Enough's enough: Obama has conceded ineligibility

WND ^ | SEPTEMBER 12, 2010 | Joseph Farah

[RobinMasters]

For more than two years now, I have given Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt.

That may be hard to fathom for some because of my admittedly relentless and tireless pursuit of the truth about his origins and his constitutional eligibility for office.

After all, I am the guy who has posted this question on billboards across America: "Where's the birth certificate?"

But I really have given Obama the benefit of the doubt until now. I have asked the questions and directed the investigative reporting that has changed America's political landscape on the eligibility question. WND conducted the first national poll on this subject 15 months ago. Back then, we were shocked that 50 percent of Americans knew there was a controversy about his birth certificate and his eligibility – because WND is the only news organization in the country that pursued the story. Today, the latest polls show 58 percent of Americans don't believe Obama's story and suspect he is not eligible to serve.

That is a big shift in public opinion in a short period of time.

During that time, despite suggestions to the contrary, I never accused Obama of being born elsewhere. I never concluded he is constitutionally ineligible. I avoided speculation on what we might find if Obama ever did willingly and openly release his records as other presidents and presidential candidates have.

[jamese777]

The definition of the term as used on the day that the article was prepared is the only thing that is at issue, your paid obfuscation not withstanding.

Obams is not President, and each and every act he has taken while pretending to office is null and void.

It will require the restablishment of the legitimate government of the United States of America at some point in the future to correct these matters, and bring those such as yourself that have participated in this charade to justice, but rest assured it will be done.

---

OK, if you say so, then it MUST be true.

I am left to wonder though why the US Supreme Court, even with a conservative majority has rejected all eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them thus far: Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, et. al., Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Lightfootf v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz have all been rejected for a hearing before the full Court and both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito denied birther attorney Orly Taitz’s request for them to issue a restraining order against the $20,000 fine imposed on her by a US District Court Judge for filing a frivolous lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility.

I guess I’ll be in good company being brought to justice with those Justices!

[editor-surveyor]

> “I am left to wonder though why the US Supreme Court, even with a conservative majority has rejected all eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them thus far”

.
Imaginary “conservative” majority.

Kennedy is a frightened liberal that only votes with conservatives on “rights” issues.

[Beaten Valve]

“As an aside, I spoke with someone in the military this weekend and asked if the military would side with O. I was told, no way, under any circumstance. They hate him. They would welcome a good reason to help send him back to where ever the hell he came from.”

I have a relative who is a USN Commander, and while he doesn’t hate Obama, he refuses to say anything negative about him.

I tend to be careful with my Obama remarks when I’m around him...

[jamese777]

Imaginary “conservative” majority.

Kennedy is a frightened liberal that only votes with conservatives on “rights” issues.

---

It only takes four justices (the rule of four) to hear an appeal before the full court. That means Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are not in agreement on questions of Obama’s eligibility.
Here’s the stats on Anthony Kennedy: “On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008-2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5.”

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I accidental post the wrong link [I deal with a LOT of research, even in liberal leaning ‘papers’] and the record above shows that I asked it to be deleted. So naturally, seeking to confuse people, you refer to infowars as my top source: "And his is the “first” site you turn to for support?"

That cheap shot lacks both humor and wit. I asked that post be deleted, and you twist things around to confuse, distort, and smear. So now you are the one who deliberately posts a web address to Infowars, which is against forum rules, BTW.

That is the kind of cheap debating gimmick that indicates retreat. Am I to I presume, then, that Post 107 is irrefutable?

At the same time, “Ridicule of Conspiracy Theories Focuses On Diffusing Criticism of the Powerful” — that's the headline you try to mock? I'm not surprised. It might be the most sane op-ed that nutty place ever wrote, and it's a heck of a lot more sane than ignoring the mountain of evidence against Obama’s alleged eligibility.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

FReepers have been at this for a long, long time and have the issue dead-to-rights:

Solid Updates in Long-running Certifigate Thread [post 9074 on.]
Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2040486/posts?page=9074#9074

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Jamese777 is a strong debater, much the same as buckeye texan. They help us “kick the tires”. We need to vet our research and debate points. Painful? You bet. But we are not some banana-republic-forum that bans skilled debaters out of fear.

“... and bring those such as yourself that have participated in this charade to justice, but rest assured it will be done.”

I remember locking horns with other scandal critics back during the Clinton administration. This forum has always encouraged vigorous debate so long as it does not openly violate the conservative view. You would be surprised at how stubbornly opposed well-meaning conservatives can be to other, more clear-cut scandal research.

Buckeye Texan is a good example. He’s a patriot. He did great work exposing Journolist ties. But he’s no friend of certifigate hawks.

[srweaver]

You posted: “I guess I’ll be in good company being brought to justice with those Justices!”

You mean the justices of a court that thinks killing babies in their mother’s wombs is legal, and punishes those who resist murder, rather than those who perpetrate it.

Feel free to make them your heroes and join their company if you wish, I would not want to be a Supreme Court justice on the wrong side of the Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, or any other legalized baby murder decisions on judgment day — whether the judgment is of men or of God, but particularly the latter.

[editor-surveyor]

> “Jamese777 is a strong debater, much the same as buckeye texan.”

.
Sorry Arthur, but a strong debator does not post the same falsehoods, and deliberate inversions of judicial proceedings hundreds of times, feining lack of understanding of established definitions of termes used in the constitution.

That isn’t strong debate, its jackhammer destruction of reality.

[editor-surveyor]

Thanks for that very useful link Arthur!
.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Thank you. The acknowledgement is appreciated.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Kicking the tires is a good analogy. And I have to give credit to butter and MissTickly who “take it like men and defend their positions.” Neither one of them has ever slipped into the hateful personal attacks that are so common on these threads.

[BuckeyeTexan]

It is puzzling because a legally empaneled grand jury can investigate any issue about which they have personal knowledge. They don’t have to stick to the script that the Prosecutor feeds them.

[jamese777]

It is puzzling because a legally empaneled grand jury can investigate any issue about which they have personal knowledge. They don’t have to stick to the script that the Prosecutor feeds them.

---

Yes, you are correct about that.
The following if from the University of Dayton Law School on the federal grand jury:
What is a “runaway” grand jury?

A runaway grand jury is one in which the grand jurors have taken control of an investigation and are ignoring a prosecutor’s efforts to rein them in. In the nineteenth century, many American grand juries were crotchety and independent and did what they wanted; by the twentieth century, grand juries had pretty much come under the control of prosecutors.

A runaway grand jury is an exception to this rule—the grand jurors ignore the prosecutor(s) and start making their own decisions. Runaway grand juries were not uncommon in the early twentieth century. The best known of these runaway grand juries is probably the New York grand jury in the 1930’s that barred prosecutors from coming into the grand jury room and took off on its own investigation of corruption in New York city government. This grand jury eventually cooperated with Thomas E. Dewey, whom the jurors apparently decided they could trust, and returned many indictments against a variety of defendants, including some well known members of the New York Mafia. Since modern grand jurors tend to be ignorant of their ability to act independently of a prosecutor’s wishes, runaway grand juries have pretty much become a thing of the past. There have, however, been a few exceptions: Recently, for example, a California state grand jury indicted all the top county officials, and nearly closed down county government. And a Texas state grand jury began investigating a mayoral candidate and seems to have ruined his reputation sufficiently to cause him to lose the election, even though he was never charged with any crimes.

.

[jamese777]

You posted: “I guess I’ll be in good company being brought to justice with those Justices!”

You mean the justices of a court that thinks killing babies in their mother’s wombs is legal, and punishes those who resist murder, rather than those who perpetrate it.

Feel free to make them your heroes and join their company if you wish, I would not want to be a Supreme Court justice on the wrong side of the Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, or any other legalized baby murder decisions on judgment day — whether the judgment is of men or of God, but particularly the latter.

---

But there isn’t anybody currently on the high court who ruled on Roe v Wade. The current court has limited abortion in every appeal that has been before them including a majority of the current court voting to ban partial birth abortion.

Supreme Court Justices are not my “heroes.” You invented that little canard in your desperation to win a debating point.

No one in the political arena is a hero of mine. I reserve “hero” status for members of the US military and for first responders: Police, Firefighters and Emergency Medical Technician, as well as for ordinary citizens who do heroic things, such as parents who raise handicapped children.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Leo Donofrio wrote a great piece about the power of grand jury presentments where he referenced what Scalia said on the issue. It was quite enlightening. People don’t under the power they have in grand juries.

[jamese777]

Leo Donofrio wrote a great piece about the power of grand jury presentments where he referenced what Scalia said on the issue. It was quite enlightening. People don’t under the power they have in grand juries.

---

Yes, grand juries have a whole lot of power and the power of the subpoena and the ability to compel witness testimony is not the least of those powers.

In the federal political arena the Watergate Grand Jury, the Iran-Contra Grand Jury, the Whitewater Grand Jury, and the Plame Affair-CIA Leak Grand Juries all wielded considerable power to influence national politics.

[MissTickly]

I have unleashed on a great many well-deserving Obots. Being a liberal myself, I know that IN GENERAL, they respond to personal attacks and are very impressed by them. The lower the verbal attack, the more they feel superior. Liberals can even justify hypocrisy without batting an eyelash. Because they believe their politics are so compassionate and so much the milk of human kindness, calling a conservative woman, like Palin, a c*nt; or calling Alan Keyes an ‘Uncle Tom’ is not really indicative of real discrimination to them, because it’s in support of their ‘compassionate causes’ ie. taxes. And that counters any hate anyone else might see and proves they aren’t bigots.

On the other hand, birthers IN GENERAL seem to be an older crowd that not only don’t practice the kind humiliation and ridicule that Obots practice, but they wouldn’t because much of the language that Obots use to ridicule is not in their vocabulary. They stick to the Constitution and ‘original intent,’ they may have fun speculating in lieu of having answers (opening themselves up to obot ridicule), but in the end they realize that it simply should not be an issue for the POTUS to produce his original birth certificate.

And that’s pretty much where we are now and what every obot/birther battle has come down to.

There really is a disconnect between liberal attacks and conservatives attacks where conservatives are not really affected by personal attacks contrary to what a liberal perceives. Conservatives immediately see it as a reflection of the name caller. Liberals think, “I just told an old birther to get anally fisted, ha ha, I so burned them.”

On the other hand, a liberal is not affected by arguments about the Constitution and ‘original intent.’ In fact, liberals believe that the Constitution and the founders are the cause of all the bad things in the history of this nation. They can easily disregard the law and the importance of the Constitution because they believe they, themselves, AND the GD Democratic Party are actually more enlightened.

Oh, I have unleashed, alright. I hope that doesn’t disappoint you. But I usually reserve the personal attacks for Obots who respond to them as I intended. Not always, but usually.=)

[MissTickly]

Oh, and if you want the real skinny on what will send a liberal or Obot through the roof:

Challenge their compassion.

Tell them they support a lying, elitist, rich politician who promised that ending the wars was priority #1, but he lied and exploited all those lives lost in order to win the progressive vote. Tell them the blood is on their hands and obviously they must hate Middle Easterners because they held GWB to a higher standard. Why? Was simply because he was a Republican...and white? Then ask how they would feel if another nation’s government and military were occupying their country and homes.

You can also remind them that Obama spoke against gay marriage after Proposition 8 passed, so they support an anti-gay marriage candidate just like Target. Most Obots aren’t even aware of this fact. I like to paste the following when I argue with an Obot online. It’s from the Vice Presidential debate and it is a BEAUTY:

“MS. IFILL: Do you support gay marriage?

SEN. BIDEN: No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically a decision to be able to be left to the faiths and people who practice their faiths, the determination what you call it.

The bottom line, though, is — and I’m glad to hear the governor — I take her at her word, obviously — that she thinks there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.

MS. IFILL: Is that what you said?

GOV. PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.”

Then tell them that Obama and Palin are exactly the same outside of gender and skin color.

I also like to remind them that not only did they ignore Obama’s record on voting to fund the war but were critical of Hillary’s identical record, but they voted for him AFTER he voted FOR FISA in front of their very eyes while he was campaigning in the general election.

I always finish by calling them NEOLIBS: the new more wingnutty NEOCONS.

Then stand back while their heads explode. Most of the time, just one of these things will have them swearing they hate Obama and claiming that they regret voting for him and vow to vote Kucinich next time.

Anyyway, THAT is how you argue with an Obot and win. It’s not that I feel strongly about these things and want to call them out, I just know what works. They WILL NOT be outdone on their perceived COMPASSION.

[srweaver]

In any case, hero or associate, you choose to be in company with Supreme Court justices when “brought” to justice.

Happy judgment day. Perhaps you will be permitted to select which members of the “honorable” court you want to be judged along with...but I don’t think it works that way.

BTW, I didn’t realize you count the Supreme Court as being in the “political” arena. I thought they were to be separated from that by their lifetime appointments so that they could be free to rule according to law without political calculations. Of course, we both realize they don’t, which is a huge problem currently leading to rapid erosion of the rule of law in our society.

Also, I think winning debates will be of small value on Judgment Day, but making correct moral decisions and living unselfish moral lives will be of extreme importance.

My “heroes” are not necessarily those who perform an occasional (or solitary) heroic act, but those who live heroic (self-denying) lives. Like your parents who keep their commitments to raise their kids, even though handicapped, and do so with love at tremendous personal expense.