Posted on 01/26/2012 5:55:04 AM PST by RaceBannon
Article II SUPERPAC streaming live video and audio at this link
Hmmm,same hospital name as what is on zero’s.
Anybody have a scan of The ORIGINAL nordyke B.C.?
Any evidence of tampering done to the nordyke B.C.?
more things to ferret out......
How can you stand going over there [to befogged]? I went for a while, but I got tired of feeling bored and dirty. (Also, I’ve been short of time, but that’s a less interesting reason. ;).
I thought of an analogy that bears on the larger topic of anti-birtherism. I suppose this is as good a place to post it as any.
Look at it this way. Suppose there was a dog that went missing, and which garnered enormous interest in certain quarters. The hunt raged and speculation ran rampant until one day a particular animal Pound announced they had the dog, safe and sound and under lock and key.
Here’s where the debate starts in earnest. The ‘Faithers’ heave a collective sigh of relief, but the ‘Skeptics’ say Not So Fast. How do we know it’s the right dog? How do we know there’s a dog in there at all? Why won’t they let a camera crew in to film it?
Finally one of the Pound workers steps forward w a statement. She says she has seen the dog, it’s healthy and in perfect condition, and adds that its coloration is half black and half white. [No, this is not a reference to Obama’s mixed race heritage.]
Now the Faithers become insufferable. They crow about this woman having seen the dog firsthand, and tell us her integrity is unassailable. Anybody who thinks she would lie is a nutburger and a racist [it’s not a perfect analogy].
The Skeptics are more suspicious than ever. Why are we being asked to believe one woman, when we still have seen no evidence? Why will the Pound not allow a neutral veterinarian in to examine the dog?
Questions persist. Finally the Pound appoints a new Director, and he says he will examine the dog himself, bring it outside and parade it around for the world to see, and lay the controversy to rest once and for all.
He emerges from his examination sans dog, but claims the animal is in an auxiliary kennel, and adds that it’s white.
Now, amazingly, the Faithers are REALLY convinced. Two major officials connected to the Pound have affirmed it’s the right dog and it’s alive and healthy; what more can any sane person want?
The Skeptics point out that the two descriptions don’t match. Is the dog white, or half white and half black? The Faithers mock the Skeptics as stupid hick wingnuts.
The controversy continues until finally the Pound responds. They will take a photo of the dog and put it online for all to see. They do so...and display an image of a solid black dog.
Now, incredibly, the Faithers say, ‘At last! Proof that not even the stupidest Skeptic can deny!’
The Skeptics say, ‘Huh? How did we get to a solid black dog? Wasn’t it supposed to be white, or half-and-half at a minimum?’
The Faithers say, ‘The Skeptics are the stupidest people on earth’, and leave it at that.
That is, racism aside, an exact analogy. Fukino told us she had seen the ‘birth record’, and that it was half-handwritten. Abercrombie said ‘it actually exists in the Archives, written down’. Neither of these descriptions matches at all the so-called BC released last year. It is not half-handwritten. So the Fukino gold-standard—i.e.: the person whose quote the Faithers threw in ‘birthers’ face thousands of times—is now ‘inoperative’. She saw one thing, Obama released something else entirely, and only the Faithers are intelligent enough to figure out that “half handwritten” means ‘one-hundred percent NON-handwritten”.
[In fact, one of the Faithers actually said it was good that Fukino’s description proved to be a lie; if the form actually had been half handwritten (as Fukino falsely reported), the ‘birthers’ would have claimed forgery. That line of reasoning is too staggeringly stupid even to comment on. These people couldn’t outwit a tree frog.]
I hope the original half-handwritten ‘birth record’ is eventually unearthed. I doubt it ever will be, but I still hope for it. The Faithers, meanwhile, wish to goodness the original ‘written down’/’half handwritten’ record would die at the end of a lit match. The few of them with still-functioning brains realize it contains extremely damaging info. The rest, when they ‘think’ about it at all [which is pretty much never] just want it to go away, so they can live forever in fairytale-land w’out ever having to worry about reality, facts, contradictions, consistency and physical evidence.
“Idiot Bill Bryan aka Foggy fogbow comments the Obama trial. Orly is there.
Video at post 1160”
Thanks for the Ping! Blade looks like nine miles of bad road in that video. Almost as if he’s still recovering from a recent lightning strike. :)
And, if you find us here on FR “unsophisticated’ on the Constitution and constitutional law, how must the run of “experts” and pundits on the MSM seem to you? Like blithering idiots? Illiterates?
I get your point about Minor. To me, the fact that it was a mainly woman’s suffrage case and not a citizenship case makes me wonder why it was used in the GA case. Truthfully, I can’t see where SCOTUS has ever dealt with the NBC issue head-on.
At any rate, I don’t see any litigation aimed at removing Hussein moving forward. But the idea of knocking him off enough state ballots to hurt him in terms of electoral votes still has a possibility of catching on.
Bill’s “fighting the madness.”
The only madness he’s fighting are the FACTS that are running around inside his head, like SOS Kemp’s warning about missing Court, done at Jablonski’s AND Soebarkah’s own peril.
PS Have you got a link to the mega Auntie thread? Thank you.
Here you go:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702976/posts?q=1&;page=1#1
Enjoy!
Thank you for the link AND please allow me to thank you, (while I have your ear) especially for your many fine posts and acumen in regards to the NBC issues.
Orly has a chat with the media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2EVrQiOZ1g&feature=player_embedded#!
Occam’s razor: Aren’t there enough existing BC’s from that time frame to compare the hospital’s names then, with the claim as to what they are being called on the subject BC’s now? Sorry if I am late to the dance or missed the boat.
Here’s a good read on momma Nordyke.
http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/nordyke-twins-birth-certificates-are-fake/
Thanks, and may I say your tagline is the most hilarious thing I’ve read it ages. The dogs wondered what I was laughing at. ;)
Another interesting site about the Nordyke BC’s.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/irrefutable-proof-obamas-new-birth.html
That is a really good analogy Fantasywriter. Very well thought out, and sincerely correct. Having been born in Hawaii, I am pretty sure we will never see it. I know how corrupt that state is. And I am CERTAIN that everyone has been bought off handsomely one way or another. That’s how things work in Hawaii.
Ultimately, the COLB and what ever else is in the file is irrelevant. It would have been the same in any state. What matters is his British father. Obama does not have two parents who were citizens, and he inherited the subjecthood of his father, because citizenship always follows the father. The bastard is British, and I do NOT respect the office of this “president’. He is a criminal with blood on his hands. An usurper who has murdered thousands with the arms and might of the United States.
It is an abomination, a horror.
I get your point about Minor. To me, the fact that it was a mainly woman’s suffrage case and not a citizenship case makes me wonder why it was used in the GA case. Truthfully, I can’t see where SCOTUS has ever dealt with the NBC issue head-on.
At any rate, I don’t see any litigation aimed at removing Hussein moving forward. But the idea of knocking him off enough state ballots to hurt him in terms of electoral votes still has a possibility of catching on.
Well I have read through every post subsequent to my 1161 and yours is the only one that is really specific enough to respond to. Good job.
I shouldn't have started with a blast at the general sophistication on this kind of issue and apologize for doing so. But look, I have addressed this issue a number of times. Instead of living in the world of hoped for legal results, if we are going to address this problem through the legal system, it is much more productive to deal with a realistic appraisal of the situation.
The real bottom line is that if this case ever gets to the U S Supreme Court on facts that prove he was born inside the United States, he will be held eligible under Article II. I don't like the result any better than anyone else does and I have a fairly sophisticated way to deal with the situation but I don't have the resources to implement it yet.
No, the people on the other side are no better--they don't have a realistic understanding of the legal situation either. But they also don't know Zero as well as we do--they are really living in a dreamworld.
You are correct about Minor--it has no application in the Georgia case. The reason it gets cited is because people who are not real lawyers love the dicta which couples the term "natural born" with two citizen parents. Makes everyone feel better but doesn't help the argument to the judge who does know that it is dicta and is unhappy to be required to deal with lawyers who don't know what they are doing.
You are also correct, the Supreme Court of the United States has never dealt with the Natural Born Citizen issue. But you should also know that the issue has been on the table in the academic setting extensively in the period beginning in 1962. And in the earlier period, there was extensive discussion about how the rule would be applied and why--law review editors looked at these arguments and many of us are still around and remember the substance of the discussions.
So when we say that there is a pretty clear center of gravity in the Constitutional Bar about the outcome of these arguments, that view is not driven only by Liberal bias. I view myself as being pretty hard core and my views really haven't changed during the period.
In fact, you could lay the correct foundation with the right client to address the proposition that he is not eligible. If you could prove that he was not born in the US, or if you could put him in a situation where he had the burden of proof and he was not able to prove that he was born in the US, you would achieve very satisfactory results. You could not only kick him out but you could also overturn a number of his more egregious acts.
I don't think that is going to happen because unfortunately there is some legal record that indicates that there is a birth record for him in the United States (not in the state of Hawaii). Maybe it is fraudulent as the Hawaii record is fraudulent--I tend to doubt it.
However, there is still room in the legal process to put him in a position where he will need to tell people he is a fraud and explain why he is still defending the fraud--that we might be able to do with the system. We just need to be effective in our use of legal resources and our record so far does not look very good.
Remember, here, we are not excluding him from the ballot for electoral college votes yet--the case at hand is only about convention delegates. But to the extent we exclude a number of key states from sending Zero delegates to the convention, we have made some progress in opening up the record.
Right back atcha’ Thank you!
I published my own for reference in the hopes of getting past the Hawaiian documents so we could talk about his heritage and Minor v Happersett. My Birth documents are in Jerome Corsi’s book. I was born in 1969 at Kaiser Hospital, not Kapiolani.
Wow, thank you so much for the kind words. Such sentiment from a FReeper of your long standing is a great honor for a n00b like me. I just try to weigh in cogently on all of the super info found here; it's others who have done all of the heavy lifting. Wasn't it FR that got the ball rolling on the GWB National Guard memo fakery back in 2004? FReepersup indeed! :)
So if you were the attorney handling these ballot challenge hearings for plaintiffs, what cases would you cite to declare Barack Obama ineligible for Article 2 Section 1?
Ok.
Ther IS a SCOTUS case which clearly and specifically defined Natural Born Citizen, and someone with your gift with words should be able to get it.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.”
What is the simple breakdown of this holding?
A person born in the country to TWO parents who were citizens is a Natural Born Citizen. The court HAD to define the term, because they used it as justification for denying Virginia Minor’s claim to 14th Amendment citizenship in order to secure the right to vote. They denied her case, because she had no claim to 14th Amendment Citizenship - so said SCOTUS.
So the court separated quite clearly Natural Born Citizen from Citicen - which would be a person born in country to a mother who was a citizen and a father who was a foreigner, a person born OUT of the country to two parents who were citizens. Everyone agrees that a person born out of country to parents who were NOT citizens had no claim to citizenship at all.
It is THAT simple.
138 years ago the Supreme court decided this, and THE LAW STILL STANDS. The unanimous decision has NEVER been overturned, IT IS STILL LAW!
Either people obey the law or they do not.
Obama is NOT obeying the law, he took an oath he had NO RIGHT to take, thus he is not bound by ANY oath to the Constitution.
That OUGHT to scare the pee out of every American.
Orly is on fire in this interview. Chilling. Palpable. She smacks the media down but good. You do not have to be an Orlybot to get something out of this interview. I am now even more proud of her for fighting the good fight.
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.