Right you are Highlander. I guess now it's going to heat back up!Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Actually, I believe that the second shot fired was at the DC Tea Party on 12 Sept.
Printable View
Right you are Highlander. I guess now it's going to heat back up!Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Actually, I believe that the second shot fired was at the DC Tea Party on 12 Sept.
BORN IN THE USA?
Judge tosses eligibility case against Congress
'We've lost a skirmish. Now on with the war in the higher courts!'
Posted: October 21, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Congress, alleging members of that institution failed in their constitutionally specified responsibility to evaluate Barack Obama and make sure of his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo had filed the action in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."
The Constitution provides, the lawsuit says, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."
"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified," the case explained.
On his blog, Apuzzo confirmed Judge Jerome Simandle in New Jersey dismissed the case.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!
"Judge Simandle ruled that the plaintiffs do not have Article III standing and that therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction," he explained. "The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered an 'injury in fact.' It added that plaintiffs' alleged injury is 'only a generally available grievance about government' and 'is one they share with all United States citizens.' Finally, it said that plaintiffs' 'motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged," Apuzzo wrote.
"By way of footnote, the court said that even if the plaintiffs could show that the court had Article III standing, they would not be able to show that the court should exercise jurisdiction because prudential standing concerns would prevent it from doing so," he added. "Finally, the court again in a footnote said that it cannot take jurisdiction of the issue of whether Obama is a 'natural born citizen' and whether Congress has acted constitutionally in its confirmation of Obama for president because the matter is a 'political question' which needs to be resolved by Congress."
The court suggested the "remedy" is "voting at the polls," he said.
But he noted there was no ruling that Obama's Hawaiian birth was proven, or that it was proven Obama is a "natural born" citizen."
"Given the nature of the court's decision, the American people unfortunately still do not know whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president and commander in chief," he said.
A appeal will be filed with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, he said.
Kerchner said in a statement released to The Post & Email blog it's a Catch-22.
"Congress told the people it was up to the courts. Now the federal court system which is supposed to be the guardian of the Constitution tells the We the People it is up to the Congress. And even worse, the federal court in my case just told the people that as long as the Congress and the executive branch usurp and ignore the Constitution in such a way as to injure all citizens and everyone in this nation equally, it is quite OK with them," he said.
"What's next, for Obama or the DNC-led Congress to usurp the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment rights of We the People? and then the courts will tell us that we were all injured equally so we have no standing to redress it and we lose our freedom of speech and our right to bear arms?" he said.
"We've lost a skirmish or battle. Now on with the war in the higher courts!" he said.
WND had reported only days earlier when Kerchner publicly argued that the courts have an obligation to make a decision on Obama's eligibility.
He wrote, "The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama."
He said his basis for such a statement is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in an 1821 case, Cohens vs. Virginia:
"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."
Kerchner added, "The … judges in the … cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits.
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 and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?
WND has reported on another case, being heard by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. He released a ruling noting the government's motion to dismiss was being taken "under submission." But he also approved a final calendar for the case to be proceeding in his court.
Under the schedule ordered by the judge the final pretrial conference is scheduled Jan. 11, 2010, while the jury trial is Jan. 26, 2010.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113651
HighlanderJuan and TexasBorn, I read your comments on the OCRegister article. What immediately comes to mind is being a glutton for punishment, along with:
"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." - the Lord Jesus Christ, in Matthew 7:6
But I am amazed at how you have apparently drawn alterego58 out of his corner and into the center of the room for an insult-free, level-headed discussion. It just goes to show what men of good will can do with the truth in a dark place. I couldn't have brought about that kind of diplomatic rapprochement.
Have you considered volunteering for conflict resolution duty in Middle East negotiations with Iran, Syria, the Saudis, the Mus|im Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and Hamas?
Minuteman, you are right, I am a glutton for punishment :wink: I find it a challenge to scope out if folks are really as radical as they initially appear and often they really aren't. They have just be drawn into the Obamabot crowd. Muslims are an entirely different story. They are wired completely different and one must be a true expert to attempt a reasonable negotiation with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Very funny, MinuteMan. One of my six ex-wives told me I could cut to the chase faster than anyone she had dated.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
SIX ex wives?????? Wow!Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Maybe it was only five. I forget.Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
The Orange County Register has another Orly Taitz article.
====================
Orange County Register
Friday, October 23, 2009
Orly Taitz: natural-born litigator
O.C. attorney has gained a national following for her efforts challenging Obama's citizenship.
By MARTIN WISCKOL
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tait ... izen-state
When you see Orly Taitz deliver her impassioned, Eastern European-accented arguments on Fox News or CNN or YouTube, you're getting just the first hint of the outsized features of her life.
She was born in the USSR, then lived in Israel and Romania before getting married and immigrating to the U.S. The mother and former swimsuit model established a successful dentistry business with two Orange County offices – then, in her spare time, studied law and passed the state bar.
Her growing national notoriety is the result of her long-shot legal efforts to have Barack Obama removed as president, claiming that he is not a natural-born citizen. While the rumor had previously percolated on the political fringes of the Internet with a couple of failed lawsuits, Taitz's relentless filings and colorful personality have raised the visibility of the claim and led to her being dubbed "Queen of the Birthers."
She has presented the courts with two documents that say Obama was born in Kenya. She's yet to get any of her suits to trial, but some experts have opined outside the courtroom that the documents are forgeries. One, for example, bears the phrase "Republic of Kenya" – and is dated eight months before Kenya became a republic.
Taitz is undeterred.
...
Rest of the long article is here:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tait ... izen-state
Dr. Taitz may not have the polished demeanor of a seasoned courtroom attorney but she has guts....and sometimes guts is enough....Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Did you read that in the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
No, didn't read it. That was my opinion...Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Oh, oh, oh, here we go!Quote:
Originally Posted by Associated Press
Isn't it a bit early in the script for the takeover bid? The nationalization of health care is not a done deal (yet). The Copenhagen Climate Change (one world government) treaty is still two months away. To speculate that a blanket amnesty for 12 million, 20 million, 35 million, or however many millions of illegal aliens show up for roll call when Acorn whistles, would clear Congress before Christmas recess is iffy indeed.
Could Mr. Obama possibly imagine that he has the necessary head of steam to declare martial law and grab for the whole bag of marbles? Or does the CFR's schedule for 2010 constrain him to act before the situation is ripe?
Our hopes for discovery of evidence to disqualify him on Jan. 26 may be preempted if he does his power play before Christmas.
PRAY. PRAY. PRAY. And then PRAY some more, as though your life depends upon it. It very well may, so PRAY. PRAY. PRAY.
Lord God, heavenly Father, in Jesus' name we pray that You hear from heaven, and forgive our sins, and heal our land. God save America, and these honorable patriots, and cause the United States to fulfill Your purpose in our days here and in Your time.
Could it be the Carter case has not yet been dismissed and he feels it is now or never?
Link to the Carter case's hearing transcript
http://www.scribd.com/full/21189922?acc ... o3bs6cpk3m
Thanks Freedom, I have read the entire transcript and it was very enlightening. IMO, both Dr. Taitz and Gary Kreep made sound arguments but I was most impressed with Dr. Taitz on the issue of standing. I think this was a critical and impassioned plea to the court. I would have a hard time believing that Judge Carter would not allow this case to go forward based upon the arguments from both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
My concern is with the amount of time that has lapsed since the hearing with no ruling. If he allows it to go forward, there is very little time for the massive amounts of discovery Dr. Taitz will need.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
TexasBorn, I am requesting permission to quote Dr. Taitz's argument for standing,
from pp. 79 ff. of the Scribd.com Keyes|Barnett v. Obama transcript.
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/9...ckobamassn.jpg
This Social Security Number, originally registered in 1890, was mentioned in her
arguments by Dr. Taitz ("ai" pronounced as a long "i" preceded by a slight "ah").
21 : the number of "no discovery" days that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter
has had the DoJ motion to dismiss Barnett v. Obama under submission.
Minuteman, if this is indeed true, and Obama has used multiple SSN's, it boggles the mind that we elected this kind of person to POTUS. I would certainly hope that Dr. Taitz team has done their homework on this as it is potentially devastating information once released to the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Regarding the delay by Judge Carter...it makes one wonder who he might be having a conversation with.
Did you read Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi, Ph. D., published in mid-2008, before the election?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
Literacy tests are unconstitutional, but Obama Nation should have been required reading for anyone to cast a vote for Barack Obama.
With so many people being sheep, I think there is something the the hypnotism accusations.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
http://www.internet-grocer.net/hypnosis.pdf
http://www.hypnosisblacksecrets.com/cov ... techniques
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politi ... notist.php
New Attempt to silence Americans, please take action here!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-970092.html#970092
I was aware that poll taxes were illegal, but was unaware that literacy tests were unconstitutional. When did this happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
When those running were all so illiterate that they can not read a bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
[quote]“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill',
What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?â€
Someone please educate me.
- How long can Judge Carter wait to make a decision on MTD?
- Is it reasonable, compared to the norm, to have taken this long?
- Is discovery completely on hold until this decision is made?
- Is it possible that Carter could make another kind of ruling other than MTD that would further delay the issue?
- Can the MTD decision be made just before of after the proposed January trial date?
I can see no reason other than fear that Judge Carter would delay this decision so long.
Delay is the tactic!!! The longer they delay the more people lose interest, the more the movement is disrupted... The tactics are appalling and a total betrayal to the rule of law and just goes to show how much corruption is entwined in our current political and judicial climate!! It burns my rear to death!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
:lol: :lol: :lol: ROTFLOL :lol: :lol: :lol: I love it :lol: love it :lol: love it. :lol: .......... :oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
I apologize; I assumed. Not all literacy tests were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. They were ruled unlawful nationwide by Congress in the 1975 amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. My mistake.
1949: The U.S. Supreme Court in Davis v. Schnell, affirmed a lower court ruling that had held unconstitutional Alabama’s literacy test. The Court found that the Alabama constitutional provision was clearly intended to deny the vote to African Americans and thus violated the Fifteenth Amendment.
1959: In Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the state of North Carolina’s requirement that all voters pass a literacy test in order to be qualified to vote was constitutional. Finding that the policy was not inconsistent with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment’s standards of fairness, the Court in this decision let stand North Carolina’s literacy test.
1965: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 temporarily suspended literacy tests, and provided for the appointment of federal examiners (with the power to register qualified citizens to vote), in divisions across the nation. Under this act any racially discriminatory act which prevented Americans from voting was prohibited.
1975: Congress amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965, adding protections from voting discrimination for minority-language citizens, and permanently barred literacy tests as a requirement for voter registration.
2008: In Crawford v. Marion County School Board, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law requiring voters to show at the polls a photo ID with a photo as part of an unexpired document issued either by Indiana or the federal government (a current state driver’s license, state photo identification card, or a U.S. passport).
__________________________________________________ _________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93Camaro
Amendment VI does not accord the accuser the same right to a speedy trial as the accused, which may explain why there have been no countersuits by Perkins & Coie or either of Mr. Obama's other law firms. I had always thought that they were not suing us for slander, libel, or defamation because we spoke and wrote unassailable truth. As of this moment, I realize that truth is no object to an attorney with an ax to grind who chooses to litigate in order to intimidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Framers of the U.S. Constitution
The reason the opposition has not brought multitudinous countersuits is because the trial and the discovery of evidence would be public and speedy, and public and speedy discovery is the very thing Mr. Obama and his three law firms do not want.
Sorry if that was obvious to everyone else.
22 : the number of "no discovery" days that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter
has had the DoJ motion to dismiss Barnett v. Obama under submission.
I watched O'Reilly tonight and he had a couple "FOX" analysts on talking about Orley Taitz fine... 20,000.00!!! He called her a Birther Nut, and the 2 Fem. Lawyers he had on were no better. They both said she should not be "Wasting" the courts time.
Well people, with publicity like that... Hell, we might as well throw in the towel and ask the Soetoro Administration which FEMA Camp we should turn ourselves in to... :x
I think Fox is getting scared they are the next real target for takeover or shutdown, and I suspect they are playing it safe on the 'fair and balanced' theme. The same show had two Democrats (no opposing Republican) defending the loony Democrat from Orlando. Unbalanced at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotofPast
With O'Reilly being the big gun at Fox, we have no idea what personal pressures he may have exerted on him. I have thought in the past he has over-reacted on many occasions in his denial of the eligibility issue.
I get very concerned for Glenn Beck - the White House must really hate him, and we are observing the meanness and viciousness of this government.
All of these are signs of onerous and malicious government pressure, intrusion, and control of our media. If we don't stop this madness, we will shortly have only a state run media and we will get our best news from Pravda, our enemy's news outlet.
Radio Free America - a free floating TV station, floating off the east and west coast, being jammed by government jammers... Ah what a future we have with the communists.
On Oct. 21, Dr. Orly Taitz put an intriguing birth document on her Google site. I have no idea about its authenticity.
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4818/...tificateof.jpg
For the full size image, scroll down three pages to the section,
"Is this Obama's Hawaii Birth Registration applied for by his grandmother showing he was
born in Kenya but registered in Honolulu? Click on photo to enlarge; uploaded Oct 21, 2009)"
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Kerchner Appeal Filed with Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA
This is to give notice that today, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 2:19 p.m., I filed a Notice of Appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA of Judge Jerome B. Simandle’s dismissal of the Kerchner et al. v. Obama & Congress et al. case.
Recently, the Hon. Jerome B. Simandle decided the Kerchner case, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. As I explained, through the dismissal, Judge Simandle avoided having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizenâ€
Some fear that Mr. Obama will surrender U.S. sovereignty to a global government to be created by the Copenhagen Climate Change treaty this December. Such an act could not be undone even if the election were nullified and he had to resign from office.
IMO, the U.S. Senate will not ratify this treaty with the requisite 2/3 majority vote. As the Christmas angels say, "Fear not."
I missed this show last night. But, I have a theory. Notice that O'Reilly and the others haven't even BREATHED a word about the birther issue in forever. I am suggesting that this was a roundabout way that Fox is testing the waters on this issue. The fact that he even had Dr. Taitz on the show at all suggests that they are giving the issue some legitimacy, but downplaying it like he did gives them some protection. Catch my drift?Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotofPast
Where did or from whom did Dr Taitz get this cert?Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
"Michelle contradicts Obama nativity story"
By Aaron Klein © 2009 WorldNetDaily October 27, 2009
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114259
Dear Mr. Klein,
We at ALIPAC have researched this "married or not" issue to death, as I'm sure you are aware, unless our emails haven't reached you.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-511.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-516.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-915.html and the next 2 posts
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-950.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-954.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-960.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-975.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-979.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-993.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-997.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-998.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... c-999.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1010.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1557.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1610.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1611.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1615.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1686.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1690.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1791.html and the next 3 posts
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1798.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1836.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1978.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -2019.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -2021.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -2024.html
Stanley Ann D. Obama subscribed and swore to the fact that she and Barack Obama Snr. married at Wailuku, Maui, on Feb. 2, 1961. The Hawaii Circuit Judge acted upon that uncontested statement and incorporated it into the divorce decree as the event which was precedent to the divorce.
All parties involved are dead. The court's ruling stands, and has stood for 45 years. I can't imagine any way to get a review of that ruling, much less overturn it; can you? Whether their marriage was fictional or factual in the sight of God, in the sight of the judiciary, it is an established fact. And it is the judiciary with which we have to do here. Conjecture all you like, but for all intents and purposes, that case is closed.
IMHO, unless Barack Obama's mother stated otherwise on the BC application, for birth certificate purposes his parentage depends - in the eyes of the state, at least - upon the record of that marriage held by the state of Hawaii. His ancestry in fact, whether legitimate or bigamous, whether by Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis or even Barack Hussein Obama, Snr., does not overrule the marriage record held by the state.
Only a state court decision to annul the divorce record and to revoke the prima facie assumption of a legal marriage between BHO Snr. and Anna Dunham, based upon his existing marriage to Kezia, would overrule the existing marriage record. That hasn't happened, and good luck on making it happen, unless Mr. Obama decides that is in his best interest, which it may be (8 USC 12 §1409) .
Even if the marriage were annulled, in the divorce decree Stanley Ann Obama obviously claimed BHO Snr. as her child's father, which he never contested. Therefore, BHO Snr. would be the father of record on the BC, whether the marriage were legitimate or merely a fabrication for propriety's sake.
Or should we take at face value Michelle Obama's hearsay testimony of what her husband said about a wedding which did or didn't happen six months before he was born? Better that we let sleeping dogs lie, especially ones which could really hurt us.
Sincerely in Christ,
MinutemanCDC_SC
If you have a dissenting opinion to communicate, you can email Aaron Klein at aklein@wnd.com .
I have heard that they are going to try to go around the ratification process by simply passing a law with all of the elements of the Copenhagen treaty included. The good news is that this could be undone as it would not be the actual ratification. The bad news is that they would have time to have the tendrils of this treaty so tightly woven that it would be difficult to completely undo.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
I hope you also noticed that the whole subject was improperly presented. For Orly, this was a no-win situation. The wrong question was asked and the wrong answers were provided.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotofPast
Fox: minus one point.
youtube video of O'Reilly's 'birther' segment last night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGT6qkq9XHY
A squeaky wheel sometimes is not far from a crank, and oftentimes they rotate around a shared axis or focus.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
I need pointers on how to get the attention of news media anchors, popular columnists, "internet powerhouses" :roll: , and the major print media - not so much to get news exposure, although that would be a plus, but to at least give an occasional heads-up to both the useful idiots and the loyal opposition (who really should know better than to drink the Kool-Aidâ„¢).
Good grief, I can't get in touch with Orly Taitz or Leo Donofrio most days, much less "Fair and Balanced" Bill O'Reilly!
So... who will loan me his or her copy of "Speaking the Truth to Power for Pinheads"?
See the link below for more
Quote:
An issue the elitists did not think they would have to deal with is the question of whether Obama is a citizen or not. They thought they would be able to bamboozle the public.
That question has become a cause celebre. Thus, if the President’s controllers want to dump him it will be easy. They will just make sure it is finally discovered he was born in Kenya. Then it is game over.
The failure of Obama will further force the Elitest to cut back on their plans for a new world order. They will try their best to extend the time frame. The dollar devaluation, rising unemployment that brings social problems, or a breakdown in society will be avoided at all costs.
This means more and bigger injections of money and credit, more monetization, more stimulus and more subsidies.
That means we definitely will have hyperinflation and a falling dollar. That means gold and silver will go higher. That could mean an abandonment of a green policy, and the failure of Cap & Trade, healthcare reform and Copenhagen. We will have to see how things develop.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-970766.html#970766
The Dem's and the powers that be will throw Obama under the bus if it appears that he is becoming a liablity..which he is. I give them until next summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7