Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
-
Foolish people, who would vote for Obama under these circumstances ...
Phil J. Berg is -correct- when assuming that Obama loses votes if he
plays shenanigans with his own hospital-generated birth certificate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
ELECTION 2008
Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 26, 2008
By Jerome R. Corsi
2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/LindaLingle.jpg
Gov. Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii
HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth
certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several
lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the
candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department
of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original
document under any circumstances.
The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in
Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate
of Barack Obama.
"It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of
persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he
seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's
office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.
Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate
include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description
from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a
descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the
registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting
on behalf of the registrant.
WND was told the official reason for denial of access to Obama's birth
certificate would be authority granted pursuant to Section 338-18 of the
Hawaii Revised Statutes, a provision the anonymous source claimed was designed
to prevent identity theft.
Still, the source told WND confidentially the motivation for withholding the
original birth certificate was political, although the source refused to
disclose whether there was any information on the original birth certificate
that would prove politically embarrassing to Obama.
Get the book that started it all, Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation,"
autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store for the amazing
low price of just $4.95.
The source also refused to answer WND's question whether the original document
on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth
certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to
the birth.
The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would
immediately release Obama's original birth certificate, provided Obama
requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received
no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his
behalf.
WND also found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice
published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday
Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II
Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."
In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961,
WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after
the date of birth listed.
The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the
Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.
In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged
she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa,
Kenya.
Friday, U.S. Federal judge Richard Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee,
dismissed a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania attorney Phillip J. Berg who
alleged Obama was not a U.S. "natural born" citizen and therefore ineligible
for the presidency under the specifications of the U.S. Constitution, under
Article II, Section 1.
Berg told WND last week he does not have a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate
for Obama that he alleges exists.
In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning
Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November
4.
The Obama campaign website entitled "Fight the Smears" posts a state of Hawaii
"Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth
certificate generated by the hospital where Obama reportedly was born.
"Fight the Smears" declares, "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state
of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."
Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges
by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not
done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why
Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated
birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.
Jerome R. Corsi is a staff reporter for WND. He received a Ph.D. from Harvard
University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and
articles, including his latest best-seller, "The Late Great USA." Corsi
co-authored with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for
Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." Other books
include "Showdown with Nuclear Iran," "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of
Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," which he co-authored with WND columnist
Craig. R. Smith, and "Atomic Iran."
Lamont Cranston
-
fucken DUMBOCRUTZ ....
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
> www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Read ALL text of the -posted- article for -THIS- thread, KoOktuRd ...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the _HOSPITAL_GENERATED_
"birth-certificate" under lock and key WHERE NOBODY MAY INSPECT;
NOT the same document as the abbreviated version being paraded.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://halturnershow.blogspot.com/2008/10/hawaii-governor-seals-barak-obama-birth.html
October 26, 2008
HAWAII GOVERNOR "SEALS" BARAK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
Orders that NO ONE can obtain a copy. What are they hiding?? The fact he is
not a natural born citizen? YEP!
This is a really important thing because the US Constitution itself says that
a candidate for President must be a naturally born citizen. President is the
ONLY office in the nation where the person elected must be a natural-born
citizen.
Obama is a Democrat. He was born in Kenya and is thus ineligible to be
President of the United States.
The Governor of Hawaii is a Democrat. She is clearly acting to cover up the
fact that the Democrat candidate for President is ineligible. This is a
conspiracy against the Constitution.
Details here
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
Posted by HalTurnerShow.com at 10/26/2008 10:30:00 PM 20 comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 CommentsClose this window Jump to comment form
Ted said...
Handled right, the Fed District Court throwing out Berg for lack of standing
can present a political check-mate “win” on appeal for the anti-Obama side (if
not in law, in the Court of Public Opinion). Here’s how: SIMPLY SPREAD AROUND
OBAMA’S APPELLATE BRIEF HAVING TO ARGUE AGAINST AN AMERICAN VOTER’S RIGHT TO
RAISE THE QUESTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Should be a PR disaster for the
Dems and Obama!!!
October 26, 2008 10:35 PM
Anonymous said...
Obongo was giving deal by generals who were in panic that present neocons were
going to nuke a city which one i dont know..
then again it could be obongo had to agree to nuke city or have his birth
certificate exposed as fraud which it is..
he was born in kenya .the mother was not allowed to board flight to hawaii so
she had little bongo in kenya then flew it to hawaii and registered his birth
in hawaii but 6 months after ..
obongo is not usa citizen ..but at this rate what does it matter everything
else in your country is a fuckover..
October 27, 2008 12:02 AM
AryanKnight said...
FYI: -presently the only person that has legal-standing in usaCourt is the
Manchurian-candidate McPain, -and he being a puppet of jewZionist
Rothschild/Rockefeler et'al Bank'sters won't do any such thing. Therefore,
this is a grand opportunity for HT to immediately file a landmark
usaCourt-case challenge/complaint as a legal-citizen of usa, the day that BO
is elected Pres.! (HT can't do it now, -as the usaCourt asserts we have no
legal-standing to challenge the fraudulent democratic-party ploy for
presidency, --as BO is not a usa-Citizen, he merely has a Diplomatic-visa from
Africa that he has been using for years...!!!
October 27, 2008 12:22 AM
Anonymous said...
Those dumb Kenyans don't realize that Nov.4th is not the end.If they release
documents showing that Obama was born in Kenya,Bush will declare marital law
and order a new election.
October 27, 2008 12:34 AM
Michael said...
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/
October 27, 2008 12:51 AM
Anonymous said...
Berg Vs. Obama
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/
October 27, 2008 12:59 AM
Anonymous said...
Barack/Barry "Hussein Mohammed" Obama/Satoro , Jesus Christ talk about a
checkered past OMFG Hal , expose this FREAK !!!
October 27, 2008 3:08 AM
JJ said...
It is the government's responsibility to provide a natural born citizen as a
legitimate candidate.
If Obama or the government doesn't provide proof, he is not eligible whether
he wins or not.
October 27, 2008 3:51 AM
Anonymous said...
Is it any surprise that the Governor of Hawaii is a Jew? And the plot sickens.
October 27, 2008 3:58 AM
Josh said...
Why would the state of Hawaii even HAVE such a thing to seal or hide if Obama
wasn't even born in the State?
Clearly the certificate exists but they're hiding something else!
If Obama was born in another country, couldn't we find the certificate in the
3rd world country?
October 27, 2008 4:39 AM
Anonymous said...
This could really create yet another Crisis for America:
Obama gets elected officially, then the Supreme Court decides that he was
inelligable due to his country of Birth.
Now what? Who will actually be the president? Does this mean that we get stuck
with "evil" Bush Administration until another election his held?
Maybe this dilemma is what those in power are hoping for. They remain alive to
create yet more financial and political turmoil and further loot the US
economy.
October 27, 2008 6:23 AM
Anonymous said...
what about Mcain there are rumors out there that he was born in panama.
October 27, 2008 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...
Obama is a Illegal alien, and the government won't do a damn thing to protect
the Constitution.
October 27, 2008 8:05 AM
Andrea Murrhteyn said...
Ted,
Re: Your comment. Does anyone know: Did the Judge himself come up with this
rationalisation; or was it the actual argument, by Obama/Dems that 'voters
have no right to raise the question under the constitution.'
Lara
October 27, 2008 8:45 AM
MadDog said...
Northcom, in the uSA, now has 4 brigades of seasoned Iraqi troops practiced in
urban domestication ready to domesticate us, in the advent of any kind of
civilian uprising. This should set off every alarm bell for every American.
But alas, we are all to busy with the World Series, Football and etal to even
give a Rats Ass that we have been totally FUCKED by the powers that be.
say goodbye to this once great Republic and hello to the heal of
Totaltarianism. Dont say you were not warned. I cry for my country!!
October 27, 2008 10:13 AM
Andrea Murrhteyn said...
maddog,
reminds me of stanley milgram's study in the legitimization of evil:
"If a system of death camps were set up in the United States of the sort we
had seen in Nazi Germany, one would be able to find sufficient personnel for
those camps in any medium-sized American town."
And Stanley Milgram didn't do his study during an economic recession, let
alone an economic depression! And he found that approx 66% of normal average
Americans, just like the Germans, would rather obey authority, even if ordered
to commit an atrocity against a fellow American; than follow their conscience
and refuse the order! If the blame for their action could be shared with one
other person; the number who would obey authority to commit atrocities went up
to 92%. There was no difference between rich, poor or racial groups, except
for Catholics, who were more inclined than any other group to obey orders.
Lara
October 27, 2008 10:55 AM
MadDog said...
It should also alarm everybody that they are looting National Guard Armorys in
many Sates of heavy weapons and Comm Gear. One commander asked, why? The
retort was "Theres a party planned and you are not invited!" This should scare
the HELL out of every American Citizen.
I also have no faith in most of the Corporate Law Enforcement, as they have
been militarised and will gladly kill us all!
Also in my State all Communication has been centralised with the Government
and military. This means that everybody can talk to everybody else. Are you
scared? You should be! Who knows what they have planned?
October 27, 2008 1:00 PM
The Chairman said...
It figures, the governor of Hawaii is a Jewess...
October 27, 2008 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...
by the way they flew to kenya to investigate and were arrested ane denied
entry ..
that says it all no
October 27, 2008 1:18 PM
Country Boy said...
Does the governor there have any authority to "seal" public records??? If Joe
Blow's birth certificate there is public record, so is Obama's IF HE WAS BORN
THERE!!!
October 27, 2008 2:37 PM
Patrick Keenan
news:49062bd7.2673722579@news3.isomedia.com...
>
> fucken DUMBOCRUTZ ....
In other words, your purpose is *not* to simply present material for
discussion.
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
>> www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
>
>
> Read ALL text of the -posted- article for -THIS- thread, KoOktuRd ...
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
>
> Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the _HOSPITAL_GENERATED_
> "birth-certificate" under lock and key WHERE NOBODY MAY INSPECT;
That's actually not a true claim. If you read the story, you'd know this -
unless you've chosen to fabricate. She's simply made it clear that Corsi
and reporters aren't authorized under law to receive these documents.
"Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate
under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no
one in the press obtains access to the original document under any
circumstances.
The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND
in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth
certificate of Barack Obama.
"It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of
persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he
seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's
office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.
Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate
include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description
from the governor's
office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the
registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal
guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the
registrant."
You, Corsi, WorldNet reporters, Berg, etc. are not allowed to see these
records.
These limitations are not remotely new.
You are just whining.
> NOT the same document as the abbreviated version being paraded.
You have no legitimate way of knowing that. Either you're making it up, or
you broke the law. If you broke the law, how can anyone trust you to not
put forth a forgery?
So - which is it?
> - regards
> - jb
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://halturnershow.blogspot.com/2008/10/hawaii-governor-seals-barak-obama-birth.html
>
> October 26, 2008
> HAWAII GOVERNOR "SEALS" BARAK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
>
> Orders that NO ONE can obtain a copy.
That's a false statement, as noted above. Family members and those they
directly authorize can obtain copies.
> What are they hiding?? The fact he is
> not a natural born citizen? YEP!
And for this, we have Hal's say-so.
>
> This is a really important thing because the US Constitution itself says
> that
> a candidate for President must be a naturally born citizen. President is
> the
> ONLY office in the nation where the person elected must be a natural-born
> citizen.
>
> Obama is a Democrat. He was born in Kenya
Apparently, Hal thinks Kenya and Hawaii are the same place.
> and is thus ineligible to be
> President of the United States.
That's only Turner's claim, and his "evidence" for this consists entirely of
his assertion.
-pk
<snippage>
-
> "-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> fucken DUMBOCRUTZ ....
"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
> In other words, your purpose is *not* to simply present material
> for discussion.
You don't suppose that the dumbness of Democrats is a
topic for discussion?
>> Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the _HOSPITAL_GENERATED_
>> "birth-certificate" under lock and key WHERE NOBODY MAY INSPECT;
> That's actually not a true claim. If you read the story, you'd know this -
> unless you've chosen to fabricate. She's simply made it clear that Corsi
> and reporters aren't authorized under law to receive these documents.
Alright. The sense of the phrase is "nobody outside the immediate
Obama family" which, by the way, comprise the set of people expected
to vote yea or nay on his qualifications to assume Office of Presidency.
The conclusion here by Judge Surrick and Gov. Lingle is that voters
obtain no standing as the "we the people" component authorized to
enforce the terms of their own constitution. Nevertheless, those in
the Hawaiin government "entrusted" with records-keeping may view it
and, by so doing, decide how they as citizens will vote on Nov. 4th.
That's how privileged information can compromise equal protection.
> You, Corsi, WorldNet reporters, Berg, etc. are not allowed to see
> these records.
Well, no. Berg is an attorney and not in the same category as
the casual journalistic press. On the court order an "in camera"
inspection may proceed because courts are delegated the power
to conduct clean elections and also courts must protect the voter.
I cannot imagine any court process which would content itself with
a ruling in absense of available facts. Examination of records is a
normative procedure, and these facts are available for the court.
>> NOT the same document as the abbreviated version being paraded.
> You have no legitimate way of knowing that. Either you're making
> it up, or you broke the law. If you broke the law, how can anyone
> trust you to not put forth a forgery?
The FactCheck URL so often cited identifies the long form birth
certificate as containing information concerning the hospital, the
doctor, birth weight, etc., which are not on the short form certificate.
This information was supplied to FactCheck by the State of Hawaii.
I don't need to know the details of that particular record to know that
records of very different form and format are not identical.
>> Obama is a Democrat. He was born in Kenya
> Apparently, Hal thinks Kenya and Hawaii are the same place.
Obama's grandmother says that Obama was born in Kenya
and flown to Hawaii. Things were lax and loose. Perhaps a
baby on the plane flight was not even accorded a plane ticket.
Then a "birth registration" proceeded in Honolulu, and now the
terms of that "birth registration" are now being put into question.
> That's only Turner's claim, and his "evidence" for this consists
> entirely of his assertion.
Phil J. Berg says he has shown a declaration from Obama's
grandmother, so you cannot pin this claim only on Hal Turner.
The bottom line here is that the Democratic Party could put
this to rest, and the Obama Campaign could settle this issue by
simply disclosing what the hospital record document says. They
don't and because they don't I cannot consider voting for the man.
Judge Surrick, Gov. Lingle, and the Obama Campaign are severely
underestimating one crucial centrality of constitutional importance;
by disrespectful ignorance have created their own October Surprise.
An alternative would be Senate unanimity on the question,
with a resolution, as they did for John McCain last April 2008.
Our Senate has not done so, and there is no confidence now.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------
The White vs. Off-White Election
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5868
-----------------------------------------------------
BDK
jazze...@hotmail.com says...
Obsession is a weird thing. So are you.
--
BDK
BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster
Lamont Cranston
>> "-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> fucken DUMBOCRUTZ ....
>
> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
>> In other words, your purpose is *not* to simply present
>> material
>> for discussion.
>
>
> You don't suppose that the dumbness of Democrats
> is a
> topic for discussion?
Nope. But, the insanity of Republicans is.
Lamont Cranston
> fucken DUMBOCRUTZ ....
Fucking GOP cocksuckers.
>
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
>> www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
>
>
> Read ALL text of the -posted- article for -THIS-
> thread, KoOktuRd
> ...
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
>
> Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the
> _HOSPITAL_GENERATED_
> "birth-certificate" under lock and key WHERE NOBODY MAY
> INSPECT;
> NOT the same document as the abbreviated version being
> paraded.
Yeah, they have privacy laws in Hawaii.
www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
You kooks are too funny.
Iarnrod
<snip kooker drivel>
Looks like it hasn't yet occurred to you that you just proved Obama
was born in Hawaii.
If Lingle ordered the birth certificate sealed so as not to illegally
leak a confidential document, it means Hawaii has it. If Hawaii has a
birth certificate for Obama, he was born in Hawaii.
Case closed. Yet again.
Lamont Cranston
Jizzy isn't the sharpest pencil in the box.
Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
> The Governor of Hawaii is a Democrat. She is clearly acting to cover up the
> fact that the Democrat candidate for President is ineligible. This is a
> conspiracy against the Constitution.
Your theory would be perfect, except for one little problem...Governor
Linda Lingle is a Republican, who has made several trips to the
Mainland (Hawaii's term for the continental US) to campaign for John
McCain.
http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=9248931&nav=menu55_2
Now, don't you feel like a fool?
8^)
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Iarnrod
wrote:
He's more like a dull eraser!
-
>> Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> If Lingle ordered the birth certificate sealed so as not to
>>> illegally leak a confidential document, it means Hawaii
>>> has it. If Hawaii has a birth certificate for Obama, he
>>> was born in Hawaii.
Hawaii's document could have been created under
false pretenses, or a forgery. Your methods of reasoning
are so severely flawed as to render you a caricature of logic.
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
>> Jizzy isn't the sharpest pencil in the box.
Dittohead.
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> He's more like a dull eraser!
Been looking in the mirror recently ?
---------------------------------------------
>> The Governor of Hawaii is a Democrat. She is clearly acting
>> to cover up the fact that the Democrat candidate for President
>> is ineligible. This is a conspiracy against the Constitution.
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Your theory would be perfect, except for one little problem...
> Governor Linda Lingle is a Republican, who has made several
> trips to the Mainland (Hawaii's term for the continental US)
> to campaign for John McCain.
The words were Hal Turner's. Perhaps he feels that she
is behaving like a Democrat.
"Bob Awana was a conflicted man in 1997 when Republican
Maui Mayor Linda Lingle asked the lifelong Democrat to run
her gubernatorial campaign."
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2002/Dec/11/ln/ln09a.html
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eclectic Teen's Tastes Evoke Bygone Age of Self-reliance
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5875
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lamont Cranston
>>> Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> If Lingle ordered the birth certificate sealed so as
>>>> not to
>>>> illegally leak a confidential document, it means Hawaii
>>>> has it. If Hawaii has a birth certificate for Obama, he
>>>> was born in Hawaii.
>
>
> Hawaii's document could have been created under
> false pretenses, or a forgery. Your methods of
> reasoning
> are so severely flawed as to render you a caricature
> of logic.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda ... You are a loon, Jizzy, a
fucking loon. You are the last person on Earth who should
be criticizing anybody's reasoning ability. Using your
concept of "logic," you "could have been created" in a
toilet bowl. Real logic involves the use of facts, Jizzy
and that's something that you never do. Ignoring facts is a
common trait of racists as is blatant stupidity and you are
no exception.
-
> "-" wrote:
>> Hawaii's document could have been created under false
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
> ... Using your concept of "logic," you "could have been
> created" in a toilet bowl.
I assume, by that remark, you have been considering
my Presidential Candidacy by a write-in vote on your ballot.
> ... Real logic involves the use of facts, Jizzy and that's
> something that you never do.
Well, real logic can involve the use of "designing facts"
such as writing complex computer operating systems, which
is something that you will never do. And here, with the
secrecy surounding the inspection of a simple document
by court officials and attorneys, we have a situation that
screms for attention to the problem of "designing facts."
> Ignoring facts is a common trait of racists as is blatant stupidity
> and you are no exception.
Phil J. Berg asks for exposure of the facts, not ignorance
of them. I suppose that you haven't a clue which is which.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------
UK: Sex-Ed Comic Book For Six Year Olds
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5851
------------------------------------------------------------
Lamont Cranston
>> "-" wrote:
>>> Hawaii's document could have been created under false
>>> pretenses, or a forgery. [ ... ]
>
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
>> ... Using your concept of "logic," you "could have been
>> created" in a toilet bowl.
>
>
> I assume, by that remark, you have been
> considering
> my Presidential Candidacy by a write-in vote on your
> ballot.
Nope, I was just using your concept of logic, Jizzy, which
is basically, that if something "could" be, it is and if
something "could" have happened, it did.
>
>
>
>> ... Real logic involves the use of facts, Jizzy and
>> that's
>> something that you never do.
>
>
> Well, real logic can involve the use of
> "designing facts"
> such as writing complex computer operating systems,
> which
> is something that you will never do.
ROTFL! That is what I have been doing for many, many,
years, Jizzy, and am still doing. DOS, OS MFT, OS MVT, MVS,
Unix, Linux, Windows, OS 10, etc. You're funny.
> And here, with the
> secrecy surounding the inspection of a simple document
> by court officials and attorneys, we have a situation
> that
> screms for attention to the problem of "designing
> facts."
Only wingnuts conclude that there is anything mysterious
about Obama's birth certificate. Only wingnuts ignore any
and all evidence that doesn't play into their conspiracy
theories.
The "Umbrella Man" probably did it, Jizzy. LOL
>
>
>
>> Ignoring facts is a common trait of racists as is blatant
>> stupidity
>> and you are no exception.
>
>
> Phil J. Berg asks for exposure of the facts, not
> ignorance
> of them. I suppose that you haven't a clue which is
> which.
All relevant facts are readily available. Berg is as big a
loon as you are, Jizzy. You were made for each other.
-
>>> "-" wrote:
>>>> Hawaii's document could have been created under false
>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
>>> ... Using your concept of "logic," you "could have been
>>> created" in a toilet bowl.
>"-" wrote:
>> I assume, by that remark, you have been considering
>> my Presidential Candidacy by a write-in vote on your
>> ballot.
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
> Nope, I was just using your concept of logic, Jizzy, which
> is basically, that if something "could" be, it is and if
> something "could" have happened, it did.
Don't ever try practicing physics. I recall my experience
as a juror when a nigger outright lied on the stand and was
caught by cross-examination. A rather dramatic moment
one expects to find only in television dramas. As it played
out I was just thinking about the sort of culture which breeds
lying niggers, and the disrespect such lying displayed to the
members of the jury who were spending several days to hear
this case with only $10 compensation and round-trip bus ticket.
People who work in the legal system can't admit to show
prejudice, but they arrive at "profiling" rather quickly, which
helps explain why we have a jury system to obtain independent
judgment and verification, and also educate the public at large.
>>> ... Real logic involves the use of facts, Jizzy and
>>> that's something that you never do.
>> Well, real logic can involve the use of "designing facts"
>> such as writing complex computer operating systems,
>> which is something that you will never do.
> ROTFL! That is what I have been doing for many, many,
> years, Jizzy, and am still doing. DOS, OS MFT, OS MVT, MVS,
> Unix, Linux, Windows, OS 10, etc. You're funny.
Oh? You -wrote- those computer operating systems?
Or did you merely -modify- them? Be truthful, now !!
>> ... with the secrecy surounding the inspection of a simple
>> document by court officials and attorneys, we have a
>> situation that screms for attention to the problem of
>> "designing facts."
> Only wingnuts conclude that there is anything mysterious
> about Obama's birth certificate. Only wingnuts ignore any
> and all evidence that doesn't play into their conspiracy
> theories. The "Umbrella Man" probably did it, Jizzy. LOL
You've reached a conclusion concerning what wingnuts do.
I have reached no conclusions. I'm still asking for inspection.
>>> Ignoring facts is a common trait of racists as is blatant
>>> stupidity and you are no exception.
>> Phil J. Berg asks for exposure of the facts, not ignorance
>> of them. I suppose that you haven't a clue which is which.
> All relevant facts are readily available. Berg is as big a
> loon as you are, Jizzy. You were made for each other.
You won't let the Supreme Court decide? Or are
you all nine judges on the Supreme Court ?
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Justice Under Law! End Affirmative Action
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5859
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iarnrod
> >> Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> If Lingle ordered the birth certificate sealed so as not to
> >>> illegally leak a confidential document, it means Hawaii
> >>> has it. If Hawaii has a birth certificate for Obama, he
> >>> was born in Hawaii.
>
> Hawaii's document could have been created under
> false pretenses, or a forgery. Your methods of reasoning
> are so severely flawed as to render you a caricature of logic.
>
> >> Jizzy isn't the sharpest pencil in the box.
>
> Dittohead.
>
> > He's more like a dull eraser!
>
> Been looking in the mirror recently ?
This morning when I did my hair. Why? Were you behind me?
The fact is you really haven't made one single cogent point that was
actually true.
James Of Tucson
> You won't let the Supreme Court decide?
Let us know when the Supreme Court renders an opinion as to whether
Berg had a case to begin with.
My bet is they ignore it entirely, tacitly agreeing with the original
judge that the case had no merit whatsoever.
But keep pretending Berg will get a day in The Supreme Court when he
couldn't even get his case into a District Court.
-
"Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The fact is you really haven't made one single cogent point
> that was actually true.
You wouldn't be so hot and bothered unless there were
a nugget of truth. With blatant lies everybody could ignore.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------
Letter to the White Race
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5873
-----------------------------------------------------
James Of Tucson
> You wouldn't be so hot and bothered unless there were
> a nugget of truth.
You can claim "a nugget of truth" when you bring "a shred of
evidence."
Not until then.
Edward
> Foolish people, who would vote for Obama under these circumstances ...
> Phil J. Berg is -correct- when assuming that Obama loses votes if he
> plays shenanigans with his own hospital-generated birth certificate.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
>
> ELECTION 2008
> Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
> Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: October 26, 2008
> By Jerome R. Corsi
> 2008 WorldNetDaily
>
>
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/LindaLingle.jpg
> Gov. Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii
>
>
>
> HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth
> certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several
> lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the
> candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department
> of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original
> document under any circumstances.
>
And here is something from a respectable news source.
McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate
His Eligibility for Presidency Is Questioned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html
Now, can we drop the stupidity? Obama is definitely an American born
citizen. McCain's status can be considered in doubt, but considering
that his father was stationed in Panama and allowed to bring his family
with him with no intentions of remaining in Panama permanently, McCain
should be considered an American too and not be removed from the ballot.
At least not for this reason.
-
"James Of Tucson" <james0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can claim "a nugget of truth" when you bring
> "a shred of evidence."
Eight lawsuits and an extensive discussion already:
http://comments.obamacrimes.com/blog/_archives/2008/10/29/3952080.html
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Snivvle on Wed 29 Oct 2008 02:02 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
What about this?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Snopes just owned this case. The case has been dismissed. I wish to God it
hadn't been, but I guess obama is legit. Read the article for yourself. This
makes me outraged.
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by DisappointedDemocrat on Wed 29 Oct 2008 02:04 AM EDT | Profile |
Permanent Link
Snopes? Are you serious with this?
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by nukedog on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:51 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Hey Snivvels, don't be so disappointed. You're reading old news here! We all
know that Phil's efforts were shot down thru the Philadelphia Court System,
but he is currently filing an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. So unless
the Obama camp hasn't already bagged them as well we still may have a fighting
chance. My only question to everyone here is, if the courts find in Mr. Berg's
favor has everyone stopped to imagine the aggravating racial tensions that may
swell from this assault against their "chosen one"?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by crystal on Wed 29 Oct 2008 10:02 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Who's chosen one? Seems like a lot of people have been misled by Obama, not
just once group.
Birth certificate is not the only question
by maryannh on Wed 29 Oct 2008 04:02 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
You're right, Crystal, his "messiah complex" goes further than simple race. I
am utterly amazed at how easily he has skated past our "watch dog" media, and
particularly Fox news. I think if Obama told them (the media) that the world
was flat and square, it would be reported as evidence beyond the shadow of a
doubt.
One other thing bothers me, though...it isn't just the birth certificate that
needs Obama's attention, but also the issue of his citizenship in Indonesia.
I'm sure as a constitutional lawyer himself, he's left no loophole unturned
and no public official unbribed in burying any inquiry about his Indonesian
citizenship and subsequent re-entry into the United States.
The sheer volume of what he won't allow to be released speaks a lot louder
than the shrill trolls here who defend him as if he is their "messiah." There
are more unanswered questions than just the birth certificate.
Re: Birth certificate is not the only question
by MissouriThinker on Wed 29 Oct 2008 04:50 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent
Link
I believe that they are simply afraid to touch this. It seems as if the whole
world would turn on those that would bring this to the public eye. Thus Fox
won't touch it. What a shame!!!
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by LindaH on Wed 29 Oct 2008 02:39 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
PHIL THANK YOU KINDLY
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Jerryc on Wed 29 Oct 2008 06:48 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I am not seeing the ownage. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point it out
for me.
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by tminu on Wed 29 Oct 2008 07:42 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I know of Snopes that they misreport other thing, so I don't trust them.
For example, if you research Odinga, all they harp on is whether he's Obama's
cousin (Odinga told the BBC he is) but that doesnt' matter
What matters is that Obama campaigned for this genocidal monster and counseled
him on how to get power despite losing the election in Kenya. Snopes leaves
that out. http://www.usafrica.us
Snopes is disingenuous, and loves to direct attention to make the reader gain
a false impression.
Lying by omission. There are other examples, too.
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Epectitus on Wed 29 Oct 2008 09:38 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Hmmm... You accuse Snopes of misreporting "other things." But then you give an
example of where they reported something properly, but assert that it was
something that "doesn't matter." You do know that those are two completely
different things, right?
Your dissatisfaction that Snopes doesn't report an everything is noted. Your
failure to demonstrate where they have "misreported" is noted as well.
Document forensics expert: Obama "birth certificate" a "horrible forgery"
by The One on Wed 29 Oct 2008 02:18 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
The purported Certification of Live Birth published by the Daily Kos left wing
blog and claimed as genuine by the Obama campaign features a security border
that differs dramatically from security borders on COLB documents before and
after the one supposedly printed out for Obama in 2007.
"There are two obvious scenarios used to create the image that can be
ascertained from evidence. Either a real COLB was scanned into Photoshop and
digitally edited or a real COLB was first scanned to obtain the graphic layout
then blanked by soaking the document in solvent to remove the toner. After
rescanning the blank page to a separate image the graphics from the previously
obtained scan could then be easily applied to the blank scan after some
editing and rebuilding. It would also explain why date stamp bleeds through
the paper and the various bits of toner located around the image as well as
the remnants of the previous location of a security border."
Snopes.com is incorrect. If you want to believe what a left wing democratic
site such as The Daily Kos has published and confirmed as official by the
Obama campaign as "legit" you need
to look beyond the end of your nose!
Israelinsider
Re: Document forensics expert: Obama "birth certificate" a "horrible forgery"
by P3driver on Wed 29 Oct 2008 04:03 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Reminder: It has been posted elsewhere on this site and is a fact, not
requiring verification by Snopes or any other debunking site: That a
Certificate of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate are two completely different
documents. If you want proof for yourself, try to get a passport (US) with a
COLB. The passport application people will refuse you. The question is solely,
where is obama's Birth Certificate? Don't be thrown off the path questioning
the authenticity of a COLB, although if it's a forgery, I certainly wouldn't
be surprised. Perform this little test for yourself b 4 you tell me I'm
incorrect -- I have already done it. You NEED A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. If a COLB
is not good enough for the State Dept to issue a passport today, it should
follow that it would not be good enough to prove citizenship status to be
POTUS
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Polarik on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:49 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Snopes is deaf,dumb, and blind. He did not even mention my research, probably
because he did not want to mention it, or didn't know about anything other
than TechDude's bogus stuff.
Obama's Certification of Live Birth is a forgery -- it's not even an issue
anymore. It is a scan of someone's real COLB whose text was graphically
altered in an image editing program like Photoshop to make it appear as if it
were Obama's COLB.
Nobody, and I do mean, nobody, has been able to concretely refute my
conclusions regarding the pixel patterns The bottom line is, that the pixels
tell the whole story. There is no other way that they could have been
produced, except by graphically altering them.
In the case of Obama's bogus BC, it's the little things that render it a
forgery. You know about the pixels, now let's look at something slightly
larger.
Here's the original image posted on the Daily Kos:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/Test-COLBs/BO_Birth_Certificate-1st.jpg
I want you to look up the word, U.S. A. and focus on the periods. Also look
the period after CERTIFICATE NO. and take note of their shape. They are
SQUARE.
Now, look at the TIME OF BIRTH, and notice shape of the dots in the colon.
They are ROUND!
Do the same thing with Michele's 2008 COLB. Both the periods in U.S.A., the
period after CERTIFICATE NO. and the TIME OF BIRTH are all SQUARE!
href="http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/SKMBT_C45008071717410.jpg">
Now, do the same thing with Dan's 2007 COLB. Both the periods in U.S.A.,
CERTIFICATE NO., and the colon in TIME OF BIRTH are ROUND!
The three sets of dots in, U.S.A., CERTIFICATE NO., and TIME OF BIRTH, should
all be ROUND in a real 2007 COLB.
The three sets of dots in, U.S.A., CERTIFICATE NO., and TIME OF BIRTH, should
all be SQUARE in a real 2008 COLB.
The two sets of dots in, U.S.A. and CERTIFICATE NO. are SQUARE, but those in
TIME OF BIRTH are ROUND in Obama's 2007 COLB.
Anyone care to guess what shape are these same, three sets of dots in the
Factcheck PHOTOS allegedly taken of Obama's paper COLB?
SQUARE (U.S.A.), ROUND (CERTIFICATE NO.), and SQUARE (TIME OF BIRTH).
There are other glaring anomalies that I found in the Factcheck PHOTOS, such
as the locations of the SEAL, DATE STAMP and SIGNATURE STAMP are not where
they should be, based on what the STATE REGISTRAR told me, and on where my
critics allege that these stamps can be seen in the Kos COLB.
Keep checking back because I will report on them here.
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Polarik on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:54 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Here are the links:
OBAMA'S COLB
MICHELE'S COLB
DAN'S COLB
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Polarik on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:58 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
That was Dan's other COLB. Try this one. The period after "NO" is partially
revealed.
DAN'S COLB
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by LindaH on Wed 29 Oct 2008 04:13 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
POLARIC
THATS NOT IT
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by www.thelawofattractiongroup.com on Wed 29 Oct 2008 05:29 PM EDT | Profile
| Permanent Link
I've heard the Snopes guy is an Obama fan. How can he prove the
non-illegitimacy of something? That's like proving something is not fake.
The document has to be proven in a court of law. How else can one determine if
it is legit or not? That is what court cases are for.....
Barack Obama has not proven his "natural born" status, so how can he then win
the case and be President? He can't.
Brett
www.thelawofattractiongroup.com
www.thelawofattractiongroup.wordpress.com
Re: Analysis Of Standing To Sue
by Jean K on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:25 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Phil,
Thank you for all of your hard work. I know this must be exhausting, and I am
sure that it must be a heavy burden to know that our freedom and democracy is
at stake in this election. I have been researching the "Standing To Sue" issue
and came across too great articles that may be of benefit.
The first one is a paper writen by a law professor from Oregon "Analysis
Standing To Sue" http://www.law.mercer.edu/elaw/standingtalk.html and the
second one is a recent law review article "The Justiciability of Eligibility:
May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?"
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/tokaji.htm.
I think the first article, written in 1999 may give you some excellent
arguments related to the "Standing" issue. If average citizens had no
standing, then why the Qui Tam provisions in the law? Why have a "citizen's
arrest?"
In addition, some of the emails that I have seen that went back and forth
between the Plaintiff and the Secretary of State in the Washington BC lawsuit
clearly indicate that one branch/agency of the government does not know who is
responsible for what.
http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice/Lawsuit_Sam_Reed/Exhibit_N_Exchange_with_Office_of_Sec_State.htm
Re: Re: Analysis Of Standing To Sue
by grwaitemd on Wed 29 Oct 2008 10:34 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
On page 28 of his opinion Judge Surrick admits that the defendant Federal
Election Commisssion is a governmental agency subject to 5 U.S.C. 552. FEC
protects the individual voter. Whether or not Mr. Berg filed a complaint with
the FEC or had the opportunity to do so goes to the merits of the case and NOT
to subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Surrick's Order granting the FEC's
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is clearly in error.
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Bouldergeist on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:47 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Can someone explain to me why a parallel case has not been filed in state
district court -- as the district court advised, as I understand it --
challenging both the bona fides of Obama and McCain? It seems to me that the
case against McCain is much stronger than the one against Obama:
In 1936, the Canal Zone fell in to a gap in the law, covered neither by the
citizenship clause nor Revised Statutes 1993, the only statute applicable to
births to U.S. citizens outside the United States. As then-Representative John
Sparkman explained in 1937: "the Canal Zone is not such foreign territory as
to come under the law of 1855 [R.S. 1993] and, on the other hand, it is not
part of the United States which would bring it within the fourteenth
amendment." The problem was well known; a 1934 American Bar Association
Journal article explained "we have no statutory provisions defining the
nationality status of persons born in the Canal Zone."
Because the Canal Zone was a "no man's land," in 1937 Congress passed a
statute granting citizenship to "any person born in the Canal Zone on or after
February 26, 1904" who had at least one U.S. citizen parent. This Act made
Senator McCain a United States citizen before his first birthday. But again,
to be a natural born citizen, one must be a citizen at birth. Since Senator
McCain became a citizen in his eleventh month of life, he does not satisfy
this criterion, is not a natural born citizen, and thus is not "eligible to
the Office of President."
Gabriel J. Chin, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months
and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion
Paper No. 08-14 (Jul. 2008) at 4-5.
Of course, if the good Counselor is intending merely to influence the outcome
of the election via legal chicanery, his halo slipped.
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by GaryY on Wed 29 Oct 2008 06:27 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
This is why both McCain and Obama are qualified to serve as POTUS.
Even IF Obama was born in Kenya (doubtful) he still qualifies under g.
BTW, Obama's mother (a US Citizen; born in Kansas) was in the United States
continuously at least past age 18 when she dropped out of college at the
University of Hawaii. I didn't bother to check further as this satisfies the
"at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years" clause
under g.
McCain qualifies under at least c.
I came upon this site by accident and can't believe what I'm reading. Are you
folks aware that Berg has sued President Bush; accusing him of causing 9/11?
Berg has been fined ($10,000 USD) by the courts for being a crappy lawyer and
some of his own clients have sued him for being a crappy lawyer.
It only takes a few minutes and some searching skills to find this info; don't
take my word for it. Berg is taking your money and laughing all the way to the
bank.
If you want McCain to win that's fine. Knock on doors, make phone calls,
donate to his campaign, etc. But you're making a laughing stock of yourself
when you follow a pied-piper like Berg.
Folks, the following is THE WRITTEN LAW and it's easy to understand.
Title 8 of the US Code (Section 1401.)
1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo,
Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of
citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise
affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of
parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had
a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to
the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of
parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically
present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a
continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other
of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents
one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present
in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous
period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the
age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one
years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its
outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a
citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was
physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a
period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which
were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of
honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of
employment with the United States Government or with an international
organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such
citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically
present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the
household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization
as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the
physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be
applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent
as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside
the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a
mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such
person, had resided in the United States.
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Jerryc on Wed 29 Oct 2008 06:38 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Actually, you have to look at the laws as they were in place at the time of
his birth. When Obama was born, section G had the requirement that the parent
had to have lived in the US for a period of 10 years 5 of which had to be
after the age of 14.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by gotcitizenship on Wed 29 Oct 2008 08:49 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Obama's mother at the time of his birth was 18 one month short of the
residency period required by law.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Jerryc on Wed 29 Oct 2008 01:30 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Actually it would be one year shy of the requirement. Had she stayed in the US
with her son instead of moving to Kenya to live with his father. things might
be different on that front. This doesnt even take into acount the fact that he
was and probably still is a citizen of Indonesia.
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Bouldergeist on Wed 29 Oct 2008 10:56 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
That makes McCain a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. As a matter of
law, McCain must meet the latter test to serve in that capacity.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Jerryc on Wed 29 Oct 2008 01:28 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
No, the courts have determined that it makes them natural born. McCain, unlike
Obama has already submitted his BC and all other information that was
requested. He has been to court on this issue 4 or 5 times now and the courts
all agree that the law gives those people in question natural born status.
FELLOW PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BALDWIN SUING
by tminu on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:54 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I hear that Chuck Baldwin of the CONSTITUTIONAL PARTY is going to pursue as a
fellow presidential candidate. BUT he is going to sue both McCain and Obama.
DOESN'T HE HAVE STANDING?
CAN YOU CONTACT HIM MR. BERG?
I'd love to see Baldwin go for it
by Bouldergeist on Wed 29 Oct 2008 04:11 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Pastor Baldwin has standing, if anyone does (and someone has to). It would be
interesting to see what might happen if McCain wins in particular, as the case
for his disqualification does not rely upon on a tenuous set of purported
facts. Berg could represent him, and the money could come out of campaign
funds.
The better plaintiff would be Ralph Nader, who is an attorney of some note.
Re: FELLOW PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BALDWIN SUING
by Jerryc on Wed 29 Oct 2008 06:53 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
What exactly can he sue McCain for? The law is very clear, in 1937 Congress
passed a statute granting citizenship to "any person born in the Canal Zone on
or after February 26, 1904" who had at least one U.S. citizen parent. So as
you can tell, there isn't anything that McCain can be sued for.
Re: Re: FELLOW PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BALDWIN SUING
by tminu on Wed 29 Oct 2008 07:43 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Probably just to look unbiased.
McCain will just show his documents (which he already did in 2000), and Obama
will have to do the same.
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Bouldergeist on Wed 29 Oct 2008 04:06 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
There is, of course, another matter that gives me pause: the birth
announcement in the Honolulu Advisor. As counsel surely knows, such evidence
would be admissible into evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(16), and the
prattlings of a senile old woman (she has to be in her 80s, at least), coupled
with a lack of credible corroborating documentation, are not likely to be
sufficient to meet Mr. Berg's burden of proof.
Would a person without a birth certificate -- one that was lost or
inadvertently destroyed by public officials -- be barred from running for
President? If all Barack Obama has to do is prove his status as a natural born
citizen by a preponderance of the evidence, I'm not sure this lawsuit is going
to go anywhere. Moreover, the theory Mr. Berg promulgates is tenuous at best,
as Politifact observes:
At PolitiFact.com, we're all about original sources. We don't take anyone at
their word or take the reporting of other media organizations as proof. We go
to the heart of the story, the source of the truth - original, corroborating
documents.
When the official documents were questioned, we went looking for more answers.
We circled back to the Department of Health, had a newsroom colleague bring in
her own Hawaii birth certificate to see if it looks the same (it's identical).
But every answer triggered more questions.
And soon enough, after going to every length possible to confirm the birth
certificate's authenticity, you start asking, what is reasonable here?
Because if this document is forged, then they all are.
If this document is forged, a U.S. senator and his presidential campaign have
perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud. They have done it with conspiring
officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of
Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of State's office, the Attorney
Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and
many other government agencies. [link]
Perhaps it is just me, but it seems a trifle far-fetched that the Republican
and Jewish governor of Hawai'i would participate in a cover-up of a scam
perpetrated by a Democrat and Muslim.
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Jerryc on Wed 29 Oct 2008 06:58 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
"Would a person without a birth certificate -- one that was lost or
inadvertently destroyed by public officials -- be barred from running for
President?"
You would have to get testimony from the doctor that did the delivery as well
as the parents of the person in question. If those people arent available for
questioning, then the best you could do would be naturalized citizenship.
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by tminu on Wed 29 Oct 2008 07:44 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Well, since Obama flew to Honolulu specifically to have his vault birth
certificate SEALED...he obviously HAS one.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by BlueWater1949 on Wed 29 Oct 2008 09:36 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
No - it was not identified as a vault certificate - but who needs details when
you gaze into Obama's eyes... follow me...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Epectitus on Wed 29 Oct 2008 09:41 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Obama's BC was not "sealed" by anyone. The Governor merely followed the law
that has been on the books for a long time. She had no other legal choice.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Jerryc on Wed 29 Oct 2008 01:32 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Assuming Berg is successful with his appeal to the supreme court. Obama will
have to produce that vault BC. I don't understand why he doesnt just release
the damn thing and stop all of this crap.
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by BlueWater1949 on Wed 29 Oct 2008 09:43 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
The governor was preventing the obvious misuse of government files that
happened with Joe the Plumber in Ohio and the news anchor in Florida. She was
putting everyone on notice - follow the channels - and we will turn it over.
That's what law-abiding conservatives do.
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by bringmefreedom on Wed 29 Oct 2008 06:05 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
HE HAS 2 NAMES, 2 CITIZENSHIPS, 2 RELIGIONS. HE IS AN ANTI CHRIST???
Write this article!
He lied to the ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT when asked to provide former names,
according to this Attorney's Registration Record:
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by bringmefreedom on Wed 29 Oct 2008 06:37 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
sorry mistype !!! instead of ???
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Epectitus on Wed 29 Oct 2008 09:49 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
1) He has never been asked anything about his name by the Illinois Supreme
Court.
A) His Attorney's Registration Record (which has nothing to do with the
Illinois Supreme Court) does not tell you whether or not he was ever "asked to
provide former names." It is just a report.
B) The Illinois law states that the Record must report any former names under
which he was licensed to practice law. He has never practiced law under any
name other than Barack Hussein Obama s the report is exactly correct and no
"lie" has occurred.
C) Even Berg dropped this bogus claim more than a month ago. Please try to
keep up.
2) There is no evidence that Obama has ever practiced 2 religions.
3) There is no law against somebody with Dual Citizenship being President of
the US.
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by BlueWater1949 on Wed 29 Oct 2008 10:08 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
And I suppose you don't have a problem with the leader of the free world
hiding historical documents. Even if you do, don't worry, Obama won't let us
be the leader of the free world for long... or free for that matter...
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by bringmefreedom on Wed 29 Oct 2008 11:36 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
For No. 1 probably you're right
For No. 2 We don't know yet. His name was Barrack Hussien Mohammed Obama, the
meaning of it, Obama is blessed by The One (Allah via His prophet Mohammed).
He drops 1 middle name, but his left name still sound Islamic name. "Obama"
remarked that the sound of the Muslim call to prayer was one of the world's
most beautiful sounds. He studied, and excelled in, the teachings of the Koran
in the original Arabic and could recite the Shehada, the Islamic article of
faith when he was in Indonesia.
For No.3 Dual Citizen is prohibited by Indonesian law until now, when her mom
naturalized, she dropped US Citizen automatically. He did the same way, his
school book confirmed it.
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Rob on Wed 29 Oct 2008 06:59 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
With Obama's half-hour infomercial, what will he be selling tonight? Shamwow?
Mighty Putty? Pedi Paws? and the most important question of all, will Billy
Mays make a special guest appearance. Please someone tell me so i can sit by
my phone and have my credit card ready.
Thank you
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by BlueWater1949 on Wed 29 Oct 2008 09:34 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I think we all know what he's selling - us - in a handbasket...
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by BlueWater1949 on Wed 29 Oct 2008 09:22 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Nancy Sullivan at the LA Times is refusing to release the Obama/Khalidi video
where Obama attends a Jew bashing party with Khalidi and Ayers. She is even
refusing McCain's requests. Slam her inbox at:
Nancy Sullivan
Executive Director, Communications
213-237-6160
nancy.s...@latimes.com
- this is nothing less than the manipulation of an election and signs of
communism.
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Epectitus on Wed 29 Oct 2008 09:53 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
The LA Times cannot release the video. Their source (the owner of the video)
will not allow them to. And as the Times says, "We keep our promises to our
sources."
They reported fully on the contents months ago.
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by BlueWater1949 on Wed 29 Oct 2008 10:05 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Would you give a valuable tape to someone else - particularly a newspaper -
for safekeeping? Listen to yourself - that makes absolutely no sense. You are
being DUPED! Don't forget to wipe the kool-aid off your chin.
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by BlueWater1949 on Wed 29 Oct 2008 09:30 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Biden slip--Says "New World Order"
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5870
Published: October 27, 2008
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Epectitus on Wed 29 Oct 2008 09:55 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
"New World Order."
That's exactly what it says in Latin on the dollar bill.
It is also a phrase that George H.W. Bush was known to toss around now and
then.
Why, exactly, are you afraid of three words?
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by BlueWater1949 on Wed 29 Oct 2008 10:02 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Biden isn't referring to the traditional development of the United States as
defined by the Constitution. It is also different from the realignment of our
enemies along the axis of evil as spoken by George Bush. It is a reference to
Obama's stated intentions to destroy our Constitution and cut our military
funding. It is UnAmerican, reckless and deceptive. It is not a reference to
our place in the world, it is a reference to the world in our place.
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by liberalssuck on Wed 29 Oct 2008 01:04 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
"IDIOT" is EXACTLY what "Epectitus" means on this blog
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by marlene on Wed 29 Oct 2008 09:45 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Mr. Berg or staff
When can we read the Supreme Court appeal?
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by DBA on Wed 29 Oct 2008 10:20 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Get serious - if there is an "appeal" to the USSC, they do not have to accept
it, and even if they did, you can be certain that Obama's gang would pay-off
the required "justices" on the USSC - afterall, Obama has already raised $ 600
million, do you think a few million more will be a problem ? Don't be so
naive.
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Jerryc on Wed 29 Oct 2008 01:38 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
You forget, the USSC has more conservative justices than moderates/liberal
justices.
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by conservative in IL on Wed 29 Oct 2008 10:05 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent
Link
Mr. Berg-
Thank you for being the advocate of our constitution. If you are successful,
you will be written about in the history books and textbooks as one who put
love of country over party politics and possibly "the one" who saved this
great country from a slippery slope I don't even want to imagine.
Please keep us updated about the Supreme Court as I can't seem to find any
info about it anywhere.
Again, thank you!
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Heidi on Wed 29 Oct 2008 10:43 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Mr. Berg,
Thank you for your desire to protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States of America. We truly are grateful for all you are doing. Our hope and
prayer is you will get lots of positive attention in the coming days, and the
Supreme Court will indeed agree you have standing. Obama's citizenship issues
must be properly addressed.
Web Resources on this subject
by Mr. Outraged on Wed 29 Oct 2008 10:54 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Listing of good resources on this subject: Posting this so they are all on one
easy to get to place.
www.contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/
www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/
www.americasright.com/ Shortcut to:
http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=698
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/27/
http://storyreportscomments.blogspot.com/
http://www.newmediajournal.us/daily_columns/boe_letter.htm
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html#more
Re: Web Resources on this subject
by Mr. Outraged on Wed 29 Oct 2008 11:43 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
For those of you just joining this discussion, there is a lot of history and
info in the Saturday the 25th blog (almost 900 comments). That will get you up
to speed with where we are if you have time to browse through them.
Re: Re: Web Resources on this subject
by Mr. Outraged on Wed 29 Oct 2008 12:04 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
It looks as if they have now broken up the dates of when the comments were
made and placed them in the correct day of the calendar??? Anyway, there is a
lot of good information in these comments.
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Jack on Wed 29 Oct 2008 11:01 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
ex-Reagan Intelligence Officer OFfers $50,000 for LA Times Tape
http://www.hydeparkhustle.org/
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Thom on Wed 29 Oct 2008 11:03 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Wow... First, Mr. Berg carries many of the American voters that would stand
behind him in a heartbeat. This gives him standing. Second, what if there is a
Hawaii birth certificate and what if it says somebody else is his father
instead of Mr. Obama senior! I went to work for a major company and had to
produce orginial documents, IE: birth certificate. The company I work for
produces products that can and soetimes are used for national defense. There
should be the same "test" for the commander and chief of the most powerful
country in the world, and I think it is not too much to ask of Obama to
produce the orginal documents to the public, including his college records as
I did. If I have to do it for my employer as a layman, then by all means he
should have to as well fpr us the American people, his employer.
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by shawn ohio on Wed 29 Oct 2008 11:06 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
THIS JUST IN FROM THE AFRICAN PRESS
Obama's campaign manager offers 3 million dollars to API in connection with
Michelle Obama tape to be aired by Fox News Network
Posted by africanpress on October 29, 2008
Six hours after the release of information by API on the planned broadcast by
Fox News Network of the Michelle Obama tape, in accordance with an agreement
that has been reached between API and Fox News Network, API was contacted by
Obama's Campaign Manager.
Those who are close to the democratic presidential candidate must be desperate
to win the elections no matter what, otherwise they would not have taken such
bold step to contact API with an offer of a bribe in order to stop the airing
of the tape.
Obama's campaign manager contacted API by telephone and email offering 3
million US dollars followed with a request to API to cancel the deal with Fox
News Network.
Ten days ago API received the first request to accept 2 million US dollars by
Mr Ed Hale, President of Plains Radio, Texas - USA, in an effort to suppress
the information from reaching the public before the coming US Presidential
elections.
API has now taken a decision to contact the American Embassy in Oslo, Norway
as soon as possible in order to report the matter and hand over the evidence
for investigative purposes.
API's Canadian lawyer is expected to fly to Oslo shortly in order to assist in
the legal matters that arise from the bribery attempt.
API's Chief editor is expected to travel to New York, together with the
Canadian lawyer, where he will appear live in one of the shows that will air
the Michelle Obama tape.
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by liberalssuck on Wed 29 Oct 2008 01:17 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Do you have a link to that info? Just another example of the great integrity
of obama. Let me guess obama has no idea what HIS campaign manager does he is
just a guy that did these things when he was only 8 years old. Sound about
right?
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Jerryc on Wed 29 Oct 2008 01:44 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Nobody believes that the tapes exist, its a scam and I dont know who you think
you are fooling with it.
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by CDofAZ on Wed 29 Oct 2008 11:21 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I see that this "clean" version has no signature. Please post the actual
signed version, including the fax marks showing the copy Surrick signed had
been faxed to him only moments before.
http://james4america.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/judge-surrick-received-the-decision-he-issued/
Also, regarding the suppressed video, suppressed by the L.A. Times, I saw that
video already last night, in this video that just came out:
Please get this video out as far as you can.
Mr. Berg: You are to be praised forever for doing your best to get the truth
out.
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Mr. Outraged on Wed 29 Oct 2008 11:26 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
the link: http://www.citizens lim.com does not work...
Re: Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Deborah on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:03 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
There is no space:
Try now - it's a 55 mniute video.
55 min. video
by maryannh on Wed 29 Oct 2008 05:52 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Is SCARY! I keep hoping I'll wake up and find this whole mess is just a
terrible dream.
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Jerryc on Wed 29 Oct 2008 02:53 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
The problem is that the obots dont care. Its what they want.
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by IreneNY on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:47 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
OMG... this is scary scary stuff. We don't need an infomercial we just need
someone to air this in its entirety. I wish we could get this on national TV
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Bob on Wed 29 Oct 2008 11:33 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case using a long winded writeup of
how Berg doesn't have "standing" to sue because trashing the Constitution
doesn't cause any particular "harm" to one or all voters.
Meanwhile in my state a couple of voters are suing the Republican candidate
for Governor claiming that his supporter violated laws on donations.
Hmmmmmmm? Democrats have "standing" to sue a Republican, but Berg (and "all
voters") do not have "standing" to sue a Democrat.
Something is very biased in the American Injustice System. Can the Agents of
Satan in black robes of Hell be deciding cases based on the political party
involved? Do pigs fly?
Blessings
Bob
Catch more of The World According to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com
BHO CAUGHT OFFERING $3 MILLION DOLLAR BRIBE!!!
by Sirjaxx on Wed 29 Oct 2008 02:00 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS CORRECT, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS SUCH A NEW AGED,
WATER-WALKER, THAT HE HAS TO BRIBE NEWS AGENCIES TO WITHHOLD PERTINENT
INFORMATION FROM REACHING THE AMERCAN PEOPLE, AM I READING THIS RIGHT?
Obama's campaign manager offers 3 million dollars to API in connection with
Michelle Obama tape to be aired by Fox News Network.
http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/news-flash-obamas-campaign-manager-offers-3-million-dollars-to-api-in-connection-with-michelle-obama-tape-planned-to-be-aired-by-fox-news-network/
Obama's campaign manager offers 3 million dollars to API in connection with
Michelle Obama tape to be aired by Fox News Network
Posted by africanpress on October 29, 2008
Six hours after the release of information by API on the planned broadcast by
Fox News Network of the Michelle Obama tape, in accordance with an agreement
that has been reached between API and Fox News Network, API was contacted by
Obama's Campaign Manager.
Those who are close to the democratic presidential candidate must be desperate
to win the elections no matter what, otherwise they would not have taken such
bold step to contact API with an offer of a bribe in order to stop the airing
of the tape.
Obama's campaign manager contacted API by telephone and email offering 3
million US dollars followed with a request to API to cancel the deal with Fox
News Network.
Ten days ago API received the first request to accept 2 million US dollars by
Mr Ed Hale, President of Plains Radio, Texas - USA, in an effort to suppress
the information from reaching the public before the coming US Presidential
elections.
API has now taken a decision to contact the American Embassy in Oslo, Norway
as soon as possible in order to report the matter and hand over the evidence
for investigative purposes.
API's Canadian lawyer is expected to fly to Oslo shortly in order to assist in
the legal matters that arise from the bribery attempt.
API's Chief editor is expected to travel to New York, together with the
Canadian lawyer, where he will appear live in one of the shows that will air
the Michelle Obama tape.
By Chief Editor Korir
This entry was posted on October 29, 2008 at 7:32 am and is filed under AA >
News and News analysis. . You can follow any responses to this entry through
the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Re: BHO CAUGHT OFFERING $3 MILLION DOLLAR BRIBE!!!
by IreneNY on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:32 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Well this is fascinating. I posted it at fox news lets see what happens.
Someone at the Greta blog said that Berg is going to be on the Brit Hume show
or another news casters show, is there any truth to this?
Waaaay too late
by flyingosubuckeye on Wed 29 Oct 2008 02:23 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent
Link
I'm a military veteran of 14 years, college graduate and a life-long
Republican, voting for John McCain.
This case would have thrown a HUGE Monkey Wrench into the political election
and would make OUR election process look rediculous to the World. Mr. Berg, we
don't need this service you want to render. Millions have already early voted,
absentee votes, military votes, Acorn fraudulent votes, have already been
submitted. Of course that judge was going to throw out the case, based on
that! Mr. Berg did not put this thing together in time, early enough. August
was too late. The major "liberal" news networks and papers never caught on to
it, or chose not to go anywhere near it!
The case is full of holes and speculation and unless Mr. Berg can get Obama to
open up the private "sealed" documents ranging from the "vaulted birth
certificate" to his college records, nothing will EVER come of this,
unfortunately. This will not see the light of day in the U.S. Supreme Court
and Berg knows it.
I'm sure McCain wants a straight up, fair (as possible) election and doesn't
want to confuse millions of American voters with this last minute scandal on
Obama. McCain cares about the well being of the "Country First." If it
back-fired, it would make Republicans look stupid and nasty. Mr. Berg, a
life-long Democrat, was that your real intention and goal?
One posibility remains: After the election will it come up again? If Obama is
EVER to be found guilty on this charge, by the U.S. Supreme Court, Joe Biden
would be president. This process and trial would take YEARS anyway. Biden
would simply finish Obama's term, if Obama was forced to resign. Biden would
just pardon Obama anyway. Do you folks honestly think a Democrat controlled
House and Senate, would demand resignation from a Democrat president? Get
real. haha. Welcome to American Politics 101.
Chad Chicago, IL
Re: Waaaay too late
by LindaH on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:04 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
FLYINGOSUBUCKEYE
I BELEIEVE
BURAC HUSSEIN OBAMA ISN'T GONA GET PAST THE COUNTING OF THE ELECTORAL VOTE
YOU NEED TO KEEP POSITIVE FOR THIS TO HAPPEN...
YOU KNOW THE ELECTION WILL BE CHALLENGED DON'T YOU?
LINDA H,
Re: Waaaay too late
by liberalssuck on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:09 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I guess it doesnt matter that we would have a citizen of indonesia as our
president. I'm sure you served your country for 14 years so the constitution
WOULD NOT BE UPHELD! Also dont you think we would look even more "rediculous"
to the world if we didnt uphold our OWN constitution" Screw the world they
dont have to live with it we do! Welcome to common sense 101 Chad.
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Steven C. Churchill on Wed 29 Oct 2008 02:52 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent
Link
It is a sad state of affairs that we have ignored the warning from Thomas
Jefferson about the dangers of a run away Judiciary sapping our liberties. Sad
indeed
Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down
by Entwife on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:05 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Wow. Major discussion and opinion on the dismissal of Berg vs. Obama. Well
worth reading and disseminating.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
Re: Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down
by tiza7 on Wed 29 Oct 2008 04:45 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I think Mr. Berg needs that article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
Re: Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down
by Birdy on Wed 29 Oct 2008 06:31 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I'm no lawyer, but could Dr. Viera file a friend-of-the-court brief before the
SCOTUS decides to take the case, to help convince them to take the case?
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by IreneNY on Wed 29 Oct 2008 03:56 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Comment by Tricia
October 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Hello everyone! WE need everyone to listen up and participate if you are in
Philly area tomorrow! Go to this link and send to everyone you know within
driving distance of Philadelphia, PA. Berg is going to file his lawsuit with
the United States Supreme Court regarding Obama NOT being a "natural born"
citizen. Please read and pass it along to any blogsite you can asap.
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by Facta on Wed 29 Oct 2008 04:22 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
What time is the event?
Re: Re: Dismissal documents now available
by marlene on Wed 29 Oct 2008 04:39 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Also can anyone tell me when was the last time Obama took questions from the
press.??
Re: Dismissal documents now available
by marcharr3 on Wed 29 Oct 2008 05:10 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Excellent work by Polarnik...
Also, note in the lower left hand corner the letters "(Rev. 11/01)", referring
to the form itself, and meaning "Revised November 2001". This means that this
form is recent, as the date stamp of "Jun 3 2007" that has bled through the
form also confirms. What this means is, of course, that this is NOT the
original, vault copy of the CertifiCATE of Live Birth, and is only something
recently prepared in response to someone's request. However, there's no need
to go through all of the PhotoShop effort: If, in fact, it was issued by a
legitimate Hawaii state office, the clerk could have input anything the
requester printed on the application for CertificaTION OLB, or perhaps PAID
them to write. That said, this is all irrelevant as, under the serious
circumstances, the production of a mere CertificaTION OLB , and a recent one
at that, speaks volumes as to the deliberate effort to conceal the original,
official CertifiCATE OLB. I can get a copy of mine, and have done so. Why
can't someone run
ning for President get one? And why can't ANY of the Obamaniac kool-aid
drinkers answer that simple question? This is not American Idol, fools, this
is the office of the most powerful leader in the world, and of our 200-year
heritage, for crying out loud! As the famous quote by tennis great John
McEnroe, "ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!!!!"
Mark
Lamont Cranston
> "James Of Tucson" <james0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You can claim "a nugget of truth" when you bring
>> "a shred of evidence."
>
>
> Eight lawsuits and an extensive discussion already:
>
> http://comments.obamacrimes.com/blog/_archives/2008/10/29/3952080.html
LOL! Any kook can file a lawsuit. It's the winning that
becomes the problem when there is no evidence.
How are these kook lawsuits working out for you?
Iarnrod
> Certificate of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate are two completely different
> documents. If you want proof for yourself, try to get a passport (US) with a
> COLB. The passport application people will refuse you.
That is a lie.
Rudy Lasparri
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
If you are literate, read this:
OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.,
Ph.D., J.D. October 29, 2008
America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis
in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public
forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is
"a natural born Citizen" of the United States who has not
renounced his American citizenship黍r he must step down as the
Democratic Party's candidate for President of the United
States却referably before the election is held, and in any event
before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the
Constitution, only "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President" (Article II,
Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not "a Citizen of the
United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution."
Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, "a
natural born Citizen" who has never renounced his American
citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are
as yet speculative. But Obama's stubborn refusal to provide what
he claims is "his own" country with conclusive proof on that
score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly
suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After
all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum
physics that is "above his pay grade," but only asked to provide
the public with the original copy of some official record that
establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could
easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his
eligibility丘nless he can not?
Now that Obama's citizenship has been seriously questioned, the
burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The "burden of
establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is
upon those making the claim." Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653
(1948). And if each of the General Government's powers must be
proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement
that the Constitution sets for any individual's exercise of those
powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully
satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those
powers. The Constitution's command that "[n]o Person except a
natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of
President" is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of
each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified
individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively)
being "a natural born Citizen" is the condition precedent sine
qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who
claims eligibility for "the Office of President" must, when
credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard
with sufficient evidence.
In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely
presents the question of Obama's true citizenship, the presiding
judge complained that Berg "would have us derail the democratic
process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people
voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of
the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory."
This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry
into Obama's eligibility for "the Office of President" will not
deny his supporters a "right" to vote for him脚ather, it will
determine whether they have any such "right" at all. For, just as
Obama's "right" to stand for election to "the Office of
President" is contingent upon his being "a natural born Citizen,"
so too are the "rights" of his partisans to vote for him
contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that "Office." If
Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any "right" to vote
for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a
constitutional duty to vote against him.
The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama
has actually proven that he is eligible for "the Office of
President," but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg
supposedly lacks "standing" to challenge Obama's eligibility:
regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too
generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * **
[A] candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen
Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By
extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by
voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly
ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general
election.
This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.
First, the Constitution mandates that "[t]he judicial Power shall
extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution" (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg's suit
plainly "aris[es] under th[e] Constitution," in the sense of
raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is
whether his suit is a constitutional "Case[ ]." The present
judicial test for whether a litigant's claim constitutes a
constitutional "Case[ ]" comes under the rubric of "standing"蟻
litigant with "standing" may proceed; one without "standing" may
not. "Standing," however, is not a term found anywhere in the
Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of
"standing," as they have been elaborated in judicial decision
after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for
"standing" is almost entirely a judicial invention.
True enough, the test for "standing" is not as ridiculous as the
judiciary's so-called "compelling governmental interest test,"
which licenses public officials to abridge individuals'
constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the
Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis
whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually
anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of "standing" as
abusive as the "immunities" judges have cut from whole cloth for
public officials who violate their constitutional "Oath(s) or
Affirmation(s), to support this Constitution" (Article VI, Clause
3)喫n the face of the Constitution's explicit limitation on
official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the
Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true
"Case[ ]." Yet, because the test for "standing" is largely a
contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can
be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to
be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of
judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger
America's constitutional form of government. Which is precisely
the situation here, inasmuch as the purported "election" of Obama
as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office,
not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the
General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative
Branch (as explained below).
Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama
fastened杵amely, that Berg's "grievance remains too generalized
to establish the existence of an injury in fact," i.e., if
everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has
"standing"喫s absurd on its face.
To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general
election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller
than the general pool of America's voters in its entirety has
suffered specific harm from Obama's participation in the
electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his
continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for
Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee, but were saddled with
Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they
could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for
"the Office of President" had been judicially determined before
the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States
that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for
President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded,
if he is proven not to be "a natural born Citizen"? And as far as
the general election is concerned, what about the voters among
erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John
McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any
Democrat, for that matter) as "the lesser of two evils," but who
later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may
have to suffer McCain's being declared the winner of the
election, if Obama's ineligibility is established? Or what about
those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama's campaign,
but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an
ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?
These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared
to the national disaster of having an outright usurper
purportedly "elected" as "President." In this situation, it is
downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama,
that a "generalized" injury somehow constitutes no judicially
cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a
"generalized" grievance negates "the existence of an injury in
fact" is patently illogical鞠or if everyone in any group can
complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain,
then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more
people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate
or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be
greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to
that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury
redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone
in America will be subjected to an individual posing as "the
President" but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is
not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially
assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more
than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the
Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously
flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be,
destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly
threatened with destruction, every American will be
harmed喫rretrievably, should the threat become
actuality喫ncluding those who voted or intend to vote for Obama,
who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation,
any and every American must have "standing" to demand蟻nd must
demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public
opinion逆hat Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself
eligible for "the Office of President."
Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge's prescription
in Berg v. Obama that,
f, through the political process, Congress determines that
citizens, voters, or party members should police the
Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then
it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like
[Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the
sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .
Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no
constitutional "Case[ ]" because he has no "standing," and that
he has no "standing" because he has no "injury in fact," only a
"generalized" "grievance." This purports to be a finding of
constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no "Case[ ]"
exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant "standing"
to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg
decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals
have no "standing"? If "standing" is a constitutional conception,
and the courts deny that "standing" exists in a situation such as
this, and the courts have the final say as to what the
Constitution means逆hen Congress lacks any power to contradict
them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise
jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within "the
judicial Power." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137,
173-180 (1803).
In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely
unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call "an implied
cause of action"掬irectly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4
of the Constitution逆o require that anyone standing for "the
Office of President" must verify his eligibility for that
position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward
that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute
those allegations with evidence that should be readily available
if he is eligible. That "Case[ ]" is one the Constitution itself
defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a
"Case[ ]" in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek
enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will
ensue if it is flouted.
What are some of those consequences?
First, if Obama is not "a natural born Citizen" or has renounced
such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for "the Office of
President" (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he
cannot be "elected" by the voters, by the Electoral College, or
by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither
the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change
the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese
(see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or
the Members of the House purport to "elect" Obama, he will be
nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as
such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper
cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets,
accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.
Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential "Oath or
Affirmation" of office, knowing that he is not "a natural born
Citizen," he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing
(see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for
"the Office of President, he cannot "faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States," or even execute it at
all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the "Oath or
Affirmation" will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and
administers the "Oath or Affirmation," Obama will derive no
authority whatsoever from it.
Third, his purported "Oath or Affirmation" being perjured from
the beginning, Obama's every subsequent act in the usurped
"Office of President" will be a criminal offense under Title 18,
United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:
[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any
State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or
protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * *
shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or
both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon,
explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more
than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill,
shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Plainly enough, every supposedly "official" act performed by an
usurper in the President's chair will be an act "under color of
law" that necessarily and unavoidably "subjects [some] person * *
* to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United
States"喫n the most general case, of the constitutional "right[
]" to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as
President, and the corresponding constitutional "immunit[y]" from
subjection to an usurper pretending to be "the President."
Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in
the guise of "the President," Obama will not constitutionally be
the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
into the actual Service of the United States" (see Article II,
Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no
obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for
officers or men to follow any of his purported "orders" will
constitute a serious breach of military discipline蟻nd in extreme
circumstances perhaps even "war crimes." In addition, no one in
any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General
Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama's
purported "proclamations," "executive orders," or "directives."
Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will
have no conceivable authority "to make Treaties", or to
"nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers
of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise
provided for [in the Constitution]" (Article II, Section 2,
Clause 2). And therefore any "Treaties" or "nominat[ions], and *
* * appoint[ments]" he purports to "make" will be void ab initio,
no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither
authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor
thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what
further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper,
even with "the Advice and Consent of the Senate",
unconstitutionally "appoint(s) * * * Judges of the Supreme Court"
whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide
critical "Cases" of constitutional law.
Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law
while an usurper pretends to occupy "the Office of President."
The Constitution provides that "[e]very Bill which shall have
passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before
it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United
States" (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper
posturing as "the President of the United States," but to the
true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful
President occupies the White House, no "Bill" will or can,
"before it become a Law, be presented to [him]." If no "Bill" is
so presented, no "Bill" will or can become a "Law." And any
purported "Law" that the usurper "approve(s)" and "sign(s)," or
that Congress passes over the usurper's "Objections," will be a
nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully "enters office" as an
usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as
long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as "President."
Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as "the
President," Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being
the actual President, he cannot be "removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (see Article II, Section 4). In
that case, some other public officials would have to arrest
him仇ith physical force, if he would not go along quietly喫n
order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously,
this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General
Government itself, or among the States and the people.
Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate
from Obama's hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment
allowed Obama to pretend to be "the President," and the people
acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done
during his faux "tenure in office" by anyone connected with the
Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done
by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as
well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being
overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed
in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and
internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is
breathtaking.
The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his
partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and
cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of
his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential
election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over
the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be
dogged with this question every day of his purported
"Presidency." And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is
too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either
Obama can prove that he is "a natural born Citizen" who has not
renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be
allowed to slip through with some doctored "birth certificate"
generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this
important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is
accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be
subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by
reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any
suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public
official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest
organization whatsoever.
Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that
ought to be unnecessary. For Obama's moral duty is to produce the
evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise,
he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his
refusal to do so.
Of course, if Obama knows that he is not "a natural born Citizen"
who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows
that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous
election-related frauds throughout the country逆he latest,
still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American
people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal "to be a
witness against himself" is perfectly explicable and even
defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever
justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama's silence
and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his
eligibility for "the Office of President." The Constitution may
permit him to "take the Fifth;" but it will not suffer him to
employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the
United States.
ｩ 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard
College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on
constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States
he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the
landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago
Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America
v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory
limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the
private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from
nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly
journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent
work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The
Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States
Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of
American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional
perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political
novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional
story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and
the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" ...
and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in
Arms...
He can be reached at: 13877 Napa Drive Manassas, Virginia 20112.
Lamont Cranston
> In article <geci1c$u7g$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
>
>> - wrote:
>> > "James Of Tucson" <james0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> You can claim "a nugget of truth" when you bring
>> >> "a shred of evidence."
>> >
>> >
>> > Eight lawsuits and an extensive discussion already:
>> >
>> > http://comments.obamacrimes.com/blog/_archives/2008/10/29/3952080.html
>>
>> LOL! Any kook can file a lawsuit. It's the winning that
>> becomes the problem when there is no evidence.
>>
>> How are these kook lawsuits working out for you?
>
> If you are literate, read this:
I don't have to because I have read this:
www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
and seen this:
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/
For you, I recommend this: zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html
-
>> http://comments.obamacrimes.com/blog/_archives/2008/10/29/3952080.html
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> Re: Document forensics expert: Obama "birth certificate" a "horrible forgery"
>> by P3driver on Wed 29 Oct 2008
>>
>> different documents. If you want proof for yourself, try to get a
>> passport (US) with a COLB. The passport application people
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That is a lie.
Agreed. Yet even more egregious was your misattribution
to me when in fact the statement is by "P3driver" from the cited
weblink. I include it to illustrate the level of voter distrust for
Obama's scurrilous activity; something cautionary for supporters.
To clarify, the COLB is in a caterogy similar to the "Consular
Report of Birth Abroad." As a document it supports the passport
application, but only the original hospital record long form birth
certificate itself can prove the status of whether one is a "natural
born" citizen, which has been the topic of discussion here.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------
How to Apply for the First Time (In Person)
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
------------------------------------------------------------
BDK
@gmail.com says...
> In article <geci1c$u7g$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
>
> > - wrote:
> > > "James Of Tucson" <james0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> You can claim "a nugget of truth" when you bring
> > >> "a shred of evidence."
> > >
> > >
> > > Eight lawsuits and an extensive discussion already:
> > >
> > > http://comments.obamacrimes.com/blog/_archives/2008/10/29/3952080.html
> >
> > LOL! Any kook can file a lawsuit. It's the winning that
> > becomes the problem when there is no evidence.
> >
> > How are these kook lawsuits working out for you?
>
> If you are literate, read this:
>
> OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.,
> Ph.D., J.D. October 29, 2008
>
> America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis
> in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public
> forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is
> "a natural born Citizen" of the United States who has not
> Democratic Party's candidate for President of the United
> before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the
> Constitution, only "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
> United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution,
> shall be eligible to the Office of President" (Article II,
> Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not "a Citizen of the
> United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution."
>
> Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, "a
> natural born Citizen" who has never renounced his American
> citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are
> as yet speculative. But Obama's stubborn refusal to provide what
> he claims is "his own" country with conclusive proof on that
> score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly
> suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After
> all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum
> physics that is "above his pay grade," but only asked to provide
> the public with the original copy of some official record that
> establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could
> easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his
> litigant with "standing" may proceed; one without "standing" may
> not. "Standing," however, is not a term found anywhere in the
> Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of
> "standing," as they have been elaborated in judicial decision
> after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for
> "standing" is almost entirely a judicial invention.
>
> True enough, the test for "standing" is not as ridiculous as the
> judiciary's so-called "compelling governmental interest test,"
> which licenses public officials to abridge individuals'
> constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the
> Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis
> whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually
> anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of "standing" as
> abusive as the "immunities" judges have cut from whole cloth for
> public officials who violate their constitutional "Oath(s) or
> Affirmation(s), to support this Constitution" (Article VI, Clause
> official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the
> Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true
> "Case[ ]." Yet, because the test for "standing" is largely a
> contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can
> be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to
> be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of
> judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger
> America's constitutional form of government. Which is precisely
> the situation here, inasmuch as the purported "election" of Obama
> as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office,
> not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the
> General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative
> Branch (as explained below).
>
> Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama
> to establish the existence of an injury in fact," i.e., if
> everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has
> complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain,
> then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more
> people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate
> or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be
> greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to
> that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury
> redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone
> in America will be subjected to an individual posing as "the
> President" but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is
> not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially
> assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more
> than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the
> Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously
> flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be,
> destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly
> threatened with destruction, every American will be
> actuality=3Fincluding those who voted or intend to vote for Obama,
> who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation,
> demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public
> eligible for "the Office of President."
>
> Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge's prescription
> in Berg v. Obama that,
>
> f, through the political process, Congress determines that
> citizens, voters, or party members should police the
> Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then
> it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like
> [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the
> sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .
>
>
> Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no
> constitutional "Case[ ]" because he has no "standing," and that
> he has no "standing" because he has no "injury in fact," only a
> "generalized" "grievance." This purports to be a finding of
> constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no "Case[ ]"
> exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant "standing"
> to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg
> decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals
> have no "standing"? If "standing" is a constitutional conception,
> and the courts deny that "standing" exists in a situation such as
> this, and the courts have the final say as to what the
> them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise
> jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within "the
> judicial Power." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137,
> 173-180 (1803).
>
> In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely
> unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call "an implied
> of the Constitution=3Fto require that anyone standing for "the
> ]" to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as
> President, and the corresponding constitutional "immunit[y]" from
> subjection to an usurper pretending to be "the President."
>
> Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in
> the guise of "the President," Obama will not constitutionally be
> the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
> States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
> into the actual Service of the United States" (see Article II,
> Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no
> obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for
> officers or men to follow any of his purported "orders" will
> still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American
> people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal "to be a
> witness against himself" is perfectly explicable and even
> defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever
> justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama's silence
> and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his
> eligibility for "the Office of President." The Constitution may
> permit him to "take the Fifth;" but it will not suffer him to
> employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the
> United States.
>
I recommend Haldol. But watch out, you may get Tardive dyskinesia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardive_dyskinesia
If you don't have it already.
Iarnrod
> >>http://comments.obamacrimes.com/blog/_archives/2008/10/29/3952080.html
>
> >> [ ... ]
>
> >> Re: Document forensics expert: Obama "birth certificate" a "horrible forgery"
> >> by P3driver on Wed 29 Oct 2008
>
> >> Certificate of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate are two completely
> >> different documents. If you want proof for yourself, try to get a
> >> passport (US) with a COLB. The passport application people
> >> will refuse you. [ ... ]
> > That is a lie.
>
> Agreed. Yet even more egregious was your misattribution
> to me when in fact the statement is by "P3driver" from the cited
> weblink.
You posted it, chum.
> To clarify, the COLB is in a caterogy similar to the "Consular
> Report of Birth Abroad."
False.
> As a document it supports the passport
> application...
If it does not confirm place of birth as being on US soil, then it
could not be used for that purpose, bird brain. Thanks for
undercutting your own claims for something like the 100th time.
>, but only the original hospital record long form birth
> certificate itself can prove the status of whether one is a "natural
> born" citizen, which has been the topic of discussion here.
Blatant lie.
The birth certificate contains the location of the birth within the
state that issues it. States don't issue birth certificates for births
that don't occur within the state.
-
>> ... even more egregious was your misattribution to me when
>
> You posted it, chum.
Obviously the entire block of text was an inclusion from
the cited URL. Obviously there was the header by "P3driver"
who is the author of the text. Obviously those who post some
third-party reports are not considered as the authors of them.
>> To clarify, the COLB is in a category similar to the Consular
>> Report of Birth Abroad."
> False.
Take a peek at the State Department webpage for passport
applications. Read it and weep.
>> As a document it supports the passport application...
> If it does not confirm place of birth as being on US soil, then it
> could not be used for that purpose, bird brain. Thanks for
> undercutting your own claims for something like the 100th time.
Birth on U.S. soil is not a strict requirement for a passport.
You've just nullified all of your portentious shaggy knowledge.
>> ... only the original hospital record long form birth certificate
>> itself can prove the status of whether one is a "natural
>> born" citizen, which has been the topic of discussion here.
> Blatant lie.
Check out the Subject: line for the topic of discussion here.
> The birth certificate contains the location of the birth within the
> state that issues it. States don't issue birth certificates for births
> that don't occur within the state.
Sure they do. They can issue COLBs based upon "consular
report of birth abroad." Doesn't matter for citizenship purposes.
Does matter for that "natural born" designation. Furthermore, a
candidate who has spent too much time overseas jeopardizes
a "natural born" designation because they've become a foreign
agent.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/2008/04/
Phil Donahue
Co-Director/Executive Producer ‘Body of War’
Previously Aired On: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - Listen to the Show!
http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/archives/mp3/The_People_Speak_2008-04-22.mp3
Phil Donahue and the DONAHUE show have been honored with 20 Daytime Emmy
Awards, including nine for Outstanding Host and a George Foster Peabody
Broadcasting Journalism Award.
Phil Donahue used the television talk show format he pioneered in 1967 to
interview world leaders, celebrities, newsmakers and people from all walks of
life. For over 29 years, DONAHUE examined human behavior, focused national
debates on political and social issues and has provided a democratic forum for
presidential candidates.
The format he introduced on November 6, 1967, as The Phil Donahue Show on
WLWD-TV in Dayton, Ohio, launched the first audience participation television
talk show and changed the face of American daytime television. For his
outstanding contribution to television and American culture, Mr. Donahue was
inducted into the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Hall of Fame on
November 20, 1993.
As host of DONAHUE, Mr. Donahue has presided over nearly 7,000 one-hour daily
shows, many on-location broadcasts and several historic broadcasts from
Russia.
Body of War is an intimate and transformational feature documentary about the
true face of war today. Meet Tomas Young, 25 years old, paralyzed from a
bullet to his spine - wounded after serving in Iraq for less than a week.
Body of War is Tomas’ coming home story as he evolves into a new person,
coming to terms with his disability and finding his own unique and passionate
voice against the war. The film is produced and directed by Phil Donahue and
Ellen Spiro, and features two original songs by Eddie Vedder. Body of War is a
naked and honest portrayal of what it’s like inside the body, heart and soul
of this extraordinary and heroic young man.
Please visit: http://www.BodyOfWar.com
Read More >
http://www.thepeoplespeakradio.net/2008/phil-donahue/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lamont Cranston
That, of course, is a lie, since the U.S. Department of
State accepts the shorter version as proof.
Many natural born citizens don't have a "hospital record
long form birth certificate," another fact that counters
your lie.
-
> "-" wrote:
>> To clarify, the COLB is in a caterogy similar to
>> it supports the passport application, but only the original
>> the status of whether one is a "natural born" citizen, which
>> has been the topic of discussion here.
> That, of course, is a lie, since the U.S. Department of
> State accepts the shorter version as proof.
ROTFL. You're not even qualified to read the text of
this discussion, much less offer comments about it.
At least even "Iarnrod" understands that there's a
distinction between what the Department of State
requires for a passport vs. who is "natural born."
You don't need to be "natural born" for a passport.
You DO need to be "natural born" to qualify for Pres.
> Many natural born citizens don't have a "hospital record
> long form birth certificate," another fact that counters
> your lie.
Obama claims to have one, which is sealed, so
your irrelevancy is duly noted as a noise generator.
Try reading the god-damn Subject line once in awhile.
If your parents didn't register you right away then they
never hoped you might become president.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Young's Kitchen: Pumpkin Seeds
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5907
-----------------------------------------------------------
Iarnrod
> >> ... even more egregious was your misattribution to me when
> >> in fact the statement is by "P3driver" from the cited weblink.
>
>
> Obviously the entire block of text was an inclusion from
> the cited URL.
Which you psoted, chum.
> Obviously there was the header by "P3driver"
> who is the author of the text. Obviously those who post some
> third-party reports are not considered as the authors of them.
But you posted it, chum.
> >> To clarify, the COLB is in a category similar to the Consular
> >> Report of Birth Abroad."
> > False.
>
> Take a peek at the State Department webpage for passport
> applications. Read it and weep.
Sorry. It confirms I am right and you are wrong. The Certificate of
Live Birth *is* proof of US birth.
> >> As a document it supports the passport application...
> > If it does not confirm place of birth as being on US soil, then it
> > could not be used for that purpose, bird brain. Thanks for
> > undercutting your own claims for something like the 100th time.
>
> Birth on U.S. soil is not a strict requirement for a passport.
Non sequitur. I never said nor even hinted that it was.
The converse is what I said.
> You've just nullified all of your portentious shaggy knowledge.
Not at all. You’re just an ignorant boob in denial who cannot read or
comprehend written English.
> >> ... only the original hospital record long form birth certificate
> >> itself can prove the status of whether one is a "natural
> >> born" citizen, which has been the topic of discussion here.
> > Blatant lie.
>
> Check out the Subject: line for the topic of discussion here.
Non sequitur to try to cover up your obvious blatant lie. It is a lie
that only a long form original hospital birth certificate can prove
status as natural born citizen.
You are aware, numbnutz, that not all people are born in hospitals?
Are you not aware that the certificate of live birth confirms the
location of the birth, which confirms natural born citizenship?
Too bad for you that every single fact contradicts what you say and
confirms what I say! Sux to be you!
> > The birth certificate contains the location of the birth within the
> > state that issues it. States don't issue birth certificates for births
> > that don't occur within the state.
>
> Sure they do.
No they don’t.
> They can issue COLBs based upon "consular
> report of birth abroad." Doesn't matter for citizenship purposes.
> Does matter for that "natural born" designation. Furthermore, a
> candidate who has spent too much time overseas jeopardizes
> a "natural born" designation because they've become a foreign
> agent.
No they don’t.
Immaterial in any case to the discussion at hand since the Obama birth
certificate proves he was born in Honolulu!
As I said, sux to be you.
-
> (-) wrote:
>> Obviously the entire block of text was an inclusion from
>> the cited URL.
"Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Which you psoted, chum.
And explained why it was posted. Obama stands to lose this
election because he's monkeying around with his birth certificate.
Journalists and legal scholars concur with me, and not with you.
>>>> To clarify, the COLB is in a category similar to the Consular
>>>> Report of Birth Abroad."
>>> False.
>> Take a peek at the State Department webpage for passport
>> applications. Read it and weep.
> Sorry. It confirms I am right and you are wrong. The Certificate
> of Live Birth *is* proof of US birth.
COLB is proof of US citizenship but not "natural born" proof.
>>>> As a document it supports the passport application...
>>> If it does not confirm place of birth as being on US soil, then it
>>> could not be used for that purpose, bird brain. Thanks for
>>> undercutting your own claims for something like the 100th time.
>> Birth on U.S. soil is not a strict requirement for a passport.
> Non sequitur. I never said nor even hinted that it was.
You suggest that the COLB confirms birth on US soil. It
does not. However it may be useful for a passport application.
>> You've just nullified all of your portentious shaggy knowledge.
> Not at all. You’re just an ignorant boob in denial who cannot
> read or comprehend written English.
I seek to enable "in camera" inspection where authorities
may read or comprehend the English on Obama's hospital
record birth certificate. You show "no inquiry" for the matter.
>>>> ... only the original hospital record long form birth certificate
>>>> itself can prove the status of whether one is a "natural
>>>> born" citizen, which has been the topic of discussion here.
>>> Blatant lie.
>> Check out the Subject: line for the topic of discussion here.
> You are aware, numbnutz, that not all people are born in hospitals?
Inapplicable. Obama claims to be born in some hospital.
>>> The birth certificate contains the location of the birth within the
>>> state that issues it. States don't issue birth certificates for births
>>> that don't occur within the state.
>> Sure they do.
> No they don’t.
Yes they do. Especially Hawaii, circa 1960s.
>> They can issue COLBs based upon "consular report of birth abroad."
>> Doesn't matter for citizenship purposes. Does matter for that "natural
>> born" designation. Furthermore, a candidate who has spent too much
>> time overseas jeopardizes a "natural born" designation because
>> they've become a foreign agent.
> No they don’t. Immaterial in any case to the discussion at hand since
> the Obama birth certificate proves he was born in Honolulu!
In a pig's eye. You're just disappointed that your "vote"
might turn out to be nullified through court action, and your
"candidate" deported, if not locked up in an orange jump suit.
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------
Will Trade Sex For Obama Tickets
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Will_Trade_Sex_For_Obama.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iarnrod
> > (-) wrote:
> >> Obviously the entire block of text was an inclusion from
> >> the cited URL.
>
> And explained why it was posted.
And you were wrong.
> Obama stands to lose this
> election because he's monkeying around with his birth certificate.
No he isn’t.
> Journalists and legal scholars concur with me, and not with you.
No they don’t. Kooks agree with you.
> >>>> To clarify, the COLB is in a category similar to the Consular
> >>>> Report of Birth Abroad."
> >>> False.
> >> Take a peek at the State Department webpage for passport
> >> applications. Read it and weep.
> > Sorry. It confirms I am right and you are wrong. The Certificate
> > of Live Birth *is* proof of US birth.
>
> COLB is proof of US citizenship but not "natural born" proof.
“City, town or location of birth: Honolulu.” Yes it does.
> >>>> As a document it supports the passport application...
> >>> If it does not confirm place of birth as being on US soil, then it
> >>> could not be used for that purpose, bird brain. Thanks for
> >>> undercutting your own claims for something like the 100th time.
> >> Birth on U.S. soil is not a strict requirement for a passport.
> > Non sequitur. I never said nor even hinted that it was.
>
> You suggest that the COLB confirms birth on US soil. It
> does not.
Yes it does.
> >> You've just nullified all of your portentious shaggy knowledge.
> > Not at all. You’re just an ignorant boob in denial who cannot
> > read or comprehend written English.
>
> I seek to enable "in camera" inspection where authorities
> may read or comprehend the English on Obama's hospital
> record birth certificate.
Immaterial. The birth certificate already is public.
> You show "no inquiry" for the matter.
Lie. The inquiry was held.
> >>>> ... only the original hospital record long form birth certificate
> >>>> itself can prove the status of whether one is a "natural
> >>>> born" citizen, which has been the topic of discussion here.
> >>> Blatant lie.
> >> Check out the Subject: line for the topic of discussion here.
> > You are aware, numbnutz, that not all people are born in hospitals?
>
> Inapplicable. Obama claims to be born in some hospital.
Yet you claim hospital records are necessary to serve as president.
“IMPEACH LINCOLN NOW!!!”
> >>> The birth certificate contains the location of the birth within the
> >>> state that issues it. States don't issue birth certificates for births
> >>> that don't occur within the state.
> >> Sure they do.
> > No they don’t.
>
> Yes they do. Especially Hawaii, circa 1960s.
No they don’t.
> >> They can issue COLBs based upon "consular report of birth abroad."
> >> Doesn't matter for citizenship purposes. Does matter for that "natural
> >> born" designation. Furthermore, a candidate who has spent too much
> >> time overseas jeopardizes a "natural born" designation because
> >> they've become a foreign agent.
> > No they don’t. Immaterial in any case to the discussion at hand since
> > the Obama birth certificate proves he was born in Honolulu!
>
> In a pig's eye. You're just disappointed that your "vote"
> might turn out to be nullified through court action, and your
> "candidate" deported, if not locked up in an orange jump suit.
Nope. It is proven he was born in Hawaii.
-
> (-) wrote:
>> Obama stands to lose this election because he's
>> monkeying around with his birth certificate.
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No he isn't.
Obama's ratings have been dropping last week.
>> Journalists and legal scholars concur with me, and not with you.
> No they don't. Kooks agree with you.
Seems to be yet another breach of circular logic on your part.
>> COLB is proof of US citizenship but not "natural born" proof.
> "City, town or location of birth: Honolulu." Yes it does.
When a Federal Marshall with a search warrant is not
allowed to review another document which provides alleged
substantiation, then it's time for patriots to rise up and protest.
This election was made dirty by the candidates themselves.
>> You suggest that the COLB confirms birth on US soil. It does not.
> Yes it does.
It merely confirms that a "birth registration" took place.
>> I seek to enable "in camera" inspection where authorities
>> may read or comprehend the English on Obama's hospital
>> record birth certificate.
> Immaterial. The birth certificate already is public.
It's your vote that has already been made public, indicating bias.
>> You show "no inquiry" for the matter.
> Lie. The inquiry was held.
Every time you bleat "immaterial" you show "no inquiry" again.
>> ... Obama claims to be born in some hospital.
> Yet you claim hospital records are necessary to serve as president.
I said "hospital records" and/or "long form birth certificate."
>>>>> The birth certificate contains the location of the birth within the
>>>>> state that issues it. States don't issue birth certificates for births
>>>>> that don't occur within the state.
>>>> Sure they do.
>>> No they don't.
>> Yes they do. Especially Hawaii, circa 1960s.
> No they don't.
I think you're forgetting some "reasons" for the JFK assassination.
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------
Kurdistan Regional Government
Pres. Barzani on Kurdistan Region and Future of Iraq (October 31, 2008)
The Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted a discussion with
Pres. Masoud Bazani of the Kurdistan Region on the U.S.-Iraq Security
Agreement and the future of Kurdistan and Iraq.
Washington, DC : 52 min.
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq103108_kudistan.rm
----------------------------------------------------------
Lamont Cranston
>> (-) wrote:
>>> Obama stands to lose this election because he's
>>> monkeying around with his birth certificate.
>
> Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> No he isn't.
>
>
> Obama's ratings have been dropping last week.
All of his ratings have improved in the last week by 2 to 5
points.
-
>>> (-) wrote:
>>>> Obama stands to lose this election because he's
>>>> monkeying around with his birth certificate.
>> Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> No he isn't.
> "-" wrote:
>> Obama's ratings have been dropping last week.
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@MeAndMy.com> wrote:
> All of his ratings have improved in the last week by 2 to 5
> points.
Not according to the bookies in Las Vegas.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------
CIA Officers Face UK Trial Over Torture?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cia-officers-could-face-trial-in-britain-over-torture-allegations-980384.html
--------------------------------------------------------
Iarnrod
wrote:
> - wrote:
> >> (-) wrote:
> >>> Obama stands to lose this election because he's
> >>> monkeying around with his birth certificate.
>
> >> No he isn't.
>
> > Obama's ratings have been dropping last week.
>
> All of his ratings have improved in the last week by 2 to 5
> points.
Maybe he meant the rate of increase has been dropping!
Iarnrod
> > (-) wrote:
> >> Obama stands to lose this election because he's
> >> monkeying around with his birth certificate.
>
> Obama's ratings have been dropping last week.
No they haven’t. He had HUGE ratings on Wednesday night. McBlame’s
have been falling.
> >> Journalists and legal scholars concur with me, and not with you.
> > No they don't. Kooks agree with you.
>
> Seems to be yet another breach of circular logic on your part.
You’re lying again, since there was none to begin with. But we’re used
to you lying.
> >> COLB is proof of US citizenship but not "natural born" proof.
> > "City, town or location of birth: Honolulu." Yes it does.
>
> When a Federal Marshall [SIC] with a search warrant is not
> allowed to review another document which [SIC] provides alleged
> substantiation, then it's time for patriots to rise up and protest.
That time hasn’t arrived, chum. No federal marshal with any search
warrant was denied any such thing. Relax and unknot your panties,
jizzie.
> This election was made dirty by the candidates themselves.
Yes, McBlame and Failin. I agree.
> >> You suggest that the COLB confirms birth on US soil. It does not.
> > Yes it does.
>
> It merely confirms that a "birth registration" took place.
Nope. You’re lying yet again. “City, town or location of BIRTH (my
emphasis): Honolulu.” Sux to be you!
> >> I seek to enable "in camera" inspection where authorities
> >> may read or comprehend the English on Obama's hospital
> >> record birth certificate.
> > Immaterial. The birth certificate already is public.
>
> It's your vote that has already been made public, indicating bias.
Not at all. Most people are voting for Obama. I have no bias. I have
facts. Facts prove me right and you wrong.
> >> You show "no inquiry" for the matter.
> > Lie. The inquiry was held.
>
> Every time you bleat "immaterial" you show "no inquiry" again.
Nope, not at all, you blithering idiot. Re-read what I wrote: “The
inquiry was held.” Seems like you’ve been caught in a lie again.
Whatta surprise!
> >> ... Obama claims to be born in some hospital.
> > Yet you claim hospital records are necessary to serve as president.
>
> I said "hospital records" and/or "long form birth certificate."
But you tied them together conjunctively, not disjunctively as you
pretend now. Allow me to demonstrate via your actual words in an
earlier lie you posted: “Only the original hospital record long form
birth certificate itself can prove the status of whether one is a
"natural born" citizen.”
See, liar?
smrstrauss
> On Oct 31, 3:31 pm, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@MeAndMy.com>
> wrote:
>
> > - wrote:
> > >> (-) wrote:
> > >>> monkeying around with hisbirthcertificate.
>
> > > Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> No he isn't.
>
>
> > All of his ratings have improved in the last week by 2 to 5
> > points.
>
> Maybe he meant the rate of increase has been dropping!
This just in:
State declares Barack Obama's Hawaii birth certificate is genuine
By Associated Press
6:43 PM EDT, October 31, 2008
HONOLULU (AP) _ State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was
born in Hawaii.
Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and the
registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified
that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda
Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled
differently.
She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to
anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
===
(and this slightly different account:)
Friday, October 31, 2008 - 11:51 AM HAST (That means Hawaii/Aleutian
Standard Time)
Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate confirmed
Pacific Business News (Honolulu)
The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what
Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was
born in Honolulu.
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s
official birth certificate,” said Chiyome Fukino. “State law prohibits
the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not
have a tangible interest in the vital record.”
Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital
records, Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the
Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth
certificate on record in accordance with state policies and
procedures.
“No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed
that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other
vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,” Fukino added.
Lingle, a Republican, has been campaigning on the Mainland for Obama’s
opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois, was born Aug. 4, 1961, in
Honolulu. He graduated high school at Punahou School in 1979.
End quote:
These two versions of the same report seem clear enough. The birth
certificate is on file in Hawaii and it is valid.
However, the opponents of Obama simply will not give up. I have seen
one Web comment that went along these lines: "It could have been a
valid Kenyan birth certificate on file in Hawaii that the Hawaii
official was talking about."
Laughable, of course, why would a Kenyan birth certificate be filed in
Hawaii?
Oh, and as to the claim that Obama's grandmother said that she had
been present at his birth in Kenya. Well, that all stems from Corsi
and Philip Berg, who claim to have an audio tape of her saying that.
But Berg and Corsi have never played that tape for anyone. And they
have not shown any other evidence, such as Kenyan documents, either.
smrstrauss
> wrote:
>
> > - wrote:
> > >> (-) wrote:
> > >>> monkeying around with hisbirthcertificate.
>
> > > Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> No he isn't.
>
>
> > All of his ratings have improved in the last week by 2 to 5
> > points.
>
> Maybe he meant the rate of increase has been dropping!
This just in:
End quote:
Oh, and the report of the Hawaii governor having ordered Obama's birth
records sealed, that is false too. Apparently it stems from Corsi. The
Gov. of Hawaii is a Republican, so why should she issue a special seal
order. The facts are that all birth records are sealed in Hawaii--to
anyone other than the family.
smrstrauss
> wrote:
>
> > - wrote:
> > >> (-) wrote:
> > >>> monkeying around with hisbirthcertificate.
>
> > > Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> No he isn't.
>
>
> > All of his ratings have improved in the last week by 2 to 5
> > points.
>
> Maybe he meant the rate of increase has been dropping!
This just in:
BDK
@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, smrst...@aol.com says...
> Pacific Business News (Honolulu)
>
> The director of Hawaii=3Fs Department of Health confirmed on Friday what
> Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was
> born in Honolulu.
>
> official birth certificate,=3F said Chiyome Fukino. =3FState law prohibits
> the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not
>
> Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii=3Fs vital
> records, Fukino said she has =3Fpersonally seen and verified that the
> Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama=3Fs original birth
> certificate on record in accordance with state policies and
> procedures.
>
> that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other
>
> Lingle, a Republican, has been campaigning on the Mainland for Obama=3Fs
> opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
>
> Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois, was born Aug. 4, 1961, in
> Honolulu. He graduated high school at Punahou School in 1979.
>
> End quote:
>
> These two versions of the same report seem clear enough. The birth
> certificate is on file in Hawaii and it is valid.
>
>
> However, the opponents of Obama simply will not give up. I have seen
> one Web comment that went along these lines: "It could have been a
> valid Kenyan birth certificate on file in Hawaii that the Hawaii
> official was talking about."
>
> Laughable, of course, why would a Kenyan birth certificate be filed in
> Hawaii?
>
> Oh, and as to the claim that Obama's grandmother said that she had
> been present at his birth in Kenya. Well, that all stems from Corsi
> and Philip Berg, who claim to have an audio tape of her saying that.
> But Berg and Corsi have never played that tape for anyone. And they
> have not shown any other evidence, such as Kenyan documents, either.
>
>
The "Birthplace" kooktards have to be getting very frustrated at this
point, it's another claim of theirs that has turned into vapor, just
like the 911 claims, and all the other claims they've made over the
years. Such is the fate of the kooktardish.
Their biggest accomplishment is to get laughed at.