Out2Lunch Still Running Away From The Fascists! by out2theblack

I think this story has no legs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 4, 2009 11:34 AM

I think this story has no legs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 4, 2009 3:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
why Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors...

Because even a President Elect can't just arbitrarily order state law to be overturned. It takes a vote to do that. Yay democracy!

News Flash !

This ain't no democracy , kids...

It's a different form of government...It's called a Republic , the Constitution itself guarantees this Fact...

Of course NoBama can't order state law overturned...Even the President cannot Constitutionally do that...

By 'order' , I mean request...

Like when you get fast food , or call for a pizza...

BarackO is the only one who may do that , order his vault-copy Birth Certificate , under current State law in Hawaii...

Sometimes , the simple folk are the most difficult...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 4, 2009 3:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think this story has no legs.

Is that 'doublethink' , 'doublespeak' , or both ?

Do you know the difference between SIMBA

and OBAMA ?

Simba is an African Lion , and Obama's a Lyin' African...

The story has legs , the problem has legs , the 'long-legged mack-daddy' has legs ,
or this would not have gotten to the Supreme Court for conference...

Even if the Supremes decline this aspect of the case , the story will continue to have legs...

One way or the other , there will be a massive downside for the Citizens of the United States...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 4, 2009 3:40 PM

" The United States of America was founded as a federation of Republics whose sole purpose was to protect persons and their property. Without regulations, subsidies and other privileges, individuals and businesses co-evolved in a competitive environment to be the most inventive and efficient on earth. Democracy—rule by the majority; disregard for individual rights—has perverted what was once a symbiotic relationship among individuals and businesses into a parasitic relationship. Even our massive deficit spending can no longer hide our decline.

This nation was never intended to be a democracy. The framers and ratifiers meant to impose the stable rule of law and not the rule of men, motivated, at the instant, by whim and passion. Democracy is the antithesis of the rule of law, for it is precisely the rule of the voters: that is, rule without limits, obtaining its power from 50%, plus 1, regardless of the established law. Under demos (populace) kratos (master), from the Greek, the mere whim of the majority, right, wrong or indifferent, becomes the law. A lynch mob is democratic within this definition.

Look at the Internal Revenue Service or the DEA—do they not violate the Law guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? Aren't they a product of the legislative democracy, outside the rule of the ratified Law? Yes, but they are certainly democratic. The voters in the States elected the whole Congress. The majority in Congress voted to empower these agents beyond the powers given to Congress by the People. Both votes, the direct election of Senators and the Congress's vote to bestow powers they do not Lawfully have, are contra to the Constitution as Lawfully ratified.

Consensus facit legem is an incontrovertible rule of law which means 'consent makes law.' How does a minority in the right oppose a majority in the wrong, without resort to a fixed rule of law? It cannot. Without a republican form of government a peaceful defense of rights may not be possible.

In short, the operative word is republican. (Not to be confused with the modern Republican party.) Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." A serious and potentially damaging bit of misinformation usually follows this line: "Our Treasured Basic Freedoms . . . the historical basic documents that laid the foundation for our democracy, etc." The author of this mistake is usually innocent. He or she is not aware of the real foundation of our federated government.

The closest American dictionary to the ratification period is Noah Webster's "An American Dictionary of the English Language," printed in 1828. Noah Webster says in part:

REPUB'LIC, n. [L. respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]
A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person.
REPUBLICAN, a.
Pertaining to a republic; consisting of a commonwealth; as a republican constitution or government.
Seems pretty clear, for the then commonly understood definition of 'republican.'

The Declaration of Independence (the Primary statute), along with the Constitution (the Organic Law), as properly ratified, by two- thirds of the states' votes, is the total and perfect definition of the American republic. The only external interpretation is the intent of the framers and ratifiers.1

Our nation is, properly, a limited constitutional federal republic, formed of limited constitutional state republics, all using majority rule to fill certain elective offices and decide certain matters. With the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the People reserved only four direct (majority) votes:

1. Direct election of Representatives to Congress;

2. Direct election of Presidential Electors;

3. Direct votes as Jurors;

4. Direct votes as Grand Jurors.

We are democratic to the extent of these direct votes of the People. Our government's model is republican in form."

http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213d.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 4, 2009 8:00 PM

Out2theBlack

No, it just has no chance of coming true. Obama wasn't elected by the people, he was chosen by the media, the same media that controls the govt. They will not see fit to now un-anoint him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 8, 2009 4:12 PM

Little doubt that you are correct...

It'll be the last nail in the coffin of the Republic , if the Court does not give full and fair attention to this issue...

'...As you know, this Friday, January 9, 2009 our case, Berg vs. Obama, is being "Conferenced" by the nine [9] Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court [Docket No. 08 – 570]. Then, on January 16, 2009 again, we have a "Conference" before the U.S. Supreme Court in this case.

Also, we have pending two [2] other cases because we are determined, no matter how long it takes, to expose Obama’s “Hoax” on the 305 million people in our country, that Obama is “not qualified” pursuant to our U.S. Constitution to be President.

The new case is Hollister vs. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Docket # 08-02254 (JR). Hollister is a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel that can be recalled at any time by the President. His dilemma – is Obama a “qualified” President that he must take orders from or is he “not qualified” and therefore, he is required to legally disobey Obama’s orders? The other case is “under seal” and therefore, I cannot discuss.'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 11, 2009 2:14 PM

January 7, 2009

The United States Supreme Court's Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear the case of Lightfoot v Bowen, a case represented by
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., challenging Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency.

John Roberts distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court on January 7, only one day before Congress votes on the acceptance of the Electoral College vote results. Before Congress could make another mistake Chief Justice Roberts has, in effect, sent them the following message:

Hold on -- not so fast! There is value in this case. Read it!

Hawaiian statue 338 allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates. It allows one to get Hawaiian certification of live birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence. You need to investigate. You need corroborating evidence. If only one Representative or one Senator presents a written objection, then there has to be a formal investigation by the joint session of the House and Senate. During this investigation the original birth certificate from Hawaii will be subpoenaed. All other pertinent documents will be subpoenaed: Obama's immigration records, any and all passports from Indonesia, Kenya, and Great Britain; and University enrollment records, showing if he was enrolled in US schools and universities and received financial aid as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia or Kenya. All of it can be subpoenaed and obtained within a day or two. Each and every member of Congress owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records. When American servicemen are told to risk their lives defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, each and every member of the House and Senate can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents in order to see if Barack Hussein Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, if he is a citizen at all.
This is the message that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them, and if they are not listening, there has to be a massive petition drive to recall them. Truth will come out, no matter how many millions Obama is spending to hide it.

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2009/01/former-soviet-defends-us-constitut
ion.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 11, 2009 2:50 PM

RIVERDANCER

DO YOU SERIOUSLY STILL THINK THAT NONE OF THIS WAS ESTABLISHED BEFORE HE WAS RATIFIED AS A SENATOR, LET ALONE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT?? You, who has such faith in the system now that there's something you want undone?? YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 11, 2009 3:18 PM

YES...

Many facts of this case have been well-established for a long time...

Like , as an example , BarackO LIED on his application to the Illinois State Bar , when he certified that he'd never been known by any name other than Barack Hussein Obama...

No matter how you and the others with Barack-o-philia characterize the situation , Presidents are to be Constitutionally elected , not appointed , or anointed...

Lots of smart folk are at work with the multitude of available facts about this crisis situation...

Plainly , you're not one of them...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 11, 2009 3:26 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:

No matter how you and the others with Barack-o-philia characterize the situation , Presidents are to be Constitutionally elected , not appointed , or anointed...

Good thing he was elected then.

Now stop whining. It's sad.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 11, 2009 3:28 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 11, 2009 6:19 PM

Oh, where to even start.

This fantasy is not worth the time to indulge. No offense. The reality of president Obama is an established fact. If you don't like this idea, plan for 2012. But much better, as always, to ignore it altogether. President of the United States is not a very powerful position, and it has little effect on you, and you have even less effect on it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 12, 2009 3:57 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
DO YOU SERIOUSLY STILL THINK THAT NONE OF THIS WAS ESTABLISHED BEFORE HE WAS RATIFIED AS A SENATOR, LET ALONE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT??.

Probably not a consideration. A person has no need of being a natural born citizen to be a US Senator.

I'm split on this whole issue. One, Barrack Obama is a US Citizen, natural born. Two, he must and should present his birth certificate for media examination (actually for examination by the Electors so that his Constitutional qualifications of age and birth can be determined officially, but it would be a public record at that point so the media could see it too). So should any President Elect, not just Obama.

Then if something is amiss, we can have this discussion.

Till then we might as well discuss the well known fact that Obama is a 17 years old white girl from North Carolina...the evidence is just as compelling as what is presented here...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 12, 2009 7:18 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
A person has no need of being a natural born citizen to be a US Senator.

True, but they do need to be a citizen, and his citizenship in general seems to be called into question. It's kind of ludicrous. Really.
I'll say it again, the simplest solution is best. More layers, less likely.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 12, 2009 7:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:

No matter how you and the others with Barack-o-philia characterize the situation , Presidents are to be Constitutionally elected , not appointed , or anointed...

Good thing he was elected then.

Key word in that phrase is " Constitutionally elected "...

Doesn't matter if the electors cast their votes for him , if he is not a US Citizen , and is therefore Constitutionally Ineligible...

It's the details that matter most , in cases like this...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 12, 2009 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
DO YOU SERIOUSLY STILL THINK THAT NONE OF THIS WAS ESTABLISHED BEFORE HE WAS RATIFIED AS A SENATOR, LET ALONE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT??.

I'm split on this whole issue. One, Barrack Obama is a US Citizen, natural born. Two, he must and should present his birth certificate for media examination (actually for examination by the Electors so that his Constitutional qualifications of age and birth can be determined officially, but it would be a public record at that point so the media could see it too). So should any President Elect, not just Obama.

Then if something is amiss, we can have this discussion.

H

Fortunately , this forum is not where all the evidence is being laid out...

The Supreme Court IS :

"...As you know, this Friday, January 9, 2009 our case, Berg vs. Obama, is being "Conferenced" by the nine [9] Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court [Docket No. 08 – 570]. Then, on January 16, 2009 again, we have a "Conference" before the U.S. Supreme Court in this case.

Also, we have pending two [2] other cases because we are determined, no matter how long it takes, to expose Obama’s “Hoax” on the 305 million people in our country, that Obama is “not qualified” pursuant to our U.S. Constitution to be President."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 12, 2009 8:21 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:

No matter how you and the others with Barack-o-philia characterize the situation , Presidents are to be Constitutionally elected , not appointed , or anointed...

Good thing he was elected then.

Key word in that phrase is " Constitutionally elected "...

Doesn't matter if the electors cast their votes for him , if he is not a US Citizen , and is therefore Constitutionally Ineligible...

It's the details that matter most , in cases like this...

And to the paranoid, no ammount of proof will matter, so this is pointless.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 12, 2009 9:09 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Fortunately , this forum is not where all the evidence is being laid out...

The Supreme Court IS :

"...As you know, this Friday, January 9, 2009 our case, Berg vs. Obama, is being "Conferenced" by the nine [9] Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court [Docket No. 08 – 570]. Then, on January 16, 2009 again, we have a "Conference" before the U.S. Supreme Court in this case.

Also, we have pending two [2] other cases because we are determined, no matter how long it takes, to expose Obama’s “Hoax” on the 305 million people in our country, that Obama is “not qualified” pursuant to our U.S. Constitution to be President."

So if the Supreme Court of the United States reviews the "evidence" and concludes that Obama is indeed eligible to be the President of the United States, will you agree to drop this once and for all? You're relying on the Court to prove that you're right; will you respect their decision if it proves that you're wrong?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 12, 2009 1:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85936

Latest eligibility challenge rejected
Justices' conference results in no action on constitutional questions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 12, 2009
1:52 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Another case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has been turned back by the U.S. Supreme Court ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 12, 2009 1:48 PM

Actually , I'm not relying on the Supreme Court to prove that I'm right...

Rather , the country is relying on them to do the right thing...

Whether they do or don't , will have a large bearing on the future of the Republic , and our resultant quality of life...

So , if they do what's right , they'll get some credit...

If they don't , they'll bear a portion of the blame...

Thanks for the update , Rue , your attention to this matter is appreciated :

'...WND has reported on the long series of legal cases challenging Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office based on questions and allegations about his birth place that could disqualify him because of the Constitution's demand that the president be a "natural born" citizen.

"In addition to the current case in the U.S. Supreme Court, we have or will have … a case filed two months ago captioned Berg vs. Obama," Berg's statement said.

...He said that case remains "under seal," and he isn't commenting on it.

Another case, Berg pointed out, Hollister vs. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama, also is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit by a retired U.S. Air Force colonel raises the issue of whether military personnel would be required to obey an order from Obama if the commander-in-chief is not qualified to hold office.

Several other cases also remain pending, including a motion on an issue related to Berg's case scheduled for a Supreme Court conference Friday. A conference on yet another case is scheduled Jan. 23, which means the dispute will follow Obama into the White House, since his inauguration is Jan. 20.

"If Obama is sworn in as president, we will file a Petition for Writ of 'Quo Warranto,' a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as president because he is 'not qualified,'" Berg said.

Berg said Obama simply should hold a news conference and affirm, "Because of things in my background, I cannot be sworn is as president."

Berg,, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, said he was concerned by the court's most recent decision.

"I am disappointed for the 300-plus million U.S. citizens, our 'forefathers' and for the tens of thousands that have died defending 'our' Constitution," he said.

...But following a pending hearing on a related issue to Berg's case this Friday, a conference also is scheduled Jan. 23 on the case Gail Lightfoot et al v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State.

The Lightfoot case is being handled by Orly Taitz, who said the issue is significant.

"Each and every member of the U.S. Congress and Senate owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records," she said.

Taitz said her case was rejected by the California Supreme Court with a single-word decision, "Denied." Her arguments, she said, rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of that ruling.

"We'll see what happens," she told WND. "This is not going to go away."

There have been no substantive answers to date about the questions raised, and Obama has decided, for whatever reason, not to release a bona fide copy of his original birth certificate in its complete form.'

" I'll keep my freedom, my guns, and my money; you can keep 'THE CHANGE'. "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:49 PM

Video , Why Obama can never be President of the US

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2009/01/just-reminder-why-obama-can-never-
be.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:23 PM

If you could, just for neatness sake, double post the videos in the videos thread? It's my hopeless attempt at organization.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If you could, just for neatness sake, double post the videos in the videos thread? It's my hopeless attempt at organization.

Done .

Meanwhile , for them as need it told :

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2009/01/abandonment-of-us-constitution-is-
main.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HHmmmm ... why does Obama have such incredible scrutiny focused on him when no one else did ? Is it b/c he was born in "foreign, exotic Hawaii" ? Is it b/c his father was from another country ? Is it b/c his mother was white ? And yet ... None of that seems enough of a reason.

There's got to be something that I'm just not thinking of.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:14 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
HHmmmm ... why does Obama have such incredible scrutiny focused on him when no one else did ? Is it b/c he was born in "foreign, exotic Hawaii" ? Is it b/c his father was from another country ? Is it b/c his mother was white ? HHHhhmmmmm. None of that seems enough of a reason.

There's got to be something that I'm just not thinking of.

He's an articulate handsome man, is that it. Seems a little suspicious considering how ugly your average Pres is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:37 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Well if the Enquirer says it, it must be true right?

So, let me get this straight. If the Supreme Court sides with you, they are doing the right thing. The. Supreme. Court. Should side with you. Or they're not only wrong, as in not correct, but wrong as in not doing the right thing.
Damn, dude. I think our court system is far from perfect, but claiming that the highest level of justice in the country can only do the right thing if they side with you goes beyond simple arrogance.
What you're really saying is that to you this issue will never go away because you refuse to accept anything that contradicts or disproves it. You will never drop it even if it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law. In the supreme court of law. You will continue to insist that what you believe is the only way, the only thing to believe, the only thing that could possibly be right. Far, FAR beyond arrogance. That might be some kind of god complex.
You're deep psychological issues aside, here's a slice of reality pie for you: In five days, Barack Obama will be sworn in, and he will be your President. Now, I dealt with having a President I didn't like and didn't agree with for eight years, and I live to tell the tale. While there may be some who can't or wouldn't say this, I did not spend those eight years focusing on how much I disliked the President. I tried to make the best of life. Of course the general state of affairs would at times remind me of how much I disliked the President/system/everyone pulling any kind of string, but I thought and talked about other things the vast majority of the time, and I lived through it. I really suggest you find something productive to do with your time. This schtick is gonna get old... older... in a very short span, and so much focus on rage could drive you ...more... insane.
It is what it is, and I'm sorry you and your god complex dislike it so much.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:05 AM

Quote:
HHmmmm ... why does Obama have such incredible scrutiny focused on him when no one else did ? Is it b/c he was born in "foreign, exotic Hawaii" ? Is it b/c his father was from another country ? Is it b/c his mother was white ? And yet ... None of that seems enough of a reason.

Not really. It's an illusion of his supporters that Obama has received undo scrutiny. IMHO, objectively, he's received a lot less. I suspect this is for the reasons that caveman stated. Charisma helps, Reagan didn't get the high scrutiny, Bill Clinton didn't get enough that's for sure. Bot that and the charisma thing are why Hillary Clinton got, and is still getting, a very high level of scrutiny.

o2tb

Thanks. Also, this is insane. Not that Obama is not a natural born citizen, that's probably true, but that Israel would start a war to distract people. That's completely nuts.

1. Israel has shown that it doesn't give a damn what happens to the US.
2. Israel is actually putting itself at a tremendous risk of foreign intervention.
3. It's been proposed that they are doing it now because they think Obama won't let them get away with it, and so they want to be holding certain territories if a new peace plan is drawn up by Obama.
4. The main reason IMHO is that Ohlmert needs a state of emergency to keep himself in power and out of jail.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Thanks. Also, this is insane. Not that Obama is not a natural born citizen, that's probably true, but that Israel would start a war to distract people. That's completely nuts.

1. Israel has shown that it doesn't give a damn what happens to the US.
2. Israel is actually putting itself at a tremendous risk of foreign intervention.
3. It's been proposed that they are doing it now because they think Obama won't let them get away with it, and so they want to be holding certain territories if a new peace plan is drawn up by Obama.
4. The main reason IMHO is that Ohlmert needs a state of emergency to keep himself in power and out of jail.

There are as many 'reasons' for starting a war as there are wars...

Always , the first casualty of war is the Truth...

This genocidal massacre of so many children and innocents is certainly not over a few Hamas rockets...

The Israelis have received massive shipments of specialized US-made weapons , with more on the way...

The campaign against the neighbors is only a first move in a broader , lengthier , regional campaign...

The most-immediate objective is to control the territory and energy assets of the Gazans :

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Gaza-Catastrophe-Resource-by-Nafeez-M
osaddeq-Ah-090107-157.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Secret-Behind-Israel-s-S-by-Martha-
Rose-Crow-090106-575.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:40 PM

o2tb, very possibly, and to do so before a new administration suggests a border be drawn.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:41 PM

double post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 5:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
o2tb, very possibly, and to do so before a new administration suggests a border be drawn.

Diversion and feint are both classical tactics in warfare...

Then there's self-avowed Zionist Israel-puppet
Joe Biden on record promising that 'American' Saviour Obamicus Maximus
would be 'tested' within the first 6 months of taking office...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 5:41 AM

The Israeli War on the Gaza Strip: "The Birth Pangs of a New Palestine/Middle East”

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7928

Global Research, January 15, 2009

To truly understand the specific you must understand the general and to master knowledge of the general you must understand the specific.

What is taking place in the Palestinian Territories is related to what is taking place across the Middle East and Central Asia, from Lebanon to Iraq and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, as part of a broader geo-strategic objective. All the events in the Middle East are part of a mammoth geo-political jigsaw puzzle; each piece only shows you one picture or a portion of the picture, but when you put all these pieces together you see the grand picture of things.

For these reasons at times more than one event must be discussed to gain greater understanding of another event, but this at times comes at a risk of diverging or extending one's focus in different directions.

The following text is based on several key sections of an earlier and broader text; this text is brief in form but comprehensive in its scope and more focused on the events in the Palestinian Territories and their role in the broader chain of regional events in the Mediterranean region and the Middle East.

© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2009

That's only the Introduction of a Global Research article on the subject ; Click the LINK above for the in-depth analysis...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:06 PM

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2009/090114/frntpgSupreme.html

"...the U.S. Supreme Court denied Attorney Philip Berg’s petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in his case challenging Obama’s eligibility.

In other words, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of Berg’s case prior to a ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where his case is still pending.

Berg expressed disappointment and said, “I am committed to keep our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out,” adding, “The Obama candidacy is the biggest hoax ever put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.”

If Obama is sworn in, Berg said, “We will file a petition for Writ of Quo Warranto,” which he said will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as President because he is “not qualified.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/print.h
tml

WHY THE STORIES ABOUT OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE WILL NEVER DIE

Barack Obama was, without question, born in the U.S., and he is eligible to be president, but experts on conspiracy theories say that won't ever matter to those who believe otherwise.

... The faux controversy isn't going to go away soon. Yes, Obama was born in Hawaii, and yes, he is eligible to be president. But according to several experts in conspiracy theories, and in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there's little chance those people who think Obama is barred from the presidency will ever be convinced otherwise. "There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," says Michael Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a columnist for Scientific American, and who holds an undergraduate and a master's degree in psychology. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it ... Once you're committed, especially behaviorally committed or financially committed, the more impossible it becomes to change your mind."

Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory "develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence," Chip Berlet, a senior analyst with Political Research Associates who studies such theories, says. "As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Personally, I'm very happy that you are going to spend all sorts of time and effort on something truly meaningless.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:21 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy."

I always suspected you were one of "Them" Rue.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:24 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

No, I am one of us. It's YOU who are the them.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:31 PM

o2tb

I'm always suspicious of prophesies, I suspect they are cast by people who have already given the order.

Conspiracies,

I always give up when I run into a power described only as "they."

If you follow the typical theories, given what they are responsible for, they generally have to be very very old. Usually centuries.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:37 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2009/01/just-reminder-why-obama-can-never-
be.html

What a LOAD of crap.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 4:46 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You know FMF, it used to irk me. Arguing with deluded people over this. And then, an idea came on me something like a golden light and a valium that suddenly took away the irritation.

It's never going to go anywhere. It's never going to change anything. And there they'll be, spinning harder and harder and burying themselves deeper and deeper into frustration, expense, effort, and sheer delusion. Every broken idea will lead to more complicated theories that are even further astray.

There's a certain amount of contentment that comes from pondering that.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 5:16 PM

Rue,

Quite true. Realize that it spins both ways.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 5:28 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You know FMF, it used to irk me. Arguing with deluded people over this. And then, an idea came on me something like a golden light and a valium that suddenly took away the irritation.

It's never going to go anywhere. It's never going to change anything. And there they'll be, spinning harder and harder and burying themselves deeper and deeper into frustration, expense, effort, and sheer delusion. Every broken idea will lead to more complicated theories that are even further astray.

There's a certain amount of contentment that comes from pondering that.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Too true Ms. Rue!

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 5:28 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Damn double posts!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 5:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Realize that it spins both ways."

That's true, sort of. Why sort of ?

Here's an example. The reason why the whole birth-certificate thing is never going to go anywhere is b/c it conflicts with reality.

Let's say someone finally jiggers a situation where the birth certificate gets produced. Then what ? The people who are invested in the idea will have to come up with something else (it was forged !), and something else (the state officials are in on it !) and something else ...

That's what happens when you are basing your ideas on things that aren't true.

OTOH, even should you find yourself arguing against many, if your ideas are based on reality, they will eventually prove out. If you are really far-seeing, it may be long after you are dead ("But it does move.") If you are short-sighted you may have the satisfaction of saying 'I told you so' in your lifetime (Bush sucks).

Argument itself isn't the measure, not even prolonged argument. The correctness of the argument is.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 8:08 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
If you are short-sighted you may have the satisfaction of saying 'I told you so' in your lifetime (Bush sucks).

Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot of satisfaction in saying "I told you so" these days. Economy crashing because of a falsely inflated bubble? I told you so. War in Iraq seemingly never-ending, even after a declaration of "Mission Accomplished"? I told you so. Circuit City going out of business because they sucked ass? I told you so. Bush going down as one of the worst Presidents in memory? I told you so.

Not much happiness or consolation there.

I'm sure WhoZit will be very happy if Obama fails and the country crumbles, as he says "I told you so" and drinks the tears of Americans...

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 8:14 PM

Quote:
The birth-certificate thing is never going anywhere b/c it conflicts with reality.

对不上, It could be true, but it's not relevant. No one cares what the rules are. Everyone in power and out of power wants Obama, so he will be in. There is no anti-Obama contingent which is not currently masturbating with a soggy bagel.

Quote:
That's what happens when you are basing your ideas on things that aren't true.

对不上, Bush did it all the time. It wasn't the truth, it was tptb, and what they wanted.

Quote:
OTOH, even should you find yourself arguing against many, if your ideas are based on reality, they will eventually prove out.

Not necessarily. We're aware of countless people who were right in history and were ignored.

Quote:
If you are really far-seeing, it may be long after you are dead ("But it does move.") If you are short-sighted you may have the satisfaction of saying 'I told you so' in your lifetime (Bush sucks).

Truth will be buried by powers, if that's what powers want. Peaceful societies are more prosperous than warlike ones, but yet, war dominates, because of evolution of power.

My main point was that the left has its own fantasy positions which it clings to, that some miracle will sweep in and crush the christian right, bring universally equality, that if the govt. takes over healthcare, suddenly both govt. and healthcare will become competent, rather than multiply their incompetence by each other, but they also have fantasies that the Obama Admin will be clean, and free of corruption, that the Bush Admin will be held accountable, and the crafters of the Iraq war and the mortgage collape will get what they deserve, when it's more likely that they will all end up as the next ruling class, fill the Obama Admin, overrun Obama's own agenda, or twist it, so it follows the path they want, and the warmongers and usurers will never be held accountable.

You're right that political fantasy is a distraction, which has no connection to what will happen. I disagree that it's because of the underlying facts, that truth will out. It's just IMHO that these are unrealistic because they counter the will of tptb and those of the forces of evolution, social, economic, political.

Quote:
Argument itself isn't the measure, not even prolonged argument. The correctness of the argument is.

The vatican, no offense to catholics, has been wrong for 1700 years. They hijacked christianity for their own purposes to collect lots of money and power and kill lots of people. They're still basically doing it. The underlying principles of the divine right of the pope as the representative of Christ and his God on Earth are not just a total fallacy, they're a manipulative creation of people who knew damn well that there wasn't a shred of truth to it, in fact, the crafters of the idea hated Jesus and the Christians. Since then they've supported numerous genocides in Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East, and presently are still doing so, and have never been held to account for any of it.

Here's another one: The Gnomes of Zurich. The come-upence of Zurich, should it ever come, will be an illusion, the names of institutions will fall, but the gnomes will simply relocate with their wealth. They were never taken to task for their role in funding multiple sides of WWII, or WWI, or every european and colonial conflict since about 1640 or so.

My point, political fantasy is akin to religious fantasy, that there is an afterlife where the good are rewarded and the wicked are punished. Of course, this notion requires a believe in some balancing power which outweighs all others and is on the side of good, whose absense is evident from the lack of its influence, and in a belief in good, evil, and an afterlife, not to mention other things that I forgot because I'm way too tired.

Short: Liberals have political fantasies with no basis in what will come. So do conservatives. That's what this Obama thing is. It has no connection to truth or untruth. I like Obama. I don't like some of his friends. He's not entirely honest, he admitted to lying twice on the campaign trail, and he is willing to play ball with some very scary people. Personally, and politically, I like him. I'm less sure about the democrats. I don't take lying all that seriously, Ahmadinejad lies fairly often, I think he's an admirable character. I don't take the citizenship thing seriously at all, because I don't care, and I don't think anyone else does either.

Shorter: No one gives a damn. Obama might have been born in Jakarta, he might not even be a citizen. If this information came out, it would be challenged and silenced. His supporters don't care, they would still support him, even knowing he was an Indonesian. And why shouldn't they? My local preacher is a Philippino. His all white far right english speaking congregation doesn't care. They voted for McCain/Palin, they have their guns, their american flags, and they accept a Philippino as their spiritual leader without question, except for those who go to the other church, to accept a Nigerian man instead as their gateway to God. And these are some pretty right wing folk. Probably one in ten of them would care if they found out that Obama was Indonesian. They don't care that he was raised a Muslim. They never cared that their postmaster was a Mexican, regardless of their stance on immigration. Given all of this on the right wing side of the aisle, what do you imagine would be the reaction on the left wing side of the aisle? No one would care. No one at all. Maybe some rabid Hillary supporter or a person who lives in dread of Arnie 2012, but really, I think that if CNN did a poll, does Obama's status matter, almost no one would say yes. And that would be the same in the halls of power as it is in the street.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:56 AM