really doubt that anyone could ever get a conviction.

Nope, we are stuck with the SOB, for many years to come. Unless God sees fit to strike him down with either a lightning bolt or a heart attack. Personally, I would like to see him have a debilitating stroke and lose his ability to speak and the control of his muscles.

I am one vindictive SOB.

[Cuban]

Obama never did this...

This demonstrates exactly just how LOW A LEVEL The left-wing is today...

Homie the clown in Chief could take a lesson...

Obama has used a SS # that does not belong to him. That is ID theft and calls for jail time. He also misrepresented himself as an American citizen...

He is NOT a natural born citizen...

So, you boys never heard of Google? Read the next line. Or don't. [emoji2]

[BlacktopTravelr]

Cuban, I get almost if not all of my news form the internet as I don't have a TV and wouldn't believe the evening news anyway. With people like this judge we will never know the truth as he say's there is no need or interest in knowing the truth. Why would a judge decide that we don't need to know if something is genuine or fraudulent? Isn't that why he is a judge to find out and rule on what is true and what isn't? The more I hear and read I lose more and more respect for our legal system. American's no longer care about what is true and what isn't.

The judge, Royce Lamberth, credited Taitz for her dedication to her cause but said that “today is not her lucky day.”

He concluded that there’s no real interest in determining whether the Obama Social Security Number is genuine or fraudulent, arguing that the need for privacy for the president trumps all else.

Excuse me but there is a lot of interest in knowing if his number is really his or not. His privacy does not trump my knowing if he has stolen a SS #.

“The SSA explained that the Privacy Act of 1974 … protects the personal information of social security number holders,” he wrote. “The SSA determined … the plaintiff had identified no public interest that would be served by disclosure.

Just how much public interest does it take to know if the POTUS has committed ID theft?

“Plaintiff makes no secret of her intention to use the redacted Form SS-5 to identify the holder of social security number xxxx-xxx-4425 – or, as plaintiff puts it, to confirm her suspicion that the president is fraudulently using that number,” the judge wrote.

Hey judge, if the president is "fraudulently using that number" then he is committing a crime and should be held accountable for it.

I guess my skin is too thin to be arguing this kind of BS. So I'm going to try my best to not "Tell the truth anymore."

[Herb]

Obama never did this...

This demonstrates exactly just how LOW A LEVEL The left-wing is today...

Homie the clown in Chief could take a lesson...

Obama has used a SS # that does not belong to him. That is ID theft and calls for jail time. He also misrepresented himself as an American citizen...

He is NOT a natural born citizen...

So, you boys never heard of Google? Read the next line. Or don't. [emoji2]

FACT: The constitution actually differentiates between an inhabitant and a natural born citizen.

Fact: The only place that natural born citizen is defined is in Emer de Vattel's "The Law of Nations". A lot of people think that the basis for the USA Constitution was English Common Law, which is wrong.

This is a really good read for anyone that has a desire to learn about where the founders got their ideas about what the country should be and about the freedoms we should have. Those that really care about this country should take the time to read it.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/vatte ... ions-lf-ed

Fact: The definition is for a person born of 2 citizen parents, in the country. Book I, Chap XIX, Para 212, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." (Please note, the plural of parent)

Fact: obama's daddy was a citizen of Great Brittain at the time of obama's birth, he wasn't even an immigrant, he was here on a student visa. Even if he was born in the USA, which can be debated he would not be a natural born citizen, as only one of his parents was a citizen.

There was too much made of the fact that he wasn't born in the USA, because that doesn't really matter in this issue.

A lot of people think that they were referring to English Common Law, HOWEVER, English common law called people born on English soil "subjects of the Crown". The people that wrote the constitution had NO desire to ever be "subjects" again, they had just fought a long and bloody war to win the right to have a government that was "of, for and by the People". Not subjects of another monarch.

For anyone that doesn't want to read all of Vattel's thoughts on the Law of Nations, here is a link to arguments about the constitution, what it says about citizens and why.

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/cat ... n-citizen/

There are 3 ways to read the Constitution.

"1: original intent (yours truly);
2: textualism (the words mean what they mean today not what they meant when our Constitution was drafted & ratified);
3: it’s a living, breathing, evolving Constitution which means whatever the Judges, or whoever has the power, says it means.

Which are you? Think hard about the ramifications of each position before you decide."

[Travlin]

So Cuban
Barry has been calling the families of assassinated LEOs and it just hasn't been reported? I don't recall any in the recent past.

[Designer]

Herb, Traviln,.....do not expect Cuban to respond directly to the FACTUAL TRUTHS you post, nor the questions you ask.

What ALL left-wingers do is a Drive-by shooting-off-of-the-mouth,....then run and hide. [space] Either by more Denial Of REALITY you show them....or just not posting anything after they have been shown WRONG.

I could show him HUNDREDS of examples of how LOW THE left-wing HAS DEGRADED TO in response to his quoting me saying so in his admonishment message above.

All that TRUTH would be ignored as if it wasn't REALLY REAL as he does what left-wingers do allllll the time........Deny Reality.

[Cuban]

Cuban, I get almost if not all of my news form the internet as I don't have a TV and wouldn't believe the evening news anyway...
I guess my skin is too thin to be arguing this kind of BS. So I'm going to try my best to not "Tell the truth anymore."

[emoji2] Well yer not alone John. The issue now commonly referred to as 'Fake News' is pretty damn pervasive these days. It's getting ridiculously hard to separate the chaff from the wheat. (is that the correct expression? I ain't a farmer, eh) There's so much out there, that's it's become friggin' impossible for anyone to fact check all of it... mountains and mountains of BS! lol I can only speak for myself when I say that personally, I choose not to disseminate false information, if I can help it. Think of the children! Oh, and I think yer skin is plenty thick enough... if it's anything like yer head!

FACT: The constitution actually differentiates between an inhabitant and a natural born citizen.

Fact: The only place that natural born citizen is defined is in Emer de Vattel's "The Law of Nations". A lot of people think that the basis for the USA Constitution was English Common Law, which is wrong.

Fact: The definition is for a person born of 2 citizen parents, in the country. Book I, Chap XIX, Para 212, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." (Please note, the plural of parent)

Fact: obama's daddy was a citizen of Great Brittain at the time of obama's birth, he wasn't even an immigrant, he was here on a student visa. Even if he was born in the USA, which can be debated he would not be a natural born citizen, as only one of his parents was a citizen.

There are 3 ways to read the Constitution.

1: original intent (yours truly);
2: textualism (the words mean what they mean today not what they meant when our Constitution was drafted & ratified);
3: it’s a living, breathing, evolving Constitution which means whatever the Judges, or whoever has the power, says it means.

Which are you? Think hard about the ramifications of each position before you decide."

[emoji2] Thanks for that nicely researched and presented reply, Herb. While you may not believe me, I'll just say that I always try to appreciate (and understand) others' point of view, if it's apparent that they have thought them through. It's obvious you have, and so I hafta acknowledge that you're as entitled to your opinion as much as I am mine, and have merely arrived at a different conclusion. That's all that matters, ain't it? That we think about shit we say? We're gonna disagree on the definition (or interpretation) of what, in America, is called a natural born citizen though. You already know that the SCOTUS agrees with my understanding of the term, and is the reason why Barrack Obama is presently, and has been for the last 8 years, your President. (don't know if you were on the old board or not, but I remember a Texan member called Aftershock having a very outspoken passion on this very topic) My comment (quoting yours) stands... and thanks for a civil discourse.

So Cuban
Barry has been calling the families of assassinated LEOs and it just hasn't been reported? I don't recall any in the recent past.

[emoji2] Hi Trav. Can't say how much coverage he's got or not got about this, but yes.

[Herb]

[emoji2] Thanks for that nicely researched and presented reply, Herb. While you may not believe me, I'll just say that I always try to appreciate (and understand) others' point of view, if it's apparent that they have thought them through. It's obvious you have, and so I hafta acknowledge that you're as entitled to your opinion as much as I am mine, and have merely arrived at a different conclusion. That's all that matters, ain't it? That we think about shit we say? We're gonna disagree on the definition (or interpretation) of what, in America, is called a natural born citizen though. You already know that the SCOTUS agrees with my understanding of the term, and is the reason why Barrack Obama is presently, and has been for the last 8 years, your President. (don't know if you were on the old board or not, but I remember a Texan member called Aftershock having a very outspoken passion on this very topic) My comment (quoting yours) stands... and thanks for a civil discourse.

Scotus getting it wrong, is not anything new. The scotus that forces homosexual marriage, abortion, driving people out of business because they won't do something that is against their religion, allows the forcing of a citizen to buy a service (whether they want it or not), upholds "hate speech" laws, and the list goes on and on, does not believe in orginal intent.

"There are 3 ways to read the Constitution.

1: original intent (yours truly);
2: textualism (the words mean what they mean today not what they meant when our Constitution was drafted & ratified);
3: it’s a living, breathing, evolving Constitution which means whatever the Judges, or whoever has the power, says it means.

Which are you? Think hard about the ramifications of each position before you decide."

Like I said, I believe in original intent. I cannot believe that the founders of this country would have EVER agreed that any of the things I listed above (and many, many more) were a good idea.

From reading about early scotus decisions, I don't think the original scotus members would have agreed with them either.

Take the time to re-read the Declaration of Independence, the whole text. Read the list of grievances against the king. See how many of those apply to the actions of our government under obama, and a number of previous presidents.

Keep in mind that I can find some of these same faults in many presidents, it's just that obama has bundled them into a much larger package than any previous offender.

[Cuban]

Scotus getting it wrong, is not anything new...

... From reading about early scotus decisions, I don't think the original scotus members would have agreed with them either.

Well, without getting into a whole big thing over interpretation of the expression, I'll just defer to these guys over at the Harvard Law Review. This is one of the sites I researched before I even quoted you in the first place. Obviously, they should know a good bit more about this topic than me... http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on- ... n-citizen/

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Take the time to re-read the Declaration of Independence, the whole text. Read the list of grievances against the king. See how many of those apply to the actions of our government under obama, and a number of previous presidents.

[emoji2] Can't do it... never read the thing in the first place. lol I don't see how that is relevant to whether President Obama is a natural born citizen or not, though?

Keep in mind that I can find some of these same faults in many presidents, it's just that obama has bundled them into a much larger package than any previous offender.

Again? You're creating a strawman to attack? Let's do a refresher here, Herb. You said: "He is NOT a natural born citizen..." and I implied that a simple Google search would disagree with that statement. That fact remains, it does. My comment (quoting yours) still stands. [emoji2]

[Herb]

Scotus getting it wrong, is not anything new...

... From reading about early scotus decisions, I don't think the original scotus members would have agreed with them either.

Well, without getting into a whole big thing over interpretation of the expression, I'll just defer to these guys over at the Harvard Law Review. This is one of the sites I researched before I even quoted you in the first place. Obviously, they should know a good bit more about this topic than me... http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on- ... n-citizen/

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Take the time to re-read the Declaration of Independence, the whole text. Read the list of grievances against the king. See how many of those apply to the actions of our government under obama, and a number of previous presidents.

[emoji2] Can't do it... never read the thing in the first place. lol I don't see how that is relevant to whether President Obama is a natural born citizen or not, though?

Keep in mind that I can find some of these same faults in many presidents, it's just that obama has bundled them into a much larger package than any previous offender.

Again? You're creating a strawman to attack? Let's do a refresher here, Herb. You said: "He is NOT a natural born citizen..." and I implied that a simple Google search would disagree with that statement. That fact remains, it does. My comment (quoting yours) still stands. [emoji2]

No you implied that he was not a "Natural Born Citizen" under the original intent of the Constitution". I took the time to do a "simple Google search" and found a LOT of information that refutes what you are saying. Here is just one more of those things I found.

https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/natural ... ed-by-law/

"‘No person except a natural-born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President,’ …
Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen? That question is not being asked by anyone in Congress, nor the press nor broadcast media, nor academia. Even though the answer is “No”.
That question has been assumed to have never arisen in any previous Supreme Court case and been adjudicated. But the answer to it has been hidden in a case that’s 135 years old and has now finally been brought to light by Leo Donofrio, Esq. He demonstrates how it clearly answers the question and that that answer indicates that the current President is ineligible for the office.
In it he disproves the common belief that the Supreme Court has never defined who is (and isn’t) a “natural born citizen” -which is required of the President and Vice-President. The resulting conclusion is that Barack Obama is not eligible to be the U.S. President according to the Supreme Court decision in Minor v Happersett.
following is a condensation of an analysis by Leo Donofrio, Esq. posted on his blog Natural Born Citizen http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ in June, 2011"

One other thing to keep in mind, the SC has never heard a case about obama's citizenship status. Every case that has been brought to the courts has been dismissed on the grounds that the people bringing the case did not have "standing". Take the time to do a "simple google search" and read the information presented.

Now, onto some of your other statements.

You have never bothered to read the Declaration of Independence, yet you don't understand HOW it applies to this discussion? Understanding how this country was founded goes a LONG way to understanding how wrong things have gotten to be.

Have you bothered to read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? How about the Federalist Papers? Have you read ANY of the writings of the people that founded this country? Or are you debating with a complete lack of knowledge on the issue, except what you get from the biased lib media talking points?

Sorry dude but you are the one working in strawman arguments, instead of discussing the issue with a knowledge of the subject.