Out2Lunch Still Running Away From The Fascists!

POSTED BY: out2theblack
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 20:23
VIEWED: 12331
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, November 9, 2008 3:57 PM

Subject: Two BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA ; WE THE PEOPLE - USA TODAY FULL PAGE Article

Pass this one on far and wide. It's the truth. Produce or withdraw.

Friday, November 7, 2008

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.

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 venture

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, November 9, 2008 6:40 PM

I'll ask you guys again.

if this story had any legs whatsoever, then wouldn't Limbaugh be screaming about it, wouldn't Hannity, wouldn't the entirety of Fox News be repeating it ad nauseum?

They have this information, and they aren't running with it? Really? Really?

Oh, I know!!! Fox news is in the tank for Obama! Fair and Balanced my ASS!!! Fucking lbrul media!

SIGNYM

Sunday, November 9, 2008 7:24 PM

dbl

SIGNYM

Sunday, November 9, 2008 7:41 PM

Berg's case said that Obama "gave up" his citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen. REALLY??? One "gives up" citizenship when a parent marries a foreigner? He's shittin' us!

AFA the Writ of Certiorari... you guys have got this all bass-akwards. The Writ is a request for the Supreme Court to review a lower Court's decision. This is what a "cert" means in detail

Quote:
... certiorari is the writ that an appellate court issues to a lower court in order to review its judgment for legal error and review, where no appeal is available as a matter of right. Since the Judiciary Act of 1925, most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right; therefore, a party who wants that court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court. If the Court grants the petition (see Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States), the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument. Four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four." The great majority of cases brought to the Supreme Court are denied certiorari (approximately 7,500 petitions are presented each year, but just 80 to 150 are typically granted), because the Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases in which it has jurisdiction and which it considers sufficiently important (especially cases involving deep constitutional questions) to merit the use of its limited resources. The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court has found anything wrong with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that four of the Justices think that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant the full Court reviewing the case and the lower court's action. Conversely, the legal effect of the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times." Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created, and that the lower court's decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction

www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2120843/posts

In any case, here is the status of the case and what it means:

Quote:
No. 08-570
Title:
Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340) Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)

The writ was FILED. It is required that the SUPREME COURT respond by Dec 1 whether or not it will DENY HEARING the writ or not.

Quote:
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.

]Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.

In other words, the injunction was denied.
/ www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, November 9, 2008 10:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Subject: Two BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA ; WE THE PEOPLE - USA TODAY FULL PAGE Article

This is not a USA Today article. It is a full page AD taken out by wethepeoplefoundation. Let's not confuse an advertisement with legitimate journalism.

As I understand it, legal challenges to both McCain's and Obama's citizenship eligibility were ultimately dismissed in courts because the petitioners had "no legal standing." What you do for McCain, you gotta do for Obama. Fair is fair.

--------------------------
Dr. Horrible Karaoke

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, November 9, 2008 11:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Subject: Two BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA ; WE THE PEOPLE - USA TODAY FULL PAGE Article

This is not a USA Today article. It is a full page AD taken out by wethepeoplefoundation. Let's not confuse an advertisement with legitimate journalism.

As I understand it, legal challenges to both McCain's and Obama's citizenship eligibility were ultimately dismissed in courts because the petitioners had "no legal standing." What you do for McCain, you gotta do for Obama. Fair is fair.

Is that why Obama-san was one of the sponsors of a Resolution declaring that the Senate recognized McCain as
a natural-born Citizen ?

Which has not really been in particular doubt...

McCain's parents were both U.S. Citizens , and McCain was born in a U.S. Territory , Panama Canal Zone...

I can tell how far you got into the article...

Did you not get this far :

"...Draft of WTP full-page ad
to be published in USA TODAY the week of November 10, 2008:..." ?

I do know there's a difference between an article that's PAID and noted to be an article of Advertisement versus a straight news article...That's part of my journalistic experience...

What you see was passed on to me , and I in turn passed it verbatim , with the exception of the note of attribution re: Philip K. Dick quote...

SIGNYM

Sunday, November 9, 2008 11:12 PM

O2B -That's just conspiracy bullshit, man.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

PIZMOBEACH

Sunday, November 9, 2008 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:

--

"...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."
~~Philip K. Dick

WHOA !...

That Last Paragraph !

What a Browncoat-y thing to Say...

Have to discover the proper attribution for that !

EDIT : It's Philip K. Dick ! Should've known it was a Sci-Fi guy ; Knew I'd seen it somewhere before , just couldn't recall exactly where...

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/

OTTB - What I find even more salient in terms of Obama's victory and the right's inability to accept it, is what Philip K. Dick said right before the part you quoted:

"Do not assume that order and stability are always good, in a society or in a universe. The old, the ossified, must always give way to new life and the birth of new things. Before the new things can be born the old must perish. This is a dangerous realization, because it tells us that we must eventually part with much of what is familiar to us. And that hurts. But that is part of the script of life. Unless we can psychologically accommodate change, we ourselves begin to die, inwardly. What I am saying is that objects, customs, habits, and ways of life must perish so that the authentic human being can live. And it is the authentic human being who matters most, the viable, elastic organism which can bounce back, absorb, and deal with the new…"

An excerpt from "How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later" by Philip K. Dick:

WULFENSTAR

Sunday, November 9, 2008 11:38 PM

Actually, Pizz

The right HAS accepted it. Much more easily then the Left did when Bush won.

Its now a wait-and-see game.

What will Obama do?

Will he make it?

Will the center hold?

Can we finally put to rest years of hate on both sides?

Will we come together as a country?

Are we all strong enough to move forward, or will we just enter the same cycle again?

Is this the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?

WULFENSTAR

Sunday, November 9, 2008 11:40 PM

But... if this is any indication,

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/obama.churches.ap/index.html

We are royally screwed.

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, November 9, 2008 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

OTTB - What I find even more salient in terms of Obama's victory and the right's inability to accept it, is what Philip K. Dick said right before the part you quoted:

"Do not assume that order and stability are always good, in a society or in a universe. The old, the ossified, must always give way to new life and the birth of new things. Before the new things can be born the old must perish. This is a dangerous realization, because it tells us that we must eventually part with much of what is familiar to us. And that hurts. But that is part of the script of life. Unless we can psychologically accommodate change, we ourselves begin to die, inwardly. What I am saying is that objects, customs, habits, and ways of life must perish so that the authentic human being can live. And it is the authentic human being who matters most, the viable, elastic organism which can bounce back, absorb, and deal with the new…"

An excerpt from "How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later" by Philip K. Dick:

Thanks for your service...Also a good bit to quote !

That's what is great about Science Fiction...It's a chance to examine situations relevant to our present world in the context of another...

PHOENIXROSE

Sunday, November 9, 2008 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The right HAS accepted it.

This is acceptance, is it?

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The right HAS accepted it.

This is acceptance, is it?

Yes , it is...

We accept what is right , according to the Constitution .

If it's not Constitutional , then it can't be right .

It doesn't get simpler than that .

RUE

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:15 AM

I take it you speak as a Supreme Court Justice.

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

Or is this just another huffy self-important drama-queen post ?

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:20 AM

...Do you know what the definition of doublethink is?

WULFENSTAR

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:23 AM

Boy, Rue,

Have you always been this snarky?

RUE

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:25 AM

No. Have you ?

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

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
...Do you know what the definition of doublethink is?

Sure I do...Doesn't everyone ?

Little Sister is Watching Us...She thinks it's cute !

So many years on , and Folk still imbibe the Kool-Aid...

Time will tell , though...

If there's anything not amiss in this country , one would hope it's the Supreme Court...

AGENTROUKA

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
But... if this is any indication,

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/obama.churches.ap/index.html

We are royally screwed.

What about this article is objectionable? All I found was people celebrating a milestone. Am I missing something?

SIGNYM

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:50 AM

Quote:
So many years on , and Folk still imbibe the Kool-Aid... Time will tell , though..

I fully agree with the sentiment, but not the thought behind it.

Because it's an ELEMENT!

Has it occurred to you that your fascination with gold is an attempt to cling to an immutable value? (Speaking of ossified...) Hasn't life, or Philip Dick, taught you that nothing is immutable?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Sure I do...

Ah. So you see it as a virtue, then.
Well, I'm sure reality will adjust to what's in your head, or your head will adjust depending on the reality, or whatever it is you're after.

SIGNYM

Monday, November 10, 2008 12:52 AM

Quote:
What about this article is objectionable? All I found was people celebrating a milestone. Am I missing something?

Wulf is the victim of black on white racism. I kid you not. he has a very sore spot about anything having to do with blacks.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

AGENTROUKA

Monday, November 10, 2008 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
What about this article is objectionable? All I found was people celebrating a milestone. Am I missing something?
Wulf is the victim of black on white racism. I kid you not. he has a very sore spot about anything having to do with blacks.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

I.. don't know what to say.

Politely ignoring his post would be the correct response? That doesn't feel right...

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, November 10, 2008 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
So many years on , and Folk still imbibe the Kool-Aid... Time will tell , though..
I fully agree with the sentiment, but not the thought behind it.

Because it's an ELEMENT!

Has it occurred to you that your fascination with gold is an attempt to cling to an immutable value? (Speaking of ossified...) Hasn't life, or Philip Dick, taught you that nothing is immutable?

You're wrong , as you so often are...

Kool-Aid is NOT an element...

Cyanide ; it's NOT an element , either...

Cyanide is a compound , a Nitrogen atom triple-bonded to a Carbon atom...

Some 'chemist' you turn out to be...

Ossification is not all bad...Particularly , in matters like having a brain-case with something worth holding , within...

At least in what is known of this Universe , a great many things ARE Immutable...

You and any old random Dick , or any old random ruetard , can't change that...

Isn't P-R kinda cute ?

She gets along so well , considering her challenges , and she does seem to get a charge from tagging along with the delusional
'big people'...

Hey , I don't have more of a fascination with gold than you have with little rectangles of cotton rag...It's just that , over time , the gold has been more esteemed as currency than little bits of inked cotton...

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, November 10, 2008 1:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
What about this article is objectionable? All I found was people celebrating a milestone. Am I missing something?
Wulf is the victim of black on white racism. I kid you not. he has a very sore spot about anything having to do with blacks.

I.. don't know what to say.

Politely ignoring his post would be the correct response? That doesn't feel right...

Don't let any pontifications by 'rue' , or sicky-nym , mislead you...

This is about the best they can ever manage to do...

Obfuscate , obstruct , misquote , intentionally mislead...

Best just to let it pass...

Intelligent dialogue seems beyond their reach...

The little clique that is their domain delights in passing judgment on folk before gathering a good smattering of facts , or seeking an understanding , or even some kind of common ground...

Stick around long enough , you'll see that it's exactly that way...

Maybe that's the thing that is immutable...

RUE

Monday, November 10, 2008 1:41 AM

Are you feeling just a tad defensive ?

You have to remember that the fault is yours though, b/c you mistook an AD for an explanation and completely got the facts wrong.

Be that as it may, I have a bridge to sell you ... for real.

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

Silence is consent.

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, November 10, 2008 1:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I have a bridge to sell you ...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, November 10, 2008 4:21 AM

Might wanna check the registration info on that supposed Foundation there, folks...

I'd be awful illuminating to some of you, I bet.

Follow the MONEY, people.

-F

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, November 10, 2008 4:32 AM

Certiorari
n. (sersh-oh-rare-ee) a writ (order) of a higher court to a lower court to send all the documents in a case to it so the higher court can review the lower court's decision. Certiorari is most commonly used by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is selective about which cases it will hear on appeal. To appeal to the Supreme Court one applies to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which it grants at its discretion and only when at least three members believe that the case involves a sufficiently significant federal question in the public interest. By denying such a writ the Supreme Court says it will let the lower court decision stand, particularly if it conforms to accepted precedents (previously decided cases).

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"...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..."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That's going to be an " Interesting Day "...

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, November 10, 2008 5:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I'll ask you guys again.

if this story had any legs whatsoever, then wouldn't Limbaugh be screaming about it, wouldn't Hannity, wouldn't the entirety of Fox News be repeating it ad nauseum?

They have this information, and they aren't running with it? Really? Really?

I don't believe that anyone who's examined the history of this issue really feels like running with it...

If it turns out to be true , it is very sad for our country , no matter which 'side' one is on .

No , the 'entirety' of Fox News has not been repeating it 'ad nauseum'...

K.Leigh in Toledo did check it out a bit , though :

It IS a Fox News story...

Sorry for taking so long to get around to answering your questions...The P-Nutters want to hog all the bandwidth...

Whatever happens , I wish everyone PEACE with it...

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, November 10, 2008 6:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
O2B -That's just conspiracy bullshit, man.

---------------------------------

Okay !

Whatever...

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/11/supreme-court-demands-
obamas-birth.html

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"...Even today, Nov 5th, been very busy coordinating with lawyers across the country who are picking up this baton and running with it. It is not over. Not even. Here is a rough explanation and functional chronology. Following on the heels of two major lawsuits aimed at Obama directly in Pennsylvania, then Hawaii, I in Washington, followed quickly by other citizens in their respective states who sued the complicit or at best oblivious Secretaries of States for dereliction of duty; Ohio, then Virginia, Connecticut, Texas, Connecticut, California – There are others and there is no master command – all grass roots with each of us helping each other as we could. One thing was common, we each demanded to know if Obama has proof of US citizenship or withhold certification of electors for Obama..."

=======================

Obama and our coming constitutional crisis
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Professor Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School

Posted: November 08, 2008

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

'...Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship cited in an earlier article by WND news editor Drew Zahn:

The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship;

The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;

The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;

The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.

The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states."Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."

The claim could not be verified by WND inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;

Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.

Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg's lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama's U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

SIGNYM

Monday, November 10, 2008 6:48 AM

AgentRouka:Don't let O2B mislead you.

Quote:
Don't let any pontifications by 'rue' , or sicky-nym , mislead you... This is about the best they can ever manage to do... Obfuscate , obstruct , misquote , intentionally mislead...

What Wulf said was..

Quote:
However, I did grow up white in a ghetto. Believe me when I tell you that its not all cutesy like 8 Mile. I have the scars to this day from that time. ...
You misunderstand. I grew up WHITE, in a BLACK ghetto. Big difference.

www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=35603

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

AGENTROUKA

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AgentRouka:Don't let O2B mislead you.
Quote:
Don't let any pontifications by 'rue' , or sicky-nym , mislead you... This is about the best they can ever manage to do... Obfuscate , obstruct , misquote , intentionally mislead...
What Wulf said was..
Quote:
However, I did grow up white in a ghetto. Believe me when I tell you that its not all cutesy like 8 Mile. I have the scars to this day from that time. ...
You misunderstand. I grew up WHITE, in a BLACK ghetto. Big difference.

www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=35603

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

While I thank both you and O2B, I think I'll wait for clarification from Wulfenstar himself, should he have the time and inclination. Seems like the course least prone to misinterpretation.

Cheers,
AR

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

While I thank both you and O2B, I think I'll wait for clarification from Wulfenstar himself, should he have the time and inclination. Seems like the course least prone to misinterpretation.

Cheers,
AR

FWIW , you're welcome...

You're doing the right thing , and it seems fair-minded...

That's the best to be expected from anyone here...

Demand the best , accept nothing less , and you're always more likely to find what you seek .

Seconded...

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/11/supreme-court-demands-
obamas-birth.html

Look! I can post blog sources, too!
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5652
This one is really quite fascinating, but for those who don't have time, here's the crux:
"After 9-11 the Federal and State governments started work on the Real ID Act, which became law in 2005. The Real ID act was meant to tighten up the ubiquitous state Drivers License documents and process for obtaining these IDs - which we all know are used to gain access to commercial flights across this country... Part of the Real ID act was efforts by states to tighten up the documents used to get the IDs - things like birth certificates. Many things were changed so as to make sure state processes could not be easily gamed by terrorists to get drivers licenses, etc.
"...look at the Obama Colb of 2007... We see a much crisper background, a more brilliant background pattern, possibly paper that is part cloth (since the seal imprint is very faint and can only be detected with image color processing). The border is now a pattern more reminiscent of what might be found on paper money. What we see are lots of new security features.
"...that is how 9-11 caused HI to overhaul their vital records system, which led them to upgrade to a new COLB format and impose tighter processes surrounding it. These new processes include restrictions on how this information is distributed to third parties - another factor conspiracy nuts claim is evidence of a cover up."

Next.

AGENTROUKA

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.

DID she expatriate, though, officially? Does the mere act of marrying and moving automatically mean she forfeited her citizenship and that of her son?

***

ETA: I googled a little ("Obama mother expatriated") and this is the first thing I found. I cannot vouch for credibility but it seems reasonable enough.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/10/did-obama-beco
m.html

The gist seems to be that the cited law does not actually support Berg's claim, as mainly women married before 1922 automatically lost their citizenship.

Thoughts?

AGENTROUKA

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
FWIW , you're welcome...

You're doing the right thing , and it seems fair-minded...

That's the best to be expected from anyone here...

Demand the best , accept nothing less , and you're always more likely to find what you seek .

Seconded...

Thank you very much. I do try to live up to my own ideals of.. fairness, I guess, and objectivity. If only it were as easy to live up to my ideals of being knowledgable. Alas.

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, November 10, 2008 8:05 AM

You know, I'm just going to point this out again, because a few people seem to be missing the significance. To obtain a passport a birth certificate must be produced, and they don't just look at it there where you're applying, they staple it to your application and send it off. The certificate is checked, the social security number is checked, records are checked, a passport is issued, and everything is mailed back to you. If you are not a citizen, you don't get a passport. And all these records and such are things that the federal government has access to. From my experience with the process, a US passport is pretty much the ultimate proof of US citizenship. They check everything.
Barack Obama has a passport. He must, or he wouldn't have gotten back into the country after his trip overseas this year, or indeed any other year, but I point out this year because it's recent, and high profile. Passport. Citizen. I don't know how this could be more clear.

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, November 10, 2008 8:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

DID she expatriate, though, officially? Does the mere act of marrying and moving automatically mean she forfeited her citizenship and that of her son?

***

ETA: I googled a little ("Obama mother expatriated") and this is the first thing I found. I cannot vouch for credibility but it seems reasonable enough.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/10/did-obama-beco
m.html

The gist seems to be that the cited law does not actually support Berg's claim, as mainly women married before 1922 automatically lost their citizenship.

Thoughts?

Of course , Law dated that far back might be less relevant...

The gist of the Berg case seems to be that Stanley Ann Dunham , Barack's mother , was married to Mr. Obama , a Kenyan National , and that Barack was born in Mombasa , Kenya...

Subsequently , she traveled to Hawaii , where she lived for a time , before meeting Lolo Soetoro , an Indonesian citizen...

After she married Soetoro , Mr. Soetoro adopted 'Barry' , as he was known , and enrolled him in school as Barry Soetoro...

What is apparently problematic , is that neither Indonesian law , nor the American law then existing , would have allowed 'Barry' to retain a
'dual' citizenship status...

...And , since he was 'adopted' by Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro , and Barry's mother was married to Mr. Soetoro , then apparently Barry's somewhat dubious hold on U.S. Citizenship would have been compromised...

I feel fairly certain that Barry neither knew nor cared , back then , that this might become problematic to his future political aspirations in the United States :

"...The DNC has nominated Obama as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. There are many unanswered questions regarding Obama’s citizenship status:

1. Is Obama a “natural born” United States citizen?

2. Is Obama a “naturalized” United States citizen?

3. Is Obama a citizen of Indonesia?

If the answer to the first question is “yes” then Obama meets the citizenship requirements to be President. On the other hand, if the answer to the first question is “no” and the answer to the second or third question is “yes”, Obama is not eligible to be President.

...Plaintiff has learned through extensive investigation that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. Plaintiff learned that Obama was born at Coast Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya located in Coast Province. Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama’s mother a United States citizen who was not old enough and did not reside in the United States long enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born” United States citizen.

...Under the laws in effect between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986 (Obama was born in 1961), a child born outside of the United States to one citizen parent could acquire “natural born” United States citizenship if the United States citizen parent had been physically present in the United States for ten (10) years prior to the child’s birth, five (5) of those years being after age fourteen (14). Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952; United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998). Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born in Kenya and therefore, did not meet the age and residency requirements for her child to have acquired “natural born” United States citizenship. Therefore, Obama may not be considered a “natural born” United States citizen. There is no indication that Obama is a naturalized citizen either."

...There are still further complicated issues regarding this problem , but time constraints will not allow me to explore anything more at the present moment...

I sincerely hope and wish the best for all parties concerned with this matter , but considering that I've been twice sworn to uphold the Constitution , I must defer to the judgment of SCOTUS on this...And , I hope that they give the matter all due examination .

The part that is most troubling is that m

WULFENSTAR

Monday, November 10, 2008 3:07 PM

What exactly am I clarifying?

SIGNYM

Monday, November 10, 2008 5:02 PM

Quote:
While I thank both you and O2B, I think I'll wait for clarification from Wulfenstar himself, should he have the time and inclination. Seems like the course least prone to misinterpretation.

Of course. This is just my interpretation of what Wulf said and of his reactions. Should he choose to explain more fully, that would be best.

Quote:
What exactly am I clarifying?

I suppose the question is: What do you see so problematic in a church full of celebratory African Americans, and why? But best between you and Agent....

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Monday, November 10, 2008 5:07 PM

Quote:
Passport. Citizen. I don't know how this could be more clear.

Absolutely. Since we just got our passports I know all about that. Obama has produced his birth certificate several times. It's about time this side issue is laid to rest, because producing it ONE MORE time isn't going to change anyone's mind if they choose not to accept the evidence.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, November 10, 2008 5:18 PM

Btw, CNN has changed the title of the article in question..

It used to read "God has vindicated the black folk."

My point about us being screwed is this:

We ARE at a defining moment in American history. Should we choose the correct path, and use this moment to relate to one another as AMERICANS, not as Black, White, Hispanic, ect.. we might have a chance. We could actually make it a society where your ACTIONS, and your CHARACTER, determine your lot in life. Not skin color alone.

But reading this article...it seems to me that its being touted as soley a win for black folk.

That they are NOW proud to be an American.

I keep saying this, and I feel like a lonely bell-ringer, but...People, we can use this as a true springboard to a better society. Not one based on political manuvering, or get-back-at-cha garbage, but as a means of actually moving forward.

Blacks can use this as a way of getting off their asses and growing up. Loose the attitude and the chip on the shoulder mindset that have held them back. They can start pulling themselves up.

There are honestly no more exscuse.

Whites can now use this to build a better society, one based on actions and character. We can accept that we have a shared future.

As a people, Americans don't have much history. We dont have many pillars holding up our society.

We have our ideals and the actions of the people.

If we ruin this, and let it go...if we instead use it as another EXSCUSE to continue divisive and ruinous back-biting and blame-making, do we really deserve to continue?

STORYMARK

Monday, November 10, 2008 6:08 PM

My god... people are still going on about this stupid birth certificate thing?

How sad.

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

AGENTROUKA

Monday, November 10, 2008 6:49 PM

Wulf-

Thank you for clarifying your position.

I didn't see the headline you described, though considering the phrase is used several times in the article as a quote of individuals, I suspext it had been used as a quote, rather than a "neutral" description in the earlier headline, too.

That said, I wonder whether you really object to African Americans celebrating this as a milestone in their particular history. (Or the media reporting this aspect of the nation's reaction, in particular.) Do you really expect them to ignore the fact that it IS a milestone, considering the racial history within living memory?

I also don't find anything racially divisive in the article separate from the fact that they are celebrating what many thought was impossible. In fact, if you wanted, you could read the article to support your hopes.

I do not feel qualified to discuss the subject more deeply than that, though, not living there and not having any first-hand experience. Not to mention the separate thread on the subject.

But again, thanks for clarifying.

HERO

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
My god... people are still going on about this stupid birth certificate thing?

How sad.

Yeah...this thing was settled weeks ago. Heck, you can by copies of his birth certificate on Ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1-00-Silver-Certificate-57A-s-44th-President-Obama
_W0QQitemZ250321403690QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item250321403690&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

H

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
and they may not have taken measures themselves , to understand the particulars involved , prior to rendering their personal reactions or judgments...

*deep breath*
Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, to an American mother and a Kenyan father. At that time, Kenya was still a British Colony. It had been declared that any child with a father who was a citizen of the British colonies would have automatic citizenship, therefore he was born with dual citizenship, one by virtue of his birthplace, another by virtue of his father. I think it was one or two years later that Kenya became independent, and all citizens of the British colonies who were born in Kenya were declared Kenyan citizens. Likewise, any child whose father was becoming an automatic Kenyan citizen was also declared to have Kenyan citizenship. Barack Obama was now a citizen of both the United States and Kenya. Now Kenya, while recognizing dual citizenship for minors, will not recognize it for adults. A child of dual citizenship must renounce his other citizenship to retain his Kenyan citizenship when he comes of age. Barack Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship on his twenty-first birthday, having not declared to them he wanted sole citizenship. I think this is the root of a lot of the confusion, that he did in fact hold Kenyan citizenship at one time.
Okay, the next bit is a little fuzzy, because there's a bit of conjecture, but it appears that Barack Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather at the age of five, at least by the laws of Indonesia. All children five and under adopted by Indonesian fathers gained automatic Indonesian citizenship. While living in Indonesia, it would have been very difficult for him to attend school there as a non-citizen, so it's likely he was one, under the laws of that country having been adopted by a citizen, hence the using of the father's last name. Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship, so by their view he would have no other citizenship. However, and this is important, the United States does recognize dual citizenship, so in our view from over here he would have remained a citizen, no matter what the government he was living under wanted to think. His mother, who was likely living there under a green card of marriage and/or employment, would also remain a U.S. citizen. This, I think, has also caused confusion, as according to Indonesia no dual citizenship existed. But the laws of Indonesia do not govern the United States.
So, at the age of ten Barack Obama was back in the U.S. and now had three citizenships. As I said the Kenyan one became null and void when he turned twenty-one. The Indonesian citizenship likely became void when he was about fifteen, as their law states that citizens living abroad for more that five years must declare their intent to return or lose their citizenship. It is possible that he did retain his citizenship to be able to more easily visit his mother, who had returned to Indonesia. In this case it would likely have lapsed after her death in 1995.
Throughout the course of this quite colorful and amazing life, the citizenship declared by birth would not have lapsed. Why? Because the United States is just cool like that, that's why. Anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, with the sole exception of a diplomat's child. Anyone born on U.S. soil retains their citizenship for life, cannot be denaturalized, except through their own actions. From http://www.visalaw.com those actions are:
1. Being naturalized in a foreign country, upon the person’s own application made after reaching 18 years of age;
2. Making an oath or other declaration of allegiance to a foreign country or division thereof, again, after reaching 18 years of age;
3. Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country if those armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the US, or if the person serves as an officer;
4. Working for the government of a foreign country if the person also obtains nationality in that country, or if to work in suc

WULFENSTAR

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:16 PM

Thats it.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER FOR PRESIDENT 2012!

HERO

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER FOR PRESIDENT 2012!

Who?

H

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Thats it.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER FOR PRESIDENT 2012!

A FAR better choice that McCain or Bush

Lets party like its 1939

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, January 4, 2009 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
and they may not have taken measures themselves , to understand the particulars involved , prior to rendering their personal reactions or judgments...

*deep breath*
No, I don't understand any particulars at all.

You may be right !

Permaybehaps you don't !

There's not a 'quick fix' for this problem , unless BarackO himself steps up...

Hey , wasn't he just in Hawaii ?

Now , that would've been a perfect opportunity to put hands on any existing , legitimate . documentation , Right ?

Next conference of the Justices on this subject is scheduled for January 9th...

Meanwhile...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84971

'...A lawyer who already has two conferences pending before the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has filed a new lawsuit, this one on behalf of a retired military colonel who would need to know whether to follow any orders issued by Obama as commander-in-chief.

Philip Berg's earlier case and a request for an injunction in the case are scheduled for conferences with the justices on Jan. 9 and Jan. 16.

The new case, filed with co-counsel Lawrence J. Joyce, was submitted to U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., and names as defendant "Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama."

It demands to know Obama's real name and his constitutional qualifications to occupy the Oval Office. The plaintiff is Gregory S. Hollister, a resident of Colorado Springs, who has "standing" and "needs a decision so he knows whether or not to follow any order of Soetoro a/k/a Obama."

Berg reported the case is in the nature of an interpleader, shifting the burden of proof to Obama and Joe Biden.

"I am determined, on behalf of the 320 million citizens in the United States, to see that 'our U.S. Constitution' is followed. Specifically, in the case of Soetoro a/k/a Obama, does he meet the constitutional qualifications for president?" Berg said.

He said he doubts that is the case based on his information that Obama was born in Kenya, his mother was not yet 19, Obama later was a citizen of Indonesia and several other factors.

"I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a 'Constitutional Crisis.' There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced," he said.

Berg said he was pleased the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled two conferences to look into the merits of the claims in his earlier case.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified 'natural-born' citizen and therefore, is ineligible to assume the office of the president of the United States," he continued. "Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was legally adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia; is an attorney, Harvard Law head of the Law Review and graduate who taught constitutional law; knows the Obama candidacy is the biggest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; places our constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world."

...More than a dozen cases have been brought into various courts challenging Obama's eligibility. Several have reached the Supreme Court.

They all in various ways allege Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "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."

Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulf

RIVERDANCER

Sunday, January 4, 2009 7:35 PM

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

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

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 4, 2009 9:34 PM

I think this story has no legs.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 4, 2009 9:34 PM

I think this story has no legs.

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, January 5, 2009 1:16 AM

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

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

News Flash !

This ain't no democracy , kids...

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

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

By 'order' , I mean request...

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

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

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, January 5, 2009 1:22 AM

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

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

Do you know the difference between SIMBA

and OBAMA ?

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

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

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

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, January 5, 2009 1:40 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Direct election of Repre

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 5, 2009 6:00 AM

Out2theBlack

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, January 9, 2009 2:12 AM

Little doubt that you are correct...

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

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

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

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, January 12, 2009 12:14 AM

January 7, 2009

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

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

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

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

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

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

RIVERDANCER

Monday, January 12, 2009 12:50 AM

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, January 12, 2009 1:18 AM

YES...

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

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

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

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

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

STORYMARK

Monday, January 12, 2009 1:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:

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

Good thing he was elected then.

Now stop whining. It's sad.

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

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, January 12, 2009 1:28 AM

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

[/sig]

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 12, 2009 4:19 AM

Oh, where to even start.

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

HERO

Monday, January 12, 2009 1:57 PM

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

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

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

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

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

H

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, January 12, 2009 5:18 PM

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

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

[/sig]

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, January 12, 2009 5:57 PM

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

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

Good thing he was elected then.

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

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

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, January 12, 2009 6:02 PM

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

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

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

H

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

The Supreme Court IS :

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

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

STORYMARK

Monday, January 12, 2009 6:21 PM

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

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

Good thing he was elected then.

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

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

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

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

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

KWICKO

Monday, January 12, 2009 7:09 PM

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

The Supreme Court IS :

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

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

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

Mike

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

RUE

Monday, January 12, 2009 11:16 PM

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

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

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

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

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

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

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, January 12, 2009 11:48 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:49 PM

Video , Why Obama can never be President of the US

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

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:23 AM

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:39 AM

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

Done .

Meanwhile , for them as need it told :

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

RUE

Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:07 AM

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

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

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

Silence is consent.

KIRKULES

Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:14 AM

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

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

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

PHOENIXROSE

Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:37 AM

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

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

[/sig]

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:05 PM

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

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

o2tb

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

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, January 16, 2009 1:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 16, 2009 6:40 AM

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

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 16, 2009 6:41 AM

double post

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:26 PM

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

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

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:41 PM

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

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

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

Global Research, January 15, 2009

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

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

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

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

© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2009

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

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

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

To become a Member of Global Research

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

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:06 AM

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

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

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

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

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

RUE

Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:17 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silence is consent.

RUE

Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:19 AM

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

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

Silence is consent.

KIRKULES

Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:21 AM

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

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

RUE

Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:24 AM

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

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

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:31 AM

o2tb

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

Conspiracies,

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

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

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:37 AM

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

What a LOAD of crap.

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

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

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

RUE

Saturday, January 17, 2009 2:46 AM

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

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

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

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

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 17, 2009 3:16 AM

Rue,

Quite true. Realize that it spins both ways.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Saturday, January 17, 2009 3:28 AM

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

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

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

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

Silence is consent.

Too true Ms. Rue!

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

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

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

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Saturday, January 17, 2009 3:28 AM

Damn double posts!

RUE

Saturday, January 17, 2009 3:33 AM

"Realize that it spins both ways."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:08 AM

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

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

Not much happiness or consolation there.

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

Mike

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

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:14 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short: Liberals have political fantasies with no basis in what will come. So do conservatives. That's what this Obama thing is. It has no connection to truth or

OUT2THEBLACK

Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

o2tb

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

That would be 'prophecies'...

Not to worry , though , this has to be one of the most-misspelled words in the English language...It , and all its forms , and tenses...

You make a good point , though...

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Conspiracies,

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

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

TPTB are 'They' , because they are a group...

As for the conspirators , 'they' are not themselves centuries old...

Their plans and schemes however , usually actually are !

Folk just need the ability to look beyond the surface of things , and past the present day...

More particularly , into History .
The 'rabbit hole' goes very deep...

Most cannot seem to manage it , having been taken in and deceived by the illusions cast before them in their own lifetimes...

Most folk seem misled by the bread and circuses of the here and now , and don't expend any effort in knowing what has gone before .

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE