Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: little jeremiah; HighlyOpinionated
Any proof has been hidden and sealed by 0bomba. But of course you know this.

Yes, he's hidden many things. But the problem with that approach is that itsounds like conspiracy theorizing - "no proof of my accusations? Well, that just shows how deep the conspiracy is!"

I'm not saying these things can't be true, I'm saying that HighlyOpinionated's assertions came from somewhere, and I haven't seen any evidence for any of them, aside from "Barry Soetero" on an elementary school application in Indonesia. There has to be some evidence for the accusations, or one could make up anything about anyone. What is needed:

I'll say it again - there's lots of things to go after 0bama about, but repeating internet myths doesn't help us. Unsubstantiated accusations don't help us.
191 posted on 12/26/2009 9:00:32 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: sometime lurker

Nothing can be substantiated or disproved due to 0bomba’s thuggery. That’s what the lawsuits are about.

If he hadn’t sealed, scrubbed, hidden, locked up, erased, etc all his personal records from his entire freaking life none of these threads would exist.

Of course, he probably woudln’t be president, either. We could be bitching about McCain.

BTW, I am totally sick of the word “conspiracy”. Or “conspiracy theory”. I give a **** what leftists or the media thinks of conservatives. They will hate, villify, lie about and harass conservatives until they die. So what?

It is no “theory” that 0bomba is hiding every fact about his life and his so-called autobiographies (two? Before the age of 50??) are lying propaganda, not even written by him. That’s no theory.


196 posted on 12/26/2009 9:59:24 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies ]

To: sometime lurker

It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”


222 posted on 12/27/2009 6:03:25 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson