Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Teresa Heilevang on November 13, 2008, 09:32:27 PM
Title: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on November 13, 2008, 09:32:27 PM
BREAKING: Two Developments
NUMBER ONE
If The Supreme Court Decides...?
At this point, Supreme Court Justice David Souter's Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1.
At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond. (emphasis added by lp)
If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship.
"I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate," says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. "They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power - even over presidents, even over presidents-elect."
Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution.
NUMBER TWO
Draft of WTP full-page ad to be published in USA TODAY the week of November 10, 2008:
An Open Letter to Barack Obama:
Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?
Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?
Dear Mr. Obama:
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father's native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg's claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked "standing."
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, "[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory."
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a "natural born" citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual's exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation's highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.
As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;
· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required "Oath or Affirmation" of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I'm sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I'm sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation's business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People's mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.
Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:
(a) a certified copy of your "vault" (original long version) birth certificate; (b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham; (c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship; (d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity; (e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School; and (f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
"In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely, Robert L. Schulz, Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance. Their deeds may be small, and almost always unnoticed, unmarked by history. Their names are not remembered, nor did these authentic humans expect their names to be remembered. I see their authenticity in an odd way: not in their willingness to perform great heroic deeds but in their quiet refusals. In essence, they cannot be compelled to be what they are not. -----
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: m25operator on November 13, 2008, 10:01:25 PM
Sorry darling, it took so long to read, I almost went on to something else, I do agree with this, and support who ever is willing to pursue it,. would it not be freaky if the electoral college for the first time used their power?? Most people don't know, the electoral college regardless of how their state voted, will cast the votes that elect whomever, and in this case, have the power to vote against the elected, regardless of how the state voted. I doubt they will do it, but what a message it would send.
Any electorals listening?????????
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: fullautovalmet76 on November 13, 2008, 10:16:46 PM
This stuff reminds me of the Whitewater issue with the Clintons- alot of smoking guns. I believe there are too many powerful people who want this man in office. And if they have to commit fraud so be it. I don't think the SCOTUS is up to this either. They do not want to be seen as the ones who invalidated the election of the first African American (maybe) president of the United States. We shall see but I'm planning for an Obama presidency nonetheless.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: ericire12 on November 13, 2008, 10:21:50 PM
"Now where did I put that race card?"
-Obama
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: SwoopSJ on November 13, 2008, 10:22:04 PM
Oh, man! I, unfortunately, don't believe for a second that anything will ever come of this, but it would be great. (Don't want to get excited just to be let down again.) Let the scumbag prepare himself to move into the White House and even resign his seat in the Senate, then pull the rug out from under him. That would be an embarassingly fitting end to a dispicable political career. Their would be a huge social fallout, however, as the morons that voted for BHO would riot in the streets. Their sure stupidity should not, however, influence the outcome of this case in any fashion if their is such thing as justice. Throw the bum out!
Swoop
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: MikeBjerum on November 14, 2008, 05:23:50 AM
As this request has gone on for months the questions I hear from many is "Why doesn't he just present the papers?" "Why is he fighting something so simple and basic?"
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: pops1911 on November 14, 2008, 07:12:05 AM
Overheard: If this actually happens & BHo is removed from candidacy, we could have a white Christmas after all.
Even though in poor taste, it does have a certain appeal - not against black people, just 'this' person!
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on November 14, 2008, 09:46:35 AM
It stands to reason.. that if you have nothing to hide.. then the request isn't a big deal..........it is a simple simple simple thing to produce.
on the other hand.......... if you do have something to hide and you are not being honest........................................ (http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/pow.gif) BUSTED![/b]
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: cooptire on November 14, 2008, 11:13:59 AM
It stands to reason.. that if you have nothing to hide.. then the request isn't a big deal..........it is a simple simple simple thing to produce.
on the other hand.......... if you do have something to hide and you are not being honest........................................ (http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/pow.gif) BUSTED![/b]
This is something that every parent learns.....from their kids. The only time they don't want to say something or show you something, you can be pretty sure that they know they have done something wrong.
BTW, MMette, where do you get those awesome smileys/graphics? COOL! ;D
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: TAB on November 14, 2008, 12:31:44 PM
The real question is... what happends if Obama turns out to be ineligible. I would assume that means Bidden would take his place.
I really can't see any major political party backing some one that they could not prove they were eligible to hold that office.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: CurrieS103 on November 14, 2008, 01:22:04 PM
This entire thing may end up with Biden having to take the Oath, appoint a VP who will have to be confirmed with a 2/3 majority in both congressional houses. The ball is in the Supreme Court's court...should be interesting. Then again...lock and load 'cause the riots will happen.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: TAB on November 14, 2008, 01:25:57 PM
thats just it, there is a clear line of succession, for after the oath, before there is none. I would not be shocked if they had another election. Its a intresting legal question...
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: alfsauve on November 14, 2008, 02:00:44 PM
Uh if the winning candidate is disqualified then shouldn't the second place candidate take the office???
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: pops1911 on November 14, 2008, 02:04:50 PM
Be careful how you answer - on one hand you have 'Greasy Joe' - on the other 'Billary'!!
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 14, 2008, 02:17:07 PM
"May you live in interesting times" is the Chinese version of "may the Bluebird of happiness take a dump on your life". But political considerations aside I would be interested to see how they dealt with such an eventuality. I THINK TAB is only partly right, if B Ho were to DIE before taking the Oath the usual line of succession would apply, but disqualification ? ? ???
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: alfsauve on November 14, 2008, 02:35:36 PM
Two situations if he is disqualified.
Before the electoral college: then it seems the delegate should vote for the the second place winner from the election....McCain.
After the electoral college: then it might seem to favor the normal constitutional secession.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 14, 2008, 02:38:24 PM
Before the electoral college: then it seems the delegate should vote for the the second place winner from the election....McCain.
After the electoral college: then it might seem to favor the normal constitutional secession.
Sounds about right but the final decision would probably be left to the SCOTUS.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: TAB on November 14, 2008, 02:46:38 PM
i would personally like to see another election. People didn't vote for bidden... they voted for Obama.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: Neon Knight Anubis on November 14, 2008, 03:15:31 PM
The typical third in line is the Speaker, whether or not this actually happens we could potentially face a much stronger adversary, Nancy Pelosci. She may not have the charisma or the appeal of Obama to the general population but she has the political clout in congress and she's much more ambitious. At this point there really are no good options. A second election would be a fubar because who has the time/money/patience for another campaign, hell I'm going crazy from hearing about my state's damn runoff elections.
We certainly are living in those "interesting times".
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tt11758 on November 14, 2008, 05:22:56 PM
The real question is... what happends if Obama turns out to be ineligible. I would assume that means Bidden would take his place.
I really can't see any major political party backing some one that they could not prove they were eligible to hold that office.
Since Obama was the dem nominee, if he is ruled ineligble the dems have NO candidate in the Electoral College, and McCain/Palin will be partying like Kennedys (as will I) come January 20th!!
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 14, 2008, 06:02:25 PM
Since Obama was the dem nominee, if he is ruled ineligble the dems have NO candidate in the Electoral College, and McCain/Palin will be partying like Kennedys (as will I) come January 20th!!
i would personally like to see another election. People didn't vote for bidden... they voted for Obama.
I think you 2 have hit on the prime argument for a new election, People did not vote for Biden, but for B Ho, and the SCOTUS would not want to open itself up to charges of favoritism by just ignoring the Dems, might even require BOTH parties to start over with new nominations. Thankfully as Neon pointed out neither party has much money left, nor would it be able to stretch out over 18 months or more, would have to be over in 90 days or so, no more than 6 months.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: TAB on November 14, 2008, 06:30:50 PM
The sad part is just think of all the good that money could have done if people had sent it to the Charitys rather then a political party...
Atleast you can't right that money off.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: MikeBjerum on November 14, 2008, 07:11:50 PM
One of the possible problems with the electoral college is that they use our vote as a guideline. I don't know that they are required to vote the same as the popular, which means that they could elevate Biden if they wanted to. Would it be any better if they approved the democratic ticket, and invalidated Obama and Biden as his running mate and then elevated Pelosi ???
The only easy way through this is for Obama to produce the documents and prove he is qualified. However, the longer he denies access, the guitier he looks and the scarier it gets.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: Pathfinder on November 14, 2008, 07:16:21 PM
I think you 2 have hit on the prime argument for a new election, People did not vote for Biden, but for B Ho, and the SCOTUS would not want to open itself up to charges of favoritism by just ignoring the Dems, might even require BOTH parties to start over with new nominations. Thankfully as Neon pointed out neither party has much money left, nor would it be able to stretch out over 18 months or more, would have to be over in 90 days or so, no more than 6 months.
Sorry, Tom, there is no Constitutional basis for starting over. I think alfsuave had it right -
Two situations if he is disqualified.
Before the electoral college: then it seems the delegate should vote for the the second place winner from the election....McCain.
After the electoral college: then it might seem to favor the normal constitutional secession.
I don't know if I have enough ammo to quell or even protect against the riot that would ensue if bho is disqualified before the Electoral College votes. And that's in ND. God help those in more liberal urban areas.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: jaybet on November 14, 2008, 07:23:50 PM
Geez, I hate to be a buzzkill, but this really is a fantasy circle jerk. The MSM will NEVER let this happen.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: MikeBjerum on November 14, 2008, 07:41:25 PM
Geez, I hate to be a buzzkill, but this really is a fantasy circle jerk. The MSM will NEVER let this happen.
I fear your right. Even if something would happen with BHO, the MSM would get everyone so stirred up that rules, laws and Constitution would not matter in the face of potential rioting to retain the messiah :'(
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: Galeth005 on November 14, 2008, 07:58:18 PM
i belive the speaker of the house would take the presidency since the president elect could not take office due to his birth place. it would follow the chain on down. the line of succession i belive is what they call it. since obama was never sworn its not biden, and since bush's term is up its not his vp. so the speaker of the house of represenatives would be sworn into office
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: fullautovalmet76 on November 14, 2008, 10:07:50 PM
I went to www.obamacrimes.com to see what the plaintiffs in this case said. The court will decide whether they want to review the case after Obama has presented his response AND Berg has presented his response to the Obama response. Then they will make the decision whether they will even hear this case.
My intuition tells me they are not going to get in the middle of this unless there is compelling reasons to do so. It's kind of like instant replay in the NFL: there has to be conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field. I think we need to save our emotional energy on this one and get ready to fight this administration tooth and nail.
I'll use WW II analogy to describe our fight: we need to make the next 4 - 8 years of his administration a Stalingrad.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: ericire12 on November 15, 2008, 08:29:09 AM
Geez, I hate to be a buzzkill, but this really is a fantasy circle jerk. The MSM will NEVER let this happen.
Yep, I think it is all just a wild goose chase.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 15, 2008, 09:32:20 AM
It might be well to consider that if Berg's case has merit then the nine Justices are in a position to exercise a lot of power and change the face of American politics. The system was set up with 3 co - equal branches, but the Judicial branch has been reduced to rulings on porn and Nativity scenes on public property, they got a lot of attention from the Heller case, and would probably be very eager to remind Congress and future presidents that the court has as much clout as they do, and do not have to worry about re election.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: ericire12 on November 15, 2008, 10:00:46 AM
It might be well to consider that if Berg's case has merit then the nine Justices are in a position to exercise a lot of power and change the face of American politics. The system was set up with 3 co - equal branches, but the Judicial branch has been reduced to rulings on porn and Nativity scenes on public property, they got a lot of attention from the Heller case, and would probably be very eager to remind Congress and future presidents that the court has as much clout as they do, and do not have to worry about re election.
Yet, another example of how we have become a judicial monarchy..... Another 5-4 decision with Kennedy deciding the way the country would go for the next 8 years.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: SlideRacker on November 16, 2008, 09:05:50 PM
They didn't come this far to loose. They will produce any and all information they need. Face it, the only way out of this is for Obama and the people who put him there to be overthrown by force.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 16, 2008, 09:47:02 PM
They didn't come this far to loose. They will produce any and all information they need. Face it, the only way out of this is for Obama and the people who put him there to be overthrown by force.
Careful there, while what you say may be perfectly correct, you need to be careful what you say on a public website or you may find guys in suits visiting, first your employer, friends, family and neighbors, and THEN you. That being said, that IS the whole point behind the 2A.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: MikeBjerum on November 16, 2008, 10:42:52 PM
That being said, that IS the whole point behind the 2A.
That is what I believe is really behind all their bans. They make it sound noble and naive buy making it as public safety, however they are really afraid of the uprising the Second Amendment was put in place for.
A non responsive and non representative ruler is what our Founding Fathers fought to replace, and they wanted to make sure it never returned.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 16, 2008, 11:28:26 PM
That is what I believe is really behind all their bans. They make it sound noble and naive buy making it as public safety, however they are really afraid of the uprising the Second Amendment was put in place for.
A non responsive and non representative ruler is what our Founding Fathers fought to replace, and they wanted to make sure it never returned.
Their baack.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: runstowin on November 17, 2008, 12:03:35 AM
That is what I believe is really behind all their bans. They make it sound noble and naive buy making it as public safety, however they are really afraid of the uprising the Second Amendment was put in place for.
A non responsive and non representative ruler is what our Founding Fathers fought to replace, and they wanted to make sure it never returned.
What some of the founding fathers thought about gun bans.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: TAB on November 17, 2008, 01:56:14 AM
I really, really doubt any of them are thinking about a insurrection... they just want to be able to say: "see I protected you from the boogie man" many other reasons, but that is the biggy.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: alfsauve on November 17, 2008, 05:37:21 AM
Having the weekend and being a bear (or trunk monkey) of slow wit, I figured what's going to happen with this case.
Obama's lawyers will file a petitions or briefs with the court on why bHO shouldn't have to respond. Here are some of the points I thought of, and I'm not a lawyer.
1) bHO will ask for immediate dismisall/denial of the case because the plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to support his contentions. The burden of proof resetting with the plantiff.
2) bHO takes the 5th and can not be compelled to reply.
3) There has not been any previous trials and the SCOTUS should make their decision based solely on whether the merits for lower court dismissals were appropriate, not on the substance of the claim.
4) There are no legal statutes involved and as such the lower court had no choice but to dismiss the case. As does the SCOTUS
I'm sure bHO lawyers have many more points and can state them in more precise legalize. The long and short as Jaybet says nothing will come of this, until someone can come up with definitive proof that bHO is not Constitutionally qualified to serve as President.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: ericire12 on November 17, 2008, 07:55:22 AM
I really, really doubt any of them are thinking about a insurrection... they just want to be able to say: "see I protected you from the boogie man" many other reasons, but that is the biggy.
Californication
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: Ckott on November 17, 2008, 08:08:29 AM
Don't get your hopes up guys.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tt11758 on November 17, 2008, 05:46:56 PM
Having the weekend and being a bear (or trunk monkey) of slow wit, I figured what's going to happen with this case.
Obama's lawyers will file a petitions or briefs with the court on why bHO shouldn't have to respond. Here are some of the points I thought of, and I'm not a lawyer.
1) bHO will ask for immediate dismisall/denial of the case because the plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to support his contentions. The burden of proof resetting with the plantiff.
2) bHO takes the 5th and can not be compelled to reply.
3) There has not been any previous trials and the SCOTUS should make their decision based solely on whether the merits for lower court dismissals were appropriate, not on the substance of the claim.
4) There are no legal statutes involved and as such the lower court had no choice but to dismiss the case. As does the SCOTUS
I'm sure bHO lawyers have many more points and can state them in more precise legalize. The long and short as Jaybet says nothing will come of this, until someone can come up with definitive proof that bHO is not Constitutionally qualified to serve as President.
In other words, get ready to bend over and take it like a man.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: SlideRacker on November 17, 2008, 10:29:08 PM
Tom, While I doubt my postings on here will grab the unwanted attention of the men in black, my emails to Congess may in fact do just that. I would be more than happy to have a sit down with them; however, they are busy as bees right now from what I hear. They pulled a kid out of a college class just this week to slap his wrist for commenting on Obama. I think his postings were more about race than anything else. As for me, I am willing to go all the way with my right of free speech. I may word things careful enough as to not directly threaten, but I will express my god given right to hate the slime bags in Washington. I wonder how a guy like me gets face time with the Congress? I would like to man the floor for awhile. No, mr. chairman I will not yeild the remainder of my time you idiot.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 18, 2008, 12:58:38 AM
+10
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: pops1911 on November 18, 2008, 07:58:31 AM
Tom, While I doubt my postings on here will grab the unwanted attention of the men in black, my emails to Congess may in fact do just that. I would be more than happy to have a sit down with them; however, they are busy as bees right now from what I hear. They pulled a kid out of a college class just this week to slap his wrist for commenting on Obama. I think his postings were more about race than anything else. As for me, I am willing to go all the way with my right of free speech. I may word things careful enough as to not directly threaten, but I will express my god given right to hate the slime bags in Washington. I wonder how a guy like me gets face time with the Congress? I would like to man the floor for awhile. No, mr. chairman I will not yeild the remainder of my time you idiot.
When they call you in as part of the inquisition you will get your say along with the rest of us. Won't be long now.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tumblebug on November 18, 2008, 02:06:10 PM
Warming the oven's NOW . Get ready . :-X :-X :-X
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on November 27, 2008, 09:26:00 PM
Proofin' the prez: Who's in charge? By Bob Unruh November 24, 2008 A one-time vice presidential candidate who is considered an expert on the U.S. Constitution says it is up the electors from the 50 states to make certain President-elect Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen before they cast votes for him in the Electoral College Dec. 15.
"If they do their duty, they would make sure that if they cast a vote for Mr. Obama, that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," Herb Titus, the Constitution Party's running mate to Howard Phillips in 1996, told WND today.
"I think it should be resolved. The duty is in the Electoral College. Every Obama elector that is committed to casting a vote on the 15th of December, they have a constitutional duty to make certain whether Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he said.
If the electors fail their duty and Obama proves ultimately to fail the eligibility requirement of the U.S. Constitution, there would be only the laborious, contentious and cumbersome process of impeachment available to those who would wish to follow the Constitution, he suggested.
The issue of Obama's citizenship has been in the news for weeks as multiple legal claims have asserted the Democrat is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. There have been claims he was born in Kenya, that he's a British subject because of his father and that he lost his citizenship in Indonesia.
Two of the cases are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and several others that have fallen by the wayside.
Also, thousands of people are jumping aboard a petition that demands documentation of Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the U.S., not just assurances from party officials.
As of this afternoon, about 70,000 petitioners have joined the effort coordinated by WND founder and editor Joseph Farah.
To participate, sign the petition .. click on the webpage and that will taker you to where you can vote..
A report accompanying Farah's petition explains the many questions raised about Obama's eligibility, from an apparently fabricated "Certification of Live Birth" posted online to questions about what nation's passport he used to travel to Pakistan.
One case is scheduled for a conference among U.S. Supreme Court justices Dec. 5. Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
Do you agree with contentions made in "The Audacity of Deceit" about the impact of an Obama White House on the United States?
The case, unsuccessful at the state level, was submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas for conference Dec. 5.
Titus holds a law degree cum laude from Harvard, is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, and helped found a law school. He told WND the framers of the Constitution specifically wanted the electors, citizen voters from all the states, to determine the presidency to avoid chief executives who are indebted to political parties or court decisions.
In 1788, Titus noted, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers on the issue of the presidential election that "nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption."
"They have not made the appointment of the president to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment," Hamilton wrote. "And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States," Hamilton wrote in support of the concept of the Electoral College.
If the electors fail, Titus said, "I think it moots the point."
"I don't think there is anything in the Constitution [that would allow a challenge based on a candidate's constitutional qualifications.]
"It would politically undermine Obama's re-election … and there may be an impeachment if someone concluded he deliberately misled the people, and knew he was not a natural-born citizen," he said.
Titus said the evidence clearly shows there are questions about Obama's birth that should be resolved. But he said he doesn't believe the courts will do anything, nor should they.
"If it's revealed it's only going to be [revealed because of] investigative journalism or by Obama himself," he said.
"It's only the Electoral College that has the duty and authority to determine is a person is qualified to be president," Titus said.
"We should act accordingly, get the names of all the electors, including McCain's electors, and urge them to do their duty," he said.
He said, however, the bottom line is that there are some people who would rather ignore the Constitution than dispense with a candidate who may be unqualified.
"Politically, [being ineligible] would be a very serious problem for [Obama,]" he said. "But there also would be people who would only shrug."
"It's up to the people. Essentially the Constitution is a covenant of the people with their government. If the people don't insist on their government officials abiding by the covenant, I don't know what you can do," he said.
Titus said the basis of a natural-born requirement traces back to the Old Testament, where Moses prophesied about the people of Israel getting a king.
"The whole notion of a natural-born citizen is designed for the purpose of making sure that the chief executive would not have politically divided loyalties," he said.
Supreme Court would decide?
Meanwhile, a veteran law enforcement officer and director of criminal justice courses says he believes the 2008 election results ultimately could come down to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a ruling eight years ago that helped put George W. Bush in the White House.
The assessment comes from James H. Hafeman, a veteran of decades in law enforcement who supervised an armed security force, taught criminal justice and directed criminal justice programs in Michigan. He submitted a commentary to WND, outlining his evidence.
Hafeman said his argument is based mostly on the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the requirements for eligibility for president, including that the candidate be a "natural-born" citizen.
While replacing a president is outlined in the Constitution, he warned the replacement of a president-elect who is found to be ineligible isn't simple.
"While many have speculated that an official declaration of Obama’s ineligibility may lead to the appointment of Joe Biden as president, the speculation is inaccurate. Since it was up to the respective political party to properly vet their candidate before a primary election, they may not qualify to be rewarded for their lack of integrity. Additionally there is no separate balloting for president and vice-president; they share the same slot. Obama's ineligibility would effectively void the entire Obama-Biden ticket," he said.
Therefore, he said, other provisions likely would come into play.
"We already know that if two candidates have an equal number of Electoral College votes, the members of the House of Representatives will collectively choose the president. Many citizens have been led to believe that it is the responsibility of the House is to decide the winner by majority vote, but that is incorrect. Members of the House of Representatives from each state would meet in a state-caucus type of meeting and vote with all congressional members from their respective state. The majority of the state's delegation would only have only one vote. Out of the 50 votes allotted among the House of Representative members, 25 plus a minimum of one vote would be required to elect the president," he wrote.
William Ball, a political science professor at Northern Michigan University, has said, "The results of the Electoral College are sent to the president of the Senate, but if there is no winner, then the House of Representatives, not the whole Congress, decides who will be president. But, in this process the State of Vermont or Wyoming with their one vote each would have as much power as California or New York."
Hafeman said the Constitution demands the same process for a situation in which a seated president becomes ineligible, but Obama won't be inaugurated until Jan. 20.
"This may be the first known case where a presidential candidate intentionally attempted to side step the specific requirements of the Constitution in order to run for the office of president," Hafeman said. "The 12th Amendment is quite clear. If the president is found ineligible, the vice-president shall become the president. However, the key is the 'president,' not the president-elect. In other words, if Mr. Obama is found ineligible to hold the office prior to his January 20, 2009, inauguration, the 12th Amendment would not necessarily be the guiding instrument for the Supreme Court.
"The Justices would be free to make their own determination regarding the specifics of the general election," Hafeman wrote.
So, Hafeman concluded, the high court may have to make some decisions.
If the worse fears about Obama's birthplace prove true, Hafeman said, the court will have to decide the consequences for providing inaccurate assurances of eligibility.
"Second, what process will be used to designate someone who will assume the office?" he wrote.
"Since all the secretaries of state will be forced to nullify the Obama-Biden ticket, the Electoral College votes would go to the next highest contender. The principle would award McCain-Palin with the total possible Electoral College votes – all 538 electors," he suggested.
"In the national-interest scenario, the question that might be asked by the Democrats may focus on the question as to whether or not they could hold an emergency national convention in order for the party to re-nominate a president and/or another vice-president candidate. If the Supreme Court declares the entire election invalid, then that may be a possibility, but it is highly unlikely since every other presidential team on the ticket were legitimate," he wrote.
"The Supreme Court may decide a new election is in order and would have to waive the two-term limitations of George W. Bush so that he can remain in office until the conclusion of the election. The continuation of his term is a viable course of action, but it may not be an action favored by the Supreme Court. Instead, the justices may simply view the anomaly as a political race with an illegitimate and disqualified opponent, which would result in a win for the McCain-Palin ticket."
On WND's new forum page, the level of frustration was rising. Dozens contributed their thoughts immediately after the forum was posted:
"What makes Obama non-respon[sive] to the simplest of requests?" asked one reader. "Does he think that it is politically incorrect to ask for authentication of the myriad of facts about himself … Is he testing the grounds to see how far he can play with this charade?"
Other comments included:
"Obama won his first election ever by getting three Democratic opponents thrown off the ballot? He's all for using the law to help himself win. Wouldn't it be ironic if he is not allowed to serve as president due to the law? … Turn around is fair play!
"Even the left-wing liberal news media is beginning to ask the question: 'Who is this man we have elected? We really do not know much about him.'"
"Obama's refusal to produce the ORIGINAL given birth certificate gives us all pause. His silence on these allegations is deafening. The anointed one believes that if he can hold us all back until he's in the Oval Office he's hit a home run and he's 'safe.' Ah, not so! Check your law, Obama, and you will see that even if were to make it to the White House you will no longer be able to hide behind those red velvet ropes."
"There must be something that would have caused him great harm prior to the election, and would have stopped him from becoming elected. What could that little piece of information be?"
Title: UPDATE: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: ericire12 on December 04, 2008, 08:55:07 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama’s election.
The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer’s supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation’s highest court.
The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells. …
The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a “natural-born” U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: runstowin on December 07, 2008, 12:03:34 AM
I think this is great, this inquiry into the truth of Barry's birthplace just won't die. I bet Barry and his worshipers are fit to be tied.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on December 07, 2008, 09:02:39 AM
Any word on how the hearing went ?
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on February 24, 2009, 10:00:05 AM
Sen. Shelby: I Haven’t Seen Obama’s Birth Certificate
Sen. Richard Shelby has revisited an earlier controversy by suggesting that Barack Obama is foreign-born and not eligible to be president.
The Alabama Republican met with constituents in Cullman County on Saturday, mainly to discuss the economic stimulus bill, which he opposed.
But a local resident asked Shelby if there is any truth to allegations that arose during the presidential campaign concerning Obama’s place of birth, the Cullman Times reported.
“Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said.
“You have to be born in America to be president.”
Shelby is correct in stating that Obama has not released his birth certificate. Instead, Obama’s campaign released his certification of live birth — not his actual birth certificate. The certification acknowledges birth but does not include such details as place of birth.
State officials in Hawaii sought to stem the controversy during the campaign, claiming that they had checked health department records and determined that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.
Also, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of Obama’s birth that was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, nine days after his birth. It included his parents' address in Honolulu.
Arch-conservative Alan Keyes is among those who allege that Obama has failed constitutional muster to become president. Keyes, a former U.S. ambassador who ran against Obama in 2004 as the Republican Senate candidate in Illinois, said in a recent interview that Obama was born in Kenya.
Obama could put the urban legend to rest by simply releasing his actual birth certificate, but he has declined to do so. Since his place of birth in Hawaii is identified on his still undisclosed birth certificate, he is one of the few U.S. presidents whose location of birth is still not known to the public.
My point exactly... It isn't hard. UNLESS you are hiding something........ :P
Of course he's hiding something, but it matters not, since as Messiah, His Holiness King Barack Hussein Obama I is ABOVE the Constitution of the United States. Nobody that matters will challenge him, and those that do will find themselves in the midst of a shitstorm of biblical proportions.
HOW DARE WE QUESTION "HIM"?
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: WaltGraham on February 24, 2009, 02:39:23 PM
Thats what Olbermann's (D) argument is about this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi9-Gz24iYo
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: runstowin on February 24, 2009, 08:46:55 PM
Yet more.
WND Exclusive OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president's authority 'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this' Posted: February 23, 2009 9:35 pm Eastern
A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.
The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her DefendOurFreedom.us Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.
(Story continues below)
Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."
Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.
WND Exclusive OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president's authority 'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this' Posted: February 23, 2009 9:35 pm Eastern
A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.
The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her DefendOurFreedom.us Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.
(Story continues below)
Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."
Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.
Hopefully this soldier has career opportunities lined up after he's forced out of the military.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: fightingquaker13 on February 25, 2009, 03:18:25 PM
I'm sorry but I have to weigh in on this Lt. Easterling joining a suit to get rid of Obama. I know I'm new here, but this is unacceptable. First, this whole he's not an American thing has "grassy knoll" black helicopters written all over it. If he wasn't eligble do you seriousely think Hillary of all people, with her ex-president husband and all the power that entails, wouldn't have figured this out during the primary?
But thats not the point of the post. I'm writing as a former Army officer who is appalled by this yahoo Easterling. When I was a cadet in college I was very active politically, both in pro 2nd ammendment stuff (one of about 3 of us in D.C.) as well as the pro-choice movement. (As a good Libertarian, it seemed wise get them both coming and going). When I graduated and was comissioned however, I heeded the advice of our ROTC cadre commander, and changed my registration from Libertarian to Independent. He explained to us all, that the reason the US has never had a military dictator, was that the officer corps, from the start, recognized the idea of civilian control. He advised us not to vote in federal elections as our job is to execute policy, not make it. This idiot Easterling didn't get the memo.
We do not get to choose which orders we follow or which commanders we odey. They point and we go. Its just that simple. Easterling is lucky I'm not in his chain of command. I would make a 19 year old private wish he'd been left as a wet spot on the sheet. A forty year old officer would be lucky to be able to resign his commision. This isn't about politics. I'd have done the same thing to someone saying Bush stole the 2000 election. It is about discipline, good order and morale, patriotism and most importantly the principle that once the American people have spoken, we in the military don't get to second guess them. This guy needs to be screwed to the wall
fightingquaker13
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: 2HOW on February 25, 2009, 03:27:15 PM
Until Mr. Obama releases a "vault copy" of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office - an impostor. My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz's lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an Offficer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: 1776 Rebel on February 25, 2009, 03:31:41 PM
Fightingquaker13 welcome to the forum....
I am going to skip over the military chain of command stuff...As a civilian I will say that I don't see why BHO is NOT simply releasing his birth cert. Wouldn't it end all discussion after that? If we have documents on Clinton's penis and W's colon I think that a simple birth certificate shouldn't be so shocking to the Obama family. I wasn't there but I do have a question about who he was born to (parents listed) and where he was born. I think as a customer, so to say, I have a right to ask. Now if it does turn out that he was born in Kenya (as his relatives say) that raises another whole kettle of fish. It says to me that the country got screwed and hoodwinked.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: garand4life on February 25, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
I agree that officers have a responsibility to follow orders from the President without question, but, I also believe that your oath as a member of the armed services to "UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION" take precedence above all other orders.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on February 25, 2009, 03:38:42 PM
I agree that officers have a responsibility to follow orders from the President without question, but, I also believe that your oath as a member of the armed services to "UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION" take precedence above all other orders.
All those Nazi's hung or imprisoned at Nuremberg claimed they were following orders to, but that was not an acceptable defense.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: 1776 Rebel on February 25, 2009, 03:49:54 PM
Just for reference...
The oath an officer in the US Military takes:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm
The Presidential Oath is directly from the US Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1
The interesting note that hits me is that an officer is asked about "purpose of evasion" while the President is not. Wouldn't it be a hoot if BHO beat the rap on a technicality...
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tt11758 on February 25, 2009, 04:31:06 PM
We're overlooking two of the most frightening words in the english language in this discussion. Suppose he WAS born in Kenya, then those two terrifying words become reality.
The two words to which I refer? "President Biden".
But wait.......what if BOTH Obama AND Biden were removed? President Pelosi.
Geez, I just threw up in my mouth a little as I wrote that.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on February 25, 2009, 08:48:28 PM
We're overlooking two of the most frightening words in the english language in this discussion. Suppose he WAS born in Kenya, then those two terrifying words become reality.
The two words to which I refer? "President Biden".
But wait.......what if BOTH Obama AND Biden were removed? President Pelosi.
Geez, I just threw up in my mouth a little as I wrote that.
Relax, if the "anointed one" is removed it will be because the whole crew of them went up against a wall somewhere. The replacements will not come from the normal line of succession.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: cookie62 on February 25, 2009, 10:39:04 PM
Relax, if the "anointed one" is removed it will be because the whole crew of them went up against a wall somewhere. The replacements will not come from the normal line of succession.
It won't be me, I can't work for his adminastration........... I PAID my taxes ;)
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: alfsauve on February 26, 2009, 05:30:47 AM
It won't be me, I can't work for his adminastration........... I PAID my taxes ;)
Yeah that and we own guns.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on February 27, 2009, 01:12:29 AM
Alan Keyes has some things to say about Obama too.
Obama Will Destroy U.S.
Arch-conservative Alan Keyes is not giving Barack Obama any honeymoon.
After the Los Angeles Times "Top of the Ticket" column picked up Keyes' comments - taken from an impromptu interview posted to YouTube - about Obama from last week, those comments have been the buzz of the web this past weekend.
Keyes, a former U.S. ambassador, ran against Obama in 2004 as the Republican Senate candidate in Illinois.
In his diatribe against the new president, Keyes calls Obama a "radical communist" and says "he will destroy this country" and warns that unless he is stopped, America "will cease to exist."
Keyes also says Obama has failed constitutional muster to become president, since, Keyes argues, Obama was born in Kenya.
Obama has stated he was born in Hawaii. His campaign has released his Certificate of Live Birth - not his actual birth certificate. Hawaii state officials said they reviewed the actual birth certificate and that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii.
Also, Obama's family placed a legal advertisement in a Hawaii newspaper days after he was born.
Alan Keyes is very articulate, that is why is is ignored by the MSM.
That's why WE have to spread the word via any means (internet ) available. This thread has been viewed nearly 2,000 times, if every one who viewed it sent that U Tube link to 10 others.......
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: runstowin on February 27, 2009, 10:00:51 AM
On the heels of two active duty members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq calling for President Obama to prove his eligibility to be president, a retired major general has agreed to join the case, saying he just wants "the truth."
WND reported earlier when 1st Lt. Scott Easterling confirmed to California attorney Orly Taitz that he wanted to be a plaintiff in the legal action she is preparing on behalf of members of the U.S. military, both active and retired. A second soldier who asked that his name be withheld for now became part of the action just a day later.
Now retired Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers has submitted a statement to Taitz and her DefendOurFreedoms.us website, agreeing to be a plaintiff in her pending action.
"I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a petition for a declaratory judgement (sic) that Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified to be president of the U.S., nor to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall)," he wrote.
Military officers from the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are working with California attorney Orly Taitz and her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, citing a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Barack Obama's eligibility to be president. more: Taitz told WND today she has mailed to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder a request that he "relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II to test his title to president before the Supreme Court."
The lengthy legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
Requesting the action are Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers; Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graef; police officer Clinton Grimes, formerly of the U.S. Navy; Lt. Scott Easterling, now serving on active duty in Iraq; New Hampshire state Rep. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee state Rep. Frank Nicely and others.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on March 03, 2009, 11:30:34 AM
They also have a question, "what is the strangest rumor you have heard about Obama", I posted the following;
The weirdest rumor I have heard about Barack Hussein Obama is that he supports the 2nd Amendment. Based on his consistently anti gun rights votes on record this allegation is more ridiculous than the allegations that he is a secret Muslim.
All the other comments seem to be in the same vein. ;D
All he needs to do is submit a VALID birth certificate, is that so hard to do ?
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: ericire12 on March 03, 2009, 11:48:20 AM
They also have a question, "what is the strangest rumor you have heard about Obama", I posted the following;
The weirdest rumor I have heard about Barack Hussein Obama is that he supports the 2nd Amendment. Based on his consistently anti gun rights votes on record this allegation is more ridiculous than the allegations that he is a secret Muslim.
Nice, Tom
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: ericire12 on March 04, 2009, 12:18:35 PM
Missouri Republicans push birth certificate questions to oppose 'tyranny'
Fifteen Republican members of the Missouri General Assembly have signed on to a state constitutional amendment that appears aimed at advancing the claims of the fringe movement that doubts President Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president.
The language is contained in a proposed "voter’s bill of rights," which would serve "as a defense against corruption, fraud, and tyranny."
The proposed amendment states:
For candidates who are required by the Constitution of the United States to be natural born citizens, the secretary of state shall request an official copy of the candidate’s birth certificate. Other certifications, such as a certificate of live birth, shall not be accepted. Should any candidate fail to provide an official birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, his or her name shall not be placed on the ballot.
The Birthers, as they're known, have focused on the State of Hawaii's refusal to release the original of Obama's birth certificate, as opposed to official copies; Hawaii state law bars the release of the original.
State Rep. Robert Cooper wasn't immediately available to discuss the bill, which has drawn criticism on a local liberal blog.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: Pathfinder on March 04, 2009, 01:23:11 PM
Reality is, this time is being used to forge and age a birth certificate in Hawaii, update all of the computer records, doctor the "date record created" dates in the computers, etc. etc.
Remember Dan Rather's "memo" on Pres. Bush - typed on in MS Word decades before it existed? So do they, they will not make that mistake, hopefully they will make some others.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on March 04, 2009, 03:54:09 PM
Reality is, this time is being used to forge and age a birth certificate in Hawaii, update all of the computer records, doctor the "date record created" dates in the computers, etc. etc.
Remember Dan Rather's "memo" on Pres. Bush - typed on in MS Word decades before it existed? So do they, they will not make that mistake, hopefully they will make some others.
\
What makes you think they will not make the same mistake again ? They do every time they get control of the economy.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: wisconsin on March 04, 2009, 04:14:12 PM
Reality is, this time is being used to forge and age a birth certificate in Hawaii, update all of the computer records, doctor the "date record created" dates in the computers, etc. etc.
Remember Dan Rather's "memo" on Pres. Bush - typed on in MS Word decades before it existed? So do they, they will not make that mistake, hopefully they will make some others.
I agree. If anyone here thinks that it can't be done or hasn't already been done. Well with respect to you. I say your living in a bubble. The older I get the more I believe if they wanted to they could accuse me of a crime and fabricate the evidence and make everyone believe them. Now if you'll excuse me. I have to adjust the tin foil in my house.
Title: Re: 2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA
Post by: tombogan03884 on March 04, 2009, 04:26:09 PM
I agree. If anyone here thinks that it can't be done or hasn't already been done. Well with respect to you. I say your living in a bubble. The older I get the more I believe if they wanted to they could accuse me of a crime and fabricate the evidence and make everyone believe them. Now if you'll excuse me. I have to adjust the tin foil in my house.
An ordinary citizen can make up fake documents. It's never been that hard.