Posted on 05/01/2011 7:56:33 AM PDT by jdoug666
When he steps into the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena on Monday, he'll ask a panel of three judges for a chance to show evidence that the president of the United States isn't eligible for the job. He'll argue that Barack Obama wasn't born in this country and that the plaintiffs in his case—members of the American Independent Party—didn't get a fair shake in the 2008 presidential election.
(Excerpt) Read more at ramona.patch.com ...
Isn't the appeal simply about jurisdiction. Unless they can convince the appeals court that the federal court system has jurisdiction in this matter, evidence on the merits of the case itself is not material.
Did you see this quote from Gary Kreep?
“He said he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s, but on what kind of passport? He said he didn’t have a U.S. passport until he was senator in 2004,” Kreep said.
No. If that's true, Obama in his thirties and possibly into his forties was traveling as a foreigner should be game set match. Buh bye Obama.
Excellent quotes and YES, BO should be asked about them. What I would like to see is a concerted effort to point out all the "inconsistencies" and have an all out assault on the lack of media integrity. Show the media for the lap dogs they are, question their professionalism, and ask why there is no 'Woodward and Bernsteins' left in this world. Keep pointing the finger at the worthless press. Some members of the media might step up to the plate, and the public may start looking at the media with a little more disdain. If done right, with the right questionable quotes/issues, the media can be made to look real stupid. And keep asking the questions Why wasn't this looked into prior to the last election? When is the media going to start doing their job?
No. If that’s true, Obama in his thirties and possibly into his forties was traveling as a foreigner should be game set match. Buh bye Obama.
Ken Allen’s lawsuit in relation to his denied FOIA requests for Barry Soetoro’s immigration and passport records may be the treasure trove of truth.
Also, SAD’s passport/immigration records would produce valuable information no doubt.
While this whole "assembled" PDF document the White House put out could be a ruse and trap to further embarrass the "birthers" as Mario considered in his new article, I had another thought. What's to say that the copies given to Obama's lawyer sent to Hawaii, and attested to by Hawaiian officials, actually show the same information on those two paper copies that is now being displayed on the internet in this very badly assembled PDF document.
As I recall the former HI director when interviewed in recent weeks, she said when she saw the alleged original Obama birth registration document she said it was half typed and half hand written. What we are being shown on the net is something that is entirely typed except for the signatures. That does not comport with what the former HI Health Dept Director said.
What if the Obama powers sent the lawyer to Hawaii to provide the necessary cover story that they did get two copies of the Obama vital record there ... but the image on the net now is NOT of the paper copies that they picked up ... say because there is something on it that Obama still does not wish to reveal. So he has a version cooked up once again to put online, and someone screwed up and did not flatten the PDF file prior to release to hide the layers. Would Hawaii officials speak up to affirm or deny that what Obama put on the net is not an image of the copy of what they gave to Obama's lawyer. Or would they keep silent in much the same way they did regarding the Certification document, the short form images on the net since Jun 2008. Remember that Hawaii never confirmed that any of those images on the net were copies of something that they issued. Hawaii has been very willing to cooperate with Obama's stonewalling and game playing regarding the vital records in HI for Obama. And, Obama is playing such a cat and mouse game with the American electorate about all his hidden records that one can never tell with him as to what is real or what is memorex. It is a disgrace how this administration is treating the American citizenry. And the main stream media does not call him out on this and instead helps and enables Obama to conduct such offensive disinformation tactics on the American electorate. Journalism no longer exists in this nation. The media should be ashamed.
The usual place for these questions is the courts. The courts, however, seem to be increasingly reluctant to take on these tough "political" issues particularly after the fallout from Paula Jones lawsuit (leading to impeachment) and Bush vs Gore. It's why they are hired and yet they are cowed. As Justice Scalia said, "It takes four."
At this point my belief is SCOTUS would go so far as to say a dual citizen could occupy the office so long as he or she didn't do the things the State Dept says constitutes renouncing U.S. citizenship. I think being an officer in a foreign military is one.
I don't agree it's a good standard for our country's highest office but I suspect it's the one they'd set: excluding only those never citizens, naturalized citizens and those who fit criteria of having formally renounced their U.S. citizenship as willy-nilly determined by State Dept policy. The end result: Obama is, was and will be president.
They will not want to be responsible for determining the first elected black president's eligibility for office. Even if they ultimately decided jus soli is sufficient or any birthright U.S. citizenship fit the "Natural Born Citizen" criteria, there is fear.
Keyes makes a good point that elections don't determine constitutionality. Certainly we know the Left believes that from their endless suits against voter approved constitutional amendments like CA's Prop 22 defining marriage. In this case the Left may argue instead no one has standing (a tactic being used against Prop 22), it's a question for impeachment not the courts, it was settled by Congress' certification, etc.
The cowardice in our institutions is appalling! It's impossible to imagine the same institution dared to buck segregation, for example. Or that we were able to win WWII. Or many examples of past greatness. For those in their 40s or younger such courage must seem like legend, not history.
Nothing is impossible to create nor too perverse, depraved or borderline or actual criminal action with these cretins.
Why does Kreep make no mention of the Founders’ writings and intent .. AND THEWON’S DUAL ALLEGIANCE TO THE USA VIRTUE OF HIS STATED PATERNITY ???
(Unless it’ll be a stealth hearing issue he’ll raise)
BEYOND FRUSTRATING WITH THESE SO-CALLED ATTORNEYS ~~~!!!
~~~~~~~
On the topic - sideways: the loudmouth fool, Serrano .. AGAIN!
__________________________________________________
Justice Breyer Enters Birther Debate
By Paul Bedard
Posted: April 27, 2011
###
There are that if those who question President Obama’s American birth, like Donald Trump, get a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be a lively and unpredictable debate.
At a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing this month, Justice Stephen Breyer waded into the white-hot discussion of whether those born outside the 50 states can be president.
His comments came when Bronx Rep. Jose Serrano, a Democrat and Puerto Rico native, asked if he could be president.
“That still hasn’t been settled,” Serrano said. “Does the person get aggrieved [and sue] at the time I declare my candidacy, or do I have to be elected first?”
Breyer took the bait. “Why would anyone be aggrieved if you were running for president? Wouldn’t they be pleased?” he said before quoting the Constitution: “It says no person except a natural-born citizen. Well?”
Serrano chimed in, “I’m a natural born citizen.”
Breyer: “OK.”
A gleeful Serrano: “I can’t believe we just had a Supreme Court decision.”
A vague Breyer: “Well, you said you are a natural-born citizen.”
Serrano said, “Well that’s what I believe I am,” before assuring the hearing room that he would not make a primary challenge to Obama in 2012.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/04/27/justice-breyer-enters-birther-debate
________________________________________
From Rules for Radicals = Alinsky
###
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time....”
8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative.”
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’...
“...any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...’
“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”
On ethics
“Alinsky’s second chapter, called Of Means and Ends, craftily poses many difficult moral dilemmas, and his ‘tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends’ is:
‘you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.’
He doesn’t ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He is much more devious; he teaches his followers that
‘Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.’...
More here
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
Are you so dense as to not understand that by getting the “real” long form BC showing where he was born also includes who his father and mother really are? Do you not realize that by finding out where he was born we can find out where the birth certificate is and prove who his father and mother are? If either the born in country or the birth father truly is not an American and we can prove it we have a case. Get over you better then thow attitude and understand if we don’t have the real BC you can’t prove who his father is.
wow great post a lot to think about there.
Thomas is a wordsmith. Evading has a second meaning: IIRC studying deeply. But I can’t find the really BIG dictionary where I found it.
An astute observation, indeed. I'll admit it's one of the top three or so main reasons I support the birther movement myself, as it won't take too much of a fishing expedition to turn up some real important goods on this jack wagon. First and foremost of course, is limiting those with questions as great as Obama's to a maximum of his one first term.
At this point my belief is SCOTUS would go so far as to say a dual citizen could occupy the office so long as he or she didn't do the things the State Dept says constitutes renouncing U.S. citizenship. I think being an officer in a foreign military is one.
Unfortunately true. America these days is so politically correct, and afraid afraid afraid of ever speaking the truth we're on the verge of being doomed to a heartless, brainless future controlled by real life Wizards of Oz.
They will not want to be responsible for determining the first elected black president's eligibility for office...The cowardice in our institutions is appalling!
Ultimately our hope appears to be reduced to seeing if the states can retain control of the eligibility requirements for their own state ballots. Unfortunately, a slippery slope within itself.
It's impossible to imagine the same institution dared to buck segregation, for example. Or that we were able to win WWII. Or many examples of past greatness. For those in their 40s or younger such courage must seem like legend, not history.
I'm just glad my father isn't around to see this, he and his kind certainly deserved better than what the modern day politicians have done to this country in such a short time. And unless we go back to the original limitations on who can vote that our forefathers put in the original Constitution, starting with the requirement that only property owners can vote, which is of course unlikely, there's unfortunately no end to the madness in sight.
Thanks STARWISE.
He is a black prince, and I don’t mean his skin color. I have a nagging doubt that he even really is a black man out of Africa. Somebody needs to get a hold of his DNA.
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.