Posted on 01/30/2009 10:26:26 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
A new lawsuit is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and this one targets Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.
The new case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.
It is being brought on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 193,000 others and sign up now!
As WND has reported, dozens of lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president. Many have been dismissed while others remain pending.
The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
That happens. I'm sure I've missed some too.
I provided the URL. It wasn't a hot link.
Yes, in court. And the internet isn't a court.
What evidence is there of manipulation?
There was a published suggestion that he provide the document.
"The image posted did have a seal, at least to the naked eye, and yet when it was allegedly photographed in response to that observation, why there is the seal."
There's a big difference in the lighting between a scan and a photograph. The seal is visisble on the scan, but you have to look for the impressions. It is not side lit like the photos.
"A perfect circle, when from the angle of the paper, it should appear as an ellipse."
Have you checked this yourself or are you taking someone's word for it?
Watch the name calling. As you told someone else, "what part of no personal attacks do you not understand?"
People have an absolute right to disagree with you. You are not infallible. You've posted your claims on this forum, among other places. If you expect that your claims should be above criticism then you have very unreasonable expectations.
Something is not a fact because you declare it to be. It must be proven. Your analysis fails in that regard in most respects. If I, or anyone else, chooses to explain that, it is our right to do so. Doing so does not imply you are a liar, it implies you are wrong. Keep it civil, or ignore it. Your choice.
A rational person understands that disagreeing about such matters is not an attack on the person. Yet every time anyone has disagreed with you, you've engaged in angry rants. Such behavior does not raise confidence in your ability to stick to objective facts in your work. You should stick to the issues.
You are describing the behavior of many of the people here promoting the birther mythology, not the critics.
"And if there were sincere people who disagreed with your statements or the statements of others, they would debate in a rational manner."
Look who you are saying that to! Good advice for Polarik.
"He isn't born in a particular place until he proves otherwise"
"That is the way it works for the rest of us, regarding place and date of birth. Usually requires a picture ID and sometimes even a thumbprint."
I was responding to a statement that he was born in Kenya until proven otherwise. I don't think that works for any of us.
I wasn't suggesting the image would be accepted by the court, but that the paper document would.
Cite it.
There is a statement requiring them from certain states, of which Hawaii is not one.
Actually only the certified vault copy presented by an officer of the court would be accepted. So you are not correct.
Nope. The paper certified copy which was scanned and photographed would be accepted. It does not have to be the "vault copy".
Actually, Hawaii's short form BC clearly has the required seals, dates and signatures.
LOL! Do you people just make this stuff up as you go along?
Then I found this comment: "Someone can easily accuse you and your side of using Alinsky methods. Argue the issues, not the posters." Ah, the truth is always revealed eventually.
Would love to know who he works for. Or is it already obvious?
I recommend ignoring him. He has stamina, and he has someone paying him to do this all day long - something that the rest of us don't have. It's a typical liberal ploy. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh!t until the fight is worn out of them.
Sorry, I'm not buying that bridge you're selling. LOL!
I am not the issue. Stick to the issues.
And “your side” is clear from context. The people that keep posting this stuff and arguing with me. Reaching a little there aren’t you?
"Clearly"? LoL! Not the scanned image that was published online last June by the DailyKooks. You cannot see any discernible seal or signature. Not with naked eye.
What are you, six?
Your lengthy discussion supporting keeping Obama in office will not discourage me from pushing to have him removed. I believe that one of these lawsuits will send Obama out of office.
You have told all of us before you are not a lawyer....You loose. Good bye
They're getting more bizarre every day.
I'm not an obot, but I posted a disproof of his missing green pixels theory just the other day. Did you miss it?
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.