Posted on 12/20/2008 1:21:22 PM PST by Bill Dupray
Try to keep up ... the relevant date is the 8th of January, 2009.
Try to keep up...the point is the court is whitewashing this issue. Being snotty is immature.
With all the dissonance the obamanoids are spittling around at FR, it is difficult to keep up with the actual dates and facts. Not being snide to you. If it came across that way, you have my unabashed apology.
Here is exactly what Berg wrote:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in a letter to the nations throughout the world:
“It is time for the nations of the world to come forth and take the leadership because of the failure of the United States Government and the States where crimes were committed on 09/11/01, where no thorough investigation and indictments occurred, to investigate, arrest and prosecute the people responsible for the murders on 9/11/01, specifically including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. ”
Berg continued there is overwhelming evidence that:
“Bush and his cronies made 9/11 happen or let it happen. And, if they let it happen, then they made it happen. Either way, they are responsible; and more important, they have completely and unequivocally covered-it-up!”
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/philip-berg-seeking-the-truth-of-911
Federal law states that Congress shall meet on the 6th of January, so it took as that.
NIce misdirection. Berg is not the issue, the obamanoid spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid presenting any documentation to a court where it could be authenticated IS the issue. But that’s a nice touch to offer a diversion to run off on Berg for readers. Ridicule, condescension, deceit, diversion, misdirection, and changing the subject; how very ... liberal of you.
Berg-Once a Nut Job Always a Nut Job.
Saying that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were responsible for the 9/11 attacks in not something Berg can ever be forgiven.
Why don’t you do a thread on the issues. That would be a fun thread ... I’m sure we can team up and eviscerate Phil. But that won’t change the issues in the Obamanoid affirmative action case.
***(Sappy Commercial music)***.....Republicans....... the other Democrats....
Berg is not the issue, the obamanoid spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid presenting any documentation to a court where it could be authenticated IS the issue.
***We should just start cataloguing all these talking points so that when we see them, we just put the link in and cursorily dismiss it for what it is. I nominate the Readers Digest thread for that purpose.
Readers Digest Version of Obama Qualifications Issue (Vanity)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2144460/posts
12/07/2008 8:03:41 AM PST · by nufsed · 109 replies · 1,972+ views
Darrels Joy at PatriotFiles.com posted a copy of his 1978 Birth Certificate, where box 7c indicates the mother's "State of Birth (If not in U.S.A. state country)"
http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?p=420958
Looks like the ObamaConspiracy writer is referencing a 1963 BC, so the boxes are not the same as the 1978 BC. Until you pointed this out, though, I had not realized that the 7c I was looking at was only the mother's info, not the child's. Perhaps the 1961 BC has different information in 7c?
We the people will have to continue to push the issue since our leaders won’t work. The Constitution clearly states that our President must be a natural born citizen. Obama is NOT a natural born citizen until he proves that he is.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
Ah! I’ve been looking for a Readers’ Digest version, thanks.
And trumandogz - remember the axiom, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If not necessarily friend; at least useful ally. At least he has the (add needed bodily organs) to go after the marxist SOB. When 0 is kicked out/defeated/in rehab, then Berg is of no use anymore.
In war, it isn’t necessarily a useful principle to only allow squeaky clean perfect gentleman to fight alongside you.
By who? A handful of Truthers in the far corners of the internet?
It is his REFUSAL to present the BC.
Nobody with any legal authority has asked to see his BC. How has Obama refused to present it?
Oh, I get it. He has refused to show his BC to a handful of Truthers in the far corners of the internet who somehow think they are entitled to inspect it with a magnifying glass (and pronounce it fake, natch) despite the fact that they have been laughed out of court every step of the way.
Yeah, that Obama. He's really stonewalling!
That does it buddy! You're going on The List!
His people have spent considerable sums in legal fees fighting attempts in court.
Nobody with any legal authority has asked to see his BC.
I disagree. Since the US Constitution specifies the President be a natural born citizen, ANY citizen of this country has the legal right to demand the proof. A demand from me is as legitimate as a demand from a federal judge. I don't have to have the government's approval to do it, nor do I have to be granted some "legal authority" by said government. My citizenship is my authority.
The Constitution does not say (or even imply) that I must have any standing beyond my citizenship to demand my rights. That alone conveys to me the right to demand BO provide proof that he meets the Constitutional requirements to be President.
Lets do a comparison:
Bush was asked to show his military records to the screaming press and other assorted leftists. What did Bush do? He put all his military records in a room for all the Presstutes to view at there leisure.
McCain was asked by the screaming press to show his birth certificate to them and the public. Two days later McCain released his birth certificate to the public.
Obama stonewalling the public? You betcha.
Or 2 box cars bumped together and he fell out of a hobo's as* 
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.