MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Already passed on hearing the case so you already know where they stand without even looking at the evidence.
THE MOST IMPORTANT CASE IN THE HISTORY OF THESE UNITED STATES, IMHO.
THE Obama lawsuit to follow
- Thread starter MonsterMark
- Start date
THE MOST IMPORTANT CASE IN THE HISTORY OF THESE UNITED STATES, IMHO.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Shag - I believe the grandfather clause had to do with the fact that all the founding fathers were not only British citizens, but also born on British soil... The US was considered British soil until after the war.
As defined in law natural born citizen has no caveats, nothing that regards parentage, you ONLY have to be born on US soil - and it would have to be a pretty active court that would read anything else into the law.
The grandfather clause ceased to be regarded as soon as the 'grandfathering' took place. Once men who were eligible to be president by virtue of being born on US soil, there isn't any need to revisit that part of the constitution, it was only applicable to the framers. The framers would have added the words "and born of US citizens" if that what they had meant. It is pretty obvious they didn't think that little footnote was necessary to be President.
I thought you were pretty much against the court taking such an active stance.
How is that not in line with what I said?
Actually, as defined in law, natural born citizen is more specific. You are oversimplifying it. Just because someone is born in the U.S. does not make them, by the legal definition, a natural born citizen. the best argument against that is still illogical; basically citing the 14th amendment. It says, "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. . .", but no where in the text of the 14th amendment does it use the phrase "natural born citizen", so weather or not being born in the U.S. qualifies one as a "natural born citizen" under the legal definition is unclear at best and any claim that it does qualify one as a "natural born citizen" is a huge logical leap and a more based on speculation and assumption then in fact.
It is clearly a constitutional question that the Supreme Court should answer. If the court were to choose to hear this case, it would in no way be "activism" as you are trying to claim. It would be the court doing it's job; constitutional interpretation. That would be clarifying this aspect which is very unclear. there is nothing "activist" about it.
However, even if the court does take the case, I doubt the majority will look at it honestly and objectively. The potential swing vote (Souter) has already rejected the case. Frankly, if it goes to trial, he should recuse himself. Instead, his would most likely be the deciding vote.
I would go further and say he is being willingly dishonest here. So, in order to "play nice" with the mainstream, he is sacrificing his integrity and looks a lot like McCain or many of the other RINO's.
Change They Can Litigate
The fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president.
By David WeigelPosted Thursday, Dec. 4, 2008, at 4:25 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2206033/pagenum/all/#p2
President-elect Barack Obama If you want to stop Barack Obama from becoming president, there's still time. But you have to act right now. Go to RallyCongress.com, and you can be the 126,000th-odd American to demand "proof of citizenship" from the president-elect. Follow the instructions at WeMustBeHeard.com, and you can join a sit-in outside the Supreme Court of the United States, starting at 8 a.m. Friday, as the justices decide whether to consider a suit filed by a professional poker player that challenges the presidential eligibility of Obama, John McCain, and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero.
Can't make it to Washington, D.C.? Too bad—you missed your chance to FedEx a letter to the justices for only $10, sponsored by the venerable right-wing site (and Chuck Norris column outlet) WorldNetDaily. "There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public," writes WND Editor Joseph Farah, "that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities."
Widespread? Rapidly growing? Who are these people? They're engaging in a new American political tradition: the quadrennial early-winter attempt to overturn presidential results by any means necessary.
It started, as all election madness seemed to, in 2000. As soon as it became clear that Al Gore had won the popular vote but might lose Florida's electoral votes, some liberal writers and activists argued for a constitutional path to victory: convince three Electoral College voters pledged to George W. Bush to switch their votes to Gore. The challenges lasted past the December Electoral College vote and into the January 2001 certification ceremony before a joint session of Congress, when members of the Congressional Black Caucus objected to the vote. They got nowhere because they needed a sponsor from the Senate to make it official. In 2005—after Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 made the 2001 protest famous—Sen. Barbara Boxer of California objected to the Ohio vote count, and the chambers divided for debate. Bush won anyway.
If you thought Barack Obama's clear rout over John McCain meant we'd be spared a third Electoral College melodrama—well, think again. This time, the argument is not over votes. It's over Obama's citizenship.
Thanks to the increased simplicity of online organizing and coverage in talk radio and fringe political Web sites, the citizenship crusaders have grown numerous enough to irritate people at every level of the presidential vote certification process. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the people questioning Obama's citizenship are hitting electors as hard as the Gore activists ever did. Go to AmericaMustKnow.com, and you, too, can contact one of the 538 electors at his or her home address after you read up on the latest doomed lawsuit.
How did the citizenship rumor get started? Ironically, it began when the Obama campaign tried to debunk some other conspiracies. After Obama locked up the nomination in early June, low-level talk radio and blog chatter peddled rumors that Obama's real middle name was Muhammad, that his father was not really Barack Obama, and that he was not really born in Hawaii. The campaign released a facsimile of Obama's certificate of live birth. Requested from the state in 2007, the certificate reported that Obama was, indeed, born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961.
The certificate was a bullet that didn't put down the horse. Why, skeptics asked, release a new form from Hawaii instead of the original paper that Obama's parents got in 1961—the one that Obama found in a box of his dad's knickknacks in Dreams From My Father? They quickly came up with an explanation: The certificate was forged. Anonymous digital image experts with handles like Techdude and Polarik sprung from the woodwork to prove (shades of Rathergate!) that pixels, spacing, and indentation on the form indicated that the Obama campaign had created the certificate with Adobe Photoshop. The state of Hawaii's official statement that the certificate was legitimate didn't make a dent—after all, who is Registrar of Vital Statistics Alvin Onaka to argue with Techdude?
This "forgery" became an article of faith in the Obama conspiracy community. When a Hillary Clinton supporter found a birth announcement for Obama from the Aug. 13, 1961, edition of the Honolulu Advertiser, the theorists were unbowed: After all, the Obama family could have phoned that in from Kenya. When Pennsylvania lawyer Philip J. Berg filed the first birth-related injunction against Obama this August, asking that Obama be ruled "ineligible to run for United States Office of the President," he alleged that the certificate had been proved a forgery by the "extensive Forensic testing" of anonymous experts and claimed that Obama's campaign had simply inserted his name over that of his half-sister, Maya. That would have been quite a trick, as Maya Soetoro-Ng was actually born in Indonesia.
Berg's involvement in the movement—and his self-promotion, which has included a radio interview with Michael Savage and a full-page ad in the Washington Times—is probably a net loss for all concerned. Berg's last big lawsuits were filed in 2003 and 2004 on behalf of 9/11 skeptics that sought to uncover the Bush administration's complicity in the attacks. "There's been many fires in many buildings before, and even after," Berg said in a 2007 interview. "Concrete and steel buildings do not fall down from fires." Berg did not respond to my request for an interview, but if you call his office, you can press "2" for more information on "the 9/11 case."
None of that stopped Berg from stoking the conspiracy theorists. On Oct. 16, an Anabaptist minister named Ron McRae called Sarah Hussein Obama, the president-elect's 86-year-old paternal step-grandmother, at her home in Kenya. Two translators were on the line when McRae asked if the elder Obama was "present" when the president-elect was born. One of the translators says "yes." McRae contacted Berg and gave him a partial transcript of the call with a signed affidavit. He opted not to include the rest of the call, in which he asks the question more directly—"Was he born in Mombassa?"—and the translators, finally understanding him, tell him repeatedly that the president-elect was born in Hawaii.
The Hawaiian documentation, the 1961 newspaper announcement, the phony evidence from Sarah Obama—all of that aside, the idea that Obama wasn't born in Honolulu goes against everything we know about his rather well-documented life. Barack Obama Sr. came to America as part of a 1959 program for Kenyan students—he did not return home until 1965, years after he left his wife and son. Ann Dunham was three months pregnant when she married Obama Sr. and 18 years old when she gave birth. There is no record of Dunham ever traveling to Kenya, much less the year after the Mau Mau rebellion ended, when she was pregnant and when she had no disposable income to speak of. "Ann's mother would have gone ballistic if her daughter had even mentioned traveling to Kenya in the final stages of pregnancy," says David Mendell, author of the biography Obama: From Promise to Power.
Reached by phone, Ron McRae doesn't claim to know when or how Dunham got to Kenya, only that she gave birth in a Third World country because "she didn't want to take a chance on that flight back" and that "everyone in Kenya" knows this. If so, they've kept it a pretty solid secret from the international reporters who've visited the country since Obama rose to prominence. But the story is good enough for Gary Kreep, the conservative head of the United States Justice Foundation, who filed suit against Obama on behalf of Alan Keyes, the unstoppable fringe candidate who was on the ballot in California on the American Independent Party ticket. "If he's got nothing to hide," says Kreep, "why not give us access?"
That's the same argument made by Bob Schultz, the founder of the paleoconservative We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education. On Monday and Wednesday, Schultz gave the Obama conspiracy its biggest burst of attention—at least since Rush Limbaugh speculated that this was the real reason Obama visited his dying grandmother—by purchasing full-page ads in the Chicago Tribune. In the "open letters" to Obama, Schultz asserts that Obama's certificate of live birth is "forged," that his "grandmother is record[ed] on tape saying she attended your birth in Kenya," and that Obama would have lost his citizenship anyway when Ann Dunham married her second, Indonesian husband, Lolo Soetoro. (Lou Dobbs would be delighted to discover that the 14th Amendment can be nullified so easily.)
Schultz has asked Obama to allow forensic investigators to inspect Obama's files in Hawaii's Department of State. "Have one guy go in and do his thing," explains Schultz. "Have another guy go in, do his thing, put the certificate back in the envelope. These are scientists. They should all come to the same conclusion."
If Obama doesn't submit to the investigation—and so far, Obama and Democratic National Committee lawyers have ignored or waited for dismissal of the lawsuits and complaints—Schultz will go ahead and send packages of the key anti-Obama complaints to every Electoral College voter. "They're going to be warned that if they go ahead and cast their votes for Mr. Obama, then they've committed treason to the Constitution," Schultz told me on Wednesday.
Schultz, like every Obama-citizenship skeptic, is watching the Supreme Court on Friday and Monday to see whether it will decide to hear Leo Donofrio's lawsuit. "They should at least delay the Electoral College vote," suggests Schultz. More likely, the justices will consider the lawsuit—which claims that Obama Sr. made his son a dual citizen of the British Empire and thus ineligible for the presidency—frivolous, decide that Donofrio lacked the standing to sue Obama anyway, and move on.
How much further will the fight to de-certify Obama go? It won't stop if the Electoral College votes for Obama, as the skeptics will try to get a congressman or senator to officially challenge the result. Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah was willing to believe that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father, so the skeptics might have a chance.
And if every vote certification goes off without a hitch and Obama is inaugurated on Jan. 20? Gary Kreep is ready for that.
"When Obama starts signing executive orders and legislation," Kreep says, "I'll be filing lawsuits unless and until he proves he's an American citizen. Some judge, someday, is going to want this proved on the merits. You can run, but you can't hide."
The fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president.
By David WeigelPosted Thursday, Dec. 4, 2008, at 4:25 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2206033/pagenum/all/#p2
Can't make it to Washington, D.C.? Too bad—you missed your chance to FedEx a letter to the justices for only $10, sponsored by the venerable right-wing site (and Chuck Norris column outlet) WorldNetDaily. "There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public," writes WND Editor Joseph Farah, "that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities."
Widespread? Rapidly growing? Who are these people? They're engaging in a new American political tradition: the quadrennial early-winter attempt to overturn presidential results by any means necessary.
It started, as all election madness seemed to, in 2000. As soon as it became clear that Al Gore had won the popular vote but might lose Florida's electoral votes, some liberal writers and activists argued for a constitutional path to victory: convince three Electoral College voters pledged to George W. Bush to switch their votes to Gore. The challenges lasted past the December Electoral College vote and into the January 2001 certification ceremony before a joint session of Congress, when members of the Congressional Black Caucus objected to the vote. They got nowhere because they needed a sponsor from the Senate to make it official. In 2005—after Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 made the 2001 protest famous—Sen. Barbara Boxer of California objected to the Ohio vote count, and the chambers divided for debate. Bush won anyway.
If you thought Barack Obama's clear rout over John McCain meant we'd be spared a third Electoral College melodrama—well, think again. This time, the argument is not over votes. It's over Obama's citizenship.
Thanks to the increased simplicity of online organizing and coverage in talk radio and fringe political Web sites, the citizenship crusaders have grown numerous enough to irritate people at every level of the presidential vote certification process. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the people questioning Obama's citizenship are hitting electors as hard as the Gore activists ever did. Go to AmericaMustKnow.com, and you, too, can contact one of the 538 electors at his or her home address after you read up on the latest doomed lawsuit.
How did the citizenship rumor get started? Ironically, it began when the Obama campaign tried to debunk some other conspiracies. After Obama locked up the nomination in early June, low-level talk radio and blog chatter peddled rumors that Obama's real middle name was Muhammad, that his father was not really Barack Obama, and that he was not really born in Hawaii. The campaign released a facsimile of Obama's certificate of live birth. Requested from the state in 2007, the certificate reported that Obama was, indeed, born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961.
The certificate was a bullet that didn't put down the horse. Why, skeptics asked, release a new form from Hawaii instead of the original paper that Obama's parents got in 1961—the one that Obama found in a box of his dad's knickknacks in Dreams From My Father? They quickly came up with an explanation: The certificate was forged. Anonymous digital image experts with handles like Techdude and Polarik sprung from the woodwork to prove (shades of Rathergate!) that pixels, spacing, and indentation on the form indicated that the Obama campaign had created the certificate with Adobe Photoshop. The state of Hawaii's official statement that the certificate was legitimate didn't make a dent—after all, who is Registrar of Vital Statistics Alvin Onaka to argue with Techdude?
This "forgery" became an article of faith in the Obama conspiracy community. When a Hillary Clinton supporter found a birth announcement for Obama from the Aug. 13, 1961, edition of the Honolulu Advertiser, the theorists were unbowed: After all, the Obama family could have phoned that in from Kenya. When Pennsylvania lawyer Philip J. Berg filed the first birth-related injunction against Obama this August, asking that Obama be ruled "ineligible to run for United States Office of the President," he alleged that the certificate had been proved a forgery by the "extensive Forensic testing" of anonymous experts and claimed that Obama's campaign had simply inserted his name over that of his half-sister, Maya. That would have been quite a trick, as Maya Soetoro-Ng was actually born in Indonesia.
Berg's involvement in the movement—and his self-promotion, which has included a radio interview with Michael Savage and a full-page ad in the Washington Times—is probably a net loss for all concerned. Berg's last big lawsuits were filed in 2003 and 2004 on behalf of 9/11 skeptics that sought to uncover the Bush administration's complicity in the attacks. "There's been many fires in many buildings before, and even after," Berg said in a 2007 interview. "Concrete and steel buildings do not fall down from fires." Berg did not respond to my request for an interview, but if you call his office, you can press "2" for more information on "the 9/11 case."
None of that stopped Berg from stoking the conspiracy theorists. On Oct. 16, an Anabaptist minister named Ron McRae called Sarah Hussein Obama, the president-elect's 86-year-old paternal step-grandmother, at her home in Kenya. Two translators were on the line when McRae asked if the elder Obama was "present" when the president-elect was born. One of the translators says "yes." McRae contacted Berg and gave him a partial transcript of the call with a signed affidavit. He opted not to include the rest of the call, in which he asks the question more directly—"Was he born in Mombassa?"—and the translators, finally understanding him, tell him repeatedly that the president-elect was born in Hawaii.
The Hawaiian documentation, the 1961 newspaper announcement, the phony evidence from Sarah Obama—all of that aside, the idea that Obama wasn't born in Honolulu goes against everything we know about his rather well-documented life. Barack Obama Sr. came to America as part of a 1959 program for Kenyan students—he did not return home until 1965, years after he left his wife and son. Ann Dunham was three months pregnant when she married Obama Sr. and 18 years old when she gave birth. There is no record of Dunham ever traveling to Kenya, much less the year after the Mau Mau rebellion ended, when she was pregnant and when she had no disposable income to speak of. "Ann's mother would have gone ballistic if her daughter had even mentioned traveling to Kenya in the final stages of pregnancy," says David Mendell, author of the biography Obama: From Promise to Power.
Reached by phone, Ron McRae doesn't claim to know when or how Dunham got to Kenya, only that she gave birth in a Third World country because "she didn't want to take a chance on that flight back" and that "everyone in Kenya" knows this. If so, they've kept it a pretty solid secret from the international reporters who've visited the country since Obama rose to prominence. But the story is good enough for Gary Kreep, the conservative head of the United States Justice Foundation, who filed suit against Obama on behalf of Alan Keyes, the unstoppable fringe candidate who was on the ballot in California on the American Independent Party ticket. "If he's got nothing to hide," says Kreep, "why not give us access?"
That's the same argument made by Bob Schultz, the founder of the paleoconservative We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education. On Monday and Wednesday, Schultz gave the Obama conspiracy its biggest burst of attention—at least since Rush Limbaugh speculated that this was the real reason Obama visited his dying grandmother—by purchasing full-page ads in the Chicago Tribune. In the "open letters" to Obama, Schultz asserts that Obama's certificate of live birth is "forged," that his "grandmother is record[ed] on tape saying she attended your birth in Kenya," and that Obama would have lost his citizenship anyway when Ann Dunham married her second, Indonesian husband, Lolo Soetoro. (Lou Dobbs would be delighted to discover that the 14th Amendment can be nullified so easily.)
Schultz has asked Obama to allow forensic investigators to inspect Obama's files in Hawaii's Department of State. "Have one guy go in and do his thing," explains Schultz. "Have another guy go in, do his thing, put the certificate back in the envelope. These are scientists. They should all come to the same conclusion."
If Obama doesn't submit to the investigation—and so far, Obama and Democratic National Committee lawyers have ignored or waited for dismissal of the lawsuits and complaints—Schultz will go ahead and send packages of the key anti-Obama complaints to every Electoral College voter. "They're going to be warned that if they go ahead and cast their votes for Mr. Obama, then they've committed treason to the Constitution," Schultz told me on Wednesday.
Schultz, like every Obama-citizenship skeptic, is watching the Supreme Court on Friday and Monday to see whether it will decide to hear Leo Donofrio's lawsuit. "They should at least delay the Electoral College vote," suggests Schultz. More likely, the justices will consider the lawsuit—which claims that Obama Sr. made his son a dual citizen of the British Empire and thus ineligible for the presidency—frivolous, decide that Donofrio lacked the standing to sue Obama anyway, and move on.
How much further will the fight to de-certify Obama go? It won't stop if the Electoral College votes for Obama, as the skeptics will try to get a congressman or senator to officially challenge the result. Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah was willing to believe that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father, so the skeptics might have a chance.
And if every vote certification goes off without a hitch and Obama is inaugurated on Jan. 20? Gary Kreep is ready for that.
"When Obama starts signing executive orders and legislation," Kreep says, "I'll be filing lawsuits unless and until he proves he's an American citizen. Some judge, someday, is going to want this proved on the merits. You can run, but you can't hide."
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
I just got word from an attorney that the Writ was denied without dissent or comment.
So the case has been dismissed and will be formally reported on Monday.
Saddest day in American history IMHO.
So the case has been dismissed and will be formally reported on Monday.
Saddest day in American history IMHO.
Case closed.
Precedent set.
Time to move on. Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Al Queda are all getting ready to test this guy and the Democrats in congress are chomping at the bit to take over a control share of the big three and run the economy into the ground....
Precedent set.
Time to move on. Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Al Queda are all getting ready to test this guy and the Democrats in congress are chomping at the bit to take over a control share of the big three and run the economy into the ground....
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Bergs lawsuit is still to be decided if it will go to conference.
And the likelihood of that?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Not as good as Donofrio's was today.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
The SCOTUS decided to hear two cases today but DID NOT COMMENT on the Donofrio case. So hopefully it is not dead.(Gues that is a bit of a retraction on my part as the email as not clear in the SCOTUS actions). There might be a lot of hand-wringing going on and maybe they decided to contact the Bush administration in advance of their decision to hear the case to deal with 'civil unrest' issues. Hopefully.
Ricks90billblass
Active LVC Member
Funny thing about all of this
I just checked Fox news and CNN. They have nothing on all of this supposed controversy.
I even searched for "Obamas birth certificate" on Fox and the most current item they had was from Nov 1 2008. Here is the link.
http://search2.foxnews.com/search?i...date:D:S:d1&entsp=0&q=Obama+Birth+certificate
I just checked Fox news and CNN. They have nothing on all of this supposed controversy.
I even searched for "Obamas birth certificate" on Fox and the most current item they had was from Nov 1 2008. Here is the link.
http://search2.foxnews.com/search?i...date:D:S:d1&entsp=0&q=Obama+Birth+certificate
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Conspiracy nuts can't let the conspiracy go, they'll be claims and other lawsuits for years to come.
I've heard many a time on this site the claim that the Clinton admin's economic fortunes were due (or at least in part) to a Republican controlled congress, why doesn't it swing the other way?
Let's just hope for a speedy resolution because it doesn't serve anyone for this to go unresolved and for the challenge to go without address.
The Berg lawsuit doesn't interest me much, not only is it be easy to manufacture proof to the contrary, I don't think Obama was born in Kenya. I tend to think that flying back and forth from Hawaii to Kenya wasn't something you did casually in 1961.
I do find the Donofrio challenge to be an interesting one, one that I would have liked to have heard the debated. I think it's an entirely valid constitutional question, one that should be clarified.
I don't understand the question?
Are you saying why weren't there economic gains under Bush after the Democrats took control? Are you are talking about the likely change of leadership in the midterm elections (2010)?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Were due to the advent of the Internet. Period.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio, you need to go here and get up to speed. This type of fraud on the American people has been tried before.
Chester Arthur was the original Barack Obama.
This is Donofrio's site.....
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Btw, 3 more lawsuits being filed this week. That makes 22 unofficially. I have heard another 5 are in the works.
It could be undertaken in SCOTUS if they look at anchor babies - that probably will be when the court looks at natural born citizen and if there are restrictions. Also, there would then be the problem of what happens to the anchor babies born before the decision - they would probably be grandfathered as natural born citizens. Much as if Roe vs Wade gets overturned ever - the court will not go back and prosecute all the women who had abortions or the doctors who performed them in the past - it would just be from that point forward.
i still don't get the problem. both were BORN in the states, of 1 AMERICAN parent. that seems to fall within eligibility. so what exactly is this delusion of donofrio's trying to prove? that only the fathers nationality counts towards eligilbility?
Because the argument is that the founding fathers wanted to ensure that the people who held the office of the Presidency were Americans, that didn't share their allegiance with any other country.
If you're parent is not an American citizen (naturalized or by birth), and you are born with a dual citizenship, then you're allegiance, or your identity, may well be divided. The restrictions on the Presidency are higher than they are for all other offices, so this interpretation of the constitution is entirely reasonable.
but at the time of running, obama's only citizenship was american. if i remember hearing(or seeing) correctly somewhere, his kenyan citizenship was lost at 21. (or his right to a kenyan citizenship)(never used or challenged, don't exactly remember, went something like that). don't see how that would have a bearing now.
doesn't appear like there is gonna be much of a case from it anyways.
doesn't appear like there is gonna be much of a case from it anyways.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
YA, and he sat in that pew every Sunday morning at 11:00 and never heard w word spoken.
You don't even understand the issue so I guess that would be the best outcome for you.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Fail, mommy wasn't 19 at the time she gave birth so that one doesnt' fly either.