Supreme Court – Obama Birth Certificate -The verdict is in!

Black Hills Today ^ | Scott Prentice

[El Gato]

What do you think? http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/12/05/open-thread-on-donofrio-v-wells-cert-denied-55_-us-___-2008/

I think that site has an Obama logo in its URL window for good reason.

[Gargantua]

"(The poor bastards have us surrounded.)"

My thoughts exactly!

It's just like the kid whose biggest wish is to catch a live bear. Great. So even if he does catch it... what is he gonna do with it? Get torn to shreds? Have his head chewed off?

These bozos just have to learn to have lesser, more realistic expectations, because we aren't ever going to let them have America. They can win all the court cases and elections they want to waste their time and money on.

They will never get America. 80 million+ armed citizens can't be wrong, and neither can they be defeated. This is our country, and they can't have it. Period.

;-/

[cripplecreek]

Even if he takes office is no reason to drop it. Personally I think the lingering question will create plenty of problems both here and abroad.
The fact that Pravda now questions Zero’s elgibility tells me that questions about the validity of treaties and agreements signed by Zero will arise almost immediately.

[nclaurel]

Salon apparently also thinks his mother is Ann—that may be middle name but her name is Stanley Ann. Kind of helps explain why Oabma is so.....

[El Gato]

I never thought this "born in the US but not a natural born citizen" case was not a good one anyway. Maybe the court thought the same and is waiting for the other "show us the Birth Certificate" cases to work their way to them.

We can hope anyway.

[OL Hickory]

good catch...(work computer) can’t see that (IE5 I think)

[DejaJude]

The fact that Pravda now questions Zero’s elgibility tells me that questions about the validity of treaties and agreements signed by Zero will arise almost immediately.

Holy cow! I never even thought of that.

[cripplecreek]

I also wonder if it endangers our soldiers. Nations may sieze our troops claiming that they’re acting under the orders of an illegitimate government.

[KDD]

This is more in response to the deleted posts including yours.

Be prudent in what you say.

Our Patriot Act...hailed here as an example of good legislation..may define what you say or print as incitement to terrorism and you could become disappeared. The deleted comments show that the moderators are aware of that line and will discourage any crossing of it.

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM

(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B)--
(i)appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

I think people here thought the Patriot Act was written to protect our citizens...it was not. It was written to protect our government...from Mohamed...and from wannabe domestic "revolutionaries".

[DejaJude]

Nations may sieze our troops claiming that they’re acting under the orders of an illegitimate government.

While I realize that our enemies couldn't care less about our constitutional requirements, I could see them using it to their advantage.

[TigersEye]

The fact that Pravda now questions Zero’s elgibility tells me that questions about the validity of treaties and agreements signed by Zero will arise almost immediately.

Wouldn't that be something if a foreign nation took Zer0 to an international court to challenge the legitimacy of his Presidency?

[cripplecreek]

While I realize that our enemies couldn't care less about our constitutional requirements, I could see them using it to their advantage.

The Chinese didn't waste any time in testing President Bush after he took office when they siezed our airmen and plane. Despite the fact that we knew better, there were questions being raised about his legitimacy at the time.

[Gargantua]

As you no doubt know, the Founding Fathers not only felt that the 2nd Amendment was important, they also knew that it was the one peoples' right enumerated in our Constitution upon which all the others rested.

If and when our government ceases to be of the American people, by the American people, and for the American people, it will then be not only our duty but our solemn obligation to restore to America such a government.

If the American people cannot openly discuss, using yet another Constitutionally guaranteed right, the state of The State in preparation (hopefully unneccessary preparation) for that day when we may be Constitutionally called upon to defend our country, our Constitution and our rights from enemies from without or within, then the enemy has already won a most signal victory.

The question that arises, now that you have elected to pull those postings, is with whom do you (FreeRepublic) stand? Here's hoping we can discuss this like free Americans, and not have those who would respectfully question authority silenced like those in China or Russia or Iran.

Glad you brought it up.

;-/

[KDD]

If and when our government ceases to be of the American people, by the American people, and for the American people, it will then be not only our duty but our solemn obligation to restore to America such a government.

That day has come and gone. As Garet wrote in 1938, "There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.

There are those who have never ceased to say very earnestly, "Something is going to happen to the American form of government if we don't watch out." These were the innocent disarmers. Their trust was in words. They had forgotten their Aristotle. More than 2,000 years ago he wrote of what can happen within the form, when "one thing takes the place of another, so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about revolution in the state."

snip

So it was that a revolution took place within the form. Like the hagfish, the New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. The revolutionaries were inside; the defenders were outside. A government that had been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them. Much of it is irreversible. That is true because habits of dependence are much easier to form than to break. Once the government, on ground of public policy, has assumed the responsibility to provide people with buying power when they are in want of it, or when they are unable to provide themselves with enough of it, according to a minimum proclaimed by government, it will never be the same again".

snip

To the revolutionary mind the American vista must have been almost as incredible as Genghis Khan's first view of China — so rich, so soft, so unaware. No politically adult people could ever have been so Little conscious of revolution. There was here no revolutionary tradition, as in Europe, but in place of it the strongest tradition of subject government that had ever been evolved — that is, government subject to the will of the people, not its people but the people. Why should anyone fear government?

In the na'ive American mind the word revolution had never grown up. The meaning of it had not changed since horse-and-buggy days, when Oliver Wendell Holmes said: "Revolutions are not made by men in spectacles." It called up scenes from Carlyle and Victor Hugo, or it meant killing the Czar with a bomb, as he may have deserved for oppressing his people. Definitely, it meant the overthrow of government by force; and nothing like that could happen here. We had passed a law against it.

Well, certainly nothing like that was going to happen here. That it probably could not happen, and that everybody was so sure it couldn't made everything easier for what did happen.

Revolution in the modern ease is no longer an uncouth business. The ancient demagogic art, like every other art, has, as we say, advanced. It has become in fact a science — the science of political dynamics. And your scientific revolutionary in spectacles regards force in a cold, impartial manner. It may or may not be necessary. If not, so much the better; to employ it wantonly, or for the love of it, when it is not necessary, is vulgar, unintelligent and wasteful. Destruction is not the aim. The more you destroy the less there is to take over. Always the single end in view is a transfer of power.

Read it all and see why we are a nation in transition....to totalitarianism.

I also agree with Professor Ortega y Gasset who wrote...

Suppose that in the public life of a country some difficulty, conflict, or problem, presents itself, the mass-man will tend to demand that the State intervene immediately and undertake a solution directly with its immense and unassailable resources. . . . When the mass suffers any ill-fortune, or simply feels some strong appetite, its great temptation is that permanent sure possibility of obtaining everything, without effort, struggle, doubt, or risk, merely by touching a button and setting the mighty machine in motion."

It is the genesis of this attitude, this state of mind, and the conclusions which inexorably follow from its predominance, that we are attempting to get at through our present survey. These conclusions may perhaps be briefly forecast here, in order that the reader who is for any reason indisposed to entertain them may take warning of them at this point, and close the book.

The unquestioning, determined, even truculent maintenance of the attitude which Professor Ortega y Gasset so admirably describes, is obviously the life and strength of the State; and obviously too, it is now so inveterate and so widespread - one may freely call it universal - that no direct effort could overcome its inveteracy or modify it, and least of all hope to enlighten it.

This attitude can only be sapped and mined by uncountable generations of experience, in a course marked by recurrent calamity of a most appalling character. When once the predominance of this attitude in any given civilization has become inveterate, as so plainly it has become in the civilization of America, all that can be done is to leave it to work its own way out to its appointed end. The philosophic historian may content himself with pointing out and clearly elucidating its consequences, as Professor Ortega y Gasset has done, aware that after this there is no more that one can do.

"The result of this tendency," he says, "will be fatal. Spontaneous social action will be broken up over and over again by State intervention; no new seed will be able to fructify. Society will have to live for the State, man for the governmental machine. And as after all it is only a machine, whose existence and maintenance depend on the vital supports around it, the State, after sucking out the very marrow of society, will be left bloodless, a skeleton, dead with that rusty death of machinery, more gruesome than the death of a living organism.

I will conclude by saying that violent resistance would come far too late and is now likely to be futile in changing the 150 year desecration of the U.S. Constitution... "

We are subjects. We just don't want to admit it.

[El Gato]

(work computer) can’t see that (IE5 I think).

I think I was using IE7 also on a work computer. Now I'm using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.4, and the "meatball" still shows up.

[littlehouse36]

She obviously wasn’t wearing her dentures when she said that.

LOL!