Posted on 08/31/2010 10:19:15 AM PDT by butterdezillion
I'll post the whole thing on the first response so the links will be clickable. This is an example of (probably criminal) journalistic malpractice by The Hutch News - an example of how the media behaves on almost every issue including the eligibility issue. I explain why I believe the media ignores our factual corrections at its own peril.
I believe this is what we need to be saying to the media whenever we find deliberate deception.
You can always sue. Whether that would produce any results is up to how good a case you present and how the court responds, of course.
It is unlikely that anyone will every see any documents, and if documents are produced, no matter when they were manufactured, a judge like Carter will proclaim Obama a natural born citizen because he was born here, and most citizens will not know that being born on the soil does not make one natural born - though obots will repeat it. Two citizen parents, native or naturalized, and born on our soil are the two requirements. The fixation on birth certificates can only mean that people haven't read any of the dozen or so cases, or the 14th Amendment Author, or James Kent or Joseph Story or David Ramsay to have confidence in the definition.
The only other conclusion, one which seems to fit Phillip Berg, is that these discussions are maintained by Obama supporters to support the Alinsky tactic number five, that "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Obama supporters may well have produced phony documents, just to attract the gullible. Berg has always been a Democrat activist, and is one today, as he steers the public toward mythical Kenyan documents, and attacks Orly Taitz, who countered Berg in their first press conference in December of 2008, explaining that where Obama was born made no difference. She, of course, has been attacked with Alinsky's thirteenth rule: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
In 1931, Capone was indicted for income tax evasion for the years 1925-29. He was also charged with the misdemeanor of failing to file tax returns for the years 1928 and 1929. The government charged that Capone owed $215,080.48 in taxes from his gambling profits. A third indictment was added, charging Capone with conspiracy to violate Prohibition laws from 1922-31. Capone pleaded guilty to all three charges in the belief that he would be able to plea bargain. However, the judge who presided over the case, Judge James H. Wilkerson, would not make any deals.
http://www.chicagohs.org/history/capone/cpn3a.html
If libel and false labeling were unconstitutional because of the First Amendment, then LL might have a point. But they are not. There ARE penalties for saying something that victimizes somebody else.
In this case the victim is the American people, whose federal government functions are compromised.
Does Blago have free speech rights? Less free speech rights than if he had a press pass?
Where in that law do you see the press or any other group (besides defense lawyers exempted from the concealment portion) because of their “free speech” rights?
Excellent summary.
You can sue in Hawaii and hope and pray there’s an honest judge. Don’t hold your breath.
If getting rid of Obama was all that had to be done then maybe this would be superfluous. But we have a problem here that is WAY beyond just Obama. We have government, media, and law enforcement that are totally corrupt.
If those things weren’t corrupt it wouldn’t even matter if we had a communist Islamist slug in the White House, because there would be checks and balances to limit his power.
I’m aiming higher than just Obama. I’m aiming to get my country back.
Last paragraph should have been:
Where in that law do you see the press or any other group exempted (besides defense lawyers exempted from the concealment portion) because of their “free speech” rights?
I imagine it will make more sense when this too goes nowhere.
You seem to have this epistemology that says whatever is reality is the way it’s supposed to be - that the way you know what is right is by what happens.
I don’t buy that. A lot of things that happen are not right.
If somebody wants to bring up jurisprudence or penumbras or precedent to show that this law has not been interpreted the way I interpret it, I welcome that. Without that, what I have is what the law itself says, and what this report for Congress says to describe its elements.
I don’t see anything in there that excludes the media - which has no more or less freedom of speech than any individual. Sometimes the standards of proof for media may be different than for non-press people, but the same laws apply. The media can’t say it is exempt from truth-in-labeling or libel laws, for instance. It takes more to prove the media guilty of libel than to prove non-media individuals guilty of the same thing, but the media is still liable for the same crime as long as it can be proven.
If somebody can show me where and why this law includes an exemption for media, I will re-think my understanding on this.
I wish you good luck, B.
Thank you. We don’t have to agree, to wish one another well. And I do wish you well.
It took a while, but I have come to see Leo Donofrio’s frustration with citizen's who don't understand the law. We can't use the legal system if we don't have evidence. Obama has cleverly used legal trickery to deny us his documents. But he can't deny his own words, which define him as a native born citizen of the U.S. and not a natural born citizen. He told everyone his father was Kenyan. Those all may be lies, but his words make him ineligible. If enough people understand, OUR courts must act. They are already evading their responsibility.
I agree, and the court definitely needs to affirm that.
But I believe that the courts are being held hostage. I spent a lot of time being so angry at SCOTUS for “avoiding” the issue - angry that Clarence Thomas could laugh at it. And then I got on a computer where I could see the actual video of what Thomas said. He was not joking. There was nothing joking about what he said. There was uncomfortable silence, and then Thomas started to try to bring it around to a joke, by smiling.
That man brought up that issue unsolicited and in a serious manner because he is furious at what they are doing. He had to cover it with a laugh because he wasn’t supposed to bring attention to the issue and had to allow a gracious “out” or he would get in trouble.
The rulings the judges have given out are so ridiculous they are laughable. The issue has been “Twittered”? The evidence might “embarrass” Obama? There was no way Keyes could have won anyway? Silence because it’s not a serious enough issue to consider, unlike penalties for cigarette makers which is earth-shaking to the Republic? (But then a later uncomfortable, unsolicited and out-of-the-blue reference to them “avoiding” the issue.)Can’t do anything until he’s President, followed by can’t do anything because he’s already president?
And the judges have surrounded themselves with situations that reek of corrupt influence. SCOTUS having a private meeting with Obama right before they were to decide whether to hear a case involving Obama? Judge Carter hiring a legal assistant from the company defending Obama, while scheduled to decide a case about Obama? Those are not accidents. Carter specifically hired that guy at that time for a reason - knowing it gives the appearance of corrupt influence.
Even the inauguration itself. Justice Stevens called Joe Biden “Mr President” after administering the oath of office to him, and then retired from SCOTUS shortly afterwards. The actual oath to Obama being botched publicly so nobody could see Roberts administer the legally-binding oath.
And Congress itself. Cheney never did ask for objections to the certification of the electoral vote, as required by law. Pelosi started a standing ovation instead. Those who say that Congress certified the election should note that Cheney did NOT do what was required by law. There weren’t any written objections anyway so there would have been no harm done by Cheney just asking the question, but he still didn’t do it. Why not? Why didn’t he play along with the charade?
After seeing all these otherwise-trustworthy people join in lock-step with the official narrative but still leaving these little hints that something’s not right, I believe they’ve been taken hostage. I believe they’ve been told that if they resist the communist-Islamist coup, Soros/Islamists will collapse the entire western economy just as Soros has spent at least the last 15 years doing to the economies of individual countries - and was convicted in 2006 of doing in France.
So anyway, I believe the conservative justices are “avoiding the issue” because they don’t want to have to make a ruling under duress that will forever set the precedent and undo the Constitution. And they don’t like it one bit. They are leaving signs to let people know something is wrong.
The more I see what is going on, the more I believe that the survival of Constitutional America literally hangs on whether we can protect ourselves from economic terrorism at the hands of Soros/Islamists. Everything Obama has done fits the scenario I’ve presented of Obama as a puppet who was put in place by Soros/Islamists using economic terrorism to hold the patriotic leaders of the nation hostage. The stuff that doesn’t make any sense at all suddenly makes sense if that’s what’s going on.
I’m not an economist. I don’t know what it would take to protect us from economic terrorists like Soros and the Islamists. I do know that the leaders of this communist coup do not want to prevent it, any more than they care to prevent terrorist attacks on airplanes or the illegal invasion on our southern border.
This may be the saddest thing I’ve ever said on Free Republic: The economic mess we’ve made of this country, the way we seem to be teetering on the edge of a precipice, may mean that it is too late for America to be saved. There may be too many ways that the powers who want one world government can control the economy and hold us hostage.
I do believe that as long as that threat can be held over the heads of the conservative justices, no case seriously damaging to the communist coup will ever be decided the right way - even after Obama is out of office. That doesn’t bode well for the country, with the Arizona enforcement law, healthcare reform, net neutrality, second amendment rights, and so many other issues pending, and the illegal takeovers of the banking, auto, and student loan industries needing to be repealed.
What I really need is input from economic people who have any idea whether or how America could protect itself from this kind of economic terrorism.
Sorry. Evading rather than avoiding.
I too have been trying to understand why there has been no courage, no defense of the Constitution, no acknowledgment of what we and anyone who bothers can read in Joseph Story, John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, ... Is there something hidden from the public, or is it that the whole notion of a representative republic is as much a fiction as a social security or medicare “lock box?” Does Soros, if he is the central figure, already have control?
I do know, without exaggeration, because it has been part of my career, that the public has no idea of how we actually vote. There is no possibility of recounting votes because the only records of votes are not audited - there is no audit trail for votes. To assume that the secretaries of state in each state somehow insure that counts coming from thousands of computers are verifiable is a sad fiction. Even concern over identity check is misdirection. If there is no record it doesn't really matter who votes. An advantage of illegals voting is that if the public were to really become suspicious, some activity can be performed to assuage the public by pretending to enforce a voter ID check.
Soros has formed and funded an NGO to focus just on putting puppets into secretary of state positions. In California, generally respected conservative media have conspired by supporting a Democrat, who tried to hide his Democrat registration in Florida and Texas, until seven months or so before he registered to run against Orly Taitz for California Secretary of State on the Republican ticket. The ‘rule’ is that one must have been a registered for a year before running for office, but the adjudicator in California is the current Secretary of State, who preferred to ignore the infraction. Could it be that Dunn's subterfuge was recognized by conservatives, who would rather see current Democrat stay in office?
The ‘Conservatives,’ Roger Hedgecock and Brian Sussman avoided questioning the curious background of Damon Dunn, an enthusiastic Obama supporter, who listed his career variously as Minister and Real Estate Entrepreneur. He was a Stanford football player, and has a well-rehearsed rags-to-riches story, which is all ‘conservative’ hosts were interested in hearing about. Our ‘conservative’ pundits are active participants in applying Alinsky’s thirteenth rule: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” to Damon Dunn's opponent, Orly Taitz.
No one will speak. They were warned by the immediate ethics charges brought against now former congressman Nathan Deal, because he asked for eligibility verification in writing. They saw the quick end of Lou Dobb’s thirty-plus year career, for daring to speak. Our 1st Amendment is a fiction. Mark Levin's Landmark Legal went through bankruptcy a few years ago. If the justice department can find grounds, as they did for Scooter Libby, albeit entirely fictitious, Mark's children's educations are threatened or finished. He knows they'll find a way. He was once a federal prosecutor. Is it just the thorough infiltration of every government office by Marxists and/or progressives?
The military is a disgrace because men's and women's lives are being lost, and that may be the objective of the man whose unconstitutional orders are being followed by now complicit field grade officers of every branch. Having served, I know that having officers who will deny their men the right to defend themselves, and who will execute engagement rules which put their troops at risk for fear of political/career reprisal is suicide for our military, literally, and for our nation, because the integrity of the military is a fiction. We have seen them prosecute Marines based upon the testimony of our enemy. Clearly, Colonel Lakin and Commander Kerchner see that, and Lakin has given up his future, trusting the judicial system's integrity. Unfortunately, Dr. Lakin may only succeed in further demonstrating its thorough corruption.
I'm glad you explained. I'm convinced that no one will ever see birth certificates, but more frustrated because I know our framer's understanding of natural born citizenship, where they came from, and why John Jay changed Madison's initial eligibility requirements for president to include natural born citizenship. Perhaps you, and I hope, Dr Lakins’s defenders, feel the public support will be easier to come by - there is no doubt that it is important - by stressing the easy-to-understand lack of documents?
Like you, it is hard for me not to suspect some bigger force at work, and easy, given a nonexistent secure voting mechanism, to see how such forces could work.
Given what little we know about Obama’s life, he is more likely a tool than a source of any doctrine. Given that the Saudi’s would not likely be alive if we hadn't stopped Saddam, it seems more likely to be powerful economic interests funded by oil money. We see the Saudi money in a remarkable number of our major institutions, Citigroup, News Corp which own Wall Street Journal and Fox, Apple Computer, Cisco, HP,... Muslims have shown that they cannot fight a sustained war. Their command and control conflicts with Islamic hierarchy. Learning from Nancy Pelosi, we may need to take control of government, if we still can, to learn what and who is behind it.
Thank heaven the replacement of rinos is proceeding, because they cause more damage from the assumption that they represent constitutional values, when in fact they are career politicians whose opportunity happened to be with the Republican party - like McCain. What wins we have are more likely to come in states not completely dominated by suicidal progressives - not Missouri where Kansas City had precincts with more votes than registered voters, Washington State, or Minnesota. Those states may not have had secretaries of state whose employees could count, or they would have corrected the reported counts! With more and more dependent upon the the government, and those being controlled by the SEIU, and the institutions co opted, it may be up to those few individuals inside the monster, and from those, like our colonial forbears, organize and take back our freedom and resurrect The Constitution to protect it.
I’m just nodding my head as I read. Yes to everything you said.
As Theoden said, “How did it come to this?”
And, when surrounded by orcs attacking his people, something to the effect of, “What can one do against such reckless hate?”
I think we all wish we knew the magic recipe. I myself think that our fate may depend on our economic vulnerability. If it comes down to whether we bend the knee to the world government or whether we die in resistance, I would rather we died in resistance.
If it is impossible to win, I would still say, “No, we cannot win. But we will meet them in battle nonetheless.”
I personally think you are handling this well, Nellie. If never hurts to offer your opinion in a civilized way, especially if you are considering legal action. [But I’m no lawyer.]
While I don’t like the idea of judges deciding qualification [too much power for people with Kelo-level ethics], I don’t see the logic, Jamese.
“Just because it is your personal opinion that the President isn’t the President and the two new Supreme Court justices aren’t really Supreme Court Justices doesn’t make it so.”
The reverse is even worse — assumption that a tyrant actually has power. I’m no lawyer, but I know this — there is only one truth. According to the Constitution, the burden of proof is on the President. If he can’t prove his qualification, he’s not qualified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.