Out2Lunch Backs Down, Admits the 'Birfers' are Complete Nutjobs! by Hero

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You don't really make it sound credible that you find the whole thing silly.

Sorry, I'm a lawyer, I like the legal issues raised. I am of the opinion that all the challenges to Barrack's citizenship were silly, pointless, stupid, etc.

This one raised a novel legal issue and actually gave the guy some standing to get into court, either through his injunction or, more likely, through his court martial.

As a lawyer I found that interesting and looked foreward to Barrack finally having to show the document. Their casual surrender of the issue raises more legitimate questions that need answered.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:45 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You don't really make it sound credible that you find the whole thing silly.

Sorry, I'm a lawyer, I like the legal issues raised. I am of the opinion that all the challenges to Barrack's citizenship were silly, pointless, stupid, etc.

This one raised a novel legal issue and actually gave the guy some standing to get into court, either through his injunction or, more likely, through his court martial.

As a lawyer I found that interesting and looked foreward to Barrack finally having to show the document. Their casual surrender of the issue raises more legitimate questions that need answered.

H

I guess you phrased some sentences in ways that made me think otherwise. Thank you for clarifying.

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

Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:42 AM

"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)

Hmmm...

As I heard it, this guy volunteered for duty in Afghanistan, THEN decided he didn't want to go, which the military says is his option being as he volunteered for that duty in the first place, so they scrubbed his orders, THEN he filed suit. So they tossed him out of the military, and since he was working on the side for a commercial military contractor, he lost that job, too, since the policy is that if you sue the military, you're not allowed on military property, which is where his side job was taking place.

So now he's out TWO jobs, and has gotten nothing for his troubles.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

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

Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:36 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So now he's out TWO jobs, and has gotten nothing for his troubles.

I guess he should have honored his commitment in the first place.

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

Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You don't really make it sound credible that you find the whole thing silly.

Sorry, I'm a lawyer, I like the legal issues raised. I am of the opinion that all the challenges to Barrack's citizenship were silly, pointless, stupid, etc.

This one raised a novel legal issue and actually gave the guy some standing to get into court, either through his injunction or, more likely, through his court martial.

As a lawyer I found that interesting and looked foreward to Barrack finally having to show the document.

By his own admission , the pRESIDENT-Select , Barry Hussein Obama Soetoro was the son of a British Empire Kenyan National at the time of his birth...

And , under US law at the time , his mother was too young to confer upon him US Citizenship , so the fact of his having been born outside the United States , at Coast General Hospital in Mombasa has been deliberately obscured...

If you are a barrister worth a spit , your interest should also be cultivated by the Obama campaign having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to sweep the issue away , rather than simply produce a long-form vault copy of a Hawaiian birth certificate...

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

Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:05 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:

And , under US law at the time , his mother was too young to confer upon him US Citizenship , so the fact of his having been born outside the United States , at Coast General Hospital in Mombasa has been deliberately obscured...

Which makes you so certain that it is a fact... why?

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

Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:38 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Yes, very sneaky way to dodge discovery of that missing birth certificate.

This same tactic can now be used by every civilian accused of a fed crime, to win dismissal of the prosecution, since every "law" signed by Obama is null and void, and every fed cop is now not a cop, and every fed prosecutor is not a prosecutor. Will any criminal defense attorney have the guts or brains to use that winning defense in a drug trial? Pro se's are not allowed to prosecute in fed courts, and US prosecutors are now merely pro se lawyers.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Normally I leave the 'Obama Not Natural Born' stuff to PN and the crazytalkers.

This is an interesting story. Dude was ordered to deploy, he filed civil suit seeking injunction saying "order is illegal". Suit means discovery or court martial means discovery, both of which would force the President to produce the one document which ends this debate.

I fully expected the military to go after this guy arguing the same arguments used successfully in past suits to preclude the discovery process from going foreward. The nature of this case made that more difficult.

Likely injuction is dismissed, then he refuses to deploy. If he refuses to deploy then they would seek to punish him...he then has the right to a court martial, which gives him a right to discovery as part of his defense, suddenly the usual "we don't have to respond" argument does not work.

So they cancel his orders. Normally I find this whole business silly. Legally speaking I find it signifigant that they chose the ONE option that prevents discovery in this case. I am now of the opinion that the question needs to be settled, so it is my hope that soldiers will continue to challenge the President in such numbers until he produces the document.

Thats they whole point. One document, simple solution, and we can all point and laugh at the crazytalkers.

Hero smells a rat.

But he can't make the next step and realize the entire "govt" is a giant organized crime racket. CAFRs, "Federal" Reserve Bank Corp, Cocaine In America, Operation Northwoods, $14-trillion Bankster Bailout Bill, Cap & Trade Bankster Fart Tax, Kosher Pedophile Protection Hate Crimes Censorship Act, bills passed without legislators allowed to read them or not even allowed to vote on them, etc.

When a criminal commits a crime, that's not a surprise, it's what criminals do. They can't help themselves. It's a compulsion. Don't matter if they wear hoodies and tennies or suits and ties.

After all, GW Bush was a convicted drunk driver and convicted cokehead and convicted of AWOL and convicted of desertion in Nam War and stole 2 elections and accused rapist and a sodomite (felony in military). That's the kind of career criminal NWO loves to destroy USA.

Hussein Obama born in Africa is an excellent way for the NWO to trigger civil war and martial law, to destroy USA. Just like they did in 1860, with the fed govt massacring 1-million US citizens and making white men slaves for a military draft. Lincoln was a Kosher Rothschild bankster BTW, just like his cousin Hitler.

Quote:
"Did you know that Cherie Booth, England's Prime Minister, Tony Blair's wife is the great-great-great granddaughter of John Wilkes Booth, the man who allegedly assassinated Abraham Lincoln?"
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/governmentconindex.htm

Booth got away and lived happily ever after, while a dozen other folks got hanged in the conspiracy. Winners write the history books, not dead people.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 3:21 AM

FREMDFIRMA

While I, frankly - couldn't care less...

One thought does occur watching this convo from a neutral perspective.

Paying Danegeld results in paying Danegeld.

It sets a damn bad precedent to go caving to folks demands when many of them (not all, but many) have political motives that have jack shit to do with the issue, and quite honestly would not accept *ANY* evidence, no matter how valid, that contradicted the little faery tales they're using to float their agenda...

You know, kinda like that whole WMD issue, yes ?

Fuck em, truth of the signal, everything goes somewhere and the internet goes everywhere - folks really WANTED evidence one way or another, they'd have found it by now.

No, what this is, is folks with an agenda floating this shit as an excuse, and yanno, in order for that to work on someone like me, I would have to give a shit one way or the other, and well...

I don't.

Even if it WERE true, he would be neither first technically "ineligable" president we had, (that'd be Taft, if I remember correctly) and I kinda doubt he'll be the last, neither.

Protip: When someone is makin a hoopla out in front of your house, look over your back fence FIRST - this concept, applied to public politics and government, is always a wise idea.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 4:47 AM

Right you are, Frem. PN and the other "birthers" want Obama to personally go door to door, showing THE ORIGINAL birth certificate to anyone and everyone who asks to see it. I'd propose that we ALL have to do this. Hell, we can call the birth certificate a "national ID" and make everyone carry theirs with them at all times, to be shown to anyone who asks. And you don't get to go anywhere without it, and if you don't show it, you don't get to travel, work, shop, gather, move about, own a home, rent a place, buy a car, or do anything else.

Sound like a good plan, PN? Or isn't this the kind of thing you've been railing against for years?

I haven't seen Palin's birth certificate, nor Ron Paul's. Not even a "photo-chopped" copy of them on the internet. I haven't seen Cynthia McKinney's birth certificate, either. Guess they're all out of luck when it comes to running for office, eh?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 4:58 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Nobody from out of state is allowed to get a driver license (internal passport) without a birth certifcate, per the Real ID Act and now the Pass Act. Unless you're one of 50-million illegal aliens like Hussein Obama. But you can run for president without a birth certificate, and all courts agree that no citizen has the right to stop an illegal alien being president.

I'll try to use that defense in my 2-year-old fed traffic ticket appeal... Looks like a slam dunk, on top of my slam dunk.

Quote:
"Obama is a radical Communist. He's going to destroy this country, and we're either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."
-Ambassador Alan Keyes PhD, candidate for president in 2008
www.archive.org/details/ObamaInauguralMashup/
http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 5:21 AM

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

I really truly think that issue with the birth certificate is the key to the whole Obama affair. You keep at it PN and Hero and OTB et al. Make it your life's work. It'll be worth it. I swear.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

What I find interesting is... if he really faked his citizenship, someone important enough would actually know by now and have helped him cover it up. Wouldn't those same people be capable of credibly faking a birth certificate? Do people really think the entire stability of his presidency rests on the shaky hope that no one can prove he's not a U.S. citizen? That if someone just insists hard enough, he'll throw up his hands and go "Alright, you caught me"? How much stupidity, along with the perfidity, do people assume is going on here?

What you should also find interesting is that ScamBO was traveling in Pakistan at a time when US Citizens were barred from going there...

On WHAT passport was he doing that ? His Indonesian one , perchance ?

Don't worry , there's perfidy and coverup for all , and sadly , the majority of US Citizens are unaware or uncaring about it...

If there is really NOTHING to all of this , why won't ScamBO stand and deliver documents that prove his US birth ?

It would be SO EASY , right ? Put this issue to rest , once and for all...

'"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the 'long-form' birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.

Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.

"We are going to be asking for release of Obama's records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people," she said. "Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?"

Taitz said the issue "must be resolved immediately," and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.

"We're going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president," she said. "We're going to say, we have orders every day, and we'll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided."

She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.'

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 5:50 AM

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

You go, girl ! Obviously there is a deep, deep cover-up which will take all your time and resources to unearth. THIS is your life's mission ! I can feel it ! Let us know all the facts you can uncover, ok ?

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

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 6:09 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Not like this is all that original

http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/canada/president.asp

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 6:09 AM

STORYMARK

Hey, in case you idiot Birthers hadn't heard, this chumps been exposed as a fraud.

Shocker.

How long until you lap up the next bullshit story to feed your paranoia? I'm sure not soon enough for you. If you are still going on about this birther BS, you are quite simply retarded. Laughable. A joke. Go away, you're lowering the collective IQ.

"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

Friday, July 17, 2009 6:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm with Rue on this one. I think the birthers SHOULD make this their life's work. Go to Hawaii personally, check out the system, go to Kenya... dig, dig, dig for all they're worth. Keep at it and don't stop.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 7:25 AM

Quote:

What you should also find interesting is that ScamBO was traveling in Pakistan at a time when US Citizens were barred from going there...

You ever been to Cuba? Know anyone who has?

Are they still an American citizen? Americans are forbidden by the State Department from traveling to Cuba, and to do so on an America passport raises all kinds of hell when you try to get back into the U.S. There's an industry in making this easy, though - you go to Mexico or another country that has relations with Cuba, and you get a passport from that country, then head for Cuba. When you come back to the U.S., you use your U.S. passport to get back into this country, and it doesn't have the taboo Cuban entrance stamp on it.

It's similar for getting in and out of ANY country the U.S. doesn't have relations with. You ARE aware that there are American citizens in Iran and Iraq, yes? Afghanistan, too. It's not EASY to get to those places, but it is indeed possible, and done more often than you might think. Doing so doesn't automatically revoke your United States citizenship, so far as I'm aware.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 7:27 AM

Quote:
...which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.

Shouldn't that be enough to throw the case out right there? I'm unaware of any Constitutional requirement that you must be born "to parents who were both citizens of the United States" to qualify for U.S. citizenship.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Right you are, Frem. PN and the other "birthers" want Obama to personally go door to door, showing THE ORIGINAL birth certificate to anyone and everyone who asks to see it. I'd propose that we ALL have to do this. Hell, we can call the birth certificate a "national ID" and make everyone carry theirs with them at all times, to be shown to anyone who asks. And you don't get to go anywhere without it, and if you don't show it, you don't get to travel, work, shop, gather, move about, own a home, rent a place, buy a car, or do anything else.

That's extreme, but the solution to this problem is not.

There's no reason we can't require that a person submit a certified copy of the certificate along with their applications before being placed on the ballot.

It would serve the duel purpose of meeting the Constitutional burdon of both birth AND age.

So if you live in a state that allows you to put things on the ballot...like California...get a petition to change your state's election laws to require a certified birth certificate. You've got a little less then three years to get it done. If in four years Obama does not appear on the ballot...there's your answer.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 9:12 AM

Couldn't Obama just show his driver's license or ID? Even PN says that you have to show your birth certificate to get one of those! So wouldn't HAVING one of those be proof enough?

I do like the idea of having to present such documents when you declare yourself for public office, though.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 9:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Couldn't Obama just show his driver's license or ID?

No. Why? Because you do not have to be a natural born citizen to get a license. For example, the Governor of California is a citizen, has a license, but is Constitutionally barred from the Presidency.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 10:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Couldn't Obama just show his driver's license or ID?

No. Why? Because you do not have to be a natural born citizen to get a license. For example, the Governor of California is a citizen, has a license, but is Constitutionally barred from the Presidency.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

Sorry, Hero - I was being facetious. I thought it showed.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 10:19 AM

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

"It would serve the duel purpose of meeting the Constitutional burdon of both birth AND age."

Duel ? When - at dawn ? Pistols ? Swords ? Other ?

Burdon - is that like bourbon ? And why does the Constitution care about bourbon ? Does it also mention whiskey ? I like whiskey, though bourbon - not so much. But I like single malt scotch better. Is scotch unconstitutional, being foreign and all ?

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

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 10:26 AM

I hear some folks are working on the Governator issue, actually.

I'm sure natural born citizenry isn't going to be a limitation for long.

And besides... How, exactly, does this affect policy, if Obama weren't eligible? That's what I care about.

If he were removed, Biden would be President. Policy doesn't change, but someone less likeable and less capable is put on the world stage. Do any of you really think he would be removed? He wouldn't be in office if the powers that be didn't WANT him there.

My basic question is, do you all think that Obama not being a citizen makes him untrustworthy to hold office? Hell, I think being a politician makes him that, but what is your specific objection? Do you think that Obama's non-citizenry is driving him to help Muslim nations at the detriment of the US (or if you're PN, to help Isreal)?

If you don't think Obama has a secret agenda beyond the usual psychopathic corporate globalists, then this is all just pointless tecnicality, and why SHOULD we care?

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Burdon - is that like bourbon ? And why does the Constitution care about bourbon ? Does it also mention whiskey ? I like whiskey, though bourbon - not so much. But I like single malt scotch better. Is scotch unconstitutional, being foreign and all ?

I think my meaning was clear... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdon

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And besides... How, exactly, does this affect policy, if Obama weren't eligible? That's what I care about.

If he were removed, Biden would be President. Policy doesn't change, but someone less likeable and less capable is put on the world stage. Do any of you really think he would be removed? He wouldn't be in office if the powers that be didn't WANT him there.

This is a good point.

How a bill becomes a law: A bill is introduced in Congress (spending bills must come from the House). The House and Senate both pass a version of it...then they negotiate a final bill...then they pass it again. At that point the President signs it or vetos it. If he signs it, the bill becomes a law. "I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill..."

If Obama is determined to be Constitutionally barred from office then everything he's done as President is invalid. It would be unprecedented, but there is precedent for technical problems in the process. The end result is every law he signed no longer exists, every law, every dollar, every order...all undone.

Biden becomes President...most likely. Most orders can be adopted by Biden and that damage mitigated. The laws, however, would be completely undone and would be need to be redone by Congress (there are technicalities regarding the time in which the President has to sign or veto a bill).

One could argue that Biden cannot become President and it would, by default, fall to John McCain (Biden would still be Vice President). WHAT!? This is not a case of "incapacity, death, resignation, or removal from office" since Obama was never legally in office. The electoral votes cast for Obama are invalid...having been cast for someone not elidgeable. By precedent (although not in this exact factual pattern) they would be void...a nullity, leaving McCain with the majority of legitimate votes, thus becoming President. Even if you argue that the Obama votes count toward the majority and McCain failed to win the majority, then the issue goes to the House to choose from the five highest electoral vote getters...McCain and no others on the list since nobody else got a single Presidential electoral vote (unlike Clinton in 1992 when Gore got a little known vote when one of the electors switched them up).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 11:22 AM

I believe Obama's proving ineligible would result in a removal from office, actually, because technically, he's been confirmed as President. By every definition, if he's confirmed President, then he is President. If he was ineligible when he became President, he would be removed from office, and the Vice President would take his place. Biden would be President.

I really don't see what any conservatives have to gain from this, or why they're wasting their time pursuing the matter. I think everyone has seriously more important things to do and worry about.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 11:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'll have a scotch. Thanks Rue!

BTW- maybe he mean a duel dual purpose??? Or was that a dual duel purpose???

Quote:
I really don't see what any conservatives have to gain from this, or why they're wasting their time pursuing the matter. I think everyone has seriously more important things to do and worry about.

Personally, I think they should spend a GREAT DEAL of time on the issue! As much time as necessary to resolve it to their satisfaction!

After that, they can figure out why Sarah Palin resigned as governor, and then after that they can bird-dog the fake moon-landing.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 12:26 PM

Quote:

I think my meaning was clear... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdon

I thought maybe you meant Eric Burdon, of The Animals, and later with the band War.

But since Rue's tending bar, I'll have a Martinez, please.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 12:37 PM

Quote:

One could argue that Biden cannot become President and it would, by default, fall to John McCain...

One could, but then, McCain's not a natural-born citizen of the U.S. either, remember? He was born in the Panama Canal Zone a year BEFORE Congress passed a law making children of U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone U.S. citizens. So McCain is ineligible as well.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 6:22 PM

HKCAVALIER

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Friday, July 17, 2009 7:32 PM

CANTTAKESKY

I'm with Frem on this one.

He produced a birth certificate, but it isn't good enough. I suspect if he produced the long form certificate, they'll find something else wrong with it.

I'm reminded of James Randi's million dollar challenge. Nobody is ever going to win that. No matter what you do, they will find something wrong with it. Why? Because they have already made up their minds that a certain result is impossible. No matter how close you approximate that result, they will find a way to reinforce the impossibility.

Sometimes, people don't really want the truth. They just want to raise a ruckus about finding the truth.

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 6:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I hear some folks are working on the Governator issue, actually.

I'm sure natural born citizenry isn't going to be a limitation for long.

If you don't think Obama has a secret agenda beyond the usual psychopathic corporate globalists, then this is all just pointless tecnicality, and why SHOULD we care?

What you're speaking of would require an Amendment to the Constitution , something that fortunately is not easy to arrange...

Yea , verily , perhaps these Folk are correct...

'Cause no one ever asks God for his birth certificate , right ?

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 7:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I hear some folks are working on the Governator issue, actually.

I'm sure natural born citizenry isn't going to be a limitation for long.

If you don't think Obama has a secret agenda beyond the usual psychopathic corporate globalists, then this is all just pointless tecnicality, and why SHOULD we care?

What you're speaking of would require an Amendment to the Constitution , something that fortunately is not easy to arrange...

Yea , verily , perhaps these Folk are correct...

'Cause no one ever asks God for his birth certificate , right ?

Uh... What? Are you saying I'm one of those Obama worshippers?

Because if you're accusing me of that, I think maybe you need to read my posts a little more closely.

Obama can go fuck himself. I'm more concerned with repairing the mess both parties plus their puppetmasters are making. In the long run, a birth certificate doesn't MATTER. Authoritarian assholes will still be in power.

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 7:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Uh... What? Are you saying I'm one of those Obama worshippers?

Because if you're accusing me of that, I think maybe you need to read my posts a little more closely.

Obama can go fuck himself. I'm more concerned with repairing the mess both parties plus their puppetmasters are making. In the long run, a birth certificate doesn't MATTER. Authoritarian assholes will still be in power.

You should not infer anything that I did not imply...

I'm a plain talker...

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 7:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You should not infer anything that I did not imply... I'm a plain talker...

And your inference was plain, even at a distance of 3000 miles.

Cna we get past this childish he-said-she-said?

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 7:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You should not infer anything that I did not imply... I'm a plain talker...
And your inference was plain, even at a distance of 3000 miles.

Cna we get past this childish he-said-she-said?

Not with your like...

Plainly you ought look at your dictionary awhile...

This wasn't 'tween you and me , so get over yourself...

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong,
are not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
--Theodore Roosevelt.

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 7:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Not with your like...

Oh yeah, THAT'S constructive!

Quote:
Plainly you ought look at your dictionary awhile...

Ok, I typed too fast and meant implication. Got it now?

Quote:
This wasn't 'tween you and me ,

You may have noticed this is a PUBLIC forum???? Your IMPLICATION was clear to me and prolly to many other people as well. It would be interesting to see HOW MANY people caught your implication. Maybe we should take a poll. And if several people "misread" your posts, just possibly the problem is not them but you.

Quote:
so get over yourself

Indeed!

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:04 AM

Sorry, thought your

Quote:
"Yea , verily , perhaps these Folk are correct...

'Cause no one ever asks God for his birth certificate , right ?"

Comment was in direct response to my "Why does a birth certificate matter" question. Which threw me, because I've been calling Obama corrupt since six days into his term. So I wanted to clarify, because I wasn't sure where the accusation was coming from.

Sorry again for the mix-up. And for bringing you under fire there... Wasn't my intent either. In retrospect, I probably should have asked you that in a PM. Sorry.

Anyway, let's get back to the topic of this thread before we get off course with ad hominem attacks.

In response to an earlier comment, it's not impossible to amend the constitution. In fact, I'd say a number of them, like the abolition of slavery and some of the civil rights acts are some nice additions.

Not sure whether changing the limitations on who can be president is a good idea, though, I grant you... Unless the amendment is dissolving the political parties and the electoral college, both of which were created solely to choose who became president instead of the public. Grassroots campaigns, while effective, will likely never get past the electoral college. We need to move towards true democracy... And we won't because the people in power like being in power.

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte, O2B has this "thing" about me. Pay it no mind.

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Sorry, thought your

Quote:
"Yea , verily , perhaps these Folk are correct...

'Cause no one ever asks God for his birth certificate , right ?"

Comment was in direct response to my "Why does a birth certificate matter" question. Which threw me, because I've been calling Obama corrupt since six days into his term. So I wanted to clarify, because I wasn't sure where the accusation was coming from.

Sorry again for the mix-up. And for bringing you under fire there... Wasn't my intent either. In retrospect, I probably should have asked you that in a PM. Sorry.

Anyway, let's get back to the topic of this thread before we get off course with ad hominem attacks.

In response to an earlier comment, it's not impossible to amend the constitution. In fact, I'd say a number of them, like the abolition of slavery and some of the civil rights acts are some nice additions.

Not sure whether changing the limitations on who can be president is a good idea, though, I grant you... Unless the amendment is dissolving the political parties and the electoral college, both of which were created solely to choose who became president instead of the public. Grassroots campaigns, while effective, will likely never get past the electoral college. We need to move towards true democracy... And we won't because the people in power like being in power.

No worries...

No , it isn't impossible to Amend the Constitution , but by design and intention , it IS difficult...

That's why Obama bin Biden and their associates are seeking every possible means to perform an end-run around the Constitution at every possible turn...

It also explains the Sotomayor nomination , in the context of D.C vs. Heller , as an example...

That begs the question also , when the Revolution was on , the Declaration published , the Constitution hammered out , just where were all the hypothetical " wise Latina women " hanging out , back then ?

On the notion of 'true democracy' , that form of government is actually excluded by the Constitution , and we're guaranteed a 'Republican' form of government therein...

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/

Clearly , the Feds have been slacking in their Duty to repel invasion , when considering the onslaught of Alien invaders...

California presently has that form of government nearer to 'true democracy' , and that's a principal reason it's not working so well ; with the kettle about to boil over...

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13649050

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Byte, O2B has this "thing" about me. Pay it no mind.

About you being dogmatic and shooting from the lip ?

Calling Folk names , and then slinking out of sight ?

Sure...

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 2:08 PM

Wait a minute, you're saying you like having a republic for a government, and think that Democracy is the reason California is failing? Even though a republic necessarily limits your voice and free speech?

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 4:24 PM

Quote:

That begs the question also , when the Revolution was on , the Declaration published , the Constitution hammered out , just where were all the hypothetical " wise Latina women " hanging out , back then ?

They were no doubt being kept in the back, out of sight and out of earshot, and they damn sure had few to no rights - just as the "wise" men intended it to be and set it up to be.

So, since you think those white men were the only ones wise enough to hammer out a constitution, I take it you also agree with them that black men should only count as three-fifths of a person?

We've had plenty of "wise" white men on the Supreme Court, and they have made some pretty bad decisions without any help from a wise Latina woman.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

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

Saturday, July 18, 2009 6:23 PM

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

Piffle ! Details !

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

Silence is consent.

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

Sunday, July 19, 2009 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Wait a minute, you're saying you like having a republic for a government, and think that Democracy is the reason California is failing? Even though a republic necessarily limits your voice and free speech?

No , what I'm saying is that less government is better government , and that a Republic is what we're guaranteed..." A republic , if we can keep it..."

The limits on free speech are being imposed by a non-responsive elitist political class , but with the masses content with their public-school ignorance , it will be an uphill fight to secure against the incursions being made against the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution...

Mob rule is one of the reasons that California is failing , battered between one extreme and the other , in addition to unsustainable profligate spending by the State government...

Historically speaking , that is why democracies fail , because once the masses decide that they can vote 'benefits' for themselves at others' expense , they tend to do so , on into oblivion...

As the saying states , " As California goes , so goes the nation..."

There isn't much time...The tipping points are near...

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

Sunday, July 19, 2009 9:10 AM

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/12/the-men-who-destroyed-t
he-constitution/#more-2420

'...In his 1850 Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain the plundering proclivities of a central government. Some mechanisms for assuring consensus among the citizens of the states regarding “federal” laws would be necessary. Consequently, Calhoun proposed giving citizens of the states veto power over federal laws that they believed were unconstitutional (the “concurrent majority”). He also championed the Jeffersonian idea of nullification. To Calhoun (and Jefferson), states’ rights meant that the citizens of the states were sovereign over the central government that they created as their agent, and could only be so if such mechanisms – including the right of secession – existed.

Without these political mechanisms the forces of nationalism, mercantilism, and political plunder would relentlessly reshape the Constitution with their rhetoric, and their efforts would eventually overwhelm the strict constructionists. At that point the Constitution would become a dead letter.

In his 2006 book, The Constitution in Exile, Judge Andrew Napolitano explains in very clear language just how prescient Calhoun was. The biggest special-interest group of all – the federal government itself – has “seized power by rewriting the supreme law of the land,” as Judge Napolitano says in the subtitle to his book. Just as Calhoun predicted. The purpose of the book, says the judge, is to tell “the unhappy story of liberty lost, federalism trampled, and Big Government run amok.”

How did we get to the point, he asks, of where the “federal” (i.e., central) government defines for us the drinking age for alcohol, how much wheat farmers can grow, the ability of terminally ill cancer patients to medicate themselves with marijuana, the amount of sugar that can be used in ketchup, and even the size of toilets?

Judge Napolitano is one libertarian who is not intimidated by the forces of political correctness, a defining feature of so many “beltway libertarians.” Consequently, he is not afraid to recognize the truth about the American founding: “The states were sovereign entities that the Continental Congress could not directly control. Essentially, there was no binding central government” Even better, “Congress could not tax the people of the United states (Ah, the good old days!)” Advocates of centralized governmental power have long falsely associated statements about states’ rights with racism and slavery, which has intimidated most beltway libertarians, but not Judge Napolitano.

After a lucid explanation of each section of the Constitution the judge discusses how the nationalist/mercantilist coalition, led by Alexander Hamilton and his accomplice Judge John Marshall, conspired to effectively rewrite (and undermine) the Constitution almost as soon as he ink was dry on the original copy. The “Federalists” (who would eventually morph into the Whigs, and then the Republicans) never accepted their defeat in the Constitutional convention (which created a federal, not a national government).

Nor did they accept Jefferson’s election as president. Thus, two days before his term ended the Federalist President John Adams appointed dozens of “midnight federal judges” and appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court on March 3, 1801, one day before he would leave office. Marshall “spent the remainder of his career finding clearly disingenuous, historically inaccurate, and highly questionable justifications for ruling that federal power is not limited,” writes Judge Napolitano.

In his most famous decision, Marbury vs. Madison, Marshall gave the federal judiciary the power to rule on the constitutionality of both statutory law and the behavior of the executive branch. “[T]his means that the Supreme Court granted itself the authority to declare the will of the people . . . null and void . . .” This of course has caused endless mischief and tyranny.

This principle of a monopoly in reviewing constitutionality was not widely accepted, however, until after Lincoln’s war of 1861–1865 destroyed state sovereignty once and for all. Until that point, many Americans believed that the citizens of the states, as well as the president and Congress, should have equally legitimate claims on interpreting the Constitution. As President Andrew Jackson famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it if he can.”

Marshall and his fellow Federalists, such as Justice Story, also paved the way for the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. This clause only grants “supremacy” to the central government on the seventeen specific functions of the central government that are delineated in Article I, Section 8, period, many of which have to do with waging war and foreign policy. This power has been grossly abused by implying that the central government is somehow “supreme” in anything and everything vis-à-vis the citizens of the states. This of course is a perfect recipe for tyranny.

Judge Napolitano recognized that it was Federalists like Joseph Story and John Marshall, and later Whig politicians like Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln, who would tell The Big Lie that the Constitution was ratified by “the whole people” and not as it actually was – by the citizens of the sovereign states, with their representatives assembled in state conventions. “That was both historically incorrect and intellectually dishonest,” says Judge Napolitano.

According to this false view of the American founding the central government was always the master, not the servant, of the people. This, too, is a perfect recipe for tyranny that has been made by tyrants everywhere (Hitler even invoked this argument in Mein Kampf to make his case for destroying state sovereignty in Germany).

In McCulloch vs. Maryland Marshall enshrined into law Hamilton’s dangerous (to liberty) notion that there were supposedly unlimited ”implied powers” in the Constitution. He did this in order to justify a central bank, which is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution under actual powers. This created the situation where the powers of the central government were only to be limited by the imaginations of federal politicians. Judge Napolitano proceeds to describe myriad examples of this, from the PATRIOT Act (”a lawless law because it allows the federal government to obtain information without a warrant, thus violating the Fourth Amendment”) to census snooping, television regulation, and hundreds of other major and minor power grabs.

By far the most brilliant chapter of The Constitution in Exile is chapter four, entitled “Dishonest Abe: The Lincoln You Didn’t Know.” Here the judge recounts how, “In order to increase his federalist vision of centralized power, ‘Honest’ Abe misled the nation into an unnecessary war.” And, “with very little regard for honesty, Lincoln increased federal power and assaulted the Constitution. His actions were unconstitutional, and he knew it.” Moreover, “Lincoln’s view was a far departure from the approach of Thomas Jefferson, who recognized states’ rights above those of the Union.”

He goes on to present chapter and verse of the abuse of the constitution and the consolidation of political power in Washington that took place during and after the Lincoln regime. “Lincoln increased the power of the federal government at the expense of the rights of the states and civil liberties. This opened the door to more unconstitutional acts by the government in the 1900s through to today.” The judge also recognizes that all other countries in the world ended slavery peacefully, which could have happened in the U.S had the slaves not simply been used as political pawns by the neo-federalist Republican Party to achieve its main goal, the consolidation of political power in Washington and the destruction of citizen sovereignty. “The next time you see Lincoln’s portrait on a five-dollar bill,” writes Judge Napolitano, “remember how many civil liberties he took away from you!”

Thanks to the final victory of the Federalist/Whig/Republican cabal continued to enhance governmental power and diminish liberty by perverting the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in the post-war years in ways quite familiar to many readers of this website. By the late nineteenth century, the monopolistic federal judiciary began attacking capitalism in the name of regulation that supposedly served “the common good.” The judge is wise enough to understand that capitalism itself serves the common good, and that regulation more often than not is the result of special-interest politics. These attacks intensified during the New Deal, which “codified socialism, evaded the Constitution, disregarded the Natural Law, and put individualism on the path to extinction.”

And here’s a shocker: “Between 1937 and 1995, not a single federal law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Not one piece of legislation was seen as exceeding the scope of Congress’s commerce power.” (Emphasis added). So much for the phony argument that “judicial review” by the federal courts acts to protect liberty. Instead, it does the opposite: It expands the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty. This sad story is told over the course of several of the latter chapters of The Constitution in Exile.

The back cover of Judge Napolitano’s book has blurbs from such high profile neocons as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh (as well as civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and liberal commentator Alan Colmes). I doubt that the neocons on this list ever read the book, however. In a chapter entitled “After 9/11″ the judge writes that “The PATRIOT Act and its progeny are the most abominable, unconstitutional governmental assaults on personal freedom since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798″ and “the most unpatriotic of the things that the Bush administration and this [Republican controlled] Congress could have visited upon us.” (These “most unpatriotic of things” are what O’Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh have spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours defending on their respective television and radio shows.)

And it is indeed unpatriotic and traitorous to the Constitution to support current policy, which is that “federal agents and local police can write their own search warrants, serve them on American financial institutions without the intervention of a judge, and obtain information about you without you even knowing it!” The PATRIOT Act “has allowed the government to circumvent completely the Fourth Amendment” and “makes it a crime – punishable by five years in jail – for the recipient of a self-written search warrant to tell anyone that he or she has received the search warrant.” These rats know that they are rats.

It gets worse. “The government can now . . . break into your house . . . steal your checkbook, put an electronic bug under your kitchen table, and make it look like it was a house burglary. It can even leave and not tell you or the local police what has happened.”

Dub-Yuh is recognized as the tyrant and dunce that he was: “President Bush does not recognize the constitutional limitations imposed on his office. His only concern is with victory over ‘the enemy,’ whoever that may be. ”

So what can be done? Among Judge Napolitano’s common sense recommendations are abolition of the income tax (”the Sixteenth Amendment . . . should be abolished outright”); same for the Seventeenth Amendment which called for the direct election of U.S. senators and a return to the system of appointing them by state legislatures; and the recognition that the federal government will never check its own power. “Thus, I would clarify the right of the states to secede from the Union,” writes the judge from New Jersey, “losing all the benefits that come from membership [in the union], but regaining all the freedom membership has taken away.

The U.S. government is now characterized by dictatorial power, abuse of every kind of personal liberty, confiscatory taxation, economic fascism, dangerous militarism, and imperialism. Every American who is concerned about this Nazification of the American government needs to own a copy of The Constitution in Exile.'

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.

Copyright © 2006 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Exile-Federal-Government-Rewriting/
dp/1595550704/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248030586&sr=1-1

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

Sunday, July 19, 2009 1:23 PM