Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

Great answer Gergor yes we are our own Messiah :thumb_yello:

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

Berg's poorly planned attempts have been largely a waste of time, because the federal courts have ruled 4 out of 4 times that a citizen does not have standing to bring such a suit.

Now, in terms of wrong or right, this positively sucks. It means a citizen has no right to insist the person elected to a job serving him be qualified. But, it is the law. The job of qualifying candidates is given to Congress, along with the authority to delegate the job.

Berg continually insisting his facts are correct was meaningless. T'werent his job to point it out.

Next, we come to another sense of the term "compelling reason". It is standard fare in federal court, that although a plaintiff is found to lack standing, the judge can order the facts of the case to be presented anyway, where the judge determines that the there is a "compelling reason" to hear them, where he suspects they have merit.

This is where we come to the importance of the Dec 1 Supreme Court review of the matter. They can decide that such "compelling reason" exists, hand the matter back to the lower courts and order said federal courts to hear the evidence. Remember that to this point, no court has heard the facts of the case. The entire argument has been over whether or not Berg had standing to file the suit.

The facts of the case aren't in the S. Court's department. They are a court on process, and law, not facts.

If that happens, and no I don't know, but I suspect, Mr. Obama is sunk. Mind you I am basing this on human nature, and little else; but... who goes through a year-long court battle to prevent the facts of a case from being heard, when they are positive that such a hearing will prove the case groundless?

Re. the opinion Obama was "the best candidate we were offered". The way it's p[ut makes me think of baby chicks in a nest, beaks open, waiting for whatever is dropped in their mouth, "knowing" there isn't anything else. What happened to insisting on a genuine choice? What happened to the concept of being the owners of our own freedom, and choice?

Fact is, the coice of Obama vs. McCain was exactly the same as getting to choose whether your daily feeding of horsecrap was vanilla, or strawberry. No more. T'was clear to anyone who did research beyond their hopes, which were never either candidates concern.

Finally:
Change! Gosh, it sounds important. But stepping deeper in the same hole is "change". If the idea is change for the better, wouldn't it have a better standing if it was based upon a different beginning? Like the truth?

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

The Clintons, Obama, McCain - they're all the wrong choice!!!
You're being blinded by thinking you're getting what you want!

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

Is it hot in here, or is it just me?? :sweatdrop:

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

This is an IMPORTANT video by a witness, Dr. Ron Polarik certifying the FORGERY of BO's birth certificate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z104q...g/facts/?p=371

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

McCain was born in Panama, he ran for president. He is the senator of AZ. I'm sure he will join Obama's team to stir this country. :thumb_yello::naughty:

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.

The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

barrack hussein lol obama.. a fully made up name incorporating some nice hate figure names obama(osama) hussein (saddam obv).. i like barry satoro better its somehow more down to earth :)

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

It doesn't matter if McCain was born in Panama. Both his parents were US citizens and his father was in the Military, so he is a natural born US citizen. Obama is not. Even is he is he still lost his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and never became a "naturalized" US citizen upon his return. But since the constitution is basically already trashed, I won't be at all surprised that they won't do anything to find out or acknowledge the real truth about Obama's citizenship.

It's obvious the powers that be want Obama to be president. I will enjoy watching it unfold. Eventually reality will dawn on some who supported Obama when they find out that the only "change" we will get will be more control, fewer freedoms and the New World Order. Higher taxes are another fun thing to look forward to. Today they were reporting that the Obama administration/Democratic congress plans to raise the federal gas tax from 18Cents per gallon to 40Cents per gallon in increments over the next few years. So Neocons or Ultra-liberals are all the same. I used to vote for what I considered to be the lesser of two evils. No more. They are basically the same.

I personally don't care who won the election, it's going to be corrupt, controlled and will continue to tell lies about the real agendas going on in the world. Obama will not change things for the better as so many were hoping for. It was all a nice illusion. Politics is basically a farce, a way to create constant conflict which keeps the masses busy hating the other party.

Nancy

Re: Seeing & Thinking this through
 

bump

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.............

If that isn't enough... I agree!

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

Time to move on to another conspiracy theory...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...citizensh.html

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

Welcome to reality. What emotions are conjured up here? Helplessness, fear, suspicion, anger?

Examine that. Don't fall for it. If it does not matter who wins the election, then the election does not matter - period!

Please do not lose your/our focus. :wink2:

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

Settle down people. Lick your wounds, the court battle is over.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...citizensh.html

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

Hi hueyii,

We can't argue with the courts, so it's case closed for the time being. There is room for one more appeal.

If Obama is or isn't a natural born citizen, for me I couldn't give a toss.

However, if the case has been thrown out because of a technicality and not because of its' merits, it does leave one with a sour taste in ones' mouth. Does it not?

Best regards,

Steve

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

I've seen recently that Hawaii quarter is to be 2009 release? And, there are ads online for Obama coin?
C

Selective Constitutionalism by Chuck Baldwin
 

I read this article today and immediately thought of this thread... I agree with everything Chuck Baldwin has to say concerning this topic.

"Selective Constitutionalism" by Chuck Baldwin, December 9, 2008

"Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore, not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.

Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . ." Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's U.S. citizenship.

Historically, "natural born Citizen" has always been understood to mean someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii's secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to date, Obama's actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.

Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a "constitutional crisis." The fact is, however, we have been in a "constitutional crisis" for years! The problem is, most conservatives only get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives "go ballistic," but when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn with utter indifference.

For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to actually bring about some meaningful investigation and resolution to the Obama citizenship brouhaha is none other than Senator John McCain. After all, he was Obama's principal opponent in the race for the White House. Plus, as the standard-bearer for the only other major political party, he has the attention of the national media, as well as the national legislative and judicial branches of government. So, why is John McCain not at all interested in the Obama citizenship issue?

Perhaps one reason that John McCain is so uninterested in where Barack Obama was born is because he, John McCain, was not born in the United States. He was born in the country of Panama. So, let me ask readers a question: Does anyone believe if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack Obama that any notable conservative would have been distressed about a "constitutional crisis"? Get real!

Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

Does anyone not remember the controversy surrounding the potential Presidential campaign of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Born in Austria, Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen of the United States and is now Governor of California. However, since Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen, but not a natural born citizen, he is considered unqualified to run for President.

But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution's requirement that a President be a "natural born Citizen." Like liberals, most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W. Bush repeatedly ignored--and even trampled--the U.S. Constitution.

Where were these "constitutional" conservatives when George W. Bush was assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of Transportation to open up America's airlines to foreign ownership? Where were they when President Bush nullified (using "signing statements") over 1,100 statutes he did not like? Where were they as President Bush and his fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could go on and on.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has been just as culpable in violating constitutional government as the Democrat Party has--maybe more so! If the Republican and Democrat parties had any allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama would have been chosen as their respective Presidential nominees.

While we are on the subject, if anyone cared about constitutional government, Hillary Clinton (or any other U.S. Senator or House Member) would obviously be determined as ineligible to be given any appointment in the Obama administration under Article. I. Section. 6. of the U.S. Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits House or Senate members taking Presidential posts if the salary of the job they would take was raised while they were in Congress.

However, several past Presidents have skirted this constitutional prohibition (including Presidents Taft, Nixon, and Carter) by lowering the salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee could accept the job without receiving the pay increase that was approved while the appointee was in Congress. In fact, this sleight of hand actually has a political name. It is called "the Saxbe fix," after Nixon's appointment of Senator William Saxbe to be attorney general.

Do we have a "constitutional crisis"? You bet we do; but it is not limited to Barack Obama or the Democrat Party. The real constitutional crisis is the manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. God help us!"

Brightest of Blessings to all,
Argante

.

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

...and nevermind that the birth certificate in question was shown, in its physical form, in this reality, to investigators. I posted a link about this somewhere. No wonder the Supreme Court threw it out. And for the record, the Supreme Court only releases statements about high profile cases. This obviously did not qualify.

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

Urging you to vote for Ron Paul if Obama gets disqualified. Go back to our roots i.e. the Constitution. Recognize that 9/11 was a false flag intended to attack our Constituion.


-feeler

It doesn't appear to be going away, it's growing instead.
 

This at G. Edward Griffin's site: http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

Obama's eligibility issue explodes on White House "dialogue" site as millions demand that he disclose his birth certificate. WNDN 2009 June 1, 2009 (Cached)

BORN IN THE USA?
Eligibility debate explodes on White House 'dialogue' site
77% of voters demand Obama release long-form birth certificate

Posted: June 01, 2009
9:14 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The entire transparency portion of the White House website on "open government dialogue" has been overrun with citizens calling on Barack Obama to release his elusive "long-form" birth certificate to establish his constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

The forums are open to the public for participation. Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, has been urging those concerned about the issue to get involved.

As WND reported, on Sunday night only 30 percent of respondents in one forum demanded the president release the document. But that number exploded to nearly 80 percent after the public became aware of the White House resource.

Continues: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=99884



SOME LINKS IN ABOVE ARTICLE:


OPEN GOVERNMENT DIALOGUE (FORUM): http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4423-4049
WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?


WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? (ARTICLE)
Americans vote with wallets to see Obama birth certificate
$40K in 1st 4 days for 'truth and transparency' billboard campaign

Posted: May 21, 2009
10:45 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily
UPDATE: The "Where's the Birth Certificate?" billboard campaign has exceeded $40,000 in its first four days.

WASHINGTON – As WND's billboard campaign to raise visibility of the issues surrounding Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility yesterday continued to attract eager donors, the president had this to say: "I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable."

http://i39.tinypic.com/24pl8u8.jpg

Excerpt:

Continues: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98787

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

If Obama is not qualified...his handlers could use this to keep him in line...to provoke a constitutional crisis...to destroy him...to destroy America...or all of the above.

I'd love to see that old 'Where's the Beef?' commercial...modified to 'Where's the Birth Certificate?'

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

I have nothing to say but GET OVER IT!

I love how they pull numbers out of their asses. 77% of voters? Sounds like a total lie.

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

Blessings Orthodoxymoron,

The arms of government corporatism spread far and wide. :zip: Perhaps America is already destroyed. "Where's the Freedom?"

PaL

From G. Edward Griffin...

"America's largest billboard company refuses to sell space for an advertising campaign that asks: "Where's the birth certificate?" It is not politically correct to question the President's eligibility to hold office." WND 2009 June 3 (Cached)

Cover-up: CBS Bans Eligibility Billboards
Industry signage leader rejects campaign asking simply 'Where's the birth certificate?'

Posted: June 03, 2009
8:05 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – The company touting itself as the "world's largest out-of-home media" enterprise has banned WND's national billboard campaign that asks one simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

CBS Outdoor, a division of CBS Corp. that sells more outdoor advertising than any other billboard company in North America, refuses to accept purchases of space on any of its 550,000 displays nationwide, media buyers for WND report.

Excerpt:

"Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?" asks Farah. "Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant 'Fourth Estate' was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it.

Article continues: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100022

CREED OF FREEDOM http://www.freedomforceinternational...seaction=creed

SOURCE: http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html G. Edward Griffin's site.

Re: Seeing & Thinking this through
 

it doesn't matter if it was McCain/Palin.... they ARE ALL CORRUPT!!! including OBAMA... (exception of Ron Paul)

it's the SYSTEM that needs to change! tptb are the ones who choose. it's all theatre!

why do you insist on what the "real" votes were when the choices aren't REAL choices to begin w. you KEEP talking about Palin as if she would be good for this country .... NOT!!!!! ....you mention McCain as "WE keep silent" what are you inferring by that? sounds like you're a bit too close to the elite which just keeps this false drama going.

Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency
 

It looks like we may finally have a case heard on BO eligibility or the lack of clearning his eligibility. I'm not sure yet, but here is what WND has on it:


Article states:

"A judge hearing one of the cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has taken the unusual step of describing the dispute as a serious constitutional issue and further has begun adding letters of comment from the public to the court record.

Word of the action by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider in Camden, N.J., comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the Kerchner vs. Obama case.

Apuzzo filed his lawsuit in January on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

The Constitution provides, the lawsuit said, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified," the case explained.

"Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them," the lawsuit said.

The defendants "violated" the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements," the lawsuit said."