The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Discuss world politics in relation to Islam and Muslims.
Mrs Piggy
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:56 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Mrs Piggy »

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BORN IN THE USA?
Keyes to appeal case on Obama's eligibility
Lawyer says dismissal 'eviscerates' Constitution's rules for president
Posted: March 26, 2009
11:45 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Alan Keyes

A lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for president on California's general election ballot last year, challenging President Obama's eligibility to hold office under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution will be appealed, according to a lawyer working on the case.

WND reported earlier on the case being filed and then again when a judge dismissed it after concluding anyone can run for president on the California ballot – whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United States.

Judge Michael P. Kenny said the secretary of state, who is responsible for election laws in the state, has no "duty" to demand proof of eligibility from candidates.

But now Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has confirmed to WND the case will be appealed.


"The judge's ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional] requirements for serving as president in the United States Constitution," Kreep said.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join some 350,000 others and sign up now!

"It has been publicly reported that Mr. Obama as far back as 2006 had a relationship to a law firm that was coincidentally researching ways to get around the Article 2 requirements of the U.S. Constitution for service as president," he said.

"This appears to be an ongoing attempt by Mr. Obama to obtain the presidency while avoiding and evading all questions on his eligibility," he said.

Kreep said the judge's ruling leaves open the option for any candidate, resident or not, alive or not, to run for the office of president.

"California has a history of removing people from the ballot who are not qualified to run for president," Kreep said. "The most famous case being Eldridge Cleaver."

"It is incumbent upon us here at the USJF to continue this fight to learn the truth," he said.

In the court's decision to dismiss the case, the judge rejected concerns over the problems that could result if a president was found to be ineligible.

"If Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in courts of the United States of America, and in international courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for president in the future, is eligible to serve in that office," the case explained.

The case documents previously explained that in 1968 the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president. But then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan "found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president."

USJF explained that "using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States."

The USJF said similarly, in 1984, Peace and Freedom Party candidate Larry Holmes was removed from the ballot.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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 lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, 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.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Keyes has been critical of judges' refusal to listen to evidence in the disputes and suggestions that those who bring such allegations for review should be penalized..

"In the final analysis if the courts refuse to respect the Constitution, they are not the judges of their own action. The people must ultimately decide. Which is why I and others will use every outlet to inform them of the injustice being done not just to individuals but to the sovereign people as a whole," Keyes said.

In a commentary on the dispute, Keyes wrote that the suggestion of sanctions against those who bring up the questions, already raised as an issue by Obama's lawyers in his case, "confirms Obama's ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires.

"Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won't accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation," Keyes said.

"As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world's esteem," Keyes said.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

* Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has been working on several other cases.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii, which the state's procedures allowed at the time?
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

THHuxley wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:Arrogant egotistical Huxley replied
A little revisionist history by Pragmatist. The birthers ABSOLUTELY DID CLAIM that he attended a Madrassa. It was one of the first of your claims we proved false. And again, there is no evidence regarding his registration at the second school.


Seems your very own MESSIAH has exposed you for the UNIFORMED ARROGANT EGOTISTICAL LIAR that you are HUXLEY You see what YOU don't know and I do know is that to attend a MUSLIM school in Indonesia you have to be a MUSLIM or else you have to go to a Multi faith school. Why do I know it well I lived there for many many years and my previous and current wives were both Indonesian Muslims
So then.... lets see how even being married to Indonesian Muslim women has not protected you from being a blithering idiot.

1. Nothing in that post contradicts my claim that we have no evidence regarding what religion he was registered at the second school. Never once is any claim made that he was registered as a Muslim as that second school. So your statement "in both of which he was registered as a MUSLIM" is shown by your own post to be (as I said) a complete fabrication.

2. The second school was the Basuki School... a Public school, not a "Muslim school." According to the CNN reporter who visited the school, the deputy headmaster Hardi Priyono said, "This is a Public School. We don't focus on religion. In our daily lives we try and respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment.

So your Messiah was LYING then was he when he said he went to a MUSLIM school in his book? No problem we know he is a LIAR that is one of our main arguments against him[/size]

3. Obama's Basuki School classmate, Bandug Winadijanto said, "It's not an Islamic scool. It's general. There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian... so that it is a mixed school."


So its all down to the LIAR Messiah then

4. Zulfan Adi never claimed to have been "one of Obama's closest childhood friends." That was the bogus claim of Jerome Corsi, not something Adi ever said. And Adi turns out to have rather significantly changed his story when interviewed by the Chicago Tribune.

You mean after he was leant on and told not to risk damaging the Messiah :lotpot:


Zulfan Adi, a former neighborhood playmate of Obama's who has been cited in news reports as saying Obama regularly attended Friday prayers with Soetoro, told the Tribune he was not certain about that when pressed about his recollections. He only knew Obama for a few months, during 1970, when his family moved to the neighborhood.

Ditto above

Chicago Tribune, March 25, 2007

The Tribune also reported that "interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia."

So.... you want to try again? I'm sure you have whole bunch of other invented factoids in your quiver of dishonesty. I can see now why you've had to go through more than one wife.


Seems that being an OBAMABOT means switching off the brain and switching on the GULLIBLE, HYSTERICAL worshiper mode then.

More one trick pony stuff from THH he keeps running and hiding from all the other posts which graphically display the INCOMPETENCE, INEXPERIENCE and STUPIDITY of the LAUGHING JACKASS that is the LIAR Messiah. To which of course his bluff and bluster will not be able to defend Obama is seen in his true TELEPROPMTER KID glory as the idiot we all know he is.
Last edited by Pragmatist on Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Idesigner wrote:Seems your very own MESSIAH has exposed you for the UNIFORMED ARROGANT EGOTISTICAL LIAR that you are HUXLEY You see what YOU don't know and I do know is that to attend a MUSLIM school in Indonesia you have to be a MUSLIM or else you have to go to a Multi faith school. Why do I know it well I lived there for many many years and my previous and current wives were both Indonesian Muslims... Prgana

Dear Padma,

You are talking about your current wives? DARN MUSALLIS!! Atre you crazy?

That means you are practicing bigamy or polygamy. You must be misogyn too!!

I thought you were nice christian boy

You turned out to be a muslim!!

Yo cant defend my christian values!! You art a wolf in shep clothings!!

You are worst than Obama .Obbie has one christian wife. Are you muslim convert? Or musalla from Indonesia???

Shame on you!!

I heard ndonesia was lot more liberal muslim country in 60s and early 70s till Wahabis taught them true Islam and forced them to give up those idol worshipping Hindu ways. Now every darn muslim of Indonesia is Ahmed, Mohemmed, Wahab always stoking his circumcised penus to make sure he is true slave of frigging Arabs. Are you one of them Pragna.

I am sure my Indonesian friends will give you a warm welcome if you ever decide to visit after the flattering picture you paint of them. Indonesia was Hindu until the 60'/70's amazing your knowledge of history is as bad as your English as your comprehension of what I wrote proves. Ah another OBAMABOT here to follow their cheerleader HUXLEY seems you are just as moronic as your post suggests you are. Attack the messenger all you like moron but you can't hide or deny the INCOMPETENCE, INEXPERIENCE and STUPIDITY the LAUGHING JACKASS you slavishly follow displays daily.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Oh dear Oh dear my arrogant, egotistical, befuddled, oh so gullible HUXLEY it seems that your LIAR Messiah HIMSELF is intent on proving YOU to be a blind hysterical, emotional OBAMABOT.You have a get out of course you can tell us that Obama is a LIAR now that we WILL believe :lotpot:

All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school and a young Barry Soetoro, being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school.

He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam.

In his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."

"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies."

According to Tine Hahiyary, one of Obama's teachers and the principal from 1971 through 1989, Barry actively took part in the Islamic religious lessons during his time at the school. His teacher was named Maimunah and she lived in the Puncak area, the Cianjur Regency.

"I remembered that he had studied "mengaji" (recitation of the Quran)" Tine said.

Our guy in Jakarta writes: "The actual usage of the word 'mengaji' in Indonesian and Malaysian societies means the study of learning to recite the Quran in the Arabic language rather than the native tongue. "Mengagi" is a word and a term that is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite simply, 'mengaji classes' are not something that a non practicing or so-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to. To put this in a Christian context, this is something above and beyond simply enrolling your child in Sunday school classes."

"The fact that Obama had attended mengaji classes is well known in Indonesia and has left many there wondering just when Obama is going to come out of the closet." As Plato said, the images and stories we feed our children affect them for life.

"As I've stated before, the evidence seems to quite clearly show that both Ann Dunham and her husband Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo were in fact devout Muslims themselves and they raised their son as such."

Obama's half-sister, Maya, recalled that the family attended the mosque "for big communal events," and "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers."

On January 24, 2007, the Obama campaign released the following statement, "To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Then, on March 14th, 2007, the Obama Campaign told the LA Times he wasn’t a "practicing Muslim."

But his official website says: "Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian" (dated: 11/12/2007, and still up as of 5/5/2008)

This is the basic problem with Obama -- his dissimulation -- some would call it outright lying -- but read what his classmates say:

Mates


In 2007, classmate Rony Amiris described young Barry as enjoying football and playing marbles and of being a very devout Muslim. Amir said, "Barry was previously quite religious in Islam."

"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house. If he was wearing a sarong he looked funny," said Rony.

Amiris now the manager of the Bank Mandiri, Jakarta, recently said, "Barry was previously quite religious in Islam. His birth father, Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim economist from Kenya. Before marrying Ann Dunham, Hussein Obama was married to a woman from Kenya who had seven children. All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims"

Rony extrapolates further, that Obama at one point had to change his religion if he ever intended later to run for the office of President of the United States because America would never elect a Muslim to the be President of the United States.

Also in 2007, Emirsyah Satar, CEO of Garuda Indonesia, was quoted as saying, "He (Obama) was often in the prayer room wearing a 'sarong', at that time."

"He was quite religious in Islam but only after marrying Michelle, he changed his religion."
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Pragmatist wrote:
Mindstorm wrote:
Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."
We know for a fact that Leftists are less loyal. They have been siding with the Islamists, communists and march lock-step with state terrorist organizations such a Hezbollah.

Btw, Arie Kruglanski called how that article was written -- bullcrap.

He went on in another article to state "liberals could be characterized on the basis of our overall profile as relatively disorganized, indecisive and perhaps overly drawn to ambiguity -- all of which may be liabilities in mass politics and other public and professional domains[/i]."

The Cat, is still steaming because Ali Sina stated that 'liberalism is a disease' in talking about American politics.
How right you are Mindstorm neither THHuxley or his pet CAT can do anything at all to refute all the evidence that is piling up and that shows their Messiah is an INCOMPETENT, INEXPERIENCED Laughing JACKASS. So they do what all deluded CHARLATANS do when cornered like RATS they attack the messenger. The last refuge of the defeated scoundrel.
Although I know that Neocons aren't capable of any discernment at all, picturing everything in black/white,
I've emphasized some parts to help you understand reading a text. We read 'Might be' & 'Could be' not as
Pragmatist defines it 'we know for a fact'. That is, such a study hasn't been made yet about the liberals!

And this is a HUGE study, very professional, a meta-analysis covering 88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases.

-Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition-, the study, integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism,
dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management),
and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). It concludes: 'The core ideology of conservatism
stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and
dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat
.''

Now this study applies more accurately the further right from Conservatism we get and do not apply so well if
considering the 'moderate Republicans''. But in the case of the Neocons, such as Pragmatist, it fully applies...
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity". As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction. (...) "This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.
'Moderate Republicans' (like TH_Huxley) are leaving the GOP in masses, not to mix anymore with Neocons freaks.
I personally hope they'll stick to their true inheritance and force the Neocons to form their own party. It'll be fun...
Image

And, looking at their posts, here, there and everywhere, we fully understand why.[/quote]

I have a message for you Camp following CAT and your oh so zealous ever vigilant PROTECTOR ixolite. Don't think we haven't noticed.


Meeeeowwwww :lol1: :lotpot:
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by The Cat »

Mrs Piggy wrote:http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971
BORN IN THE USA?
Keyes to appeal case on Obama's eligibility
Lawyer says dismissal 'eviscerates' Constitution's rules for president
Posted: March 26, 2009
11:45 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Alan Keyes

A lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for president on California's general election ballot last year, challenging President Obama's eligibility to hold office under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution will be appealed, according to a lawyer working on the case.
Dear Mrs Piggy, welcome at FFI. :cool:

Then again, I'm not sure if you're confounding propaganda with goodly informations or if it's plain bad faith.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Yet MORE insanity from the LIAR Messiah.


The New World Economy -- The End Of America


Obama supports the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes -- all under the supervision of the world body.

In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the "Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol." Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.

Getting that deal done has become the United Nations' highest priority, and the Bonn meeting is seen as a critical step along the path to what the U.N. calls an "ambitious and effective international response to climate change," which is intended to culminate at the later gathering in Copenhagen.

The paper makes no effort to calculate the magnitude of the costs and disruption involved, but despite the discreet presentation, makes clear that they will reverberate across the entire global economic system.

Experts have been much more blunt about the draconian nature of the measures they deem necessary to make "effective" greenhouse gas reductions.

In an influential but highly controversial paper called "Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change," British economist Nicholas Lord Stern, formerly a high British Treasury official, has declared that industrial economies would need to cut their per capita carbon dioxide emissions by "at least 80% by 2050," while the biggest economies, like the U.S.'s, would have to make cuts of 90 percent.

Stern also calls for "immediate and binding" reduction targets for developed nations of 20 percent to 40 percent by 2020.

To meet Stern's 2050 goals, he says, among other things, "most of the world's electricity production will need to have been decarbonized."

Wow! "The U.S would have to make cuts of 90 percent." The United Nations wants America to revert to the water wheel and windmill.

Obama must be thrilled. With the stroke of a pen, he will do to America what Hitler, Tojo, Stalin and the rest failed to do with their armies.

And what makes it even MORE ridiculous is the they have not been able to PROVE that THE NATURAL PHENOMENON of Climate Change is affected at all by Man. In fact the LAST four years have been the COLDEST in the last 50. So do Carbon Emissions have a time clock you know warm it this year cool it next??? The Green NAZIS really do make me laugh.

 

Great is Truth, and mighty above all things
Valedictorian address by The Right Honourable
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
to the Heartland International Conference on Climate Change
10 March 2009



HERE are they all today, those bed-wetting moaning Minnies of the
Apocalyptic Traffic-Light Tendency – those Greens too yellow to admit
they’re really Reds?
The main message of this conference to the bed-wetters is this. Stop telling lies. You
are fooling fewer and fewer of us. However many lies are uttered, the scientific truth
remains unalterable.
The Forces of Darkness, with their “global warming” chimera, came perilously close
to ending the Age of Enlightenment and Reason. They almost ushered in a new Dark
Age. Yet they have failed. Why? They have failed because you, here, have had the
courage to face them down, to confront their falsehoods, and to nail their lies.
The Age of Light and Reason shall not die. Dylan Thomas wrote, “Do not go gentle to
that last goodnight: Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” You have not raged in
vain. The world is not cooking: it is cooling. Every opinion poll – even those
conducted by the bedwetters themselves – shows that global public opinion is
cooling as fast as the global climate.
In one recent survey, “global warming” came at the very bottom of a list of political
and environmental concerns, immediately behind the need to clean up dog-poop on
the streets. Why? Because dog-poop is a real environmental problem. “Global
warming” is not. The correct policy response to the non-problem of climate change is
to have the courage to do nothing.
We, the people, are no longer afraid of “global warming”. We are fed up to the back
teeth of hearing about it. We are bored by it. And the bed-wetters know it. Their ever-
more-outlandish predictions are a measure of their blind panic. The Dr. Strangelove
of NASA, in the latest of a series of ever-more-desperate attempts to flog the dead
horse of climatic apocalypse, recently wrote that sea level is about to rise by 246 feet,
“und anyvun zat disagrees viz me vill be arrested und put on trial for high crimes
against humanidy und nature.”
W
  2
When Hansen’s political ally and financial beneficiary Al Gore had only predicted
one-twelfth that amount of imminent sea-level rise, Mr. Justice Burton said in the
London High Court, “The Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any
scientific view.” But then, Al Gore knew that all along. In 2005, the year he said sea
level would imminently rise by 20 feet, he bought a $4 million condo in the St. Regis
tower, San Francisco – just feet from the ocean at Fisherman’s Wharf. The only
danger to sea level is from all those bedwetters.
Now, if we’re going to exaggerate, let’s exaggerate properly. Sea level is going to rise
not by Gore’s 20 feet, not by Hansen’s 246 feet, but by 2640 feet. Half a mile. You
heard it here first. There goes Andy Revkin of the New York Times, dashing to the
telephone to tell them to hold the front page.
All lands not submerged beneath the inexorably-rising waves will bake and wither
under permanent year-round drought. Yea, and the very same lands will smother
and drown under permanent year-round floods. And plagues of locusts. And
pestilences. And famines. And brimstone and fire. And boils and pustules, yea, verily,
and other things that pullulate and fester and sound nasty enough to get big
headlines and bigger research grants. (I see now why these bed-wetters exaggerate
on such an outrageous scale. It’s a lot of fun.)
Dr. Strangelove has published a peer-reviewed paper – so it must be true – saying
60% of all species will soon be flung into extinction. It won’t be 60%. It will be 326%.
Whaddaya mean, we can’t extinguish more than 100%? You heard the US President.
Yes We Can. How do we know we can? Because the IPCC says.
“Because the IPCC says.” That pathetic phrase is nothing less than an instrument of
political abdication on the part of our democratically-elected leaders. There was once
an androgynous crooner who called himself “The Artist Formerly Known As Prince”.
In Britain, Her Majesty’s Opposition, “The Party Formerly Known As Conservative,”
has stated, in the person of its chief of policy: “We cannot question what the
scientists say.” Yes we can.
When the Founding Fathers of this great nation met in that hot summer long ago in
the City of Brotherly Love to craft the noble Constitution of the United States, they
were building their great nation upon the solid foundation of your Declaration of
Independence. Independence! This winter, if the United States signs up to the Treaty
of Copenhagen, her independence – and our freedom – will be gone forever. If
Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be turning in his grave.
Last year the President of the Czech Republic told this Conference, “It’s not about
climatology – it’s about freedom.” This year the President of the European Union
told us the same. Two statesmen with one message.
Let me ask you this question: and it is not a rhetorical question – I want to hear your
answer loud and clear. Do we want to be governed not by representatives whom we
elect and hold to account, but by the technocratic-centralist wannabe-world-
government of the IPCC?
Do we want to pay a single red cent more of our taxes to fund the “global warming”
boondoggle?
Are we terrified by the spectre of sea level rising 246 feet?
  3
Do we expect sea level to rise this century by more than about 1 foot?
Do we want to see the bed-wetting liars, hucksters, shysters, fraudsters and
racketeers ever more extravagantly rewarded with honors and prizes for their ever-
more-extravagant falsehoods, fables, and fictions?
Do we want cap-‘n’-trade?
Do we need carbon taxes?
Do we want to let Joe Bast get away with not organizing another Heartland
Conference next year?
You, in this room, have bravely upheld the truth and the scientific method against all
manner of lies, threats, sanctions, personal attacks and entertaining revisions to your
CreepyMedia biographies. Because you have not failed or faltered, the Forces of
Darkness are now scuttling back into their lairs, there to snivel in the eternal
darkness of utter oblivion and CNN.
Divine Providence, unlike the bed-wetters, has a sense of humour. Governor
Schwarzenegger – now, there’s an oxymoron for you: or “moron” for short. As soon
as Governor Schwarzenegger announced that the science was settled – and how the
hell would he know? – two-thirds of California’s citrus crop was destroyed. Were all
those oranges and lemons wiped out by drought? Or by forest fires? No, by an
exceptionally bitter frost.
Last summer, just as the President of the Royal Society, the world’s oldest taxpayer-
funded pressure-group, was telling us, “Global warming is happening now,” global
temperatures had already been plunging for nearly seven years, at a rate equivalent
to almost 4 Fahrenheit degrees per century. Has your favourite news medium
reported that? Probably not. Maybe that’s why the President of the Royal Society
didn’t know. He doesn’t get his science from the learned journals. He gets it from the
media.
Just as Tony Bliar was announcing on his blog that “global warming is getting
worse”, just as Al Gore was testifying before the Senate – during an ice-storm – that
we face a “climate crisis”, global temperatures plummeted still more. They have been
plummeting at a rate equivalent to 11 Fahrenheit degrees per century throughout the
four years since Gore launched his mawkish, sci-fi comedy horror B-movie. At this
rate, by mid-century we shall roasting in a new Ice Age.
Gore no longer dares to publish his supposed “evidence” for “climate crisis”, because
he is rightly terrified that we here will pounce on it at once and demonstrate that it is
materially, serially, seriously inaccurate – demonstrate its falsity by the dull,
outmoded method of reference to the facts, the science, and the data.
When Gore appeared before the Senate a few weeks ago, the hearing was supposed to
be public. For it is one of the most ancient and settled principles of parliamentary
democracy that the deliberations of those whom we elect, and the testimony that
their committees hear, shall be open and visible to all. Yet, with the furtive
connivance of Senator Boxer and her politicized snivel servants, the science slides
Gore showed to the Senators were kept secret. I and others have asked for them.
  4
They are “not available at this time”. And the Senate is “exempt from the Freedom of
Information Act”.
Why are those slides “not available at this time”? Because Gore is running scared.
Rightly scared. Scared of prosecution for peddling a false prospectus in Generation
Investment Management. Neither Gore nor any bed-wetter will any longer dare to
debate the science of climate with us or anyone in the light of day. Gore’s speaking
contract stipulates that he will not debate, he will not answer unscripted questions,
and he will not be interviewed except by journalists acceptable to him. Which
journalists are they? The dim ones that don’t know any science, and the prejudiced
ones that don’t care. Just about all of them.
Recently four of us in this room were invited to a meeting of Government and
opposition leaders and policymakers in Madrid, to debate the science and economics
of climate against Al Gore (not a climate scientist); Railroad Engineer Pachauri, the
head of the UN’s climate science working group (not a climate scientist); Sir Nicholas
Stern, the author of the UK Socialist Government’s joke report on the economics of
climate change (not a climate scientist); and the Environment Minister of Spain (not
a climate scientist).
All four of us – three climate scientists and I (not a climate scientist) accepted the
invitation to debate. All four of them refused. They said they would only come if they
could speak on their own, without facing any challenge, any debate, any question,
any fact, any inconvenient truth. Not one of them dared to face us. They did not have
what in English we should call the cojones.
There was no climate crisis. There is no climate crisis. There will be no climate crisis.
“Global warming” is not a global crisis. It is a global scientific fraud.
Without you, that blunt truth might have taken far longer to emerge than it has. And
delay is fatal. Though lies cannot alter or harm the truth, they can kill our fellow
men. The environmental movement is out of control. It is now humankind’s deadliest
enemy. In the name of humanity, it must be outlawed. Thirty years ago, the soi-
disant “Greens” agitated for DDT to be banned. They killed 40 million people of
malaria, most of them children. Eventually, after a third of a century, the WHO at
last caved in at last to humanitarian pressure from me and others and reversed the
ban. Dr. Arata Kochi, announcing the end of that murderous ban, said, “Usually in
this field politics comes first and science second. Now we must take a stand on the
science and the data.” That is what you in this room have so gallantly done. You have
taken a stand on the science and the data.
Now the very same soi-disant “Greens” are killing millions by starvation in a dozen of
the world’s poorest regions. Their biofuel scam, a nasty by-product of their shoddy,
senseless, failed, falsified, fraudulent “global warming” bugaboo, has turned millions
of acres of agricultural land from growing food for humans to growing fuel for
automobiles. If we let them, they will carelessly kill tens of millions more by pursuing
Osamabamarama’s stated ambition of shutting down nine-tenths of the economies of
the West and flinging us back to the Stone Age without even the right to light fires in
our caves.
The prosperity of the West is not only our sustenance. It is also the very lifeblood of
the struggling nations of the Third World. If our economies fail, we are
inconvenienced, but they die.
  5
In the past year there have been food riots in a dozen major regions, in protest at the
doubling of the price of staple food which the World Bank blames almost entirely on
the biofuel scam. Has your favourite news medium reported the riots and the mass
starvation? Probably not. Has it given our starving fellow-men – our brothers and
sisters – the same attention and prominence and column inches and frequency of
coverage as it has given to every icicle putatively dribbling in Greenland? Certainly
not.
Those who are dying are only black people, poor people, in far-away countries of
which we know little, with no voice and no vote. Why should we care? Well, we
should care. And we – you and I – we do care. In this debate it is we who hold the
moral high ground.
There is no incompatibility between science and religion, as long as religion does not
attempt to usurp the realm of science, and as long as science does not become a
religion. So I hope that this scientific conference will forgive a Christian if, in a
Christian country founded by Christians, he does his duty as the valedictorian by
sending you away from this great gathering with a blessing – a blessing that has been
spoken in the stone-built village churches of England for longer than anyone can
remember. Let it be a tribute to your steadfast courage.

“Go forth into the world in peace;
“Be of good courage;
“Hold fast to that which is good;
“Render to no man evil for evil;
“Strengthen the faint-hearted;
“Support the weak;
“Help the afflicted;
“Honour all men;
“Love and serve the Lord,
“Rejoicing in the power of the Holy Ghost;

“And the blessing of God Almighty,
“The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
“Be upon you and remain with you always. Amen.”
Last edited by Pragmatist on Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
User avatar
THHuxley
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:55 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by THHuxley »

So... who are you quoting from? Jerome Corsi? The same guy who faked emails between Obama and Odinga? His "paper, WND?

Can't you find a decent source that is not called (even by conservative columnists) "Wing Nut Daily?"

Where do we start?

All students would have studied the Qur'an. Even Christian ones.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2643542

Tine Hahiyary was never one of Obama's teachers.
I was not Barry's teacher but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is currently 80 years old. The teacher who taught him was named Hendri but he has died.

http://laotze.blogspot.com/2007/01/trac ... art-5.html
Ann Dunham was an agnostic, not a Muslim.
Maya Soetoro-Ng, when asked if her mother was an atheist, said, "I wouldn't have called her an atheist. She was an agnostic. She basically gave us all the good books — the Bible, the Hindu Upanishads and the Taoist scripture, the Tao Te Ching, Sun Tzu — and wanted us to recognize that everyone has something beautiful to contribute."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magaz ... .html?_r=1
A sarong is not "Islamic" dress.

Rony Amiris has a lot to say about things he cannot possibly know anything about. His discussion of Barack Senior, his first wife, his other children, his family in Kenya... none of that can possibly be first hand knowledge.

So too with Emirsyah Satar. How could he possible know what happened when Obama married Michelle? He had not met Obama in a decade and a half.

This is in contrast to the folks I quoted, all of whom had first hand knowledge of what they were speaking about.

You are such a sucker, Prag.
The moral absolutist has no doubt concerning the righteousness of the blood on their blade.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

THHuxley wrote:So... who are you quoting from? Jerome Corsi? The same guy who faked emails between Obama and Odinga? His "paper, WND?

Can't you find a decent source that is not called (even by conservative columnists) "Wing Nut Daily?"

Where do we start?

All students would have studied the Qur'an. Even Christian ones.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2643542

Tine Hahiyary was never one of Obama's teachers.
I was not Barry's teacher but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is currently 80 years old. The teacher who taught him was named Hendri but he has died.

http://laotze.blogspot.com/2007/01/trac ... art-5.html
Ann Dunham was an agnostic, not a Muslim.
Maya Soetoro-Ng, when asked if her mother was an atheist, said, "I wouldn't have called her an atheist. She was an agnostic. She basically gave us all the good books — the Bible, the Hindu Upanishads and the Taoist scripture, the Tao Te Ching, Sun Tzu — and wanted us to recognize that everyone has something beautiful to contribute."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magaz ... .html?_r=1
A sarong is not "Islamic" dress.

Rony Amiris has a lot to say about things he cannot possibly know anything about. His discussion of Barack Senior, his first wife, his other children, his family in Kenya... none of that can possibly be first hand knowledge.

So too with Emirsyah Satar. How could he possible know what happened when Obama married Michelle? He had not met Obama in a decade and a half.

This is in contrast to the folks I quoted, all of whom had first hand knowledge of what they were speaking about.

You are such a sucker, Prag.
How very very TELLING HUCKSTER you have COMPLETELY ignored what your LIAR Messiah himself wrote how interesting. BTW Koranic Studies are NOT compulsory for NON Muslim pupils in Indonesia and unthinkable in a Catholic run MULTI FAITH school where he would ONLY be required to do so if he WAS Muslim so please peddle your BS somewhere else where gullible acolytes like CAT and others will swallow it 'hook line and sinker'. Who the sucker now? Seems like you have swallowed whole and without questioning all the Obama PROPAGANDA. Gullibility rules hey Huckster.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Mrs Piggy
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:56 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Mrs Piggy »

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/ ... h_cer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
By Joe the Farmer
Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it's possible that he's not a natural born citizen, isn't eligible to be President under the Constitution, and this issue could be bigger than Watergate -- or any other "gate" in history?

Are you afraid that if you were even to raise the subject with your friends that they will think you wear a tinfoil hat, because Factcheck.org, the final arbiter of truth in the universe, said so?

Are you with the news media, and after spending so much money to get Barack Obama elected, you'd hate to ruin your investment?

Are you a talk radio host who thinks that if you say the burden of proof needed to demonstrate one is eligible to be Commander in Chief should be at least as high as, oh, say, the level to be eligible for Hawaiian homestead status (see 1.F. below), that you'd be forced to give equal time to someone who disagrees?

Are you a conservative, libertarian, or any conscientious constitutionalist from any ideological side of life, who's convinced something's not right, but you're afraid your reputation might be tarnished because, after all, this could be one big Saul-Alinsky-style set-up, and the joke would be on you?

Fear not! Joe the Farmer has prepared an outline showing that no matter how this issue is ultimately resolved, you have legitimate concerns, and that Barack Obama should, simply out of respect for the nation he was elected to lead, disclose the sealed vault copy of his birth certificate.

Given the circumstances, if Barack Obama respected this nation, he would prove it by the simplest and easiest of gestures - unless, of course, all this talk about change and hope was just a bunch of bull, and he's just "another politician." Here's the outline:

1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

A. From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to adopted children).

B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.

C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.

D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.

E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.

F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."



2. Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.

A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine."

B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "ha personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.

C. The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.

D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child's life.


1. We don't know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama's birth) than they are today. However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.

2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: "An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children."

3. Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the "ease" of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: "Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently."


3. It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama's records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing. Obama's refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.

4. Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.

A. Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn't make sense. Weighing factors such as costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing, he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside in not disclosing. There may be other reasons, but one could speculate that he hasn't disclosed because:


1. He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;

2. He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story he has told (and sold);

3. He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a "victim." This would energize his supporters. This would also make other charges about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill Ayers and others of some infamy. Such a clever yet distasteful tactic would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul-Alinsky-style way to manipulate public opinion. But while this tactic may energize his supporters, it would convince those who believe him to be a manipulator that he's not only just that, but a real pro at it. This would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.


B. His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. See, "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?" Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?

C. This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions. See, "Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down." Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.


The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this as a rightwing conspiracy, is what's the downside of disclosing? This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one. The growing number of people who demand an answer in conformance with the Constitution are doing their work; the people's watchdogs aren't.

The pen name Joe the Farmer pays tribute to Joe the Plumber, who had the audacity to ask a question.
327 Comments on "Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate"
Mrs Piggy
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:56 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Mrs Piggy »

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/ ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons
If you believe in individual rights and the notion that our Constitution is a document granting enumerated but limited powers to the federal government, then you have reason to be troubled by the recent dismissal in Berg v. Obama et al.

Philip Berg, Democrat and former Assistant Attorney General for Pennsylvania, brought suit alleging that under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama is ineligible to be President. Federal Judge R. Barclay Surrick recently granted the motion to dismiss filed by Senator Obama and other defendants, including the Democratic National Committee, on grounds that Berg lacked standing to sue as a mere voter.

The judicial doctrine of standing is important. It is a requirement that plaintiffs have a real stake in the outcome of a real controversy. This prevents, among other problems, persons bringing lawsuits simply to harass defendants. The judicial doctrine of standing is one of many judicial doctrines designed to limit the courts from being overloaded with cases that aren't properly resolvable by the courts, such as ripeness (case brought too soon), mootness (case brought too late), lack of jurisdiction, etc.

When constitutional rights are at stake, courts have tended to give wider latitude to the standing of plaintiffs. The theory is that another person's loss of constitutional rights may indeed affect one's own constitutional rights.

Judge Surrick's carefully worded opinion cites to cases where standing was at issue, including a similar case in which the eligibility of John McCain to be President was challenged. In deciding that "a candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters," Judge Surrick writes in a footnote of potentially considerable consequence:

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring . . .

Here's where I believe Judge Surrick's decision breaks down from a constitutional perspective.

The enumerated powers of the respective branches of government are set forth in the first three articles of the Constitution. Article III states that the judicial power is vested in the courts, and "shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ."

A case about whether a candidate is a natural born citizen seems quite clearly to arise under the Constitution, and thus within the exclusive domain of the courts. Under the language of the Constitution itself, there appears to be no need for Congress to pass a law authorizing individuals to file suit, or for courts to hear such challenges. In fact, there may be a separation of powers issue if Congress were to attempt to legislate broader or narrower access to the courts to hear constitutional challenges. That could infringe on the jurisdiction of the courts "to all Cases . . . arising under this Constitution."

Secondly, the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I do not extend to dictating who may have standing to sue under the Constitution. One may argue that Judge Surrick relied on what some believe to be the catch-all "Necessary and Proper Clause" in Article I, Section 8[18]. That authorizes Congress:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Judge Surrick, however, never cites to that clause as his reason. Indeed, it would be inherently dangerous to our freedoms if Congress could dictate who can and cannot sue to enforce the Constitution.

So if the Framers established that courts "shall" hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people. Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.

Disputes under the Natural Born Citizen Clause are few and far between, so Judge Surrick couldn't have been worried about his court being flooded with new cases. In this presidential election, however, both candidates of the two major parties were faced with similar challenges. Both filed motions to dismiss for lack of standing.

It's a shame these cases didn't get more attention and scrutiny based simply on how the candidates handled them. When faced with the potential for public reprobation before either acquired the ominous powers of the Presidency, both candidates chose a path indicating preference for their own power over the rights of individuals.

Although the merits of the Berg case weren't reached, Senator Obama has raised concerns in other contexts about his obscured and under-scrutinized views on "collective" rights as opposed to rights of individuals. His motion to dismiss for lack of standing doesn't portend well for how he would view individual rights under the Constitution if he were elected President.

Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines. Judge Surrick's reliance on case law to dismiss Berg's suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer's perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty.

His decision to "punt" the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case. Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising, Inc., Manassas, VA.
93 Comments on "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?"
Mrs Piggy
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:56 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Mrs Piggy »

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/ ... mendm.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
March 27, 2009
Obama's Sights on Second Amendment
By Jan LaRue
While campaigning for the U.S. Senate and then the presidency, Barack Obama said he believed in the individual right to bear arms. Those aware of his record and rhetoric reckoned he was referring to his wife's penchant for sleeveless attire, not the Second Amendment.

During his 2004 run for the Senate, Obama said

"I think that the Second Amendment means something. I think that if the government were to confiscate everybody's guns unilaterally that I think that would be subject to constitutional challenge."


No kidding.

He didn't say it would be unconstitutional, just "subject to constitutional challenge." Nor did he express any opposition.

During the presidential campaign, a case challenging Washington D.C.'s draconian gun laws was pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. The laws banned all handgun registrations, prohibited handguns already registered from being carried from room to room in the home without a license, and required all firearms in the home, including rifles and shotguns, to be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

In June, the Court released its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the laws violate the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to service in a militia as secured by the Fourth Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, emphasized that the individual right to bear arms pre-exists, and is independent of, the Constitution:

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . ."

Obama admitted in a Feb. 11, 2008, interview that he supported the handgun ban, and that it was "constitutional." On June 26, he said he agreed with the Court's decision, but added that the right to bear arms is subject to "reasonable regulations." He never "explained" how an absolute ban on handguns is "reasonable," or how he can agree with the ruling, which said it was unreasonable. Obama's inconsistencies are numerous, as John R. Lott Jr has noted.

Obama continued to duck and cover by talking about getting illegal guns off the streets, background checks for children and the mentally ill, and attacking the NRA.

Since his election, finding mention of the Second Amendment on the White House Web site takes about as long as getting to the front of the line at a gun store. What is on the site could be engraved on a .22 shell casing.

WH: The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. [Emphasis added.]


It's far from the high caliber opinion of the Court or those of the Founders who fought for and secured the right:

* "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist 46

* "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry

* "That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent "the people" of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams

* "A free people ought ... to be armed." George Washington

* "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson

* "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 28


Despite the Heller ruling and his professed regard for the Amendment, Obama will push legislation to make possession and purchase of guns and ammunition as burdensome as the constitutionally comatose congressional majority will enact.

We should heed the warning of James Madison, "Father of the Constitution":

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Jan LaRue is Senior Legal Analyst with the American Civil Rights Union; former Chief Counsel at Concerned for Women; former Legal Studies Director at Family Research Council; and former Senior Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families.
84 Comments on "Obama's Sights on Second Amendment"
Mrs Piggy
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:56 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Mrs Piggy »

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN



By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.

To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?


Advertisement

These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”


Advertisement

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve” and “sign,” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. http://www.piecesofeight.us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. http://www.crashmaker.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" ... and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms...

He can be reached at:
13877 Napa Drive
Manassas, Virginia 20112.

E-Mail: Not available
Mrs Piggy
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:56 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Mrs Piggy »

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/ ... menei.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
March 27, 2009
Obama and Khamenei
By Amil Imani
During the U.S. presidential election, President Obama boasted that he would embark on personal diplomacy to solve our foreign policy problems with terrorist countries such as Syria and the Islamic Republic. He said that he would meet their leaders without any preconditions to settle our disputes. Doesn't that sound like a change of heart, a real change and a great relief to us all? Never mind the fact that this president has about zero experience in foreign policy matters, he is foolish enough to aim to negotiate with the ever-conniving Assad of Syria and masters of deceptions such as the mullahs of Iran.

President Obama, how do you propose to engage the point-man of the end-of-the-worlder Shiite regime in negotiation or discussion without sacrificing the valiant Iranian people who are struggling to free themselves from the yoke of fascist Islamists? You believe that you, still somewhat wet behind the ears, can do better than the four-year combined efforts of seasoned diplomats from France, Germany, and Great Britain?

There are those who see the solution in negotiation with the Mullahs. These people are either naïve or dishonest. The Mullahs' idea of negotiation is Islamic to the core. They take all and you give all since you, according to Islamic fiat, are not entitled to anything. The track record of Muslims negotiating even among themselves in places like Iraq, the Palestinian territory, Pakistan and almost every other Islamic land speaks volumes.

President Obama, it takes two to tango, as the old saying goes. The uncompromising oil-intoxicated fanatics of Iran and their proxies don't want to dance with you. They want the entire floor -- the Middle East -- and the rest of the world down the road.

Sure enough, a week ago, President Obama broadcast a goodwill video for the Iranians celebrating their thousands of years-old Persian New Year, offering the country a "new beginning" in relations. While Iranians welcomed President Obama's goodwill gesture, at the same time they were disgusted when President Obama did not differentiate between a gang of terrorists who have been holding Iran and the Iranian people hostage for 30 years.

President Obama said, "The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations." But, Mr. President, the Iranian nation does not wish to be associated with this occupying regime, whatsoever. In fact, they want the Islamic Republic to be thrown into the dustbin of history as quickly as possible. Mr. President, today, the Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the greatest threats to the stability of the civilized world and humanity at large. It continues to impose its horrendous ideology on the Iranian population.

It also looks like my people are going to be betrayed once again by a badly misguided American president. Jimmy Carter helped give birth to the virulent Shiite Islamism by forbidding the Shah of Iran to crush the bloodthirsty Ayatollah Khomeini and his band of rabid Islamists. Now, President Obama intends to confer legitimacy on the illegitimate child, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Jimmy Carter did his thing and my people died. In no time at all, the vicious mullahs gutted the Iranian armed forces and executed many of its most capable officers. Saddam Hussein watched gleefully as the Iranian military disintegrated and found the opportunity to carry out his Pan Arabism ambition by attacking Iran. Some eight years of barbaric butchery killed and maimed millions on both sides, gutted the vibrant Iranian economy, and visited misery of all sorts upon the Iranian people.

Mr. President, I have been observing and worrying about my country of birth, Iran, ever since a gang of murderous mullahs and their functionaries assumed power. To my infinite regret and the regret of millions of Iranians, the situation in Iran under the fascist rule of Mullahs is rapidly deteriorating in every respect. And the last thing they need is appeasing negotiators to give the mullahs a new lease on life.

Mr. President, beware of mullahs bearing gifts! The mullahs are diehard adherents of the Islamists' eleventh commandment "Thou shall not lie or dissimilate (Taqqyeh), deceive or cheat (ketman) unless they serve a higher purpose." And to these devoted faithful, there is no higher purpose in the world than serving Allah's bidding, as they like it and as they interpret it.

And in the Quran itself, Allah gives these fellows their mandate: Cleanse the earth from all kefirs (infidels), and help usher in the golden rule of Islam over a corrupt world. This high-purpose strategic goal of Islamization legitimizes any and all tactics.

Qur'an 8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."

Allah, in his kindness, leaves a bit of wiggle room for the unbelievers. Those who refuse to convert or whose life is spared may live under the rule of Islam by paying poll taxes.

Quran 9:29, "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."

These men of Allah are urged to use every "stratagem of war," to kill and take the disbelievers as captives. The ones they do not kill, mostly women and children, they take as spoils of war and slaves. These devotees of Allah have been and continue to be among the most persistent practitioners of slavery.

Quran 9:5, "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

And, as for Iran's mullahs' unyielding drive to acquire the ultimate weapon, it is in obedience to the command of the Quran. And "terrorism," abhorrent to the civilized world, is explicitly enjoined on the faithful.

Quran 8:59 "The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy."

And for those who advocate retreating to the safety of "the fortress of America," the following warning should dispel their vain hope. Europe is already partly invaded; America and other infidel lands are next.

Quran 13:41 "Do they not see us advancing from all sides into the land (of the disbelievers), reducing its borders (by giving it to believers in war victories).

It is worse than appeasement to negotiate a "deal" with the Islamists in Iran because any deal struck with these mullahs is only another ruse for them to further their plans. "The UN resolutions are nothing more than pieces of paper good for fire, they can pass them all they want," President Ahmadinejad proclaims, belligerently. These Islamists go by their 1400-year-old charter of Allah, the Quran, the same charter that they hold in one hand while slashing the throat of an innocent infidel and yelling joyously "Allah is the greatest" the whole time.

In return, the head of the hostage takers, the supreme leader Ali Khamenei uncompromising broadcast his own video address to a crowd in the northeastern city of Mashhad. Chants of "Death to America" broke out as he spoke. Khamenei said there will be no change between the two countries unless the American president puts an end to US hostilities toward Iran and brings "real changes" in foreign policy. In other words, allow us to continue butchering the Iranian people, developing our nuclear bomb, assassinate Persian bloggers, support any and all terrorist groups around the globe, hang under age children, rape virgin girls before their execution, lift all the sanctions on Iran and stay out of our family business. In return, we will give you what you deserve, nothing.

To the misguided President Obama who wants to make peace with the devil, "Supreme Guide," mullah Ali Khamenei, the civilized Iranians, who are descendants of Cyrus the Great, find mullah Ali Khamenei and his cabal of Islamists guilty of heinous crimes. A partial list of charges is given below.

Domestically:

*He does not represent the Iranian people. He is a usurper of power. He is guilty of transforming a noble nation into a world pariah. He is an Islamic terrorist.

*He is denying and violating a long-suffering people of all its human rights.

* He is guilty of beating, imprisoning and torturing a few dozen women who braved participating in a peaceful demonstration pleading for equal family rights at the International Day of Women.

* He systematically beats, imprisons, and tortures all manner of citizens, from schoolteachers to students to union workers, for daring to raise their voices against the plight to which they have been subjected.

* He has savagely beaten and hauled to his dungeons of torture and death over a thousand of the tens of thousands of teachers who gathered in front of the parliament, requesting nothing more than their back pay and living wage.

* He directs systematic genocidal measures against all non-Shi'a religious minorities, with Baha'is as the prime target.

* He arrests some Christians that even his holy book Quran calls "People of the Book," for observing Christmas.

* He implements barbaric practices of stoning, hanging and amputations for those who are convicted of crimes in his kangaroo courts without due process. He even imprisons those few lawyers who rise in the defense of the innocent.

* He has plundered, mismanaged and doled out Iran's national wealth with the result that the great majority of the people are living in poverty. Iranian women are forced into prostitution to survive or simply sold as sex slaves in Persian Gulf states.

* His fascist misrule of nearly three decades has driven millions of Iran's best children to the four corners of the world. Hundreds of thousands of educated Iranians are compelled to continue the exodus, depriving Iran of their sorely needed talents at home.

* He spends a fortune on the nuclear program that he claims is only aimed for peaceful purposes, while turning Iran into little more than a gas station nation, with its precious oil wealth squandered and its facilities on the verge of collapse through neglect.

* He has created a suffocating social atmosphere that has driven masses of the people to the use of hard drugs as a way of numbing their pain.

Internationally

* He looks far and wide to support any and all terrorists. His delusional theology mandates the creation of horrific conditions in the world so that the Hidden Imam is compelled to appear and establish his rule.

* He spares no efforts at sabotaging any settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis. He arms and trains all Palestinian factions such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and any and all that come.

* He directs similar criminal schemes on his eastern flank, in Afghanistan. He considers any democratic system as the enemy of Islamofascism, and rightfully so.

* He works ceaselessly, expands Iran's stolen funds, and does all he can in support of his Shi'a co-fascists Hezbollah in Lebanon.

* His hands are dripping with the blood of thousands of Iraqis, victims of his bloodthirsty kin mercenaries aiming to kill a budding democracy in Iraq next door.

* He supplied his mercenaries with armor-piercing projectiles for killing and maiming the coalition forces in Iraq. He, cowardly killing by proxy, using roadside-planted bombs, has taken the lives of nearly 200 Americans.

Mr. President, do you still want to make a deal with this mullah? Misguided advocates of negotiation with the mullahs, beware. The mullahs are on an Allah-mandated mission. They are intoxicated with Petrodollars and aim to settle for nothing less than complete domination of the world under the Islamic Ummah. It is precisely for this reason that they consider America and the West as "Ofooli," setting-dying system, while they believe their Islamism as "Tolooi," rising-living order. They are in no mood for negotiating for anything less than the total surrender of democracy, the very anathema to Islamism.

And to you, the misguided mullah Ali Khamenei, don't be fooled by the sycophants who misinform you. Don't threaten the West by either as-yet-to-come online nuclear weapons or your fantasized sleeper cells. You will be terribly disappointed when Iranian expatriates everywhere will be among the very first to help the authorities find your sleeper cells, if any actually exist, and put them into permanent sleep.

President Obama, I repeat, please don't betray the Iranian people as your predecessors have done.
26 Comments on "Obama and Khamenei"
Mrs Piggy
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:56 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Mrs Piggy »

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/27/ ... nment.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What do you need to know to work for the Pakistani Government?

What do you need to know to work for the Pakistani Government?

According the April 10, 2008 New York Times, the Obama campaign staff stated: 'Mr. Obama visited Pakistan in 1981, on the way back from Indonesia, where his mother and half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, were living. He spent 'about three weeks' there, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton, said, staying in Karachi with the family of a college friend, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, but also traveling to Hyderabad, in India.' That information is significant for two reasons. First and foremost is the fact that Mohammed Hasan Chandoo is a radical Muslim who with his relatives operate a website that is anti-Semitic and anti-American and supports radical Islamic politics.

Many young fundamentalist Muslim 'scholars' have traveled to Hyderabad to witness what they believed was stolen from Islam by India's Hindu majority. Karachi is favored by young radical Muslims because Pakistan was the first former British colony that abandoned English common law for Islamic law following the coup d'etat of General Mohammed Zia who overthrew the democratically elected government of Ali Bhutto in the late 1970s. Barack Obama admitted that he traveled to Karachi while under military rule of madman and dictator General Zia.

A few posters here at Defendourfreedoms.us found a Pakistani forum where an Assistant Director of the Emigration & Overseas Employment for Pakistan's Test & Scrutiny Wing of the Federal Public Service Commission posts. He posts information to help students that want to apply to work for the Pakistani Federal goverment study and pass their tests.
Image

Image
One forum thread Mr. Safdar Mehmood contributed to the forum was the lists of world leaders. On this list for the United States is: "President of USA (44th) Barrack Hussain Obama of Democratic Party* (Kenyan born) (Since 20th Jan 2009)". Who would know Obama's origins better than Pakistan? His mother lived and worked there. Obama was able to enter and spend 3 weeks there during a period of Martial Law. And, in order to work for the government of Pakistan, one's general knowledge must now include the understanding that the United States is ruled by a Kenyan born, Constitutionally invalid occupant.
Image

Image
Make no mistake that Pakistan would be confused by what our Constitutional Laws are. Their citizens have to have a thorough understanding of every countries laws, in particular, the world leaders. The PDFs loaded on the Federal Public Service Commission website include thorough overviews of Constitutional Law, International Relations, History of all the world leader countries including the U.S. and more.

PDFs
Accountancy and Auditing Paper I
Accountancy and Auditing Paper II
Agriculture
Applied Mathematics Paper I
English Literature Paper I
English Precis and Composition
European History Paper I
European History Paper II
Forestry
General Knowledge Everyday Science
General Knowledge Current Affairs
Geography Paper I
Geology Paper I
Geology Paper II
History of USA
International Law
Islamiat
Islamic History and Culture Paper II
Journalism
Mercantile Law
Muslim Law and Jurisprudence
Persian Paper II
Philosophy Paper I
Physics Paper I
Physics Paper II
Political Science Paper II
Psychology Paper II
Zoology Paper II
Applied Mathematics Paper II
Arabic I
Arabic II
Balochi
British History Paper I
British History Paper II
Business Administration
Chemistry Paper II
Economics Paper I
Chemistry Paper I
Botany Paper I
Botany Paper II
Economics Paper II
English Literature Paper II
Essay
Geography Paper II
Islamic History and Culture Paper I
Law Paper II
Persian Paper I
Philosophy Paper II
Political Science Paper I
Psychology Paper I
Pure Mathematics Paper I
Pure Mathematics Paper II
Sociology
Statistics
Urdu Paper I
Urdu Paper II
Zoology Paper I
Computer Science
Constitution Law
General Knowledge Pakistan Affairs
History of Pakistan and India Paper I
History of Pakistan and India Paper II
International Relations
Law Paper I
Public Administration
Punjabi
Pushto
Sindhi

Yes, all of those PDFs to study to work for the Pakistani government. Look what our EEO policies gives us in our government. No, absolutely no mistake, Pakistan knows Obama's origins. And they know the laws of our land. I've no doubt this information will be in Pakistan's advantage.
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by The Cat »

Pragmatist wrote:BTW Koranic Studies are NOT compulsory for NON Muslim pupils in Indonesia and unthinkable in a Catholic run MULTI FAITH school where he would ONLY be required to do so if he WAS Muslim so please peddle your BS somewhere else where gullible acolytes like CAT and others will swallow it 'hook line and sinker'. Who the sucker now? Seems like you have swallowed whole and without questioning all the Obama PROPAGANDA. Gullibility rules hey Huckster.
Obama is scheduled to visit Turkey beginning of April. Do you think he can help smoothing the relations
between the Muslim world and the USA, which have been to the worst since the Bush's crusade in Iraq?

Thanks in advance, since I'm sure it'll be an educated, well researched, answer.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Well lets gullible little CAT your LIAR Messiah is pleasing YOUR hated Neo Cons. Lets see YOUR explanation of that Don't you just love it when OBAMABOTS get stuffed by their own LIAR Messiah :lol1: :lotpot:
This from The Spectator UK

Obama's Afghan strategy wins neo-con plaudits
James Forsyth
Friday, 27th March 2009

It has always been Barack Obama’s foreign policy instincts that have worried me most. I worried that he both did not grasp the security challenges facing the United States and that he was unwilling to expend the necessary political capital on foreign policy. Given these reservations, I was definitely encouraged by Obama’s announcement of Afghan / Pakistan strategy today. Rather than going for a purely counter-terrorism approach which would have failed in the medium-term, Obama has gone for a proper counter-insurgency approach.

Bob Kagan, whose foreign policy instincts I respect, is most impressed:

“Hats off to President Obama for making a gutsy and correct decision on Afghanistan. With many of his supporters, and some of his own advisers, calling either for a rapid exit or a “minimal” counterterrorist strategy in Afghanistan, the president announced today that he will instead expand and deepen the American commitment. He clearly believes that an effective counterterrorism approach requires an effective counterinsurgency strategy, aimed not only at killing bad guys but at strengthening Afghan civil society and governing structures, providing the necessary security to the population so that it can resist pressures from the Taliban, and significantly increasing the much-derided “nation-building” element of the strategy.

The Pakistan element of the problem, as Richard Holbrooke admits, remains unbelievably tricky. But today’s announcement, at least, shows that Obama has no intention of abandoning Afghanistan.

PS Bill Kristol is even more effusive, declaring 'All hail Obama'. :lol1:
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

The Cat wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:BTW Koranic Studies are NOT compulsory for NON Muslim pupils in Indonesia and unthinkable in a Catholic run MULTI FAITH school where he would ONLY be required to do so if he WAS Muslim so please peddle your BS somewhere else where gullible acolytes like CAT and others will swallow it 'hook line and sinker'. Who the sucker now? Seems like you have swallowed whole and without questioning all the Obama PROPAGANDA. Gullibility rules hey Huckster.
Obama is scheduled to visit Turkey beginning of April. Do you think he can help smoothing the relations
between the Muslim world and the USA, which have been to the worst since the Bush's crusade in Iraq?

Thanks in advance, since I'm sure it'll be an educated, well researched, answer.
If you think anything can smooth relations between Islam and Western civilization you are much more of a gullible moonbat fool than I already think you are. Tell me have you EVER read the Krap Kran because I think its certain you never have. You just swallow and parrot all the PC, Multi Culti, Yuman Rites spouting, moral equivalence BS you are fed don't you / I bet you are a paid up Green NAZI too. No wonder you fell for all the Obama BS you are such a gullible fool. Now will the LIAR Messiah and the LYING Turks try to pretend it can that is another question altogether. Don't forget Islamically sanctioned LYING in the cause of Islam and Taqqiya and Hudna or do you as I suspect not have a clue what that all means at all and just follow MOONBAT moral equivalence logic. BTW did your very good Mohammedan or Moonbat friends teach you to throw CRUSADES in to the argument thinking its a very very dirty word and tell me what YOU think the Crusades were and what caused them? I am sure your answer will be very revealing.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

The Cat wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:BTW Koranic Studies are NOT compulsory for NON Muslim pupils in Indonesia and unthinkable in a Catholic run MULTI FAITH school where he would ONLY be required to do so if he WAS Muslim so please peddle your BS somewhere else where gullible acolytes like CAT and others will swallow it 'hook line and sinker'. Who the sucker now? Seems like you have swallowed whole and without questioning all the Obama PROPAGANDA. Gullibility rules hey Huckster.
Obama is scheduled to visit Turkey beginning of April. Do you think he can help smoothing the relations
between the Muslim world and the USA, which have been to the worst since the Bush's crusade in Iraq?

Thanks in advance, since I'm sure it'll be an educated, well researched, answer.
and what the hell has your post about Turkey got to do with the LIAR Messiah's MUSLIM upbringing or is it just another pathetic attempt to divert attention?
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
User avatar
TheYoungReservist
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:09 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by TheYoungReservist »

Man,I can't believe this thing has gone to over a 100 pages... :shock:
"Better to be disliked than pitied."

"If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."

Abba Eban
Post Reply