Posted on Monday, 10/27/2008 - 8:45 p.m. PDT — by Bard Parker
Props to the Clinton News Network, MSNBillClinton, and Hanoi Janes network Headline News, for missing the biggest untold story of the election!!! That is the answer to this question... HOW OLD IS HUSSEIN BARRACK OBAMA???
Lets look at what they are missing. BARRACK has refused, although under orders by a court of law, to provided the court with a copy of his birth certificate. This would answer two important questions. 1) Is OBAMA older than the Constitutionally required age of 35 to run for president, 2 )and even more important, is he an AMERICAN CITIZEN???? His grandmother states that Barrack was born in Kenya, his sister states he was born in Hawaii, and Hussein states that he was born in Hawaii, but at a diiferent hospital than stated by his own sister. Wait for the conspiracy... his sister and grandmother are attempting to railroad his presidential aspirations!!!
Check out the video link below. As told by an ADMITTED DEMOCRAT!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 1304
Alien.......let me guess.....he's from Uranus.
Give it a rest, if nobody has dug up proof by now it aint gonna happen.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
Is that the best response of the liberal wing...he's from Uranus???
The reason there is no proof is because the liberal press, i.e. the LA Times, claims to have promised not to reveal its source, but has never said it would not release the contents of a video that would give the american voters insight into his reaction to what was said and done at an event where anti-semitism and anti american rhetoric was allegedly running rampant.
the last time I saw the actions of the press being so closely guarded with its information, was about the time of the Reagan era. it was a small publication out of Moscow, and its name was PRAVDA...
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 1304
Sorry to disappoint you, but anybody that knows me knows that my views lean to the CONSERVATIVE side. It's just that I am one of those conservatives that you can't understand, One with an open mind. The funny thing is that both the radical right and the radical left have a lot in common, both run around with blinders on and continue to beat the dead horse long after the race is run and bets are paid.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 3150
The most reassuring thing to me within all this madness that surrounds an election, is the fact that the majority of voters are people like cowboy and me who fall somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. People with open minds, who take the time to weigh the pros and cons (pun intended) of both sides of an issue. People who aren't afraid to admit that their side has made mistakes and the other side has been right once in a while. People who want intelligent, thoughtful leaders. People who are sick of the spin, the lies, the smears, the propaganda and the hate that accompanies so many campaigns these days both locally and nationally.
I hope it's OK that I spoke for you there cowboy. I think I know you well enough for me to include you in that catagory.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 1304
Ditto for me.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 470
hated George Bush so much NO WAY were they voting for McCain
yeah buddy tell us all
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 515
YOU MAY WANT TO REREAD YOUR MANY POSTS then do a self profile. Middle of the spectrum?? come on now your easy to do a profile on...
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive."
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 7
Obama is making sure that no one finds the truth on this issue and many others. During his campaign he demonstrated that he has no moral compunction about lying to the voters or cheating. As a good Chicago Democrat he had no objections when a governor tries to sell his senate seat, when his business partner was charged with fruad, or when his NGO rigged the votes in his favor. He plays the race card and the class card when he benefits; so why assume that he is not preventing the truth that he is not a US citizen from being told.
And what was the Kenyan passport all about?
Face it, barry lies. Americans have no reason to respect our current illegitimate president.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 515
for corrupt Chicago style poltics bringing in all the sinister players, and rejects from the failed Clinton Administration led by Rom Emmanuel.
SO MUCH FOR CHANGE AND HOPE......WE GOT STUCK WITH CHICAGOS WORST PATRONAGE POLITICS TAKING OVER THE WHITEHOUSE AND ACORN.....and an incremental STEPS DAILY to convert our DEMOCRACY to SOCIALISM
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 80
I remember when monica lewinsky came up with the black dress with the white stain and the prosecuter tested it for Clinton`s dna and it was his! it was denied,until the results came in!IDID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN MISS LEWINSKI! i THINK THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY! tHE ORIGINAL COULD HAVE BEEN FAKED, PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE BIRTHS AT HOSPITALS. MOST GAVE BIRTH AT HOME. OFFICIALS JUST TOOK THE WORD OF THE MOTHER , NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 80
I remember when monica lewinsky came up with the black dress with the white stain and the prosecuter tested it for Clinton`s dna and it was his! it was denied,until the results came in!IDID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN MISS LEWINSKI! i THINK THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY! tHE ORIGINAL COULD HAVE BEEN FAKED, PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE BIRTHS AT HOSPITALS. MOST GAVE BIRTH AT HOME. OFFICIALS JUST TOOK THE WORD OF THE MOTHER , NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 3150
What's that old definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results? You people keep beating the same dead horses and the more you beat them, the more McCain goes down in the polls. Get a clue! Get a life! Let the man retain a sliver of dignity. Give it a break. It ain't flying.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
one definition of insanity is to act without knowledge of ones actions to the detriment of ones self or others. If you can elect a candidate who would mislead the voters about his socialist agenda, an then sick his cronie media buddies to attack a citizen whom he was asking for his vote, is insane.
But alas, save your keystrokes, because yes, people like you and the other liberals allowed Bush to be re-elected, and listened to the lies from Pelosi and Reed about how a liberally controlled congress would stop the failed Bush policies, yet they made it worse,i.e. Barney Franks.
I would take the snake from the garden of eden as president before Obama... at least I know what the snakes policies and intentions are!!
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 515
Beating a dead horse is like Liberals blaming Bush for everything even when he is out of office!!, very ignorant and uneducated on the process or the complex issues that brought America to this point in History.
In yet another Soviet style......daily pronouncement, Americas Socialist Leader was still playing the blame game and pointing the finger at BUSH, trying to avoid any accountability for increasing our gazillion dollar deficit that OBAMA QUADRUPLED IN THE FIRST 6 MONTHS IN OFFICE, AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE TRILLIONS THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PREDICTS WILL COST TAXPAYERS IF Obama socialized medicine is inflicted on the US, where obama beaurocrats will be making your medical care decisions.
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 1
i am so overjoyed that obama has set a new limit in terms of the glass ceiling he is an america citizen and a family man ppl want to come with all the bs about the man and they dont evern know him perhaps there hating that he african american and that he will be taking charge to restore this country i hop he wins
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
I hop he wins too!! Just kidding... I hope the fraud that he is will be exposed soon saving this country the embarrassment of having to finally expose to the world that this country would elect a person which it knows nothing about, because he is a master of deflection. He has not, and will not answer the questions of his character, and each day one of his pals is discovered to be either a terrorist, domestic and now foreign, an anti-semite, or a religious hate monger who assigns Obama the title of "Messiah".
I will give you liberals whatever you need to blame Bush for your troubles and agony, but 4 to 8 years of Obama will be the destruction of the very fiber this country was built on. Ask Obama to cite the pledge of allegiance, or ask him where his Senetorial American flag Lapel Pin is, and he will deflect to the last 8 years of Bush policy. If that is enough for you... GOD HELP US ALL!!!!
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
Lets take the African American racist act out of this equation. Based on his act over the last 6 months, the only glass anything is smoke and a two way mirror!!! Tell us one piece of important legislation he has AUTHORED AND PASSED as a senator, why he supported or did not distance himself from the rev Wright for bestowing an award to Louie Farakan, and after the revs anti american and anti semetic comments, and his non explanation for his relationships with a domestic and foreign terrorist, is it freedom of speech? ... Caucasians with those views are usually called skinheads or nazis.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
<Caucasians with those views are usually called skinheads or nazis.>
And people with your views are usually called idiots or morons.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
No, they are people that actually look at what a candidate has accomplished and what he/she stands for before voting. Some of us are not buying the sugar coated "hope" and "change" message from Obama. Anyone can say they are for "change". Obama's platform is nothing new and hardly "hopeful" - empower the government, increase entitlements, raise taxes, etc.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 79
Brad Parker, how does it feel to be a racist piece of caca? I bet not good. Go stab yourself with a steak knife if you have one.
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
i find it disturbing that the election is about race, and NOT about america.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 186
i feel the same way stop slamming people just because he is black and white.its not his fault.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Getting back to the Topic
So now that it has come out that Obama's aunt ignored an Immigration judge's order to leave the country, will she be ungraciously deported and disallowed a visa to return for 10 years per the law? The next question is whether Obama himself has the same disdain for immigration law as his aunt?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081101/ap_on_el_pr/obama_aunt
RealAmerica
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
@realamerica,
she should be deported like any other illegal alien in that position, but i bet you we're not see that.
that story shows us how the future will be with obama as president.
Joined: Aug 2006
Current Posts: 93
The rumor: Barack Obama isn't a citizen, suggested bloggers at the Free Republic Web site. Or if he is, he's hiding his birth certificate for some mysterious reason. Or if he's shared his birth certificate, it's a fake because he's lying about who his real father is. New iterations on this theme pop up almost everyday at various Web sites.
The facts: Obama plainly is a citizen because he was born in the U.S. In response to the allegations, Obama's campaign in June posted the Illinois senator's birth certificate on his campaign Web site. The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document. On Friday, officials in Hawaii said they had personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. Judges in Washington state, Ohio and Pennsylvania have dismissed lawsuits challenging his citizenship.
Gray
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Gray3 wrote - '... Obama plainly is a citizen because he was born in the U.S. In response to the allegations, Obama's campaign in June posted the Illinois senator's birth certificate on his campaign Web site. The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document. On Friday, officials in Hawaii said they had personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. Judges in Washington state, Ohio and Pennsylvania have dismissed lawsuits challenging his citizenship. ...'
ref: http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd409.htm
and: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-birth-certificate-30-...
Obama's citizenship was / is in question because he has not produced a birth certificate, which indicates a place within a town, and details like witnesses and / or doctors present. What has been presented is a COLB, which is a summary document based on statements made by parents after a birth, and which even Hawaii won't accept as proper documentation for applying for its Heritage Benefits. Notice that the Hawaii Health Department states that it has Obama's original birth certificate (a more complete reference shows they also stated that he was born in Honolulu. That will likely render the second point moot, that his mother would not be able to pass her citizenship to him if he were born outside the United States according to laws in effect at the time of his birth. Subsequent laws retroactively canceled this argument. But his stepfather enrolled him in Indonesian schools, and only Indonesians are allowed to attend, and Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. So his stepfather may have renounced Obama's American citizenship in order to enroll him. If Obama made no effort to reclaim his U.S. citizenship, and if he traveled internationally as an adult with an Indonesian passport, then that clouds the issue. He likely was a natural-born citizen at one time, and may have lost it by failing to renounce his Indonesian citizenship as an adult. That is why a legal request has been made for his college records - to see if financial aid requests might show he registered as a foreign student. There is also an unsubstantiated rumor that API has sent WND News a tape of Obama's grandmother stating that she was in the delivery room in Mombasa on the day Obama was born. It may be possible to check this out in London, where birth certificates of England's colony of Kenya are kept for that period of Obama's birth.
As for the lawsuits mentioned, that is another matter. The lawsuits were dismissed because the courts stated that YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT, that you have no standing to question the qualifications of candidates as a voter before an election. Even though it might be shown that no qualified candidates are available to you as a choice, and you write your own name on the ballot as a result.
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Until the Fat Lady Sings ...
It's not over until the fat lady sings. Berg has filed a Writ of Certiorari to have the District Court decision reviewed that dismissed the law suit about Obama's citizenship status. So it may be that our votes count after all, but it all hangs on the U.S. Supreme Court now. Obama and the DNC have until Dec. 1 to reply to the writ.
http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/news/52-us-supreme-court-awaits-res...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Your link is nothing more than a press release written by the guy who filed this frivolous lawsuit. Don't hold your breath waiting for the Supreme Court to take up this case. It won't, because the lawsuit is a crock.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
I found this corroborating story regarding the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the writ. They have already denied Berg's motion to stay the election, but set the date of Dec. 1st for Obama to produce his vault birth certificate in response to the writ (according to Justice Souter's clerk?).
http://therightperspective.com/wordpress/?p=311
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
Just to make sure the information is available in the multiple threads on this subject: the guy bringing the suit against Obama is also the guy who brought suit against Bush for 9/11. A pretty sound mind, obviously.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.public-action.com/911/suit/mariani-berg1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.public-action.com/911/suit.html&usg=__WAVlrGwKOcNZO5iqZdsSpKzB6Xk=&h=240&w=360&sz=62&hl=en&start=17&sig2=O3Fy28JXRUfsygBHMbigqw&um=1&tbnid=dlVXg65uclT87M:&tbnh=81&tbnw=121&ei=-dIhSaS3O5j2sAPBxLy7CA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphilip%2Bj.%2Bberg%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
Joined: Jun 2007
Current Posts: 37
FOOD FOR THOUGHT!!!
How long is the beast allowed to have authority in Revelations?
Revelations Chapter 13 tells us it is 42 months, and you know what that is.
Almost a four-year term of a Presidency.
All I can say is "Lord, Have mercy on us!"
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will
be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with
persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says
that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace,
and when he is in power, will destroy everything..
Do we recognize this description??
I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to post this as many times as
you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet..do it!
I refuse to take a chance on this unknown candidate who came out of nowhere.
From: Dr. John Tisdale
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched in horror as Barack Obama made the statement with pride. . ."we are no longer a Christian nation; we are now a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, . ." As with so many other statements I've heard him (and his wife) make, I never thought I'd see the day that I'd hear something like that from a presidential candidate in this nation. To think our forefathers fought and died for the right for our nation to be a Christian nation--and to have this man say with pride that we are no longer that. How far this nation has come from what our founding fathers intended it to be.
I hope that each of you will do what I'm doing now--send your concerns, written simply and sincerely, to the Christians on your email list. With God's help, and He is still in control of this nation and all else, we can show this man and the world in November that we are, indeed, still a Christian nation!
Please pray for our nation!
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
The United States was never a "christian nation", at least not in the sense that you and the so-called 'Dr.' Tinsale are using the term. And today, it is, because of multi-culturalism and racial and ethnic diversity, even less so. The sooner you folks wake up and smell the coffee as to what the US has become and is all about, the sooner the republican party can start hoping to emerge from its status as a white people dominated minority party which will, if the trends of the last two national elections continue, become largely irrelevant.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
Oops! Turns out the letter from Dr. Tisdale is a fake.
http://mikefrizzell.net/2008/10/31/dr-john-tisdale-responds-to-obama-antichrist-email/
Some of his actual words, should you care to read them:
Thank you for inquiring about the email. I appreciate one who searches for truth instead of just believing everything he/she receives on the internet. If Senator Obama wins this election (and I hope he does not), he will be the president of the most blessed nation the world has ever known. Therefore, he will be my president and I pledge my prayers for him. (Romans 13:1-7) “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord…” (Psalm 33:12).
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Obama Selective Service Scam?
Finally, the FOIA request for Obama's Selective Service records came thru, and (of course,) appear to be adulterated. It pays to have friends in high places ...
http://www.outragedpatriots.com/Debbie%20Schlussel%20-%20Obama%20SS%20re...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
You people are certainly a gullible bunch. Do you seriously believe that Obama could have failed to register for selective service and it was never flagged by anyone? That's pure nonsense! The guy had to have applied for financial aid for college and law school through the U S Dept. of Education. Selective service compliance is one of the first things they check. Not to mention the screening process he had to go through for admission to the Illinois bar, and the scrutiny to which he was subjected when he ran for the State, and then the U S. Senate. The reproduced document was likely either altered, it is altogether fake. And Debbie Schlussel? Hardly a highly credible source! The only reason that rubbish like this gets any play whatsoever is because folks like you are falling over yourselves trying to find something, anything, that they can try to elevate to the level of a scandal. Give it a rest already!
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
@screen name,
the great danger is with people like you, who believe and take for granted whatever the government tell you to. don't you think?
as a first generation immigrant, i can assure you, that i had to put up all my live, from a-z.
in order to get here.
half of it is missing, or it makes no sence in regards to obamas info.
let's assume for a second all his papers are ok. why isn't he presenting them?
why isn't he showing his school and financial records? or the birth certificate? the selected service paper is full of very questionable errors.
i did not voted for him, but he will be my president, so congratulations, but answer all the the questions, like i did!
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Berlin47112- So let me get this straight. You don't trust the government, so you are not willing to take anything they tell you at face value. Ok, fair enough. But then you turn around and instead take at face value the rather poorly documented claims of far right wing shills like the person who posted the alleged selective service record? Really? Does it not bother you that this person is patently biased and clearly has an agenda that is being pushed? Are you at all troubled by the fact that this person, as well as the ones pushing the birth certificate claim, has not fully produced all records pertaining to the issue? Or that the claim regarding the selective service registration is based entirely on speculation about the alleged altering of one number on the alleged document?
As I said, you people sure are gullible. While your experience as a first generation immigrant might have given you some insight into federal government record keeping it obviously has not done so in helping you to discern and critically evaluate political propaganda (and not very sophisticated propaganda at that).
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
About That Propaganda ...
ScreenName wrote '... As I said, you people sure are gullible. ...' after making a number of false and unsubstantiated allegations against an independent investigator's findings about Obama's selective service records. There was no mention in his post that the information came from a Freedoom of Information request because Obama refused to release it (a lie of omission). Then he accuses the investigator of '... not fully produced all records pertaining to the issue ...' (a lie of impossible action). This is followed by another 'argument' that a single digit doesn't affect the meaning of the data (lie of irrational logic - like dialing 6 numbers on a phone and expecting someone to answer). Finally at he end he states a truth - his blathering is '...not very sophisticated propaganda at that ...'
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
You can rationalize it any way you want. The bottom line is that you are taking at face value a claim of failure to register for selective service on the basis of one document which (1) has not been authenticated; (2) is alleged to have been altered, without any compelling evidence to support that claim; and (3) which flies in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, as was raised in my earlier post. The problem here is that you folks are so fixated on these bogus claims about Obama that you will believe just about anything from any source, whether credible, supported by tangible evdence, or otherwise substantial enough to withstand scrutiny. And RealAmerica has the unmitigated gall to accuse me of 'blathering'? Thats the typical tactic of someone who is so desperate to divert attention away from the weaknesses and flaws in the positions he is advocating that resort is made to name calling and denigration of the people who disagree with you. If this is the best you can do, there is nothing of substance here that warrants anything more than simply being ignored.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Devy Kidd's recent article chronicles the 'undocumented politician' that Obama seems to be.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd415.htm
She pushes the argument that as Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama's birth, his father passed British citizenship to him, which was converted to Kenyan citizenship at its independence from Britain. Then it lapsed from lack of declaration, or from his stepfather declaring him Indonesian for school enrollment purposes.
This gets to the heart of our 14th Amendment about granting U.S. citizenship for people '... not subject to a foreign jurisdiction ...'. As most countries confer citizenship based on the citizenship of a newborn's parents, regardless of where they are born, these children are subject to the jurisdiction (country) of their parents, until they make a declaration otherwise. So a child could have 3 potential citizenship options - from the father, the mother, and the country of physical birth. Generally the citizenship laws are written so that at age 21 implied citizenship expires and a declaration must be made (except in cases where dual citizenship is shared with certain countries). When you add wrinkles like Obama's mother not being old enough to pass parental citizenship to him, and the question of where he was physically born due to conflicting statements on his COLB and his grandmother, well, that certainly leaves a question in my mind.
And you understand my concern about a-n-c-h-o-r babies born to illegal alien parents, neither of whom are citizens of this country. The resulting children born here are obviously subject to the jurisdiction of their parents, which is foreign to the United States. Consider that the laws of Mexico 'recognize' dual citizenship with the U.S., but the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship with Mexico. The United States does not formally recognize dual citizenship, but neither does it take any stand, politically or legally, against it. No American citizen can lose their citizenship by undertaking the responsibilities of citizenship in one or more other countries. This is true even if those responsibilities include obtaining a second or even a third citizenship, swearing allegiance to a foreign state, voting in another country's election, serving in the armed forces (even in combat positions, and even if the state is a "hostile" one), running for office, and if successful, serving.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/paper20/renshontoc.html
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Maybe Sooner Than Later
The U.S. Supreme Court has added the appeal of Berg's suit against Obama to their conference schedule. These conferences are the informal meeting where the justices sound each other out about circumstances and issues of submitted cases. If the case gets past this point, then the proverbial shot hits the fan. Hang on, folks, this could be better than Ophra!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81484
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
Well, so far, I have only been able to find cases that Berg has lost - including his suit alleging that Bush was responsible for 9/11. I don't think his track record does much to suggest that he'll come out on top in front of the Supreme Court who, regardless of their personal politics, are all serious and reasonable people. Why is it that the more vocal pundits think our soldiers can be easily brainwashed (into being babykillers or New World Order zombies) and our judges are apt to act according to their personal political leanings (whether they be "liberal activist judges" or "Pro-life Republican Majority"?) It certainly makes more a more exciting story, but it never happens that way. Am I the only realist on this board?
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I suspect that you are ...
What is the fuss? Berg filed his suit (and that got them all worked up and in a twitter), but the judge threw it out. So Berg went to the Supreme Court to have the Justices (1) overturn the judge's decision that he has no standing (so the lawsuit can continue) and (2) to put the election on hold until Berg is satisfied that Barack Obama is an American citizen.
Justice Souter denied the injunction. The Court set a date of December 1 to hear arguments regarding the lower-court judge's decision. This means that the Court will decide whether or not Mr. Berg has standing to file the suit ... it does NOT mean the Court will consider the facts of Mr. Berg's case.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote - '... What is the fuss? ...'
Good question. I believe that it has to do with the civil rights of Americans to be allowed to vote in free elections for their representatives in government. It was a big enough fuss back in the 60's to send federal troops to southern states to enforce voting rights. A free election is free from undue influence (electioneering near polling places); free from economic interests of foreign countries (we can't be bought); free to choose who are representatives will be, including choosing ourselves, or adding someone's name to the ballot; free from corruption from political parties (the chad incident in Florida, ACORN) in the counting of votes, etc., etc. And we have a basic set of rules (the Constitution) and additional laws to protect that freedom.
One of the basic rules for a Presidental candidate is to be a natural-born citizen, since there are no more remaining persons alive who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted. What do you suppose the purpose of that qualification was? Perhaps to keep us free from foreign influence? Why is that so necessary? To ensure our sovereignty? What is sovereignty? Answering to no one but God for our actions as a nation of people? And why is that important? Because just as no living thing continues to exist without diversity from adaptation, there should be a diversity in governments due to adaptation so that a single catastrophic incident will not wipe out the 'species', or in this case, the ability for us to govern ourselves in a civilized manner.
My 'fuss' is with the Federal judge's decision that I, or any other voter, do not have standing because I was not harmed by my (possible) vote for Obama not counting because he is disqualified and was presented as though he was (which is voter fraud) by the Democratic Party.
And now its time to read my prior posts to this topic to find out about the second lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court, the monument to Obama's birthplace in Kenya, and the Dec. 5th conference of all 9 Supreme Court justices to decide if either of the two lawsuits will be heard.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
The recent election was a fair and free election ... even though activists from both the RNC and the DNC tried their darndest to disqualify as many American citizens as they possibly could from exercising their right to vote (through a number of fairly well-documented strategies), the vote was so overwhelmingly in favor of Barack Obama that it can be called a "landslide" victory without too much hemming and hawing. So a very very tiny group of very very vocal super patriots question the nationality of the President elect. Many intelligent and otherwise skilled Americans have taken a look at this so-called issue and tried ... repeatedly ... to patiently explain why it is a non-issue, much as a patient and loving parent would explain to an impressionable youth why there is no tooth-fairy, Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. As we know, some people never want to grow up and face the truth. Most of them survive, though their productivity and overall usefulness to society are often called into question. So continue your rant. We have more than enough real problems in this country to address that most people will just look away, in various degrees of discomfort, and pretend they do not hear you.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Kenyan Monument to Birthplace?
Are Kenyans planning a monument to Obama's birthplace - in Kenya?! Listen to this interview starting about 12 min. and 30 seconds. Now the ambassador may have meant Obama's father's birthplace is being memorialized, but it is suspicious.
http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916
UPDATE
The Kenyan government has issued a statement about the phone interview by the shock jocks of Detroit. They state that the Ambassador WAS addressing the monument to the birthplace of Obama, Sr., and not to the apparent President-elect.
UPDATE 2
World Net Daily News called the ambassador and asked him directly if Barak Obama, II was born in Kenya. You may not be surprised at the answer.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82060
RealAmerica
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
when are some of you realizing, the issue is not berg, the issue is obama, who is hiding certain information. who has not disclosed an org birth certificate, school and medical records.
you're barking up the wrong tree....
all legal immigrants have to produce those documents, or one simply can't be an naturalizied citzen. why not obama, who is no our president elect.?
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Obama did produce a birth certificate. Apparantly you and otherswho share your bizarre views on this subject choose either not to accept that it is genuine, or simply ignore the fact that one has been produced. If the former, what competent evidence do you have, other than the rantings of delusional bloggers who are doing their best to keep this non-issue alive, to support the contention that the certificate that was produced is a fake? Obviously, whatever it is isn't very compelling, because these so-called legal "claims" of non-citizenship and illegal status are currently DOA in every arena in which the issue has been raised.
BTW, the Berg lawsuit was dismissed by the lower court because Berg was determined not to have legal standing to bring the lawsuit. If the Supreme Court does review the case, which is by no means a certainty, the review will be limited to the standing issue and will not address all these phony claims about fake birth certificates.
And how could you possibly have any personal knowledge as to what information and documents Obama has or has not produced? The truth is, you do not. You are relying on information which is not only uncorroborated, but is, as to you, second or third hand at best. Perhaps it is your practice to rely on such flimsy 'evidence', but people who think critically are not that gullible.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
Don't you realize how much fun it is to think obama bin laden might really, really not be American but an illegal alien! Being American is cool. Obama bin laden is anything but cool. This is a wonderful conspiracy theory. And hey, it just might be really true. They threw the suit out because they guy bringing it didn't have legal standing. That DOESN'T say he wasn't right.
Look, we don't want this nightmare put together by the Chicago political machine to be anywhere close to the seat of power of this country. This nonsense called "white guilt" (to which I am completely immune) put this mutt where he is. Any and all legal means to remove him must be pursued. America is too important to have this clown at the helm.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
So I guess this means you supported the last one for the past eight years? ... and that you supported John McCain in the just finished election? If so, how come neither of them (1) challenge the nationality of Barack Obama? ... (2) accuse Barack Obama of being a part of the "Chicago political machine" ... (3) use such offensive language as "mutt", "clown", or "osama" when referring to him. If you indeed support George W Bush and John McCain, and they graciously accept defeat, telling their supporters to move on and stand behind their new President ... what kind of "supporter" does that make you?
And if you don't support either of them, then just who is that you do support?
In either case, it looks like you're left standing out on a fairly lonely cliff. Look around and see how many have followed you out there. Even Britt Hume and Bill Kristol seem to think you have taken a wild dive.
And again, I cannot let the implicit racism of your comments go unchallenged. Barack Obama is a human being ... just like you. "Race" is a social construct designed to keep people apart, and those who speak the loudest about it (either using it to oppress others, or in denial about there fetish and/or fantasies about it) generally tend to be those to whom it is the most important.
Shame on you.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
obama bin laden doesn't look like me. If I'm going to support someone for president it will be someone who looks like me. My belief is that they will better support my needs. Look, if the afro-am's can vote as a block for someone that looks like them why can't I make the same choice without receiving withering criticism from PC accusers? And, sorry but I can't back down from the Chicago political machine. obama bin laden is there on the backs of such luminaries as the infamous (let's just love each other) rev wright and wild bill (blow'em all up) ayers. Otherwise known to the rational as guilt by association. obama bin laden did what he needed to climb the tree there. (do a little investigation on how Chicago politics works. You might be surprised.) And in a couple of months he gets to fulfill the famous New Yorker magazine cover page. High five! Dump those other flags in the fireplace will 'ya.
No, I'm standing with the conservative majority on this one. No good deed shall be left unpunished.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
You sound so full of yourself that I find it hard to believe you are willing to stand "with" anyone else (let alone the so-called conservative "majority" -- which it no longer is, if it ever was).
Not only does Barack Obama (not "obama bin laden" ... a remark of certain immaturity and adolescent pugnaciousness if ever I heard one) not look like you, he looks like no one else. No one looks like you. Whether you wish to accept biologic evidence or not is immaterial, but diversity within the human species means that no one looks (or acts) exactly like another human being. So that shoots down the second part of your silly assertion -- because there is no one for whom you can vote that does look like you. Do you choose to disenfranchise yourself?
Look at it another way. I assume that when you say you will vote for someone who looks like you, you do not mean for that statement to be taken literally -- that you, in point of fact, simply mean someone who is white (and I draw that conclusion because you are so frightened of black people voting, en masse, for Barack Obama because he is black). Does this mean that you would vote for anyone who was white? Or would you exercise some discretion about the white man you chose (and, though again I am making an assumption based upon your statement that women should not have the right to vote, that when you talk about voting you are talking about voting for men)? What if, as in this past election, there was only one white man from whom to choose over the black candidate? Would you vote for Joseph Stalin, because he was white? Would you vote for Adolf Hitler? George Lincoln Rockwell? Matt Koehl? David Duke? Jefferson Davis?
Ninety-five percent of all black people who exercised their right to vote chose to vote for Barack Obama, that is true. Perhaps every single one of them made that choice because of the color of his skin. I am certain quite a few did. But I am equally certain that the majority chose him because he spoke of hope, of taking control of institutions that are running amok and serving the interests of an entrenched elite ... not those who struggle on a daily basis to make ends meet, and of meeting the needs of common Americans rather than trusting that those needs will be met only from the flotsam and jetsam that trickles down from the wealthy after they have been served and waited upon by the rest of us.
Of course, you are frightened. Less than 23% of all Americans under the age of 18 are white. Four states in the union already have populations that are majority non-white, while 10% of all counties in the country are majority non-white. World wide, only 3% of all women who are of child-bearing age are white. Do these fact scare you? The American Nazi Party (whose website opening paragraph I just paraphrased) thinks so. Looks like you're in good company!
Barack Obama certainly has his political roots in Chicago. And just as he turned first the Democratic Party on is organizational head and then the national political world on its head with his own, grass-roots political organizing savvy and skill ... so, too, did he take over that part of the Chicago machine needed to advance through the system. You have it inside out ... the Machine does not control him, it's the other way around.
And, as much as you might want to point to William Ayers as some sort of bad influence on Barack Obama (the two had little contact, and the influence is marginal, at best ... about the same, I would say, as my connection and association with Bill Ayers or with Tom Hayden). Remember, Tom Hayden supported exactly the same causes and principles as Bill Ayers, he was just militant about it in a slightly different way. Both were patriots who felt that our country was in the clutches of evil men, pursuing evil purposes and using illegal methods to do what they did. The War in Vietnam was an atrocity and an abomination ... the fact that Democratic AND Republican presidents, other elected officials, and those appointed to carry out their policies lied to Americans, illegally spied on Americans, harassed Americans, jailed Americans, and ... when that wasn't enough ... murdered Americans in order to carry out their intentions (or to cover them up when they were exposed) made protest and opposition a patriotic duty. Tom Hayden, later elected by a majority of his constituents to serve in both the Assembly and the State Senate (and also, like Ayers, an adjunct professor), was a proud champion of the rights to assemble, to speak freely, to petition the government, and to hold governmental officials accountable to the people they served. Rather than curse Bill Ayers (a white man, by the way) or Tom Hayden (also a white man), and condemn those who associate with them, you should be happy and glad that Barack Obama DID associate with them.
Incidentally ... if Barack Obama ran for office against either Tom Hayden or Bill Ayers, for whom would you vote?
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
Sorry I couldn't get back to you and thank you for your reply. Obama bin laden (I use this name because it has a nice "ring" to it. It also speaks to his foreign and muslim origins. I'm glad to accept your comments of "of certain immaturity and adolescent pugnaciousness". I take that as a compliment.) has had a tough week. Seems Blago and the messiahs other Chicago friends are causing problems. Seems when you lie down with dogs one might get up with fleas...
Anyway, while designed to promote discussion more than anything else, I'm glad to stand by my comment of voting for "someone who looks like me." You know, a white man. It's OK to look at the messiah and think he's not the one. Just from what he looks like! And then, holy smoke, he opens his mouth. It's OK to not celebrate diversity. We don't all have to pretend we love everyone. I'm for not pretending. It's silly to think it's OK to fill Washington up with a goon squad from the Chicago machine. Or the weather underground machine. Or the Rev Wrights hate whitey machine.
Thanks!
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
You are more than welcome. I have no problems calling a spade a spade, if you wish to pardon me taking words from your mouth.
Unfortunately, this country is filled with too many ignorant, superficial "thinkers" such as yourself. And that is the primary reason we continue to muck about arguing over the inconsequential "matters of consequence" that the power elite prefers to keep us squabbling over. It's a great distraction, don't you know ... and the Man behind the Curtain loves nothing more than to keep the clientele distracted. While he robs us all blind.
I notice that you refused to address any of the questions that I asked, but instead chose to raise yet another set of superficial "issues". So ... if you consider Chicago politics and politicians to be corrupt to the point that they corrupt anyone and everyone with whom they come in contact, what do you think of the following associations (and anyone guilty by association with them):
In 2004 (the last year in which such a study was conducted), the National Press Club released a study in which it simply took the number of cases in which public officials were tried for corruption (racketeering, money-laundering, bribery and the like) and divided that number by the state's population in order to arrive at a uniform scale to measure public corruption. The leader?
Mississippi
Followed by North Dakota, Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, Kentucky, Florida, New York and then Illinois.
When you think of crime and corruption, Chicago does not rise to the top of places where the politicians are the actual crooks (power freaks, and machine operators, yes ... actual criminals, no). No, the criminals in politics come from New Jersey and New York, New Orleans and Miami. Heck, two of the Keating 5 were from Arizona (including one of them the actual Republican nominee for President ... and a white man, to boot)
It doesn't matter too much that Patrick Fitzgerald actually wrote that Barack Obama is in no way connected to the criminal complaint filed against the governor of Illinois, or to his criminal actions ... you guys have to invent something that doesn't exist. Remember, there are real problems out there. Go and solve them.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
I do mind you inventing quotes from "my mouth" you pinheaded stoop-nagle. You see, if I don't respond to some quote you make for me I must be agreeing with you. I must be accepting your nonsense inserted into my mouth. I don't agree with you about anything. I will not accept the tyranny of you putting your stinking words into my mouth. And I shall not insert anything into your stinking maw, 3 toed tree sloth that you are. The problem is you.
Now, I understand Pat Fitz says the messiah is in no way connected. It has been proven that the messiah has been hermetically sealed in a mayonaise jar on the front porch of Funk and Wagnall's since 10am on November 5th. The messiah was unable to pick Rahm out of a police line up presented to the messiah so that he might, if possible, identify his chief of staff. Messiah reports he doesn't like to get involved in details unless they involve cash. He also reported that he learned everything he knows about politics and management of organizations from watching The Godfather, Part 1. Also reports that he wishes B-Rod had not fallen asleep during the same movie. Would have saved them both lots of problems.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Aren't you a bit oversensitive for being such a tough guy? I made a stinking joke (not a very good one, I agree) about spades, referencing your self-admitted racism to point out the double-entendre. I didn't actually put words in your mouth, and if I did, I would have done a much better job of it than that!
The rest of your post, though clever, amounts to little more than mental masturbation. Once again, you refuse to look for the Man Behind the Curtain ... and who knows, perhaps President-elect Obama is just another foil in a different disguise for that Man. Time will tell. I have, for example, very good Chicago sources who tell me that Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education appointee, is a corporate stooge who views children as widgets that can be hammered into shape and stuffed into pre-cut one-size-fits-all molds. We'll have to see how that one plays out. We'll also have to see if Obama is a man who plays for cash, or plays with cash flowing from point A to points B, C, D, and Z -- my guess is that actually possessing it and having it on hand is a liability, but that real wealth and power comes from moving it about. We'll have to see how he moves it about ... from whom does it originate, to whom does it go, and how is it used?
Meanwhile, why do you continue to refuse to at least acknowledge the possibility that the ruling elite of this country is having a field day while it pillages the Treasury and has us -- through our "(s)elected" officials -- blaming the entire financial and manufacturing mess we're in on union workers, home-buyers, and users of credit cards?
Why don't you go back through the last couple of posts and address some of the issues I have raised -- WHY is there such high profile corruption in our so-called democratic institutions? ... WHY does the (corporate-owned) media frame and shape how we perceive the world through its constant use of phrases and slogans? ... WHY does Caylee receive more in-depth speculation than the superficial treatment our politicians receive (and note how much of what passes for "news" is nothing more than glorified rumor-mongering) ...
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
I got too wound up.
Anyway, Rahm and Obam are back in the news today with more tiny tidbits leaking out to the surface. Just another day in Chicago politics. Oh, by the way, it's Daley that's running everything in the background. But he's not going to get caught on anything or by anybody. He's not in it for something as lowly (and traceable) as $. He's in it for the real things in life...powerful gasoline, a clean windshield and a shoeshine.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Well, you won't get much argument from me about the ruthlessness of Richard Daley. Nor will you find that I think the Chicago machine is an admirable approach to governance. Nor am I particularly happy with the selection of Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education ... though he is complex enough that I am withholding final judgment until he says something in regards to his position on NCLB, testing, and the corporate model for schools (the latter seemingly an approach to schools and schooling that he favors).
On the other hand, I have worked in several organizations (some professional, some not-for-profit, and some social) that are run very much on the machine model perfected in Chicago (and tried out in several other American cities over the years) -- perhaps none so ruthlessly and certainly none on the same scale as done in Chicago. I have worked with talented individuals who used the machine to further other goals and aspirations without being touched, personally, by the machine. They were very skilled at making the right connections, saying the right things to the right people, and then doing pretty much what they wanted. I think ALL organizations ... large and small ... have such people within them. And they are all different in terms of their personal motivation ... some are ruthless, themselves; others are self-promoters; and still others are idealistic reformers who seek to improve the conditions and/or environment in which they work.
The question to ask about Barack Obama is which of these is he? He clearly worked the Chicago system. Did he work it for his own ambitious needs or desires? Or did he work it to actually improve the lives of those for whom he worked?
Everything else is pure speculation. Lacking concrete evidence of wrong-doing, all I hear is the usual tabloid slander that has besmirched the so-called "independent press" of this country since the very early days of its founding.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<Ninety-five percent of all black people who exercised their right to vote chose to vote for Barack Obama, that is true. Perhaps every single one of them made that choice because of the color of his skin. I am certain quite a few did. But I am equally certain that the majority chose him because he spoke of hope, of taking control of institutions that are running amok and serving the interests of an entrenched elite ... not those who struggle on a daily basis to make ends meet, and of meeting the needs of common Americans rather than trusting that those needs will be met only from the flotsam and jetsam that trickles down from the wealthy after they have been served and waited upon by the rest of us.>
The voters chose him for the same reason they have done in the past - the incumbent party in power gets punished when the economy tanks. The "hope" and "change" message was just window dressing for the same thing the Democrats have been advocating for years - empower the government, redistribute income, expand entitlements, etc. and arguing this is somehow "prosperity" and "opportunity". And I wonder if YOU see any difficulty with a message that advocates/promotes dependency instead of self reliance in a free nation. Pretty soon it won't be free.
You'll be struggling more and more to pay for all of the programs Obama and his party want to create and the federal budget will be "running amok" just like it is in the California legislature (where Democrats run it and have no fiscal discipline whatsoever). Americans will be perpetually "common" because Democrats will want to tax most of what you save/earn/create. And it will all be justified in the name of "fairness" and "economic justice".
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
All I can say is that you may be correct ... but the "government doesn't work" argument and the effort to deregulate/privatize everything clearly hasn't worked very well, either. We've had thirty years of both Republicans and Democrats taking apart the New Deal, eliminating the social safety net, and making it harder and harder for the average working man (and woman) to make a living wage. How do you refute the fact that 45 million Americans are without any kind of health care coverage, at all? Is it their fault, because they are too lazy to get a job or to save and invest their money in some form of "affordable" health care plan (or which there are none)? Are they all lazy shiftless beings who should just die when they contract pneumonia? How do you refute the fact that real income for working-class families has declined in the past eight years, while the salaries and benefits of the top 2-5% have increased? How do you refute the effectiveness of 42,000 paid lobbyists working to influence (by means both legal and illegal) 535 elected officials? And how do you explain the ability of centralized capital pits to use the vast wealth they have accumulated by making unsafe and unhealthy products (or emitting unsafe and unhealthy waste material into the environment while making useful and necessary products) to hush up the dangerous and poisonous nature of their production, or to influence legislators to keep the information hushed up and/or to not enact legislation that puts people before profits?
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 470
went to HARVARD, sending kids to PRIVATE SCHOOL, he's RICH, he's FAMOUS - - and raised nearly a BILLION DOLLARS for his campaign
said he would "change" things then first thing he does is hire lobbyists + friends of lobbyists!!!! he's a liar, because, he said he would NOT do this, then did it
he's a liar like all politicians and an ELITIST, fools.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
<obama bin laden doesn't look like me. If I'm going to support someone for president it will be someone who looks like me.>
I am sure you will have great difficulty finding someone who 'looks like you' to support. There just are not a lot of folks with pointed heads and forked tongues around these days.
Joined: May 2008
Current Posts: 103
You said "Look, if the afro-am's can vote as a block for someone that looks like them why can't I make the same choice without receiving withering criticism from PC accusers"?
As an African-American male, I have to tell you, Obama DID NOT get the black vote becasue he is black. Must I remind you that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are both black and we didn't vote for either of them. Or else they'd have been your president if that was the case.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 470
doesn't take a genius to figure out motive there drubin, give us a break
funny how even the disney characters all voted for him too. coincidence?
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
Obama's race didn't hurt his chances with the black vote, but the majority of informed black voters sided with Obama because of his politics and opposed McCain for his.
I'm a white guy, and if I was running for President, and I solemnly promised to address the problems of jobs, housing, education, and crime in the black community, I would have crushed Obama and won by a landslide. As you say, you don't have to be a genius to figure that one out.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Might I remind you that white men have been voting for other white men for a couple of hundred years. They have been so confident in their ability to control the electoral process that they have even allowed men and women (now there's a little twist) of different skin color to cast votes. Of late, they have even allowed them to run for office, themselves. Of course, white men have thrown all sorts of obstacles in the path of minority groups, making it more difficult for them to exercise their supposed God-given right to vote (you don't see too many people of color establishing rules of residency, requiring people to pass tests, or demanding that they show proof of being in order to cast that vote, now do you?). One is quite evident in the past election. If 98% of all voting black citizens cast their vote for Barack Obama, that means that almost every single person who cast their vote for McCain was white. Unfortunately (for some), the white population did not vote as a block. But it looks like the Republican Party has pretty much become ... The White People's Party. I think it's time that it rename itself, accordingly (though more correctly it could be called the White People's Wall Street Party).
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
When I originally asked the question "are americans being scammed by Obama"? the first part of my thread asked if he is old enough to be president as required by the Constitution of this great country?
I am amazed by some of the responses. Some of you were very sensitive to the responses of others, some seem to be in agreement with me, and some were just not very intelligent.
That said, I respect the office of The President of The United States, I do not have to respect the person holding that office( beginning with Obamas seal for The Office of the President Elect of the United States". Where exactly is that office located?). This was never a racial issue on my part as I would have voted for J.C. Watts if he had been a candidate. But rather an issue of a mans character based upon what a liberal leaning press failed to investigate or report upon.
I have come to terms with the fact that my taxes will be increased, we will be a target for attack on our soil again, and that we will have new Supreme court justices who will legislate from the bench rather than interpret and apply the Constitution. My opinions of course.
I do appreciate the thought provocation, and hope to post more as this president-elect flounders between his campaign promises, and the wishes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Barny Frank, Henry Waxman, and Chris Dodd.
Merry Christmas to all
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
"...... with Obamas seal for The Office of the President Elect of the United States". Where exactly is that office located?"
You seem to be caught up in anti-Obama minutia. Now really how important is that Seal? BTW, he is the President-Elect and many people refer to him as such.
I want a "take charge guy", taking care of the Nation's business. Dubya is a lame duck; disrespected and ineffective during a National crises. And unfortunately, we still have to wait a month and a half for someone to take charge.
Attacked? Yeah, we will be attacked again at some point - regardless of who is President.
Supreme Court? Hopefully, the court will move to the center where it should be. I reject extremes; both left and right.
Just my opinion, of course.
Happy Holidays.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Chewy wrote - '... BTW, he is the President-Elect ...'
I didn't realize the Electoral College moved up its Dec. 15th date to decide the election. Are they trying to pre-empt the Supreme Court review? That smells like Chicago politics to me. Or is this just more of the 'fuzzy politics' we should come to expect should Obama be inaugurated?
'... we still have to wait a month and a half for someone to take charge ...'
Don't worry, el Presidente Bush has already taken care of that. If the fat lady sings at the concert of the Supremes he already has U.S. troops stationed in Washington, DC for 'crowd control' (wink, wink).
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." (famous Freemason P.T. Barnum)
RealAmerica
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
"You can fool some of the people all of the time."
That's what I have been saying on this board for about a year now. Thanks Real.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
U.S. Supreme Court Clerk Risks Job
Why would a SCOTUS clerk put his job at risk by usurping the job of the justices of the Supreme Court in denying a submission against Obama (and others)? Especially if the case had so little merit, as the liberal anarchists on this forum propound?
http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/2008/11/donofrio-forwards-to-c...
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
Funny how 8 years after avoiding a proper recount in Florida, and after 8 years of shooting first and asking questions later, the far right is suddenly a stickler for the process.
Nevermind that the man bringing suit in this case (Leo Donofrio) is an ex-lawyer turned poker player from a "punk rock background" (his words) who is also alleging misconduct by Judge Jack M. Sabatino. Seems anyone who doesn't help Donofrio prove his case is somehow guilty of breaking a law. To get the "truth" out there, he went on Overnight AM, the website for which shows Barack Obama's picture in front of a swastika. Nothing says "I'm a serious person with a legitimate lawsuit" like going on crazy AM radio shows before a decision is handed down.
McCain was a hero (and also had his citizenship challenged by Donofrio) It's increasingly sad to see who you'll accept as a hero after his loss. Palin, Berg, Donofrio. My goodness, man, get a hold of yourself. It's only 4 years.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
MSNBC 'Breaks' Supreme Court Story
It looks like the critical mass of leaked knowledge has been reached and the MSM is reluctantly coming on board with the issue. I love the 'firstread' touch.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
I Know Nothing ...
I couldn't help but be reminded of Col. Klink of Hogan's Heros by the Kenyan Ambassador's response to the direct question by WND about Barak Obama II being born in Kenya -
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82060
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Tic ... Tic ... Tic ...
This site just came to my attention and may likely contain unverified information. Then again, the poster of the bolg article may have actually done a proper investigation and the results could be a truth the main stream media refuses to face. We'll know after Friday, when the SCOTUS presents the result of its conference.
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
And yet, your heroes continue to lose in this absurd battle.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6145787.html
My favorite part:
The most famous case questioning Obama's citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the case. Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for "lack of standing" — ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue. In cases like this, judges sometimes believe the matter is best left to political institutions, such as the Electoral College or Congress, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles.
The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Are you so upset by the overwhelmingly popular support for Senator Barack Obama that you have developed a nervous tic? I actually am beginning to pity the poor hateful fools that just cannot let go of the fact that they were .... wrong! The only problem is that there are an awful lot of them running around. Either that, or they just make a lot of noise.
Anyway. Tick ... Hateful Hillary will never get the nomination, and if she does, all right-minded Americans will rise up against a Clinton royal line.
Tick, Tick: Who's this Barack Obama guy ... we all hate Clintons and it doesn't matter anyway.
Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay, so Obama has an early lead. He can't keep it. He has no experience. He cannot lead. He's a JUNIOR Senator.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... Obama cannot win because he attended a black liberationist church whose outspoken leader wants to d*mn America.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... Obama cannot win because he wants to make white Americans pay for the sins of slavery ... he wants to tax all white Americans and use that money to pay reparations. And oh yeah, he's a socialist who wants to tax the rich and give it to the lazy slob welfare cheats.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... Obama cannot win because he hung out with Chicago mobsters who used their influence to buy him a cool house in exchange for some kind of favor (never mind that we can't find out what the favor was); he is a product of the Chicago machine, but still a black liberationist socialist. And oh yeah, he's a Muslim.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... So he lucked out and got the Democratic nomination. We all know Democrats are stupid socialists who love to vote for black people because it makes them feel less guilty. Meanwhile, he can't accept the nomination because he's not really a citizen.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... Well, he can't win the nomination because Joe the Plumber says he can't ... he wants to redistribute the wealth and tax the rich ... remember, he's a socialist, a black liberationist, a closet Muslim, and not an American citizen.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... He knew William Ayers! He CAN'T be elected! Oh, and he's not a citizen (and probably a Muslim who the bad guys like).
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... So he got elected. That doesn't matter, because he's not a citizen and lots of whacked out citizens have filed lawsuits all over the country to put a stop to his illegal election (never mind that some of these same individuals have also filed nuisance suits against the Bush Administration for the war in Iraq or the American Mass Media).
See a pattern? Pretty soon your clock is going to wind down and you're going to have to accept the fact that the man has been chosen by 53% of the electorate to be the next president. Maybe then, if you still want to whine about it, you will find some serious and real issues about which we can talk.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays ... seemed to be somewhat tic-infested in his last post
I would have been much more impressed by his post had he used that prodigious brain of his to explain why the Founding Fathers put the clause in about being a natural-born citizen, and why it still does, or it no longer applies. My personal belief is that the leading executive of ANY country should hold SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the people of that country, without any question of his loyalty. Their welfare should be the number one priority of that executive's every decision. Without question.
If you want to be a globalist, then be a man about it. Renounce your U.S. citizenship and take your chances in the world. But don't expect me to be one of your sheeple.
And actually, it is Obama who has recently developed a facial tic. Has he something to be nervous about he hasn't personally shared with you?
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I have not questioned, nor do I protest the requirement that to become the President of the United States, one must be a natural-born citizen. Questions about why the Founding Fathers would include such a requirement should be directed at someone else. However, it seems that some Real Americans have decided to question Barack Obama's loyalty. This, too, seems based on a specious projection ... just like the false claim that I refuted, above.
You seem to have missed the point of all that ticking in your effort to try to make light of my comments. People like you ... in fact, YOU ... have been inventing one reason after another for why Barack Obama is/was not a serious candidate, would never gain the nomination of his Party, and could not (or should not) be elected to the Presidency. My point was that each of your mounting "reasons", over time (hence, all the ticks), were bogus and/or rejected by the American electorate.
I am not too sure where the idea of "globalism" popped up, nor why renouncing my citizenship is a good solution to another invented issue. We already live in a global society, Mr. Real American ... and many of the bankers and financiers and corporate executives loosely allied in that global system ARE "American". If you are, indeed, a Patriot ... why don't you focus your concern and anger at the real culprits, instead of inventing issues and concerns that you think we should all be worrying our little ape-descended brains about. Why don't you start thinking about why money buys power, and "voting" doesn't seem to matter in what legislation actually gets enacted ... why don't you start thinking about the gradual erosion of your freedoms and rights, rather than how some undeserving people are trying to exercise theirs ... why don't you worry about a trillion dollar debt being carried on your back and the back of every other American citizen while a handful of those international bankers and financiers literally are using your money to light their (probably Cuban) cigars ... and why can't you face the fact that the "Commander Guy" (you know, the "Uniter", the "Decider") has left our nation broke, broken, bitterly divided and hovering on the brink of collapse?
Finally, Barack Obama does not share anything with me personally. I have not noticed a facial tic, and even if I did, it would not concern me. But then, some people seem to be easily distracted by the simplest of things.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Will the Fat Lady Sing?
shays wrote ' ... People like you ... in fact, YOU ... have been inventing one reason after another for why Barack Obama is/was not a serious candidate, ... '
The reality is that my early choice was Dr. Ron Paul - you remember, the guy who wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve? The 1 of 2 members of Congress who voted against going into Iraq on the first go-around. The one candidate who wanted to abolish the IRS and personal taxes. The one who questioned NAFTA in order to return jobs to Americans? The one who wanted to gut the Dept of Education. The one who had a pulse on a dying economy at the beginning of the year. As a result, I really had no quarrel with any of the Democrats in the primaries.
As far as I recall, I only have one issue with Obama - he is a mystery man because I paid no attention to him in the primaries, and found little about his accomplishments, other than winning political races, after the election. My one reference to his associates was with his setting up the ACORN organization which ended up being caught registering dead and otherwise non-existant people to vote. This led me to the trail of HIS qualification to be a candidate, which has been my major focus since.
So I'm thinking you have me confused with some other poster in this forum - an obvious symptom of battle fatigue.
RealAmerica
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
"So I'm thinking you have me confused with some other poster in this forum" Not a chance Real. We all know who you are.
Actually, there is only maybe 6-8 of us on this board who talk politics on a regular basis. I'm thankful your not as crazy as Clayton, or as silly as some others on this forum so keep the comments coming ..... you keep us lefties busy and we love it.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Perhaps I do have you confused with some of the other regular posters of Barack Obama mythology to these boards. If so, I apologize. And if you were a Ron Paul supporter, then more power to you. However, you still have a few things wrong, so let me steer you correctly on the things you have listed.
There were 133 members of the House who voted against the Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq, not one or two. There were six Republican members of the House who joined Ron Paul in voting "no" (closer to the one or two, but still incorrect). In addition, there were 23 Senators who voted against that authorization (21 were Dems, and Lincoln Chaffee seems to have paid a price for standing up against the bullies of his party).
The fact that Barack Obama is a "mystery man" to you because you didn't pay attention to him is no fault of his. He did NOT "set up" the ACORN organization. It seems that whatever information you have about Obama's connection to ARORN does not come from a source that Ron Paul would use with confidence, but from those right-wing hucksters who love to spread partial truths and shape them to provide guilt by association. Yes ... ACORN promotes and hires people to register voters, all across the country. And yes, some of the people whom ACORN hires/hired pulled fast ones to receive payment. In almost every instance, ACORN itself caught the deception and reported the facts when it turned in voter registration cards. Some slipped through the cracks. However, you would be better served ... as an American citizen who seems to honor the right to vote and the idea of even a limited democracy ... to look after questions of voter suppression before worrying too much about the neglible influence of voter fraud (except in local elections).
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<Why don't you start thinking about why money buys power, and "voting" doesn't seem to matter in what legislation actually gets enacted ... why don't you start thinking about the gradual erosion of your freedoms and rights, rather than how some undeserving people are trying to exercise theirs ... why don't you worry about a trillion dollar debt being carried on your back and the back of every other American citizen while a handful of those international bankers and financiers literally are using your money to light their (probably Cuban) cigars ... and why can't you face the fact that the "Commander Guy" (you know, the "Uniter", the "Decider") has left our nation broke, broken, bitterly divided and hovering on the brink of collapse?>
Obama's fundraising certainly did buy power and his spending plans, if enacted, will cost trillions for future taxpayers. And I guess the Democratic Party's platform of big government activism is not an erosion of freedoms and rights? It's "fairness" and "social justice" as determined by their pressure groups.
This nation is not going to be "united" with the left wing championing causes of income redistribution, government dependency and racial preference programs. Under Obama it's easier to demand your "cut" rather than work/save/create it. And there's a problem brewing when a majority of people wake up one day and say "let someone else do it or pay for it". There won't be enough people earning/doing to cover the cost of what everyone else wants funded.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I think you misunderstand and/or misstate the direction this country is heading. Republicans (sometimes conservative, sometimes not) have pretty much held sway and been able to enact a government down-sizing, anti-union domestic and economic program for the last thirty-odd years. Assuming they have not driven us off the cliff once again (as they did at the end of the 1920s after about 40-years of the same type of control) and we are able to respond as a nation to the financial and manufacturing crisis we find ourselves in, Americans have pretty clearly expressed a desire to go in a different direction.
The fundamental questions for the majority of Americans in this country focus around some real core issues ... how do I provide a home for my family, how do I put healthy food on the table, and how do I pay for the unmanageable health care costs that we all know are just waiting to reach up and grab us by the ankle when we least suspect them? There are other, almost as important questions that need to be addressed, as well ... but for the average working person, those three are pretty darn important. I know, for a fact, that I am not going to have any of my wealth, such as it is, "taken" by the government to help someone less fortunate than I. I suspect that there are millions of Americans, like myself, who are in the same boat. We don't have anything to "take". Well, I suppose they could take my house ... but I suspect that is going to be some evil and greedy financial wizard working in the private sector who will do that to me, and that I expect my government to protect me from that type of vulture.
I know that my father, who worked for forty years in a union job, was able to support our family on a single pay-check. Our health -- never guaranteed, of course -- was protected by a health care plan his union negotiated. He got two weeks of paid vacation so we could spend quality time together. His employer matched his contributions to feed a retirement pension plan, that he supplemented with Social Security. He even had a health care plan that carries on into retirement ... he does not even need the help of Medicare, but others of his age do. My dad bought our house with the GI Bill, and received the training he needed to secure his union job through the GI Bill. He belonged to what we now call "The Greatest Generation" ... not only because of the sacrifice they made to save capitalism from state corporatism, but also because they were a part of and helped build the biggest and greatest middle-class the world has ever known.
For some unknown reason (experience, maybe?), they thought that government worked. Oh, they were skeptical ... my dad still can only laugh at the looniness of our elected officials ... but government, in my dad's eyes, is the servant of the people. He suspects that many of us got so busy being "successful" that we forgot to keep our eyes on those who would use government to advance their own causes. Or the ends and causes of their friends. Cynicism, laced with the incipient racism of Reaganism, separated us into mistrusting groups that those in power were easily able to manipulate. Fear has replaced hope and promise as the mantra of government control. And rightfully so, because since the 1980s, many of the people serving in government do so with the firm conviction that government is evil. Kind of hard to be a servant of the people when you think the work you do is the work of the devil.
Barack Obama is a transitional character. He still is connected to the politics of power ... he has clearly demonstrated his deft ability to wiggle through and outmaneuver those who practice power politics. So, yes ... I fear that his governing style will remain at heart a top-down management style. His selection of a Secretary of Education confirms this fear. On the other hand, 90% of the vast sums of money you rightfully point out that he raised came from people making contributions of under $50. He is deft and very skilled at organizing people to do things for themselves. That is the promise that he brings.
The harsh realities of the economic crisis he is inheriting will make many of your fears about his spending policies moot. We'll just have to wait and see. I know that Republicans ... on this list and elsewhere ... kept telling me to wait and see what George W would accomplish. I tried, though proved incapable of keeping my mouth shut and complained like a stuck pig ... mainly because the policies and programs that the current president enacted were so patently wrong-headed and disastrous that to do otherwise was the equivalent -- in my mind -- of being a "good German". But I gave him a chance, and I actually supported his initial response to 9/11. It only became worse from then on, especially when we began to find out the types of things he was doing to start a war in Iraq. Perhaps Barack Obama is of the same material. Perhaps within one or two years, I will join you in criticizing his efforts. But just as Mr. Bush did not have to sacrifice the mainstream of the American people to enrich his friends on Wall Street, maybe Mr. Obama will not sell capital down the drain to support the weak and poor.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<Cynicism, laced with the incipient racism of Reaganism, separated us into mistrusting groups that those in power were easily able to manipulate. Fear has replaced hope and promise as the mantra of government control. And rightfully so, because since the 1980s, many of the people serving in government do so with the firm conviction that government is evil. Kind of hard to be a servant of the people when you think the work you do is the work of the devil.>
I'll try and remember this the next time the Democrats drag out their class warfare or race based campaign slogans ('Republicans are racists", "Republicans are against working families", 'Republicans are going to steal your Social Security checks", etc.) to secure votes.
The Founding Fathers wanted limited government and were aware of the dangers of government having too much power/control over the citizens. You can certainly serve the citizens while maintaining that belief system. And some of us do think government should not be providing everything to everyone (and at taxpayers expense) in response to pressure groups demanding "economic justice" or "fairness". It creates incentives to do little or no work, encourages dependence, punishes risk taking/investment and cultivates a "you owe me" mentality. Those conditions are ripe for excessive government control/erosion of freedom.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I'll try and remember this the next time the Democrats drag out their class warfare or race based campaign slogans ('Republicans are racists", "Republicans are against working families", 'Republicans are going to steal your Social Security checks", etc.) to secure votes.
Class warfare was officially declared by Republicans in the United States Senate when they did everything within their power to break the UAW and turn the entire auto industry into a third-world non-union work force, such as that practiced by the foreign-owned companies they champion in their own states. Class warfare was declared the moment taxes were decreased (especially for the wealthy) under the mythical pretension that less taxes meant more investment, which in turn provided more better paying jobs and a general trickle-down of wealth to those less fortunate than those getting the tax breaks -- the single largest transfer of wealth from the lower- and middle-classes to the wealthy in the history of at least this country and possibly the world.
Being a racist is not exclusively a Republican characteristic -- there's plenty of racism within the Democratic Party, not to mention amongst all those skinheads and Aryans and even a few independent voters, as well. Nor are all Republicans racist. However, Ronald Reagan clearly appealed to the racist opinions of George Wallace Democrats as the key component of his "southern strategy", and it was his success at breaking that part of the old Democratic coalition that gave him the ability to begin the ruin of this country. Granted ... unchecked gratuities and compensations and welfare were certainly not the stuff from which a strong nation is made; but neither is shipping all industrial capabilities and an awful lot of agricultural production overseas.
The Founding Fathers wanted limited government and were aware of the dangers of government having too much power/control over the citizens.
This, too, is a myth. The "limited government" that our Founding Fathers created was the Articles of Confederation. That system of government did not work very well for the landed aristocracy, the financial institutions, and the rising mercantile class. Those powerful interest groups needed a strong central government, capable of putting down peasant rebellions and guaranteeing that rampant democracy did not take hold. That group of Founding Fathers we refer to as the Federalists ... and the government they envisioned was quite a bit stronger than the one they actually got (even they had to make compromises), leading to the system of checks and balances that every powerful politician or political force has tried to modify or eliminate since its creation.
You can certainly serve the citizens while maintaining that belief system.
Fundamentally, you are correct. One does not need to be an overwhelming force in order to get stuff done. But it is equally and just as fundamentally true that a person who does not believe that government is good has a hard time doing good in the job. If I receive an appointment, for example, to protect American consumers from pollutants dumped into their drinking water but do not think the government has the right to tell a private person what to do with their waste AND come from a background as an executive in a pollutant generating industry, the chances of me actually aggressively complying with the charge to my position are quite small.
And some of us do think government should not be providing everything to everyone (and at taxpayers expense) in response to pressure groups demanding "economic justice" or "fairness".
Actually, I think most of us would agree that government should not provide everything to everyone. But we are most obviously the wealthiest and most productive nation this planet has ever seen, and there is no reason why anyone living in this country should do without basic necessities -- even if they do nothing more than sit and drool in front of an electronic game.
It creates incentives to do little or no work, encourages dependence, punishes risk taking/investment and cultivates a "you owe me" mentality. Those conditions are ripe for excessive government control/erosion of freedom.
This, too, is true. Which is why the mindset and the way we look at the world must change. People can be "given" basic necessities in exchange for service. They can be provided choices in the types of service they provide, they can be provided with training (as necessary) in order to provide a better service, and they can be provided with both flexibility in assignments (types, place, hours, etc.) and freedom of choice within the service(s) they provide. The last thing we need is for the government to start running a large indentured-servant program. The old notion that you line up in a que for your handout must be replaced with the means to make people receiving assistance gainful contributors to society, as a whole. Given those choices, people who refuse to serve also refuse the assistance.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Turn Out the Lights, The Party's Over
Well the Supremes declined to further review the Donofrio case challenging Obama's status as a 'natural born citizen' per the Constitution requirement. Obama declares himself a 'native born citizen' and a 'citizen of the world'.
It's an interesting call, in light of the Eldridge Cleaver precedent where the Secty of State of California was allowed to strike Cleaver's name off the ballot because he was too young. Bottom line - you and I have to show a birth certificate and Social Security card to apply for a job, but a politician only has to sign a paper that says ... 'trust me' ...
I wonder how the California Supreme Court will handle Alan Keyes' case with this inaction on the part of SCOTUS?
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
Indeed, it seems that your small army of kooky conspiracy lawyers has gone 0-for-2.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Obama did produce a birth certificate, as well as a reprint of his birth announcement that appeared in a Honolulu newspaper around the time of his birth. Additionally, the state of Hawaii backed him up. For most people, this would be sufficient to refute any doubts. Its only you rabid conspiracy theorists who can't accept fact and reality. I can't wait to find out your next ridiculous claim about Obama. Hopefully it will be something with more substance than the rubbish you have been posting to these message boards about his lack of citiizenship. Maybe now you will realize that its time to get a grip and a life, Mr. Not-so-real America.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
ScreamBlame wrote - 'Obama did produce a birth certificate, ...'
Calling the certification of live birth that Obama provided a birth certificate is like calling a learner's permit a driver's license. The announcement alluded to was generated by the department of records upon receipt of all certificates and certifications filed on any given day. Did you notice how they all conveyed exactly the same language? The state of Hawaii stated that they had his original birth certificate. What they didn't state is that they have ALL of the foreign birth certificates of children born overseas whose parents filed for a certification of live birth. What they didn't state is that all of those foreign births show Honolulu as the place of birth. What they didn't state is information from that original birth certificate, like the doctor's name, and address of birth, as they are prevented by law from doing so. Now if you have facts to share, like the street address of where he was born, or the doctor's name, I know where there is a substantial bounty for that information. And good luck with the name of the hospital. The hospitals mentioned in his book and by his 1/2 sister were both recently called (as well as many others) and no record was found of Obama or his mother (except for a cancer center who stated 'no comment'). Now these are issues that someone such as yourself who is at a high school level of education might be able to comprehend. What I can't understand is why sheeple like you find it plausible to be born in 2 hospitals (3, if you count the grandmother's presence at his birth in Mombasa). But hey! For a self-advertised 'world citizen' and 'native born' person as Obama, I admire the way he has pulled the wool over the eyes of the sheeple who have no idea of what defines a 'natural born' citizen as required in the Constitution.
In the case of Donofrio, the actual certificate wasn't germane because his father is admitted to be a British citizen at Obama's birth. But obviously if you can't distinguish between a certificate and a certification, the subtle points of Constitutional law and citizenship are waaaayyyyyy beyond your mental abilities. But the bottom line is that the justices of the U. S. Supreme Court think sheeple like yourself are too stupid and unworthy to have your vote count when electing a president.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Unreal America continues to wallow in delusional drivel because he thinks he has to justify or rationalize all of the horse pucky he has been posting here. Just how would he have any personal knowledge whatsoever as to what a genuine birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii looks like? He pretends to be some sort of expert on the laws and regulations pertaining to the issuance of such certificates by that state. How is it that he actually knows these things? Or is it that he is merely parrotting the nonsense that has been written on the various right wing nut websites that have been striving to portray this as a serious issue with a factual basis?
Just how is it that he knows that the state of Hawaii collects and stores birth certificates of children of foreign birth? Or that it issues its own certifications of live birth for the benefit of such children? Has he, in fact, ever seen or personally inspected such a birth certificate or certification? My own experience is that states do nothing of the kind, and even if they did, they would have no reason to issue certificates that identify ONE CITY IN A STATE OF SEVERAL CITIES as the place of birth if the birth did not, in fact, occur there. Such a certification, patently false as it would be, would be quite useless, wouldn't it?
What evidence does he have to the contrary, other than what he has written here? Or is he simply accepting, at face value, what some neocon blogger has conjured up about Obama's birth certificate? It does not take much in the way of critical thinking to see all of the holes and flaws in the conspiracy rubbish he keeps writing on this issue. If he honestly expects people to take it seriously , much less believe it, he should substantiate his claims with specifics and facts, rather than simply being a mouthpiece for extremist nut cases who obviously have a very low opinion of the intelligence and analytical abilities of those who read what they like to spew.
P.S., if Unreal America really has such a low opinion of the justices of the Supreme Court, he really ought to leave the country before they send the boogeymen to come in the middle of the night to take him away and lock him in the secret prison underneath the US. Caplitol building in order to silence him.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I am not sure that the Justices of the Supreme Court will sign such documents ... after the fact, they might agree to hear a case brought before them by some citizen incarcerated under Executive Order and locked up in perpetuity without trial or having charges brought to light, a power the current president has acquired and which passes to the next president unless the Supreme Court does something about it, first. Of course, the hope that an American citizen thusly hauled off to a secret prison will have his day in Court is sort of dependent on the idea that someone still exists free and on the loose with the power of attorney to bring such a case to light. It seems that the ACLU ... the usual suspect to try to bring attention to such cases ... will most likely be locked up, too. And you know (as I hear the sound of clicking German boots in my mind) ... there are a lot of folks who post to this board who would just LOVE to see the members of the ACLU locked up and in prison.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
ScreamBlame wrote - ... more grade school drivel ... Just how is it that he knows that the state of Hawaii collects and stores birth certificates of children of foreign birth? ...
It's easy. [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM
Why don't you take a long swim to the public library in Honolulu and see for yourself. Maybe you will be grown up by the time you get back.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
The Justices of the Supreme Court refused to hear Donofrio's claim. They gave no reason. They didn't have to. Any human being born on US soil is a citizen of the US, regardless of the nationality of his parents. The end. Case closed. Now all you have left to cling to is the claim by the wingnut Phillip "I Haven't Met a Bush Who I Don't Think Was Involved in a World Wide Conspiracy to Destroy the World Trade Center" Berg, and I am sure his case will be dispensed with in the same way that Donofrio's was. But we have been telling you that for quite a long time now. Aren't you tired of hearing how wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong you are?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Wheels of Justice Grind Slowly On
I was surprised to see a reference to the natural born citizen issue in one of my car forums yesterday. After finding out that the Berg motion for an injunction was rejected, but his case was ongoing because it is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason, I was surprised again to find that the case of Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz (Connecticut SOS) was slated for conference before the SCOTUS for Friday. In this variation of the issue the question of due diligence in relying on a document that serves a dual purpose and by itself is not definitive of the nation of birth of a person is raised.
I also learned why the SCOTUS is reluctant to pre-emt the function of the Electoral College. He is not president-elect until the Electoral College has selected him.
Twentieth Amendment
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;...
So by waiting until after the Electoral College has made its determination the SCOTUS can set the course of procedures to be followed according to the Constitution.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.ht...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
So, I assume by the content of the above, that you (like many reactionary conservative voices) have given up on the will of people (unless they approve Unconstitutional provisions with which you do agree, drafted as they are through the imprecise and special-interest dominated initiative process) and instead seek to have the US Supreme Court once again impose its will in a veritable coup d'etat in the presidential selection process? Two out of three elections would sort of set a pattern, wouldn't it?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Shays wrote '... unless they approve Unconstitutional provisions ...' DUH! The citations from the article were from the Constitution, and did not go through an initiative process as you seem to think. I'm not one of those goofy loopy liberals who follow the law only when it is convenient for them and can't be bothered to think when it gets in the way of following their feelings. Fortunately our Founding Fathers considered your ilk when they framed the Constitution in a manner that considered the tyranny of democracy in guarateeing our individual freedoms and rights.
Now I admit that the timeline of Barak's conception, his parents 'marriage' on or near his mother's 18th birthday in February (as yet unconfirmed, and his father was still married to his first Kenyan wife anyway), followed by his birth 6 months later, and their probable lack of money for a round trip to Kenya makes it unlikely he was born there. Title 8 of the U.S.C. now has a clause about citizenship of illegitimate children of unwed mothers who are born out of the country, but I don't know if that clause was in effect at the time of Obama's birth. So why his hostile resistance to showing his actual birth certificate?
I did come across the unconfirmed possibility that his adoption by Lolo Soetoro (an Indonesian oil magnate) might be reflected on a revised birth certificate. Being an instructor in Constitution Law, Obama would certainly know his citizenship status might be questioned because he was now an Indonesian citizen, and by declaring his American citizenship to clear it up he would become a 'naturalized' citizen instead of a 'natural born' citizen. But that would explain his ability to travel to countries unfriendly to America if he was using an Indonesian passport.
To me the ruling on the Donofrio filing makes sense because although he was born with British citizenship by way of his father, that rolled over to Kenyan citizenship at that colony's independence from Britain, then lapsed from his not affirming his Kenyan citizenship by declaration. And so the default practice of U.S. citizenship prevailed. But the Berg and Wrotnosky filings go for the jugular of what a 'natural born citizen' is, whether his place of birth on his actual birth certificate aligns with that definition, and his mother's ability to pass American citizenship to her legitimate or illegitimate child. Remember the original 14th Amendment contains the clause '... not subject to a foreign jurisdiction ...' in defining a citizen by birth. Maybe the SCOTUS felt that he was 'no longer' subject to a foreign jurisdiction when his Kenyan citizenship expired.
And it is only by practice, not by law, that the United States tolerates dual citizenship. Is it righteous that a country can 'steal' a child born of foreign parents who intend to live in their homeland and raise their child there? Of course not. The parents are 'subject to a foreign jurisdiction' and that is where their, and their child's, loyalties will lie. And that is the point of the 'natural born citizen' qualification of our Presidency.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Your opening paragraph completely missed the point of my comment ...
Shays wrote '... unless they approve Unconstitutional provisions ...' DUH! The citations from the article were from the Constitution, and did not go through an initiative process as you seem to think. I'm not one of those goofy loopy liberals who follow the law only when it is convenient for them and can't be bothered to think when it gets in the way of following their feelings. Fortunately our Founding Fathers considered your ilk when they framed the Constitution in a manner that considered the tyranny of democracy in guarateeing our individual freedoms and rights.
I was not speaking about the Constitution, nor the citations you quoted from the Constitution when making the comment I made. I was speaking about the "will of the People", not the Constitution. The people have spoken, very clearly, about whom they wish to be their next President. There are always whiners who threaten to take their ball and go home when they don't get what they want ... or who mistake petty grievances for true wrongs. For example, where were you when the Supreme Court ruled that a state did not have the Constitutional power to determine how its votes were to be counted and a REAL travesty ... a usurpation of power ... took place? But Republicans always whine some more when reminded of that egregious wrong (if they are not telling us, in the next breath, to shut up get over it and and move on.)
Additionally, I was referring to the Initiative Process ... something not foreseen by the Founders and added to our so-called democratic processes (by Republicans, for the most part, I must ironically add ... back in the days when they still spoke for the common man and had not yet sold their souls to Big Business, soon to become Corporate business) ... which in turn has been corrupted by special interest groups and Big Money to foist unvetted and Unconstitutional provisions into state constitutions.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2434
Obama ‘proud’ to have homosexual band march in inaugural parade (CNS)
Washington DC, Dec 10, 2008 / 04:48 pm (CNA).- President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden have officially invited the Lesbian and Gay Band Association to march in the Inaugural Parade. One of the association’s web sites reports that the group will also march in September as part of the homosexual “Southern Decadence” festival infamous for its public lewd acts.
The Lesbian and Gay Band Association (LGBA) is a network of lesbian and gay bands comprised of concert and marching bands from various American cities. According to a December 10 press release from the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the group’s appearance in the Inaugural Parade on January 20 will mark the first time an “openly LGBT group” has been invited to participate.
"I am honored to invite these talented groups and individuals to participate in the Inaugural Parade," said President-elect Obama. "These organizations embody the best of our nation's history, diversity and commitment to service. Vice President-elect Biden and I are proud to have them join us in the parade."
The main web site of the Lesbian and Gay Band Association hosts a YouTube video reportedly showing 250 of its members marching in the 35th Annual Village Halloween Parade in Greenwich Village in New York City.
The YouTube video, titled “Male Witch Marching Band – Halloween NYC 08,” shows a glamorously dressed man followed by two people wearing fairy costumes. They lead a band of people dressed as witches who play the song “Gimme Some Lovin’.” The marchers were attendees at the LGBA’s 2008 conference, titled “Deliciously Wicked.”
“The weekend more than lived up to its name,” the web site states, noting the conference’s receptions, parades, performances, and costume ball. As of Wednesday morning, the web site for the LGBA’s 2009 conference in New Orleans, lgba2009.org, describes conference plans, saying “We will also be marching in the Southern Decadence Parade on Sunday, September 6th.”
The web site reports that the LGBA conference will be held as part of Southern Decadence and Decafest. The site links to the Southern Decadence festival, which has often been targeted for protest because of its extreme indecency. In 2003, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that it had “become routine” for men to flash their genitals and perform public sex acts at the event, which bills itself as “the Gay Mardis Gras.”
“The city's wildest neighborhood gets even crazier as the French Quarter is packed for the entire event,” the Southern Decadence festival’s current web site says. In its Frequently Asked Questions section, the web site tells those with “an interest in the adult film business” that a pornographic filmmaker will be in attendance.
In a statement on its web site, the LGBA said its participation in the Presidential Inaugural will be “truly our chance to make history.”
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2434
Is there an Obama-Blagojevich connection?
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/11/2008
A former Republican presidential candidate says the political corruption scandal involving Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich could result in top advisors to Barack Obama being called to testify before a grand jury very early in his administration.
President-elect Obama has called on Governor Rod Blagojevich to resign for allegedly trying to trade favors for Obama's vacant Illinois senate seat. Although Obama says he had no contact with the governor or his office on the matter, in an interview last month on Fox News Chicago, top Obama advisor David Axelrod said otherwise.
"I know he [Obama] has talked to the governor -- and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them," said Axelrod.
Yesterday, Axelrod issued a retraction, saying "I was mistaken....They did not then or at any time discuss the subject."
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, says as more details of the Blagojevich case unfold, Obama could be facing a public-relations nightmare because of his strong connection to Democratic Party politics in Chicago.
"Certainly this is an astonishing indictment," Bauer offers. "On its face it shows a tremendous degree of illegality and of corruption. We just have to wait and see whether that corruption extended or in any way touched the incoming president."
According to Bauer, "it requires the willing suspension of disbelief to suggest that Mr. Obama, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and Governor Blagojevich have not talked since the election."
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
OF COURSE the messiah is up to his eyebrows in all of this. Voters have simply replaced the Bush machine with the totally corrupt and self-serving Chicago democratic machine as run by hizzonor-da-mayor Daley. The messiah would still be shooting staples into phone poles doing his community organizing if he hadn't thrown in his lot with Blago-Daley-Rahm and the rest of those scumbags. The messiah is hunkering down and figuring out who he has to throw under the bus to extract himself from this fiasco.
B-rod has done us all a great service by being DUMB enuf to actually give the FBI and Pat Fitz some nice recordings on how business really gets done in democrat politics. And there are those of you out there so naive as to believe the messiah has been "above" all of this?!!!!? Blago is showing us what's in the messiahs wallet and we are "shocked". Shocked I tell you.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Shocked only by the deep level of superficial intelligence people are willing to put on public display by posting such garbage to a public message board.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
I have a little holiday quiz for you. For somebody like you with a brain the size of a planet this should be easy. Who's name rhymes with the actions taken by a scared skunk? Think hard now. Oh, I can just see the "I'm so superior" sneer appearing on your little rodent face...Merry Christmas!
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Harharharharharhar ... that's a good one! I'll just say so long, and thanks for all the fish.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
I would stay away from all of that Kool-Aid you have been consuming if I were you.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
2 Down; 1 2 Go
The docket for the Wrotnosky action against the Connecticut SOS shows the SCOTUS denied to hear it today.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
What do you expect? The Justices are circulating these petitions amongst themselves for the good laugh they provide! I am guessing the Berg case has been saved for last because he is the biggest nut-job of all the petitioners.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
Lets put aside all of the other issues brought about by the original question. The real questions posed were 1) is B. Hussein Obama old enough to be the president of the United States?, and 2) Is B.Hussein a citizen of the United States?
Because B.O. has refused to show his birth certificate, we just don't know how old he really is. And before you all rehash the arguement that he has, he has NOT!!! He has released a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH. You cannot with a cert. of live birth, get a passport, much less sign your child up for little league baseball. A certificate of live birth IS NOT a birth certificate!!
Try going to the county records clerk and ask for a copy of a certficate of live birth...they can't do it... So again, how old is B.O.???
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
to be a total doo-che baggie! That's how old.
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
QC, you are beginning to reveal your IQ - or your age. One of the two. Sounds like you're thirteen to me. You don't really have anything to offer free-thinking, intelligent adults on this board.
Why do idiots like you even bother with the forum? You are wasting your time, and everyone else's .... except for a few other doo baggies like yourself.
I find your actions similar to a teenage graffiti tagger - who sneaks around in the dark -sprays, and get his rocks off .... then runs like hell. If you had to sign off on your work, we would never hear from you - would we?
A man-child, exulting in the freedom and anonymity of the forum ...... and who just doesn't know how to act.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
I didn't think this forum was really serious. It's so full of no on 8 and love of left-wing nonsense I didn't for a moment think anyone was taking this all seriously. By the way, free thinking doesn't include cramming everyone into the same politically correct secular progressive agenda save the whales class envy rainbow coalition diversity'luvin box. That version of free thinking is the worst kind of tyranny. Hey, I would love to jaw-bone all day but I gotta catch the bus to reform school.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Grow up and find something real to complain about ...
The US Supreme Court has now thrown out all but one complaint regarding the president-elect's birth ... and because that one has been presented by one of the biggest conspiracy whackos on the planet, I am sure they keep it alive solely for its entertainment value. Please check out the August 13th, 1961, birth announcement for Barack H Obama in the Honolulu Advertiser. Granted, anyone could call up and pay to have an announcement posted in the classified of a newspaper ... so it proves nothing ... unless you stop to think how unlikely it is that his grandparents would be conspiring 47 years ago to disguise the birth place of their grandson so that he could successfully run for the Presidency. If you think the Manchurian Candidacy of Barack Obama goes back that far, then I have a bridge to nowhere you might be interested in buying, too!
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 470
you know they didn't have computers back then, right?
IT PROVES NOTHING, PROBABLY FAKE.......
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I worked in libraries. We had microfilm in 1964. The document is a photocopy of a microfilm record. But let me guess ... you probably also suspect the Apollo Moon Landings were filmed in Arizona?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote '... The US Supreme Court has now thrown out all but one complaint regarding the president-elect's birth ...'
There is a germ of truth in what he said. It's kinda like thinking ... 'I don't see any trucks in my rear view mirror' just before you enter the intersection where it broadsides you. In one case the Supremes refused to act on the request for a stay. But kept the rest of the case active. But ya gotta wonder why the SCOTUS would ignore the placement on the NJ ballot of an alien born in another country from alien parents. The reason is, of course, that it hasn't. There is yet one more step in the election process before the inauguration that the SCOTUS may be waiting to play out before it acts. Maybe shays can enlighten us with what that step is. But I doubt it.
As for his 'argument' about the birth announcement, it only holds water if Obama's parents actually submitted it. But since it is worded like every other announcement on the page (assuming he even looked at the page full of announcements) it is obviously done as an automatic function, probably as a result of registering COLBs (including those of children born overseas) for any given week. The one accurate statement he makes in his post is ... 'I have a bridge to nowhere ...'.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Its time for FauxAmerica to find a new conspiracy theory to latch onto and rant about. This one has been thoroughly beaten into the ground by the right wingnuts who Faux has been taking at face value and parroting (talk about a 'sheeple"!) without question or critical analysis. Perhaps next time, you will find one that is not riddled with internal inconsistencies or defies logic, as does the 'Obama the alien' myth. Perhaps next time, you will actually take the time to investigate the claims and engage in critical analysis of their credibility and plausibility. Better yet, why not try engaging in some constructive dialogue for a change? You might find it a refreshing departure from the usual doo-doo that attempts to pass for political discourse on these message boards.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
And I am not going to comment anymore on this wasted time wishful thinking effort of those who would fight to the very last man. Turn out the lights, the party is over. There are important problems to discuss.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
The Mierdo Hits the Fan?
(Sorry for the bad spelling - I'm trying a self-adjustment to third-world language skills just in case ...) Despite the bleating of the Obamabot sheeple, both the Judicial and Legislative branches can still have a go at insuring Obama is qualified as a 'natural born citizen' to serve as President.
In terms of the judiciary, the Supreme Court has scheduled the Berg case for conference on January 9th. Just as in the Wrotnowski case, the SCOTUS has only declined to rule on emergency action requests.
http://www.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index&catid=13 (check out the revised Hawaii statute regarding who can view a birth certificate which was just changed this month)
The question shays couldn't answer about the last challenge to a president-elect is ... Congress. A Congressperson and a Senator must both raise the same objection, which sends Congress into extra innings. Congressman Dr. Ron Paul and Senator Inhofe come to mind right away.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd420.htm
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
It wasn't that I couldn't answer your stupid question, it is that I refused to. Big difference. Why do I refuse? Because the only case still standing has been filed by a crank (and will be dismissed on January 9 as have the other "cases"), and because the only support you can bring to bear comes from Devvy, the "Red Head Dynamite".
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
New Salute 2 the Flag
This picture was taken at a fundraiser during the National Anthem. Note the other presidential candidates displaying the proper respect and salute. Note the ‘world citizen’ salute by Obama. Is his the official New World Order salute we will all be giving our flag if he is inaugurated?
Thanks, shays, for being true to your word that you would not post to this topic again. I guess we can expect the same fidelity from Obama as we get from his bots.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Hey FauxAmerica, its pretty obvious that your pic has been altered. Is this the best you can do?
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 1304
Info from Snopes.com on photo.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp
ps. I'm not really on either side of the "Obama" issue. He was elected, so as with any elected official his actions will will be the gage.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 470
and Muslim's hate America. everyone knows that...except for the morons that voted for this "celebrity" they LOVE even though he's never done anything
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2434
Pimp Promise Keeper: Obamacon Pays Back Pervert / Hatemonger Lobby - With other people's kids:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Obama keeping promises made to homosexual groups
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/1/2008
President-elect Barack Obama is moving swiftly to appoint homosexual activists to positions within his administration.
Politico.com reports that 10 national homosexual organizations are working with the Obama transition team to get more openly homosexual people appointed to the incoming administration. Obama's transition team has also reportedly named at least seven openly homosexual people to transition panels assigned to review federal departments and agencies. Three of the seven homosexuals on transition panels have held high-level positions in the Clinton administration.
Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, says Obama is keeping his promises to the homosexual lobby.
"Obama, throughout the campaign, signaled...very quietly, but nonetheless signaled on his web page and elsewhere that he essentially had signed off on every major demand of homosexual pressure groups," he said. "So it's not surprising that he has now allowed some of these radical activists to become part of his administration."
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2434
Steroid Abuse Endorsed by Obamacon?
Whether it be steroid abusing self mutilating Dyke Misandrist Drag Kings, or Homo-Anal Coprophiles in heels - the main goal of the scam is to 'Destroy the Patriarchy' - BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) in order to feed the monkeys of hatred perched like mahouts on their backs.
As Dyke Icon Valerie Solanas said in hyr "SCUM Manifesto" (Soceity for Cutting Up Men Manifesto - the 'mein kampf' of femi-na-zism), of the rationale behind the alliance betwen the two groups: Dykes support Homo-Anal Perversions because those men who act them out "De-Man themselves, and thus render themselves Relatively Inoffensive."
Promoting those who act out such hatreds in order to demean and degrade normal men, is kind of like (kkk klown) David Duke putting on shoe polish blackface and having the Obamacon embrace and hail him as a fellow 'African' American...
And Not Oh So Different Either.
Ohso
Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosoph. The heresy of heresies was common sense. George Orwell 1984 On the Thought Police.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Transgenders in the White House? (CRI)
Last year Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger opened school restrooms and locker rooms to transgenders when he signed SB 777. Citizens were so shocked and outraged by the thought of cross-dressing boys preying on young girls in their locker rooms, that hundreds of thousands signed petitions to overturn SB 777.
Now, President Barak Obama may establish a similar policy for the White House. According to Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, the president-elect's transition team is considering an executive order that will prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for White House employees.
While President George W. Bush kept intact President Bill Clinton's policy prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, no other White House has protected gender identity.
"Americans should be gravely concerned that the White House, America's representative to the world, is implementing the same crazy policies that California has imposed on our citizens," stated Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "We will continue our campaign to overturn SB 777's dangerous policies because our children's safety depends upon it."
Story: Obama offers 'open door' to gender- confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Transgender Twirlers? Homosexual Band to March in Obama’s Inaugural Parade
December 17th, 2008 (www.americansfortruth.com)
We can’t say for certain, but that appears to be a Transvestite Twirler tossing his baton and wearing a covered bikini — in video footage on the Lesbian and Gay Band Association website. Barack Obama will be the first President to have a homosexual band march in his Inaugural Parade (the aberrant-sex band played for President Clinton, but did not march). And we’re also pretty confident that this will be the first band ever to march in both an Inaugural Parade and a parade for the debauched “Southern Decadence” homosexual festival in New Orleans — which in past years has seen men engaging in sex acts on the streets.
By Peter LaBarbera
Bob oh boy! A band created by the Lesbian and Gay Band Association — built around men and women who share disordered sexuality and, for some, gender confusion — is marching in Barack Obama’s inaugural parade — the first ever “gay” Inaugural marching band!
What a civil rights achievement — the Democrats should be so proud. Despite the enormity of this “progressive” milestone, apparently it is only somewhat of a technical “first”: the Aberrant Sex Band played twice for Bill Clinton but reportedly never marched for the … Aberrant Sex President.
In a statement, President-elect Obama said, “”I am honored to invite these talented groups and individuals to participate in the Inaugural Parade … These organizations embody the best of our nation’s history, diversity, and commitment to service. Vice President-elect (Joe) Biden and I are proud to have them join us in the parade.”
Questions: what deserving, hard-working high school band from Anytown, USA was bumped out by the homosexual marchers in the intense competition to march in the Inaugural Parade?
We’re also wondering: do the bisexual LGBT band members get to march in any direction they want?
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2434
Switch Hater?
Gosh, one would have though that Obamacon Mentor 'reverend' Wright would now be all the Rage in leftist circles, having apparently been a 'success' in his demand for God to (sounds like scam) Amerika.
Perhaps the 'gay gene' - after triggering the Schism in the Episcopal Curch, will come up with something even more exotic for the Obamacon to embrace, or perhaps just more vile.
Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
'Pastor to presidents' replaced by gay bishop
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 11/12/2008
Gene RobinsonA conservative Christian activist says it's a sad omen for the Obama administration and the United States that Barack Obama has been seeking guidance from the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop.
The Times of London reports that the president-elect sought out New Hampshire homosexual bishop Vicki Gene Robinson for advice three times during his presidential campaign. Robinson, whose ordination in the Episcopal Church has caused a deep rift within the Anglican Communion, was reportedly sought out by Obama to discuss what it feels like to be "first."
Robinson notes in their three private conversations, Obama voiced his support for "equal civil rights" for homosexuals and described the election as a "religious experience." Peter Peter LaBarberaLaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Obama's consultations with Robinson show the true tenor of his upcoming administration.
"It looks like Billy Graham has been replaced by a gay bishop. We're moving to, perhaps, our first anti-Christian president; it's beyond post-Christian.
Gene Robinson advocates homosexuality as part of the Christian experience," he explains. "Now Bible-believing Christians cannot accept that. Homosexual practice is sinful, as taught by the scriptures. This man [Obama] pretends to be faithful to Christianity, even as he works very hard to undermine it."
LaBarbera suggests Robinson may possibly replace Jeremiah Wright as one of Obama's main spiritual advisers. Wright was Obama's Chicago pastor for 20 years before disassociating with the controversial preacher during the presidential campaign.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2434
Ministries fear restrictions under Obama administration
Associated Press - 12/20/2008 5:10:00 AM
Christian ministries are bracing for what they fear will be restrictions on religious liberty once Barack Obama is sworn in as president.
<storybody>Kelly Shackelford, presidLiberty Legal Institute, says Congress could move quickly to outlaw discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation, even if a school or ministry teaches that homosexuality is sinful.
He says ministries also fear that a federal hate crimes law could be used against preachers...
Shackelford says Christian groups are weighing how to respond if their fears are borne out. The Human Rights Campaign, a pro-homosexual group, did not respond to a request for comment.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Good ...
The KKK didn't burn crosses for nothing. Hate spewing men (and women) who hide behind pulpits can use "belief" as an excuse, but we all see their protective suit for what it is ... hot air.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Well, the Berg gang keeps shopping for a Justice who will give it a hearing. First they tried Souter (an application for an injunction) on October 31. He denied the request on November 3. Then on December 8, they filed another application for an injunction with Souter on December 8. He made short shrift of this one, denying it the next day. So, on December 15, they filed a third application, this time to Justice Kennedy. The application was distributed on December 17 for Conference on January 9, but then Justice Kennedy denied the application on the same day. Not to be deterred or abashed, they refiled the application on December 18, only this time to the Mafiosa of the Court, Antonin Scalia. On December 23, it was distributed for Conference on January 16.
Since this is only four days before the inauguration, my guess is that this will be the last chance Philip "I Never Met a Conspiracy Theory I Couldn't Buy Into" Berg has to get someone to listen to him.
For verification that the above is true, please visit this rather objective source: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
This may just turn out to be a spectacular rumor, or a real wake-up call to the sheeple of America. The possibility exists that a document purporting to be from the divorce of Obama, Sr., and Obama, Jr.'s mother describes him as being born in Kenya. For those of you following this thread closely, that would make it highly likely that he is an illegal alien.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/williams/081231
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
"This may just turn out to be a spectacular rumor, or a real wake-up call to the sheeple of America."
Or, as is more likely, it could just be a flat out LIE written by someone with an obvious bias and an anti-Obama agenda to push. Do you believe everything that gets posted online, FauxAmerica? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would be interested in selling to you!
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
UPDATE: The mail from Hawaii ran late, so the document promised to be posted on the Plains Radio website today will be delayed until Friday due to the New Year's holiday.
http://www.plainsradio.com/
This may just turn out to be a spectacular rumor, or a real wake-up call to the sheeple of America. The possibility exists that a document purporting to be from the divorce of Obama, Sr., and Obama, Jr.'s mother describes him as being born in Kenya. For those of you following this thread closely, that would make it highly likely that he is an illegal alien.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/williams/081231
In the meantime, have an expansive and enlightening New Year!
RealAmericaL
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Hey FauxAmerica - why do you persist in perpetuating unsubstantiated rumors? Is the TRUTH too difficult for you to grasp and deal with?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
53% of Americans Question Obama's Qualification
The following poll can be found on AOL.com. It seems there are fewer and fewer sheeple (with the exception SceamBlame, who has regressed from sophomoronic to childish) as time passes and the word gets out. To that end please read the link to the FAQ about Obama's birth qualification and the Constitution of the U.S., then take the poll yourselves.
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-c...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
The only "sheeple" around here is FauxAmerica, who blindly accepts as 'truth' anything that shares his thoroughly discredited opinion that Obama must not really be a natural born American citizen. Never mind that the "facts" supporting that opinion change almost daily, and coincide with the posting of a new blog or website offering even more unsubstantiated rubbish in a desperate effort to try to build support for this wholly unsubstantiated rubbish claim. But, then, one only has to do a search of these forums and read the stuff that Faux posts here to know that he has no interest in being either objective or truthful. He can call me names, label me sophomoric or childish if he wants, but that does not diminish the fact that he has zero credibility on anything having even remotely to do with the President Elect.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
No surprise considering the mainstream press were essentially in the tank for the Obama campaign. NBC/ MSNBC were the worst. What did we really learn about Obama the candidate during campaign coverage? It's only now that were getting information about Obama's relationship with the disgraced Illinois governor. So Obama investigates himself and is now "cleared" in the matter?
Palin was alleged to "lack experience" but Obama's experience (or lack of it) never seemed to get discussed. Obama kept flip flopping on issues such as gun control, taxes and meeting with foreign leaders but the media kept up the "qualified leader" persona. Obama (with the help of the media) claimed Republicans would try to scare voters because of his race/name but McCain never did. And what about Obama's connections with Rezko, Wright and Pfleger? If a Republican candidate had associations with a militia or racial separatist groups he/she would be forced to drop out of a campaign because of the media onslaught.
The so called "change" theme turns out to be Obama hiring ex Clinton administration officials. So what's new? How is the selection of Washington insider Joe Biden an example of "change"?
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2434
Military Nominees and the Homosexualist Agenda [Elaine Donnelly - Center for Military Readiness] (12/20/08)
The Washington Times has reported that Pres. Barack Obama may appoint Mr. William White, described as openly gay, to be the next Secretary of the Navy. There is no law against homosexual civilians in the Pentagon, and Mr. White would not be the first service secretary without prior military experience. Still, the nomination would be unwise for reasons that go far beyond the prospective appointee himself.
Bill White is the president and CEO of the Intrepid Foundation, which sponsors the popular aircraft-carrier museum in the Hudson River off Manhattan. He has also raised millions for the Fisher House Foundation, which provides temporary housing and support for the families of injured service members. These are admirable good works, which have led some prominent retired military officers to promote Mr. White for appointment as Secretary of the Navy.
The problem is that the appointment of any person as the “first openly gay” military service secretary would essentially distort the coming congressional debate on the issue of gays in the military. Early in 2009, primary sponsor Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) will reintroduce legislation to repeal the 1993 law, which is frequently mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Unlike that convoluted DADT administrative policy, which was put in place by Pres. Bill Clinton, the actual law clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.
If Congress votes to repeal the 1993 law (Section 654, Title 10), the new policy would be forced cohabitation with homosexuals, 24/7, in all military communities, to include Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, and submarines. Corollary programs to make the new policy “work” would include professional “diversity training” to enforce acceptance, and “zero tolerance” of anyone who disagrees.
Dissenters would face discipline and be denied promotions, which would end their military careers. Incidents of misconduct would increase threefold, to include male/male and female/female misconduct that undermines discipline and demoralizes the troops. These results would harm recruiting and retention, and effectively destroy the volunteer force.
Consequences as serious as these deserve objective analysis, informed testimony, and serious debate by members of Congress. This would not happen, however, if congressional attention centers on the charitable fundraising activities of the prospective nominee for Secretary of the Navy. (Mr. White did not comment on the Washington Times story.)
Civilian service secretaries do not have to live in the same conditions of what the law describes as “forced intimacy” offering little or no privacy. Congress should protect the interests of surface sailors, Navy SEALS, and submariners who do accept these living conditions, and not pass legislation that would make military life even more difficult. But instead of considering the harmful consequences of repealing the 1993 law, Mr. White’s perceived status as a “poster man” for the cause of gays in the military would distract attention from the serious consequences of repealing the 1993 law.
Such an appointment would call into question the judgment of President Obama, the next Commander-in-Chief. Despite his personal views, President Obama should put the needs of the military above the demands of homosexualists who want to use government power to impose their agenda on military men and women.
Another prominent story in the news demonstrates the attitude of intolerance that is common in the homosexualist faction. In a Politico article titled “Gay Leaders Furious with Obama,” Joe Solomonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, expressed anger at the “genuine blow to LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered] Americans” that he perceives in President-elect Obama’s invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration.
This overwrought protest, and the post-election harassment of Mormon leaders in California who supported the Proposition 8 referendum defining marriage, foretell what could happen if Congress votes to repeal the 1993 law. Absent the statute, Pentagon officials would enforce “zero tolerance” of anyone who disagrees with the new policy for any reason. How would this radical change affect military chaplains whose beliefs are similar to those of Pastor Warren and thousands of clergymen of many faiths?
In 2007, Marine Gen. Peter Pace was denied a second term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because he stated his support for the 1993 law in terms reflecting his religious faith. The law itself is completely secular and centered on good order and discipline, but the controversy prematurely ended General Pace’s career. Given this experience, it is reasonable to expect that like-minded military chaplains and other personnel who support the law would face the same type of criticism. If the Pentagon assigns "civil rights" status to homosexuals, military tradition would mandate “zero tolerance” of dissent. In the armed forces, denied promotions end careers.
Members of Congress should consider the impact of repealing the 1993 law on military chaplains and other servicemen and women, who would have no recourse if the law is repealed. This is only one of dozens of issues that could go unexamined if members of Congress focus on personal friendships instead of the consequences of repealing a law that has been upheld as constitutional several times, and enjoys widespread support.
Mr. White has demonstrated that everyone can serve our country in some way. This is not a good enough reason, however, to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Ohso's off-track article is a good lead-in to a recent filing by Berg on behalf of a USAF Colonel, Ret., who may still be activated to duty under a usurper to the Presidency. He asks the court whether he should disobey orders from someone who is unqualified to serve as President.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84971
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
World Nut Daily - another incredible source relied on by FauxAmerica for more of his incredible rantings. Does anyone with a third grade education or better seriously expect the U. S. Supreme Court to sanction the disavowel of legitimate authority exercised by the commander in chief by a rank and file member of the U. S. military? Only those as delusional as FauxAmerica would actually take this stuff seriously enough to publish it on forums such as these.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Ed Hale seems to have posted the papers for the Obama, Sr., divorce. He requires a login and password to view the papers which I don't have. Would anyone else like to '... open the envelope, please ...'?
http://www.plainsradio.com/chat1.html
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Ed Hale, the cattleman from Texas, has turned out to be a real disappointment. I just looked at the divorce documents returned by Hawaii and there is no mention of Barak H. Obama, Jr. being born in Kenya as rumored and posted by me in previous articles.
And although it would be great to have a corroborating piece of evidence, the issue of where, precisely, in the legal sense, BHO was physically born still remains.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
"the issue of where, precisely, in the legal sense, BHO was physically born still remains."
Correction - the issue of where Obame was born is, and has never been, in dispute. Its only clowns like FauxAmerica who keep perpetuating these lies and false rumors, who are delusional enough to think otherwise. For people who know how to think critically and rationally, it was not and is not an issue. Note that the original claim was that Obama was born in, and a citizen of, Indonesia. When that falsehood fizzled, it morphed into Obama being born in Kenya. How gullible do these folks think people are? These are the REAL 'sheeple"!
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Did you honestly believe a Texas cattleman was going to produce your smoking gun, and save your world view at the last moment? And I assume that if a cattleman from Texas produces a document showing that Barack Obama was, indeed, born in Kenya ... even though no one else in the entire world could find such a smoking gun, despite massive efforts to obtain such a thing ... that would automatically give it credence and legal standing? What if that same Texas cattleman produces a document showing that Dick Cheney has laundered income from the Haliburton he supposedly disengaged himself from, and has been using George W. as a marionette for the past 8 years? Would it have credibility in your eyes?
Give me a break.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote '... Did you honestly believe a Texas cattleman was going to produce your smoking gun ...'
At the time I posted the article I did not know his vocation, and yeah, since childhood I always assumed cowboys could save the day with guns ablaze. I took his word that he hired a PI at his expense to find the documents in Hawaii that were provided on his site. I read from a second source that he took care to have a court in TX request the documents as part of a legal action, so certified copies sent from one court to another via certified mail would be available for review and that a chain of evidence would be created. As for no one else being able to find the smoking gun, are you alluding to the one used to kill the investigator in Kenya who was told to get off the bus, then was shot and his possessions removed from him and he was left to rot on the side of the road?
Then on the other hand, we have the Obamabots like yourself who go on a Chicago politician's word that he is qualified, and accept his word he was born in Hawaii. Yet Obama refuses to provide the legally binding document that inconclusively shows where he was born, by what doctor, in what hospital, at what time, birth weight, etc. that might cost $25 to provide, but rather hires 3 law firms to prevent its exposure to the public. Even John McCain thought it a reasonable enough request that he provided a certified copy of his vault birth certificate when the question arose. Maybe the following video explains that -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_jh2dO78U
And please, don't bother to trot out the fallacious argument that the document posted on his website, which is also the same document used to register children born out of the country, is a sufficient document to determine his level of citizenship - that of a natural born citizen.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof lies with you and your ilk. As far as I can tell, any time in the past that Barack Obama has been asked to document his citizenship (passport applications and social security, to name a few), he has been able to do so in a satisfactory manner. His citizenship has never been challenged before, and it is only because a highly paid stooge and political hit man (Jerome Corsi), known primarily for creative exaggeration and downright fabrication ... supported by the deep pockets of at least Sean Hannity (and possibly his foreign-born boss) ... that the question is even being asked this time.
Grow up. Let it rest. Those of us who felt that George W Bush stole an election had to endure eight years of comments like that from people such as yourself, so now it is time to put the shoe on the other foot, suck it up, and walk your own talk. Be a man, for gosh sakes, and stop your whining. (PS: we had to endure insults like that, as well).
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote '... The burden of proof lies with you ...'
Not. Obama is applying for a position that demands special qualifications (natural born citizen), and the burden on proof is on him that he holds those qualifications. Just as the burden of proof would be on you to provide a birth certificate for a job application.
'... any time in the past that Barack Obama has been asked to document his citizenship (passport applications and social security, to name a few), he has been able to do so in a satisfactory manner. ...'
Not. If he freely provided his passport application, why would he demand an investigation when his passport info was cracked in March, 2008? And who knows? Maybe the person who cracked the file saw an unusual birth place in it, and it triggered this entire line of questioning. That is, unless you have personally seen the contents of his passport application or even seen it displayed on the internet? And if you didn't see it, who, exactly, has seen it to 'their satisfaction' that we can rely on with some authority? JEDI MIND TRICK
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.passport/
As for his SSN, what came up in the search is that Obama voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits -
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/socialsecurity.asp
'... His citizenship has never been challenged before ...'
Spoken like a true Obamabot. He never ran for an office that required being a natural born citizen before.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Since you add nothing of substance to the discussion and continue to recycle rumor, innuendo and questionable syllogisms ... I have nothing further to say unless, as in the past, something new and/or credible appears in your line of so-called reasoning. I also offer the following caution about the willful disrespect and abuse of fellow human beings that seems to so clearly mark the hatchet folk of the right by quoting the soft spoken and oft-overlooked lyricist Allen Toussaint: "It's high time that you found out. The same people you misuse on your way up, you might meet up, on your way down."
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote '... I have nothing further to say ...'
For a second time, I see. Then he points out '... willful disrespect and abuse of fellow human beings ...' and points to '... the hatchet folk of the right ...' when a greater percentage of the country is concerned about Obama's credentials than who actually elected him. That seems a little disrespectful to the people who actually care to live by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution. Even the State of New York is coming around, as the spread just 5 days ago was 9 points, and today it is 1; Illinois has gone from a spread of 2 to 4. So 'right' and 'left' seems to make no difference.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-c...
There is supposedly a FOIA action to try to recover Pt. of Entry documents that might shed light on the situation, but I could find no confirmation, and the process will take time, if successful. As time passes this issue becomes a black hole, polarizing people and likely sucking people in power into doing nefarious deeds then covering their tracks. And the 'main stream media' have their own black holes to deal with until they pull their heads out of their osses. At this point if they ever do come on board they will have nothing relevant to add, so they really have no reason to pursue the issue.
So c'mon Barak - put a certified copy of your birth certificate out there for all to see. Show us that you're not some elitist, but one of your proletariat that wouldn't ask anyone to do something they wouldn't do themselves (like provide a birth certificate for a job application).
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Congress Bails on Its Constitutional Duty
There were no surprises in Congress today when it complacently and complicily ratified the vote of the Electoral College to inaugurate the ticket of Obama and Biden this coming January 20th without objection. Ominously the Chief Justice of SCOTUS scheduled a 3rd case for conference on Jan. 23rd yesterday. The attorney whose case was distributed by Justice Roberts can sum it up best ...
http://www.drorly.blogspot.com/
That means that the injunction of the Wrotnowski was denied but merits of the case can still be heard, that the Berg case on the issues merit and standing are scheduled for conferences of Jan. 9th and 16th, respectively, and the case of Lightfoot v Bowen is scheduled for the 23rd. Our patience will be sorely tested as these cases wind thru the court in the coming weeks, and we should remember the case against Nixon did not come to fruition until after he was inaugurated for his second term, then was forced to resign. And there are other cases piling up, like members of the Armed Forces who question his validity as Commander-In-Chief who could be put in jeopardy if they obey his orders, or don't obey his orders. So stay tuned, folks.
Isn't it funny how all the years of lists of foreign students receiving aid at California universities are available except 1981? (unconfirmed) ...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
What does your link have to do with either Chief Justice Roberts or the Supreme Court generally? Answer? NOTHING!! You must have a great amount of time on your hands to be able to spend it searching the 'net to find such delusional drivel. Have you thought about finding a constructive hobby or pastime to pursue? Please do; all this nonsense is getting old and tired.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
What? Me Worry?
With approval ratings in the single digits, Congress has ratified the Electoral College choice of Obama and Biden. The disconnect with the American public over Obama's qualification is clearly indicated by the recent reversal in New York, which has now fallen in line with most of the country in seeing merit in challenging Obama's 'natural born' citizenship status in the AOL poll.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-c...
It will be interesting to see what Chief Justice Roberts pulls out of his hat tomorrow! (See prior article)
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Blatant Congressional Crime?!
It isn't everyday that the entire Congress (both Senate and House) can be charged with a crime. But at the ratification of the Electoral votes yesterday there was no objection allowed as provided by law. You watch the proceedings, you read the code, you decide. A letter to the Attorney General of the United States may be in order.
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1843
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
This is all such foolishness. You clearly have no clue as to how the electoral college system operates, or the role of the congress in ratifying its vote. Did it even occur to you that, because as the statute states, all objections to the confirmation must be in writing, they would have had to be submitted to the president of the Senate in advance, or at least made known to him (in this case, the Vice President) so that he could have acknowledged them and dealt with them in accordance with the established rules? Does it really surprise you, given that the only people carrying on this campaign are right wing nut cases like yourself, that there were no written objections from the House or Senate to be lodged, or for the Vice President to acknowledge?
Your conspiracy theory has exhausted whatever claims to legitimacy it ever had. If you feel compelled to keep harping on this horse pucky claim, go for it, but you should anticipte and expect that you will end up talking to yourself if you do.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Well expressed ...
Sometimes the simplest answer is the one that makes the most sense: no one filed an objection because not a single member of the U.S. Congress thought there was sufficient grounds to issues such a challenge ... and you know as well as I that there are a score of nutters who have done crazier things than sign a sworn objection to the certification of the Electoral College vote.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Jan. 9 Conference
Of the cases presented for conference on Friday, 4 were accepted for argument and one dropped without comment. The Berg case is held over the weekend.
I would imagine the illegal actions of Congress not to solicit objections to the Electoral Court as mandated (that means required, ScreamBlame) by the U.S. Election code (see prior article) may give pause for the Court ponder how much abuse our Constitution can take and have us remain a nation of laws.
That means that the injunction of the Wrotnowski was denied but merits of the case can still be heard, that the Berg case on the issue of standing is scheduled for conferences of the 16th, and the case of Lightfoot v Bowen is scheduled for the 23rd. Our patience will be sorely tested as these cases wind thru the court in the coming weeks, and we should remember the case against Nixon did not come to fruition until after he was inaugurated for his second term, then was forced to resign. And there are other cases piling up, like members of the Armed Forces who question his validity as Commander-In-Chief who could be put in jeopardy if they obey his orders, or don't obey his orders. Consider that it takes a scheduling of oral arguments before the SCOTUS can issue a decision, but in the case of Berg., the DNC and Obama did not respond, so the arguments may be brief and rather one-sided.
So stay tuned, folks.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
New material and arguments, hence a new comment:
(1) Perhaps no one in the Congress bothered to challenge the Electoral College certification because not a single member ... even the whackiest of whacks ... didn't think there was a credible reason to do so?
(2) Time will tell, of course, but so far when a Justice of the Supreme Court has called for a Conference on these various complaints, they have either denied the motion and/or the Conference itself refused to act. There is no reason to suspect it will act any different on Jan 16 or 23.
(3) The difference between Richard Nixon and Barack Obama should be apparent to most anyone with a reasonable high school education ... Richard Nixon abused his power, spied on Americans, ordered Americans murdered, and then used the power of his office to cover up and conceal the crimes he and his henchmen committed (including several still walking the streets and playing an active, disruptive role in American life). These are just the things we KNOW he did. Gerald Ford pardoned him, meaning that we could never get to and hold Mr. Nixon accountable for his crimes. This, in turn, freed Ronald Reagan to trash the Constitution and commit even larger crimes for which HE was never held accountable. Now, if indeed Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and has gone out of his way to hide that fact from us (or participated in a conspiracy that began almost before he was born and has been covertly and successfully carried out for 43+ years just on the off-chance that he might one day become elected President of the United States), then we need to know and then take necessary action. However, even if that crime IS detected (which it will not, because it is a figment of Jerome Corsi's mangled and fevered imagination), it sort of pales in comparison to the crimes committed by Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote '... no one in the Congress bothered to challenge the Electoral College ...'
It is a moot point because Cheney violated the law by refusing to ask if there were any objections. A prior post displays the law; remember the word shall means there is no choice, it is not optional, it is required. If a Congressperson had an epiphany and decided to rise above the morals of Congress that keep them in single digit voter approval, they were denied the chance to 'come clean' by the despicable actions of Cheney. Even the Congressional Parliamentarian was mute.
'... so far when a Justice of the Supreme Court has called for a Conference on these various complaints, they have either denied the motion and/or the Conference itself refused to act ...'
There is a link in a prior article speculating why SCOTUS acts the way it does. Were you aware that the Court recently agreed to revisit the Voting Rights Act? One explanation is that the court feels elections should be handled by Congress, not the judiciary. As the last act of Congress regarding the current election just passed, with unsatisfactory protections afforded the electorate, they may feel free to step forward to protect the Constitution from Congressional malfeasance. And it was the Chief Justice that distributed the last case for conference, and his opinion slightly outweighs any of the other justices, and greatly outweighs yours.
As for your third rant, the Nixon case was presented as an example of the timeline we could expect and the predicament Obama has put us in because he so arrogantly refuses to spend $35 or less to provide a long form birth certificate to corroborate his statement that he is qualified. Instead he hires 3 law firms to keep his birthplace hidden from the public.
Why you continue to put faith in a leader who asks you to do something he refuses to do himself is childish, reckless, and imprudent. And YOU call Jerome Corsi wacky!
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-c...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
As you may have guessed, I am not a fan of Dick Cheney and feel he has violated the law multiple times (which is why he and his little marionette should have been impeached). He is arrogant, self-serving, and not above pulling a fast one now and again. The fact that he supposedly violated the law (a questionable opinion, by the way) should lead you to join my side and call for his removal from office and/or severe punishment after leaving office.
That said, you have now accused 535 men and women of all being cowards. Granted, an awful lot of them are ... spineless scum-sucking boot-lickers who view the next campaign donation (and the prostitution of any ideals they may have in order to get it) and the next campaign for the next office the grandest prize of all. But somewhere in that sleazy pile of worms, slugs, and guzanos (nice contrary literary reference, heh?) there must be one like-minded soul who shares your concerns and could have stood up and said "Point of Order". In fact, I think I remember in a previous post (possibly in another topic, since in typical neo-con fashion you have blanketed any and all topics and threads that even remotely address this question in the hopes of subjecting as many people as possible to your delusions and needless fears) that you even listed the Representatives and Senators most likely to be the ones who would make sure the vote of the Electoral College was at least challenged. Where are they? Why would not even one slightly imbalanced and cranky old guy or gal simply say "I object"?
The simplest and most logical reason is that there is nothing about which to object.
Every link that you have offered to "explain" what is going on is a piece of c**p (pardon my French). You have yet to post a credible source for ANY of these accusations. Do not misunderstand me. I will be up front: I think all those right wing blogs are an abomination (as are a good many on the left), but they have as much right to opine and speculate and spread their cancerous version(s) of reality as the next guy. You just forget that their opinions and speculation are cancerous and deeply twisted, and mistake them as being insightful or "on to something". So whatever speculation they choose to print about this, that and the other is nothing more than that ... speculation (and probably of the worst kind, because it is not honest speculation, but speculation designed to prove a point or sway opinion through scurrilous means).
The Nixon "rant" as you call it is factual. I notice that you did not bother to argue that Richard Nixon was a brave patriot who was horribly misunderstood and that he did not abuse the power of his office. Yes ... he got through his second inauguration before everything started to unravel (the only factual parallel to the current whackiness that I can see); but there were real things that he really did that were pretty darn important that came unravelled. And now that I put it in that context, I see that you are using a refined argument for why George W should not have been impeached ... since you cannot tell the difference (in either scale, scope, or importance) between lying to Congress and the American people about whether or not you had sex and lying to the American people about the reasons we need to go to war (or about spying on Americans, or about torturing people, or about outing agents ... take your pick), I guess I can understand how you would equate (and confuse) destruction of the electoral process and egregious abuse of trust and power with not providing a birth certificate. The two are about the same, after all.
I do not know to whom you refer in your final paragraph. No one has asked me to do something he will not do himself ... certainly no leader in whom I will place faith. As to the placing of the faith ... maybe that's your problem. Let me explain. You zero in on this issue of "faith" as if it were a debatable issue. The fact of the matter is that I do not place faith in any elected leader, and before I give them my trust, they must earn it. Apparently, you feel that faith in our leaders is important. Remember, "faith" is blind ... the faithful are gullible sheep lured and led by their noses, without question or protest, wherever those in whom the faith is placed desire to take them. Faith also does not require concrete, observable evidence. There is nothing wrong with "faith" and "belief" ... you just always have to be aware that there is a downside (unfortunately, the "faithful" never ask questions, so are usually not aware of the downside).
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
One Down, 3 to go ...
The SCOTUS issued an order today denying the Wrotnoski case. This was the case against the CT secretary of state, and was based on the argument that Barak's father, being a British citizen, prevented natural born status being applied to Obama II. There was no reason given for the denial.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-c...
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
2 Down, 2 To Go ...
The Berg case had two submissions for conference; one for 'standing' and the other for the merits of the arguments. The following link points to a nice legal analysis -
http://www.americasright.com/2009/01/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in....
What frosts my cake is federal judge Surrick's findings - '... Surrick argued that Berg had not adequately showed a particularized injury-in-fact, noting in his memorandum that "regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters." ...'. To me, the only way we would NOT be injured as voters is if OUR VOTES DON'T COUNT!. Yet, Congress passed a voting rights law to break up the racial practices of 40 years ago which implied that our votes should count. What happened since then that negated the value of our vote? Is the court saying - "we haven't taken away your right to vote, but if the election is rigged to remove any freedom to elect a candidate of your choice, say, by presenting slates of non-qualified candidates except for 1, no problem?" Or are they saying "when you go to the polls you have no expectation that any of the names presented on the ballot are qualified for the office sought"? VOTER BEWARE?! "And don't expect to be able to sue in court to determine if a candidate is qualified" seems to be the other message the courts are sending.
And just think. Whoever finally ends up in the Oval office as the legitimate President gets to name 3 MORE TURKEYS to the Supreme Court to make sure our Constitutional rights are suppressed for decades to come.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
They could also be saying that none of the arguments hold any water, and all candidates were fully qualified to run for said office.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
FauxAmerica's endless rants might possibly hold a mild degree of interest if he possessed even a modest knowledge of the law and the way in which legal processes work. But since he is already committed to the proposition that whoever is elected president and whoever that person appoints to the Supreme Court will 'make sure our rights are suppressed', it is clear that he has no clue.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Okay. I am a voter. As a single voter, does that give me legal standing to file a lawsuit challenging the birth of Barack Obama because I claim he is suppressing photographic evidence of his birth in North Korea and I demand to see that evidence? As a single voter, does that give me legal standing to file a lawsuit challenging the citizenship of Barack Obama because I claim he possesses a certificate of live birth for someone named Barrie Sortofterro from Mumbai on the same date that Barack Obama claims he was born, and I demand to see that evidence? As a single voter, does that give me legal standing to file a lawsuit demanding that Barack Obama produce documents proving he has a legal driver's license, is legally registered to vote (or that he produce the voter registration documents from the six states I claim he is registered to vote in, simultaneously), or verifiable transcripts of his entire academic career?
For that matter, do I ... because I am a single voter ... have legal standing to challenge the legality of Joe Biden's election because there might be evidence that he changed his name? As a single voter, do I have standing to overturn the outcome of a Senate election in my state because I claim there might be a suppressed document in the files of the winner proving that he has cheated on his taxes for the last six years, and I demand that he produce them? As a single voter, do I have standing to overturn the outcome of a city council meeting in my hometown on the grounds that the newly elected mayor might have records in his bank account indicating he hired and paid cash to illegal immigrant gardeners at his home?
I realize that some of these examples do not pertain directly to the case at hand, but the precedent is similar. Nut-cases certainly have the right to file as many complaints as they want; but justices also have the right to toss those cases into the circular file and not waste taxpayer money on them. Sorry, bub ... but you keep forgetting the most obvious reason these complaints keep getting tossed out: not only does Phillip Berg not have standing to halt the electoral process of the U.S. with a frivolous bit of grand-standing, but the frivolous bit of grand-standing itself has no basis in fact and/or has been adequately addressed in the minds of most reasonably-minded people.
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
it's not about berg, you or me, it's about our constitution.
and yes, berg, you and me have the "standing" at least we should.
i am a legal immigrant, and had to lay down my live from a to z, or i never could be here. how come a presidential nominy doe not have to show his/ her birth certificate?
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Welcome to the Funny Farm ... a discussion forum reserved for twits with whacky ideas and the nerds who think what they are actually willing to put in print is worthy of rebuttal!
Name one presidential candidate (or sitting president) who has ever been asked to produce a birth certificate, and then verify your assertion with a credible reference. Name one presidential candidate (or sitting president) who has actually put his birth certificate on display, carried it around door to door for every citizen to personally inspect for its authenticity, or otherwise been required to satisfy the pissy demands of an outraged electorate.
Yes ... to become president, one must be a natural-born citizen. That is, indeed, a Constitutional question. But stop and think about this for just one second (which is all it takes to put most people to rest). Questions about Barack Obama's citizenship have received a staggering amount of public exposure, for a very long time ... anyone who has not yet heard that some people have asked questions about his place of birth must live in a sound-proof hole in the back alley of the only bar in the smallest mountain community of the Trinity Alps for the last year. Either that, or can't be trusted to repeat the first half of the alphabet after listening to someone dictate it to him.
In other words, this is not an unknown accusation, a last minute "Wait a minute!" discovery, some question arising from other little known and just discovered facts and/or occurrences. People like RealAmerica and Ohso and their ilk (the internet is literally crawling with them) have been broadcasting these charges at the top of their lungs for everyone to hear ... and believe me, everyone has heard them.
That said, what is the most simple, most elegant, and most logical explanation to explain the complete "so what" of the rest of the world to the "problem" of Barack Obama's birth (which includes, count them: 535 elected representatives of the United States Congress ... 3/4 of whom would stab any other member in the back at the drop of a hat if they thought they had something on them that was useful; the President and Vice-President of the United States, both from the opposing party and as diametrically opposed in a philosophical, moral, economic and social sense as is possible to Barack Obama; the Supreme Court of the United State which, by law and tradition, is required to give careful consideration to all complaints, grievances, lawsuits and so on that cross its desk, no matter how bizarre or esoteric or unfounded; the Republican National Committee which ... if willing to send 56 operatives to Alaska in order to protect Sarah Palin and prevent anyone from finding out the dirt on her -- meaning they had to find out the dirt themselves, first, so they knew what to protect her from ... must have assigned hundreds of agents and spooks and spies to try to find evidence of Obama's multiple births, or at least paid thousands of dollars to informants, and double-crossers, and agents provocateur in order to get the dirt on him; John McCain and the hundred rabid dogs of smear whom he hired to plaster Obama with dirt and which we read and listened to on a daily basis from the moment he got the nomination; and who knows how many wannabe Woodward and Bernstein's have been digging all around the globe on their own ... or paid by some very well-connected spooks who have very perverted reasons to get "the truth")?
Well ... the single most simple, elegant and logical answer is just this: because it's not true.
I am very happy that you were willing to lay down your life in order to be here. Congratulations, and I hope it was worth it. Unfortunately, don't you think it a bit silly to have made such incredible sacrifices, only to be hung up about the reality of a fairy tale? There are far greater concerns and issues facing America than whether or not every single citizen has seen Barack Obama's birth certificate with their own eyes, and been afforded the opportunity to have their very own forensic expert examine its authenticity.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Silence From SCOTUS
A number of cases were accepted by SCOTUS at their conference today, but no word on the Berg case. In a related story the Court will be looking at the Voting Rights Act in terms of reducing its oversight responsibility. And Dr. Orly Taiz, Esq., was accepted by the Supreme Court Bar to present cases (Lightfoot, scheduled for conference the 23rd). And they put her proposal to recuse themselves from presenting the oath to Obama on the docket since they have cases before them with him as a party. Maybe that's the reason Alito was absent at the visit to the court yesterday by Obama and Biden?
So have a safe and sane weekend. It may get crazy Monday.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Not any crazier than it is in this little corner of RubberRoomLand.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Time Out For Bad Behavior
The Supreme Court announced it will be closed next Monday and Tuesday, so the disposition of Berg's case won't be forthcoming until next Wednesday or later.
As for shay's last post - '... a discussion forum reserved for twits with whacky ideas and the nerds ...'
When your opening shot is composed of name-calling, it tells the world you already think you're on the losing side of the argument. He asks '... Name one presidential candidate (or sitting president) who has actually put his birth certificate on display ...' when he has already been pointed to John McCain's LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE on the internet. He then states '... Questions about Barack Obama's citizenship have received a staggering amount of public exposure ...' except in the MSM, who have gone out of their way to ignore this issue. Try a search of Berg, Obama, birth, 'supreme court' and find any MSM coverage in the past month.
He then goes on to rant about why would no Congressional politician, all 535 of whom broke the law by implicitly agreeing to disallow objections to the ratification of the Electoral College, have not found and exposed the information. Like it didn't dawn on him once you expose the information used to blackmail someone you can no longer blackmail them. And when you have the MSM bought and paid for, as Obama's corporate handlers obviously have, it was relatively easy to use existing laws and a well-paid 'spook' (as described by shays) to deal with the easy loose threads. This is followed by more irrational rants and name-calling.
And yet the nagging question remains. What could possibly be on Obama's long form birth certificate that would cause him to hire 3 law firms to prevent its exposure instead of paying some nominal amount to pick up a certified copy when he was in Hawaii on the last week of campaigning, and turn it over to a Supreme Court justice the following week? With the bottom line being neither of his parents could impart U.S. citizenship to him, his only claim to being a citizen is being born in U.S. territory.
Conveniently his cousin is in charge of the most likely alternate place he was born, Kenya, and has treated journalists less that courteously when discovered they are looking for evidence of Obama's birth there. And if the example has been set of an adventurer, having found an incriminating document, being taken off a bus, shot, stripped of his possessions, and left on the side of the road to rot, then it's not so surprising that the Kenyan ambassador would later make a statement that he didn't know whether Obama was born in Kenya or not. How could someone in his position not know?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7808815.stm
And as I mentioned earlier, the Chief Justice has distributed a case regarding this question for conference next Friday, and the SCOTUS has qualified the attorney who presented it to practice before the Supreme Court (which is not that common an achievement among attorneys). Bear in mind that Obama disparaged both Roberts and Alito at their Senate confirmation hearings. Payback could be a botch! If none of the justices show up to administer the oath, that might be a clue.
So the question is - will Obama's 'Security and Intelligence' advisor, who will have full access from his private office to all pertinent records after the inauguration, be able to 'cauterize' offending records faster than they can be dug up in the evidence discovery phase of pending cases by the few patriots remaining on the network not affected by the Kool-aid?
Be One, or Begone!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
This IS a funny farm, and it IS filled with nerds and twits. Name-calling is when you use disparagement as the main thrust of your argument because (and/or when) the labels are untrue. Unfortunately, I refer to demonstrable fact and avoid rumor and speculation as the main source of my information. And you know, sometimes it is appropriate to call a rose a rose (because a rose by any other name ... well, never mind). Justice Roberts will administer the oath, the Supreme Court will dismiss the final business before it without comment (though the buzzing gnats stirring the pot will be around forever), and most of the country will move forward in an effort to deal with the real issues of significance currently besetting us: global depression, the fallout from eight years of unchecked criminal behavior, increased foreign tensions, and the near corporatization of America (seig heil).
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
We can only hope that, once the inauguration is over tomorrow, all of this utterly ridiculous nonsense about Obama's citizenship will end as well...and that it will take the tasteless and decidedly un-funny political cartoons such as the one posted by FauxAmerica with it.
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
well, it will not end.
the world will laugh about the usa, who voted an illegal alien or foreign citizen into power.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Turn on the TV, idiot ... any channel will do (but preferably a foreign-language TV, or better yet, a foreign station) ... everyone is watching and no one is laughing. This is a moment that transcends history, crushes narrowly bigoted perspectives, and embraces the power of what united people can do. Keep up your silly, immature, reactionary and divisive cr*p ... if you dare ... but you are about to be swept under the carpet of a massive world movement. Is peace and prosperity at hand? Hardly ... your heroes, your champions, your ghosts (i.e., I'll spell it out; the corporate elite that gave us Reagan, Bush I & II, and Clinton) have done everything they can to divide and impoverish us. They have done a very good and a very thorough job. It will take a long time and a great effort to undo the damage they have done. But today we begin to mop up the mess. LOOK AT ALL THOSE PEOPLE! Look at how they can show up without arguin