Posted on 07/01/2009 9:03:25 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
Rush, yesterday, June 30, continued to drop "birth bombs" into his monologues. In the midst of commenting on Mark Sanford, Rush several times mentioned that God, like Obama, does not have a birth certificate. Shortly thereafter, Rush mentioned a friend who had said that Obama had admitted being born in "Taco, Texas." "Or maybe it's 'Toco, Texas.'"
I believe that Rush knows something substantive about the birth issue, and is taunting the government-run media--knowing that they are caught in a bind: They have to be enraged with each "birth bomb" he drops, but they dare not react. Rush is using a "drip-drip" strategy. He is making almost-daily references to Obama's lack of a (revealed) birth certificate, which means that each day brings us closer to making this fact "common knowledge." Yet no one "birth bomb" provokes a government-media reaction and controversy.
Not only for the evil democRATS but also for RNC who did not uphold their oath of defending the Constitution!!!
That is the reason that some call this the largest Constitutional crisis this nation has ever seen in modern times???
You certainly proved your FR pedigree with post #80. Are you Ash?
FReepers have long had Obama's number on Israel, and yet US Jews voted for him around 80%. Go figure.
Bourne is the name; Blackbriar is the game... :-)
Well, we had two guys (Deep-Throat) in 1970s!
They effectively undressed President Nixon!!
Where are they today, well they are just some very rich liberals, who don't stoop so deep to expose a Communist, hmmmm!!!
THAT is very questionable, with at least Biden if Barry is removed!
So is it also with Nazi Pelowski, Hillary, Feinstein and whole bunch of the Rats!!
That is the reason it is called a Constitutional crisis of unheard proportion the nation has ever seen!!!
I’m sure we’ve had our slap-fests over the years. I always enjoy reading fellow posters who are a bit long in the tooth....
Again that is very questionable, because you cannot impeach a person who is NOT a President, less a person who is NOT a Senator???
So this process will take some clever Constitutional scholars to figure something this nation have dreamed about could ever happen!!!
Have never dreamed about, sorry!!!
No no no, danamco—I believe that he was born in Kenya or elsewhere outside of the USA at the very least— NOT in Hawaii.
TROLL!!
TROLL!!
I can tell, you’re quite erudite... LOL...
Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, headed a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.
The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm.
During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.
Sources who tracked the investigation say that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information. “They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,” one knowledgeable source said. “But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.”
At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.
During the investigation into the passport breach, a key witness was fatally shot in front of a Washington, DC, church. Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with federal investigators, was found late slumped dead inside a car. Lt. Harris’ death remains unsolved, and mysteriously, unreported until one year later, when the blogosphere discovered the murder.
Why???
Texas Association of Campground Owners
The burglars may have stolen typed/inked original forms (from the early to mid ‘60s), as I don’t think the Federal Government was very much computerized by then, but as you say about backups, there might have been microfilm copies in that decade. Our republic may depend on it.
If the Supreme Court had done their job (they probably knew the facts - Roberts and 0bama both fouled up the oath) and stopped this before 0bama was sworn in, we’d simply have Biden as interim President, and a new election, if I’ve understood things correctly. There’d be no succession chain followed. But, I can imagine why they didn’t. 0bama had a tsunami of aggressive support at that time.
I didn’t know about the witness’ death.
Thanks, it’s not a pretty list is it.
On the other hand, as dreadful as it is to even contemplate, I’m beginning to think that even Herself, the Hildabeast would be preferable over Hussein Obammy Whammy The Big Hammy.
Wow.
Any independent confirmation?
WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
Lawyer notifying president of lawsuit
California case challenges Obama’s eligibility
Posted: June 29, 2009
10:04 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Dr. Orly Taitz
A California lawyer seeking a default judgment against Barack Obama in her case challenging his eligibility to hold the office of president is trying multiple ways to notify him of the action in response to a a judge’s order.
The judge has scheduled a hearing July 13 in a case brought by plaintiffs’ attorney Orly Taitz, who believes the commander-in-chief is in default.
Taitz has told WND if her motion is granted she will immediately request access to Obama’s birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
Now Taitz told WND she is trying a number of different methods to notify the president following the ruling from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who said: “Before the court is a motion by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal. Court sets this matter for hearing on July 13, 2009 at 8:30a.m. in Courtroom 9D. Plaintiffs are directed to make every effort possible to ensure that all remaining defendants are aware of the hearing and provide documentation that the individual receiving service is authorized to accept on defendants’ behalf.”
(Story continues below)
Click Here!
Taitz told WND she previously had served notice of the action but would pursue a further notification and confirmation. She said she’s trying personal service, fax and e-mail, among other options.
“I have a very clear case,” Taitz said. “I think they dropped the ball. They didn’t figure out this case filed on Jan. 20th, on the day of inauguration.
The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in the state’s court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.
“I will be asking for the release of his vital records,” she said.
“The latest argument by the judge says that I was supposed to serve Obama by a certain Rule-4I. My argument is that it wasn’t applicable, as I served him as an individual, on inauguration day, for his action before he became the president. He does not qualify to get governmental representation, meaning he has to pick (up) the tab,” she explained.
“He defaulted, and in default I can demand production of the documents to show his fitness for the position,” she wrote.
“The documents that I am requesting are the original (birth certificate), school records, passport records and immigration records.”
The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant “Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro.”
The original service was verified, Taitz wrote in her latest motion to the court, by an affidavit that already is on file with the court.
“Plaintiffs have satisfied both the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(d) (and) 4(i)(3),” she wrote.
Taitz explained the dispute as being over the way she served notice of the lawsuit. There are different requirements for someone acting as a government official or someone who acted as a government official, but has left office.
Neither of those apply, she said. She sued Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.
She said her first process server went to the White House to serve the president, and the Secret Service refused her admittance and refused to take the documents. She retreated to her car and called the White House office of legal counsel on her cell phone, and was instructed the proper service would be to deliver the documents to the Justice Department, which she did.
“Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court’s order finding or at least strongly suggesting that 4(e) service is insufficient, and requiring 4(i) service, regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit as against the sole served Defendant Barack H. Obama, is manifestly erroneous and plaintiffs accordingly request that the court reconsider its motion,” she argued.
“In the alternative, plaintiffs move and request that this court exercise its sound discretion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal.”
She suggested the case already is in default on the part of the president, and it should so be concluded.
“Why have a rule of default, at all, why make a distinction between private and U.S. governmental parties as between 4(e) and 4(i) at all within the federal rules, if the face of a complaint, and the status of the parties at the time of filing, cannot be used to judge compliance with such a rule which might apply in this case to guarantee victory to the plaintiff?
“It seems to the plaintiffs unfair and unjust that a judge could merely set aside a party’s default on a whim, for no good legal or equitable reason, based on a change in a party’s status, but not the cause of action against him, between filing and service of a suit?” she continued.
“Plaintiffs Keyes et al. request this court to amend its order to show cause, especially but not limited to the Friday, June 12, 2009, order extending show cause, and denying as moot plaintiffs’ motions for clarification, to permit plaintiffs to pursue an appeal pursuant to section 1292(b).”
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.