WND confirms Anna Obama Seattle address from Polk Directory, 1961-1961. Anna Obama Seattle address
Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
Don't tell me what I'm saying "in effect". I haven't spoken a word about my thoughts on Justice John Roberts.
I'm not inside John Roberts' head, so I can't know what internal struggles he may have gone through in administering the oath of office to Obama.
Everything I know about the man says that he is honorable, and an American patriot. But, he is just a man. No doubt, he has the same failings and weaknesses we all do. We can't know what forces, real or imagined, may have compelled him to rotely follow ceremony and procedure in that circumstance.
Perhaps our Justices are not as informed about current events as we would hope them to be. Perhaps they are more informed than we are, but are pawns in a game that is much too large for them to win from their present station (hard as that is to believe). We honestly can't know their minds on this, until they open up to us, if indeed they ever do.
I will say this, though. In the end, your honor and your personal integrity are more important than your immediate life. We are in the condition we are in today because of the compounding of cowardice, both small and large, for many decades. None of us have clean hands, but most especially those we've entrusted with protecting our freedoms and liberties.
I would have preferred for Justice Roberts to have fully confronted the extraordinary circumstances in front of him, and make the courageous choice, but he chose otherwise. Why, I do not know.
While I think we could honestly debate the English language of that era the Framers refereed the “Law of Nations” in many of their writings. It seems clear that the reference in the Constitution is that of the one and only book of the Law of Nations.
IIRC Polarik made it clear he was expressing an OPINION based upon the scrap of a ColB that was presented...with a date stamp seven years later than the Freeper maintained it was received from Hawaii.
A scan of a CoLB was later shown.
The phrase itself was common before it was the title of Vattel’s treatise. It would be interesting to get a constitutional scholar’s take on it. I believe that there were conventions for writing titles of books, plays, poems, and so on, and I believe if they intended to reference a specific text, they would have made that very clear. They could have also used words.
I don’t believe the Constitution acknowledges any of the sources of its content, so I do not believe the Framers would have named a specific book about international law and not the many other prominent influences on their thinking. Why this one? I could probably find out if I spent the time on it, but it’s not on my “open question” list; in fact, I am 100% certain it’s not the book that is named but the concept of the law of nations, which was a term well known to them that represented a body of international law. I’d bet on it, actually, because I’m that sure.
Thanks STARWISE.
then there’s this Greg Szymanski classic:
Testimony of Sister Charlotte
This very brave ex Nun tells of the evil secret inner workings and evil mind control system of the Vatican over their Nuns in virtual prisions. Listen to Sister Charlotte tell details that you will never learn anywhere else. Sister Charlotte disappeared shortly after this public testimony was given, it appears to have been made in Jamaica in the Carribean. Exact time it was made is unavailable as of yet.
For twenty-two years, “Sister Charlotte” (she never revealed her true name in public) was a member of a Roman Catholic convent of nuns. From a very young age, she thought that this would be the best way to redeem her family from the torments of “purgatory”. She graphically describes many of the terrible tortures and suffering she endured in the dungeons of her convent and how God mercifully rescued her from this life. Two years after publically revealing her experiences, she disappeared. I would recommend that children not listen to this.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/?p=298
(Intermission over, back to work!)
Bookmark
Is there a pod-cast for Bill Cunningham ???
WND confirms Anna Obama Seattle address from Polk Directory, 1961-1961. Anna Obama Seattle address
Fifth passport peeker charged
By: Freeman Klopott Examiner Staff Writer
August 10, 2009
A former State Department employee has become the fifth person charged witih illegally accessing the confidential passport information of elected officials and celebrities.
Karal Busch has been charged with the unauthorized access of passport files related to "various celebrities and their families, actors, professional athletes, musicians, models and other individuals identified in the press," court documents filed in the District's federal court said. No attorney information for Busch was listed in court records.
Among the "individuals identified in the press" were then presidential candidates John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The Justice Department launched an investigation into the passport office in spring 2008, after allegations surfaced that the passport files of nearly 130 celebrities had been breached.
The State Department inspector general later blasted the department for failing to build proper protection into the system. An inspector general report found "many control weaknesses -- including a general lack of policies, procedures, guidance, and training -- related to the prevention and detection of unauthorized access to passport and applicant information."
The report suggested the department follow privacy procedures already used by the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. Busch is accused of peeking at passport applications, which according to the Department of Justice contain the applicant's full name, and date and place of birth.
The applications also list telephone numbers, parent information, spouse's name, and emergency contact information. Court records do not indicate when Busch is expected to enter a plea. Last month, William Celey, 27, pleaded guilty to the same charge. Celey was a contract employee and worked as a file assistant from August 2003 and July 2004. While Celey is still awaiting sentencing, which is scheduled for October, three others have already received probation, fines and community service.
Lawrence Yontz, a former foreign service officer and intelligence analyst, illegally accessed nearly 200 passport files. Yontz was sentenced to one year probation and 50 hours of community service. Dwayne F. Cross, a former administrative assistant, illegally accessed more than 150 files, and was sentenced to one year probation and 100 hours of community service. Gerald Lueders, a former foreign service officer, illegally accessed 50 files and was sentenced to one year probation and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. fklopott@washingtonexaminer.com
These were not kids accessing these files. And look at the sentences! None of them are doing jail time and only one, rather modest, fine in the lot.
Can you say “slap on the wrist”?
BTT
I was not too familiar with the actual workings of that term. I just went back to www.premier radio.com
What I got was a previous show with Steve Forbes as guest. I think this is a pod cast. The only thing I don't know is how to get the last show or a date on the one listened to. Next week, Bill gets to host Joseph Farrah of WND.
On the guest appearance of Phillip J. Berg, he merely went over what we have observed again and again on this thread. Bill playing devils advocate and asking why Hillary, Bill and Pubbie bigwigs, did not jump in and wipe out Barack with the elegibility clause.
The battle goes on.
www.premiere radio .com
This for the Cunningham radio show.
A nice attempt at spin. I’ll give you a B minus.
Back here in the real world we know that the Chief Justice administered the Oath of Office twice. John Roberts had plenty of time to consider the implications in between the times that he administered the oath publically and then in the smaller, private ceremony.
One of the cases from Orly Taitz (Lightfoot v Bowen) that challenged Obama’s eligibility was sent to Justice Roberts on December 29, 2008 on a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (agreement to hear the case before the full court). Roberts (and the Supreme Court) rejected granting the Petition on January 26, 2009. The Chief Justice would have been very familiar with the facts of the case submitted by Orly Taitz before he denied the Petition.
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/01/interview-orly-taitz-chief-justice.html
James, you’re speculating, just as we all are.
If the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to Zero is all the proof you need that he’s eligible to hold the office of President, then so be it.
It’s not nearly enough proof for millions of your fellow Americans.
You guys on the anti-birther side are going to have to realize at some point that you haven’t convinced the rest of us with your legal arguments.
Nothing except the release of Obama’s personal documents and records will end this.
If you want to argue against Obama coming clean with the American public, then make that argument. You’ll be forever cast as a left-wing tool if you do, but that’s your last option.
We won’t believe this man is eligible until he provides us with solid proof of that eligibility.
If you really want to help, join us in demanding that he release his documents.
James, you’re speculating, just as we all are.
If the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to Zero is all the proof you need that he’s eligible to hold the office of President, then so be it.
It’s not nearly enough proof for millions of your fellow Americans.
You guys on the anti-birther side are going to have to realize at some point that you haven’t convinced the rest of us with your legal arguments.
Nothing except the release of Obama’s personal documents and records will end this.
If you want to argue against Obama coming clean with the American public, then make that argument. You’ll be forever cast as a left-wing tool if you do, but that’s your last option.
We won’t believe this man is eligible until he provides us with solid proof of that eligibility.
If you really want to help, join us in demanding that he release his documents.
Obama’s opposition has every right to organize to defeat him for reelection on the basis of his failure to satisfy their demands for full disclosure.
The only constitutional requirements for eligibility to be president are birth within the United States, being age 35 or above and having 14 years residence in the United States. PERIOD.
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.