Posted on Monday, 10/27/2008 - 8:45 p.m. PDT — by Bard Parker
Props to the Clinton News Network, MSNBillClinton, and Hanoi Janes network Headline News, for missing the biggest untold story of the election!!! That is the answer to this question... HOW OLD IS HUSSEIN BARRACK OBAMA???
Lets look at what they are missing. BARRACK has refused, although under orders by a court of law, to provided the court with a copy of his birth certificate. This would answer two important questions. 1) Is OBAMA older than the Constitutionally required age of 35 to run for president, 2 )and even more important, is he an AMERICAN CITIZEN???? His grandmother states that Barrack was born in Kenya, his sister states he was born in Hawaii, and Hussein states that he was born in Hawaii, but at a diiferent hospital than stated by his own sister. Wait for the conspiracy... his sister and grandmother are attempting to railroad his presidential aspirations!!!
Check out the video link below. As told by an ADMITTED DEMOCRAT!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 1304
Alien.......let me guess.....he's from Uranus.
Give it a rest, if nobody has dug up proof by now it aint gonna happen.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
Is that the best response of the liberal wing...he's from Uranus???
The reason there is no proof is because the liberal press, i.e. the LA Times, claims to have promised not to reveal its source, but has never said it would not release the contents of a video that would give the american voters insight into his reaction to what was said and done at an event where anti-semitism and anti american rhetoric was allegedly running rampant.
the last time I saw the actions of the press being so closely guarded with its information, was about the time of the Reagan era. it was a small publication out of Moscow, and its name was PRAVDA...
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 1304
Sorry to disappoint you, but anybody that knows me knows that my views lean to the CONSERVATIVE side. It's just that I am one of those conservatives that you can't understand, One with an open mind. The funny thing is that both the radical right and the radical left have a lot in common, both run around with blinders on and continue to beat the dead horse long after the race is run and bets are paid.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 3156
The most reassuring thing to me within all this madness that surrounds an election, is the fact that the majority of voters are people like cowboy and me who fall somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. People with open minds, who take the time to weigh the pros and cons (pun intended) of both sides of an issue. People who aren't afraid to admit that their side has made mistakes and the other side has been right once in a while. People who want intelligent, thoughtful leaders. People who are sick of the spin, the lies, the smears, the propaganda and the hate that accompanies so many campaigns these days both locally and nationally.
I hope it's OK that I spoke for you there cowboy. I think I know you well enough for me to include you in that catagory.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 1304
Ditto for me.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 470
hated George Bush so much NO WAY were they voting for McCain
yeah buddy tell us all
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 515
YOU MAY WANT TO REREAD YOUR MANY POSTS then do a self profile. Middle of the spectrum?? come on now your easy to do a profile on...
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive."
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 7
Obama is making sure that no one finds the truth on this issue and many others. During his campaign he demonstrated that he has no moral compunction about lying to the voters or cheating. As a good Chicago Democrat he had no objections when a governor tries to sell his senate seat, when his business partner was charged with fruad, or when his NGO rigged the votes in his favor. He plays the race card and the class card when he benefits; so why assume that he is not preventing the truth that he is not a US citizen from being told.
And what was the Kenyan passport all about?
Face it, barry lies. Americans have no reason to respect our current illegitimate president.
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 515
for corrupt Chicago style poltics bringing in all the sinister players, and rejects from the failed Clinton Administration led by Rom Emmanuel.
SO MUCH FOR CHANGE AND HOPE......WE GOT STUCK WITH CHICAGOS WORST PATRONAGE POLITICS TAKING OVER THE WHITEHOUSE AND ACORN.....and an incremental STEPS DAILY to convert our DEMOCRACY to SOCIALISM
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 81
I remember when monica lewinsky came up with the black dress with the white stain and the prosecuter tested it for Clinton`s dna and it was his! it was denied,until the results came in!IDID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN MISS LEWINSKI! i THINK THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY! tHE ORIGINAL COULD HAVE BEEN FAKED, PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE BIRTHS AT HOSPITALS. MOST GAVE BIRTH AT HOME. OFFICIALS JUST TOOK THE WORD OF THE MOTHER , NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 81
I remember when monica lewinsky came up with the black dress with the white stain and the prosecuter tested it for Clinton`s dna and it was his! it was denied,until the results came in!IDID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN MISS LEWINSKI! i THINK THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY! tHE ORIGINAL COULD HAVE BEEN FAKED, PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE BIRTHS AT HOSPITALS. MOST GAVE BIRTH AT HOME. OFFICIALS JUST TOOK THE WORD OF THE MOTHER , NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 3156
What's that old definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results? You people keep beating the same dead horses and the more you beat them, the more McCain goes down in the polls. Get a clue! Get a life! Let the man retain a sliver of dignity. Give it a break. It ain't flying.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
one definition of insanity is to act without knowledge of ones actions to the detriment of ones self or others. If you can elect a candidate who would mislead the voters about his socialist agenda, an then sick his cronie media buddies to attack a citizen whom he was asking for his vote, is insane.
But alas, save your keystrokes, because yes, people like you and the other liberals allowed Bush to be re-elected, and listened to the lies from Pelosi and Reed about how a liberally controlled congress would stop the failed Bush policies, yet they made it worse,i.e. Barney Franks.
I would take the snake from the garden of eden as president before Obama... at least I know what the snakes policies and intentions are!!
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 515
Beating a dead horse is like Liberals blaming Bush for everything even when he is out of office!!, very ignorant and uneducated on the process or the complex issues that brought America to this point in History.
In yet another Soviet style......daily pronouncement, Americas Socialist Leader was still playing the blame game and pointing the finger at BUSH, trying to avoid any accountability for increasing our gazillion dollar deficit that OBAMA QUADRUPLED IN THE FIRST 6 MONTHS IN OFFICE, AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE TRILLIONS THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PREDICTS WILL COST TAXPAYERS IF Obama socialized medicine is inflicted on the US, where obama beaurocrats will be making your medical care decisions.
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 1
i am so overjoyed that obama has set a new limit in terms of the glass ceiling he is an america citizen and a family man ppl want to come with all the bs about the man and they dont evern know him perhaps there hating that he african american and that he will be taking charge to restore this country i hop he wins
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
I hop he wins too!! Just kidding... I hope the fraud that he is will be exposed soon saving this country the embarrassment of having to finally expose to the world that this country would elect a person which it knows nothing about, because he is a master of deflection. He has not, and will not answer the questions of his character, and each day one of his pals is discovered to be either a terrorist, domestic and now foreign, an anti-semite, or a religious hate monger who assigns Obama the title of "Messiah".
I will give you liberals whatever you need to blame Bush for your troubles and agony, but 4 to 8 years of Obama will be the destruction of the very fiber this country was built on. Ask Obama to cite the pledge of allegiance, or ask him where his Senetorial American flag Lapel Pin is, and he will deflect to the last 8 years of Bush policy. If that is enough for you... GOD HELP US ALL!!!!
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
Lets take the African American racist act out of this equation. Based on his act over the last 6 months, the only glass anything is smoke and a two way mirror!!! Tell us one piece of important legislation he has AUTHORED AND PASSED as a senator, why he supported or did not distance himself from the rev Wright for bestowing an award to Louie Farakan, and after the revs anti american and anti semetic comments, and his non explanation for his relationships with a domestic and foreign terrorist, is it freedom of speech? ... Caucasians with those views are usually called skinheads or nazis.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
<Caucasians with those views are usually called skinheads or nazis.>
And people with your views are usually called idiots or morons.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
No, they are people that actually look at what a candidate has accomplished and what he/she stands for before voting. Some of us are not buying the sugar coated "hope" and "change" message from Obama. Anyone can say they are for "change". Obama's platform is nothing new and hardly "hopeful" - empower the government, increase entitlements, raise taxes, etc.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 79
Brad Parker, how does it feel to be a racist piece of caca? I bet not good. Go stab yourself with a steak knife if you have one.
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
i find it disturbing that the election is about race, and NOT about america.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 186
i feel the same way stop slamming people just because he is black and white.its not his fault.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Getting back to the Topic
So now that it has come out that Obama's aunt ignored an Immigration judge's order to leave the country, will she be ungraciously deported and disallowed a visa to return for 10 years per the law? The next question is whether Obama himself has the same disdain for immigration law as his aunt?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081101/ap_on_el_pr/obama_aunt
RealAmerica
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
@realamerica,
she should be deported like any other illegal alien in that position, but i bet you we're not see that.
that story shows us how the future will be with obama as president.
Joined: Aug 2006
Current Posts: 93
The rumor: Barack Obama isn't a citizen, suggested bloggers at the Free Republic Web site. Or if he is, he's hiding his birth certificate for some mysterious reason. Or if he's shared his birth certificate, it's a fake because he's lying about who his real father is. New iterations on this theme pop up almost everyday at various Web sites.
The facts: Obama plainly is a citizen because he was born in the U.S. In response to the allegations, Obama's campaign in June posted the Illinois senator's birth certificate on his campaign Web site. The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document. On Friday, officials in Hawaii said they had personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. Judges in Washington state, Ohio and Pennsylvania have dismissed lawsuits challenging his citizenship.
Gray
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Gray3 wrote - '... Obama plainly is a citizen because he was born in the U.S. In response to the allegations, Obama's campaign in June posted the Illinois senator's birth certificate on his campaign Web site. The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document. On Friday, officials in Hawaii said they had personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. Judges in Washington state, Ohio and Pennsylvania have dismissed lawsuits challenging his citizenship. ...'
ref: http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd409.htm
and: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-birth-certificate-30-...
Obama's citizenship was / is in question because he has not produced a birth certificate, which indicates a place within a town, and details like witnesses and / or doctors present. What has been presented is a COLB, which is a summary document based on statements made by parents after a birth, and which even Hawaii won't accept as proper documentation for applying for its Heritage Benefits. Notice that the Hawaii Health Department states that it has Obama's original birth certificate (a more complete reference shows they also stated that he was born in Honolulu. That will likely render the second point moot, that his mother would not be able to pass her citizenship to him if he were born outside the United States according to laws in effect at the time of his birth. Subsequent laws retroactively canceled this argument. But his stepfather enrolled him in Indonesian schools, and only Indonesians are allowed to attend, and Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. So his stepfather may have renounced Obama's American citizenship in order to enroll him. If Obama made no effort to reclaim his U.S. citizenship, and if he traveled internationally as an adult with an Indonesian passport, then that clouds the issue. He likely was a natural-born citizen at one time, and may have lost it by failing to renounce his Indonesian citizenship as an adult. That is why a legal request has been made for his college records - to see if financial aid requests might show he registered as a foreign student. There is also an unsubstantiated rumor that API has sent WND News a tape of Obama's grandmother stating that she was in the delivery room in Mombasa on the day Obama was born. It may be possible to check this out in London, where birth certificates of England's colony of Kenya are kept for that period of Obama's birth.
As for the lawsuits mentioned, that is another matter. The lawsuits were dismissed because the courts stated that YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT, that you have no standing to question the qualifications of candidates as a voter before an election. Even though it might be shown that no qualified candidates are available to you as a choice, and you write your own name on the ballot as a result.
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Until the Fat Lady Sings ...
It's not over until the fat lady sings. Berg has filed a Writ of Certiorari to have the District Court decision reviewed that dismissed the law suit about Obama's citizenship status. So it may be that our votes count after all, but it all hangs on the U.S. Supreme Court now. Obama and the DNC have until Dec. 1 to reply to the writ.
http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/news/52-us-supreme-court-awaits-res...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Your link is nothing more than a press release written by the guy who filed this frivolous lawsuit. Don't hold your breath waiting for the Supreme Court to take up this case. It won't, because the lawsuit is a crock.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
I found this corroborating story regarding the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the writ. They have already denied Berg's motion to stay the election, but set the date of Dec. 1st for Obama to produce his vault birth certificate in response to the writ (according to Justice Souter's clerk?).
http://therightperspective.com/wordpress/?p=311
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
Just to make sure the information is available in the multiple threads on this subject: the guy bringing the suit against Obama is also the guy who brought suit against Bush for 9/11. A pretty sound mind, obviously.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.public-action.com/911/suit/mariani-berg1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.public-action.com/911/suit.html&usg=__WAVlrGwKOcNZO5iqZdsSpKzB6Xk=&h=240&w=360&sz=62&hl=en&start=17&sig2=O3Fy28JXRUfsygBHMbigqw&um=1&tbnid=dlVXg65uclT87M:&tbnh=81&tbnw=121&ei=-dIhSaS3O5j2sAPBxLy7CA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphilip%2Bj.%2Bberg%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
Joined: Jun 2007
Current Posts: 37
FOOD FOR THOUGHT!!!
How long is the beast allowed to have authority in Revelations?
Revelations Chapter 13 tells us it is 42 months, and you know what that is.
Almost a four-year term of a Presidency.
All I can say is "Lord, Have mercy on us!"
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will
be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with
persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says
that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace,
and when he is in power, will destroy everything..
Do we recognize this description??
I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to post this as many times as
you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet..do it!
I refuse to take a chance on this unknown candidate who came out of nowhere.
From: Dr. John Tisdale
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched in horror as Barack Obama made the statement with pride. . ."we are no longer a Christian nation; we are now a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, . ." As with so many other statements I've heard him (and his wife) make, I never thought I'd see the day that I'd hear something like that from a presidential candidate in this nation. To think our forefathers fought and died for the right for our nation to be a Christian nation--and to have this man say with pride that we are no longer that. How far this nation has come from what our founding fathers intended it to be.
I hope that each of you will do what I'm doing now--send your concerns, written simply and sincerely, to the Christians on your email list. With God's help, and He is still in control of this nation and all else, we can show this man and the world in November that we are, indeed, still a Christian nation!
Please pray for our nation!
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
The United States was never a "christian nation", at least not in the sense that you and the so-called 'Dr.' Tinsale are using the term. And today, it is, because of multi-culturalism and racial and ethnic diversity, even less so. The sooner you folks wake up and smell the coffee as to what the US has become and is all about, the sooner the republican party can start hoping to emerge from its status as a white people dominated minority party which will, if the trends of the last two national elections continue, become largely irrelevant.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
Oops! Turns out the letter from Dr. Tisdale is a fake.
http://mikefrizzell.net/2008/10/31/dr-john-tisdale-responds-to-obama-antichrist-email/
Some of his actual words, should you care to read them:
Thank you for inquiring about the email. I appreciate one who searches for truth instead of just believing everything he/she receives on the internet. If Senator Obama wins this election (and I hope he does not), he will be the president of the most blessed nation the world has ever known. Therefore, he will be my president and I pledge my prayers for him. (Romans 13:1-7) “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord…” (Psalm 33:12).
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Obama Selective Service Scam?
Finally, the FOIA request for Obama's Selective Service records came thru, and (of course,) appear to be adulterated. It pays to have friends in high places ...
http://www.outragedpatriots.com/Debbie%20Schlussel%20-%20Obama%20SS%20re...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
You people are certainly a gullible bunch. Do you seriously believe that Obama could have failed to register for selective service and it was never flagged by anyone? That's pure nonsense! The guy had to have applied for financial aid for college and law school through the U S Dept. of Education. Selective service compliance is one of the first things they check. Not to mention the screening process he had to go through for admission to the Illinois bar, and the scrutiny to which he was subjected when he ran for the State, and then the U S. Senate. The reproduced document was likely either altered, it is altogether fake. And Debbie Schlussel? Hardly a highly credible source! The only reason that rubbish like this gets any play whatsoever is because folks like you are falling over yourselves trying to find something, anything, that they can try to elevate to the level of a scandal. Give it a rest already!
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
@screen name,
the great danger is with people like you, who believe and take for granted whatever the government tell you to. don't you think?
as a first generation immigrant, i can assure you, that i had to put up all my live, from a-z.
in order to get here.
half of it is missing, or it makes no sence in regards to obamas info.
let's assume for a second all his papers are ok. why isn't he presenting them?
why isn't he showing his school and financial records? or the birth certificate? the selected service paper is full of very questionable errors.
i did not voted for him, but he will be my president, so congratulations, but answer all the the questions, like i did!
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Berlin47112- So let me get this straight. You don't trust the government, so you are not willing to take anything they tell you at face value. Ok, fair enough. But then you turn around and instead take at face value the rather poorly documented claims of far right wing shills like the person who posted the alleged selective service record? Really? Does it not bother you that this person is patently biased and clearly has an agenda that is being pushed? Are you at all troubled by the fact that this person, as well as the ones pushing the birth certificate claim, has not fully produced all records pertaining to the issue? Or that the claim regarding the selective service registration is based entirely on speculation about the alleged altering of one number on the alleged document?
As I said, you people sure are gullible. While your experience as a first generation immigrant might have given you some insight into federal government record keeping it obviously has not done so in helping you to discern and critically evaluate political propaganda (and not very sophisticated propaganda at that).
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
About That Propaganda ...
ScreenName wrote '... As I said, you people sure are gullible. ...' after making a number of false and unsubstantiated allegations against an independent investigator's findings about Obama's selective service records. There was no mention in his post that the information came from a Freedoom of Information request because Obama refused to release it (a lie of omission). Then he accuses the investigator of '... not fully produced all records pertaining to the issue ...' (a lie of impossible action). This is followed by another 'argument' that a single digit doesn't affect the meaning of the data (lie of irrational logic - like dialing 6 numbers on a phone and expecting someone to answer). Finally at he end he states a truth - his blathering is '...not very sophisticated propaganda at that ...'
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
You can rationalize it any way you want. The bottom line is that you are taking at face value a claim of failure to register for selective service on the basis of one document which (1) has not been authenticated; (2) is alleged to have been altered, without any compelling evidence to support that claim; and (3) which flies in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, as was raised in my earlier post. The problem here is that you folks are so fixated on these bogus claims about Obama that you will believe just about anything from any source, whether credible, supported by tangible evdence, or otherwise substantial enough to withstand scrutiny. And RealAmerica has the unmitigated gall to accuse me of 'blathering'? Thats the typical tactic of someone who is so desperate to divert attention away from the weaknesses and flaws in the positions he is advocating that resort is made to name calling and denigration of the people who disagree with you. If this is the best you can do, there is nothing of substance here that warrants anything more than simply being ignored.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Devy Kidd's recent article chronicles the 'undocumented politician' that Obama seems to be.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd415.htm
She pushes the argument that as Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama's birth, his father passed British citizenship to him, which was converted to Kenyan citizenship at its independence from Britain. Then it lapsed from lack of declaration, or from his stepfather declaring him Indonesian for school enrollment purposes.
This gets to the heart of our 14th Amendment about granting U.S. citizenship for people '... not subject to a foreign jurisdiction ...'. As most countries confer citizenship based on the citizenship of a newborn's parents, regardless of where they are born, these children are subject to the jurisdiction (country) of their parents, until they make a declaration otherwise. So a child could have 3 potential citizenship options - from the father, the mother, and the country of physical birth. Generally the citizenship laws are written so that at age 21 implied citizenship expires and a declaration must be made (except in cases where dual citizenship is shared with certain countries). When you add wrinkles like Obama's mother not being old enough to pass parental citizenship to him, and the question of where he was physically born due to conflicting statements on his COLB and his grandmother, well, that certainly leaves a question in my mind.
And you understand my concern about a-n-c-h-o-r babies born to illegal alien parents, neither of whom are citizens of this country. The resulting children born here are obviously subject to the jurisdiction of their parents, which is foreign to the United States. Consider that the laws of Mexico 'recognize' dual citizenship with the U.S., but the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship with Mexico. The United States does not formally recognize dual citizenship, but neither does it take any stand, politically or legally, against it. No American citizen can lose their citizenship by undertaking the responsibilities of citizenship in one or more other countries. This is true even if those responsibilities include obtaining a second or even a third citizenship, swearing allegiance to a foreign state, voting in another country's election, serving in the armed forces (even in combat positions, and even if the state is a "hostile" one), running for office, and if successful, serving.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/paper20/renshontoc.html
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Maybe Sooner Than Later
The U.S. Supreme Court has added the appeal of Berg's suit against Obama to their conference schedule. These conferences are the informal meeting where the justices sound each other out about circumstances and issues of submitted cases. If the case gets past this point, then the proverbial shot hits the fan. Hang on, folks, this could be better than Ophra!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81484
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
Well, so far, I have only been able to find cases that Berg has lost - including his suit alleging that Bush was responsible for 9/11. I don't think his track record does much to suggest that he'll come out on top in front of the Supreme Court who, regardless of their personal politics, are all serious and reasonable people. Why is it that the more vocal pundits think our soldiers can be easily brainwashed (into being babykillers or New World Order zombies) and our judges are apt to act according to their personal political leanings (whether they be "liberal activist judges" or "Pro-life Republican Majority"?) It certainly makes more a more exciting story, but it never happens that way. Am I the only realist on this board?
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I suspect that you are ...
What is the fuss? Berg filed his suit (and that got them all worked up and in a twitter), but the judge threw it out. So Berg went to the Supreme Court to have the Justices (1) overturn the judge's decision that he has no standing (so the lawsuit can continue) and (2) to put the election on hold until Berg is satisfied that Barack Obama is an American citizen.
Justice Souter denied the injunction. The Court set a date of December 1 to hear arguments regarding the lower-court judge's decision. This means that the Court will decide whether or not Mr. Berg has standing to file the suit ... it does NOT mean the Court will consider the facts of Mr. Berg's case.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote - '... What is the fuss? ...'
Good question. I believe that it has to do with the civil rights of Americans to be allowed to vote in free elections for their representatives in government. It was a big enough fuss back in the 60's to send federal troops to southern states to enforce voting rights. A free election is free from undue influence (electioneering near polling places); free from economic interests of foreign countries (we can't be bought); free to choose who are representatives will be, including choosing ourselves, or adding someone's name to the ballot; free from corruption from political parties (the chad incident in Florida, ACORN) in the counting of votes, etc., etc. And we have a basic set of rules (the Constitution) and additional laws to protect that freedom.
One of the basic rules for a Presidental candidate is to be a natural-born citizen, since there are no more remaining persons alive who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted. What do you suppose the purpose of that qualification was? Perhaps to keep us free from foreign influence? Why is that so necessary? To ensure our sovereignty? What is sovereignty? Answering to no one but God for our actions as a nation of people? And why is that important? Because just as no living thing continues to exist without diversity from adaptation, there should be a diversity in governments due to adaptation so that a single catastrophic incident will not wipe out the 'species', or in this case, the ability for us to govern ourselves in a civilized manner.
My 'fuss' is with the Federal judge's decision that I, or any other voter, do not have standing because I was not harmed by my (possible) vote for Obama not counting because he is disqualified and was presented as though he was (which is voter fraud) by the Democratic Party.
And now its time to read my prior posts to this topic to find out about the second lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court, the monument to Obama's birthplace in Kenya, and the Dec. 5th conference of all 9 Supreme Court justices to decide if either of the two lawsuits will be heard.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
The recent election was a fair and free election ... even though activists from both the RNC and the DNC tried their darndest to disqualify as many American citizens as they possibly could from exercising their right to vote (through a number of fairly well-documented strategies), the vote was so overwhelmingly in favor of Barack Obama that it can be called a "landslide" victory without too much hemming and hawing. So a very very tiny group of very very vocal super patriots question the nationality of the President elect. Many intelligent and otherwise skilled Americans have taken a look at this so-called issue and tried ... repeatedly ... to patiently explain why it is a non-issue, much as a patient and loving parent would explain to an impressionable youth why there is no tooth-fairy, Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. As we know, some people never want to grow up and face the truth. Most of them survive, though their productivity and overall usefulness to society are often called into question. So continue your rant. We have more than enough real problems in this country to address that most people will just look away, in various degrees of discomfort, and pretend they do not hear you.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Kenyan Monument to Birthplace?
Are Kenyans planning a monument to Obama's birthplace - in Kenya?! Listen to this interview starting about 12 min. and 30 seconds. Now the ambassador may have meant Obama's father's birthplace is being memorialized, but it is suspicious.
http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916
UPDATE
The Kenyan government has issued a statement about the phone interview by the shock jocks of Detroit. They state that the Ambassador WAS addressing the monument to the birthplace of Obama, Sr., and not to the apparent President-elect.
UPDATE 2
World Net Daily News called the ambassador and asked him directly if Barak Obama, II was born in Kenya. You may not be surprised at the answer.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82060
RealAmerica
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
when are some of you realizing, the issue is not berg, the issue is obama, who is hiding certain information. who has not disclosed an org birth certificate, school and medical records.
you're barking up the wrong tree....
all legal immigrants have to produce those documents, or one simply can't be an naturalizied citzen. why not obama, who is no our president elect.?
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Obama did produce a birth certificate. Apparantly you and otherswho share your bizarre views on this subject choose either not to accept that it is genuine, or simply ignore the fact that one has been produced. If the former, what competent evidence do you have, other than the rantings of delusional bloggers who are doing their best to keep this non-issue alive, to support the contention that the certificate that was produced is a fake? Obviously, whatever it is isn't very compelling, because these so-called legal "claims" of non-citizenship and illegal status are currently DOA in every arena in which the issue has been raised.
BTW, the Berg lawsuit was dismissed by the lower court because Berg was determined not to have legal standing to bring the lawsuit. If the Supreme Court does review the case, which is by no means a certainty, the review will be limited to the standing issue and will not address all these phony claims about fake birth certificates.
And how could you possibly have any personal knowledge as to what information and documents Obama has or has not produced? The truth is, you do not. You are relying on information which is not only uncorroborated, but is, as to you, second or third hand at best. Perhaps it is your practice to rely on such flimsy 'evidence', but people who think critically are not that gullible.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
Don't you realize how much fun it is to think obama bin laden might really, really not be American but an illegal alien! Being American is cool. Obama bin laden is anything but cool. This is a wonderful conspiracy theory. And hey, it just might be really true. They threw the suit out because they guy bringing it didn't have legal standing. That DOESN'T say he wasn't right.
Look, we don't want this nightmare put together by the Chicago political machine to be anywhere close to the seat of power of this country. This nonsense called "white guilt" (to which I am completely immune) put this mutt where he is. Any and all legal means to remove him must be pursued. America is too important to have this clown at the helm.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
So I guess this means you supported the last one for the past eight years? ... and that you supported John McCain in the just finished election? If so, how come neither of them (1) challenge the nationality of Barack Obama? ... (2) accuse Barack Obama of being a part of the "Chicago political machine" ... (3) use such offensive language as "mutt", "clown", or "osama" when referring to him. If you indeed support George W Bush and John McCain, and they graciously accept defeat, telling their supporters to move on and stand behind their new President ... what kind of "supporter" does that make you?
And if you don't support either of them, then just who is that you do support?
In either case, it looks like you're left standing out on a fairly lonely cliff. Look around and see how many have followed you out there. Even Britt Hume and Bill Kristol seem to think you have taken a wild dive.
And again, I cannot let the implicit racism of your comments go unchallenged. Barack Obama is a human being ... just like you. "Race" is a social construct designed to keep people apart, and those who speak the loudest about it (either using it to oppress others, or in denial about there fetish and/or fantasies about it) generally tend to be those to whom it is the most important.
Shame on you.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
obama bin laden doesn't look like me. If I'm going to support someone for president it will be someone who looks like me. My belief is that they will better support my needs. Look, if the afro-am's can vote as a block for someone that looks like them why can't I make the same choice without receiving withering criticism from PC accusers? And, sorry but I can't back down from the Chicago political machine. obama bin laden is there on the backs of such luminaries as the infamous (let's just love each other) rev wright and wild bill (blow'em all up) ayers. Otherwise known to the rational as guilt by association. obama bin laden did what he needed to climb the tree there. (do a little investigation on how Chicago politics works. You might be surprised.) And in a couple of months he gets to fulfill the famous New Yorker magazine cover page. High five! Dump those other flags in the fireplace will 'ya.
No, I'm standing with the conservative majority on this one. No good deed shall be left unpunished.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
You sound so full of yourself that I find it hard to believe you are willing to stand "with" anyone else (let alone the so-called conservative "majority" -- which it no longer is, if it ever was).
Not only does Barack Obama (not "obama bin laden" ... a remark of certain immaturity and adolescent pugnaciousness if ever I heard one) not look like you, he looks like no one else. No one looks like you. Whether you wish to accept biologic evidence or not is immaterial, but diversity within the human species means that no one looks (or acts) exactly like another human being. So that shoots down the second part of your silly assertion -- because there is no one for whom you can vote that does look like you. Do you choose to disenfranchise yourself?
Look at it another way. I assume that when you say you will vote for someone who looks like you, you do not mean for that statement to be taken literally -- that you, in point of fact, simply mean someone who is white (and I draw that conclusion because you are so frightened of black people voting, en masse, for Barack Obama because he is black). Does this mean that you would vote for anyone who was white? Or would you exercise some discretion about the white man you chose (and, though again I am making an assumption based upon your statement that women should not have the right to vote, that when you talk about voting you are talking about voting for men)? What if, as in this past election, there was only one white man from whom to choose over the black candidate? Would you vote for Joseph Stalin, because he was white? Would you vote for Adolf Hitler? George Lincoln Rockwell? Matt Koehl? David Duke? Jefferson Davis?
Ninety-five percent of all black people who exercised their right to vote chose to vote for Barack Obama, that is true. Perhaps every single one of them made that choice because of the color of his skin. I am certain quite a few did. But I am equally certain that the majority chose him because he spoke of hope, of taking control of institutions that are running amok and serving the interests of an entrenched elite ... not those who struggle on a daily basis to make ends meet, and of meeting the needs of common Americans rather than trusting that those needs will be met only from the flotsam and jetsam that trickles down from the wealthy after they have been served and waited upon by the rest of us.
Of course, you are frightened. Less than 23% of all Americans under the age of 18 are white. Four states in the union already have populations that are majority non-white, while 10% of all counties in the country are majority non-white. World wide, only 3% of all women who are of child-bearing age are white. Do these fact scare you? The American Nazi Party (whose website opening paragraph I just paraphrased) thinks so. Looks like you're in good company!
Barack Obama certainly has his political roots in Chicago. And just as he turned first the Democratic Party on is organizational head and then the national political world on its head with his own, grass-roots political organizing savvy and skill ... so, too, did he take over that part of the Chicago machine needed to advance through the system. You have it inside out ... the Machine does not control him, it's the other way around.
And, as much as you might want to point to William Ayers as some sort of bad influence on Barack Obama (the two had little contact, and the influence is marginal, at best ... about the same, I would say, as my connection and association with Bill Ayers or with Tom Hayden). Remember, Tom Hayden supported exactly the same causes and principles as Bill Ayers, he was just militant about it in a slightly different way. Both were patriots who felt that our country was in the clutches of evil men, pursuing evil purposes and using illegal methods to do what they did. The War in Vietnam was an atrocity and an abomination ... the fact that Democratic AND Republican presidents, other elected officials, and those appointed to carry out their policies lied to Americans, illegally spied on Americans, harassed Americans, jailed Americans, and ... when that wasn't enough ... murdered Americans in order to carry out their intentions (or to cover them up when they were exposed) made protest and opposition a patriotic duty. Tom Hayden, later elected by a majority of his constituents to serve in both the Assembly and the State Senate (and also, like Ayers, an adjunct professor), was a proud champion of the rights to assemble, to speak freely, to petition the government, and to hold governmental officials accountable to the people they served. Rather than curse Bill Ayers (a white man, by the way) or Tom Hayden (also a white man), and condemn those who associate with them, you should be happy and glad that Barack Obama DID associate with them.
Incidentally ... if Barack Obama ran for office against either Tom Hayden or Bill Ayers, for whom would you vote?
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
Sorry I couldn't get back to you and thank you for your reply. Obama bin laden (I use this name because it has a nice "ring" to it. It also speaks to his foreign and muslim origins. I'm glad to accept your comments of "of certain immaturity and adolescent pugnaciousness". I take that as a compliment.) has had a tough week. Seems Blago and the messiahs other Chicago friends are causing problems. Seems when you lie down with dogs one might get up with fleas...
Anyway, while designed to promote discussion more than anything else, I'm glad to stand by my comment of voting for "someone who looks like me." You know, a white man. It's OK to look at the messiah and think he's not the one. Just from what he looks like! And then, holy smoke, he opens his mouth. It's OK to not celebrate diversity. We don't all have to pretend we love everyone. I'm for not pretending. It's silly to think it's OK to fill Washington up with a goon squad from the Chicago machine. Or the weather underground machine. Or the Rev Wrights hate whitey machine.
Thanks!
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
You are more than welcome. I have no problems calling a spade a spade, if you wish to pardon me taking words from your mouth.
Unfortunately, this country is filled with too many ignorant, superficial "thinkers" such as yourself. And that is the primary reason we continue to muck about arguing over the inconsequential "matters of consequence" that the power elite prefers to keep us squabbling over. It's a great distraction, don't you know ... and the Man behind the Curtain loves nothing more than to keep the clientele distracted. While he robs us all blind.
I notice that you refused to address any of the questions that I asked, but instead chose to raise yet another set of superficial "issues". So ... if you consider Chicago politics and politicians to be corrupt to the point that they corrupt anyone and everyone with whom they come in contact, what do you think of the following associations (and anyone guilty by association with them):
In 2004 (the last year in which such a study was conducted), the National Press Club released a study in which it simply took the number of cases in which public officials were tried for corruption (racketeering, money-laundering, bribery and the like) and divided that number by the state's population in order to arrive at a uniform scale to measure public corruption. The leader?
Mississippi
Followed by North Dakota, Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, Kentucky, Florida, New York and then Illinois.
When you think of crime and corruption, Chicago does not rise to the top of places where the politicians are the actual crooks (power freaks, and machine operators, yes ... actual criminals, no). No, the criminals in politics come from New Jersey and New York, New Orleans and Miami. Heck, two of the Keating 5 were from Arizona (including one of them the actual Republican nominee for President ... and a white man, to boot)
It doesn't matter too much that Patrick Fitzgerald actually wrote that Barack Obama is in no way connected to the criminal complaint filed against the governor of Illinois, or to his criminal actions ... you guys have to invent something that doesn't exist. Remember, there are real problems out there. Go and solve them.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
I do mind you inventing quotes from "my mouth" you pinheaded stoop-nagle. You see, if I don't respond to some quote you make for me I must be agreeing with you. I must be accepting your nonsense inserted into my mouth. I don't agree with you about anything. I will not accept the tyranny of you putting your stinking words into my mouth. And I shall not insert anything into your stinking maw, 3 toed tree sloth that you are. The problem is you.
Now, I understand Pat Fitz says the messiah is in no way connected. It has been proven that the messiah has been hermetically sealed in a mayonaise jar on the front porch of Funk and Wagnall's since 10am on November 5th. The messiah was unable to pick Rahm out of a police line up presented to the messiah so that he might, if possible, identify his chief of staff. Messiah reports he doesn't like to get involved in details unless they involve cash. He also reported that he learned everything he knows about politics and management of organizations from watching The Godfather, Part 1. Also reports that he wishes B-Rod had not fallen asleep during the same movie. Would have saved them both lots of problems.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Aren't you a bit oversensitive for being such a tough guy? I made a stinking joke (not a very good one, I agree) about spades, referencing your self-admitted racism to point out the double-entendre. I didn't actually put words in your mouth, and if I did, I would have done a much better job of it than that!
The rest of your post, though clever, amounts to little more than mental masturbation. Once again, you refuse to look for the Man Behind the Curtain ... and who knows, perhaps President-elect Obama is just another foil in a different disguise for that Man. Time will tell. I have, for example, very good Chicago sources who tell me that Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education appointee, is a corporate stooge who views children as widgets that can be hammered into shape and stuffed into pre-cut one-size-fits-all molds. We'll have to see how that one plays out. We'll also have to see if Obama is a man who plays for cash, or plays with cash flowing from point A to points B, C, D, and Z -- my guess is that actually possessing it and having it on hand is a liability, but that real wealth and power comes from moving it about. We'll have to see how he moves it about ... from whom does it originate, to whom does it go, and how is it used?
Meanwhile, why do you continue to refuse to at least acknowledge the possibility that the ruling elite of this country is having a field day while it pillages the Treasury and has us -- through our "(s)elected" officials -- blaming the entire financial and manufacturing mess we're in on union workers, home-buyers, and users of credit cards?
Why don't you go back through the last couple of posts and address some of the issues I have raised -- WHY is there such high profile corruption in our so-called democratic institutions? ... WHY does the (corporate-owned) media frame and shape how we perceive the world through its constant use of phrases and slogans? ... WHY does Caylee receive more in-depth speculation than the superficial treatment our politicians receive (and note how much of what passes for "news" is nothing more than glorified rumor-mongering) ...
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
I got too wound up.
Anyway, Rahm and Obam are back in the news today with more tiny tidbits leaking out to the surface. Just another day in Chicago politics. Oh, by the way, it's Daley that's running everything in the background. But he's not going to get caught on anything or by anybody. He's not in it for something as lowly (and traceable) as $. He's in it for the real things in life...powerful gasoline, a clean windshield and a shoeshine.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Well, you won't get much argument from me about the ruthlessness of Richard Daley. Nor will you find that I think the Chicago machine is an admirable approach to governance. Nor am I particularly happy with the selection of Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education ... though he is complex enough that I am withholding final judgment until he says something in regards to his position on NCLB, testing, and the corporate model for schools (the latter seemingly an approach to schools and schooling that he favors).
On the other hand, I have worked in several organizations (some professional, some not-for-profit, and some social) that are run very much on the machine model perfected in Chicago (and tried out in several other American cities over the years) -- perhaps none so ruthlessly and certainly none on the same scale as done in Chicago. I have worked with talented individuals who used the machine to further other goals and aspirations without being touched, personally, by the machine. They were very skilled at making the right connections, saying the right things to the right people, and then doing pretty much what they wanted. I think ALL organizations ... large and small ... have such people within them. And they are all different in terms of their personal motivation ... some are ruthless, themselves; others are self-promoters; and still others are idealistic reformers who seek to improve the conditions and/or environment in which they work.
The question to ask about Barack Obama is which of these is he? He clearly worked the Chicago system. Did he work it for his own ambitious needs or desires? Or did he work it to actually improve the lives of those for whom he worked?
Everything else is pure speculation. Lacking concrete evidence of wrong-doing, all I hear is the usual tabloid slander that has besmirched the so-called "independent press" of this country since the very early days of its founding.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<Ninety-five percent of all black people who exercised their right to vote chose to vote for Barack Obama, that is true. Perhaps every single one of them made that choice because of the color of his skin. I am certain quite a few did. But I am equally certain that the majority chose him because he spoke of hope, of taking control of institutions that are running amok and serving the interests of an entrenched elite ... not those who struggle on a daily basis to make ends meet, and of meeting the needs of common Americans rather than trusting that those needs will be met only from the flotsam and jetsam that trickles down from the wealthy after they have been served and waited upon by the rest of us.>
The voters chose him for the same reason they have done in the past - the incumbent party in power gets punished when the economy tanks. The "hope" and "change" message was just window dressing for the same thing the Democrats have been advocating for years - empower the government, redistribute income, expand entitlements, etc. and arguing this is somehow "prosperity" and "opportunity". And I wonder if YOU see any difficulty with a message that advocates/promotes dependency instead of self reliance in a free nation. Pretty soon it won't be free.
You'll be struggling more and more to pay for all of the programs Obama and his party want to create and the federal budget will be "running amok" just like it is in the California legislature (where Democrats run it and have no fiscal discipline whatsoever). Americans will be perpetually "common" because Democrats will want to tax most of what you save/earn/create. And it will all be justified in the name of "fairness" and "economic justice".
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
All I can say is that you may be correct ... but the "government doesn't work" argument and the effort to deregulate/privatize everything clearly hasn't worked very well, either. We've had thirty years of both Republicans and Democrats taking apart the New Deal, eliminating the social safety net, and making it harder and harder for the average working man (and woman) to make a living wage. How do you refute the fact that 45 million Americans are without any kind of health care coverage, at all? Is it their fault, because they are too lazy to get a job or to save and invest their money in some form of "affordable" health care plan (or which there are none)? Are they all lazy shiftless beings who should just die when they contract pneumonia? How do you refute the fact that real income for working-class families has declined in the past eight years, while the salaries and benefits of the top 2-5% have increased? How do you refute the effectiveness of 42,000 paid lobbyists working to influence (by means both legal and illegal) 535 elected officials? And how do you explain the ability of centralized capital pits to use the vast wealth they have accumulated by making unsafe and unhealthy products (or emitting unsafe and unhealthy waste material into the environment while making useful and necessary products) to hush up the dangerous and poisonous nature of their production, or to influence legislators to keep the information hushed up and/or to not enact legislation that puts people before profits?
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 470
went to HARVARD, sending kids to PRIVATE SCHOOL, he's RICH, he's FAMOUS - - and raised nearly a BILLION DOLLARS for his campaign
said he would "change" things then first thing he does is hire lobbyists + friends of lobbyists!!!! he's a liar, because, he said he would NOT do this, then did it
he's a liar like all politicians and an ELITIST, fools.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
<obama bin laden doesn't look like me. If I'm going to support someone for president it will be someone who looks like me.>
I am sure you will have great difficulty finding someone who 'looks like you' to support. There just are not a lot of folks with pointed heads and forked tongues around these days.
Joined: May 2008
Current Posts: 103
You said "Look, if the afro-am's can vote as a block for someone that looks like them why can't I make the same choice without receiving withering criticism from PC accusers"?
As an African-American male, I have to tell you, Obama DID NOT get the black vote becasue he is black. Must I remind you that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are both black and we didn't vote for either of them. Or else they'd have been your president if that was the case.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 470
doesn't take a genius to figure out motive there drubin, give us a break
funny how even the disney characters all voted for him too. coincidence?
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
Obama's race didn't hurt his chances with the black vote, but the majority of informed black voters sided with Obama because of his politics and opposed McCain for his.
I'm a white guy, and if I was running for President, and I solemnly promised to address the problems of jobs, housing, education, and crime in the black community, I would have crushed Obama and won by a landslide. As you say, you don't have to be a genius to figure that one out.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Might I remind you that white men have been voting for other white men for a couple of hundred years. They have been so confident in their ability to control the electoral process that they have even allowed men and women (now there's a little twist) of different skin color to cast votes. Of late, they have even allowed them to run for office, themselves. Of course, white men have thrown all sorts of obstacles in the path of minority groups, making it more difficult for them to exercise their supposed God-given right to vote (you don't see too many people of color establishing rules of residency, requiring people to pass tests, or demanding that they show proof of being in order to cast that vote, now do you?). One is quite evident in the past election. If 98% of all voting black citizens cast their vote for Barack Obama, that means that almost every single person who cast their vote for McCain was white. Unfortunately (for some), the white population did not vote as a block. But it looks like the Republican Party has pretty much become ... The White People's Party. I think it's time that it rename itself, accordingly (though more correctly it could be called the White People's Wall Street Party).
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
When I originally asked the question "are americans being scammed by Obama"? the first part of my thread asked if he is old enough to be president as required by the Constitution of this great country?
I am amazed by some of the responses. Some of you were very sensitive to the responses of others, some seem to be in agreement with me, and some were just not very intelligent.
That said, I respect the office of The President of The United States, I do not have to respect the person holding that office( beginning with Obamas seal for The Office of the President Elect of the United States". Where exactly is that office located?). This was never a racial issue on my part as I would have voted for J.C. Watts if he had been a candidate. But rather an issue of a mans character based upon what a liberal leaning press failed to investigate or report upon.
I have come to terms with the fact that my taxes will be increased, we will be a target for attack on our soil again, and that we will have new Supreme court justices who will legislate from the bench rather than interpret and apply the Constitution. My opinions of course.
I do appreciate the thought provocation, and hope to post more as this president-elect flounders between his campaign promises, and the wishes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Barny Frank, Henry Waxman, and Chris Dodd.
Merry Christmas to all
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
"...... with Obamas seal for The Office of the President Elect of the United States". Where exactly is that office located?"
You seem to be caught up in anti-Obama minutia. Now really how important is that Seal? BTW, he is the President-Elect and many people refer to him as such.
I want a "take charge guy", taking care of the Nation's business. Dubya is a lame duck; disrespected and ineffective during a National crises. And unfortunately, we still have to wait a month and a half for someone to take charge.
Attacked? Yeah, we will be attacked again at some point - regardless of who is President.
Supreme Court? Hopefully, the court will move to the center where it should be. I reject extremes; both left and right.
Just my opinion, of course.
Happy Holidays.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Chewy wrote - '... BTW, he is the President-Elect ...'
I didn't realize the Electoral College moved up its Dec. 15th date to decide the election. Are they trying to pre-empt the Supreme Court review? That smells like Chicago politics to me. Or is this just more of the 'fuzzy politics' we should come to expect should Obama be inaugurated?
'... we still have to wait a month and a half for someone to take charge ...'
Don't worry, el Presidente Bush has already taken care of that. If the fat lady sings at the concert of the Supremes he already has U.S. troops stationed in Washington, DC for 'crowd control' (wink, wink).
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." (famous Freemason P.T. Barnum)
RealAmerica
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
"You can fool some of the people all of the time."
That's what I have been saying on this board for about a year now. Thanks Real.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
U.S. Supreme Court Clerk Risks Job
Why would a SCOTUS clerk put his job at risk by usurping the job of the justices of the Supreme Court in denying a submission against Obama (and others)? Especially if the case had so little merit, as the liberal anarchists on this forum propound?
http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/2008/11/donofrio-forwards-to-c...
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
Funny how 8 years after avoiding a proper recount in Florida, and after 8 years of shooting first and asking questions later, the far right is suddenly a stickler for the process.
Nevermind that the man bringing suit in this case (Leo Donofrio) is an ex-lawyer turned poker player from a "punk rock background" (his words) who is also alleging misconduct by Judge Jack M. Sabatino. Seems anyone who doesn't help Donofrio prove his case is somehow guilty of breaking a law. To get the "truth" out there, he went on Overnight AM, the website for which shows Barack Obama's picture in front of a swastika. Nothing says "I'm a serious person with a legitimate lawsuit" like going on crazy AM radio shows before a decision is handed down.
McCain was a hero (and also had his citizenship challenged by Donofrio) It's increasingly sad to see who you'll accept as a hero after his loss. Palin, Berg, Donofrio. My goodness, man, get a hold of yourself. It's only 4 years.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
MSNBC 'Breaks' Supreme Court Story
It looks like the critical mass of leaked knowledge has been reached and the MSM is reluctantly coming on board with the issue. I love the 'firstread' touch.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
I Know Nothing ...
I couldn't help but be reminded of Col. Klink of Hogan's Heros by the Kenyan Ambassador's response to the direct question by WND about Barak Obama II being born in Kenya -
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82060
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Tic ... Tic ... Tic ...
This site just came to my attention and may likely contain unverified information. Then again, the poster of the bolg article may have actually done a proper investigation and the results could be a truth the main stream media refuses to face. We'll know after Friday, when the SCOTUS presents the result of its conference.
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
And yet, your heroes continue to lose in this absurd battle.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6145787.html
My favorite part:
The most famous case questioning Obama's citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the case. Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for "lack of standing" — ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue. In cases like this, judges sometimes believe the matter is best left to political institutions, such as the Electoral College or Congress, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles.
The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Are you so upset by the overwhelmingly popular support for Senator Barack Obama that you have developed a nervous tic? I actually am beginning to pity the poor hateful fools that just cannot let go of the fact that they were .... wrong! The only problem is that there are an awful lot of them running around. Either that, or they just make a lot of noise.
Anyway. Tick ... Hateful Hillary will never get the nomination, and if she does, all right-minded Americans will rise up against a Clinton royal line.
Tick, Tick: Who's this Barack Obama guy ... we all hate Clintons and it doesn't matter anyway.
Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay, so Obama has an early lead. He can't keep it. He has no experience. He cannot lead. He's a JUNIOR Senator.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... Obama cannot win because he attended a black liberationist church whose outspoken leader wants to d*mn America.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... Obama cannot win because he wants to make white Americans pay for the sins of slavery ... he wants to tax all white Americans and use that money to pay reparations. And oh yeah, he's a socialist who wants to tax the rich and give it to the lazy slob welfare cheats.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... Obama cannot win because he hung out with Chicago mobsters who used their influence to buy him a cool house in exchange for some kind of favor (never mind that we can't find out what the favor was); he is a product of the Chicago machine, but still a black liberationist socialist. And oh yeah, he's a Muslim.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... So he lucked out and got the Democratic nomination. We all know Democrats are stupid socialists who love to vote for black people because it makes them feel less guilty. Meanwhile, he can't accept the nomination because he's not really a citizen.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... Well, he can't win the nomination because Joe the Plumber says he can't ... he wants to redistribute the wealth and tax the rich ... remember, he's a socialist, a black liberationist, a closet Muslim, and not an American citizen.
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... He knew William Ayers! He CAN'T be elected! Oh, and he's not a citizen (and probably a Muslim who the bad guys like).
Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick: Okay ... So he got elected. That doesn't matter, because he's not a citizen and lots of whacked out citizens have filed lawsuits all over the country to put a stop to his illegal election (never mind that some of these same individuals have also filed nuisance suits against the Bush Administration for the war in Iraq or the American Mass Media).
See a pattern? Pretty soon your clock is going to wind down and you're going to have to accept the fact that the man has been chosen by 53% of the electorate to be the next president. Maybe then, if you still want to whine about it, you will find some serious and real issues about which we can talk.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays ... seemed to be somewhat tic-infested in his last post
I would have been much more impressed by his post had he used that prodigious brain of his to explain why the Founding Fathers put the clause in about being a natural-born citizen, and why it still does, or it no longer applies. My personal belief is that the leading executive of ANY country should hold SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the people of that country, without any question of his loyalty. Their welfare should be the number one priority of that executive's every decision. Without question.
If you want to be a globalist, then be a man about it. Renounce your U.S. citizenship and take your chances in the world. But don't expect me to be one of your sheeple.
And actually, it is Obama who has recently developed a facial tic. Has he something to be nervous about he hasn't personally shared with you?
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I have not questioned, nor do I protest the requirement that to become the President of the United States, one must be a natural-born citizen. Questions about why the Founding Fathers would include such a requirement should be directed at someone else. However, it seems that some Real Americans have decided to question Barack Obama's loyalty. This, too, seems based on a specious projection ... just like the false claim that I refuted, above.
You seem to have missed the point of all that ticking in your effort to try to make light of my comments. People like you ... in fact, YOU ... have been inventing one reason after another for why Barack Obama is/was not a serious candidate, would never gain the nomination of his Party, and could not (or should not) be elected to the Presidency. My point was that each of your mounting "reasons", over time (hence, all the ticks), were bogus and/or rejected by the American electorate.
I am not too sure where the idea of "globalism" popped up, nor why renouncing my citizenship is a good solution to another invented issue. We already live in a global society, Mr. Real American ... and many of the bankers and financiers and corporate executives loosely allied in that global system ARE "American". If you are, indeed, a Patriot ... why don't you focus your concern and anger at the real culprits, instead of inventing issues and concerns that you think we should all be worrying our little ape-descended brains about. Why don't you start thinking about why money buys power, and "voting" doesn't seem to matter in what legislation actually gets enacted ... why don't you start thinking about the gradual erosion of your freedoms and rights, rather than how some undeserving people are trying to exercise theirs ... why don't you worry about a trillion dollar debt being carried on your back and the back of every other American citizen while a handful of those international bankers and financiers literally are using your money to light their (probably Cuban) cigars ... and why can't you face the fact that the "Commander Guy" (you know, the "Uniter", the "Decider") has left our nation broke, broken, bitterly divided and hovering on the brink of collapse?
Finally, Barack Obama does not share anything with me personally. I have not noticed a facial tic, and even if I did, it would not concern me. But then, some people seem to be easily distracted by the simplest of things.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Will the Fat Lady Sing?
shays wrote ' ... People like you ... in fact, YOU ... have been inventing one reason after another for why Barack Obama is/was not a serious candidate, ... '
The reality is that my early choice was Dr. Ron Paul - you remember, the guy who wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve? The 1 of 2 members of Congress who voted against going into Iraq on the first go-around. The one candidate who wanted to abolish the IRS and personal taxes. The one who questioned NAFTA in order to return jobs to Americans? The one who wanted to gut the Dept of Education. The one who had a pulse on a dying economy at the beginning of the year. As a result, I really had no quarrel with any of the Democrats in the primaries.
As far as I recall, I only have one issue with Obama - he is a mystery man because I paid no attention to him in the primaries, and found little about his accomplishments, other than winning political races, after the election. My one reference to his associates was with his setting up the ACORN organization which ended up being caught registering dead and otherwise non-existant people to vote. This led me to the trail of HIS qualification to be a candidate, which has been my major focus since.
So I'm thinking you have me confused with some other poster in this forum - an obvious symptom of battle fatigue.
RealAmerica
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
"So I'm thinking you have me confused with some other poster in this forum" Not a chance Real. We all know who you are.
Actually, there is only maybe 6-8 of us on this board who talk politics on a regular basis. I'm thankful your not as crazy as Clayton, or as silly as some others on this forum so keep the comments coming ..... you keep us lefties busy and we love it.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Perhaps I do have you confused with some of the other regular posters of Barack Obama mythology to these boards. If so, I apologize. And if you were a Ron Paul supporter, then more power to you. However, you still have a few things wrong, so let me steer you correctly on the things you have listed.
There were 133 members of the House who voted against the Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq, not one or two. There were six Republican members of the House who joined Ron Paul in voting "no" (closer to the one or two, but still incorrect). In addition, there were 23 Senators who voted against that authorization (21 were Dems, and Lincoln Chaffee seems to have paid a price for standing up against the bullies of his party).
The fact that Barack Obama is a "mystery man" to you because you didn't pay attention to him is no fault of his. He did NOT "set up" the ACORN organization. It seems that whatever information you have about Obama's connection to ARORN does not come from a source that Ron Paul would use with confidence, but from those right-wing hucksters who love to spread partial truths and shape them to provide guilt by association. Yes ... ACORN promotes and hires people to register voters, all across the country. And yes, some of the people whom ACORN hires/hired pulled fast ones to receive payment. In almost every instance, ACORN itself caught the deception and reported the facts when it turned in voter registration cards. Some slipped through the cracks. However, you would be better served ... as an American citizen who seems to honor the right to vote and the idea of even a limited democracy ... to look after questions of voter suppression before worrying too much about the neglible influence of voter fraud (except in local elections).
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<Why don't you start thinking about why money buys power, and "voting" doesn't seem to matter in what legislation actually gets enacted ... why don't you start thinking about the gradual erosion of your freedoms and rights, rather than how some undeserving people are trying to exercise theirs ... why don't you worry about a trillion dollar debt being carried on your back and the back of every other American citizen while a handful of those international bankers and financiers literally are using your money to light their (probably Cuban) cigars ... and why can't you face the fact that the "Commander Guy" (you know, the "Uniter", the "Decider") has left our nation broke, broken, bitterly divided and hovering on the brink of collapse?>
Obama's fundraising certainly did buy power and his spending plans, if enacted, will cost trillions for future taxpayers. And I guess the Democratic Party's platform of big government activism is not an erosion of freedoms and rights? It's "fairness" and "social justice" as determined by their pressure groups.
This nation is not going to be "united" with the left wing championing causes of income redistribution, government dependency and racial preference programs. Under Obama it's easier to demand your "cut" rather than work/save/create it. And there's a problem brewing when a majority of people wake up one day and say "let someone else do it or pay for it". There won't be enough people earning/doing to cover the cost of what everyone else wants funded.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I think you misunderstand and/or misstate the direction this country is heading. Republicans (sometimes conservative, sometimes not) have pretty much held sway and been able to enact a government down-sizing, anti-union domestic and economic program for the last thirty-odd years. Assuming they have not driven us off the cliff once again (as they did at the end of the 1920s after about 40-years of the same type of control) and we are able to respond as a nation to the financial and manufacturing crisis we find ourselves in, Americans have pretty clearly expressed a desire to go in a different direction.
The fundamental questions for the majority of Americans in this country focus around some real core issues ... how do I provide a home for my family, how do I put healthy food on the table, and how do I pay for the unmanageable health care costs that we all know are just waiting to reach up and grab us by the ankle when we least suspect them? There are other, almost as important questions that need to be addressed, as well ... but for the average working person, those three are pretty darn important. I know, for a fact, that I am not going to have any of my wealth, such as it is, "taken" by the government to help someone less fortunate than I. I suspect that there are millions of Americans, like myself, who are in the same boat. We don't have anything to "take". Well, I suppose they could take my house ... but I suspect that is going to be some evil and greedy financial wizard working in the private sector who will do that to me, and that I expect my government to protect me from that type of vulture.
I know that my father, who worked for forty years in a union job, was able to support our family on a single pay-check. Our health -- never guaranteed, of course -- was protected by a health care plan his union negotiated. He got two weeks of paid vacation so we could spend quality time together. His employer matched his contributions to feed a retirement pension plan, that he supplemented with Social Security. He even had a health care plan that carries on into retirement ... he does not even need the help of Medicare, but others of his age do. My dad bought our house with the GI Bill, and received the training he needed to secure his union job through the GI Bill. He belonged to what we now call "The Greatest Generation" ... not only because of the sacrifice they made to save capitalism from state corporatism, but also because they were a part of and helped build the biggest and greatest middle-class the world has ever known.
For some unknown reason (experience, maybe?), they thought that government worked. Oh, they were skeptical ... my dad still can only laugh at the looniness of our elected officials ... but government, in my dad's eyes, is the servant of the people. He suspects that many of us got so busy being "successful" that we forgot to keep our eyes on those who would use government to advance their own causes. Or the ends and causes of their friends. Cynicism, laced with the incipient racism of Reaganism, separated us into mistrusting groups that those in power were easily able to manipulate. Fear has replaced hope and promise as the mantra of government control. And rightfully so, because since the 1980s, many of the people serving in government do so with the firm conviction that government is evil. Kind of hard to be a servant of the people when you think the work you do is the work of the devil.
Barack Obama is a transitional character. He still is connected to the politics of power ... he has clearly demonstrated his deft ability to wiggle through and outmaneuver those who practice power politics. So, yes ... I fear that his governing style will remain at heart a top-down management style. His selection of a Secretary of Education confirms this fear. On the other hand, 90% of the vast sums of money you rightfully point out that he raised came from people making contributions of under $50. He is deft and very skilled at organizing people to do things for themselves. That is the promise that he brings.
The harsh realities of the economic crisis he is inheriting will make many of your fears about his spending policies moot. We'll just have to wait and see. I know that Republicans ... on this list and elsewhere ... kept telling me to wait and see what George W would accomplish. I tried, though proved incapable of keeping my mouth shut and complained like a stuck pig ... mainly because the policies and programs that the current president enacted were so patently wrong-headed and disastrous that to do otherwise was the equivalent -- in my mind -- of being a "good German". But I gave him a chance, and I actually supported his initial response to 9/11. It only became worse from then on, especially when we began to find out the types of things he was doing to start a war in Iraq. Perhaps Barack Obama is of the same material. Perhaps within one or two years, I will join you in criticizing his efforts. But just as Mr. Bush did not have to sacrifice the mainstream of the American people to enrich his friends on Wall Street, maybe Mr. Obama will not sell capital down the drain to support the weak and poor.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<Cynicism, laced with the incipient racism of Reaganism, separated us into mistrusting groups that those in power were easily able to manipulate. Fear has replaced hope and promise as the mantra of government control. And rightfully so, because since the 1980s, many of the people serving in government do so with the firm conviction that government is evil. Kind of hard to be a servant of the people when you think the work you do is the work of the devil.>
I'll try and remember this the next time the Democrats drag out their class warfare or race based campaign slogans ('Republicans are racists", "Republicans are against working families", 'Republicans are going to steal your Social Security checks", etc.) to secure votes.
The Founding Fathers wanted limited government and were aware of the dangers of government having too much power/control over the citizens. You can certainly serve the citizens while maintaining that belief system. And some of us do think government should not be providing everything to everyone (and at taxpayers expense) in response to pressure groups demanding "economic justice" or "fairness". It creates incentives to do little or no work, encourages dependence, punishes risk taking/investment and cultivates a "you owe me" mentality. Those conditions are ripe for excessive government control/erosion of freedom.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I'll try and remember this the next time the Democrats drag out their class warfare or race based campaign slogans ('Republicans are racists", "Republicans are against working families", 'Republicans are going to steal your Social Security checks", etc.) to secure votes.
Class warfare was officially declared by Republicans in the United States Senate when they did everything within their power to break the UAW and turn the entire auto industry into a third-world non-union work force, such as that practiced by the foreign-owned companies they champion in their own states. Class warfare was declared the moment taxes were decreased (especially for the wealthy) under the mythical pretension that less taxes meant more investment, which in turn provided more better paying jobs and a general trickle-down of wealth to those less fortunate than those getting the tax breaks -- the single largest transfer of wealth from the lower- and middle-classes to the wealthy in the history of at least this country and possibly the world.
Being a racist is not exclusively a Republican characteristic -- there's plenty of racism within the Democratic Party, not to mention amongst all those skinheads and Aryans and even a few independent voters, as well. Nor are all Republicans racist. However, Ronald Reagan clearly appealed to the racist opinions of George Wallace Democrats as the key component of his "southern strategy", and it was his success at breaking that part of the old Democratic coalition that gave him the ability to begin the ruin of this country. Granted ... unchecked gratuities and compensations and welfare were certainly not the stuff from which a strong nation is made; but neither is shipping all industrial capabilities and an awful lot of agricultural production overseas.
The Founding Fathers wanted limited government and were aware of the dangers of government having too much power/control over the citizens.
This, too, is a myth. The "limited government" that our Founding Fathers created was the Articles of Confederation. That system of government did not work very well for the landed aristocracy, the financial institutions, and the rising mercantile class. Those powerful interest groups needed a strong central government, capable of putting down peasant rebellions and guaranteeing that rampant democracy did not take hold. That group of Founding Fathers we refer to as the Federalists ... and the government they envisioned was quite a bit stronger than the one they actually got (even they had to make compromises), leading to the system of checks and balances that every powerful politician or political force has tried to modify or eliminate since its creation.
You can certainly serve the citizens while maintaining that belief system.
Fundamentally, you are correct. One does not need to be an overwhelming force in order to get stuff done. But it is equally and just as fundamentally true that a person who does not believe that government is good has a hard time doing good in the job. If I receive an appointment, for example, to protect American consumers from pollutants dumped into their drinking water but do not think the government has the right to tell a private person what to do with their waste AND come from a background as an executive in a pollutant generating industry, the chances of me actually aggressively complying with the charge to my position are quite small.
And some of us do think government should not be providing everything to everyone (and at taxpayers expense) in response to pressure groups demanding "economic justice" or "fairness".
Actually, I think most of us would agree that government should not provide everything to everyone. But we are most obviously the wealthiest and most productive nation this planet has ever seen, and there is no reason why anyone living in this country should do without basic necessities -- even if they do nothing more than sit and drool in front of an electronic game.
It creates incentives to do little or no work, encourages dependence, punishes risk taking/investment and cultivates a "you owe me" mentality. Those conditions are ripe for excessive government control/erosion of freedom.
This, too, is true. Which is why the mindset and the way we look at the world must change. People can be "given" basic necessities in exchange for service. They can be provided choices in the types of service they provide, they can be provided with training (as necessary) in order to provide a better service, and they can be provided with both flexibility in assignments (types, place, hours, etc.) and freedom of choice within the service(s) they provide. The last thing we need is for the government to start running a large indentured-servant program. The old notion that you line up in a que for your handout must be replaced with the means to make people receiving assistance gainful contributors to society, as a whole. Given those choices, people who refuse to serve also refuse the assistance.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Turn Out the Lights, The Party's Over
Well the Supremes declined to further review the Donofrio case challenging Obama's status as a 'natural born citizen' per the Constitution requirement. Obama declares himself a 'native born citizen' and a 'citizen of the world'.
It's an interesting call, in light of the Eldridge Cleaver precedent where the Secty of State of California was allowed to strike Cleaver's name off the ballot because he was too young. Bottom line - you and I have to show a birth certificate and Social Security card to apply for a job, but a politician only has to sign a paper that says ... 'trust me' ...
I wonder how the California Supreme Court will handle Alan Keyes' case with this inaction on the part of SCOTUS?
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 85
Indeed, it seems that your small army of kooky conspiracy lawyers has gone 0-for-2.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Obama did produce a birth certificate, as well as a reprint of his birth announcement that appeared in a Honolulu newspaper around the time of his birth. Additionally, the state of Hawaii backed him up. For most people, this would be sufficient to refute any doubts. Its only you rabid conspiracy theorists who can't accept fact and reality. I can't wait to find out your next ridiculous claim about Obama. Hopefully it will be something with more substance than the rubbish you have been posting to these message boards about his lack of citiizenship. Maybe now you will realize that its time to get a grip and a life, Mr. Not-so-real America.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
ScreamBlame wrote - 'Obama did produce a birth certificate, ...'
Calling the certification of live birth that Obama provided a birth certificate is like calling a learner's permit a driver's license. The announcement alluded to was generated by the department of records upon receipt of all certificates and certifications filed on any given day. Did you notice how they all conveyed exactly the same language? The state of Hawaii stated that they had his original birth certificate. What they didn't state is that they have ALL of the foreign birth certificates of children born overseas whose parents filed for a certification of live birth. What they didn't state is that all of those foreign births show Honolulu as the place of birth. What they didn't state is information from that original birth certificate, like the doctor's name, and address of birth, as they are prevented by law from doing so. Now if you have facts to share, like the street address of where he was born, or the doctor's name, I know where there is a substantial bounty for that information. And good luck with the name of the hospital. The hospitals mentioned in his book and by his 1/2 sister were both recently called (as well as many others) and no record was found of Obama or his mother (except for a cancer center who stated 'no comment'). Now these are issues that someone such as yourself who is at a high school level of education might be able to comprehend. What I can't understand is why sheeple like you find it plausible to be born in 2 hospitals (3, if you count the grandmother's presence at his birth in Mombasa). But hey! For a self-advertised 'world citizen' and 'native born' person as Obama, I admire the way he has pulled the wool over the eyes of the sheeple who have no idea of what defines a 'natural born' citizen as required in the Constitution.
In the case of Donofrio, the actual certificate wasn't germane because his father is admitted to be a British citizen at Obama's birth. But obviously if you can't distinguish between a certificate and a certification, the subtle points of Constitutional law and citizenship are waaaayyyyyy beyond your mental abilities. But the bottom line is that the justices of the U. S. Supreme Court think sheeple like yourself are too stupid and unworthy to have your vote count when electing a president.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Unreal America continues to wallow in delusional drivel because he thinks he has to justify or rationalize all of the horse pucky he has been posting here. Just how would he have any personal knowledge whatsoever as to what a genuine birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii looks like? He pretends to be some sort of expert on the laws and regulations pertaining to the issuance of such certificates by that state. How is it that he actually knows these things? Or is it that he is merely parrotting the nonsense that has been written on the various right wing nut websites that have been striving to portray this as a serious issue with a factual basis?
Just how is it that he knows that the state of Hawaii collects and stores birth certificates of children of foreign birth? Or that it issues its own certifications of live birth for the benefit of such children? Has he, in fact, ever seen or personally inspected such a birth certificate or certification? My own experience is that states do nothing of the kind, and even if they did, they would have no reason to issue certificates that identify ONE CITY IN A STATE OF SEVERAL CITIES as the place of birth if the birth did not, in fact, occur there. Such a certification, patently false as it would be, would be quite useless, wouldn't it?
What evidence does he have to the contrary, other than what he has written here? Or is he simply accepting, at face value, what some neocon blogger has conjured up about Obama's birth certificate? It does not take much in the way of critical thinking to see all of the holes and flaws in the conspiracy rubbish he keeps writing on this issue. If he honestly expects people to take it seriously , much less believe it, he should substantiate his claims with specifics and facts, rather than simply being a mouthpiece for extremist nut cases who obviously have a very low opinion of the intelligence and analytical abilities of those who read what they like to spew.
P.S., if Unreal America really has such a low opinion of the justices of the Supreme Court, he really ought to leave the country before they send the boogeymen to come in the middle of the night to take him away and lock him in the secret prison underneath the US. Caplitol building in order to silence him.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I am not sure that the Justices of the Supreme Court will sign such documents ... after the fact, they might agree to hear a case brought before them by some citizen incarcerated under Executive Order and locked up in perpetuity without trial or having charges brought to light, a power the current president has acquired and which passes to the next president unless the Supreme Court does something about it, first. Of course, the hope that an American citizen thusly hauled off to a secret prison will have his day in Court is sort of dependent on the idea that someone still exists free and on the loose with the power of attorney to bring such a case to light. It seems that the ACLU ... the usual suspect to try to bring attention to such cases ... will most likely be locked up, too. And you know (as I hear the sound of clicking German boots in my mind) ... there are a lot of folks who post to this board who would just LOVE to see the members of the ACLU locked up and in prison.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
ScreamBlame wrote - ... more grade school drivel ... Just how is it that he knows that the state of Hawaii collects and stores birth certificates of children of foreign birth? ...
It's easy. [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM
Why don't you take a long swim to the public library in Honolulu and see for yourself. Maybe you will be grown up by the time you get back.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
The Justices of the Supreme Court refused to hear Donofrio's claim. They gave no reason. They didn't have to. Any human being born on US soil is a citizen of the US, regardless of the nationality of his parents. The end. Case closed. Now all you have left to cling to is the claim by the wingnut Phillip "I Haven't Met a Bush Who I Don't Think Was Involved in a World Wide Conspiracy to Destroy the World Trade Center" Berg, and I am sure his case will be dispensed with in the same way that Donofrio's was. But we have been telling you that for quite a long time now. Aren't you tired of hearing how wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong you are?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Wheels of Justice Grind Slowly On
I was surprised to see a reference to the natural born citizen issue in one of my car forums yesterday. After finding out that the Berg motion for an injunction was rejected, but his case was ongoing because it is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason, I was surprised again to find that the case of Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz (Connecticut SOS) was slated for conference before the SCOTUS for Friday. In this variation of the issue the question of due diligence in relying on a document that serves a dual purpose and by itself is not definitive of the nation of birth of a person is raised.
I also learned why the SCOTUS is reluctant to pre-emt the function of the Electoral College. He is not president-elect until the Electoral College has selected him.
Twentieth Amendment
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;...
So by waiting until after the Electoral College has made its determination the SCOTUS can set the course of procedures to be followed according to the Constitution.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.ht...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
So, I assume by the content of the above, that you (like many reactionary conservative voices) have given up on the will of people (unless they approve Unconstitutional provisions with which you do agree, drafted as they are through the imprecise and special-interest dominated initiative process) and instead seek to have the US Supreme Court once again impose its will in a veritable coup d'etat in the presidential selection process? Two out of three elections would sort of set a pattern, wouldn't it?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Shays wrote '... unless they approve Unconstitutional provisions ...' DUH! The citations from the article were from the Constitution, and did not go through an initiative process as you seem to think. I'm not one of those goofy loopy liberals who follow the law only when it is convenient for them and can't be bothered to think when it gets in the way of following their feelings. Fortunately our Founding Fathers considered your ilk when they framed the Constitution in a manner that considered the tyranny of democracy in guarateeing our individual freedoms and rights.
Now I admit that the timeline of Barak's conception, his parents 'marriage' on or near his mother's 18th birthday in February (as yet unconfirmed, and his father was still married to his first Kenyan wife anyway), followed by his birth 6 months later, and their probable lack of money for a round trip to Kenya makes it unlikely he was born there. Title 8 of the U.S.C. now has a clause about citizenship of illegitimate children of unwed mothers who are born out of the country, but I don't know if that clause was in effect at the time of Obama's birth. So why his hostile resistance to showing his actual birth certificate?
I did come across the unconfirmed possibility that his adoption by Lolo Soetoro (an Indonesian oil magnate) might be reflected on a revised birth certificate. Being an instructor in Constitution Law, Obama would certainly know his citizenship status might be questioned because he was now an Indonesian citizen, and by declaring his American citizenship to clear it up he would become a 'naturalized' citizen instead of a 'natural born' citizen. But that would explain his ability to travel to countries unfriendly to America if he was using an Indonesian passport.
To me the ruling on the Donofrio filing makes sense because although he was born with British citizenship by way of his father, that rolled over to Kenyan citizenship at that colony's independence from Britain, then lapsed from his not affirming his Kenyan citizenship by declaration. And so the default practice of U.S. citizenship prevailed. But the Berg and Wrotnosky filings go for the jugular of what a 'natural born citizen' is, whether his place of birth on his actual birth certificate aligns with that definition, and his mother's ability to pass American citizenship to her legitimate or illegitimate child. Remember the original 14th Amendment contains the clause '... not subject to a foreign jurisdiction ...' in defining a citizen by birth. Maybe the SCOTUS felt that he was 'no longer' subject to a foreign jurisdiction when his Kenyan citizenship expired.
And it is only by practice, not by law, that the United States tolerates dual citizenship. Is it righteous that a country can 'steal' a child born of foreign parents who intend to live in their homeland and raise their child there? Of course not. The parents are 'subject to a foreign jurisdiction' and that is where their, and their child's, loyalties will lie. And that is the point of the 'natural born citizen' qualification of our Presidency.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Your opening paragraph completely missed the point of my comment ...
Shays wrote '... unless they approve Unconstitutional provisions ...' DUH! The citations from the article were from the Constitution, and did not go through an initiative process as you seem to think. I'm not one of those goofy loopy liberals who follow the law only when it is convenient for them and can't be bothered to think when it gets in the way of following their feelings. Fortunately our Founding Fathers considered your ilk when they framed the Constitution in a manner that considered the tyranny of democracy in guarateeing our individual freedoms and rights.
I was not speaking about the Constitution, nor the citations you quoted from the Constitution when making the comment I made. I was speaking about the "will of the People", not the Constitution. The people have spoken, very clearly, about whom they wish to be their next President. There are always whiners who threaten to take their ball and go home when they don't get what they want ... or who mistake petty grievances for true wrongs. For example, where were you when the Supreme Court ruled that a state did not have the Constitutional power to determine how its votes were to be counted and a REAL travesty ... a usurpation of power ... took place? But Republicans always whine some more when reminded of that egregious wrong (if they are not telling us, in the next breath, to shut up get over it and and move on.)
Additionally, I was referring to the Initiative Process ... something not foreseen by the Founders and added to our so-called democratic processes (by Republicans, for the most part, I must ironically add ... back in the days when they still spoke for the common man and had not yet sold their souls to Big Business, soon to become Corporate business) ... which in turn has been corrupted by special interest groups and Big Money to foist unvetted and Unconstitutional provisions into state constitutions.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Obama ‘proud’ to have homosexual band march in inaugural parade (CNS)
Washington DC, Dec 10, 2008 / 04:48 pm (CNA).- President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden have officially invited the Lesbian and Gay Band Association to march in the Inaugural Parade. One of the association’s web sites reports that the group will also march in September as part of the homosexual “Southern Decadence” festival infamous for its public lewd acts.
The Lesbian and Gay Band Association (LGBA) is a network of lesbian and gay bands comprised of concert and marching bands from various American cities. According to a December 10 press release from the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the group’s appearance in the Inaugural Parade on January 20 will mark the first time an “openly LGBT group” has been invited to participate.
"I am honored to invite these talented groups and individuals to participate in the Inaugural Parade," said President-elect Obama. "These organizations embody the best of our nation's history, diversity and commitment to service. Vice President-elect Biden and I are proud to have them join us in the parade."
The main web site of the Lesbian and Gay Band Association hosts a YouTube video reportedly showing 250 of its members marching in the 35th Annual Village Halloween Parade in Greenwich Village in New York City.
The YouTube video, titled “Male Witch Marching Band – Halloween NYC 08,” shows a glamorously dressed man followed by two people wearing fairy costumes. They lead a band of people dressed as witches who play the song “Gimme Some Lovin’.” The marchers were attendees at the LGBA’s 2008 conference, titled “Deliciously Wicked.”
“The weekend more than lived up to its name,” the web site states, noting the conference’s receptions, parades, performances, and costume ball. As of Wednesday morning, the web site for the LGBA’s 2009 conference in New Orleans, lgba2009.org, describes conference plans, saying “We will also be marching in the Southern Decadence Parade on Sunday, September 6th.”
The web site reports that the LGBA conference will be held as part of Southern Decadence and Decafest. The site links to the Southern Decadence festival, which has often been targeted for protest because of its extreme indecency. In 2003, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that it had “become routine” for men to flash their genitals and perform public sex acts at the event, which bills itself as “the Gay Mardis Gras.”
“The city's wildest neighborhood gets even crazier as the French Quarter is packed for the entire event,” the Southern Decadence festival’s current web site says. In its Frequently Asked Questions section, the web site tells those with “an interest in the adult film business” that a pornographic filmmaker will be in attendance.
In a statement on its web site, the LGBA said its participation in the Presidential Inaugural will be “truly our chance to make history.”
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Is there an Obama-Blagojevich connection?
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/11/2008
A former Republican presidential candidate says the political corruption scandal involving Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich could result in top advisors to Barack Obama being called to testify before a grand jury very early in his administration.
President-elect Obama has called on Governor Rod Blagojevich to resign for allegedly trying to trade favors for Obama's vacant Illinois senate seat. Although Obama says he had no contact with the governor or his office on the matter, in an interview last month on Fox News Chicago, top Obama advisor David Axelrod said otherwise.
"I know he [Obama] has talked to the governor -- and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them," said Axelrod.
Yesterday, Axelrod issued a retraction, saying "I was mistaken....They did not then or at any time discuss the subject."
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, says as more details of the Blagojevich case unfold, Obama could be facing a public-relations nightmare because of his strong connection to Democratic Party politics in Chicago.
"Certainly this is an astonishing indictment," Bauer offers. "On its face it shows a tremendous degree of illegality and of corruption. We just have to wait and see whether that corruption extended or in any way touched the incoming president."
According to Bauer, "it requires the willing suspension of disbelief to suggest that Mr. Obama, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and Governor Blagojevich have not talked since the election."
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
OF COURSE the messiah is up to his eyebrows in all of this. Voters have simply replaced the Bush machine with the totally corrupt and self-serving Chicago democratic machine as run by hizzonor-da-mayor Daley. The messiah would still be shooting staples into phone poles doing his community organizing if he hadn't thrown in his lot with Blago-Daley-Rahm and the rest of those scumbags. The messiah is hunkering down and figuring out who he has to throw under the bus to extract himself from this fiasco.
B-rod has done us all a great service by being DUMB enuf to actually give the FBI and Pat Fitz some nice recordings on how business really gets done in democrat politics. And there are those of you out there so naive as to believe the messiah has been "above" all of this?!!!!? Blago is showing us what's in the messiahs wallet and we are "shocked". Shocked I tell you.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Shocked only by the deep level of superficial intelligence people are willing to put on public display by posting such garbage to a public message board.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
I have a little holiday quiz for you. For somebody like you with a brain the size of a planet this should be easy. Who's name rhymes with the actions taken by a scared skunk? Think hard now. Oh, I can just see the "I'm so superior" sneer appearing on your little rodent face...Merry Christmas!
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Harharharharharhar ... that's a good one! I'll just say so long, and thanks for all the fish.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
I would stay away from all of that Kool-Aid you have been consuming if I were you.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
2 Down; 1 2 Go
The docket for the Wrotnosky action against the Connecticut SOS shows the SCOTUS denied to hear it today.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
What do you expect? The Justices are circulating these petitions amongst themselves for the good laugh they provide! I am guessing the Berg case has been saved for last because he is the biggest nut-job of all the petitioners.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
Lets put aside all of the other issues brought about by the original question. The real questions posed were 1) is B. Hussein Obama old enough to be the president of the United States?, and 2) Is B.Hussein a citizen of the United States?
Because B.O. has refused to show his birth certificate, we just don't know how old he really is. And before you all rehash the arguement that he has, he has NOT!!! He has released a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH. You cannot with a cert. of live birth, get a passport, much less sign your child up for little league baseball. A certificate of live birth IS NOT a birth certificate!!
Try going to the county records clerk and ask for a copy of a certficate of live birth...they can't do it... So again, how old is B.O.???
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
to be a total doo-che baggie! That's how old.
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
QC, you are beginning to reveal your IQ - or your age. One of the two. Sounds like you're thirteen to me. You don't really have anything to offer free-thinking, intelligent adults on this board.
Why do idiots like you even bother with the forum? You are wasting your time, and everyone else's .... except for a few other doo baggies like yourself.
I find your actions similar to a teenage graffiti tagger - who sneaks around in the dark -sprays, and get his rocks off .... then runs like hell. If you had to sign off on your work, we would never hear from you - would we?
A man-child, exulting in the freedom and anonymity of the forum ...... and who just doesn't know how to act.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
I didn't think this forum was really serious. It's so full of no on 8 and love of left-wing nonsense I didn't for a moment think anyone was taking this all seriously. By the way, free thinking doesn't include cramming everyone into the same politically correct secular progressive agenda save the whales class envy rainbow coalition diversity'luvin box. That version of free thinking is the worst kind of tyranny. Hey, I would love to jaw-bone all day but I gotta catch the bus to reform school.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Grow up and find something real to complain about ...
The US Supreme Court has now thrown out all but one complaint regarding the president-elect's birth ... and because that one has been presented by one of the biggest conspiracy whackos on the planet, I am sure they keep it alive solely for its entertainment value. Please check out the August 13th, 1961, birth announcement for Barack H Obama in the Honolulu Advertiser. Granted, anyone could call up and pay to have an announcement posted in the classified of a newspaper ... so it proves nothing ... unless you stop to think how unlikely it is that his grandparents would be conspiring 47 years ago to disguise the birth place of their grandson so that he could successfully run for the Presidency. If you think the Manchurian Candidacy of Barack Obama goes back that far, then I have a bridge to nowhere you might be interested in buying, too!
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 470
you know they didn't have computers back then, right?
IT PROVES NOTHING, PROBABLY FAKE.......
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I worked in libraries. We had microfilm in 1964. The document is a photocopy of a microfilm record. But let me guess ... you probably also suspect the Apollo Moon Landings were filmed in Arizona?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote '... The US Supreme Court has now thrown out all but one complaint regarding the president-elect's birth ...'
There is a germ of truth in what he said. It's kinda like thinking ... 'I don't see any trucks in my rear view mirror' just before you enter the intersection where it broadsides you. In one case the Supremes refused to act on the request for a stay. But kept the rest of the case active. But ya gotta wonder why the SCOTUS would ignore the placement on the NJ ballot of an alien born in another country from alien parents. The reason is, of course, that it hasn't. There is yet one more step in the election process before the inauguration that the SCOTUS may be waiting to play out before it acts. Maybe shays can enlighten us with what that step is. But I doubt it.
As for his 'argument' about the birth announcement, it only holds water if Obama's parents actually submitted it. But since it is worded like every other announcement on the page (assuming he even looked at the page full of announcements) it is obviously done as an automatic function, probably as a result of registering COLBs (including those of children born overseas) for any given week. The one accurate statement he makes in his post is ... 'I have a bridge to nowhere ...'.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Its time for FauxAmerica to find a new conspiracy theory to latch onto and rant about. This one has been thoroughly beaten into the ground by the right wingnuts who Faux has been taking at face value and parroting (talk about a 'sheeple"!) without question or critical analysis. Perhaps next time, you will find one that is not riddled with internal inconsistencies or defies logic, as does the 'Obama the alien' myth. Perhaps next time, you will actually take the time to investigate the claims and engage in critical analysis of their credibility and plausibility. Better yet, why not try engaging in some constructive dialogue for a change? You might find it a refreshing departure from the usual doo-doo that attempts to pass for political discourse on these message boards.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
And I am not going to comment anymore on this wasted time wishful thinking effort of those who would fight to the very last man. Turn out the lights, the party is over. There are important problems to discuss.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
The Mierdo Hits the Fan?
(Sorry for the bad spelling - I'm trying a self-adjustment to third-world language skills just in case ...) Despite the bleating of the Obamabot sheeple, both the Judicial and Legislative branches can still have a go at insuring Obama is qualified as a 'natural born citizen' to serve as President.
In terms of the judiciary, the Supreme Court has scheduled the Berg case for conference on January 9th. Just as in the Wrotnowski case, the SCOTUS has only declined to rule on emergency action requests.
http://www.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index&catid=13 (check out the revised Hawaii statute regarding who can view a birth certificate which was just changed this month)
The question shays couldn't answer about the last challenge to a president-elect is ... Congress. A Congressperson and a Senator must both raise the same objection, which sends Congress into extra innings. Congressman Dr. Ron Paul and Senator Inhofe come to mind right away.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd420.htm
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
It wasn't that I couldn't answer your stupid question, it is that I refused to. Big difference. Why do I refuse? Because the only case still standing has been filed by a crank (and will be dismissed on January 9 as have the other "cases"), and because the only support you can bring to bear comes from Devvy, the "Red Head Dynamite".
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
New Salute 2 the Flag
This picture was taken at a fundraiser during the National Anthem. Note the other presidential candidates displaying the proper respect and salute. Note the ‘world citizen’ salute by Obama. Is his the official New World Order salute we will all be giving our flag if he is inaugurated?
Thanks, shays, for being true to your word that you would not post to this topic again. I guess we can expect the same fidelity from Obama as we get from his bots.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Hey FauxAmerica, its pretty obvious that your pic has been altered. Is this the best you can do?
Joined: Jan 2008
Current Posts: 1304
Info from Snopes.com on photo.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp
ps. I'm not really on either side of the "Obama" issue. He was elected, so as with any elected official his actions will will be the gage.
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 470
and Muslim's hate America. everyone knows that...except for the morons that voted for this "celebrity" they LOVE even though he's never done anything
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Pimp Promise Keeper: Obamacon Pays Back Pervert / Hatemonger Lobby - With other people's kids:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Obama keeping promises made to homosexual groups
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/1/2008
President-elect Barack Obama is moving swiftly to appoint homosexual activists to positions within his administration.
Politico.com reports that 10 national homosexual organizations are working with the Obama transition team to get more openly homosexual people appointed to the incoming administration. Obama's transition team has also reportedly named at least seven openly homosexual people to transition panels assigned to review federal departments and agencies. Three of the seven homosexuals on transition panels have held high-level positions in the Clinton administration.
Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, says Obama is keeping his promises to the homosexual lobby.
"Obama, throughout the campaign, signaled...very quietly, but nonetheless signaled on his web page and elsewhere that he essentially had signed off on every major demand of homosexual pressure groups," he said. "So it's not surprising that he has now allowed some of these radical activists to become part of his administration."
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Steroid Abuse Endorsed by Obamacon?
Whether it be steroid abusing self mutilating Dyke Misandrist Drag Kings, or Homo-Anal Coprophiles in heels - the main goal of the scam is to 'Destroy the Patriarchy' - BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) in order to feed the monkeys of hatred perched like mahouts on their backs.
As Dyke Icon Valerie Solanas said in hyr "SCUM Manifesto" (Soceity for Cutting Up Men Manifesto - the 'mein kampf' of femi-na-zism), of the rationale behind the alliance betwen the two groups: Dykes support Homo-Anal Perversions because those men who act them out "De-Man themselves, and thus render themselves Relatively Inoffensive."
Promoting those who act out such hatreds in order to demean and degrade normal men, is kind of like (kkk klown) David Duke putting on shoe polish blackface and having the Obamacon embrace and hail him as a fellow 'African' American...
And Not Oh So Different Either.
Ohso
Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosoph. The heresy of heresies was common sense. George Orwell 1984 On the Thought Police.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Transgenders in the White House? (CRI)
Last year Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger opened school restrooms and locker rooms to transgenders when he signed SB 777. Citizens were so shocked and outraged by the thought of cross-dressing boys preying on young girls in their locker rooms, that hundreds of thousands signed petitions to overturn SB 777.
Now, President Barak Obama may establish a similar policy for the White House. According to Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, the president-elect's transition team is considering an executive order that will prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for White House employees.
While President George W. Bush kept intact President Bill Clinton's policy prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, no other White House has protected gender identity.
"Americans should be gravely concerned that the White House, America's representative to the world, is implementing the same crazy policies that California has imposed on our citizens," stated Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "We will continue our campaign to overturn SB 777's dangerous policies because our children's safety depends upon it."
Story: Obama offers 'open door' to gender- confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Transgender Twirlers? Homosexual Band to March in Obama’s Inaugural Parade
December 17th, 2008 (www.americansfortruth.com)
We can’t say for certain, but that appears to be a Transvestite Twirler tossing his baton and wearing a covered bikini — in video footage on the Lesbian and Gay Band Association website. Barack Obama will be the first President to have a homosexual band march in his Inaugural Parade (the aberrant-sex band played for President Clinton, but did not march). And we’re also pretty confident that this will be the first band ever to march in both an Inaugural Parade and a parade for the debauched “Southern Decadence” homosexual festival in New Orleans — which in past years has seen men engaging in sex acts on the streets.
By Peter LaBarbera
Bob oh boy! A band created by the Lesbian and Gay Band Association — built around men and women who share disordered sexuality and, for some, gender confusion — is marching in Barack Obama’s inaugural parade — the first ever “gay” Inaugural marching band!
What a civil rights achievement — the Democrats should be so proud. Despite the enormity of this “progressive” milestone, apparently it is only somewhat of a technical “first”: the Aberrant Sex Band played twice for Bill Clinton but reportedly never marched for the … Aberrant Sex President.
In a statement, President-elect Obama said, “”I am honored to invite these talented groups and individuals to participate in the Inaugural Parade … These organizations embody the best of our nation’s history, diversity, and commitment to service. Vice President-elect (Joe) Biden and I are proud to have them join us in the parade.”
Questions: what deserving, hard-working high school band from Anytown, USA was bumped out by the homosexual marchers in the intense competition to march in the Inaugural Parade?
We’re also wondering: do the bisexual LGBT band members get to march in any direction they want?
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Switch Hater?
Gosh, one would have though that Obamacon Mentor 'reverend' Wright would now be all the Rage in leftist circles, having apparently been a 'success' in his demand for God to (sounds like scam) Amerika.
Perhaps the 'gay gene' - after triggering the Schism in the Episcopal Curch, will come up with something even more exotic for the Obamacon to embrace, or perhaps just more vile.
Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
'Pastor to presidents' replaced by gay bishop
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 11/12/2008
Gene RobinsonA conservative Christian activist says it's a sad omen for the Obama administration and the United States that Barack Obama has been seeking guidance from the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop.
The Times of London reports that the president-elect sought out New Hampshire homosexual bishop Vicki Gene Robinson for advice three times during his presidential campaign. Robinson, whose ordination in the Episcopal Church has caused a deep rift within the Anglican Communion, was reportedly sought out by Obama to discuss what it feels like to be "first."
Robinson notes in their three private conversations, Obama voiced his support for "equal civil rights" for homosexuals and described the election as a "religious experience." Peter Peter LaBarberaLaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Obama's consultations with Robinson show the true tenor of his upcoming administration.
"It looks like Billy Graham has been replaced by a gay bishop. We're moving to, perhaps, our first anti-Christian president; it's beyond post-Christian.
Gene Robinson advocates homosexuality as part of the Christian experience," he explains. "Now Bible-believing Christians cannot accept that. Homosexual practice is sinful, as taught by the scriptures. This man [Obama] pretends to be faithful to Christianity, even as he works very hard to undermine it."
LaBarbera suggests Robinson may possibly replace Jeremiah Wright as one of Obama's main spiritual advisers. Wright was Obama's Chicago pastor for 20 years before disassociating with the controversial preacher during the presidential campaign.
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Ministries fear restrictions under Obama administration
Associated Press - 12/20/2008 5:10:00 AM
Christian ministries are bracing for what they fear will be restrictions on religious liberty once Barack Obama is sworn in as president.
<storybody>Kelly Shackelford, presidLiberty Legal Institute, says Congress could move quickly to outlaw discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation, even if a school or ministry teaches that homosexuality is sinful.
He says ministries also fear that a federal hate crimes law could be used against preachers...
Shackelford says Christian groups are weighing how to respond if their fears are borne out. The Human Rights Campaign, a pro-homosexual group, did not respond to a request for comment.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Good ...
The KKK didn't burn crosses for nothing. Hate spewing men (and women) who hide behind pulpits can use "belief" as an excuse, but we all see their protective suit for what it is ... hot air.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Well, the Berg gang keeps shopping for a Justice who will give it a hearing. First they tried Souter (an application for an injunction) on October 31. He denied the request on November 3. Then on December 8, they filed another application for an injunction with Souter on December 8. He made short shrift of this one, denying it the next day. So, on December 15, they filed a third application, this time to Justice Kennedy. The application was distributed on December 17 for Conference on January 9, but then Justice Kennedy denied the application on the same day. Not to be deterred or abashed, they refiled the application on December 18, only this time to the Mafiosa of the Court, Antonin Scalia. On December 23, it was distributed for Conference on January 16.
Since this is only four days before the inauguration, my guess is that this will be the last chance Philip "I Never Met a Conspiracy Theory I Couldn't Buy Into" Berg has to get someone to listen to him.
For verification that the above is true, please visit this rather objective source: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
This may just turn out to be a spectacular rumor, or a real wake-up call to the sheeple of America. The possibility exists that a document purporting to be from the divorce of Obama, Sr., and Obama, Jr.'s mother describes him as being born in Kenya. For those of you following this thread closely, that would make it highly likely that he is an illegal alien.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/williams/081231
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
"This may just turn out to be a spectacular rumor, or a real wake-up call to the sheeple of America."
Or, as is more likely, it could just be a flat out LIE written by someone with an obvious bias and an anti-Obama agenda to push. Do you believe everything that gets posted online, FauxAmerica? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would be interested in selling to you!
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
UPDATE: The mail from Hawaii ran late, so the document promised to be posted on the Plains Radio website today will be delayed until Friday due to the New Year's holiday.
http://www.plainsradio.com/
This may just turn out to be a spectacular rumor, or a real wake-up call to the sheeple of America. The possibility exists that a document purporting to be from the divorce of Obama, Sr., and Obama, Jr.'s mother describes him as being born in Kenya. For those of you following this thread closely, that would make it highly likely that he is an illegal alien.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/williams/081231
In the meantime, have an expansive and enlightening New Year!
RealAmericaL
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Hey FauxAmerica - why do you persist in perpetuating unsubstantiated rumors? Is the TRUTH too difficult for you to grasp and deal with?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
53% of Americans Question Obama's Qualification
The following poll can be found on AOL.com. It seems there are fewer and fewer sheeple (with the exception SceamBlame, who has regressed from sophomoronic to childish) as time passes and the word gets out. To that end please read the link to the FAQ about Obama's birth qualification and the Constitution of the U.S., then take the poll yourselves.
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-c...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
The only "sheeple" around here is FauxAmerica, who blindly accepts as 'truth' anything that shares his thoroughly discredited opinion that Obama must not really be a natural born American citizen. Never mind that the "facts" supporting that opinion change almost daily, and coincide with the posting of a new blog or website offering even more unsubstantiated rubbish in a desperate effort to try to build support for this wholly unsubstantiated rubbish claim. But, then, one only has to do a search of these forums and read the stuff that Faux posts here to know that he has no interest in being either objective or truthful. He can call me names, label me sophomoric or childish if he wants, but that does not diminish the fact that he has zero credibility on anything having even remotely to do with the President Elect.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
No surprise considering the mainstream press were essentially in the tank for the Obama campaign. NBC/ MSNBC were the worst. What did we really learn about Obama the candidate during campaign coverage? It's only now that were getting information about Obama's relationship with the disgraced Illinois governor. So Obama investigates himself and is now "cleared" in the matter?
Palin was alleged to "lack experience" but Obama's experience (or lack of it) never seemed to get discussed. Obama kept flip flopping on issues such as gun control, taxes and meeting with foreign leaders but the media kept up the "qualified leader" persona. Obama (with the help of the media) claimed Republicans would try to scare voters because of his race/name but McCain never did. And what about Obama's connections with Rezko, Wright and Pfleger? If a Republican candidate had associations with a militia or racial separatist groups he/she would be forced to drop out of a campaign because of the media onslaught.
The so called "change" theme turns out to be Obama hiring ex Clinton administration officials. So what's new? How is the selection of Washington insider Joe Biden an example of "change"?
Joined: Feb 2004
Current Posts: 2436
Military Nominees and the Homosexualist Agenda [Elaine Donnelly - Center for Military Readiness] (12/20/08)
The Washington Times has reported that Pres. Barack Obama may appoint Mr. William White, described as openly gay, to be the next Secretary of the Navy. There is no law against homosexual civilians in the Pentagon, and Mr. White would not be the first service secretary without prior military experience. Still, the nomination would be unwise for reasons that go far beyond the prospective appointee himself.
Bill White is the president and CEO of the Intrepid Foundation, which sponsors the popular aircraft-carrier museum in the Hudson River off Manhattan. He has also raised millions for the Fisher House Foundation, which provides temporary housing and support for the families of injured service members. These are admirable good works, which have led some prominent retired military officers to promote Mr. White for appointment as Secretary of the Navy.
The problem is that the appointment of any person as the “first openly gay” military service secretary would essentially distort the coming congressional debate on the issue of gays in the military. Early in 2009, primary sponsor Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) will reintroduce legislation to repeal the 1993 law, which is frequently mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Unlike that convoluted DADT administrative policy, which was put in place by Pres. Bill Clinton, the actual law clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.
If Congress votes to repeal the 1993 law (Section 654, Title 10), the new policy would be forced cohabitation with homosexuals, 24/7, in all military communities, to include Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, and submarines. Corollary programs to make the new policy “work” would include professional “diversity training” to enforce acceptance, and “zero tolerance” of anyone who disagrees.
Dissenters would face discipline and be denied promotions, which would end their military careers. Incidents of misconduct would increase threefold, to include male/male and female/female misconduct that undermines discipline and demoralizes the troops. These results would harm recruiting and retention, and effectively destroy the volunteer force.
Consequences as serious as these deserve objective analysis, informed testimony, and serious debate by members of Congress. This would not happen, however, if congressional attention centers on the charitable fundraising activities of the prospective nominee for Secretary of the Navy. (Mr. White did not comment on the Washington Times story.)
Civilian service secretaries do not have to live in the same conditions of what the law describes as “forced intimacy” offering little or no privacy. Congress should protect the interests of surface sailors, Navy SEALS, and submariners who do accept these living conditions, and not pass legislation that would make military life even more difficult. But instead of considering the harmful consequences of repealing the 1993 law, Mr. White’s perceived status as a “poster man” for the cause of gays in the military would distract attention from the serious consequences of repealing the 1993 law.
Such an appointment would call into question the judgment of President Obama, the next Commander-in-Chief. Despite his personal views, President Obama should put the needs of the military above the demands of homosexualists who want to use government power to impose their agenda on military men and women.
Another prominent story in the news demonstrates the attitude of intolerance that is common in the homosexualist faction. In a Politico article titled “Gay Leaders Furious with Obama,” Joe Solomonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, expressed anger at the “genuine blow to LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered] Americans” that he perceives in President-elect Obama’s invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration.
This overwrought protest, and the post-election harassment of Mormon leaders in California who supported the Proposition 8 referendum defining marriage, foretell what could happen if Congress votes to repeal the 1993 law. Absent the statute, Pentagon officials would enforce “zero tolerance” of anyone who disagrees with the new policy for any reason. How would this radical change affect military chaplains whose beliefs are similar to those of Pastor Warren and thousands of clergymen of many faiths?
In 2007, Marine Gen. Peter Pace was denied a second term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because he stated his support for the 1993 law in terms reflecting his religious faith. The law itself is completely secular and centered on good order and discipline, but the controversy prematurely ended General Pace’s career. Given this experience, it is reasonable to expect that like-minded military chaplains and other personnel who support the law would face the same type of criticism. If the Pentagon assigns "civil rights" status to homosexuals, military tradition would mandate “zero tolerance” of dissent. In the armed forces, denied promotions end careers.
Members of Congress should consider the impact of repealing the 1993 law on military chaplains and other servicemen and women, who would have no recourse if the law is repealed. This is only one of dozens of issues that could go unexamined if members of Congress focus on personal friendships instead of the consequences of repealing a law that has been upheld as constitutional several times, and enjoys widespread support.
Mr. White has demonstrated that everyone can serve our country in some way. This is not a good enough reason, however, to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Ohso's off-track article is a good lead-in to a recent filing by Berg on behalf of a USAF Colonel, Ret., who may still be activated to duty under a usurper to the Presidency. He asks the court whether he should disobey orders from someone who is unqualified to serve as President.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84971
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
World Nut Daily - another incredible source relied on by FauxAmerica for more of his incredible rantings. Does anyone with a third grade education or better seriously expect the U. S. Supreme Court to sanction the disavowel of legitimate authority exercised by the commander in chief by a rank and file member of the U. S. military? Only those as delusional as FauxAmerica would actually take this stuff seriously enough to publish it on forums such as these.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Ed Hale seems to have posted the papers for the Obama, Sr., divorce. He requires a login and password to view the papers which I don't have. Would anyone else like to '... open the envelope, please ...'?
http://www.plainsradio.com/chat1.html
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Ed Hale, the cattleman from Texas, has turned out to be a real disappointment. I just looked at the divorce documents returned by Hawaii and there is no mention of Barak H. Obama, Jr. being born in Kenya as rumored and posted by me in previous articles.
And although it would be great to have a corroborating piece of evidence, the issue of where, precisely, in the legal sense, BHO was physically born still remains.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
"the issue of where, precisely, in the legal sense, BHO was physically born still remains."
Correction - the issue of where Obame was born is, and has never been, in dispute. Its only clowns like FauxAmerica who keep perpetuating these lies and false rumors, who are delusional enough to think otherwise. For people who know how to think critically and rationally, it was not and is not an issue. Note that the original claim was that Obama was born in, and a citizen of, Indonesia. When that falsehood fizzled, it morphed into Obama being born in Kenya. How gullible do these folks think people are? These are the REAL 'sheeple"!
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Did you honestly believe a Texas cattleman was going to produce your smoking gun, and save your world view at the last moment? And I assume that if a cattleman from Texas produces a document showing that Barack Obama was, indeed, born in Kenya ... even though no one else in the entire world could find such a smoking gun, despite massive efforts to obtain such a thing ... that would automatically give it credence and legal standing? What if that same Texas cattleman produces a document showing that Dick Cheney has laundered income from the Haliburton he supposedly disengaged himself from, and has been using George W. as a marionette for the past 8 years? Would it have credibility in your eyes?
Give me a break.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote '... Did you honestly believe a Texas cattleman was going to produce your smoking gun ...'
At the time I posted the article I did not know his vocation, and yeah, since childhood I always assumed cowboys could save the day with guns ablaze. I took his word that he hired a PI at his expense to find the documents in Hawaii that were provided on his site. I read from a second source that he took care to have a court in TX request the documents as part of a legal action, so certified copies sent from one court to another via certified mail would be available for review and that a chain of evidence would be created. As for no one else being able to find the smoking gun, are you alluding to the one used to kill the investigator in Kenya who was told to get off the bus, then was shot and his possessions removed from him and he was left to rot on the side of the road?
Then on the other hand, we have the Obamabots like yourself who go on a Chicago politician's word that he is qualified, and accept his word he was born in Hawaii. Yet Obama refuses to provide the legally binding document that inconclusively shows where he was born, by what doctor, in what hospital, at what time, birth weight, etc. that might cost $25 to provide, but rather hires 3 law firms to prevent its exposure to the public. Even John McCain thought it a reasonable enough request that he provided a certified copy of his vault birth certificate when the question arose. Maybe the following video explains that -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_jh2dO78U
And please, don't bother to trot out the fallacious argument that the document posted on his website, which is also the same document used to register children born out of the country, is a sufficient document to determine his level of citizenship - that of a natural born citizen.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof lies with you and your ilk. As far as I can tell, any time in the past that Barack Obama has been asked to document his citizenship (passport applications and social security, to name a few), he has been able to do so in a satisfactory manner. His citizenship has never been challenged before, and it is only because a highly paid stooge and political hit man (Jerome Corsi), known primarily for creative exaggeration and downright fabrication ... supported by the deep pockets of at least Sean Hannity (and possibly his foreign-born boss) ... that the question is even being asked this time.
Grow up. Let it rest. Those of us who felt that George W Bush stole an election had to endure eight years of comments like that from people such as yourself, so now it is time to put the shoe on the other foot, suck it up, and walk your own talk. Be a man, for gosh sakes, and stop your whining. (PS: we had to endure insults like that, as well).
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote '... The burden of proof lies with you ...'
Not. Obama is applying for a position that demands special qualifications (natural born citizen), and the burden on proof is on him that he holds those qualifications. Just as the burden of proof would be on you to provide a birth certificate for a job application.
'... any time in the past that Barack Obama has been asked to document his citizenship (passport applications and social security, to name a few), he has been able to do so in a satisfactory manner. ...'
Not. If he freely provided his passport application, why would he demand an investigation when his passport info was cracked in March, 2008? And who knows? Maybe the person who cracked the file saw an unusual birth place in it, and it triggered this entire line of questioning. That is, unless you have personally seen the contents of his passport application or even seen it displayed on the internet? And if you didn't see it, who, exactly, has seen it to 'their satisfaction' that we can rely on with some authority? JEDI MIND TRICK
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.passport/
As for his SSN, what came up in the search is that Obama voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits -
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/socialsecurity.asp
'... His citizenship has never been challenged before ...'
Spoken like a true Obamabot. He never ran for an office that required being a natural born citizen before.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Since you add nothing of substance to the discussion and continue to recycle rumor, innuendo and questionable syllogisms ... I have nothing further to say unless, as in the past, something new and/or credible appears in your line of so-called reasoning. I also offer the following caution about the willful disrespect and abuse of fellow human beings that seems to so clearly mark the hatchet folk of the right by quoting the soft spoken and oft-overlooked lyricist Allen Toussaint: "It's high time that you found out. The same people you misuse on your way up, you might meet up, on your way down."
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote '... I have nothing further to say ...'
For a second time, I see. Then he points out '... willful disrespect and abuse of fellow human beings ...' and points to '... the hatchet folk of the right ...' when a greater percentage of the country is concerned about Obama's credentials than who actually elected him. That seems a little disrespectful to the people who actually care to live by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution. Even the State of New York is coming around, as the spread just 5 days ago was 9 points, and today it is 1; Illinois has gone from a spread of 2 to 4. So 'right' and 'left' seems to make no difference.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-c...
There is supposedly a FOIA action to try to recover Pt. of Entry documents that might shed light on the situation, but I could find no confirmation, and the process will take time, if successful. As time passes this issue becomes a black hole, polarizing people and likely sucking people in power into doing nefarious deeds then covering their tracks. And the 'main stream media' have their own black holes to deal with until they pull their heads out of their osses. At this point if they ever do come on board they will have nothing relevant to add, so they really have no reason to pursue the issue.
So c'mon Barak - put a certified copy of your birth certificate out there for all to see. Show us that you're not some elitist, but one of your proletariat that wouldn't ask anyone to do something they wouldn't do themselves (like provide a birth certificate for a job application).
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Congress Bails on Its Constitutional Duty
There were no surprises in Congress today when it complacently and complicily ratified the vote of the Electoral College to inaugurate the ticket of Obama and Biden this coming January 20th without objection. Ominously the Chief Justice of SCOTUS scheduled a 3rd case for conference on Jan. 23rd yesterday. The attorney whose case was distributed by Justice Roberts can sum it up best ...
http://www.drorly.blogspot.com/
That means that the injunction of the Wrotnowski was denied but merits of the case can still be heard, that the Berg case on the issues merit and standing are scheduled for conferences of Jan. 9th and 16th, respectively, and the case of Lightfoot v Bowen is scheduled for the 23rd. Our patience will be sorely tested as these cases wind thru the court in the coming weeks, and we should remember the case against Nixon did not come to fruition until after he was inaugurated for his second term, then was forced to resign. And there are other cases piling up, like members of the Armed Forces who question his validity as Commander-In-Chief who could be put in jeopardy if they obey his orders, or don't obey his orders. So stay tuned, folks.
Isn't it funny how all the years of lists of foreign students receiving aid at California universities are available except 1981? (unconfirmed) ...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
What does your link have to do with either Chief Justice Roberts or the Supreme Court generally? Answer? NOTHING!! You must have a great amount of time on your hands to be able to spend it searching the 'net to find such delusional drivel. Have you thought about finding a constructive hobby or pastime to pursue? Please do; all this nonsense is getting old and tired.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
What? Me Worry?
With approval ratings in the single digits, Congress has ratified the Electoral College choice of Obama and Biden. The disconnect with the American public over Obama's qualification is clearly indicated by the recent reversal in New York, which has now fallen in line with most of the country in seeing merit in challenging Obama's 'natural born' citizenship status in the AOL poll.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-c...
It will be interesting to see what Chief Justice Roberts pulls out of his hat tomorrow! (See prior article)
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Blatant Congressional Crime?!
It isn't everyday that the entire Congress (both Senate and House) can be charged with a crime. But at the ratification of the Electoral votes yesterday there was no objection allowed as provided by law. You watch the proceedings, you read the code, you decide. A letter to the Attorney General of the United States may be in order.
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1843
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
This is all such foolishness. You clearly have no clue as to how the electoral college system operates, or the role of the congress in ratifying its vote. Did it even occur to you that, because as the statute states, all objections to the confirmation must be in writing, they would have had to be submitted to the president of the Senate in advance, or at least made known to him (in this case, the Vice President) so that he could have acknowledged them and dealt with them in accordance with the established rules? Does it really surprise you, given that the only people carrying on this campaign are right wing nut cases like yourself, that there were no written objections from the House or Senate to be lodged, or for the Vice President to acknowledge?
Your conspiracy theory has exhausted whatever claims to legitimacy it ever had. If you feel compelled to keep harping on this horse pucky claim, go for it, but you should anticipte and expect that you will end up talking to yourself if you do.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Well expressed ...
Sometimes the simplest answer is the one that makes the most sense: no one filed an objection because not a single member of the U.S. Congress thought there was sufficient grounds to issues such a challenge ... and you know as well as I that there are a score of nutters who have done crazier things than sign a sworn objection to the certification of the Electoral College vote.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Jan. 9 Conference
Of the cases presented for conference on Friday, 4 were accepted for argument and one dropped without comment. The Berg case is held over the weekend.
I would imagine the illegal actions of Congress not to solicit objections to the Electoral Court as mandated (that means required, ScreamBlame) by the U.S. Election code (see prior article) may give pause for the Court ponder how much abuse our Constitution can take and have us remain a nation of laws.
That means that the injunction of the Wrotnowski was denied but merits of the case can still be heard, that the Berg case on the issue of standing is scheduled for conferences of the 16th, and the case of Lightfoot v Bowen is scheduled for the 23rd. Our patience will be sorely tested as these cases wind thru the court in the coming weeks, and we should remember the case against Nixon did not come to fruition until after he was inaugurated for his second term, then was forced to resign. And there are other cases piling up, like members of the Armed Forces who question his validity as Commander-In-Chief who could be put in jeopardy if they obey his orders, or don't obey his orders. Consider that it takes a scheduling of oral arguments before the SCOTUS can issue a decision, but in the case of Berg., the DNC and Obama did not respond, so the arguments may be brief and rather one-sided.
So stay tuned, folks.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
New material and arguments, hence a new comment:
(1) Perhaps no one in the Congress bothered to challenge the Electoral College certification because not a single member ... even the whackiest of whacks ... didn't think there was a credible reason to do so?
(2) Time will tell, of course, but so far when a Justice of the Supreme Court has called for a Conference on these various complaints, they have either denied the motion and/or the Conference itself refused to act. There is no reason to suspect it will act any different on Jan 16 or 23.
(3) The difference between Richard Nixon and Barack Obama should be apparent to most anyone with a reasonable high school education ... Richard Nixon abused his power, spied on Americans, ordered Americans murdered, and then used the power of his office to cover up and conceal the crimes he and his henchmen committed (including several still walking the streets and playing an active, disruptive role in American life). These are just the things we KNOW he did. Gerald Ford pardoned him, meaning that we could never get to and hold Mr. Nixon accountable for his crimes. This, in turn, freed Ronald Reagan to trash the Constitution and commit even larger crimes for which HE was never held accountable. Now, if indeed Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and has gone out of his way to hide that fact from us (or participated in a conspiracy that began almost before he was born and has been covertly and successfully carried out for 43+ years just on the off-chance that he might one day become elected President of the United States), then we need to know and then take necessary action. However, even if that crime IS detected (which it will not, because it is a figment of Jerome Corsi's mangled and fevered imagination), it sort of pales in comparison to the crimes committed by Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote '... no one in the Congress bothered to challenge the Electoral College ...'
It is a moot point because Cheney violated the law by refusing to ask if there were any objections. A prior post displays the law; remember the word shall means there is no choice, it is not optional, it is required. If a Congressperson had an epiphany and decided to rise above the morals of Congress that keep them in single digit voter approval, they were denied the chance to 'come clean' by the despicable actions of Cheney. Even the Congressional Parliamentarian was mute.
'... so far when a Justice of the Supreme Court has called for a Conference on these various complaints, they have either denied the motion and/or the Conference itself refused to act ...'
There is a link in a prior article speculating why SCOTUS acts the way it does. Were you aware that the Court recently agreed to revisit the Voting Rights Act? One explanation is that the court feels elections should be handled by Congress, not the judiciary. As the last act of Congress regarding the current election just passed, with unsatisfactory protections afforded the electorate, they may feel free to step forward to protect the Constitution from Congressional malfeasance. And it was the Chief Justice that distributed the last case for conference, and his opinion slightly outweighs any of the other justices, and greatly outweighs yours.
As for your third rant, the Nixon case was presented as an example of the timeline we could expect and the predicament Obama has put us in because he so arrogantly refuses to spend $35 or less to provide a long form birth certificate to corroborate his statement that he is qualified. Instead he hires 3 law firms to keep his birthplace hidden from the public.
Why you continue to put faith in a leader who asks you to do something he refuses to do himself is childish, reckless, and imprudent. And YOU call Jerome Corsi wacky!
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-c...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
As you may have guessed, I am not a fan of Dick Cheney and feel he has violated the law multiple times (which is why he and his little marionette should have been impeached). He is arrogant, self-serving, and not above pulling a fast one now and again. The fact that he supposedly violated the law (a questionable opinion, by the way) should lead you to join my side and call for his removal from office and/or severe punishment after leaving office.
That said, you have now accused 535 men and women of all being cowards. Granted, an awful lot of them are ... spineless scum-sucking boot-lickers who view the next campaign donation (and the prostitution of any ideals they may have in order to get it) and the next campaign for the next office the grandest prize of all. But somewhere in that sleazy pile of worms, slugs, and guzanos (nice contrary literary reference, heh?) there must be one like-minded soul who shares your concerns and could have stood up and said "Point of Order". In fact, I think I remember in a previous post (possibly in another topic, since in typical neo-con fashion you have blanketed any and all topics and threads that even remotely address this question in the hopes of subjecting as many people as possible to your delusions and needless fears) that you even listed the Representatives and Senators most likely to be the ones who would make sure the vote of the Electoral College was at least challenged. Where are they? Why would not even one slightly imbalanced and cranky old guy or gal simply say "I object"?
The simplest and most logical reason is that there is nothing about which to object.
Every link that you have offered to "explain" what is going on is a piece of c**p (pardon my French). You have yet to post a credible source for ANY of these accusations. Do not misunderstand me. I will be up front: I think all those right wing blogs are an abomination (as are a good many on the left), but they have as much right to opine and speculate and spread their cancerous version(s) of reality as the next guy. You just forget that their opinions and speculation are cancerous and deeply twisted, and mistake them as being insightful or "on to something". So whatever speculation they choose to print about this, that and the other is nothing more than that ... speculation (and probably of the worst kind, because it is not honest speculation, but speculation designed to prove a point or sway opinion through scurrilous means).
The Nixon "rant" as you call it is factual. I notice that you did not bother to argue that Richard Nixon was a brave patriot who was horribly misunderstood and that he did not abuse the power of his office. Yes ... he got through his second inauguration before everything started to unravel (the only factual parallel to the current whackiness that I can see); but there were real things that he really did that were pretty darn important that came unravelled. And now that I put it in that context, I see that you are using a refined argument for why George W should not have been impeached ... since you cannot tell the difference (in either scale, scope, or importance) between lying to Congress and the American people about whether or not you had sex and lying to the American people about the reasons we need to go to war (or about spying on Americans, or about torturing people, or about outing agents ... take your pick), I guess I can understand how you would equate (and confuse) destruction of the electoral process and egregious abuse of trust and power with not providing a birth certificate. The two are about the same, after all.
I do not know to whom you refer in your final paragraph. No one has asked me to do something he will not do himself ... certainly no leader in whom I will place faith. As to the placing of the faith ... maybe that's your problem. Let me explain. You zero in on this issue of "faith" as if it were a debatable issue. The fact of the matter is that I do not place faith in any elected leader, and before I give them my trust, they must earn it. Apparently, you feel that faith in our leaders is important. Remember, "faith" is blind ... the faithful are gullible sheep lured and led by their noses, without question or protest, wherever those in whom the faith is placed desire to take them. Faith also does not require concrete, observable evidence. There is nothing wrong with "faith" and "belief" ... you just always have to be aware that there is a downside (unfortunately, the "faithful" never ask questions, so are usually not aware of the downside).
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
One Down, 3 to go ...
The SCOTUS issued an order today denying the Wrotnoski case. This was the case against the CT secretary of state, and was based on the argument that Barak's father, being a British citizen, prevented natural born status being applied to Obama II. There was no reason given for the denial.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-c...
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
2 Down, 2 To Go ...
The Berg case had two submissions for conference; one for 'standing' and the other for the merits of the arguments. The following link points to a nice legal analysis -
http://www.americasright.com/2009/01/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in....
What frosts my cake is federal judge Surrick's findings - '... Surrick argued that Berg had not adequately showed a particularized injury-in-fact, noting in his memorandum that "regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters." ...'. To me, the only way we would NOT be injured as voters is if OUR VOTES DON'T COUNT!. Yet, Congress passed a voting rights law to break up the racial practices of 40 years ago which implied that our votes should count. What happened since then that negated the value of our vote? Is the court saying - "we haven't taken away your right to vote, but if the election is rigged to remove any freedom to elect a candidate of your choice, say, by presenting slates of non-qualified candidates except for 1, no problem?" Or are they saying "when you go to the polls you have no expectation that any of the names presented on the ballot are qualified for the office sought"? VOTER BEWARE?! "And don't expect to be able to sue in court to determine if a candidate is qualified" seems to be the other message the courts are sending.
And just think. Whoever finally ends up in the Oval office as the legitimate President gets to name 3 MORE TURKEYS to the Supreme Court to make sure our Constitutional rights are suppressed for decades to come.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
They could also be saying that none of the arguments hold any water, and all candidates were fully qualified to run for said office.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
FauxAmerica's endless rants might possibly hold a mild degree of interest if he possessed even a modest knowledge of the law and the way in which legal processes work. But since he is already committed to the proposition that whoever is elected president and whoever that person appoints to the Supreme Court will 'make sure our rights are suppressed', it is clear that he has no clue.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Okay. I am a voter. As a single voter, does that give me legal standing to file a lawsuit challenging the birth of Barack Obama because I claim he is suppressing photographic evidence of his birth in North Korea and I demand to see that evidence? As a single voter, does that give me legal standing to file a lawsuit challenging the citizenship of Barack Obama because I claim he possesses a certificate of live birth for someone named Barrie Sortofterro from Mumbai on the same date that Barack Obama claims he was born, and I demand to see that evidence? As a single voter, does that give me legal standing to file a lawsuit demanding that Barack Obama produce documents proving he has a legal driver's license, is legally registered to vote (or that he produce the voter registration documents from the six states I claim he is registered to vote in, simultaneously), or verifiable transcripts of his entire academic career?
For that matter, do I ... because I am a single voter ... have legal standing to challenge the legality of Joe Biden's election because there might be evidence that he changed his name? As a single voter, do I have standing to overturn the outcome of a Senate election in my state because I claim there might be a suppressed document in the files of the winner proving that he has cheated on his taxes for the last six years, and I demand that he produce them? As a single voter, do I have standing to overturn the outcome of a city council meeting in my hometown on the grounds that the newly elected mayor might have records in his bank account indicating he hired and paid cash to illegal immigrant gardeners at his home?
I realize that some of these examples do not pertain directly to the case at hand, but the precedent is similar. Nut-cases certainly have the right to file as many complaints as they want; but justices also have the right to toss those cases into the circular file and not waste taxpayer money on them. Sorry, bub ... but you keep forgetting the most obvious reason these complaints keep getting tossed out: not only does Phillip Berg not have standing to halt the electoral process of the U.S. with a frivolous bit of grand-standing, but the frivolous bit of grand-standing itself has no basis in fact and/or has been adequately addressed in the minds of most reasonably-minded people.
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
it's not about berg, you or me, it's about our constitution.
and yes, berg, you and me have the "standing" at least we should.
i am a legal immigrant, and had to lay down my live from a to z, or i never could be here. how come a presidential nominy doe not have to show his/ her birth certificate?
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Welcome to the Funny Farm ... a discussion forum reserved for twits with whacky ideas and the nerds who think what they are actually willing to put in print is worthy of rebuttal!
Name one presidential candidate (or sitting president) who has ever been asked to produce a birth certificate, and then verify your assertion with a credible reference. Name one presidential candidate (or sitting president) who has actually put his birth certificate on display, carried it around door to door for every citizen to personally inspect for its authenticity, or otherwise been required to satisfy the pissy demands of an outraged electorate.
Yes ... to become president, one must be a natural-born citizen. That is, indeed, a Constitutional question. But stop and think about this for just one second (which is all it takes to put most people to rest). Questions about Barack Obama's citizenship have received a staggering amount of public exposure, for a very long time ... anyone who has not yet heard that some people have asked questions about his place of birth must live in a sound-proof hole in the back alley of the only bar in the smallest mountain community of the Trinity Alps for the last year. Either that, or can't be trusted to repeat the first half of the alphabet after listening to someone dictate it to him.
In other words, this is not an unknown accusation, a last minute "Wait a minute!" discovery, some question arising from other little known and just discovered facts and/or occurrences. People like RealAmerica and Ohso and their ilk (the internet is literally crawling with them) have been broadcasting these charges at the top of their lungs for everyone to hear ... and believe me, everyone has heard them.
That said, what is the most simple, most elegant, and most logical explanation to explain the complete "so what" of the rest of the world to the "problem" of Barack Obama's birth (which includes, count them: 535 elected representatives of the United States Congress ... 3/4 of whom would stab any other member in the back at the drop of a hat if they thought they had something on them that was useful; the President and Vice-President of the United States, both from the opposing party and as diametrically opposed in a philosophical, moral, economic and social sense as is possible to Barack Obama; the Supreme Court of the United State which, by law and tradition, is required to give careful consideration to all complaints, grievances, lawsuits and so on that cross its desk, no matter how bizarre or esoteric or unfounded; the Republican National Committee which ... if willing to send 56 operatives to Alaska in order to protect Sarah Palin and prevent anyone from finding out the dirt on her -- meaning they had to find out the dirt themselves, first, so they knew what to protect her from ... must have assigned hundreds of agents and spooks and spies to try to find evidence of Obama's multiple births, or at least paid thousands of dollars to informants, and double-crossers, and agents provocateur in order to get the dirt on him; John McCain and the hundred rabid dogs of smear whom he hired to plaster Obama with dirt and which we read and listened to on a daily basis from the moment he got the nomination; and who knows how many wannabe Woodward and Bernstein's have been digging all around the globe on their own ... or paid by some very well-connected spooks who have very perverted reasons to get "the truth")?
Well ... the single most simple, elegant and logical answer is just this: because it's not true.
I am very happy that you were willing to lay down your life in order to be here. Congratulations, and I hope it was worth it. Unfortunately, don't you think it a bit silly to have made such incredible sacrifices, only to be hung up about the reality of a fairy tale? There are far greater concerns and issues facing America than whether or not every single citizen has seen Barack Obama's birth certificate with their own eyes, and been afforded the opportunity to have their very own forensic expert examine its authenticity.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Silence From SCOTUS
A number of cases were accepted by SCOTUS at their conference today, but no word on the Berg case. In a related story the Court will be looking at the Voting Rights Act in terms of reducing its oversight responsibility. And Dr. Orly Taiz, Esq., was accepted by the Supreme Court Bar to present cases (Lightfoot, scheduled for conference the 23rd). And they put her proposal to recuse themselves from presenting the oath to Obama on the docket since they have cases before them with him as a party. Maybe that's the reason Alito was absent at the visit to the court yesterday by Obama and Biden?
So have a safe and sane weekend. It may get crazy Monday.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Not any crazier than it is in this little corner of RubberRoomLand.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Time Out For Bad Behavior
The Supreme Court announced it will be closed next Monday and Tuesday, so the disposition of Berg's case won't be forthcoming until next Wednesday or later.
As for shay's last post - '... a discussion forum reserved for twits with whacky ideas and the nerds ...'
When your opening shot is composed of name-calling, it tells the world you already think you're on the losing side of the argument. He asks '... Name one presidential candidate (or sitting president) who has actually put his birth certificate on display ...' when he has already been pointed to John McCain's LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE on the internet. He then states '... Questions about Barack Obama's citizenship have received a staggering amount of public exposure ...' except in the MSM, who have gone out of their way to ignore this issue. Try a search of Berg, Obama, birth, 'supreme court' and find any MSM coverage in the past month.
He then goes on to rant about why would no Congressional politician, all 535 of whom broke the law by implicitly agreeing to disallow objections to the ratification of the Electoral College, have not found and exposed the information. Like it didn't dawn on him once you expose the information used to blackmail someone you can no longer blackmail them. And when you have the MSM bought and paid for, as Obama's corporate handlers obviously have, it was relatively easy to use existing laws and a well-paid 'spook' (as described by shays) to deal with the easy loose threads. This is followed by more irrational rants and name-calling.
And yet the nagging question remains. What could possibly be on Obama's long form birth certificate that would cause him to hire 3 law firms to prevent its exposure instead of paying some nominal amount to pick up a certified copy when he was in Hawaii on the last week of campaigning, and turn it over to a Supreme Court justice the following week? With the bottom line being neither of his parents could impart U.S. citizenship to him, his only claim to being a citizen is being born in U.S. territory.
Conveniently his cousin is in charge of the most likely alternate place he was born, Kenya, and has treated journalists less that courteously when discovered they are looking for evidence of Obama's birth there. And if the example has been set of an adventurer, having found an incriminating document, being taken off a bus, shot, stripped of his possessions, and left on the side of the road to rot, then it's not so surprising that the Kenyan ambassador would later make a statement that he didn't know whether Obama was born in Kenya or not. How could someone in his position not know?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7808815.stm
And as I mentioned earlier, the Chief Justice has distributed a case regarding this question for conference next Friday, and the SCOTUS has qualified the attorney who presented it to practice before the Supreme Court (which is not that common an achievement among attorneys). Bear in mind that Obama disparaged both Roberts and Alito at their Senate confirmation hearings. Payback could be a botch! If none of the justices show up to administer the oath, that might be a clue.
So the question is - will Obama's 'Security and Intelligence' advisor, who will have full access from his private office to all pertinent records after the inauguration, be able to 'cauterize' offending records faster than they can be dug up in the evidence discovery phase of pending cases by the few patriots remaining on the network not affected by the Kool-aid?
Be One, or Begone!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
This IS a funny farm, and it IS filled with nerds and twits. Name-calling is when you use disparagement as the main thrust of your argument because (and/or when) the labels are untrue. Unfortunately, I refer to demonstrable fact and avoid rumor and speculation as the main source of my information. And you know, sometimes it is appropriate to call a rose a rose (because a rose by any other name ... well, never mind). Justice Roberts will administer the oath, the Supreme Court will dismiss the final business before it without comment (though the buzzing gnats stirring the pot will be around forever), and most of the country will move forward in an effort to deal with the real issues of significance currently besetting us: global depression, the fallout from eight years of unchecked criminal behavior, increased foreign tensions, and the near corporatization of America (seig heil).
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
We can only hope that, once the inauguration is over tomorrow, all of this utterly ridiculous nonsense about Obama's citizenship will end as well...and that it will take the tasteless and decidedly un-funny political cartoons such as the one posted by FauxAmerica with it.
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
well, it will not end.
the world will laugh about the usa, who voted an illegal alien or foreign citizen into power.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Turn on the TV, idiot ... any channel will do (but preferably a foreign-language TV, or better yet, a foreign station) ... everyone is watching and no one is laughing. This is a moment that transcends history, crushes narrowly bigoted perspectives, and embraces the power of what united people can do. Keep up your silly, immature, reactionary and divisive cr*p ... if you dare ... but you are about to be swept under the carpet of a massive world movement. Is peace and prosperity at hand? Hardly ... your heroes, your champions, your ghosts (i.e., I'll spell it out; the corporate elite that gave us Reagan, Bush I & II, and Clinton) have done everything they can to divide and impoverish us. They have done a very good and a very thorough job. It will take a long time and a great effort to undo the damage they have done. But today we begin to mop up the mess. LOOK AT ALL THOSE PEOPLE! Look at how they can show up without arguing, without fighting, without pushing or jostling for the best position (that they somehow "deserve") ... all attitudes and values pushed by those who have now been discredited! People CAN work together, people CAN celebrate without trashing the neighborhood, and people CAN come together ... united in a common cause ... in very very large numbers. Larger than ever seen in the history of this country.
Doesn't it make you, and the petty, self-serving interests that have been the hallmark of the last 29 years, seem awfully small?
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
@shays,
it's kind of funny that you point to dc where people celebrate our new presi, but you can't even answer a post with calling fellow poster names.
i do not look to dc, i look around me and see violence, hate and destruction in oakland. (and not just oakland) change can't be ordered from government, change has to come from within and us. people like you and me.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Why is is silly to point to coverage of the inauguration (which takes place in Washington DC) to show you how many people are NOT laughing at Barack Obama, or that they take seriously fatuous and stupid allegations that he is not an American citizen. This is the message to which I was responding: You said well, it will not end. the world will laugh about the usa, who voted an illegal alien or foreign citizen into power.
Where "it" referred to the ongoing claims that Barack Obama is not an American citizen. Perhaps you are new to this discussion, and therefore did not deserve my impatience or wrath, but I am fed up with slow-witted folk who think invented questions about the citizenship of the President of the United States are important or have relevance. Even you seem to agree, because in THIS message you change tack and bring up an entirely new subject.
You now claim to object to the hatred and violence present in Oakland (and other places). Well, this is a step in the right direction. This is, indeed, a serious problem that we as a nation must confront and resolve. It is much more serious than trying to prove a double negative, so maybe there is hope. We must ask ourselves why people are so full of mistrust, jealousy and hatred. Or why they resort to violence to attempt to satisfy their dissatisfaction. And you are right ... government cannot order people to stop hating or to stop using violence (nor would it do much good if it tried). You and I and everyone else must find better ways to solve our problems, and the solution must come from within, as you say. However, government can do things to help ameliorate and/or lessen conditions or situations that make people hateful, angry, or unsatisfied. It is not the only answer, it is not the best answer ... but it can be a part of the answer.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
You Must Excuse Shays ...
He is 'enthralled' at the moment -
Millions Prepare For Orgasm During Obama Speech
January 19, 2009 ·
Washington—In what could likely put Playboy magazine out of business, millions of Americans are preparing to achieve orgasm during Barack Obama’s inauguration speech tomorrow. The abundant frenzy—expected upward of 20 million—would be unprecedented in American history, dwarfing the two or three million orgasms on Election Night.
Obama’s speech, “Great Expectations,” is reportedly expected to run 17 minutes long—a period of time which is sure to leave millions writhing and undulating in sheer bliss. The Pew Center for research has reported that 90 percent of women, and 85 percent of liberal men, expect to achieve climax in the final thrust of Obama’s campaign speech, leaving many with “Great Expectations” of their own.
The time that many are expected to reach their moment of hysteria is during the point in the speech in which Obama says, “Ask not what you can do for your government; rather, ask what your government can do for you. For personal responsibility is a thing of the past.”
There are many working poor, planning to watch the Obama’s Inauguration, one of whom is Sheila Denning—a 27-year old waitress at Denny’s. She told us that watching Obama’s Inauguration is better than sex.
“This event,” Sheila said, “is one of the most satisfying experiences I’ll have in my entire life. I feel so complete now that Obama is entering the White House. He’s just a personal dream.”
“I think it’s super,” exclaimed, Bobby Fister—a gay, 39-year old Network Systems Engineer for Microsoft. “This is the greatest moment of my life. I’ll have my popcorn and a moist towel ready to go.”
Even though many expect to complete during Obama’s address to the nation, others have tuned in for the unifying aspects of his skin color. Joann Feldstein is just one of those people. She told us that she can’t wait to feel as though whites and blacks to become one people.
“This is like the most historic event I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” claimed Feldstein, a white 28-year old fashion designer from Manhattan. “I feel as though things have totally changed now. As soon as he’s taken his oath of office, I’m going to go find the nearest black man and sleep with him. That way, I’ll be able to rid myself of the guilt I feel for the injustices of the evil white man.”
“This is so exciting,” said an enthusiastic Cherry Downer, a 25-year old Columbia medical student. “I’m with Katie Couric. I get all tingly just thinking about his speech tomorrow. I can’t wait. I love you, Katie!”
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
It must really suck to have nothing more consequential going on in one's life than spending a significant portion of it searching for, then disseminating to the non-believers, the lastest example of anti-Obama garbage propaganda. Too bad FauxAmerica's time can't be spent doing something that might actually be viewed as constructive instead of simply rehashing the same, tired and trite attacks and smears directed toward the new president. But, then, he wouldn't want to be perceived as writing or doing anything that could possibly be viewed as somehow positive or supportive, would he?
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
So, almost 2 million people come together to celebrate a victory ... meet all day in freezing cold weather ... and there is not a single arrest or report of a violent or criminal act? And you dare MOCK THIS?
I guess we know how you feel about the UNITED States of America.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
The only people who are laughing are those who are highly amused that Berlin47112 and others have been completely conned by a hoax being perpetrated by a few far right wing web sites to attempt to sell the absurd and entirely unsubstantiated notion that Obama is not in fact a U S citizen.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Justice Stevens will preside over the inauguration ceremony and Chief Justice Roberts will administer the oath of office... So much for 'none of the justices showing up'.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
HARHARHARHAR
Obviously, "Sullivan" hasn't been watching the spectacle unfolding across this country and does not grasp the symbolic weight of the moment (let alone the the overwhelming sense that something much much bigger than any of us is taking place). Additionally, this cartoon suggests the strategic use of the "present" vote escapes his mental capacities, indicating a feebleness of reasoning and deduction. One should not expect more from Bush apologists and whining Obama detractors.
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 7
Shays you are dead wrong. The present comment reflects the fact, that while in congress he NEVER once voted for or against a bill, but merely was noted as PRESENT.
Joined: Nov 2006
Current Posts: 400
Obama's Voting Record:
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
He only missed one vote in his first two years of office. In 2007 and 2008, he did (and the other candidates) miss a significant number of votes due to being on the campaign trail. Of the nearly 300 bills, amendments and other voting issues during his time as Senator, Obama made yes or no votes more than 75% of the time.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Most people like raazer who make such uninformed comments are among the first to brag about their "patriotic" duties just before trying to stop someone like you or I from exercising our constitutional rights. They are truly proud of the USofA, but forget what the "united" word actually means. Obviously, they can't even see it when it is thrust right in their face.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Check your facts, bub. You are referring to his position in the Indiana Senate, where he did vote "present" on a number of bills (usually for reasons that people in Indiana permit the "present" vote ... to make a political statement that intelligent people can deduce). Please show me one "present" vote in the United States Senate.
One is certainly free to oppose the positions and policies of Barack Obama. But going out of your way to make a personal comment about Barack Obama on the day of his historic nomination suggests a high level of indifference to history or to the desires, aspirations and dreams of millions of your fellow citizens. Does this put you in the gang of "dis-uniters" that tended to act as apologists for the just deposed criminal president?
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 7
I don't think the country needs to be ran by a communist. His policies, beliefs and record shows that his ideals are based in communism. The American people showed as a populace why democracies do not last. You give the power to the people and the people are dumb. People voted for him because he was black.
Howard Stern had someone in Harlem asking who people were voting for. However, before they answered, they were told that their opposition's stance was theirs. For instance, one of the questions was "Ok you said you were voting for Barack, you do know he's against stem cell research right?". The person answered that they were against it too and would follow what ever he did...People as a whole are stupid
When he's taken your money and given to someone that didn't earn it...you'll see.
It's my money, i earned it. It's my gun, I earned the money to buy it legally by the constitution...it's my right as a legal citizen of this country.
Oh by the way, I am a patriot. I served 10 years for this country in the Army. What did you do besides ride a keyboard spouting off idiotic, liberal, tree hugging drivel?
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Howard Stern is an entertainer. Most of what passes for "news" these days is tabloid entertainment, at best. Ask yourself, who owns the media outlets? To what advantage are they served by keeping the masses entertained with drivel, or divided and arguing amongst themselves with "controversy"? You have to remember that it's all a con, and the last thing con men want you to do is to keep your eye on the pea. Be entertained by Howard Stern, but do not place your faith in him.
But you said a couple of disturbing things:
• At the end, you described yourself as a "patriot" who served in the Army for ten years. First, congratulations and thank you. But at the beginning, and I quote your words, because they are so shockingly scary: The American people showed as a populace why democracies do not last. You give the power to the people and the people are dumb. First, there have not been too many democracies on this planet (other than the natural democracy that evolved in most hunting/gathering tribes or groups) ... there was that one in ancient Greece in the city-state of Athens; the Iroquois Confederacy was the first known representative democracy (and our Founding Fathers drew upon their system heavily when creating our own); Britain has evolved slowly to become somewhat democratic (and passed on more democratic systems to its extant colonies); France remains somewhat democratic, as do the rest of the western European nations and increasingly more eastern European countries. They have lasted for various amounts of time ... I guess "lasting" is a relative term and you will have to define what you mean by "lasting for a long time". I think 223 years is a pretty long time for a system of government to last ... especially one that encourages differences of opinion (as opposed to silencing them).
But what is frightening is the fact that the tone of your statement seems to suggest that you believe a democracy cannot endure because its people are stupid. So, tell me again, just what it was you were serving during your 10 years in the Army? And with what would you replace our democracy? Would the system by which you replace it make its people more intelligent? I think you need to explain yourself.
You also said: When he's taken your money and given to someone that didn't earn it...you'll see. I assume by "take my money", you are implying that Barack Obama is going to increase my taxes (I hope you don't actually think he is going to knock on my door and commit a strong armed robbery). Well, I have news for you. Barack Obama is not going to take my money. At least, he is not going to take any more than the George W Bush government took, and he is actually going to take less from me than Shrub ever did (if you listen to what he actually says, instead of what some propagandist has filled your head with what that person says he says). I doubt very much if he is going to take any more from you either, unless you earn more than $250,000 a year (and even then, he is only going to take a little bit more from you, so that you will be paying the same tax you paid when Bill Clinton was President ... remember those days? ... the largest economic boom since World War II? ... ahh, the good old days when the income tax on wealthy people was just 3% higher and everyone prospered!).
As to "giving it to someone else" ... well, unless he makes a radical and revolutionary departure from recent budgets, somewhere between 45-62% of what he "takes" from you and I and everyone else who pays their fair share (eliminating almost all of corporate America with that one word) goes to our military. Some of it probably pays for any benefits you might still be drawing from your active service. Most of it, though, goes to weapons of mass destruction (and small-scale destruction), upkeep on over 700 military bases around the world, and otherwise protecting our imperial domain. About 3-5% goes to "someone else" in the form of social programs, and another hunk goes to all of us in the form of highways, bridges, regulatory agencies that find things like salmonella in your peanut butter or arsenic in the coal ash from the cleansing ponds of the nearby coal-fired electric generator. Someone has to protect us from huge corporations that don't pay too close attention to those "costly" and "irritating" safety and health regulations that Big Government keeps pushing down their throats.
Yes, you have a right to purchase a gun. I do not dispute that right, nor would I place anything but prudent limitations on it (for example, I don't think you should own a bazooka or anti-personnel mines; a rocket launcher is probably out of the question, and I would also draw the line at a small, tactical nuclear bomb). You'll have to bark up someone else's tree on the gun control thing.
As to what I did ("besides spouting idiotic, liberal and tree-hugging drivel")? Under normal circumstances, I would tell you it was none of your business, but I am going to make an exception in your case because you seem so rooted in such simplistic understandings of what it means to be an American. I reached military service age during the Vietnam conflict, to which I was intelligently opposed ... meaning that unlike the vast unwashed STUPID Americans whom you feel do not deserve a democracy, I educated myself and saw behind the curtain that Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon erected to hide the truth for us in that war. I was more than willing to serve my country in lots of different ways, but I refused to participate in that unjust and illegal war. That is my right, in a democracy, don't you know. I did register for the draft when I turned 18, and never burned my draft card as a symbolic protest ... but I had had most of my right hand blown off in a shooting accident when I was seven years old, and the military ruled that I was physically unfit to serve. So I chose to serve my country in a different way. I stayed in college, earned a Masters Degree in history, but then went on to earn a teaching credential and served two separate communities for over 30 years as a middle school teacher (well, 20 of it was in a two room school where I taught 4-8th graders altogether in the same classroom). Stand in front of 30 middle school aged children every day for 30 years and then tell me about "service".
Oh, by the way ... Barack Obama is no communist. But even if he were, there is nothing illegal or wrong with being a communist (unless, of course, you are a fascist). It is time that people realize that a person holding communistic beliefs is no different than a person holding Baptist beliefs, or Satanic beliefs, or Muslim beliefs, or agnostic beliefs, or capitalist beliefs. It is a belief system that shapes how people view the world, and guides the decisions and choices they make. Nothing more. And the last time I checked, we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To the best of my knowledge, a person who finds happiness in the writings of Karl Marx is entitled to the liberty of having those beliefs. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Congress shall make no law to abridge the right of that person to hold whatever beliefs he or she may have, to express that belief publicly, or to associate with people who hold the same belief. One exception does exist ... if in the holding of that belief one aids or abets another nation in any effort to overthrow the government of this country, well ... that's a no-no. It's time that Americans grow up and realize the spook under the bed is more likely to be the person telling you that you can't do this or you shouldn't do that than it is to be a communist.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 285
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=176628&title=obama-cartoon
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
And the Question is ...
As a result of Berg's FOIA filing for Barak Obama's American passport info, he discovered that there was none until Obama became a Senator. That explains why Obama wasn't prevented entry into Pakistan due to having an American passport in '81. So how did Obama enter Pakistan?
Do you suppose the Supremes might be considering that question even as you read this? How hard do you think it will be to turn his 2 former roommates who traveled with him to testify what the country of issue of his passport was back then?
And that is just the beginning of the unraveling of the threads of deceipt that is coming to pass.
Bear in mind that as of noon, today, Obama became a federal employee. Penalties went from civil to criminal. A former prosecuting state Attorney General, such as Berg, and members of the Supreme Court, would know this.
Makes you wonder about the stumble during the oath, doesn't it?
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
(1) Your mindless ranting predicted, amongst other things, that neither Scalia nor Roberts would even be in attendance. So much for that.
(2) Perhaps John Roberts just isn't up to the job that Dubya appointed him to ... that when out in the open with the common folk, he can't even memorize a simple line, or string together a coherent sentence?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
The Devil's In the Details ...
shays wrote '... Your mindless ranting predicted, amongst other things, that neither Scalia nor Roberts would even be in attendance ...'
Well, actually I presented a fact first - that a legal document pointing to the impropriety of justices attending a public function of a party to cases they are considering was filed with the justices. And suggesting an explanation for a hypothetical event is not necessarily a 'prediction' to me. So what, precisely, are the other predictions I made '... amongst other things' you allude to? Or is this just another deflection from the hard question I posed - given that an officer of the court claims to have a document determining Obama did not have a U.S. passport before his diplomatic passport as a U.S. Senator, HOW WAS HE ALLOWED TO VISIT PAKISTAN FOR 2 WEEKS WHEN U.S. CITIZENS WERE PROHIBITED FROM ENTRY INTO THE COUNTRY?! Of course the most logical answer is that he used a passport from another country (say, Indonesia, the country of his stepfather). But then, to retain it, he would have had to disavow all allegiance to the U.S. This would have required him to renew his allegiance when he 'returned' to the U.S., of which there is no record. And in '88 he visited Kenya, yet did not have a U.S. passport then, according to Berg. Since you seem so creative at putting words in my mouth, maybe you can come up with some plausible explanation. You do have the facts that Obama's passport info was 'cracked' in March, 2008, and since I don't have the date of Berg's document, it may be possible that Berg's info reflects the 'cauterized' data. And it is likely that that paper trail to support the 'cracked' computer data is being manipulated as we speak by his 'security advisor'.
Oh, and shays, if you didn't catch it already, Chicago is in Illinois, not Indiana. He served in the Illinois Legislature, then as the U.S. Senator from Illinois.
Be One, or Begone!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
My bad ... you are correct. Barack Obama did not serve in the Indiana legislature.
Other than that, I have nothing to say in regards to your ongoing silliness.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
attended the same non schools of non logic. Ever read any of the minority or majority opinions of Clarence Thomas. they read like a diatribe against the very rules of the same society that enabled him to go to school and try to learn law. Too bad they failed.
Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas, all failed soft headed minds that will never historically measure up to the offices they have been appinited to by the dumbest set of Presidents in American history.
We have just ended the craziest administration in our history but we are still faced with the legacy of the crazy supreme court they appointed. I have no doubt at all that Roberts and company will attempt to rule the country from the bench and continue the facist policies of the Bush syndicate.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
While I cannot disagree with your assessment of Justice Thomas so far (he may yet still emerge to assert himself), you do yourself a disservice by underestimating and denigrating the strength and intelligence of Justices Scalia and Roberts. I disagree with most of their legal opinions, and I know they will not hesitate to use the most obscure legal minutiae to argue those opinions ... but they are highly intelligent and cannot be dismissed. Bush appointed them to secure his permanent Republican majority, of course, and fully intended to add at least a couple more if the opportunity arose ... and had he been able to stay in office another couple of years (or had John McCain won the election), we might have seen that occur. You can bet that they will continue to argue their positions, and that we will continue to have a divided Court far into the future.
Thank goodness for that!
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Flub? Or Bailout?
It seemed odd to me that the Chief Justice would flub his lines when administering an oath to a person who is a named party in cases before him. The following article may shed some light on the anomaly.
Experts: Obama Should Swear Oath Again
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:51 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_roberts_oath/2009/01/21/173685....
The presidential oath of office should be re-administered to Barack Obama because of his flub during Tuesday’s swearing-in ceremony, legal experts say.
Because of a mistake by Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama transposed one of the words in the oath. He should have said he will “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” but instead repeated Roberts’ cue and said he will “execute the Office of President of the United States faithfully.”
Josh White of the Washington Post noted: “The presidential oath of office is required of a new president before he can execute his power, and the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly.”
Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University, told the Post: “He should probably go ahead and take the oath again. If he doesn’t, there are going to be people who for the next four years are going to argue that he didn’t meet the constitutional standard.”
And Charles Cooper, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Ronald Reagan, said an incorrect recitation of the oath should be fixed and added that he would be surprised if the oath had not already been re-administered.
According to the Post, two previous presidents — Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur — repeated the oath in private because of similar issues.
Boston University’s Jack Beermann told Carolyn Lochhead at the San Francisco Chronicle that although it is unlikely to be challenged in court, just to play it safe, President Obama should do it again.
“It would take him 30 seconds, he can do it in private, it’s not a big deal, and he ought to do it just to be safe,” Berman said. “It’s an open question whether he’s president until he takes the proper oath.”
Be One, or Begone!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
So, he did it already. Satisfied.
Or are you next going to share with us a nice little first person account of how Calvin Coolidge and/or Chester A Arthur were secretly raised by enemies of America to become President so they could overturn our system of government ... and the flub in administering the oath was just a part of the plan!
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Only far right wing nut cases like FauxAmerica are so detached from reality that they think this is any sort of an issue.
BTW, when will you be filing your lawsuit to have Obama declared to be ineligible to serve as president and removed from office?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
3 Down; 1 To Go (For Now) ...
The fat lady is getting skinnier all the time ...
The SCOTUS denied the Order to Stay requested by Berg today.
08A505 BERG, PHILIP J. V. OBAMA, BARACK, ET AL. (08-570)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/012109zor.pdf
Be One, or Begone!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Oh well ... just a couple more days and then we'll start reading some new rant (or some new version of an old rant). That's MY prediction
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Court Shenannigans ...
A little chain-pulling went on in the past couple of days. Right after the Berg denial was posted, the remaining case of Lightfoot v. Bowen disappeared from Friday's docket. About the same time an anonymous rumor was posted that Hawaii had sent a certified copy of Obama's BC and 3 affidavits to the SCOTUS. So take that with a grain of salt, but it might be at the order of SCOTUS as a result of the case above.
Then this morning the docket entry was restored.
Personally, I thought that perhaps the justices had taken Dr. Taitz's suggestion for recusal to heart, and they all recused themselves because they attended the inauguration. So of course the case disappeared - there was no one left who could hear it!
Again, if you are trying to guess what SCOTUS is up to, bear in mind that penalties went from civil to criminal with the recent investitures of Obama and his cabinet. So keep chuggin' that Ensure, fat lady!
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
And the Winner Is ...
Well this story may narrow it down considerably. It's an anectdote of Obama's English teacher who recalls having dinner with an obstetrician who was aware of Obama's birth that day.
http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html
With that question (probably) resolved, the remaining question comes down to the meaning of 'natural born', as opposed to 'native born', as opposed to just plain citizen. Current legal thinking seems to boil down to this. If a child is born in U.S. territories of (both) parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, that is a 'natural born' citizen. If a child is born in U.S. territories and 1 parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, that is a 'native born' citizen. And the last one is the kicker due to the '... not subject to a foreign jurisdiction ...' clause of the 14th Amendment, and isn't about to be answered in a few words.
I discovered the Indonesian citizenship would have no bearing because he returned to U.S. territories before the age of 23. Although it is troubling about his international travel before records showed he had a U.S. passport, that becomes another topic altogether.
So I' guessing the Supremes are probably looking at 'natural born' and 'native born', and throwing in weird things like '... well his British-Kenyan citizenship expired ...' and '... native born is close enough, right? ...'. But on Obama's own website his claim is that he is a 'native born' citizen. And as an attorney friend of mine suggested - it's not about the law, it's about who has the most dirt on the judge. We'll probably know on Monday.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
He was not born in a US territory. He was born in Hawaii. I realize that we stole Hawaii and that many native Hawaiians seek independence (much like many Texans seek independence ... which makes me wonder just where you were with questions about citizenship when George W ran for president, but then I remember that he is FauxTexan ... and therefore now understand the connection to FauxNews ... and was actually born in Connecticut with a silver cocaine spoon in his mouth), but it was, nevertheless, a state at the time of Mr Obama's birth. It still is, last time I checked.
Maybe the lesson to be learned here is "mind your own business"; but I am sure such lessons escape those looking for an axe to grind. So maybe here's a better lesson to take to heart ... "be patient". I am sure, sometime during the next four years, that President Barack Hussein Obama (the name sort of rolls off your tongue, doesn't it?) will actually do something worthy of criticism.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
It was tough to decide whether to say 'territory' or 'territories' when I posted the article. 'Territory' might only imply the contiguous states, so I opted for the more expansive 'territories', which to me meant the states and territories. So although he was not born in a U.S. Territory, he was likely born in U.S. territory.
And I woke up thinking about the article. It bothers me that the woman said that '... Well, today, Stanley had a baby... ' at a dinner conversation, when the COLB shows 7:42(?) P.M. as the time of birth. But given the span of time and tricks of memory, I think this is still a likely possibility. After 47 years, 'today' and 'yesterday' are close enough.
If you would like further reading on the 'natural born citizen' debate, see -
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
And as for minding my own business, my vote is my own business. And I value it. I only wish more people would mind their own business (and at least get the names right on the party tickets, let alone the issues).
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
'natural born citizen' debate? There is no debate because there is nothing to debate. The article you posted is nothing but hogwash. Its only delusional clowns like yourself who persist with baseless claims to the contrary. Obama is a 'natural born US citizen'. Get over it.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Voting Rights?...
As you may be aware the recent spate of court cases regarding Obama's 'natural born citizenship' has been shot down due to a lack of 'standing'. 'Lack of standing' is not defined in the Constitution, but has been provided by fiat by the courts as a tool to minimize specious legal concerns.
Most of us probably believe that 1. we have a right to vote, and 2. our votes in a national election determine who our representatives will be, and who our President and VP will be. We are not, however, a democracy, but a federal republic. So at the state level we are allowed to vote. But for the federal level, the states may pick any manner to choose electors as they please. These electors then comprise what we know as the Electoral College, and THEY actually select the President and VP. The following link to a set of comments explores this legal relationship far better than I can -
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3070
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Again, it is clear that you have been sleeping for the last nine years. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 (and probably did so in 2004), but was "selected" by the Electoral College.
As for "standing" ... here is evidence that you slept through your 8th grade civics course (or any such course you have taken since) and probably a few history courses, as well. "Standing" stems from common law, which comprises about 3/4 of all law in the US (and Great Britain, not to mention its other old colonies, though to different degrees owing to separate political evolution).
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
What time zone are you from? When you check out the recent definitions of 'standing', in part by decisions of Scalia (http://home.uchicago.edu/~jmellis/standing.html) 'Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife' you see these aberrations of your 'common law' occurred in 1986. That's when my kids were in school.
And since you seem so keen on the subject, maybe you can answer this. Suppose you have 5 people choosing (voting) on 'red' or 'blue' because your boss can't continue to pay for all 5 of you. So he's put you all into either the 'blue' or 'red' group, but your don't know which. You are the last to vote. You notice 2 have voted red; and 2 voted blue. Being so politically correct, you don't vote. When pressed to vote, you vote 'green'. As a result of your vote you all get fired. Do any of you have cause for complaint? Do any of you have 'standing' by current standards of the Supreme Court?
And if you have a taste for the aburd, try this one out. If you created a device (like Tesla did) that created earthquakes and you turned it loose until 90% of the structures in a 100 mile radius were demolished or severly damaged, would anyone have standing to sue you for damages? (Would anyone be standing, for that matter?)
When the Constitution states we have the right to petition the government with our grievances, are they talking about the Court? Or Congress? Or the President? Can petitions be tossed for 'lack of standing'?
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I am not a legal scholar, nor do I have much interest in the puffery of attorneys (or the judges that they become), who can turn any argument on its head and argue that black is white or night is day. The unfortunate aspect of the finer points of law is that sooner or later, we all experience at least one time when it raises its ugly head and bites us on the b*tt. At any rate, all I said was that issues of "standing" arise from Common Law. Even the Administrative Law course outline that you provided for me to read agrees. The rest of your post reflects what activist judges have done over the years to interpret "standing" ... usually to support some broader theory or principle of law that supports their own peculiar view of the world.
Your post also points out something else of value ... a little bit of knowledge without a broader context is quite dangerous. Let's explore a few of your gaffes, how about it?
The Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife case you site did not take place in 1986, but in 1992 (a reminder that checking the sources of your information is always helpful). What grade were your kids attending in 1986? Would the notion of "standing" be something that they studied in that grade?Now add six years to your answer(s). But let's personalize this. When do YOU remember first encountering the concept of "standing"? Was this a vocabulary word commonly introduced and studied in grade-school that you were forced to memorize and regurgitate on a test to prove that you had learned it? Personally, I doubt it very much. "Standing" might have been included in an 8th grade or high school civics course, but it seems much too narrow and specific a legal concept to receive much attention for kids that age ... however, if it was introduced, it most likely was introduced using a teaching strategy known as "mentioning"; the teacher says the word "standing", and connects it generally by making some reference to the broader concept of "common law" which he assumes we understand because it was also "mentioned" (and maybe even printed in the text) and seems self-explanatory. If you get right down to it, most Americans' understanding of "common law" is connected somehow to crusty and dusty old English history back in the days of Robin Hood (who may, or may not, have actually existed), but if you lift even a corner of their "understanding" up, you discover that they know absolutely nothing about it at all.
I know just a little bit more than that ... which is not saying much.
[SIDEBAR: "Mentioning" is a common practice of really bad teachers ... in almost any content area. The idea goes something like this -- there is so much material to cover and not enough time to cover it all during the limited time that a teacher has with their students, so many of the concepts and facts and intricate relationships they must teach can only be "covered" by "mentioning them" once (maybe twice), trusting that because students have heard it, they now know it. The teacher also probably knows that the word is printed in the textbook is bold-faced type, so because the pages were assigned reading, this is further evidence that the kids "get it". Of course, the common practice of putting "important" words in bold-face for kids to memorize is just the print form of "mentioning". That's why curriculum in most American schools is described as a "cover curriculum" ... and the depth of learning is like the Rio Grande River: an inch deep and a mile wide]
The page to which you referred me was quite interesting. I explored many of the links and even tried to find the instructor at the UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO who posted it (I emphasize the source, as it seems to fly in the face of the value you place in that institution, and just find it ironic that you use it as a source to prove something). I had no luck. I wonder if you truly understood the text that was printed there. In its discussion of the etymology and development of the concept of legal "standing", there was a lot of short-hand, cross-references to other bits of scholarly legalisms, and other strange sentence constructions and abbreviations (these seem to be intended as lecture notes) that made understanding quite difficult for me. But I got the gist of a good part of it.
Antonin Scalia, in Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, added a new layer of restriction on tests for "standing". He also wrote an opinion that clearly shows him to be an activist judge, and one who will not stoop to creating new arguments (i.e., bringing the Constitution to life ... a "Living Document", if you will) to justify his philosophical and political beliefs. Case in point. Scalia is a strong proponent of the Unitary President and the central power of the Executive Branch, so it makes sense that he would invent an argument to exclude the Secretary of the Interior from being sued by environmentalists over the status of endangered species in foreign lands. Clearly there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that defines whether or not a citizen of the US has the legal standing to sue a member of government (or to force him to obey a law) ... so the "textualist" Scalia must invent text to cover his rigidly narrow opinions.
As to the two hypothetical cases you have posed, I have no idea whether or not the Court would grant that petitioners have "standing". As stated above, "standing" seems pretty straight-forward, but since Scalia threw the monkey wrench into any considerations about who can sue the government and who can't, I have no idea what fine hairs have been split in regards to "actual" vs "abstract" damages. It would seem that five individuals were arbitrarily fired, and suffered concrete damage. They may not win the case, but any of them has standing to sue their employer. The earthquake case seems even more clear cut ... if someone started a fire at the corner of my property and the fire then burned down 90% of my property, I think I would have standing to sue the culprit for damages ... the same would hold true for the guy who unleashed the Tesla earthquake machine. Unless, of course, he had received a no-bid contract from the Department of Interior and HUD to raze the structures on that property and some "literalist" Supreme Court Justice interprets that contract as something that excludes citizens from suing.
Why don't you tell me why none of us five employees can sue our employer (for lack of standing), or why any of the property owners would not have standing to sue the guy who knocked down their buildings.
Your final question, however, is an interesting one and calls into question all sorts of legal scholars and historians. I won't go there. It seems to me that everyone has a right to petition government with a list of grievances ... but it is a very narrow view that says the only form such petitions can take is a lawsuit. In order to get stuff done, we all know that limits must be placed on the types of suits that can be brought (if we think our courts are swamped now, just wait until anyone can sue the government for anything). It is only common sense that some tests for legitimacy exist to help limit those efforts. Traditionally, one of those tests has been "standing" ... are you actually affected by whatever it is you are arguing about, do you really have a stake in it; and is this something that a lawsuit is the best way to address? Different judges have tried to narrow these overly broad tests over the last two hundred years ...
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
Let's take a look at the three main arguments presented by some that Obama is not qualified to be POTUS. Note that in the following when I use the term Plaintiff I am not referring to any particular case or plaintiff, but to those who hold this position in general. .
The first argument is that he was not born on U.S. Soil, and therefore he can not be a natural born citizen.
To counter this argument, the defendant needs only to produce the original, certified Certificate of Live Birth whose image we have all seen on the internet. This document in and of itself is sufficient legal proof that Obama was born in Honolulu unless the plaintiff can somehow refute this evidence. What are the possible ways of refuting the evidence?
The plaintiff can claim that the man currently occupying the oval office is in fact, not the Barack Obama listed on the COLB. Since I have not heard anyone yet make a claim to this effect, I think we can all agree that this is not a valid rebuttal of the COLB evidence.
The Plaintiff can claim that the document presented has been altered or forged. There are two possibilities here.
You can make the claim that the document was altered after being issued by the state of Hawaii. The problem with this is that the plaintiff would have to present proof that the document has been altered and all the court would have to do is request that a new certified COLB be sent from the Hawaiian DOH directly to the court. Conspiracy theories aside, It is highly unlikely that the document in question has been altered. It would simply be too easy for any such alteration to have been noticed. For instance, given the curiosity that this document has elicited, it would only take the Hawaiian DOH a few seconds to verify that the data as shown on the image is consistent with the data in their records. Presented with evidence of fraudulent abuse of their document, they would be obligated to prosecute the fraud. That this has not been done is a pretty good indication that the data on the document is consistent with the records in the DOH files.
You can make the argument that the actual records themselves in the DOH have been tampered with. This argument goes seriously into x-files conspiracy theory. The old adage, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I have yet to see any evidence that the Republican Governor of Hawaii and her appointed head of the Department of Health are somehow part of a vast conspiracy. I highly doubt that any court would entertain this claim for anything other than the laugh factor.
The final form of rebuttal would be to present evidence of an alternative birth site. The problem with this is that such evidence is, at this point, non-existent. No definitive evidence has yet to be presented by anyone indicating that Obama was born anywhere but in Honolulu. Now some of you may wish to put forth the questionable statements by Obama's paternal Grandmother. However, it is doubtful that that statement will ever be admissible as evidence. How many of you have actually heard this so-called evidence? At best it is a hearsay statement from someone who is not proficient in the language being spoken. At worst it is an out and out scam perpetrated on the person who obtained this so-called evidence. No, I don't think that any court in the land would ever consider allowing that so-called evidence to be presented, Even if it was presented, it has so little reliability that it is totally useless.
Based on the above, I think that it is fair to say that if this issue ever did go to trial, trying to prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii would be a totally useless endeavor.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Alferd, I see you have trolled other forums about this issue. The folks here already know the COLB is an extract of the actual birth certiticate, and that it shared the purpose of registering children born outside of U.S. territory. While it may be sufficient for passport purposes of mere citizenship, it does not fulfill the more stringent requirements of native born citizenship. Even Hawaii admits this. So whether the COLB was altered or not, it is still insufficient to prove the more stringent 'natural born' citizenship.
There has been no substantial evidence offered that Barack H. Obama was born in U.S. territory. No one who has seen the actual vault copy of his birth certificate has declared where he was born. There is no evidence in the timeline of the lives of Barack's parents that would preclude his being born in a foreign country. There is an Ambassador in Kenya that doesn't know if Barack was born there or not. If he wasn't born there, how can there be so many reports that his records are sealed there? What records would there be to seal?
And finally, you speak of evidence. If and when the Supreme Court tries the merits of these arguments, the birth certificate will surface in evidenciary hearings. The college records where Barry Soetoro attended will surface and may well show he enrolled as a foreign student. The State Dept. will show that he did not, in fact, have a U.S. passport to travel in foreign countries until he became a U.S. Senator. And the Dept. of Homeland Security may be able to provide the account of his mother's passage through a port of entry with a young child near the time Obama was born as a result of a supoena.
And the issue of 'natural born' citizen has never been determined by the Supreme Court. Other issues of citizenship have been, and the terms 'native born', 'natural born' have been carelessly intermixed as a synonym for citizen in several decisions. But the concept of a 'natural born' citizen as one who is free from foreign influences at birth as a requirement of being President has not been defined in any court decision. So you can cut and paste as many legal arguments as you like, and someone else can cut and paste just as many rebuttals.
And still the question remains. Why do you and I have to provide a birth certificate for after-school soccer, but Obama refuses to show his? What's the big deal? Or better yet, WHY the big deal?
Since you didn't seem to answer that question in other forums and blogs, I suggest you weigh anchor and find another place to troll. We already have advocates who have presented better arguments than you can provide.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Alfred's arguments are pretty solid, Real. Really. You have to invent possible explanations as 'evidence', and the further down the list you go, the more outlandish and implausible they become. The simplest answer is often the most direct and obvious. Folks living in Hawaii -- the courts and the politicians, the elected officials and the appointed officials, the enemies of Obama and the enemies of democracy -- have all had a fair look at the documents in question and not a one of them challenges them. Don't you think, for even a heartbeat, that if there was something incorrect and or dishonest about it, they would have spoken up by now.
They haven't.
Case closed. Go find something else to worry about. Like an asteroid striking your backyard.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
The second common argument that is presented is that Obama is not qualified by virtue of his father's status as a British subject at the time of Obama's birth. Note that this argument and the first argument that he was not born in Hawaii are mutually exclusive. If you are making the argument that Obama is not qualified due to his father's citizenship status, then you are tactically accepting the fact that he was born in Honolulu. There are several different components to this argument that we need to look at.
First is the proposition that there are three types of U.S. Citizenship. In order for this argument to work, the plaintiff needs to prove that there are three distinct classifications of U.S. Citizenship. There are: A natural born Citizen, A citizen who has citizenship by virtue of birth, yet is not a natural born citizen, and finally a naturalized citizen.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs there is no real evidence to support this claim. No one has ever made a successful case for this proposition. As far as the courts have ever determined there are only two classes of citizenship. Citizenship by birth (i.e. “natural”) and citizenship by choice (i.e. “naturalized”)
While Vattel postulated a number of different classifications of citizenship, there is no legal bases for these classifications in the U.S. There are no statutes, constitutional amendments or case law that defines or puts forth the concept of three types of citizenship.
Then there is the concept of dual allegiance. As I mentioned above, this argument suffers from one fatal flaw. It allows foreign governments to pass laws that effectively control our election system.
In addition, this argument is effectively shredded in the SCOTUS decision “United States v. Wong Kim Ark” In this decision, the court was careful to note the historical basis of the concept of a Natural Born Subject in English law predating the U.S. Constitution. The court quites clearly pointed out that mere birth within the Realm was sufficient to make one a natural born subject to the crown even if ones parents were aliens.
As quoted within the above decision, In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
The decision itself determined that birth within the territory of the U.S. was sufficient to make one a citizen (by birthright) even if ones parents were not citizens and subjects of the Chinese Emporer. In addition, the fact that Wong Kim Ark himself was also a subject of the Chinese emporer had no bearing on his status as a U.S. Citizen. In light of the fact that there is no legal basis to assume that there are three classifications of citizenship (point 1, above), then it is clear that Wong Kim Ark was indeed a natural born citizen.
Finally, there is the argument that both parents have to be U.S. Citizens for one to be a natural born citizen. This argument is also based on the preposition in Point 1, above. This argument fails in that in the evidence presented by the plaintiffs to support it, the plaintiffs clearly fail to distinguish between collective nouns and plural noun forms. This is not a trivial grammatical error, as this is the key to the whole argument.
Often quoted is the line from Vattel's Law of Nations: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens “ Note that the terms “citizens” and “parents,” are collective nouns, not plural nouns.
In Minor v. Happersett , the court was quite explicit in this regards. --“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”-- In this case the terms “children” and “Parents” are clearly collective nouns.
Based on the above, It is clear to me that this argument is seriously flawed. There is sufficient precedence against this argument to the point that it is doubtful that any court would accept it as valid.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
Finally there is the last argument that Obama is not qualified because he became an Indonesian citizen when he was a child. This argument does not deserve much effort to debunk. Simply see the decision in the Supreme court case, Perkins v. Elg. It is not possible for a minor child to renounce or loose their U.S. Citizenship.
Obama was only in Indonesia from age 6 to age 10 when he returned to the U.S. To live with his maternal grandmother. Therefore, this argument “has no legs.”
Some have postulated that Obama attended college under a foreign aid program, yet there is no evidence to support this. There is also nothing untoward about his travels abroad. There were no travel bans to any of the countries he visited. This argument, even if true, is simply not sufficient to prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen. The fact that the argument has no basis in reality only makes it more pathetic.
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 34
Are you really serious? This is the best issue you can come up with about this guy? If the country was not persuaded to vote against this guy because he is the most extreme liberal (read commie) that our country has ever elected to run than what makes you think anyone gives a **** about a little technicality like whether or not he’s eligible in the first place.
And yeah I know, he’s the first black (or mostly black?) blah blah blah we have ever elected. Well if you folks that elected this guy think a change of skin shade is going to persuade this government to stop screwing over the best interest of its citizens then I suggest that you don’t look at that section on your pay check stub that lists the amount of taxes the government robs from you.
And yes I’m aware that many of the people that voted (multiple times) for this clown don’t have jobs or pay taxes and are happy to turn over their granted freedoms for the free government (through the taxpayers that are left) benies. Rest assured that when those of us left can’t handle the burden any longer the whole damn thing will collapse. But then again isn’t that what some really want anyway?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
sickcynic wrote '... This is the best issue you can come up with? ...'
This topic is concerned with the citizenship issue. There are other topics, like Emperor's New Clothes in the Nation & World forum that explore other aspects of his background.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 285
Your doubt of Obama’s origin is irrelevant at this point in time and I for one look forward to seeing what he can do to undo the disastrous past eight years of Republican dominance under George Bush and his sicko consorts. Why don’t you just get onboard and see what you can do to help get the US out of this mess.
I watched your really dumb video and think that it was produced with very little evidence and a whole lot of innuendo. It is truly the work of a complete idiot with no intentions or interests in telling the truth.
By the way I see no further postings from your persona Bard Parker which leads me to believe you are not a real person but instead one of the many names that the troll CinClayton has come up with. I think you are a fraud and have no intentions other than sowing seeds of discourse…a true Republican.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
As I mentioned in my last message which you obviously didn't read, I was not going to be replying any longer on this post, but you called me out... so here it is.
I am not C in Clayton. I do not know who that is. I posted this 13 weeks and 210 replies ago. I am not a sheep or a clone as you would want to believe.
I am not a republican, I am a Reagan Conservative. That means if you were to put your right hand up, I stand to the right of that. I care not that you support Obama nor that you think a video, which was not mine, was really dumb.
What I care about is that tree hugging, Prius driving, spit on our soldiers, give foreign terrorists civil rights, preaching tolerance and compassion while practicing hatered Liberals like you do not spread your rhetoric to the children of tomorrow who you will be depending on to wipe drool from your chin when you get old.
Most liberals do not remember that you had your chance to oust George Bush in 2004 alomg with his cronyism and whatever else you dislike him for. John "swiftboat" Kerry was a great option huh?
Let me get to my point. I cannont support a person who refuses to simply confirm a simple fact about age or citizenship, or deceives voters about long standing and still existing affiliations with domestic terrorists, and America hating pastors. I do not agree with his stated policies both foreign or domestic. Your president of change has been revealed to be a Clintonista in a different suit. How would you suggest now that I just "get onboard"?
I do not want to see Obama plates and coins being sold on my TV. How much of the proceeds will go toward fixing the economy, allowing me to say "god' in the Pledge of Allegiance, adjust cyclical changes to variable weather patterns, or properly arm our soldiers fighting just wars overseas? NILL!!!
In closing...again... If you are such a great american, stop attempting to force your desires on the rest of us who have opposing views than yours. Some of us are just patriotic enough to stand up with our opposition and excercise our rights to question and disagree with our government, you know the government of the people, not the government of change, and change and change again... Good luck with your support of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Franks, Chuck Schummer, Hilary and all the rest. And if you agree with higher taxes, be my guest, write a check, just stop imposing taxation without representation on the rest of us...
I will listen to your answer off the air, thanks for taking my call.
Did I just say all of that out loud??
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Well at least we now have a clear statement of where you stand.
Let's see, as a Reagan conservative (and apparently proudly to the right of that) this must mean that you believe in and agree with the notion that the government is able to exercise supra-normal powers and can do so in secret and in violation of the will of the People. To wit: when the Congress of the United States misjudges the gravity of our foreign relations and in doing so places the security of the country in jeopardy, the Executive is empowered to form a secret military force that is funded from sources outside the parameters described in the Constitution because he is sworn to protect and defend the country. In other words, the President can build a privately funded armed force outside the scrutiny, oversight and jurisdiction of the Congress that can do his bidding, even if that bidding expressly violates an act of Congress? Additionally, the President can secretly sell classified weaponry and technology to Enemies of the State, and use the money to circumvent national and international law related to drug trafficking and ... as some have charged but which was never investigated so remains a mystery ... even import and sell highly addictive drugs to American citizens while simultaneously building up other paramilitary forces (in the guise of the Drug Enforcement Agency and the so-called War on Drugs) with the purpose of "combatting" that very same drug trafficking network?
Let's see ... as a Reagan conservative you must also believe that the right of workers to collectively bargain with their employers not only is a mistake, but part of some larger conspiracy by the workers of this country to impose socialism from within. The right of the few to make profits, at any cost, cannot be tempered or regulated by the need of the many to earn a decent wage or to guarantee that the conditions where they work are clean, safe, healthy, and humane. Certainly government has no business in the world of business, setting rules and regulating the production of safe, clean, healthy and honestly presented goods and services. Business always regulates itself ... otherwise, it goes out of business, right?
I am guessing, too, that as a Reagan conservative you do not trust the will of the People (which goes a long way to explain your utter contempt for Congress). That is, of course, unless the People elect a Congress willing to do your bidding. But actual democracy is something that is frightening and most certainly not to be trusted. This would include such elements as affordable and universal public education, K-16 (as opposed to an emphasis on providing higher education only to those who are "qualified" to be educated), that might lead to a well-educated population capable of thinking, problem-solving, and challenging authority (as opposed to a well-trained population that has been standardized with skill-based drills and exercises designed to produce convergent thinking and complacent drones); the aforementioned democratically based unions of workers in the work place who select their representatives to negotiate with employers; or even something so simple as electing a majority of representatives from a more liberal Party in response to decades of Reagan-like imposed failures.
I am guessing that you do not really believe in a balanced budget or a smaller government (despite protestations to the contrary) ... you just wish to shrink that part of the government that serves the poor and so-called "unproductive", but are more than willing to increase the size of the military and government agencies that service the military-industrial-communications complex. You are more than willing to reduce taxes on the plutocracy while increasing spending for "necessary" and "unavoidable" crises; you are more than willing to wage permanent warfare, even if you must create enemies for us to combat; and you are more than willing to turn the tools of government and leadership in key appointed positions to representatives of the plutocracy so they can ignore the needs and desires of the People and safeguard the interests of corporate fascists.
Barack Obama is not the answer to issues stemming from the Reagan Revolution (including perversion of government of, by and for the people to a system that indirectly serves the People through a government of, by, and for the corporations) ... but he represents a start. My fear is that he and the Democratic leadership currently calling the shots in Washington are nothing more than the Liberal wing of the plutocratic elite and, after push comes to shove and we spend/borrow a few trillion dollars to clean up the excesses of greed falling out from Reaganomics (because the culture of greed and elitism we now see in the highest ranks of global corporatism are a direct outcome of Reaganomics), that the same culture and the same players will still be in charge. I come from a school that believes corporations and businesses serve the needs of a community and, if they do it well, they make profits and everyone lives happily ever after ... I vehemently oppose the notion, inherent in Reaganomics, that people serve corporations and communities owe their success (and possibly existence) to unfettered and unregulated corporations and businesses. Our Founders created a system of government of and for people, not of or for business. We will see how Barack Obama steers his unruly and undisciplined Democratic majority ... he and they will either reign in the power of the corporatocracy and stuff it back into the box from whence it came, or they will simply design a different system that still places the plutocracy at the center of the decision-making process.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 14
I applaud you for allegedly knowing so much about me. I see you are from somewhere near the Peoples Republic Of Portland, (relax, I make the same reference to my sister who is a resident of Portland Oregon). That in itself tells me alot about how you "guess" that i have the opinion or position about whatever you rambled on about.
this is simple... I asked this question about Obamas citizenship and age well before the November election. Obviously, it has touched a nerve with many people over the past 13 weeks. I think as a democratic nation, provoking thought and opinion is a wonderful liberty, as long as we do not step on the liberty of others to provoke reciprical thought with opinions of their own. Fine, Obama won. I struggle each day with the notion that I should give him the same respect that those who opposed say George Bush or even the great Ronald Reagan got. Is Obama my president...No... he is the president of my country and I will respect the office of the president so help me GOD.
Just to sum it all up in the present as opposed to when I posted the original question, If we as a nation allow the government to do for us what we can do ourselves, we will wake up as a socialist country.
Shays, keep writing and provoking healthy thought and not that of the sheep and clones of this country, we all need some healthy provocation from time to time, Mr. 1157 posts.
P.S. I said put your right hand up and I stand to the right of that, not beyond that of a Reagan conservative. Just a small correction.
Signed off, 01/30/2009
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Mr Bard Parker
I apologize for misreading the paragraph in which you identified yourself as standing to the right of my raised right hand ... as you have correctly deduced, I associated that image with the preceding sentence and assumed you meant to say you stood to the right of Ronald Reagan. That's scary territory ... that's Joe Pyneland and John Birch Country. Whew. Thanks for the correction.
Yes, during the election I did a lot to support the candidacy and then the campaign of Barack Obama. Besides making phone calls, knocking on doors, registering voters, and passing out literature on the sidewalk adjacent to our local Farmer's Market, I followed and tracked discussions on a few message boards. Like this one. While I much prefer reasoned discussion, even when it occasionally grows heated (I have made two enduring conservative friends on this particular message board ... we certainly do not see eye to eye, but when our travels intersect and we cross paths, we meet up and carry on the discussion face-to-face), I also am on the watch for those who spread rumor and innuendo and unsubstantiated or undocumented misstatements. I have a great deal of patience, particularly for the uninformed who behave in such a manner because they are still learning and have not yet learned to distinguish between fact and opinion. But I have zero patience for those who do so knowingly.
This particular discussion had relevance for about the first 15 minutes of fame we supposedly all will receive. I didn't even join it until it was almost a month along and well past the election ... I do not think you were even a participant any longer ... and then only because I could not believe people were still beating that dead horse. I only occasionally look at new messages ... I log on and track the conversations I participate in, and this one has had legs, so it sits pretty near the top of my tracked threads. Other than that, I agree with you ... it's over, Obama is president, and let's move on. He will most certainly do things much more controversial (and real) in the next four years that are worthy of meaningful dialog and discussion.
I will make a minor correction. I did not claim to know anything about you ... I was addressing what I (mistakingly) thought being to right of Ronald Reagan entailed, reminding you of the kinds of things with which support for Reagan entailed. I see that you still refer to him as "great" however, so perhaps we will want -- at some point in the future -- to define exactly what you mean by "great" (our definitions seem quite different ... somehow, Iran-Contra alone -- not to mention all the ramifications and magnifications of that blatantly illegal act that continue to echo and influence current events -- takes that appellation right off the table, and all the other policy failures and flat out disrespect for large segments of the American population put him near the opposite end of the good/bad spectrum in my book). If you do not think those policies should be considered in evaluating Reagan's presidency or in weighing his legacy (terminating with the collapse of laissez faire capitalism as dramatically symbolized by the various scandals and economic ruin -- including, but not limited to, Enron, AIG, Countrywide, Salmonella, and the socialized losses of the financial and industrial sectors), or if you think there is another side to the story, I would be happy to discuss those matters with you. A different thread (or topic ... I can't keep straight what they call these things on this "newer" message board) would probably serve such a discussion better than this one, but I do not pretend to dictate how or where people choose to do things.
Additionally, I would like to take the liberty of addressing three specific points that you raised. I will take them in the order you raised them, not by order of importance or relevance:
(1) Yes, I live in Portland. I am a native Californian, and retired to Oregon three years ago for several convergent reasons. We (my wife and I) wanted to be nearer our daughter and two grand daughters. She is originally from the Pacific Northwet (as we call it) and wanted to return closer to her roots (she moved to downtown Los Angeles from Issaquah, WA -- decades before Bill Gates transformed that sleepy little town -- as a senior in high school). We are both gardeners, and feared the approaching water wars in California. We sold our home and then purchased this one about a year before the housing market turned downward, and could get a whole lot more bang for our buck in Oregon than we could in California (we went from owing a bucketfull of cash for .84 acres and a small 3-bedroom in Carmel Valley and almost owning 4.84 acres and a large 4-bedroom, passively solar heated home out in rural Oregon). We are rural types ... we actually live east of Oregon City out with the cows and horses and hay fields ... and the rural areas of California on our list of places to settle just didn't cut it. Incidentally, our other daughter lives in Walnut Creek, and when we were in Carmel Valley, we spent a lot of time in Contra Costa County. It was one of the major papers I subscribed to, electronically ... which is how I came to be on this particular message board. I was born in Long Beach, lived there for 29 years, earned a Masters Degree from CSULB and a multi-subject teaching credential (also studied for a year at the University of Liverpool and worked for five years testing the water, protein, and foreign substance content of hot dogs for Oscar Mayer). Taught 4th-8th grade (same kids, same classroom) in a two room school for 20+ years in Trinity County, then moved to Carmel Valley when the population grew old and small(er) and the school closed.
(2) I do not object at all to your comment that Barack Obama is not your president, but he is the president. That is your prerogative and I think you make the admission eloquently and in all fairness. However, I do have a comment about the statement you made before it: I struggle each day with the notion that I should give him the same respect that those who opposed say George Bush or even the great Ronald Reagan got. You have forgotten a very critical distinction between Bush and Obama, particularly as they first come into office. Barack Obama won a non-controversial decision over John McCain, with 53% of the vote. George Bush came to power after a very controversial election in which he not only did not win the popular vote, but convinced the Supreme Court to do the expedient thing rather than the right thing ... all the votes did not get counted, and we never knew who actually won. The majority of the electorate thusly felt betrayed and robbed when George Bush was sworn in. As for Ronald Reagan ... the only criticism I recall (other than that directed at the horrible things he did) was that given to all presidents by comics and satirists the world over.
(3) Finally, you said: Just to sum it all up in the present as opposed to when I posted the original question, If we as a nation allow the government to do for us what we can do ourselves, we will wake up as a socialist country. Barack Obama has called upon the American people to serve their country and to try to get beyond simple partisan talking points ... he has asked people to roll up their sleeves and get to work. We will see if they are given places to actually do that work. As to myself, I served the people of two separate communities as a public school teacher, and am proud of my service. I did not ask what my country could do for me ... I went out and did what not a whole lot of other people with my background and qualifications were willing to do. I was offered a position with Oscar Mayer that STARTED at twice what I ever earned as a teacher, based upon my work in the company and no other qualifications. It took me almost ten years of teaching to finally earn what I started earning as a Large Batch Blending Laboratory Technician ... a position I secured through a friend (because I needed a job) and had to lie about my Masters Degree and other skills so that I could get the job. I see a vast difference between those who do what they do because they can make money doing it, and those who do what they do because what they do profoundly affects and influences the people around them.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays stated '... Alfred's arguments are pretty solid ...'. Wow! I totally missed the incontrovertible evidence that Obama's COLB was not used to register a foreign-born child. Of course, the only incontrovertible evidence that that is not the case is ... Obama's long form birth certificate. And despite shays bleating '... Folks living in Hawaii -- the courts and the politicians, the elected officials and the appointed officials, the enemies of Obama and the enemies of democracy -- have all had a fair look at the documents in question ...' he has been unable to give a single name of a person in authority who signed under penalty of perjury that they examined Obama's long form birth certificate and released the information on it.
And still the question remains. Why do you and I have to provide a birth certificate for after-school soccer, but Obama refuses to show his? What's the big deal? Or better yet, WHY the big deal? After all, according to shays, untold numbers of people have already seen it.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I do NOT have to provide a birth certificate for after-school soccer, and the only time I needed to provide a COPY of my birth certificate (a very short form, about 8.5 x 5.5) was when I first applied for a passport. Of course, Republican efforts to force me to obtain a universal identification badge may change that ... but you are most definitely over-impressed with the importance of a birth certificate and the need for people to properly identify themselves. Guess it's the inherent authoritarianism of the Republican Party that's yanking your chain.
And untold number of people have seen the copy of Obama's certificate at his web site and plastered over a gazillion other websites and newspaper pages since some sicko (Corsi?) invented this "issue". Why is it that only whackos are raising a challenge, and all the people most likely to benefit from it really really being fraudulent have remained mum?
Because it's not a fraud ... and because the question lurks only in the hearts and minds of truly sick people. I suggest you see a doctor if the symptoms persist too much longer. You may be certifiable.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 22
Real America, let me ask you this.
If Obama was born in Kenya, the evening of August 4, 1961, how did the Hawiian registrars office recieve the documentation 3 days later?
Did his mother fly to Honlulu with a newbie on her lap?
Get real.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
alferd posed the question '...If Obama was born in Kenya, the evening of August 4, 1961, how did the Hawiian registrars office recieve the documentation 3 days later?Did his mother fly to Honlulu with a newbie on her lap?...'
The possibility exists that she was too pregnant to leave Kenya by plane, so she went to Mombasa and had labor induced, rather than stay 1 more day in the company of Islamic men who were eyeing her as an adultress given that Obama, Sr., already had a wife. On the day following she cables Grandma with the birth news and asks her to send a plane ticket and meet her in Hawaii. On the 7th, yes, she bundles Barack Jr. up and takes him to Hawaii, crossing the Date Line and gaining a day in the process. The following day (you figure it out) she files for the COLB, and a notice is automatically generated for the newspaper. She then accompanies Grandma back to Washington to enroll in continuation classes. And when we get to see the actual long form birth certificate, it may be found that a 1 was changed to a 4 which would have given her even more time. Remember, even if she tried, the U.S. Consulate wouldn't have registered him as the son of a U.S. citizen because she was too young to confer her citizenship to him when he was born.
So now maybe you can tell us a good reason why Barack H. Obama, Jr. refuses to expose his long form birth certificate to public scrutiny?
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Americans are not being scammed...any more than the readers of these forums are being scammed by FauxAmerica and his fabricated fables about Obama not being a U S citizen.
Do we all remember that the original claim was that Obama was a citizen of Indonesia, but that story mysteriously morphed into him being born in Kenya? These fabricating propagandists can't even come up with a consistent version of the 'facts', yet expect the readers of these boards to accept their claims at face value. Fortunately, people just are not that gullible, and the large, gaping holes in this so called 'story' expose too much of the light of rationality and reason to be credible. It really sucks to be a propagandist, doesn't it?
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 225
RealAmerica,
Were you with Michael Phelps in November? Bong!
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
tooldforthis wrote '... Were you with Michael Phelps in November? ...'
No. Are you asking because you were with Mr. Obama and are seeking new sources for him? This is probably not the appropriate forum for that type of activity.
You were aware of his admitted past drug use before you voted, weren't you?
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
What's wrong with past drug use? Those who align themselves with the big government forces that insert themselves and pry into our bedrooms and living rooms in order to prevent us from freely choosing behaviors that harm no one else ... those who find vicarious pleasure and are titillated by infotainment stories of the supposedly sordid behaviors of Americans relaxing in the privacy of their own homes or in the company of friends are hypocrites, at best, and complicit in the movement towards authoritarian rule, at worst.
That type of information didn't stop a bunch of prudes and hypocrites from voting -- TWICE -- for George W Bush, now did it?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Tea Party
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
And do we recall that the Boston Tea Party was staged in protest of corporate domination of the British government? And from that mistrust of the corrupting power of corporate interest, corporations were tightly regulated and licensed in this country until after the Civil War?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
It Ain't Goin' Away Soon ...
As people wake up to the Obamination they 'elected' and desperatly seek a way out, this story will continue to surface. And none of the detractors in this forum have yet to answer the question - why doesn't he just show his long form birth certificate instead of spending 10os, 1000s, 10s of thousand dollars to keep it suppressed?
http://www.ldnews.com/opinion/ci_11707719
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
... you show me yours
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Kinky
shays wrote '... you show me yours ...'
I haven't heard that kind of talk in half a century now. As for my birth certificate, if I get a job offer this week I plan on showing it to a potential employer then. My long form, vault, birth certificate. Because it is expected of American citizens and appropriate to do so under those circumstances. Apparently this is not an American value Obama seems to share with us.
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I wasn't asking if you showed a long form copy of your birth certificate to prospective employers ... I asked you to post your long form birth certificate on a public website for all to see. Now we know whose mind is in the gutter.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
What an interesting comment Shays. The one I really want to see is Robot's. I think it will look like a bolt. No doubt Soso's will look like a question mark. :)
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 13
Get over it Brad Obama is the new President. You know and every person witrh half a brain knowns that if there was one drop of truth in what you are saying Obama wouldn't have been elected President. The fact that he is Black and a Democrat.
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 13
Get over it Brad Obama is the new President. You know and every person witrh half a brain knowns that if there was one drop of truth in what you are saying Obama wouldn't have been elected President. The fact that he is Black and a Democrat.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
New Twist in BC Issue?
stack wrote '... Brad Obama is the new President ...'. Twice.
Is that the name on his long form birth certificate? I've seen several aliases for the man, but 'Brad' is a new one on me. Would you care to cite your source?
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Once again, your reading comprehension skills are called into question. Stack may be a careless writer, may not know about comma usage, may just have been in a hurry, or some combination of the three. This thread was begun by someone named Bard Parker (a truly interesting and unusual first name). Stack was addressing Bard and telling him that Barack Obama is already the Presiden, not giving the President a new first name. Here is what he most likely meant to say ...
Bard, Obama is the new President.
instead of
Brad [spelling error] [comma omited] Obama is the new President.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
Shays the level of patience you exhibit on these boards is truley astounding. It is my belief that we are all spiritual wannabes trapped on this physical plane of existence. I think the reason we are here is to learn patience because we have to learn it almost every minute of every day. But seeking out those who would try one's patience to the upmost in every way through their intentional demonstration of their lack of logic, ignorance and irrationality goes above and beyond the call of duty. Your dedication to try and help these lost souls attain enlightenment is really inspirational.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Thank you. I learned patience as a public school teacher. I taught middle-school kids for almost thirty years ... a wonderful but most trying group of human beings if ever there was one. I was very good at what I did.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
I see, that is about the appropriate mental age of most of the people I see raving here.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
... in some respects, but another thing I have learned (though sometimes find it hard to benefit from my own experience) is that it is not especially productive to abuse another person or assume they do not have something to learn. I commented profusely on my student's work, and encouraged them to resubmit any paper on which they wanted to improve their grade (as many times as they wanted), but they always had to attach the original (with my comments) or else I would just hand it back ungraded. Any students willing to make the effort to improve their grade by incorporating (not copying) my comments into their effort deserved a better grade. Learning never stops ...
Joined: Nov 2008
Current Posts: 109
Obama Bin Laden. Indonesian scum. Wait, did I say that? How about African scum? Is that better? Trickle up poverty delivered by an illegal alien. Let's celebrate!
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
<Obama Bin Laden. Indonesian scum. Wait, did I say that? How about African scum? Is that better? Trickle up poverty delivered by an illegal alien. Let's celebrate!>
In your face hatred delivered by a reactionary scum. You must have photo-shopped the picture of the White House to add the watermelon patch to the grounds. You undoubtedly are quite proud of your brain dead racism.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Your writing is more effective when you avoid using derogatory terms, unless you provide a basis for using the term(s). The basis can exist in fact, or it might include some clever word usage (such as a literary reference or a play on words) whose double meaning is clear. Of course, you may lace your writing with unsubstantiated allegations and/or references all you want, that of course is your choice. And we certainly all believe in personal choice, don't we? Let's celebrate!
By the way, do you know that between 2002 and 2006, the wealthiest 10% of all households in the United States saw more than 95% of the gains in income? And, up there in that rarified economic elite, the nation's richest 15,000 families DOUBLED their income during that period -- from $15 million per year to almost $30 million! Corporate profits also increased between 2002-2006; while the economy grew by a fairly reasonable 20%, those corporate profits grew by 68%.
Meanwhile, families in the middle of income distribution saw their earnings shrink by 1%. In 2000, the average weekly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers (70% of the US workforce) amounted to $527. By 2006, those same workers were making $538 a week (for the mathematically challenged, an $11 increase over eight years). Meanwhile, those same workers have seen their net worth (assets minus liabilities) shrivel up owing to falling home values, higher personal debt, and shrinking savings.
Put another way, in 2006, the wealthiest 1% of America's population earned almost 1/4 of ALL income generated in the country, while the bottom 50% combined earned only 12.5%.
It looks like a very tiny percentage of Americans benefitted from the Bush years, and that nothing trickled downward at all (as promised). In fact, wealth flooded UPWARDS. So ... after a couple decades of that, it seems only fair that it should turn around and all those 15,000 families ought to share some of the wealth their position has rewarded them with.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Let's Stay On Point
Shays wrote ... another Bush-bashing article that had nothing to do with the citizenship status of Barack H. Soetoro, aka, Barack Hussein Obama II. I recall a number of such threads in other forums, and would appreciate it if he would move these diatribes to a place relevant to his ramblings.
At the same time, I found his analysis of wealth distribution interesting, but in all fairness I wished he had compared a number of presidencies, of both parties. And although his numbers pass the 'reasonableness' test, it would be nice to see his references.
The wheels of justice grind slowly forward. Dr. Taitz is publicly building her case, adding retired and active military officers and enlisted men, state Representatives, and anyone else who could possibly be a persons of 'standing' to overcome the Supreme Court's primary defense of disqualification by procedure. The first Tea Party last Friday was a success, and another is already planned for later.
http://michellemalkin.com/
And finally, the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit seeking the nationality of Barry Soetoro at Occidental College may have hit a nerve. As some of you may be aware, a report of college foreign enrollment for California showed 1 Indonesian at Occidental College in 1981 with the last name of Soetoro. The lead attorney is now publicly reminding the SCOTUS of the case in 1968 where they heard a case disqualifying Eldridge Cleaver due to the age requirement. Obviously if it had 'standing' then, it should have 'standing' now.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90256
I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
(1) The way you posts responses is confusing. It looks like you prefer to select "Add a comment" from the first message in a given topic, rather than "reply" at the end of the message to which you are responding. This puts your comment at the top of the thread, where it is easily seen, but makes it hard for the person to whom you are replying (in this case, me) to find the message to which you are posting the response. Just a thought
(2) As far as I can tell, these message boards have no rules other than those of civility, taste, and those that apply to slander. While people create topics of interest to themselves, and place them in the categories devised by the operators of this board (sometimes arbitrarily, sometimes with thought and justification), there does not seem to exist a hall monitor who makes sure that everyone stays on the selected topic. Maybe you haven't noticed, but each topic in these boards takes on a life of its own. Most of the direction(s) taken are organic ... that is, someone asks a question or makes an assertion that someone else challenges or takes exception to and before you know it, a whole new thread exists within a thread. Of course, there are those who populate and lurk on these boards who make a living of hijacking threads and turning them, regardless of their origin or intent, to topics or ideas that they feel more comfortable discussing (or dominating) ... such strategies have themselves often been in the topic of discussion in some threads.
(3) That said, I had no true intention of "changing the subject". While I cannot find the message to which you are referring, I am sure someone said something that led me to use data or figures in response. If the message was "Bush bashing" ... get used to it; any time anyone attempts to attack or criticize the things that Dems are doing to avoid economic ruin, I am going to refer them back to the previous administration ... one of the all-time bad bad administrations in American history ... and the things it did to create the economic situation we are in.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
I guess this article must be worth repeating, even though its about the topic of this forum - Obama's qualification to serve as president due to citizenship status at birth.
Success rarely comes without perseverence ...
The following is a legal perspective of some lightly used protections of our Constitution that presents an alternative strategy for determining Obama (aka Soetoro)'s qualification to serve as POSTUS -
Today I had a five hour meeting with New Jersey attorney, Mario Apuzzo. The meeting was entirely focused on the issue of Quo Warranto.
Bottom line: we’ve identified a subset of plaintiffs who have a much more viable path to standing to institute an action in Quo Warranto than active military. This subset of plaintiffs would not be exposed to possible court martial since they are not military plaintiffs. And there is no prevailing need to place this burden on the backs of our military. Our military can retreat in peace on this issue. There is a new hope with a greater chance of success. This new hope has several layers of possibility. Attorney Apuzzo and I will be joining forces to see this matter receives the attention of proper Government officials.
I contacted Mario after both reading his pleadings in the Kerchner v. Obama case, and listening to his interviews. I was impressed by the level of detail his pleadings brought forth. The intelligence and passion for the Constitution shown by Mr. Apuzzo and his plaintiff, Mr. Kerchner, are evident in the interviews they have given. They both recognize that the main issue is centered on Obama being a British Subject and that the birth certificate issue, while important, is ancillary to Obama’s admission that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his birth status regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii.
They plead their case as to both issues and they did so in an original and convincing matter.
I have also heard them discuss John McCain shamefully allowing the myth to circulate that he was born on a military installation while his birth certificate and COLB both state he was born in Colon Hospital, Panama and not on a military base (which wouldn’t have qualified him anyway according to the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual and various case law).
Having respect for Mr. Apuzzo’s work, and knowing that he had brought one count in a complaint for Quo Warranto on behalf of Mr. Kerchner et al., I felt the need to share and discuss my research with Mario.
I respect Mr. Apuzzo’s efforts and felt we could possibly team up to both educate the public as well as educate other counsel while saving our military the trouble of being unnecessarily subjected to court martial.
I am very happy to report to you that Mr. Apuzzo and I have come to an agreement and we will be attempting to put the Quo Warranto issue squarely before the two people in our national government who have the statutory authority to request Obama substantiate his eligibility and to have a federal court determine whether Obama’s birth, subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948 disqualifies him to be POTUS.
Those two officials are not in the subset of plaintiffs I discussed above. As is designated by statute, both Attorney General Eric Holder and Jeffrey Taylor, US Attorney for the District of Columbia, may institute an action in Quo Warranto upon their own motion in the name of the United States. In fact, as per the relevant SCOTUS case law, while the decision to bring such an action is entirely in their discretion, both appear to have an ethical duty to bring such an action at this time.
The statute requires any such action be instituted in the District Court for the District of Columbia. SCOTUS is not the proper venue to initially bring this action. The statute is very clear as to the DC District Court venue.
Furthermore, should either official institute an action in Quo Warranto on their own behalf, they may do so without leave of the court. If they do institute such an action, the issue must be brought to a hearing and determined on the merits. The statute grants the AG and US Attorney undeniable power and respect on this issue.
If AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor refuse to institute an action in Quo Warranto on their own motion, the same statute provides for all “third persons” (any citizen) to request, via verified petition, that either of those two officials institute an action in Quo Warranto on plaintiffs’ behalf, subject to leave of the District Court of DC.
If AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor refuse to bring the action on their own motion, Mario Apuzzo and I are committed to acquiring as large a set of plaintiffs as possible to petition these officials on plaintiffs’ behalf. “Third persons” are any citizens of the United States.
If the officials refuse consent to bring the action “ex relator” on behalf of such “third persons”, then the statute provides that any “interested persons” (a subset of “third persons”) may petition the court without the consent of the two officials. It is the SCOTUS definition of “interested persons” that helped us identify the subset referred to above.
SCOTUS has stated that the civil service laws might provide Quo Warranto standing to some plaintiffs. For example, SCOTUS case law and various Federal District and Court of Appeals cases, indicate that any Government employee who loses their job by RIF (reduction in force) employment termination might have standing to institute an action in Quo Warranto.
While AG Eric Holder might appear to have a conflict of interest since he was appointed by Obama, Jeffrey Taylor certainly has no conflict of interest as he was appointed by the Bush administration. Regardless, Eric Holder should still be given the opportunity to do the right thing. I do not believe it is correct to ask him to recuse himself unless he refuses to bring an action for Quo Warranto.
Furthermore, the first attempt to raise the issue with both Attorney General Holder and US Attorney Taylor should be on behalf of the United States and not in relation to any plaintiffs.
I am in the process of writing a full legal brief on this issue. I’ve seen the statute mentioned and included in some pleadings. I’ve also seen a few references to relevant cases. But in order for lay people to understand the nuances of the law, these references need to be carefully explained in easy to understand terms. By doing so, I will provide clear understanding as to why the military do not need to take this battle on.
Both Attorney Apuzzo and I expect other plaintiffs with tighter standing will come forth as this information is made clear to the public. We imagine that as Obama cuts programs and institutes federal salary caps, various plaintiffs will emerge who have better claims to standing. Of course we believe this action should be brought asap, but it’s even more important to get the public clearly educated as to the law and public policy concerns.
It would be best for the nation if AG Holder or US Attorney Taylor do this on their own volition and motion. The issue of Obama’s eligibility for POTUS has already spread so far and wide from mainstream media to tabloids and foreign news coverage and it’s not going away. Furthermore, our military are subjecting themselves to court martial. A genuine controversy exists that should be settled by the federal statue which provides clearly for the disposition of just such a fact pattern.
Mr. Apuzzo and I decided it’s best that this research be published far and wide and also included in a letter to AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor suggesting they institute an action for Quo Warranto on their own motion. This requires no plaintiffs.
A general petition containing the names of as many potential ordinary citizens as possible will be circulated and hopefully signed by every citizen concerned with this issue. No need for any designation other than US citizen is necessary to begin the process. If Holder and Taylor refuse to bring the motion on their own volition, the petition will be necessary for the next stage.
I can’t help but be skeptical about the likelihood of success as to any of these possibilities. However, now that Obama is in office as POTUS, Quo Warranto is virtually tailor made as the proper legal device available for justice. Furthermore, I would think that President Obama would like the chance to have his title to POTUS clear for the sake of history and for the sanity of the nation.
An action in Quo Warranto should ask for two simple issues to be resolved:
1. That a court determine whether Obama’s birth status having been governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 prevents him from eligibility as a natural born citizen under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
2. That Obama produce his long form birth certificate to AG Holder and/or US Attorney Taylor.
There is an important public policy consideration for this to happen. We have identified various cases which lay the groundwork for tens of thousands of potential plaintiffs to institute law suits to challenge various laws and orders signed by Obama based upon claims of POTUS ineligibility. And standing for such cases has not been held to be as stringent as an action in Quo Warranto. Only a month in office and we are already seeing signs of this floodgate being opened.
Furthermore, some military have already been subjected to potential court martial charges by ill advised public statements and reckless insinuation in the press that Presidential orders were defied.
While it may appear at first glance that soldiers have proper standing for an action in Quo Warranto, the relevant statutes and cases do not stand for that proposition. As you will see from the pending legal research, standing issues are hard to overcome and one would have to stretch the relevant case laws to make Quo Warranto standing work for military plaintiffs.
The military may have standing to challenge individual actions or orders, but such suits are not in the nature of quo warranto even though they might be based on ineligibility of Obama for POTUS. And any such action is probably better suited to military courts/tribunals etc. Such suits are “collateral” attacks on eligibility whereas actions in quo warranto are “direct” attacks. I will break down the relevant case law which explains these nuances.
Regardless, military involvement isn’t necessary as we have identified a subset of plaintiffs who SCOTUS has directly made reference to for Quo Warranto standing. Soldiers are not part of this subset. Furthermore, the fact that a growing group of soldiers may have already subjected themselves to possible court martial by taking part in POTUS eligibility suits and PR campaigns thereto provides a greater force to the public policy interest inherent in the need for AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor to take the reigns and follow the statute written just for the purpose of settling this dispute.
If you are an active military person who is thinking of joining an action in Quo Warranto, please refrain form doing so until you have read the pending brief I will publish here.
Attorney Apuzzo and I will be working together on this public awareness campaign. I am very encouraged to have found another attorney who lives near me and who I believe in. I was very impressed by his intellect as to the various nuances of this intricate field of law. I believe we will both learn from each other and together provide a more powerful perspective and education to the public as well as presenting the best possible pro bono legal action on behalf of any potential plaintiffs.
Hopefully, such a petition will not be necessary if AG holder and/or US Attorney Taylor will step in and take the lead as is warranted by the following statute:
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.
I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
It's not any more convincing on second reading.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Let's Do the Twist
Success rarely comes without perseverence ...
The following is a legal perspective of some lightly used protections of our Constitution that presents an alternative strategy for determining Obama (aka Soetoro)'s qualification to serve as POSTUS - <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
Today I had a five hour meeting with New Jersey attorney, Mario Apuzzo. The meeting was entirely focused on the issue of Quo Warranto.
Bottom line: we’ve identified a subset of plaintiffs who have a much more viable path to standing to institute an action in Quo Warranto than active military. This subset of plaintiffs would not be exposed to possible court martial since they are not military plaintiffs. And there is no prevailing need to place this burden on the backs of our military. Our military can retreat in peace on this issue. There is a new hope with a greater chance of success. This new hope has several layers of possibility. Attorney Apuzzo and I will be joining forces to see this matter receives the attention of proper Government officials.
I contacted Mario after both reading his pleadings in the Kerchner v. Obama case, and listening to his interviews. I was impressed by the level of detail his pleadings brought forth. The intelligence and passion for the Constitution shown by Mr. Apuzzo and his plaintiff, Mr. Kerchner, are evident in the interviews they have given. They both recognize that the main issue is centered on Obama being a British Subject and that the birth certificate issue, while important, is ancillary to Obama’s admission that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his birth status regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii.
They plead their case as to both issues and they did so in an original and convincing matter.
I have also heard them discuss John McCain shamefully allowing the myth to circulate that he was born on a military installation while his birth certificate and COLB both state he was born in Colon Hospital, Panama and not on a military base (which wouldn’t have qualified him anyway according to the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual and various case law).
Having respect for Mr. Apuzzo’s work, and knowing that he had brought one count in a complaint for Quo Warranto on behalf of Mr. Kerchner et al., I felt the need to share and discuss my research with Mario.
I respect Mr. Apuzzo’s efforts and felt we could possibly team up to both educate the public as well as educate other counsel while saving our military the trouble of being unnecessarily subjected to court martial.
I am very happy to report to you that Mr. Apuzzo and I have come to an agreement and we will be attempting to put the Quo Warranto issue squarely before the two people in our national government who have the statutory authority to request Obama substantiate his eligibility and to have a federal court determine whether Obama’s birth, subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948 disqualifies him to be POTUS.
Those two officials are not in the subset of plaintiffs I discussed above. As is designated by statute, both Attorney General Eric Holder and Jeffrey Taylor, US Attorney for the District of Columbia, may institute an action in Quo Warranto upon their own motion in the name of the United States. In fact, as per the relevant SCOTUS case law, while the decision to bring such an action is entirely in their discretion, both appear to have an ethical duty to bring such an action at this time.
The statute requires any such action be instituted in the District Court for the District of Columbia. SCOTUS is not the proper venue to initially bring this action. The statute is very clear as to the DC District Court venue.
Furthermore, should either official institute an action in Quo Warranto on their own behalf, they may do so without leave of the court. If they do institute such an action, the issue must be brought to a hearing and determined on the merits. The statute grants the AG and US Attorney undeniable power and respect on this issue.
If AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor refuse to institute an action in Quo Warranto on their own motion, the same statute provides for all “third persons” (any citizen) to request, via verified petition, that either of those two officials institute an action in Quo Warranto on plaintiffs’ behalf, subject to leave of the District Court of DC.
If AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor refuse to bring the action on their own motion, Mario Apuzzo and I are committed to acquiring as large a set of plaintiffs as possible to petition these officials on plaintiffs’ behalf. “Third persons” are any citizens of the United States.
If the officials refuse consent to bring the action “ex relator” on behalf of such “third persons”, then the statute provides that any “interested persons” (a subset of “third persons”) may petition the court without the consent of the two officials. It is the SCOTUS definition of “interested persons” that helped us identify the subset referred to above.
SCOTUS has stated that the civil service laws might provide Quo Warranto standing to some plaintiffs. For example, SCOTUS case law and various Federal District and Court of Appeals cases, indicate that any Government employee who loses their job by RIF (reduction in force) employment termination might have standing to institute an action in Quo Warranto.
While AG Eric Holder might appear to have a conflict of interest since he was appointed by Obama, Jeffrey Taylor certainly has no conflict of interest as he was appointed by the Bush administration. Regardless, Eric Holder should still be given the opportunity to do the right thing. I do not believe it is correct to ask him to recuse himself unless he refuses to bring an action for Quo Warranto.
Furthermore, the first attempt to raise the issue with both Attorney General Holder and US Attorney Taylor should be on behalf of the United States and not in relation to any plaintiffs.
I am in the process of writing a full legal brief on this issue. I’ve seen the statute mentioned and included in some pleadings. I’ve also seen a few references to relevant cases. But in order for lay people to understand the nuances of the law, these references need to be carefully explained in easy to understand terms. By doing so, I will provide clear understanding as to why the military do not need to take this battle on.
Both Attorney Apuzzo and I expect other plaintiffs with tighter standing will come forth as this information is made clear to the public. We imagine that as Obama cuts programs and institutes federal salary caps, various plaintiffs will emerge who have better claims to standing. Of course we believe this action should be brought asap, but it’s even more important to get the public clearly educated as to the law and public policy concerns.
It would be best for the nation if AG Holder or US Attorney Taylor do this on their own volition and motion. The issue of Obama’s eligibility for POTUS has already spread so far and wide from mainstream media to tabloids and foreign news coverage and it’s not going away. Furthermore, our military are subjecting themselves to court martial. A genuine controversy exists that should be settled by the federal statue which provides clearly for the disposition of just such a fact pattern.
Mr. Apuzzo and I decided it’s best that this research be published far and wide and also included in a letter to AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor suggesting they institute an action for Quo Warranto on their own motion. This requires no plaintiffs.
A general petition containing the names of as many potential ordinary citizens as possible will be circulated and hopefully signed by every citizen concerned with this issue. No need for any designation other than US citizen is necessary to begin the process. If Holder and Taylor refuse to bring the motion on their own volition, the petition will be necessary for the next stage.
I can’t help but be skeptical about the likelihood of success as to any of these possibilities. However, now that Obama is in office as POTUS, Quo Warranto is virtually tailor made as the proper legal device available for justice. Furthermore, I would think that President Obama would like the chance to have his title to POTUS clear for the sake of history and for the sanity of the nation.
An action in Quo Warranto should ask for two simple issues to be resolved:
1. That a court determine whether Obama’s birth status having been governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 prevents him from eligibility as a natural born citizen under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
2. That Obama produce his long form birth certificate to AG Holder and/or US Attorney Taylor.
There is an important public policy consideration for this to happen. We have identified various cases which lay the groundwork for tens of thousands of potential plaintiffs to institute law suits to challenge various laws and orders signed by Obama based upon claims of POTUS ineligibility. And standing for such cases has not been held to be as stringent as an action in Quo Warranto. Only a month in office and we are already seeing signs of this floodgate being opened.
Furthermore, some military have already been subjected to potential court martial charges by ill advised public statements and reckless insinuation in the press that Presidential orders were defied.
While it may appear at first glance that soldiers have proper standing for an action in Quo Warranto, the relevant statutes and cases do not stand for that proposition. As you will see from the pending legal research, standing issues are hard to overcome and one would have to stretch the relevant case laws to make Quo Warranto standing work for military plaintiffs.
The military may have standing to challenge individual actions or orders, but such suits are not in the nature of quo warranto even though they might be based on ineligibility of Obama for POTUS. And any such action is probably better suited to military courts/tribunals etc. Such suits are “collateral” attacks on eligibility whereas actions in quo warranto are “direct” attacks. I will break down the relevant case law which explains these nuances.
Regardless, military involvement isn’t necessary as we have identified a subset of plaintiffs who SCOTUS has directly made reference to for Quo Warranto standing. Soldiers are not part of this subset. Furthermore, the fact that a growing group of soldiers may have already subjected themselves to possible court martial by taking part in POTUS eligibility suits and PR campaigns thereto provides a greater force to the public policy interest inherent in the need for AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor to take the reigns and follow the statute written just for the purpose of settling this dispute.
If you are an active military person who is thinking of joining an action in Quo Warranto, please refrain form doing so until you have read the pending brief I will publish here.
Attorney Apuzzo and I will be working together on this public awareness campaign. I am very encouraged to have found another attorney who lives near me and who I believe in. I was very impressed by his intellect as to the various nuances of this intricate field of law. I believe we will both learn from each other and together provide a more powerful perspective and education to the public as well as presenting the best possible pro bono legal action on behalf of any potential plaintiffs.
Hopefully, such a petition will not be necessary if AG holder and/or US Attorney Taylor will step in and take the lead as is warranted by the following statute:
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.
I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
And your federal lawsuit challenging Obama's qualifications to serve as president is being filed...when, FauxAmerica? Or is this just another installment of the ongoing scam to fleece money, in the form of 'donations', from unsuspecting, gullible right wing zealots?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Audacity Meets Bodacaeous
Dr. Orly Taitz, the Russian emigre Dentist-turned-Attorney, and recent addition to the SCOTUS Bar, took aim at Chief Justice Roberts yesterday, and unloaded an emotional packed parcel of legal documents on him regarding the Natural Born Citizen issue.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91763
Part of the frustration is the recent denial of Keyes v. Bowen due to lack of standing. The Federal District judge railed on how the Ca. SOS, Bowen, is not required by law to confirm the qualification of presidential and vice-presidential candidates by pointing to Congress as having that responsibility. What the judge missed entirely is that the entire Congress, all 532 of them, broke the law by not raising a point of order when objections to receiving electoral college votes were never solicited as required by law. Unfortunately, Dr. Taitz, esq., did not point to the res judicata case of Cleaver v. Powers who was prevented from being placed on the California ballot as candidate for Senator due to his age. Nor did she point out that the oath of office of the SOS was to serve the U.S. Constitution, and the Constitution trumps with implied duties the specified duties referred to by the Judge.
I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
You continue to cut and paste copied documents willy-nilly without ever once resorting to common sense (remember, attorneys are people, too and ... as such ... are prone to the same frailties and afflictions as the rest of us, including being pompous, overbearing, obstinate, malevolent, and deleterious; this means they can persist in pursuit of the unobtainable like a bulldog without once ever realizing that the thing they seek is irrelevant or unnecessary). Perhaps the judge did not miss the "fact" that all members of Congress broke the law simply because they did not break any law. First off, there is no "law" that says a person MUST raise a point of order at any time in any legislative or parliamentary session; points of order are queries or challenges that may be asked or submitted ... so failure (or refusal) of anyone to do so is not "illegal". Common sense tells us that no objections were solicited when the Electoral College votes were accepted because there was nothing credible to object to. Because there was nothing credible worth objecting to, an awful lot of men and women ... more than a few of them sharing your paranoia and zeal to unseat the president ... voluntarily and willingly decided there was no grounds for doing so.
Why don't you let it rest?
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote - more blathering nonsense because apparently he likes to feel the wind on his lips and hear his own voice. His loopy liberal rationalization that members of Congress can break their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution by ignoring required prodecure ensconced in law is counter to most Americans respect for law and order. So when the law states the presiding officer (in this case, Cheney) SHALL (legal definition: MUST) request if there are any objections to receiving a state's electoral ballot, and YouTube videos of the event clearly show that never was such objection requested in the 2009 session - well, THAT IS BREAKING THE LAW, despite shays 'feelings' to the contrary. Breaking the law, either by tacit or active actions, is breaking the law! Sitting in the middle of a group of lawbreakers while breaking the law without actively trying to remove yourself from the group or changing their actions, makes you guilty of breaking the law. For the record, Congress did follow the procedure properly 4 years ago, and there were a few objections then.
As for shays 'common sense', the problem with common sense is that it isn't. Besides, the issue is not about common sense, it's about NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as a requirement to be POTUS. The reason nothing 'credible' is available is because Obama hired 3 law firms to keep any credible evidence from surfacing in the courts. The reason nothing 'credible' is available might be because of Obama's appointment to oversee the nation's computer systems and networks is tied to the computer break-in last spring that accessed candidates' passport computer records, and is now under investigation by the FBI.
Don't you find it incredible that you have to show a birth certificate to get a job, but a candidate for President doesn't, even though there is a higher standard of citizenship required to assume the office?
And finally, twice before shays stated that he would not post to this thread again, and still we see his drivel here. It seems his words are just about as credible as Obama's.
I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I said I would not post here to continue the same argument, but would post from time to time when new ideas were presented. You presented yet another new idea (some cut-and-pasted legal mumbo-gumbo), so I responded. Feel free to invent issues, laws, and enemies under the bed ... this country and its financial institutions have real problems that make most of your concerns about as relevant as a gnat biting an elephant's shoulder. In case you haven't noticed, under Republican leadership (but with Democratic compliance), the US has gone to hell in a hand-basket because we allowed businessmen to run business in an unregulated environment, inviting people overflowing with cash to take unnecessary risks because they could think of nothing better to do with their amassed wealth than piddle it away.
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
as an immigrant myself, i had to produce/ disclose my live, incl. a birth certificate, and my school records, in order to become a visa, and in order to become a us citizen.
why does the person who is running the us does not have to show those documents?
i guess the people who oppose the demand from us citizen that opbama has to show those documents, may are afraid of the true's?
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Have you ever stopped to consider, Berlin, that Obama is a US citizen, not an immigrant, and thus was never subject to the same naturalization requirements as were you? Get a clue! DUH!!!
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1247
@screen name,
well, you're not answering the question. different standards for different people?
so i guess you are terrible afraid he could be a citizen of kenia or even indonesia?
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
I am not "terrible afraid" (sic) of anything of the sort. I am satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii, as he has stated all along. As to which his birth certificate attests. Its all you conspiracy theorists who need to come back to reality and leave Fantasy Island behind you.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I am a 60-year old American citizen who has been asked to show my birth certificate three times: when my parents first enrolled me in a California public school in 1953 (I didn't do this myself, mind you ... but I did the same for my two daughters when I enrolled them in kindergarten), when I applied for a passport in 1970, and when I submitted my application for a California multi-subject teaching credential in 1975. I was required to show my short-form birth certificate in all three cases. I have never been asked to show a birth certificate on the many occasions when I ran for public office. If you asked me to show you my birth certificate, I would tell you to mind your own business.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
shays wrote '... I ... me ... I .... I ... I ... I ... I ... I ... I ... me ... I ...'
Is there a point that is germane to Obama meeting Constitutional qualifications for President in this post, or are you just enjoying the sound of your words again?
I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
In response to the thread of the comments between Berlin and Screename, a first person response seemed appropriate.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
I see. There was no point to your response.
I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
There was plenty of point to my response. Perhaps because it wasn't directed to you is why you obtusely refuse to understand it?
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
From http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/4/messages/773.html
""flog (or beat) a dead horse. Though he supported the measure, British politician and orator John Bright thought the Reform Bill of 1867, which called for more democratic representation, would never be passed by Parliament. Trying to rouse Parliament from its apathy on the issue, he said in a speech, would be like trying to 'flog a dead horse' to make it pull a load. This is the first recorded use of the expression, which is still common for 'trying to revive interest in an apparently hopeless issue.' Bright's silver tongue is also responsible for 'England is the mother of Parliament,' and 'Force is not a remedy,' among other memorable quotations. He was wrong about the Reform Bill of 1867, however. Parliament 'carried' it, as the British say." From the "Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins" by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997."
This is posted for all of the radical right wingers who love to post falsehoods on boards all over America. Pease stop beating all of those dead horses.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Interesting Development
Last Thursday the Attorney General of the United States, Jeffrey A. Taylor, announced his resignation. Taylor was one of two people who could serve a Quo Warranto on a Federal employee (Obama) challenging their qualifications to hold the office. Such Quo Warranto was filed, but not acted upon.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2261541/posts
As Obama admitted on his website before the election, he was born a British citizen. Although he did not declare his British / Kenyan citizenship at age 21, neither did he declare U.S. citizenship. A qualification for holding the office of President of the U.S. is that of being a natural-born citizen. So far the federal courts have delayed examining the issue, and Obama is about to have one of his appointments join the Supreme Court.
I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Isn't it interesting how the conspiracy theorists can take an innocuous news announcement of the resignation of a U S attorney (not the attorney general, as misrepresented by Real Dumb American) and try to twist it into something that supports their whacked out theories?
Obama admitted that he was a British citizen? Since when? Was this before or after he was supposedly born in Indonesia? People born in Kenya in the 60's are Kenyan, not British citizens. These guys can't even get a coherent story together to support their paranoia induced fantasies.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
When you are born on the far side of the moon you begin to think that everyone is lying about their origins;>)
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Wheels of Justice, Etc.
The judge hearing the Kerchner v. Obama, Cheney, et al case has allowed a second extension to the government attorney.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6303
This action has a lot of nuances that can be read into it. It's interesting, for example, that Pelosi and Cheney requested the DOJ to represent them because it implies they may see it as a potential criminal case as opposed to a civil case. Or, since the blatant act of Cheney violating the law during the reception of ballots at the meeting of the Electoral College is well documented on YouTube, they probably know that attorney fees will be on them, so they requested 'free' government attorneys.
And the judge may see enough merit in the case to want to make sure he doesn't screw it up on procedure when the issues finally come to light in a court.
I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!
RealAmerica
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Mystery Case Unsealed
Phil Berg, Esq., has had a case pending since before the election that was sealed because of the legal approach used. It essentially said that Obama took money from the Federal Government under a false claim. Because Obama's father was Kenyan and his mother wasn't old enough to confer citizenship on him at birth, and there is no record of his declaring citizenship of any nation he was a citizen of as a child when he came of age - British / Kenya, Indonesia, U.S., he could be an illegal alien. As such he took the pay of a U.S. senator, which is a position that requires U.S. citizenship. The case was exposed when Eric Holder, an appointee of Obama, refused to pursue the case and a judge recently dismissed the action. So how he has 2 cases pending appeals. And the Kerchner case was delayed until June 29th.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6358
http://www.obamacrimes.info/
I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jun 2008
Current Posts: 208
Come on what are some of you children. I don't care if Obama is 20 and born on Mars. Compared to Bush and the last 8 years this is heaven. Finally, we have a President who cares about America and he has done more good in months than Bush and the Republicans have done in years. Has no one noticed over the decades and decades that Republicans do not want health care as all other civilized countries have, they don't want alternate fuels, the refuse to take on big oil, etc etc etc. As for me I am sick and tired of the state of America and Republicans. It is easy for Republicans to now question every thing this man does because after 8 years of screwing up this country they have somehow aquired this new intelligence that evaded them while they were in control. Come on America it is time to tell these people to Shut up and go away. Our future generations deserve it and do we.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 775
If someone selects a handle like Real America and then wraps themselves up in a flag and supports only various radical right wing Republican ideas you sort of know where they are coming from. I use Real America and Tom and Karl as a reference point to find out what propaganda is being promoted by the wealthy Republicans who scammed America so badly they nearly caused a Great Depression again....You name it from the phony Swift Boaters to the phony war they started to increase their wealth at the expense of thousands of Iraqi children these people do not care for America or for the rest of the world. All they are doing is trying to figure out how to steal several billion more dollars so they can build more homes to the point that like McCain they can't remember how many they have. One can only hope and pray that we elected a literate and intelligent man soon enough to get America back on track again. You can be sure that these phony patriots will all of their time taking shots at everything we do to clean up their mess much like an infant often cries when they get their dirty diaper changed.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<Come on what are some of you children. I don't care if Obama is 20 and born on Mars. Compared to Bush and the last 8 years this is heaven. Finally, we have a President who cares about America and he has done more good in months than Bush and the Republicans have done in years.>
Define "more good". Unemployment is over 9% when Obama claimed his stimulus passage would keep it at 8%. Gas prices are rising and Obama's party is opposing domestic development of oil and natural gas. Obama complained about "fiscal irresponsibility" from Bush but he has spent more/created larger deficits after being in office for only months. This is heaven? Now who sounds like a child?
<Has no one noticed over the decades and decades that Republicans do not want health care as all other civilized countries have, they don't want alternate fuels, the refuse to take on big oil, etc etc etc.>
Do not want health care? Please. Has no one noticed that countries with government run health care systems end up rationing care to "save money" and create incentives for people to leave the medical field because of reimbursement/wage caps? You think the goverment is "qualified" to run health care given the state of Medicare and Social Security going broke? Alternative fuels take time to develop and bring to the marketplace. The Obama platform of threatening to shut down coal fired power plants (which provide about 50% of the nation's electricity) or using a cap a trade system to ration energy consumption is irresponsible. So what do we do with the millions or cars/trucks/locomotives/ships that still need gasoline and diesel fuel to run on?
<As for me I am sick and tired of the state of America and Republicans. It is easy for Republicans to now question every thing this man does because after 8 years of screwing up this country they have somehow aquired this new intelligence that evaded them while they were in control. Come on America it is time to tell these people to Shut up and go away. Our future generations deserve it and do we.>
It's easy because he's not performing and his qualifications for the job are lacking. Big government stifles economic growth/wealth creation, it does not create it. Out future generations are going to be left digging out from his deficits and big government experiments. I'm sick and tired of people who think the government doesn't spend enough/tax enough and believe they are "entitled" to the efforts/earnings of others for so called "fairness" reasons.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Oh, come on! Didn't your mother teach you any manners? At least have the courtesy to say "hello" or "welcome to the party" or "nice to meetchya" before jumping up and down on the limp body with both feet. Sheesh, and I was led to believe that conservatives stood for decency and strong family values! Anyway ...
Define "more good". Unemployment is over 9% when Obama claimed his stimulus passage would keep it at 8%. Gas prices are rising and Obama's party is opposing domestic development of oil and natural gas. Obama complained about "fiscal irresponsibility" from Bush but he has spent more/created larger deficits after being in office for only months. This is heaven? Now who sounds like a child?
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<And unemployment will continue to grow as a result of the devastation done to America by the previous administration that waged an unnecessary war without providing the means to pay for it (or address its aftermath), coupled with 8 years of deficit spending, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, further deregulation of the business and financial sectors enabling corporate leaders to pillage our national treasury, and the purposeful deconstruction of federal agencies designed to protect citizens from such ravaging behavior.>
How convenient. Obama inherited all of these problems, they were all caused by Republicans so everything he wants/supports/signs off on should be off the table as a reason for things getting worse/not getting better. Deficits are bigger under Obama because he added to them. So tell us how we are all better off with Obama pillaging the taxpayers for all of his legislative proposals? How do tax increases (income, energy, etc.) that he wants help alleviate recessions?
<The problem is that global natural systems ... though they can absorb a whole lot of abuse and so are relatively "slow" to change ... don't slow down once inertia towards change begins. We have been irresponsible in the past, and continued irresponsibility may make your life more comfortable, but it only increases the equal but opposite force that the planet is going to lay down on us for being negligent. The other problem with procrastination (which is what human society, collectively, has been doing for the past quarter of a century) is that the price we will have to pay is going to be exceptionally much more than it would have been to fix what could have been fixed for far cheaper thirty years ago.>
The problem is the sky is falling crowd is going to cripple the economy with their energy tax and rationing schemes to "fix" the problem which despite Al Gore's claim that the global warming issue is "resolved" has not been. We never seem to hear about the scientists who do not think global warming is man made or can be fixed by energy rationing or how things are better off when nations have used "cap and trade". Even the Democrats in agricultural districts are waffling on this one.
<There are only a few countries in the world with "government run" health care systems ... and almost all of them provide better health care to ALL their citizens than is offered in the U.S.>
So I guess the news reports we've been hearing from England and Canada about long waits for treatment, people coming here for operations and not having access to certain types of medication in their nations because of government controls/rationing decisions are just made up stories from right wing propagandists?
< Patterns of behavior do not change ...including those of Democrats who are not going to allow Big Oil to take yet more resources when they haven't even exploited those they have already been given.>
They are not allowed to "take resources" because left wing groups and environmentalists file endless lawsuits whenever exploration/drilling projects are started. And guess which political party does nothing to stop it?
<"Not performing"? If he's not doing anything, then what are you complaining about. He's done a heck of a lot, even if we only consider the criticisms leveled against him by you and your ilk; you certainly are not complaining because he is sitting on his hands. He is fully qualified for the position (especially in light of the record of failure the previous president demonstrated).>
What he's done needs closer scrutiny, not a rubber stamp. How is he qualified? Because he wants to empower the government/tax the rich to create new spending programs? Obama has spent lots money and has little, if any results to show for it except to appease the left wing of his party because they got their pet projects funded. Remember how we were reassured unemployment wasn't supposed to go above 8% once his stimulus plan was passed?
<there IS no free ride; if you want government to get out of the way of business, then ultimately business will screw you ... if you want government to help put things back on track, then you'll have to pay for it. And as we have learned, excusing the richest amongst us from carrying the share they can afford to pay DOES NOT WORK.>
So let's have government screw us instead? No thanks. Some of us do not want to be "put on track" by having one group work/save/create to cater to able bodied individuals who have no desire whatsover to work, save or create.They want the government to give them housing, retirement, health care, etc. and will argue it is "economic justice" to do so and those who object to paying will be told they are "not paying their fair share".
Spare us the Marxist message about the rich "not paying their fair share" - they already pay the majority of the income taxes. Keep raising taxes and you'll just drive more businesses out of the country and reduce job growth.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
How convenient. Obama inherited all of these problems, they were all caused by Republicans so everything he wants/supports/signs off on should be off the table as a reason for things getting worse/not getting better.
Yes ... he inherited a mess, and it was, indeed, caused by Republicans. Everything he wants should not be "off the table" (that response reminds me ever so much of seventh graders in my classoom who don't get what they want) ... he welcomes debate and thoughtful, practical, effective ideas. But we have entered a new phase of American political life. The old answers didn't work (and in fact, created the mess we are in), so as long as Republicans want to offer nothing more then the same old tired litany, then they might as well roll over and disappear. They make themselves irrelevant. But that's okay ... it won't be the first time that a political party has died in this country. As to things getting worse ... it took at least eight (I say 30) years to dig this hole; five months only works for petulant short-attention span adolescents.
Deficits are bigger under Obama because he added to them. So tell us how we are all better off with Obama pillaging the taxpayers for all of his legislative proposals? How do tax increases (income, energy, etc.) that he wants help alleviate recessions?
So far, your "pillaging" is imaginary. Until Ronald Reagan took office, income taxes on the wealthiest Americans were at 70% and we were still doing pretty good. Even though stagflation (caused mostly by borrowing to pay for the illegal war in Vietnam, but contributed to by a growing trade imbalance with the oil producing countries of the Middle East) had plagued Nixon, Ford and Carter, we were still the largest manufacturing and producing country in the world and our trade balance was positive. We were a creditor nation, not a debtor. Before Reagan, the tax rate had been 90%, and that was during a time when the economy was booming. But since taxes were cut and Republicans instituted the age of deficit spending, everything has been downhill ever since. Except for the wealthiest 2-3%. The transfer of wealth from lower- and middle-class families to the rich has been astounding! George W should have raised taxes (and implemented a draft) if his war was such an important event ... we should all have shared equally in our grave confrontation with global terrorism. Instead, he just dug a hole and plugged is ears with his fingers, leaving the heavy lifting for Barack Obama. YES, you are going to have to pay higher taxes. So am I. So is everyone. YES, life is going to become more difficult and not as easy as it was when we played with monopoly money ... you can't urinate in your own pool and pretend that someone else is going to come along and clean it for you.
But don't blame Barack Obama for the deficits. I guess it must come as a true shock for Big Spender Republicans to realize that Democrats can play the deficit game, too. At least the rest of us will get something for it.
The problem is the sky is falling crowd is going to cripple the economy with their energy tax and rationing schemes to "fix" the problem which despite Al Gore's claim that the global warming issue is "resolved" has not been. We never seem to hear about the scientists who do not think global warming is man made or can be fixed by energy rationing or how things are better off when nations have used "cap and trade". Even the Democrats in agricultural districts are waffling on this one.
The reason you don't hear anything from the scientists who do not "believe" in global warming is two-fold: (1) scientists do not "believe" in anything ... belief is a religious or mystical phenomena that does not require empirical truth (or data) to support, so those who "believe" it is not happening or that human activity does not contribute to climate change are not scientists; either that, or (2) they are in the employ of the carbon polluters and the ad agencies that pay them to be nay-sayers, many of the same ad agencies that did the same in negating the effects of nicotine for the cigarette lobby. Denial is convenient and protects your niche ... perhaps you'll be dead before the sea levels rise and most of California returns to the sea floor (where it has spent most of eternity, incidentally). And of course Dems are waffling ... our current political system is so corrupt and so woven into the campaign finance cycle that anyone who takes money from vested interests is bound to say "no".
Judging by your response, you have no clue about science, how science works, or how scientists work. As a result of your scientific illiteracy, you are a sitting duck for anyone who can throw around big numbers and convincing rhetoric that is aligned to your currently held social and political beliefs (which is about as unscientific as you can get when talking about science).
So I guess the news reports we've been hearing from England and Canada about long waits for treatment, people coming here for operations and not having access to certain types of medication in their nations because of government controls/rationing decisions are just made up stories from right wing propagandists?
Yes
Seriously ... one can find [bleep]ers and moaners in any group, no matter how well the thing works for everyone else. Most people whom I know in Canada and England (and I know an awful lot) have no problem with their health care system. Are there waits? Sometimes, depending on circumstances. Are there waits in this country? I have experienced them, I don't know about you. More importantly, there are a lot of people who don't even get to wait ... they don't have any health care coverage, so they just flat out get ignored and don't even have the luxury of waiting. Unless, of course, they become seriously ill, whereupon they immediately add to the cost of your insurance premium in our privately run, for-profit system. Sorry ... making money off of people's misery does not strike me as a very humane or compassionate system.
They are not allowed to "take resources" because left wing groups and environmentalists file endless lawsuits whenever exploration/drilling projects are started. And guess which political party does nothing to stop it?
You will have to check to see just how many applications Big Oil has submitted in the last decade to build a new refinery. None. Not one. Do they fear a lawsuit? Maybe ... but you're never going to build a refinery if you don't build. How many wells have they drilled on land where they already have permits and are paying a lease (even though they have been systematically underpaying the lease amount since about 1997)? Again, not because of lawsuits. You are going to have to cite the lawsuits to which you refer, and then (in all objective honesty) identify the basis for the lawsuit. In most cases I bet you'll find a legitimate basis.
What he's done needs closer scrutiny, not a rubber stamp.
Several responses. The reward for gaining victory ... especially sweeping victory ... is that you get to do what you want. At least, that's what we were told (and not too politely) beginning in 2001. Scrutinize. It's a free country. Nothing or nobody seems to be silencing your petty grievances right now. Point to specific things. Instead, all we hear are whining and moaning about things that might happen. The stuff he HAS done has all been for the betterment of the country. Even the $757B Stimulus Bill. Do you realize that less than 6% of the money allocated has been dispersed so far? Why is that, you ask? There are two reasons: (1) unlike the previous administration, this one has been trying to put into place watchdogs and oversight committees to make sure that all expenses are properly vetted and used wisely, which has taken five months, mainly because (2) Republicans have blocked confirmation hearings for literally hundreds of appointees to the positions designed to oversee expenditures, approve grant applications, and generally monitor how money is spent under ARRA. Instead of writing messages of complaint to this board about nothing being done, why don't you write to your Republican friends in Congress and tell them to get on with the appointments and let this process begin.
How is he qualified?
He convinced enough voters that he could do the job. That's all it takes in this country, bub. The last loser who sat in that White House points that out, only too well.
Because he wants to empower the government/tax the rich to create new spending programs? Obama has spent lots money and has little, if any results to show for it except to appease the left wing of his party because they got their pet projects funded. Remember how we were reassured unemployment wasn't supposed to go above 8% once his stimulus plan was passed?
Again, apparently you do not understand politics. When you run for office, you make promises to people, who if they like your promises will vote for you. If you are smart, you will fulfill your promises (you stand a better chance at reelection if you do). That's Politics IA. But wake up and smell the coffee. Barack Obama, when asked by Rick Warren to define marriage, said that it is a union between a man and a woman. Yesterday, Barack Obama disturbed the sensibilities of the gay community (whom I assume you would castigate as being left wing) by sticking to his guns, and not "rewarding" the left wing of his party with "pet projects". As to unemployment ... I already told you that the administration made its projections based on the information at hand in January. The recession is worse than they thought (thanks again, Republicans), and they were not factoring in the bottom dropping out of the auto industry. Many economists predicted such a collapse would lead to double digit unemployment (maybe as high as 20%). Hang on to your breaches ... George W and his corporate stooges (directors?) did a worse number on us than you can imagine.
Spare us the Marxist message about the rich "not paying their fair share" - they already pay the majority of the income taxes. Keep raising taxes and you'll just drive more businesses out of the country and reduce job growth.
Look, buddy ... why don't you get yourself a decent education and stop spouting moronic sophomoric bull. A Marxist wouldn't give a rat's patootey about "taxes" ... fair or otherwise. In a Marxist society, everyone shares in the ownership of the businesses and there is hardly any government at all. If you're going to try to pretend to be a political scientist, at least get your "isms" straight. In terms of paying the majority, I want us to go back to the 1950s and 1960s when 90% of their income was taxed. Any business that "leaves the country" is no longer "American", don't you know. We should hit any such country with a whopping tax, and then use that money to encourage people living in this country to start their own business to replace the one that decided to leave rather than pay a smaller bonus to its CEO, or a smaller dividend to its investors.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<Look, buddy ... why don't you get yourself a decent education and stop spouting moronic sophomoric bull. A Marxist wouldn't give a rat's patootey about "taxes" ... fair or otherwise. In a Marxist society, everyone shares in the ownership of the businesses and there is hardly any government at all. If you're going to try to pretend to be a political scientist, at least get your "isms" straight. In terms of paying the majority, I want us to go back to the 1950s and 1960s when 90% of their income was taxed. Any business that "leaves the country" is no longer "American", don't you know. We should hit any such country with a whopping tax, and then use that money to encourage people living in this country to start their own business to replace the one that decided to leave rather than pay a smaller bonus to its CEO, or a smaller dividend to its investors.>
Spare us your leftist bull. I don't want your kind of "education" where people making over $250,000 are "exploiting the masses", that they need to be taxed at 90% to "make it fair" and government intervention/largesse/entitlement expansion is always good.
Liberals love to criticize conservatives for legislating morality but in your case it somehow is "justified" because you are "better" than the rest of us.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0908/0908obamanomics.htm
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Spare us your leftist bull. I don't want your kind of "education" where people making over $250,000 are "exploiting the masses", that they need to be taxed at 90% to "make it fair" and government intervention/largesse/entitlement expansion is always good.
People making over $250,000 are not "exploiting the masses". I never said that. You have made that up and put those words in my mouth because you live in a world of hazy vision, shaped by the spin-meisters you let do your thinking for you. This is why I said you needed to get an education. Not "my kind" of education, but a general, basic, and simple education that people like you claim our public schools are not providing to people. Maybe they're right, if you are an example of what the public schools produce. It's not very hard, you know, learning the difference between various economic and political systems ... I bet even wikipedia explains it in pretty simple terms.
So here's the straight stuff. I'll tell you again, and let's see if you can read it and understand the plain English.
People making $250K are not a part of the ruling class. They are either petite-bourgeoisie (I know, a big word ... this is a 19th century term that refers to small business owners and some professionals) or highly skilled technicians that serve the ruling class. They work hard for their money and are well rewarded for their effort.
The current proposal ... at least as discussed during the election campaign (though no such actual proposal has yet been placed on the table) is for people making more than $250K to be taxed at the same level they were taxed in 2000: that is, about 39%. The proposal has been made not because this makes it "fair" ... it's because they make more money than the working stiff earning $65K a year and can therefore afford to pay more to support the system that enables them to earn as much as they earn. We call it a PROGRESSIVE TAX, first enacted to help defray costs of the Civil War and permanently adopted in 1913. The progressive tax is thusly named because the rate at which an individual pays income tax increases (or "progresses") ... gradually ... as their income increases.
The 90% tax rate to which I referred was in place during the administration of that noted leftist (maybe Marxist), Dwight Eisenhower. It was imposed on people earning more than $4,000,000 a year. Anyone who makes over four million dollars a year most likely has exploited all sorts of people along the path to their wealth. But even so, this is NOT the reason they should be taxed at 90% of their income. They should be taxed at that rate so they think twice about using their exorbitant income as chum ... you know, just throwing money around to create more money, or to accumulate more material possessions (more cars, more houses, more clothes, more whatever). Think about it: If the moment you took money out of your business empire for personal use you were first going to give 90% of it to the government, you would think twice, wouldn't you? You might be tempted to keep that money IN your business empire -- expand operations, modernize operations, invest in non-polluting technologies, hire more people, pay the ones you have a better salary. In other words, a high tax rate on very high incomes encourages investment in the economy, makes the economy stronger, helps the economy to grow, and makes living and working conditions better for those you employ (so they can buy your stuff ... or the stuff that other entrepreneurs are making ... without having to borrow and go into hock to get that stuff).
Look at history. Three major tax cuts in the 20th and 21st century have resulted in major economic busts. A tax cut after World War I (from about 70% to the low 20% range) led to those immoral, whacked out "Roaring Twenties" ... ending in a Big Crash in 1929. From the 1930s to the 1980s ... FIFTY YEARS ... the tax rate on the highest incomes ranged from 94 to 72%, and the United States experienced the largest economic boom in the history of the planet ... we became the largest exporter of finished goods, art, and culture; and we were a lending nation. Reagan famously lowered the tax rate, and we had the crash of 1987 ... lots of banks failures, the savings and loans collapsed, the airlines and auto industry required bailing out (George W's bailout program had its precedents, after all), and the economy slumped. Even George HW had to violate his promise and raise taxes to cover the massive losses incurred by Reagan. And then, of course, we had the George W tax cuts, and now an even bigger recession.
Government has been expanding since its founding. The nation is much bigger, things happen much faster, the connections (and interconnections) between state and local governments and the federal government are much more complex. While some of us LOVE local charm and the idiosyncrasies of regional customs, the majority of Americans expect to find a MacDonalds and a JC Penny's wherever they go. Trying to stuff government back into its bottle is an impossible task. Just look at how so-called "small government" advocates acted to increase the size and scope of government whenever they came to power (Reagan, HW, and W). Government intervention, largesse, and entitlement is not just a "liberal" pursuit.
I am not advocating for the legislation of morality. I am advocating for a MASSIVE tax increase on the very wealthy in order to encourage them to spend their money IN America, for Americans, and to make our economy stronger. Poverty, of course, did not disappear between 1940 and 1980 ... but the gap between rich and poor was much more sane, balanced, and not obscene. There were very few billionaires (or even multimillionaires) before 1980, and an awful lot more people living secure middle-class lives. It has absolutely nothing to do with "fairness" (again, YOUR word) ... it has to do with growing the economy and enabling every able-bodied, hard-working American to benefit from that strong economy.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<People making over $250,000 are not "exploiting the masses". I never said that. You have made that up and put those words in my mouth because you live in a world of hazy vision, shaped by the spin-meisters you let do your thinking for you. This is why I said you needed to get an education. Not "my kind" of education, but a general, basic, and simple education that people like you claim our public schools are not providing to people. Maybe they're right, if you are an example of what the public schools produce. It's not very hard, you know, learning the difference between various economic and political systems ... I bet even wikipedia explains it in pretty simple terms.>
So they are "rich", they are "not paying their fair share" and Obama needs to "spread their wealth around" to fix it. It's the same class warfare propaganda.
In nation that was called the land of equal opportunity success is "bad" and anyone who accomplishes something better than others needs to be more heavily taxed/pay a penalty because "they can afford it". Abolish the progressive income tax and replace it with a flat tax so everyone has a stake in the tax/spending system. Otherwise politicians like Obama can (and probably will) use the tax system as a social engineering device to get fewer and fewer people actually paying taxes. They will be given incentives to vote for his party/increase government spending because they don't pay the bills. Even worse they will come to expect others (taxpayers) to pay for their needs instead of working to take care of themselves/use their resources wisely. And I suspect they will complain/resent others as having "too much" regardless of what others had to work/sacrifice to get it.
Since when did the United States become an equal outcome society? Some of us don't want a carbon copy of the European socialist model here.
I've seen enough of your posts to see your vision. What kind of "education" did you get? This nation was founded on the principles of limited government, capitalism, personal responsibility and self reliance. You seem to support exactly the opposite, claim the system is "rigged" and don't want to consider that big government activism/central planning (still the bread and butter issue of the left wing) has consequences (state budget problems in California) and is being used as a means to control people all in the name of someone's elusive definition of "fairness".
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Do you actually read the posts to which you are responding? My goodness, maybe you ought to apply for a job at FauxNews ... you possess raw talent as a spin-meister.
So they are "rich", they are "not paying their fair share" and Obama needs to "spread their wealth around" to fix it. It's the same class warfare propaganda.
People making $250K a year are not "rich", nor have I ever said they were. They are at the upper reaches of the middle class. A couple of hundred thousand dollars a year provides for a pretty comfortable lifestyle, no matter how you spin the fairness or unfairness of tax policy. A progressive tax is not designed to "spread the wealth around" ... it is designed so that people who make more money contribute more to government revenue because they have more to contribute. Most people recognize it as a fair system, and have done so since 1913. Apparently, you don't think it is fair. That's okay ... but you also must recognize that you are in the minority on this point. In respect to "class warfare" ... a lower tax rate on the wealthy redistributes wealth the other way, and places a larger burden on the poor. I know this is complex mathematics, and perhaps its complexity explains why you find it so hard to understand, but when you take a flat 20% of the income that a person makes over the course of a year, it has a much more severe and harsh affect on low-income earners than on high-income earners. One example should suffice: a 20% tax on someone earning $20K leaves them with only $16K to live on; the same tax on someone making $200K leaves them with $160K.
You certainly have a tremendous lack of respect and esteem for people less fortunate than you ... you seem totally incapable of understanding that even poor people have pride, skills, knowledge, or interest in carrying their fair share ... all are lazy, willing to live a dependent life and entitled to share your hard-earned wealth without wanting to lift a finger on their own behalf. What an elitist, narrow, and dismissive point of view!
You clearly have not spent much time in Europe. Maybe you should ... your 1950s vision of the rest of the world as a backward place doesn't cut it. And I must point out that it is YOU who describe things in terms of an "equal outcome" society. You will be very hard pressed to point to anything I have said, anywhere, that advocates that everyone have the same (let alone be the same), or that a goal is to guarantee equal outcomes. I advocate equal opportunity. It's really that simple.
What kind of an education did I receive? I attended California public schools, K-12, in Long Beach. I earned a National Merit Scholarship to USC, but even with the scholarship, could not afford the tuition. I spent two years at Long Beach City College and two years at California State College Long Beach (it later became CSU). I worked a variety of jobs to pay tuition and for an apartment. I attended the University of Liverpool for two years (that's in the United Kingdom, in case you need geographic support), then CSU Long Beach to earn my Masters Degree. I worked for a couple of years at the Oscar Mayer meat processing plant in Vernon while my wife earned a nursing credential and then was on my way to Rutgers University for a PhD program when my wife died. I then went back to CSU Long Beach to earn an elementary teaching credential. While trying to get a job (it took three years), I again worked a series of jobs to support myself. While a teacher, I attended and took classes at many universities ... CSU Chico, CSU Monterey Bay, UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine. I worked as an instructor at the Institute of Inquiry at San Francisco's Exploratoreum, at UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology, and at UC Berkeley's Lawrence Hall of Science. I did field work with Dr. Kevin Padian in the Painted Desert, digging reptile and amphibian fossils from the Triassic Period; and with Dr. Jack Horner outside of Graybull, Wyoming, digging Allosaur and Brachiosaur fossils. I served on the team that wrote the 1990 California Framework for Science Instruction, and on the team that wrote the current Science Content Standards for California. My Masters Degree is in modern U.S. and modern Latin American history. I am a Fellow of the California Writing Project, of the California Science Project, and of the California History/Social Sciences Project. And, at 61 years of age, I am currently enrolled in a writing class at Portland State University and teaching a class at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry.
I have not listed all of my credentials, but instead provide only a taste of my background ... because you asked (in fact, challenged). I am a lifelong learner who doesn't mind having my pet theories and beliefs challenged or even struck down. In the old days, some would consider me a Renaissance Man ... though in all my studies and adventures and opportunities, I have been blessed to associate with and get to know some REAL Renaissance men (and women). In case the term escapes you, I am referring to people who are truly knowledgeable and expert in a wide cross-section of fields of study, and who are skilled in many different pursuits. I might add that none of this was "given" to me ... I have worked for and earned every thing that I have done. I have served my community my state, and my country ... and I have served my chosen profession (holding a number of elected offices in professional organizations, organizing and leading conferences, supporting other teachers in efforts to improve their own skills). I KNOW the meaning of service.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<People making $250K a year are not "rich", nor have I ever said they were.>
Obama and members of his party have. Some of us have been paying attention.
<In respect to "class warfare" ... a lower tax rate on the wealthy redistributes wealth the other way, and places a larger burden on the poor. I know this is complex mathematics, and perhaps its complexity explains why you find it so hard to understand, but when you take a flat 20% of the income that a person makes over the course of a year, it has a much more severe and harsh affect on low-income earners than on high-income earners. One example should suffice: a 20% tax on someone earning $20K leaves them with only $16K to live on; the same tax on someone making $200K leaves them with $160K.>
No, it's easy to understand and has nothing to do with the math. It is not the government's job to pick winners and losers with the tax system. Taxes are for funding operations of the government. You complaining that the low income person "has less" is class warfare. It's the responsibility of that person to go out and do something about it so they can earn more, not complain they are getting a "raw deal" because someone else already did. We live in an equal opportunity society. It's up to you to make things happen.
<You certainly have a tremendous lack of respect and esteem for people less fortunate than you ... you seem totally incapable of understanding that even poor people have pride, skills, knowledge, or interest in carrying their fair share ... all are lazy, willing to live a dependent life and entitled to share your hard-earned wealth without wanting to lift a finger on their own behalf. What an elitist, narrow, and dismissive point of view!>
Now you are being the spinmeister. It's not unreasonable to have public assistance programs being funded with taxpayer dollars performing their intended task and working properly. The welfare system was not and it was reformed in 1996. I have nothing against those less fortunate but I don't think they need special tax treatment. Most of us have been less fortunate at one time or another. The question is how we handled it - went out and did something about it (improved skills) to earn more and get out of the situation or complained it "wasn't fair" because someone else already did.
Try thinking outside of your box once in a while - the left wing (who has a tremendous lack of respect/resentment for successful, self reliant people) plays up the "tax the rich" message regularly and appeals to voters by promising to lower their rates (or eliminate them altogether) and raise others in the name of "economic justice" or "fairness". Successful people are portrayed as cheating to get where they were and really "not needing" the things have have or own because those less fortunate don't have the same. You have an elitist, narrow and dismissive point of view by advocating a 90% tax rate on people you claim they "exploited" on the way up.
<You clearly have not spent much time in Europe. Maybe you should ... your 1950s vision of the rest of the world as a backward place doesn't cut it. And I must point out that it is YOU who describe things in terms of an "equal outcome" society. You will be very hard pressed to point to anything I have said, anywhere, that advocates that everyone have the same (let alone be the same), or that a goal is to guarantee equal outcomes. I advocate equal opportunity. It's really that simple.>
I have no desire to go there. Their system of government/reasoning is exactly the opposite of ours. Their "progressive" governments are intrusive and give out rights/privledges to citizens as they deem necessary. We have individual ones spelled out in the Constitution saying government is restricted and can not infringe on them. The left wing of the Democratic party likes the European model. I can see why you'd like it there.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I do not think I can continue to carry on any more of this discussion ... nit-picking selected points that I make in order to stand my words on their head to make me say things I never said is insulting, and suggests that it is pointless to prolong. I find that no matter how hard I try to avoid doing so, eventually I walk into traps that you have laid and sink to your level of discourse. That is counterproductive and certainly does not help to move the discussion forward. However, there no longer is a discussion ... or even an argument. Your approach to "discussion" amounts to little more than negation. From your rigid sense of moral superiority, there can be no speck or iota of truth in anything I say. I am going to take a break.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<I do not think I can continue to carry on any more of this discussion ... nit-picking selected points that I make in order to stand my words on their head to make me say things I never said is insulting, and suggests that it is pointless to prolong>
So was your comment about me being a "closet racist" because I opposed racial preference programs/unsubstantiated claims of racism. Or how about the one where you accused me of not understanding basic math because I opposed a progressive tax system/questioned the left wing interpretation of class warfare? But I guess I "trapped" you into making those remarks?
<That is counterproductive and certainly does not help to move the discussion forward. However, there no longer is a discussion ... or even an argument. Your approach to "discussion" amounts to little more than negation. From your rigid sense of moral superiority, there can be no speck or iota of truth in anything I say.>
This may be a surprise to you but some of us do not think "moving the discussion forward" is to simply embrace the rigid leftist/"progressive" point of view that you espouse and expect everyone else reading what you have written to blindly agree to it and be impressed in the process.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Surprise ... I am a lying left-wing conspirator who can't be trusted to tighten your lug-nuts when you come into my shop! I am about done with this fruitless and totally unrewarding discussion, but will pop in once in a while to add comments or zingers based upon my desire to conquer the world.
You ARE a racist, but hide it by trying to convince us that hundreds of years of western exploitation of people of "color" (itself a racist point of view) has ended. It hasn't. Watching frightened white boys hide behind a shield of "discrimination" is funny. Unfortunately, many such frightened white boys are armed. People backed into corners (in this case, by their own blatant misperceptions and ignorance) are dangerous when they have weapons.
You also are challenged ... scientifically, mathematically, and socially. You will defend the supremacy of the ruling elite without ever recognizing that your days are numbered. If you would open your eyes and recognize that 95% of the people you ostracize are coming to get you, you might be able to save your sorry little rear end.
Most intelligent people understand that "moving the discussion forward" does not entail embracing any particular point of view. It means actually talking about issues, abandoning the divisive propaganda that separates us, and looking for common solutions. You have demonstrated a stubborn and mindless ability to stick to three or four talking points as if they were some gospel, delivered from on high. Unfortunately, since there is no "on high" speaking except for the ruling class, you have buttered your bread. Good for you. If I were sitting in the pocket of the ruling class and honestly believed (or even dishonestly believed) that it was going to protect me, I would probably kiss its rear end, too.
I don't. And I don't.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<You ARE a racist, but hide it by trying to convince us that hundreds of years of western exploitation of people of "color" (itself a racist point of view) has ended. It hasn't. Watching frightened white boys hide behind a shield of "discrimination" is funny. Unfortunately, many such frightened white boys are armed. People backed into corners (in this case, by their own blatant misperceptions and ignorance) are dangerous when they have weapons.>
I am a personally a racist because of "hundreds of years of western exploitation of people of color" that I was not involved with hasn't ended? Is that the best you can come up with? Sounds like guilt by association to me. Lecturing others about moving the discussion forward but using terms like "frightened white boys"? Please. It's sounds like you are the ignorant one. But it's easy to dismiss someone's opposing viewpoint by calling them names/accusing them of being public safety threats.
No, I am attempting to convince people that racism charges (or any other charges) needed to be addressed on a case by case basis against those actually perpetrating it as opposed to the unjustified blanket assertion/endless claims that every situation/person must be racist when the outcome doesn't go his/her way (that's an easy claim to make and excuses responsibility/improvement). I have personally spoken with people in supervisory positions who deliberately adjust performance reviews/avoided performance interventions for certain employees because they were afraid of being accused of racism. So you tell us how operating in an environment like that is a good thing?
<You also are challenged ... scientifically, mathematically, and socially. You will defend the supremacy of the ruling elite without ever recognizing that your days are numbered. If you would open your eyes and recognize that 95% of the people you ostracize are coming to get you, you might be able to save your sorry little rear end.>
So I am "mathematically challenged" by not agreeing to your redistribution of income/tax the wealthy schemes using the tax code or that assembly line workers should to be paid $90,000 per year for "fairness" reasons? No, I just don't agree with your left wing/big government solutions. For all of your "science" claims whenever I raised the problem of budgets being out of balance/deficits in states or the federal government you dismissed the spending side of the equation - taxes just were not high enough, people were shirking their responsibilities by not agreeing to pay the higher amounts and "greedy" businesses were not paying enough and/or running down the infrastructures of the states they operate in. Goverment expenditures were justified as was Obama's deficit projections. And you didn't appear to want to consider the costs to the economy of implementing global warming legislation (reduced energy supplies/job losses/higher costs/etc.). We just "needed to do it now".
As far as the "ruling elite" is concerned it's sounds like you and the left wing policies you support. This country was founded on the principles of limited government/personal freedom - you want exactly the opposite. The "masses" are deemed ignorant/inept/racist and only people who think the way you do can fix/reeducate/take care of them with your policies.
<Most intelligent people understand that "moving the discussion forward" does not entail embracing any particular point of view. It means actually talking about issues, abandoning the divisive propaganda that separates us, and looking for common solutions. You have demonstrated a stubborn and mindless ability to stick to three or four talking points as if they were some gospel, delivered from on high.>
But we have to embrace yours or there is something wrong, right? It's a "slam dunk" that racial preferences are needed, a 90% tax rate on the wealthiest is appropriate, government expenditures are always justified, businesses/free enterprise always exploit people, the government "creates" jobs with spending plans, the health care system needs to be run by the government, the wage difference between workers/management is "obscene" and needs to be capped, taxes need to be increased, public assistance programs need more funding, health care is a "right", etc.
It's the standard leftist/"progressive" doctrine and you're pretty stubborn about it and have choice words when people don't agree with it. So I guess people can talk as long as they agree with you? I can see why this is "unrewarding" to you - someone disagreed with you.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
This is why I think it is useless to talk to you anymore.
Reread what I said. In case you can't find it (or can't even find what you yourself typed), I said, "You ARE a racist, but hide it by trying to convince us that hundreds of years of western exploitation of people of "color" (itself a racist point of view) has ended."
By just leaving out those two little words, you change the entire meaning of my statement. You then go off and write an entire scorched earth, racist piece of drivel based on that misinterpretation. In the last few messages, we have learned that you are scientifically illiterate, mathematically challenged (still trying to assert that because someone ... certainly not me ... has claimed that assembly-line workers should make $90K a year that this somehow explains the disconnect between a flat tax that disproportionately punishes the low-income earner ... which I did say), historically blinded (and possibly equally illiterate), cannot follow a thread of information, and apparently cannot read ... or at least cannot read for comprehension.
I must comment on your final paragraph, however (it is so absurdly disconnected from anything real that I have said as to be out loud laughable). My comments are italicized.
But we have to embrace yours or there is something wrong, right? (I have never said that my solutions are the only solutions, nor are they the only ones worth discussing). It's a "slam dunk" that racial preferences are needed (I have never said it is a "slam dunk" ... I HAVE said that this nation has yet to resolve its racist practices and affirmative action is a good way to account for institutional obstacles to minority opportunities), a 90% tax rate on the wealthiest is appropriate (in terms of the 90% tax rate, I have always used it in reference to the tax for the upper income bracket during the Eisenhower administration ... in moments of frustration with your unwillingness to admit that such was the case -- perhaps caused by historical illiteracy, as above mentioned -- I have suggested that maybe it would be a good idea today; but in most rational conversations that I have with people who are looking for real solutions and they have asked for a specific rate that I think is appropriate, I have almost always stated that restoration of the Clinton tax rates -- 39% -- are more than sufficient, though wouldn't object if it were raised to pre-Reagan rates of 70%), government expenditures are always justified (beginning in 1964, I have NEVER said that all government expenditures are justified ... far from it), businesses/free enterprise always exploit people (again, an exaggeration ... what I HAVE said is that SOME CAPITALISTS exploit people, especially when they stop being productive themselves and begin to profit from the labor of others), the government "creates" jobs with spending plans (government DOES create jobs with spending plans ... have you ever driven on US 1 and crossed a bridge built in the 1930s? ... have you ever been to Hoover Dam? ... right now, in my town of Oregon City, 47 men and women have jobs repairing a state highway that they otherwise would not have had were it not for ARRA money, and the Department of Human Services in the state of Oregon is advertising in today's paper for 1100 jobs made available through ARRA), the health care system needs to be run by the government (the health care system does NOT have to be run by government, but it must be operated as a not-for-profit enterprise; social leeches like health insurance companies need to go the way of the dinosaur, employer paid health insurance is a scam to make workers dependent on bosses, and small businesses -- which employ more than half of all working Americans -- cannot continue to pay it), the wage difference between workers/management is "obscene" and needs to be capped (this is true ... in the 1950s and the 1960s, executives made 35-40 times the salary of the average workers in their businesses; today that wage differential has increased a hundred fold ... just as there is a minimum wage there should be a maximum wage), taxes need to be increased (to account for the $1.2 trillion deficit accrued in the final year of George W, the $12 trillion trade deficit he accumulated, to pay for the $3 trillion he borrowed to fund our unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, and to cover the $1.8 trillion he gave away to the wealthiest 2% of all Americans, we have to raise taxes ... on everyone! ... and this is even more true now, because to try to dig us out of the hole we are in by providing jobs, energy independence, and affordable health care, Barack Obama is going to have to borrow even more), public assistance programs need more funding (yes), health care is a "right" (yes), etc.
It's the standard leftist/"progressive" doctrine and you're pretty stubborn about it and have choice words when people don't agree with it. So I guess people can talk as long as they agree with you? I can see why this is "unrewarding" to you - someone disagreed with you (I have conversations on this message board and other message boards with people who disagree with me all the time ... the difference is that they recognize valid points and historical accuracies as they are presented to support points of view with which they disagree; the world is not black and white, and most rational people recognize that competing thoughts and ideas are generally based in some form of rationality -- it is only with irrational people, such as yourself, that "discussion" is pointless).
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<By just leaving out those two little words, you change the entire meaning of my statement. You then go off and write an entire scorched earth, racist piece of drivel based on that misinterpretation.>
Go back and read I wrote. I included your original words, took issue with your supposed definition of me as a racist but you didn't answer the original point.
I never advocated people were prohibited from seeking justice if they were individually affected/harmed regarding race. If people have been exploited they are free to seek judicial remedies. So where did I deny exploitation of people of color had ended? I just don't agree with your fix - racial preference programs. What's wrong with this picture - discrimination is bad so let's have more of it? And you making the "white boys" comment diminishes your credibility - you are no better than the people you claim to oppose.
So anxious to label me (again) you apparently are more than willing to accept any claim of "racism" carte blanche regardless of circumstances/evidence (presumably because of your "exploitation" position), how easy it is for someone to do this and ignored the example I provided of how this scenario created problems in the workplace. You think I'm pulling your leg on this issue? The New Haven firefighter case is a similar example. Firefighters passing exams did not get promoted because no blacks scored high enough.
But it's just "drivel" that someone making a claim of racism would actually have to illustrate with examples/evidence as opposed to falling back on your "global exploitation" defense? And you're calling me irrational?
It's not drivel, it's legal chaos and an example of the payback mentality of the left vs. actually seeking fairness for someone being harmed. Maybe I'll just claim someone robbed me on the street and have them jailed for 20 years just on my say so alone because they must be guilty anyway.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Go back and read I wrote. I included your original words, took issue with your supposed definition of me as a racist but you didn't answer the original point.
I did, and you still haven't. I said (paraphrasing here) that you were a racist because you like to pretend that racism has ended. I bold-face and italicize the last two words (again), because those were the two words in my statement that you LEFT OUT of the part you copied. By leaving out those two words, my statement does, in fact, say that you are a racist. But I didn't say that. So everything else you say on the topic is false and based on a misquotation
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<Judging by your response, you have no clue about science, how science works, or how scientists work. As a result of your scientific illiteracy, you are a sitting duck for anyone who can throw around big numbers and convincing rhetoric that is aligned to your currently held social and political beliefs (which is about as unscientific as you can get when talking about science).>
You are in no position of judging others as "clueless".
And speaking of sitting ducks you'll rationalize and defend what the left wing wants because it fits with your social and political beliefs. Obama can do no wrong because he "inherited" everything, the old style welfare system "worked" by encouraging dependency, gun control stops crime, high taxes and heavy regulations on businesses somehow generate economic growth and prosperity, we need to pay assembly line workers $90,000 per year because it's "fair", discrimination is alright as long as it is directed at the "right people" (racial preferences), etc.
Despite your "wisdom" not a word as to what the global warming "fix" proposed by politicians is going to cost consumers/businesses and the supply of energy needed to run the country.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
As is to be expected, your response to a scientific criticism is purely political and social. It not only doesn't relate to the topic, it's not even new ... it's the same sequence of blathering fantasies as usual (to which I respond, in order: Obama did inherit the economic and foreign relations mess, the "old" welfare system worked fine but needed refinements, I have never said gun control stops crime, high taxes do stimulate economic growth and widespread prosperity, we could pay assembly-line workers $90K and executives $600K and find a better balance than the obscene discrepancy now in place, and we must still find artificial means to support social integration and economic opportunity for minority citizens, etc.).
In regards to the cost to consumers of "fixing" the issue of carbon emissions, boy do you have it wrong. There is no "fix". What's been pumped into the atmosphere over the last two to three centuries must work itself out of the system pretty much on its own, over time ... and that's over geologic time, not "time" as you seem to perceive it (just one hint ... it took hundreds of millions of years to oxygenate the atmosphere and replace the methane and carbon dioxide that initially comprised it). I do not think there is any magic wand that we can wave, no technological application of any scientific principle that can be used to scrub things clean ... we must live with what we have done and hope that we can reduce the carbon we have introduced into the otherwise relatively stable system of atmospheric gases and particulate matter.
We could have started in the 1980s. Looks like yet another Big One on which the Great Communicator dropped the ball. Referring to the topic of taxes, had the Reagan administration increased taxes on personal income rather than decreased them, corporate executives and dividend earners in the carbon-intensive emitting industries might have settled for smaller personal incomes and chosen instead to invest their earnings into even crude technologies, becoming available at the time, that would have served to reduce their carbon emissions. By procrastinating, denying the existence of a problem, or prevaricating, they put off solutions until the timeline for proactive steps has been sharply contracted and the cost for taking those steps greatly increased. This, of course, is a simple example of Mom's old adages about stitches in time, putting off until tomorrow, a new broom sweeping ...
So, because of procrastination ... and because we live in a corporatist state ... the cost to try to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will be high, and it will be born by consumers. In a responsible, people-driven government, those at the heads of major corporations would have taken steps to better serve citizens long ago. Once they discovered that their actions were poisoning the environment in which we all live, they would have served society and changed their behaviors. The costs would have been shared -- born in part by consumers, and in part by them (perhaps taking lower salaries, or reducing the dividends paid to investors). But because we no longer live in a nation governed for the people or even by the people, it is we the people who are going to be stuck with the entire cost while the fat cats who caused and perpetuated the problem make absolutely no sacrifices at all. In that respect, you are correct.
You ask how we will do it. There are a couple of straight-forward and relatively uncomplicated ways to do it, but they are more costly than what is currently being proposed. A direct tax on carbon is simple and fairly difficult to manipulate (though corporatists and their lobbyists would descend like vultures on our Congress For Sale to seek breaks, incentives, exclusions, waivers or other special treatments under the law), but if they don't get the tax rate correct the first time ... that is, it's too low so no one changes behavior, or it's too high, and everyone actually does go out of business ... then there will be all sorts of heck to pay. Besides, the carbon tax is not the favored approach. Nor is direct regulation, similar to the Clean Water Act ... where emitters purchase pollution permits and pay heavy fines for not meeting their target ... on the table.
Nope. Cap and trade looks like the way we are going to go. Cap and trade is open to market manipulation and speculation, as evidenced in Europe. But, at least since 2008, the system adopted by the EEU has succeeded in bringing emissions down. The EEU is not going broke as a result. And the U.S. has been successfully operating a cap-and-trade system since 1995, so we have experience in how to do it right ... according to the EPA, the costs for cutting acid-rain causing pollutants have been cut to one third their original projections, and the system is working. Of course, carbon emissions come from many different sources than do the acid-raid pollutants, so the issue is a bit more complicated. But at least it offers choices to free-marketeers and other advocates of freedom ... they can continue to pollute away (but pay a fee), or they can invest in change and help solve problems at the same time.
We no longer have the time to debate how to get it done. Sea levels are rising up here in the Pacific Northwest. We have had three 100-year floods since 1996 (and California has had two). The snow-pack in the Cascades is at record lows (and California keeps eying this Northwest snowpack as a temporary respite for its water shortages). Sea ice is thinning, and shelf-ice in both Antartica and the Arctic is shrinking. Midwestern storms are intensifying each year. The costs of coping with the effects of climate change will be far steeper than those for reducing the emissions that cause it. It's time to act. Now.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
And this is going to change the frequency and intensity of sunspots, the root cause of global warming ... how?
And this makes Obama an alien because ....?
And now for something on topic. Dr. Taitz, Esq., has heard back from the California judge about her default judgment motion against Obama, the Senator, that the court is trying to derail by pointing to one set of rules as opposed to using the set of rules she filed under. The date for that hearing is July 13.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101889
I guess the judge is having a hard time believing that someone who lectured Constitutional law and is married to a (disbarred) attorney would allow a default judgment to happen. Talk about a double standard. Had someone represented themselves in court and allowed a default judgment to occur, no judge in California would invite them back 'just to make sure' that's what they wanted.
I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
I am unfazed and unconcerned by your self-appointed role of message monitor. I am engaged in a conversation with a third party which you are welcome to join or ignore.
Sunspots? Whew ... I am assuming the last serious science course you took was in about third grade.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<As is to be expected, your response to a scientific criticism is purely political and social. It not only doesn't relate to the topic, it's not even new ... it's the same sequence of blathering fantasies as usual (to which I respond, in order: Obama did inherit the economic and foreign relations mess, the "old" welfare system worked fine but needed refinements, I have never said gun control stops crime, high taxes do stimulate economic growth and widespread prosperity, we could pay assembly-line workers $90K and executives $600K and find a better balance than the obscene discrepancy now in place, and we must still find artificial means to support social integration and economic opportunity for minority citizens, etc.).>
Your response is nothing new and you are not a scientist. There ARE scientists who do not agree that global warming is man made and that temperature changes have increased/decreased in the past. Your claim they are all in the "pockets of corporations" is blathering. They and their findings are not "worthy" because they don't subscribe to the left wing, sky is falling approach.
Regardless of what Obama inherited he doesn't get to "punt" or get a pass on HIS policies as president (which you are quick to rationalize/defend regardless of the results). His unemployment projections were wrong and he's growing the deficit by leaps and bounds. We won't be paying it down anytime soon and he looks foolish/insults our intelligence claiming his "paygo" endorsement will solve it. I'm sure you'll come to his defense by lecturing the rest of us how foolish or greedy we are, that we are unreasonable to oppose funding his programs, we just need another stimulus package, the Republicans dug a hole too deep, etc. Obama is foolish to believe he can negotiate with rogue nations/dictators and get results because of his speaking skills. And he's calling for constitutional rights for enemy combatants. I feel safer already. Who's pocket are you in? Here's a radical suggestion - maybe Obama just doesn't know what he's doing and the left wing policies/activists he hung around with all of his life don't work or don't know either.
If high taxes stimulated economic growth why aren't people/businesses flocking to states like New Jersey and New York? They're not because taxes there are high and people/businesses are leaving. Why are budgets in those states always out of balance? Let's see how many jobs are created/how many people are laid off if the government forces businesses to pay assembly line workers $90,000 per year just to "make it fair".
The old welfare system encouraged people to stay on it by simply handing out checks and expecting nothing in return. It is a fantasy to say that "it worked". Let me guess - you think it "worked" because it is the "job" of taxpayers/government to bail out anyone/underwrite their lifestyle regardless of their unwillingness to take responsibility for themselves or their actions? It's only "fair", right? And I'm greedy and selfish if I don't go along?
Discrimination is bad regardless of who practices it. It's not "okay" if preferences/quotas are used for political payback/"social justice" reasons. There are plenty of people (including yourself) that seem to think that's exactly what needs to be done and hide behind unsubstantiated/endless claims of so called "white privledge" to defend it.
Joined: Jul 2005
Current Posts: 1715
Your response is nothing new and you are not a scientist. There ARE scientists who do not agree that global warming is man made and that temperature changes have increased/decreased in the past. Your claim they are all in the "pockets of corporations" is blathering. They and their findings are not "worthy" because they don't subscribe to the left wing, sky is falling approach.
No, I do not have a scientific degree, but that doesn't negate the fact that I can think scientifically, am a member of the AAAS, read scientific (as well as political and social) journals, have done field work with scientists in several disciplines, and have taken enough upper division and graduate courses at several UC and CSU campuses in the past twenty-two years to have earned a degree. One does not need to be a scientist in order to think like a scientist, or to understand how science works. One simply needs something that you do not seem to possess ... an open mind.
Yes, there are scientists who do not agree that the current global warming phenomena not man-caused ... but they are few and far between, and most of them are actually debating the degree of man's contribution, not in absolute denial. You see, there are always questions that cannot be answered, and there is always data that appears anomalous. Even when all the questions have been answered and all the anomalies addressed, the explanation that covers them is still called a "theory". Theories are the best and most complete explanations, the ones that unite all observed phenomena. They are not "hunches" or "guesses", as in a detective story. And even then, scientists are prepared to modify (or even abandon) theories after new, contradictory phenomena are observed, or after better (and usually broader) explanations are offered. There are no final answers in science. This is why, for almost any prevailing scientific hypothesis (or even theory) that you want to name, there are handfuls of practicing scientists who do not accept it. That's the way science works.
The major producers of greenhouse gases find it in their economic and political interests to find and identify as many of these individuals as they can, and to pay them relatively substantial amounts of money (usually in the form of grants to an "Institute" or "Group" the denier has founded) in order to publish their contrary views. Predecessors in the arena of nicotine studies perfected the strategy, and many of the same names who are leaders of the anti-global warming movement also were well-paid spokesmen of the Tobacco Lobby. Of course, their work generally is non-scientific and is therefore not printed in the scientific journals. They of course claim that there is a conspiracy amongst the scientific "elite" (whatever that is) to silence them, and they count on a scientifically illiterate population (such as yourself) to support them. Creating confusion and uncertainty is as much a goal of their efforts as is speaking truth. No such thing is taking place, of course, and should their views conclusively establish that the infusion of carbon into the atmosphere is completely separate from human activity over the past three centuries, then their views will prevail. Unfortunately, the little nit-picking criticisms they throw out against the wall (and that you seem to find so "conclusive") are like a thimble of hot water thrown on a glacier; the cumulative evidence from hundreds of fields of study is overwhelming.
Good luck with your thumb in that dyke.
Regardless of what Obama inherited he doesn't get to "punt" or get a pass on HIS policies as president (which you are quick to rationalize/defend regardless of the results).
You are correct. He must stand on his own record. Currently, his record (and most of his energy) is dictated by what came before him, but he must be judged on what he does. You are going to have to demonstrate my rationalizations and justifications, however, and demonstrate that they are incorrect ... as opposed to just making a claim without support.
His unemployment projections were wrong and he's growing the deficit by leaps and bounds. We won't be paying it down anytime soon and he looks foolish/insults our intelligence claiming his "paygo" endorsement will solve it. I'm sure you'll come to his defense by lecturing the rest of us how foolish or greedy we are, that we are unreasonable to oppose funding his programs, we just need another stimulus package, the Republicans dug a hole too deep, etc.
Initial unemployment projections were incorrect, as you point out, but the administration has admitted that it miscalculated. It miscalculated because the depth of the recession was worse than first predicted. Even then, Barack Obama (if you actually listen to him, rather than parrot back what your mentors tell you to say) is telling us ... and has been telling us ... that the worst has not yet passed. I know the TV talking heads are pointing to all sorts of signs of "recovery", but these are the same people who couldn't see the train wreck coming in the first place, and would just as soon point a camera up Britney's skirt as tell a compelling story of any substance or factual basis. During the election, as the nature of the recession was becoming more clear, he told us that we had a choice -- we could let everything crash while the financiers and investors sat on their hands (or counted the money they had stolen and tucked away into private, off-shore bank accounts ... actually, I say that, Barack Obama never gave such a thought the light of day), or we could launch a program of government spending that would stimulate the economy. He told us ... BEFORE THE ELECTION ... which direction he would go. John McCain, in comparison, said he would lower taxes and shrink government.
Guess who lost the election?
As to expanding the deficit, I am sorry, but that issue cannot be adequately addressed without making historical references. The ONLY presidents who have run deficits since the Depression were Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush (who had to break his promise and raise taxes in order to undo a little of the damage done by the Reagan tax cuts), and George W Bush. Each set a record for his own time. But now, all of a sudden, conservatives are having a hissy fit because a DEMOCRAT dares to borrow! I'm sorry, but your protests ring hollow.
Are ALL Republicans opposed to "pay as you go"? Maybe that's why we got into such a mess in the first place? It may or may not be able to resolve the deficit and balance the budget, but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than cutting revenue, and then spending as if you actually had the money. As to what I will say or do, I find it interesting that you ... like so many of the other voices of unreason on this board ... assume you know what my answer will be (which we all do, to a certain extent), and then proceed to speak as if I actually said such things. We call that building a straw man argument ...
Obama is foolish to believe he can negotiate with rogue nations/dictators and get results because of his speaking skills. And he's calling for constitutional rights for enemy combatants. I feel safer already. Who's pocket are you in? Here's a radical suggestion - maybe Obama just doesn't know what he's doing and the left wing policies/activists he hung around with all of his life don't work or don't know either.
My, you jump all over the globe in a single paragraph ... this is one reason I broke it up. We've gone from climate change (and my lack of qualifications to speak on the matter) to deficit spending, to defending the President, to foreign relations, to vague references (once again) about boogeymen in the President's past. Whew!
Time will tell whether negotiating with perceived enemies works. The last guy didn't even give it a thought, and that worked out pretty good, didn't it? Unlike that previous guy, Barack Obama is a reasonable man. We can tell that he is reasonable because he is talking about honoring the basic human rights that all people on the planet possess (not "constitutional rights", as you suggest) ... unlike the previous president who pursued medieval policies of torture and abuse and secret prisons and perpetual detention. I am guessing (though don't claim to know) that he is counting more on reason and common ground as a basis for discussion than he is on his speaking skills. I am glad you feel safer. I most certainly do. For example, for some reason, the Pakistani army has decided, since February, to actually stand up to the Taliban and confront them directly (something the last President could never quite get them to do). Imagine had the "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" guy had his finger on that little red button for the last few days (though he, too, has finally conceded that Obama's calm response probably served us well). I am not quite sure the intention or purpose of your rhetorical question about whose pocket I am in, except that it allowed you to make an unsubstantiated inference, once again, regarding the wild and discredited charges of the extreme right during the election. As you guys told me repeatedly after 2001 ... Move On.
If high taxes stimulated economic growth why aren't people/businesses flocking to states like New Jersey and New York? They're not because taxes there are high and people/businesses are leaving. Why are budgets in those states always out of balance? Let's see how many jobs are created/how many people are laid off if the government forces businesses to pay assembly line workers $90,000 per year just to "make it fair".
The old welfare system encouraged people to stay on it by simply handing out checks and expecting nothing in return. It is a fantasy to say that "it worked". Let me guess - you think it "worked" because it is the "job" of taxpayers/government to bail out anyone/underwrite their lifestyle regardless of their unwillingness to take responsibility for themselves or their actions? It's only "fair", right? And I'm greedy and selfish if I don't go along?
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<And this is the most pointedly racist thing you have said, so far. I knew you were a closet racist! In a perfect world, preferential support and a leg up would not be necessary. In a non-race based, non-class based society, we would not have to worry about the discriminatory practices that limit and restrict equal opportunity ... economic, social, educational and political. But because our society IS racist, because class divisions are increasing rather than going away, we must put in place artificial means to break down the barriers that exist until such time as they are no longer needed.>
I'm against racial preferences/quotas so I'm a closet racist? Aren't we "tolerant" and "diverse" today? You know nothing about me. But you seem to like to resort to insults when people don't agree with your left wing views.
The use of preferences/quotas is a double standard - discrimination is bad and it's bad for everyone. You seem to think it's perfectly "reasonable" when done to the right people because "they had it coming". And of course you are "qualified" to decide, when and for how long. And while were at it let's ignore racially insensitive remarks from people like Sotomayor when she argued a "wise Latina would be a better judge than a white male". It's clear what the response would have been if a white male made the same comment about a Latina.
People are still free to bring suits of discrimination/court cases when they believe they have been treated poorly. The difference here is that the left (and you) are obsessed with race, make broad and unsupported accusations against people you do not know and see overtones in every situation. When things don't go your way, promotions are not granted, admissions denied, etc. therefore it must be racism. So who exactly are these racists, what exactly have they done and what damage was caused? Address them and spare us the left wing psychobabble.
It sounds like you are the racist - according to you we are ALL the same (we're "privledged"), we deserve broad insults directed toward us and we need you to set us straight because we just don't know any better. How arrogant. Spare us the lecture about how to behave. It sounds like you need a lesson.
Which do you think is the better strategy - emphasizing education, work and qualifications for the minority community as a way of getting ahead or endlessly complaining everything is racist, the system is rigged, someone is out to get you, demanding government concessions and quotas, etc.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<No one likes paying taxes ... of any kind. If options are available, many people will shirk their duties and responsibilities and serve their own, personal interests firsts. That's human nature, and that's why corporations began flocking to states with lower taxes ... or why various states began falling all over themselves to enact the most permissive corporate (and incorporation) laws imaginable. You have heard the phrase "tax haven", I am sure ... they are designed to attract cancerous corporations, even if it means throwing out the bath water. When a corporation ... an entity that uses much more of the taxpayer subsidized infrastructure than all the individuals living in the taxed territory, combined ... pays no taxes, then budgets tend to go unbalanced.>
For someone who likes to accuse and insult others for not having an open mind or scientific thinking you seem to have a problem considering that left wing controlled states like New York and New Jersey that have consistent deficits simply spend too much money and do not use it wisely. Maybe they just need to clean up their acts instead of hitting up the taxpayers for more. The money comes from the taxpayers, it doesn't belong the government. How convenient that businesses are always the culprits by refusing to pay more.
I guess you've already decided that everything in their state legislatures want must be funded and that demands for bigger government/more spending from special interest groups such as organized labor are always justified.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<As to expanding the deficit, I am sorry, but that issue cannot be adequately addressed without making historical references. The ONLY presidents who have run deficits since the Depression were Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush (who had to break his promise and raise taxes in order to undo a little of the damage done by the Reagan tax cuts), and George W Bush. Each set a record for his own time. But now, all of a sudden, conservatives are having a hissy fit because a DEMOCRAT dares to borrow! I'm sorry, but your protests ring hollow. >
How about using an open mind you claim I don't have and look what Democrats said when Bush ran up deficits when he was in office?
Strange how they are suddenly not so concerned/quiet about it now because Obama is doing it (and in a much bigger way). We suddenly can ""afford" to spend what he wants despite the trillion dollar shortfalls in the future.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<No, I do not have a scientific degree, but that doesn't negate the fact that I can think scientifically, am a member of the AAAS, read scientific (as well as political and social) journals, have done field work with scientists in several disciplines, and have taken enough upper division and graduate courses at several UC and CSU campuses in the past twenty-two years to have earned a degree. One does not need to be a scientist in order to think like a scientist, or to understand how science works. One simply needs something that you do not seem to possess ... an open mind. >
An open mind? You had no problem with referring to me as a "closet racist" just because I opposed racial preferences/hiring quotas and dared to question the motives of people who made blanket accusations of racism regardless of circumstances. And you never addressed the possibility that people leave states like New York and New Jersey because taxes are too high, they can not afford to live there and the state governments just don't manage money well. It was the fault of greedy businesses/corporations not contributing enough.
Sounds like you've made up your mind.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<But that doesn't mean that we, as a society, turn our backs on the unfortunate, disadvantaged, handicapped, or repressed individuals who for one reason or another are less fortunate than the majority of us. We agreed, during the Depression, that we provide a safety net for those people. I am not sure that a person who thinks this is somehow wrong is "greedy", per se ... but they certainly are self-centered and not particularly forward looking (nor are they particularly generous).>
Creating a "straw man" that all public assistance programs are going away just because someone questions the pie in the sky belief that poverty will somehow "end" if we just keep throwing money at it? How many trillions of dollars have been spent since the Johnson Administration on public assistance/welfare programs? How many programs were expanded as a result of the Great Society?
The leadership of the Democratic Party was firmly against the 1996 reforms. So what would have happened if they had their way - nothing would have changed.
<Ronald Reagan demonized welfare recipients. He overgeneralized and appealed to the incipient racism of many Americans (in turn created by the uncertainty of expanded rights of citizenship that had racked the 1970s) by speaking in clearly coded phrases.>
The left wing does not overgeneralize and appeal to darker motives with their claims those that are financially well off are greedy, cheating or are holding others back in the process?