Justice Kennedy rejects 2 more challenges to Obama

AP via SFGate ^ | 12/17/8

[SmithL]

WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has rejected two more efforts to get the court to consider whether President-elect Barack Obama is eligible to take office.

Kennedy on Wednesday denied without comment an appeal by Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, that claims Obama is either a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia and is ineligible to be president . . .

[cookcounty]

"putting into law in a few states that nobody gets on the ballot without producing their birth certificate "

Plus it would keep others of questionable eligiblity off the ballot for Prez, like Arnold,

[cpdiii]

What will happen later when we find out it's true, the Obamination was ineligible to serve ... what are these judges going to say then ?

The closest analogy that I can make is no power, low on airspeed and altitude and to much bottom rudder on your low slow flat turn to finals. You know what will happen and where it will happen.

If he really is not legally qualified (I do not think he is) and it is discovered while he is president it will tear this nation apart. It will be ugly.

It might even destroy the Democrat and Republican parties. If it happens it will be worth the turmoil and violence and death that will occur. It might save our constitution and nation of which both are in great danger.

[briarbey b]

They go out of their way to make up law in Roe v. Wade that divides the nation for decades.......

Think you hit the nail on the head...UNITED WE STAND...DIVIDED WE FALL. What do we unite on??? THE CONSTITUTION. Getting rid of that pesky little document...making it null and void is HIGH PRIORITY.

[cpdiii]

Here’s a suggestion for you Star Traveler. Next time you interview for a job and they ask you for your experience, just tell them that it’s their responsibility to prove you aren’t qualified. That is exactly the kind of ridiculous argument you are presenting here. It’s laughable to say the very least.

That is truly ironic. I work as a pharmacist for a Veterans Administration Hospital. I had to prove my citizenship, I had to prove I had a valid license to practice pharmacy, I had a criminal background check, I was then hired and fingerprinted and a file photo taken for my ID Badge.

[STE=Q]

Troll list:

genefromjersey
curiosity
Drew68
Non-Sequitor
Star Traveler
gracesdad
DMon

I recognize them.

Non-Sequitor actually ADMITS to being a troll (see link)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2149875/posts?page=219#219

At least one of these Obama apologist seems to show up at every birthgate discussion.

Thanks for the list.

STE=Q

[BP2]

Looks like we need a laugh right about now...

Take a look at this from the Smoking Gun's "2008 Mug Shots Of The Year."

Don't look at their faces -- look carefully at their shirts:

Acorn workers for Obama??

[devere]

“Since you can’t find a court in the land to hear this, at some point you might consider there is no ground for making the case.’

The case is quite self-evident. If our nation is now dominated by the feckless and cynical, who hurl inane insults at those who try to uphold the constitution, that merely illustrates the desperate situation our country now finds itself in. Now matter how hard the stupid “realists” pretend otherwise, at January 20th at noon our country will no longer have a constitutional government, and sooner or later disaster will ensue. I would guess sooner.

[American Dream 246]

Hello. I hope everybody will see this link - you HAVE to check this one out - we have to spread it: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/google-obamas-residence-linked-to-psl-phone-number/#comments
TEXAS DARLIN ARTICLE - click link above to see screenshot of Google and more.
“This is curious and bizarre. A reader, Jane, conducted some Google searches related to the Obamas’ Chicago home on Greenwood Avenue, and discovered the following, which I verified with my own searches, and documented with screenshots at approximately 2:30 PM ET on 12/17/08:

A Google search of the Obamas’ address, 5046 Greenwood Ave., Chicago, yields this:

Greenwood Ave. Search 12/17/08

The phone number listed for the address, if you can’t make it out, is 415-821-6171, a San Francisco area code. When I Google’d that phone number, this came up:

Greenwood Phone Search 12/17/08

The phone number associated with the Obama’s mansion is the number for the national Party of Socialism and Liberation. When I clicked on that link, I got this:

PSL Home Page 12/17/08

And a tab for local offices on the PSL site shows this:

PSL Local Offices Page 12/17/08

Why on Earth is the phone number for the Party for Socialism and Liberation linked to the Obamas’ private residence in Chicago?

Theories?

See These Other Exclusive Articles about Obama’s Chicago:

5046 S. Greenwood Ave., a special place by TexasDarlin (12/17/08).

Fitzgerald Watch: 5046 S. Greenwood Ave. by TexasDarlin (12/16/08).”

Also read the comments.

[Eye of Unk]

Now that is interesting news, I hope the MSM doesn’t get wind of this, just think of the implications!

/sarc

Even though it may not be a truthful birth date, many astrologers are pretty much saying the same thing that in Obamas chart there is a date of I think jan 26 or 27th the inauguration moon and supposedly there will be rebellion.

[DMon]

Intereresting...exactly what does one have to do to be designated a troll?..

Apparently all anyone has to do is post the reasons, as he sees it, that the courts wont compel him to show proof....not based on their personal feelings about Obama, (Have voted republican each election since 1980 by the way) but based on their understanding of law and how the court system works.

As to why I show up on these threads...It’s because I find the subject interesting.

I apparently made the wrong assumption when I stumbled onto this site, I assumed that it was a place where people came and debated constitutional issues, turns out that some on this site want no debate whatsoever, they only want to read posts that reinforce their own oppinions.

Many posters though, do appear to give thoughful insights to their views and are able to argue their points without resorting to name calling.

Gotta admit though.....being put on your list really terrifies me......

[drjimmy]

BZZZT, wrong again. Any lurker can see by following this particular thread lineage that you were the first to insult me in our correspondence, in post #251

In the reality-based community, post #15 comes before post #251. That was the first insult hurled on this entire thread, where you said to another Freeper, "Why are you resorting to troll like behaviour and provacateur tactics if your intellectual position is so secure?" Is that BZZZT sound you keep making the sound of you digging your hole deeper and deeper?

[Star Traveler]

You said — “LoL! I’ll be back later to hammer your postings. So can I get a gig like yours? Obama has so much leftover campaign money to throw around.”

This is typical of a certain number of FReepers to attribute another’s statements to getting paid for them. I’m reminded of the issue of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and how those scientists who disagree with it are said to be in the pay of the oil companies and industries and that’s the reason why they say those things.

I’ve been gathering information regarding those other scientists and that’s exactly what they say they are being accused of.

So, it’s the same typical kind of thing that causes people to say this, here — in that any inconvenient truth of the matter has to be paid by “the other side” or else no one would say this at all.

Same thing going on here, I see... LOL..

[Star Traveler]

You said — “Well, I don’t really know why you have a problem. It’s pretty darn straight forward.”

Well, the qualifications are fairly straightforward — and mind you, Obama does say that he meets those qualifications and he’s not saying he’s ignoring them. It’s only those who don’t believe him that are saying that. He’s — in essence — agreeing with the Constitution, by saying that he’s meeting them. And..., that’s what a crook does anyway, pretends to meet standards that other people take as essential and necessary...

The problem here is that the “mechanism” is not straightforward — as we can well see *by the results*. The results are that no one was able to use *any mechanism* to prevent Obama from being on the ballot. That, by itself, shows you that the mechanism is *deficient*.

The fact that you are here — right now — still hollering about this thing and Obama is just a few weeks from being sworn in — is the absolute proof that the mechanism is totally deficient...

—

And then you said — “Wrong, wrong, wrong. NATIVE citizenship. Come on, Obama knows this, you know this, it’s on his web site, he doesn’t deny it, and he’s only qualified as a native citizen if we take him at his word, because of the ambiguities involved with hawaii’s birth certificate madness. Native is not natural born. Technically speaking, he may very well be an illegal alien.”

Well.., right here *both sides* are agreeing upon the requirement for being a natural-born citizen. Obama does not dispute this with you. In fact, he has said he *is* a natural-born citizen and has put forth a document from Hawaii that he says shows that he is. Therefore, you can say, very clearly, that Obama agrees with you on the *requirements* of being a natural-born citizen.

If he didn’t agree with you, he would say that he’s not a natural-born citizen and would say that it didn’t apply to him. He has not said that. He has said he *is* a natural-born citizen — and that shows that he agrees with the “requirements”.

—

Then you ask — “Why do you keep bringing up ‘majority rules’ points? Do you think it has any bearing on the issue or truth of the matter?”

Very simply because you’re involved in a matter of politics and that’s what governs politics. People are bringing up other political matters, too — which also bear on the voter majority carrying the day with Obama’s election.

For example, one of those points is that once Obama is sworn in, the only mechanism that is available for removal of a President is impeachment (and conviction, of course). Well, that two-step process doesn’t work like you would like — as you could well see from Clinton’s little impeachment episode.

And likewise, what you have an example of with Clinton, you’ll have a *greater* example of with Obama, because Obama got a larger majority of the voting public than either Bush or Clinton did. That means if these Congressmen weren’t about to convict Clinton, because of politics, then a larger voting public majority for Obama means that these Congressmen are going to be even *less likely* to convict Obama.

BUT, with Obama, it goes further in that they won’t *even* get an “impeachment” hearing, in the first place, because these Congressmen are not going to want to face the wrath of the big majority of voters who voted for Obama. That’s where the politics and the majority of the voters comes in, in this matter.

—

You state — “Wrong again. Native, not natural.”

All you’ve got here is “you say — he says”... not much more to go on here...

—

And then you continue, quoting me saying — “So, by all legal intents and purposes he *has met* the qualifications of the Constitution for qualification for the office of President of the United States.”

You answer back and say — “Wrong. Saying the same misrepresentations over and over and over again won’t make you right...”

Without proof to the contrary, in the face of his own assertions and the limited paperwork that he did provide — you’ve got nothing to contradict him, other than speculation and guesses on your part. That’s the problem... AND... that shows up the *deficiency* of the “process” for vetting a candidate — which is why I say that the state laws must be instituted to vet the candidate properly and prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

—

You said — “Yeah, he’s asserted it, and he knew he didn’t qualify beforehand... What does that tell you?”

You’ve made a statement that you cannot *know* and you cannot *prove* — and therein lies your problem. You cannot know and you cannot prove that Obama asserted this, knowing that he is not qualified. If you had the proof of the fact that he was not qualified, then you could say that.

And, once again, that shows up the *deficiency* of this “process” for vetting a candidate. It’s not the “qualifications” that are deficient, but the “process” by which the people would “know for sure” that is deficient.

You just seem to not want to recognize that the process is deficient and you seem to not to want to close up the loopholes in our deficient process. I don’t know why you would not want to correct this deficient process that we all see has happened here...

[Star Traveler]

You said — “I knew my lack of confidence in you was well placed.”

The only thing that would boost your confidence would be if I were part of the “borg collective” on your side... LOL..

[devere]

“what does one have to do to be designated a troll?.. Apparently all anyone has to do is post the reasons, as he sees it, that the courts wont compel him to show proof.”

No that won’t do it. You have to deliberately misstate facts, and gratuitously insult those who don’t.

It’s perfectly true that our institutions will likely fail this test. The trolls say that’s because there is no test to fail, and those of us trying to uphold the constitution are simply paranoid.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “I see, so if We The People will just agree to set the Constitution aside for your messaih, you will help get new law written to make a better vetting process?”

No, actually I’ll be working on that law in my state after the holidays and finding out the way to go about it and work on organizing people on the local level (since this is a “states rights” issue).

As far as what you do, I was explaining why y’all are having absolutely no effect at all. It’s merely an explanation on my part. I’m sure you will do what you want to do anyway.

[Star Traveler]

You asked — “And this is the sort of ‘reasoning’ you think is corerect?...”

Okay, let’s look at the situation in which this applies, then...

The FReeper “Red Steel” said — “Fine. Let the Dem Congress do nothing about it and we will see them get routed that would rival their beating they got 1994.”

Okay, the idea is that the voters are going to “route” the Dem Congress because (supposedly) the voters are going to be outraged that this Congress did not kick out Obama (and thus, the Congress is not doing their job).

So, you’re talking about the *same voters* who put Obama into office in the first place, by greater margins of the voting public than Bill Clinton ever got and greater margins than George Bush ever got.

Therefore, my question is *how* are *these same voters* going to kick out this Congress (for not removing Obama) when it’s *these voters* that put Obama in there, in the first place... LOL...

There is a *mighty disconnect* from reality in your thinking on this process... :-)

—

And then — “... but it doesn’t work at Freerepublic.”

And what works at Free Republic doesn’t appear to be working at the voting booth... therein lies the problem...

[nominal]

You said — “Well, I don’t really know why you have a problem. It’s pretty darn straight forward.”

Well, the qualifications are fairly straightforward — and mind you, Obama does say that he meets those qualifications and he’s not saying he’s ignoring them. It’s only those who don’t believe him that are saying that. He’s — in essence — agreeing with the Constitution, by saying that he’s meeting them. And..., that’s what a crook does anyway, pretends to meet standards that other people take as essential and necessary...

The problem here is that the “mechanism” is not straightforward — as we can well see *by the results*. The results are that no one was able to use *any mechanism* to prevent Obama from being on the ballot. That, by itself, shows you that the mechanism is *deficient*.
The fact that you are here — right now — still hollering about this thing and Obama is just a few weeks from being sworn in — is the absolute proof that the mechanism is totally deficient...

You just implied Obama is a crook. The problem here is that you don't understand, or refuse to understand, what's going on (if I give you the benefit of the doubt and you're trying to be intellectually honest). Obama admitted that he is a native citizen. He admitted that his father was british. Native is not natural born.

The mechanism is not deficient. The problem here is people like yourself not understanding or comprehending the issue.

And then you said — “Wrong, wrong, wrong. NATIVE citizenship. Come on, Obama knows this, you know this, it’s on his web site, he doesn’t deny it, and he’s only qualified as a native citizen if we take him at his word, because of the ambiguities involved with hawaii’s birth certificate madness. Native is not natural born. Technically speaking, he may very well be an illegal alien.”

Well.., right here *both sides* are agreeing upon the requirement for being a natural-born citizen. Obama does not dispute this with you. In fact, he has said he *is* a natural-born citizen and has put forth a document from Hawaii that he says shows that he is. Therefore, you can say, very clearly, that Obama agrees with you on the *requirements* of being a natural-born citizen. If he didn’t agree with you, he would say that he’s not a natural-born citizen and would say that it didn’t apply to him. He has not said that. He has said he *is* a natural-born citizen — and that shows that he agrees with the “requirements”.

No. Stop putting words into Obama's mouth. He did not say that. Native is not natural born. They are two different words, ok? Natural is not native. Native is not natural. Obama did not ever say natural born that I am aware of. Nor did he even imply it. That is your misrepresentation. Seriously, get that straight. Obama is, at best, a NATIVE citizen. If you say that again, please provide a reference where Obama clearly states that he is a NATURAL born citizen.

Then you ask — “Why do you keep bringing up ‘majority rules’ points? Do you think it has any bearing on the issue or truth of the matter?”
Very simply because you’re involved in a matter of politics and that’s what governs politics. People are bringing up other political matters, too — which also bear on the voter majority carrying the day with Obama’s election.

Here's another point where you don't understand or comprehend. Are you aware of the electoral college? Do you know the difference between a democracy and a republic? If one person say 1 + 1 = 2 and 10,000 people say it equals 21, which is right? Would your politics make it equal 21?

I snipped the rest of your comments because it follows along the line of your mistakes..
The mechanism is not deficient, your reasoning is. Please read constitutional amendment number 20, section 3. There's your mechanism that deals with the REALITY of the situation we are in now.

Also, if we ever manage to see his birth certificate, we can start to determine, among other things, if he's even a legal citizen at all. Please stop trying to subvert the constitution, I'd appreciate it. :)

[MHGinTN]

Bless your little heart, you’re confused. You need to ping RedSteel to make your argument. I think this falls in the category of ‘strawman diversion’ ... picking up someone else’s comments, attributing the ideas to me, then attacking those ideas. Bless your heart, you’ll figure it out, perhaps.

[Star Traveler]

You said — It’s a list of people who ruin all the fun by showing up on BC threads and ask that the Truther Kool-aid drinkers back up their arguments with facts —something they can’t do. The Truthers get frustrated that we don’t unquestionably buy this moonbat conspiracy they’re selling so they stomp their feet, call us trolls and “0bamabots” and put us on “The List.”

—

Ah.., yes, I see... LOL...

You know..., the “truth” of the matter is (many times) sort of “inconvenient”. But, if you don’t deal with truth — you only have propaganda...