Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by devere
Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.
Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”
The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California. It also address two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.
Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California’s Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, “If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid.” The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthardknox.com ...
It is a logical fallacy to point out his logical fallacies. Didn’t you know? :-)
Kevmo: It means it is not reliable, with the obvious implications of forgery. So, does it “mean” forgery? Hell yes. Is that what she wrote? No, she wrote in CYA legalspeak.
lucysmom: To equate “not reliable” with “forgery” is a logical fallacy.
***Maybe, that is IF that’s what I said. You’ll note the difference between when I say... It means versus ... does it “mean”. But then again, maybe not. What fallacy would that be? Feel free to look through the list of logical fallacies and develop your strategy as to how to answer this. I doubt you will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Weren’t you the one who accused me of labelling everything you disagree with a fallacy? Well, now you are doing the same thing, unless you can come up with the specific fallacy.
The image published on the internet does not pretend to be the document; it is a reproduction of the certified copy.
***This is your entire straw argument and has been all along. The image on the internet is a forgery. The expert with the affidavit says it’s unreliable and backs up Polarik’s analysis. And yes, Polarik definitely calls it a forgery in his testimony. You keep goin’ round & round on this and never seem to learn. Oh well, it’s too late, now that there’s a president zer0bama. Good luck in your future learnings. You’re really gonna need it, based upon your continued usage of classic fallacies that seem to be embedded in your thinking process.
It's not "straw" to explain to you what the document says.
"The image on the internet is a forgery."
So says "Polarik".
"The expert with the affidavit says it’s unreliable and backs up Polarik’s analysis."
"Unreliable" does not mean "forgery". Nor does it have obvious implications of forgery. It means exactly the the expert said it meant. You're the one trying to avoid that. She does not back up the entirety of Polarik's analysis.
"And yes, Polarik definitely calls it a forgery in his testimony."
Yes he does. The expert doesn't, but he does. Remind me, what is Polarik's expertise again?
"You keep goin’ round & round on this and never seem to learn."
Somebody is having trouble, that's for sure.
***Maybe, that is IF that’s what I said. You’ll note the difference between when I say... It means versus ... does it “mean”.
So why didn't you complete your own quote, you know, where you answer your own question? Here it is:
Kevmo: It means it is not reliable, with the obvious implications of forgery. So, does it “mean” forgery? Hell yes. Is that what she wrote? No, she wrote in CYA legalspeak.
Weren’t you the one who accused me of labelling everything you disagree with a fallacy?
No.
Well, now you are doing the same thing, unless you can come up with the specific fallacy.
Non Sequitur.
***This is your entire straw argument and has been all along. The image on the internet is a forgery. The expert with the affidavit says it’s unreliable and backs up Polarik’s analysis. And yes, Polarik definitely calls it a forgery in his testimony. You keep goin’ round & round on this and never seem to learn. Oh well, it’s too late, now that there’s a president zer0bama. Good luck in your future learnings. You’re really gonna need it, based upon your continued usage of classic fallacies that seem to be embedded in your thinking process.
There you go again with the "not reliable" equals "forgery" stuff - unbelievable!
So why didn’t you complete your own quote, you know, where you answer your own question? Here it is:
***That’s exactly what I was getting at when I wrote ‘You’ll note the difference between when I say... It means versus ... does it “mean”.’ I see you haven’t managed to shed any of the garbage embedded in your thinking process. Not that I’m surprised.
There you go again with the “not reliable” equals “forgery” stuff - unbelievable!
***Nope. Implied, not equated. But I wouldn’t expect you to know the difference.
It’s not “straw” to explain to you what the document says.
***It is when it’s used as an argument that is a hyperbolic misrepresentation of what was actually argued. That’s what she’s been doing all along.
“Unreliable” does not mean “forgery”. Nor does it have obvious implications of forgery.
***And what color is the sky on the planet you’re on?
I had queried the reverse side of the COLB for Barack Obama. The format stated that the information on the front was certified as accurate as to form and or abstract. I was dubious because the signature of Dr Onaka was a mere rubber stamp.
Another Freeper has stated that on October last, Director Fukino and Director Onaka had stated they had seen the original document and verified the COLB.
This still does not lay the matter to rest. Simple questions and simple answers are needed from the President himself. After all, look at the aggressiveness of some of the press against the departed President.
Does anybody remember that 2 of the 9/11 hijackers were from the San Diego area.
They lived about 3 miles from me. They attended a Mosque I drive by often.
I am devastated that San Diego may be chosen to house some of the Guantanamo creeps .. it’s terrifying to think they would put some of them right back here where 2 of the hijackers lived .. it’s just unthinkable.
I have felt from the beginning that if they move those people into US prisons, the terror groups will begin plotting how they can blow up our communities .. UNLESS WE RELEASE THEIR TERRORIST BUDDIES.
Is the whole world asleep out there ..????????
you forget that the son of the founder of Hamas is now in San diego and has turned Christian and renounced Hamas.
i had a meeting with a Palestinian, who basically denied this was possible and then tried to blame the Israeli Mossad.
As with so many “turncoats” from Iran he could be a planted infiltrator of Hamas. I wonder/speculate if this has a connection.
BTW except on AntiMullah. Obama’s New Political Party seems to have disappeared off the Internet - except currently AntiMullah.
be well.
I was working at Wingcast when the 9/11 event occurred. There were a bunch of muslims on the staff. The jackasses cheered in the company lunch room when the towers began to collapse. There was very nearly some "ad hoc" dental work performed by the American citizens in the room. Those clowns suddenly departed from the company within days. Good riddance.
Families from what my relatives reported, in the bay area also disappeared over night. Their children in the classrom had had a similar reaction as you co-workers.
Cronos, I’m sure that FARS will respond later on today, but in the meantime here is the information you requested.
Mosab Hassan Yousef lives in San Diego now and is the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, who is one of the founding members of Hamas.
Here is a link to a news article that contains much more information.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475226,00.html
>>Son of Hamas Leader Gives Glimpse Into Terror Organization <<
I hope this helps.
Thank you.
Alan and I are so far behind that I only just saw your post helping Cronos (and me) out by a good, accurate reply.
Please never hesitate in such instances.
cheers
Please help me out here. I have been following this subject for a number of months now. I have heard Philip Berg speak on radio and had seen a video of his on line—the man doesn’t sound like a raving lunatic. The biggest on-line coverage has been from Joseph Farah’s World Net Daily. which can use sensationalist language.
But my point is —many conservative bloggers, radio folks etc. don’t want to touch this with a 20 foot pole. Pajamas Media has been steering clear of the issue—pretty much denying it. whassup Up?
Double story of Sharia Financial compliance in San Francisco and Treasury confirming Al Qaeda ties to Iran
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/01/al-qaeda-ties-to-iran.html
Pajamas media is a mixture with some conservatives.
It is indeed passing strange that no one wants to touch this. Here’s my .02:
1. Fear - of blackmail - got dirty laundry hidden; fear of loss of income via Fairness Doctrine; fear of whatever other tactics 0-team could send their way.
2. Another fear - fear of looking “stupid” or uncool, fear of being associated with the kookery wingnut division. Fear of losing face with DC insiders, or entertainment/media insiders, not invited to the insider parties and so on. The desire to be popular and well-liked cripples the ability to see truth and the courage to act on truth.
3. Ignorance - it takes a long time to get educated about this. Lots and lots of reading. People who like to stay on the surface - shallow thinking - don’t want to dive into this. It’s damn ugly.
4. Can’t think outside the “normal” paradigm - as though because everything has always been a certain way, it always will. Of course, hasn’t ALWAYS been a certain way, but people tend to freeze their thinking inside their little few decades’ worth of cultural limitations. As in - “Oh, they have coups and liar fraud marxists in other, third world countries, not here!”
5. Denial - not wanting to realize the game has changed, and there are people and institutions made of people who are - EVIL with a capital E. Eeeevilll. Bad. Wrong. Wicked. Evil. Yes. Many people do not want to realize or accept this. So they ignore or sneer at those who point these things out.
Bottom line - civilizations are born, flourish, stagnate, turn bad, and die. Have throughout history, and always will. I am afraid we are seeing one die. But I am of good cheer that eventually one will get born; or maybe this one will struggle and manage to renew itself.
Isn’t it Roberts who screwed up the swearing in and didn’t some constitutional experts say the constitution requires Obama to say those exact 35 words in order and therefore Obama has not really been sworn in yet?
I know there may be some holes in my tinfoil hat, but what do you think the odds are that Roberts screwed it up on purpose.
Yikes! Did I say that out loud?!
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.