Thread: 9 Supreme Court Justices: Blood on their hands?

Will the 9 JUSTICES of the Supreme Court have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS if they allow Obama to take the oath of office to be President of the United States on Jan. 20, 2009 without first ordering Obama to provide documents that he is eligible to President of the United States under the laws of the Constitution of the United States?

I'm sorry, but I can't help saying that the United States Supreme Court will have BLOOD ON ITS HANDS if it allows Obama to take office on the Jan. 20, 2009 without first asking Obama to prove he is who he says he is.

1. For instance, look at the Afghanistan War: President Obama has already said that he plans to send more troops to Afghanistan.

2. Make no mistake about it, some of those young men and women sent to Afghanistan will be killed.

3. But what is the U.S. Supreme Court doing to make sure that Obama is even eligible to be president of the United States and that Obama has the authority and the power to send troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other war-torn places in the world?

4. Absolutely NOTHING, even though there is so much controversy surrounding Obama's origins that a detailed investigation is needed just to find out if Obama is who he says he is.

5. For instance, where was Obama born?

6. No one is sure.

7. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii, but he won't release his long form Hawaii birth certificate----the one with the doctor and birth hospital names on it----and he won't release his Hawaii birth hospital records, even though sometimes he and his family say Obama was born in one Hawaii hospital, while at another time, they say Obama was born in another Hawaii hospital.

8. Hawaii high-ranking officials Onaka and Fukino kissing up to Obama: Hawaii high-ranking officials say that they have personally seen Obama's birth certificate in their files, but we have come to find out that in Hawaii, just because a person has a Hawaiian birth certificate in government files, it does not necessarily mean that the person was born in Hawaii, especially if the person was born in the early 1960s, just a few years after Hawaii became a state and the Hawaii pre-statehood government was in the midst of rushing to switch all their citizens' documents to meet the new State of Hawaii requirements.

9. And how about Pelosi? We have Congresswoman Pelosi signing an official Hawaii document where she states that Obama meets the legal eligibility requirements to be president, when, in reality, she has NOT presented any valid documents publicly to back up her claim that Obama meets the eligibility requirements of the Constitution of the United States.

10. And what about Obama himself?

11. Obama obviously has not gone out of his way to help resolve the controversies surrounding his background. In fact, Obama has gone out his way to HINDER any investigation into his background by refusing to release his Hawaii long form birth certificate, by refusing to release his Hawaii birth hospital records, and refusing to release his college records.

12. Also, Obama has, under oath, signed documents in all 50 states where he swears that he is a natural born citizen, but Obama has NOT provided a single state with valid, legal documents that prove that he, Obama, was even born in the United States.

13. I could go on and on as to why the U. S. Supreme Court, for the good of the American people, should order Obama to provide legal documents that prove that he, Obama, is eligible to be President of the United States under the laws of the Constitution of the Unite States.

14. But I will stop here. However, if others here want to post their reasons why the Supreme Court should order Obama to prove that he is eligible to be President of the United States, please be my guest.

15. So, again, I say this: If the U.S. Supreme Court does not order Obama to produce valid documents that prove that he, Obama, is eligible to be President of the United States, then the 9 justices will surely have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS after the liar and fraud Obama starts ordering troops to war-torn places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and maybe the middle-east, and some of those fine young men and women are killed.

Originally Posted by mirse

Will the 9 JUSTICES of the Supreme Court have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS if they allow Obama to take the oath of office to be President of the United States on Jan. 20, 2009 without first ordering Obama to provide documents that he is eligible to President of the United States under the laws of the Constitution of the United States?

I'm sorry, but I can't help saying that the United States Supreme Court will have BLOOD ON ITS HANDS if it allows Obama to take office on the Jan. 20, 2009 without first asking Obama to prove he is who he says he is.

1. For instance, look at the Afghanistan War: President Obama has already said that he plans to send more troops to Afghanistan.

2. Make no mistake about it, some of those young men and women sent to Afghanistan will be killed.

3. But what is the U.S. Supreme Court doing to make sure that Obama is even eligible to be president of the United States and that Obama has the authority and the power to send troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other war-torn places in the world?

4. Absolutely NOTHING, even though there is so much controversy surrounding Obama's origins that a detailed investigation is needed just to find out if Obama is who he says he is.

5. For instance, where was Obama born?

6. No one is sure.

7. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii, but he won't release his long form Hawaii birth certificate----the one with the doctor and birth hospital names on it----and he won't release his Hawaii birth hospital records, even though sometimes he and his family say Obama was born in one Hawaii hospital, while at another time, they say Obama was born in another Hawaii hospital.

8. Hawaii high-ranking officials Onaka and Fukino kissing up to Obama: Hawaii high-ranking officials say that they have personally seen Obama's birth certificate in their files, but we have come to find out that in Hawaii, just because a person has a Hawaiian birth certificate in government files, it does not necessarily mean that the person was born in Hawaii, especially if the person was born in the early 1960s, just a few years after Hawaii became a state and the Hawaii pre-statehood government was in the midst of rushing to switch all their citizens' documents to meet the new State of Hawaii requirements.

9. And how about Pelosi? We have Congresswoman Pelosi signing an official Hawaii document where she states that Obama meets the legal eligibility requirements to be president, when, in reality, she has NOT presented any valid documents publicly to back up her claim that Obama meets the eligibility requirements of the Constitution of the United States.

10. And what about Obama himself?

11. Obama obviously has not gone out of his way to help resolve the controversies surrounding his background. In fact, Obama has gone out his way to HINDER any investigation into his background by refusing to release his Hawaii long form birth certificate, by refusing to release his Hawaii birth hospital records, and refusing to release his college records.

12. Also, Obama has, under oath, signed documents in all 50 states where he swears that he is a natural born citizen, but Obama has NOT provided a single state with valid, legal documents that prove that he, Obama, was even born in the United States.

13. I could go on and on as to why the U. S. Supreme Court, for the good of the American people, should order Obama to provide legal documents that prove that he, Obama, is eligible to be President of the United States under the laws of the Constitution of the Unite States.

14. But I will stop here. However, if others here want to post their reasons why the Supreme Court should order Obama to prove that he is eligible to be President of the United States, please be my guest.

15. So, again, I say this: If the U.S. Supreme Court does not order Obama to produce valid documents that prove that he, Obama, is eligible to be President of the United States, then the 9 justices will surely have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS after the liar and fraud Obama starts ordering troops to war-torn places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and maybe the middle-east, and some of those fine young men and women are killed.

I don't know how far I would go with the blood on their hands argument. It would have to be proven that these circumstances would have been any different under a different administration, which would be impossible. However IF they do not demand the proof, and it appears that they won't, I am 100000000% convinced that all members who have voted against getting this proof are guilty of dereliction of duty and if Obama is not natural born, they are guilty of the highest treason, death penalty grade treason. What they would have allowed is far worse than ANYTHING Benedict Arnold did.

FAITH, FAMILY and OUR COUNTRY...
Think hard on this because in all reality , it is ALL WE HAVE !
And The Powers That Be are TAKING AWAY OUR CONSTITUTION!
I'm tired of the LIEING, I'm tired of the Corporate BAILOUTS (unconstitutional) I'm tired of my kids future being squandered away, THESE TREASONOUS SOBs do not CARE!!! It is ALL ABOUT THEM, IT IS ALL ABOUT THIER ELITIST FRIENDS, ITS ALL ABOUT POWER!
When Obama (or is it Dunham? or Soetoro?) SWEARS AN OATH to uphold the Constitution, Throw PURGERY ONTOP of everything else.
I wager that within his first year he WILL GET some sort of GUN BAN put in place... By the way... WHERE HAS ALL THE BAILOUT MONEY GONE?
Be nice to know for the TREASON TRIALS!!!!

It is incredibly hard for me to imagine how letting Obama be sworn in can result in more or worse carnage than the last 8 years of Bush. It amazes me how many people are proactively blaming Obama for things that were done or at least set in motion during the Bush years or during previous regimes. The horrors of the Bush presidency are beyond the power of mortal words. Anyone who fears Obama needs to remember Bush. It was not Obama who set up mysterious holding camps all over the country (google 'rex 84'). It was not Obama who deregulated the banking system. It was not Obama who tried to privatize Social Security (imagine where America's retirees would be now if he'd succeeded!). I could go on and on, but anyone who bemoans the loss of the America they remember needs to send a thank-you note to Bush before Obama.

BetsyRoss wrote:

The horrors of the Bush presidency are beyond the power of mortal words. Anyone who fears Obama needs to remember Bush.

The one thing all ALIPAC members have in common is our concern regarding immigration issues. With that said, I can definitely say I fear Obama more than I ever did Bush on the one issue that brought us all together.

I'm not a Bush supporter, however, I would disagree with your usage of language in the following comment:

The horrors of the Bush presidency are beyond the power of mortal words.

IMO, along with the bad, Bush has also done a lot of good things in his attempt to keep our country safe from terrorist.

It remains to be seen what Obama will do on immigration and our porous border. He does demonstrate a basic understanding of the importance of decent employment for the middle class that seemed to be lacking in the Bush years. There is no way we can keep a leaky border and at the same time rebuild our economy. Americans need to be allowed to get back to making and doing things, and the previous regimes seemed to think that Americans didn't want or need work.

BetsyRoss Obama STILL has to play by the rules!
The whole USA isn't Chicago Mobstyle politics.
If he's a liar, is that what you want leading you?
He has blown everything off!
Like 5 of his latest picks have been CROOKS and one a Jihadist!
What's up with that CRAP?
His friends (4) are terrorists, or he hang with them.
Then there's pukes like Farrakhan.
He has NO RIGHT!
He's not God! He's a cult leader and I'm afraid most of his followers are lemmings

All politicians are, well, politicians. I am not really a fan of that profession. BTW, I read somewhere that the rules of natural born citizenship were already bent - for Herbert Hoover.

BetsyRoss wrote:

It amazes me how many people are proactively blaming Obama for things that were done or at least set in motion during the Bush years or during previous regimes.

How many are there? I'm not aware of a bunch of people "proactively blaming Obama" for things that happened during the Bush administration.

It was not Obama who set up mysterious holding camps all over the country (google 'rex 84').

How do you know what these so-called holding camps are intended for? Could they have been intended for terrorist or possibly illegal aliens?

It was not Obama who deregulated the banking system.

It wasn't Bush either.

No bank deregulation has occurred under Bush
For the numerous writers to this column blaming the Bush administration for deregulating the banking industry, you should learn that the last major banking regulation change was signed into law in 1999 by Bill Clinton and approved in the Senate by Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden with a vote of 90-8. The change permitted commercial banks like Bank of America to enter into investment banking actions and, ironically, it is that diversification that has helped them to be strong enough to get through this crisis.

The investment banks that have all faltered could have made the same mistakes prior to 1999, as the new rules did not apply to them. No new deregulation has occurred since. In fact, the Bush administration repeatedly called for more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to be told none was needed by Democrats Dodd and Schumer, and this is where the questioning should begin.

David Harcus
Jamestown

http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/let ... ccur.shtml

This may also interest those folks who thing Bush was the culprit behind bank deregulations:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/29/7960

It was not Obama who tried to privatize Social Security (imagine where America's retirees would be now if he'd succeeded!).

No it wasn't but I wouldn't mind if he did. In the long run, retirees would fair pretty well under Bush's privatization plan. At a minimum Bush should be credited with attempting to do something. Our current social security system cannot continue indefintely.

Excerpt:

3. Aren't personal accounts too risky?
Of course we all know that stocks can go down as well as up. But over the long term, investing is remarkably safe. Over the last 80 years, private investment in the United States has earned an average annual return of nearly 8 percent. That period included not only the market decline of the last few years but the Great Depression, World War II, several smaller wars, numerous recessions, the "stagflation" of the 1970s, and the bursting of the dot.com bubble as well. We need to remember that, with compound interest and stocks held over the working life of a typical U.S. worker, the money grows, even if the returns on that investment are lower in some years than in others.

Some people ask, "What if I had had a personal retirement account and had retired in 2002 when the tech bubble burst and the stock market lost so much money?" Good question. If you retired in 2002, most likely you would have been contributing to your personal retirement account for at least 25 years and probably longer. If you started investing in 1978, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 742. At the low point of 2002, it was 7,286. Despite the crash, you would have received a far higher return than you would have seen from Social Security. The numbers are even more amazing for 40 years of investing. Retirement investments are long-term investments, and historically long-term investing in the American stock market is the best deal going.

In contrast, Social Security is becoming an increasingly bad deal for workers. We know that young workers can expect a return on their Social Security taxes of 1.5 percent or less. Furthermore, workers and retirees must keep in mind that Congress can change their benefits at any time. Thus workers and retirees must always consider the political risk of paying into the Social Security system when they have no legal right to benefits.

Beware of those who refer to Social Security as providing "guaranteed" benefits. Retirees have no legal right to benefits, and nothing prevents Congress from changing the benefit levels at any time. Thus the risk of being in the stock market must be weighed against the political risk of a program that provides no legal rights to participants.

Moreover, there will still be a safety net. Every personal retirement account proposal includes a safety net such that no one will fall below a certain level of retirement benefits. The Cato plan proposes a safety net so that no one will fall below the poverty line. That is a higher level than the current minimum benefit under Social Security.

And finally, keep in mind that personal retirement accounts are voluntary. If you are uncomfortable with the stock and bond market with all of its risks and you are more comfortable with the current Social Security system with all of its risks you can always choose to stay in the current Social Security system.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html#3

Regardless of what folks think, all that ail our country and the world cannot be attributed to Bush. No one man is responsible for our ALL problems. I share your frustration with Bush but let's give credit where it's due and not give credit where it's not due.