Constitutional Crisis

Alright. I know I'm probably way late to this game that's afoot, but whatever. Feel free to sue me if you think you have standing :)

Barack Obama is not a natural born US citizen. There's even some talk that he may well be an illegal alien. Why should this matter you may ask? It's simple. The founding fathers wrote it in that way. US Constitution: Article II, Section I: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Barack Obama qualifies by age. He's 48 or something. I don't know exactly. He's lived in the US for the 20+ years. HOwever, the sticking point comes from the "natural born citizen" part. Barack Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii in 1961. However the only proof of this that's been offered is a scanned web image of the short-form "certification of live birth" that was filed in Hawaii. The actual truth is something far more interesting. Barack Hussein Obama was actually born in Kenya. The records are there in a Kenyan hospital. Obama's mother was not a legal citizen of the US in 1961, his father is a Kenyan national, and even Obama's own grandmother has confirmed he was born in Kenya. The airline that refused to allow Obama's mother to fly has also confirmed she gave birth in the country.

Yes. I'm aware that the supposed all-mighty truth gods over at factcheck.org claim to have debunked this back in August sometime. However they are claiming to do so with a supposed copy of the short-form certificate that's got the number blacked out and there are very distinctly clear halos around all the text which are hallmarks of forgery. The Obama Campaign has since tried to claim it was a "rush job" and that they weren't sure if that number was "secret" or something. It all sounds quite lame to me, really. Very flimsy evidence and the folks at factcheck.org seem to have utterly dropped the ball on this one. Snopes is even relying on them as ironclad proof that the whole issue is bogus. There's even plenty of expert information out there that clearly identifies the short-form that's been produced is a forgery.

Enter Philip J. Berg. He filed suit in federal court to have Obama's nomination blocked. The court failed to act on the complaint and he was then forced to amend it to have Obama's candidacy voided. All Berg has been asking for is for Obama to produce sufficient proof to remove this issue from contention. Obama has refused. So the court ordered him and/or his campaign to turn over the requested document. The judge gave them 30 days. That 30 days came and went, no document was brought forth. The law clearly states that failure to answer the court order results in the defendant legally admitting the charges. So the court did right... right?

Unfortunately not. Instead of following the law, the judge dismissed the entire case on trumped up grounds that Berg has no standing to file the suit to begin with. Berg had this to say about it: "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?"

Indeed. If "We the People of the United States" have no legal standing to challenge the legitimacy of our candidates we elect to office, then who does? Why has the judge not clarified this? Why has he not followed the law?

As a result, Berg has now been forced to file an injunction with the US Supreme Court asking for two things:

1. Stay the election on November 4, 2008.
2. Writ of Certiorari. Basically he's asking the US Supreme Court to order the lower court to forward its records in the matter for immediate review.

According to the press release by Berg: http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-news/49-press-release-10-30-2008-berg-filing-injunction-to-stay-presidential-election he was supposed to have been before the Court today at 3:15pm EDT in order to file his injunction. However his website lists nothing more about whether he actually got heard or if the planned rally got any press coverage. I didn't see anything on the evening news tonight, did you?

Folks, this is deadly serious stuff. The framers wrote Article II, Section I, the way they did on purpose and with a very specific intent in mind. That we not be subject to a ruler with foreign allegiances. Obama is a foreign born person. He's a legal citizen of Indonesia. He never filed an affirmation of allegiance upon turning 18 after his mother brought him back to the US. His status as a legal citizen period is probably in question. If we can't allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for president because he was born in Austria, why should we be allowing Barack Obama to do so when there's evidence that he was born in Kenya to parents who weren't US citizens? What makes Obama so special he can defy the Constitution itself?

If you'd like to see the court rulings in this matter for yourself, Berg has links to the PDF files over at http://www.obamacrimes.com along with other press releases that bring this issue to light. Also, ask your local media why this hasn't been covered! Demand answers! Don't let them off the hook!

There's also an online petition available here: http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 which simply petitions Congress to demand that Obama comply with the law and produce his long-form birth certificate to end this crisis once and for all.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« You Mean Like Democrats?
Dear Mr. Obama »

Posted on Oct 30, 2008 8:58 pm by Samson in: | 31 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
I'm not going here because I think it's dumb, but if you read factcheck.org at all, this in particular, it reveals you as wrong and obviously so about what you've said about them and their process.

On a lighter note, this, which clearly tells us that his secret plan is to attack Zeratul. Yes.

       
Already commented on factcheck.org's ridiculous article from August, or perhaps you missed that? Either way, they're wrong. I know it hurts to think that about a left wing gospel site, but hey. :)

And are you sure Obama wasn't born in the Land of the Lost? His politics and policies sure seem like it to me....

       
Samson said:

Yes. I'm aware that the supposed all-mighty truth gods over at factcheck.org claim to have debunked this back in August sometime. However they are claiming to do so with a supposed copy of the short-form certificate that's got the number blacked out and there are very distinctly clear halos around all the text which are hallmarks of forgery. The Obama Campaign has since tried to claim it was a "rush job" and that they weren't sure if that number was "secret" or something. It all sounds quite lame to me, really. Very flimsy evidence and the folks at factcheck.org seem to have utterly dropped the ball on this one.


You mean this? Talking about an article showing pictures of what is, yes, a short form certificate, except:

- Not only are no numbers blacked out, there's a closeup of that number plus an explantion;
- Not only are there no halos, there's a closeup of the spot where they apparently were;
- Explanations for the rest which you may choose to believe as you like, or not.

Point remains you're still demonstrably wrong about this chunk of it. As I say, I'm not touching the rest.

       
Unless factchek.org changed their page, this is the link they had up the last time I was there: http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

That clearly shows everything I was talking about, and it's also the same thing Snopes is linking to saying they got it from factcheck.org. So someone, somewhere, is demonstrably wrong about this, but it's sure as hell not me. This document is all the campaign has produced as well, so I guess that makes Obama the one who's wrong.

Since this is the entire crux of the campaign's defense against the Berg suit, it's no wonder they failed to comply with the court order. The bigger problem is, the court failed to comply with the law after issuing its ruling that Obama be ordered to turn over the long-form certificate. Either he doesn't have it and can't get it, or it doesn't exist, and since Obama clearly can afford to fly to Hawaii and pick it up in person, I'm inclined to think it doesn't exist until shown otherwise. Which means I'm inclined to think the federal judge is either grossly incompetent ( he *IS* a Clinton appointee.... ) or he's in the tank for Obama. You make the call.

As for Berg, how much more serious does it need to get? If the man had nothing he'd never have been able to take up so much of the court's time and certainly wouldn't have been thrown out on a bogus "you have no standing" ruling. If he had nothing the judge could simply have said he has nothing and thrown the whole thing out on technical grounds. That didn't happen.

So it boils down to this. Apparently you're willing to overlook this in order to let Barry O win the election, even if he does so in clear violation of the law. Fine. I get it. Everyone is tired of Bush, the Republicans, and the whole bit. But going along with this makes you all no better than any of the very people you've bitching about for the last 8 years. And you'll be the ones to have outright stolen an election should he actually win. I guess it really is true though. People need a reminder dose of how unfathomably dangerous liberalism is in order to remember they don't like it. I just think it sucks shit that it has to happen in 2008.

       
The link in my first post is a completely different set of stuff than what you appear to think they're talking about. I suggest you read it. Again, no number blankouts, no halos, much higher quality photographs of the thing, etc.

       
Ah, so the weasels *DID* change the page, but they're still using uncertified documents, and haven't updated it at all to reflect the fact that Berg filed suit or that Obama's own grandmother admits he was born in Kenya. And his own campaign is still floating the forgery: http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate Seems awfully convenient to me that factcheck.org makes all these wonderful claims about the document in their possession when it's nowhere close to being a certified copy of anything. Then again, this is the same website who cheerfully called Palin a flip-flopper on the bridge thing without bothering to even ask her about it to get the straight answer. They'd rather invent speculation and hide behind the reputation they've fooled everyone into accepting.

"What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon -- that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize." – Barack Obama, June 3, 2008


"So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." - Barack Obama, April 2008


Consider the above while you're defending the man and trying to reconcile why he's still got a forged certificate on a campaign controlled website with what the weasels over at factcheck.org are trying to pull now.

       
I suppose it's equally meaningless that Obama is now claiming that he simply wasn't aware that his Aunt was living here illegally...

       
Yes. That's always nice to find out, isn't it? Talks all this shit about how he's for the poor, has all these family values ( he's said it, nobody was listening ) and thinks the government can solve everything, but his aunt is living in filth run by said government?

"But I didn't know she was here!" uh huh. Right.

       
No doubt, and the little minor detail that she's here illegally from Kenya means nothing to her darling nephew who's far too preoccupied with trying to take the throne and become the first Kenyan to sit as King Barak over the United States of America...

       
Who cares, Obama is an American Citizen and if there was any fact to any of the tripe being argued here, he would never have been able to get to the position he is in today. Are you all that blinded by conspiracies and fud not to be able to see the truth, or should i buy you all some aluminum foil hats to protect you from the mind rays.

       
Maybe you should buy us all another 30 minute paid advertisement on prime time national networking instead. :P

Ever wonder what the real incentive could possibly be for someone to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a campaign to try to win an election to a post that's supposed to be the highest ranging civil servant in the land which pays a most lucrative merest fraction of what they've spent to get there, even if they manage to keep the post for a second term? I say the only person who really could be good to have in that office is someone who doesn't want the job. Does that describe Barak Obama to you either?

       
You just jealous that McCain cannot afford to spend money on the same. If you want to debate excesses, i will agree with you all the way that both camps have spent way to much money. But the system is what it is, its not about who is the best candidate, its a popularity and shit slinging contest and he with the most money wins those fights.

McCain would have spent the same if not more if he was able to raise the funds, just as Obama would spend more if he had it also. This is the system we have, so there is no point if picking on one team who has managed to raise more money then the other saying that they are wrong, when they have worked and operated well within the rules of the system.

       
Ms. Obama,

Maybe you need to go discuss this with Barack's grandmother. For even she says Barack was born in Kenya. There are birth records proving as much. Berg clearly has the evidence or the judge in PA would have tossed the case as being without merit. Barack's mother was not old enough to confer her citizenship upon him after having been out of the country long enough to lose her own. So it's entirely possible that like his aunt, Barack himself is an illegal alien.

Oh, and everyone knows that you want a solid steel military grade helmet. Not a cheap tin foil piece of crap!

Uh. And on the subject of the ability to pay. Perhaps if Barack hadn't broken his promise to the people and abandoned public funding he'd have been unable to afford a massive $20 buyout of 3 major networks. Would have been 4 but ABC blinked and Barack told them to go get bent. To their credit, CNN even rejected him.

       
Actually, to my surprise and dismay, I watched CNN's coverage, the day before yesterday, briefly of the two candidate's campaigning and I couldn't help but notice that they could only find fault with all McCain's efforts and be critical of his campaign maneuvers despite laying nothing but praise for Obama's even most foul fumbles.. They seemed genuinely moved that Bill Clinton had come out to speak for Barak Obama even obliviously ignoring his double edged compliments.. yet they appeared to find it terribly horrifying that McCain would go on stage and introduce Joe the Plumber even though no one had told him that Joe hadn't arrived yet. So much for any respect I once held for CNN. :sigh:

Sorry, side-note spurred by your comment about CNN having rejected him. :shrug:

       
They rejected the ad. Not the candidate. CNN is so in the tank for Obama it's not even funny. Objective media? Hasn't been any such thing on either side for 20 years now. Which is sad, because the founding fathers intended for the press to be the final check on a corrupt power structure. The problem is, that final check has itself become corrupt and there's no check on them other than those of us who choose to get news from less biased sources. Those less biased sources are becoming fewer, not more, despite the growth of the internet.

       
And that, right there, my friends, is why you should _never_ _ever_ take a media source's word as stricture.

It's good to see that we're finally agreeing that both sides of the media are completely and irreparably biased though. :)

       
Uh. Scripture, not stricture. Good drugs are good.

       
... you should _never__ever_ take a media source's word ...


No. We should go to factcheck.org, only.

Also, we should address the hard issues of the day only through Huffington Post.

       

They rejected the ad. Not the candidate. CNN is so in the tank for Obama it's not even funny. Objective media? Hasn't been any such thing on either side for 20 years now. Which is sad, because the founding fathers intended for the press to be the final check on a corrupt power structure. The problem is, that final check has itself become corrupt and there's no check on them other than those of us who choose to get news from less biased sources. Those less biased sources are becoming fewer, not more, despite the growth of the internet.


I agree with you 100% and you will likely find that CNN supporting Obama is likely due to the amount of $$$ he brings to the table moreover than any policy position he might hold.

I know that many will disagree with my view on this, but i think the primaries should be removed and replaced with a simple vote by elected members of that party to determine who should lead them to the election, which is how it happens in most other countries, and to have a ban on all advertising 1 week before the election and that there is only a 4 week window where your allowed to advertise, with a strict cap on budget.

       
I'll second the motion with regard to campaign advertising limitatons... In the last three days alone (not including Sunday), I've received over two dozen mailers from the two major parties asking me to vote tomorrow for their respective candidate.. and neary that number again from them by email. You'd think the democrats would've figured out by now that I've been a registered republican for a decade and you'd think the republicans would've realized that they're not impressing me by wasting funds on sending me mailers over and over again this close to the election, after all, by now I've either decided on a candidate or decided to not vote.. and if somehow I'm still undecided, inundating me with literature isn't going to help sway me to their side.. but at least both sides have been about equal in this which only that much more so makes me feel I really should be voting for someone else altogether.. maybe a libertarian.. or a green party member or some such, and I would too, except then I know my vote would be wasted because they wouldn't win with or without my vote. :sigh:

       
i think the primaries should be removed and replaced with a simple vote by elected members of that party to determine who should lead them to the election, which is how it happens in most other countries


I think you're a dangerous individual and I'm glad you don't set policy. You want to turn this into Venezuela? Iran? China? Russia? No thanks. Our system isn't perfect, but it's been shown to be one of the best in the world, if not [bthe[/b] best.

and to have a ban on all advertising 1 week before the election and that there is only a 4 week window where your allowed to advertise, with a strict cap on budget


You heard it here first folks. Surprise surprise, the liberal wants to ban political speech before an election. The danger in this is where does it stop?

Conner, no offense, but if you agree with that position I have to wonder what you've been smoking :P

       
Yes. Those who have the means(usually money) to get their message out are the ones who shouldn't be allowed to speak. The probably obtained that means through nefarious methods.

We need a socialist revolution in this country already! Oh wait, that happened years ago. :)

       

You heard it here first folks. Surprise surprise, the liberal wants to ban political speech before an election. The danger in this is where does it stop?


Not speech, advertising. The 2 are totally different things and your confusing the issues. The advertising is about calling names and trying to make the other person look like an idiot and IMO does nothing but obscure the issues that we should be discussing.

Alternatively rather than ban advertising, that said advertising should be only be about the promotion and expression of the candidates policies only. No smearing, not talking down the opponents policies and the usual crap that is contained in them.

The primaries are nothing more than a stupid waste of money and there has to be a better way to achieve the same ends that does not cost billions of dollars that goes into the pockets of big media. That is my objection to them.

       
The primaries are nothing more than a stupid waste of money and there has to be a better way to achieve the same ends that does not cost billions of dollars that goes into the pockets of big media.


Yes, there has to be a better way. It's called dictatorship.

Also

Only "billion"s if you count Obama's spending--And this is the first time in history it has had this much spent.

Remember, McCain wanted (and has) followed the public campaign financing that Obama praised and promised to follow if McCain did. Of course, then he realized he could raise an obscene amount of money was out the window.

I think the worst thing is that people really think Obama is not a typical politition. This just proves how much of one he really is.

       
Not speech, advertising.


Are you sure you're not pulling our chains when you claim to be from Utah? You are aware that according to US law that advertising is considered speech? Even campaign advertising is speech. It can be further argued that broadcasting a campaign commercial is also a form of free press.

       
<< prev 1, 2 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31