See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot
Source:
Philadelphia Daily News
URL Source: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/loc ... Obama_removed_from_ballot.html
Published: Oct 25, 2008
Author: By MICHAEL HINKELMAN
Post Date: 2008-10-25 10:44:09 by angle
Keywords: None
Views: 2229
Comments: 88
hinkelm@phillynews.com 215-854-2656 A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot. Philip J. Berg alleged in a complaint filed in federal district court on Aug. 21 against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Berg claimed that the Democratic presidential standardbearer is not even an American citizen but a citizen of Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be president. He alleged that if Obama was permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he and other voters would be disenfranchised. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg's request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday. Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg's complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24. They said that Berg's claims were "ridiculous" and "patently false," that Berg had "no standing" to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself. Surrick agreed. In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters. Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion." The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable." For example, Berg had claimed that Obama's nomination deprived citizens of voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton in November. (Berg backed Clinton in the primaries.) Berg could not be reached for comment last night. Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, and the campaign posted a document issued by Hawaii on its Web site, fight thesmears.com, confirming his birth there. Berg said in court papers that the image was a forgery. The nonpartisan Web site FactCheck.org examined the original document and said it was legitimate. Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama's birth there on Aug. 4. *
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: noone222 (#40)
and then it opens the door for "the terminator" good post, doug.
God, you're optimistic, thinking this crap can continue through an Obama administration before the terminator could ascend the throne. (The terminator's foreign birth is well known, but Obama's raid could set a precedent that could cause the crooked courts to rule in his favor or the CONgress could try to amend the CONstitution ... nothing can be ruled out because the PTB seem intent upon declaring openly their agenda to overthrow the country.)
b. I would readily admit that Bush has destroyed the Republican Party and the country if it hadn't already been destroyed before his arrival and he was just adding the necessary police state legal planks for someone like Obama to implement. a. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Obama should have VOLUNTEERED to produce his birth certificate for public scrutiny months ago. Ditto for McCain. Both candidates are running for the most powerful ELECTED position in our nation. It is absolutely essential that the electorate ( not friggin's Dem or Republican parties) be satisfied that the candidates satisfy Constitutional requirements to assume office. Mike, you used to have what I considered a reasonable and sensible mind. How partisan and blind you are showing yourself to be about Obama and this issue of his eligibility to run for US President. You realize of course that each President recites the following oath at inauguration and in accordance with Article II, Section of the US Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Preserving and protecting and defending THE CONSTITUTION are vital responsibilities of the Office of President and so it follows that it is vital that any candidate running for this constitutionally enshrined office needs to show beyond any shadow of doubt to the US electorate at large, proof of US citizenship and eligibility to run for this office. Whether you or I like it or not, John McCain's 1936 birth to 2 US citizens on a military base in the Panama Canal zone makes him eligible to run as a US Presidential candidate per US Code: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1403.html TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1403 § 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904 (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States. As to Barack Obama his eligibility is highly suspect and that's why he needs to produce his birth certificate to allay concerns. It has zero to do with "Swift boating" Obama because he had a Muslim father. Rather it has all to do with Obama's mother and her eligibility to pass on US citizenship to her son under US law at the time. And the person formally questioning Obama's eligibility is a life long Democrat, Philip Berg, not someone from the Republican Party, another fact that defuses your notion that Obama is being "swift boated." Here's some cut and paste from various sites that summarize the issues. ...the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him... ...Plaintiff Berg is seeking redress from his being denied the opportunity to vote for a Democratic candidate who could legally serve as the president of the United States. This suit demonstrates that all U.S. voters are being denied this opportunity. To preclude a looming national crisis, Berg asked the court, in his suit initiated on August 21, 2008, to order that Obama and the Democratic National Committee produce numerous documents relating to the candidate’s citizenship. ... So far, Obama and the DNC have attempted to stall, sideline, and defeat Berg’s simplest request: that the candidate produce, in particular, an officially verified, crimp-sealed photocopy of Obama’s original, unabridged birth certificate. If an original exists, it would have been signed in ink at the actual time of Obama’s birth by the doctor and administrator in the Honolulu hospital Obama claims as his place of birth. This long-form birth certificate would be expected to include other detailed information typical of such a document. The short-form certificate displayed on Obama’s official Website is not such a document. In fact, hard as this may be to believe, it is likely an altered version of a Hawaii document referencing the birth of Obama’s half-sister. Obama’s mother, then a U.S. citizen, resided while pregnant in Kenya during her brief marriage to Obama’s natural father, a citizen of Kenya. Berg states he has proof that in 1961, Obama’s mother, because of her very late-stage pregnancy, was denied permission to board a flight from Kenya to Hawaii. She was only able to go to Hawaii after Obama had been born, at which point she attempted to “register” his birth. Berg states he can verify that Obama was in fact born in Kenya. In addition, Obama’s mother, because of her young age, did not meet the residency requirements under U.S. law to give her child U.S. citizenship. Berg claims that even were Obama to prove a status of “natural born citizen,” he lost that citizenship at age five when, according to Berg’s documentation, Obama’s divorced mother remarried and moved to Indonesia. Mother and son both became Indonesian citizens. The laws at that time required his mother to renounce her U.S. citizenship and thus that of her son.... b. Indeed. That's by the Dems were W's willing partners in the course of the last 8 years, the last 2 years when the Dems held the majority in the House and Congress are the most damning of this complicity.
Oops, I meant to ping you rather than Ada as a response to your previous message to me.
Look, the Obama cat will be disqualified and we will end up with Biden and then the race riots will proceed apace..
A year ago I would have been dismissive of such a prediction, but what other reason is there for an ineligible Pres candidate, who happens to be black, to run and then be turned aside when ineligibility is demonstrated? This together with the fact that arguably the best qualified Dem candidate - a US citizen Caucasian woman - was not chosen to be the Dem's Pres candidate is most unsettling.
Okay is there a possibility that this is all political Jerry Springer show and that ultimatly Junior will declare himself dictator for life? Can we rule that scenario out?
Everyone's assumptions as to how this matter woulda, shoulda or coulda been settled are based largely on the Constitution, WHICH DOESN'T EXIST.
Huh??
Can we rule that scenario out? No. He's a mad man who'd like nothing better than to be dictator.
The "federal" government is a commercial environment that operates strictly upon commercial/contract law. All discussion about the Constitution is hogwash for the consumption of idiots (us). Just like this case (and all others based 100% upon the Constitution) was dismissed without ordering that Obama must be a natural born American to be President and prove it, the court spewed a lot of nonsense about Berg not having standing to (sue) request such information and thereby the court lacked jurisdiction to grant Bergs claims. The "federal" government is not the National Government founded upon the Constitution (like most think it is because a charade is played out by politicians). It's "federal" and its boundaries while being invisible extend to every place that relies upon federal reserve notes to conduct business. It's easier to say it this way: Anywhere they use FRNs to conduct business is not a Constitutional location. The Constitution prohibits commercial paper as legal tender for debts. That's why I continually harp on the "funny money" and associated creation of credit ... which is consuming the country.
Huh?? The constitution is de facto dead. Or, at the very least it's no impediment to good govt as these mad tyrants understand it. Once a judge ruled that Art 1 sec 10 (which mandates gold and silver as lawful money) was "superfluous" the constitution caught the flu, and after the signing statements, Patriot Act, renditions, denial of counsel and trial by jury, electronic eavesdropping without warrants, Ruby Ridge, Waco, OKC and 9/11, well, let's just say that all of the politicians, judges and armed agents who secretly resented being public servants have taken to this new tyranny like ducks to water. They're just another armed warlord gang and the only way to compel them to respect our rights is with force, and the American people just don't have the stomach for that. Most voters are seniors on the dole and they couldn't care less about abstract constitutional violations that don't affect them. They want the federal govt to continue so those SS checks will keep coming, and they don't care how many SWAT raids are pulled against dissidents, patriots, etc.,. In fact they're all for war if it keeps the govt happy and those checks keep coming to them. And, the govt is careful never to imply that social security or Medicare must be cut to pay for war. Oh no, no matter how much debt accrues that won't happen, and in so doing they buy the silent assent of the largest (and most corrupt) voting demographic.
When is duck season ???
October through January.
Okay but none of the seniors are gonna be real happy when they find out Obemebas health care plan recquires them to be euthanized..
Well, the govt may blame a bad flu vaccine just as they did in the winter of 70-71. There's no reason to announce the plan to the gullible people. Many won't take another flu shot so, it'll require a killer flu or other bug to finish them off....
"Now I know what Jesus was going through!"__Aileen Wuornos
That's strange you mention flu shot because getting one this has sure been promoted by everyone. Even at the apt complex where I live they are giving free shots and they have never ever done that!! What happened in 1970-71?
What happened in 1970-71? The winter of 70-71 the flu shot killed more people than the flu and I nearly lost my mother. It was an "oopsie" the govt claimed, when a live strain was accidentally substituted for an attenuated one. (and, needless to say no one went to jail or was punished) That is the exact mechanism they will use again. And, do you remember this? It was an error with potentially devastating consequences. Last September, Meridian Bioscience, a medical company, began sending out more than 3,700 virus-test kits to labs throughout the United States and 18 other countries--all part of a routine quality-assurance program to ensure that such facilities are accurately identifying biological agents. Problem is, the kits included a deadly flu strain that had killed more than 1 million people in the 1957 "Asian flu" pandemic. So, it can either be an accident by our govt, an act of "terrorism" or a vehicle collision that releases the deadly strain(s). And now This: "Now I know what Jesus was going through!"__Aileen Wuornos
Fair notice, I never bozo, but I am done with fantasy birth threads. I have no interest in wasting my time with them. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Jerk yourselves off on this crap without me, I answer no pings any more to these garbage threads on this topic.
Fair notice to you. Your monkey boy is a little commie and so are you It's the second mouse that gets the cheese
You are simply avoiding the issues. Even without the likelyhood of a foreign birth being covered up - which you are in adamant denial on - "you can't make me look, you can't, you can't, you can't" ... There are plenty of question marks regarding the Obamessiah and how he was rapidly built up and presented as a candidate from nowhere. That of course fits the "Silver Blaze" criterion: "But Holmes the dog did not bark in the night." "Exactly Watson and that is what was curious." Either you can continue to live in denial or you can confront reality however harsh it might seem. I much prefer living in reality however grim it may now be. The only way the course can be righted is to first confront reality and see things as they are not as you would wish them to be.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
your post brought to mind this Patrick Henry quote (one of my favorites) For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it.
Read my lips thick headed one, I--D-O-N'T--B-U-Y--T-H-E--L-I-E. Quite simply, the story is bull shit. You are a loon if you swallow it, and that is a personal problem of yours' I don't have any interest in.
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it. One of my favorite Patrick Henry lines as well. I imagine you are aware that it came from the same speech as the the immortal: "...I care not what course others may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty, or Give me Death."
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Quite simply, the story is bull shit. And you know this to be true how? I am not so much arguing it to be true as pointing out that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate it, and that the actions of the principal parties is such as to suggest that they are hiding something. What that hidden something is I cannot state because is in fact being hidden. In approaching any question of fact I attempt to apply principles of sound reasoning regardless of how I would "prefer to believe". Churchill, whatever his failings, was known to turn a good phrase. "Truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is. ..." That which is true remains true regardless of how we would fool ourselves and prefer to believe something else. Not desiring the truth, or not knowing it, results in false conclusions. I do not like false conclusions as they have a nasty way of biting. The evidences presented so far are such as to strongly suggest that the manner and place of his birth is being covered over. Why would they do that if all is on the "up and up"? It is not even my argument that McNutz is a better man. He's not. I do however, care about the rule of law, and that "goddamn piece of paper" which we laughingly call a Constitution. If he is not qualified per the Constitution, and if that is the case it would seem to knowingly so, what does that say about Oh'Bummer's respect for the rule of law?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Fuck off. Can't you understand English? So why are you pinging Christine? I am not obliged to indulge in your fantasies.
This may shock you but at first I thought like you ...what's the big deal here? Then I looked closer and as usual when one does that it creates more questions than answers and neither add up,heres a few of the problems Being born in Bulawayo Zimbabwe I am often requested to show proof of my legal status from the DMV to renting a apartment why is this a problem for Obama surely they have tighter requirements when you apply to become a senator Why did a Republican governor seal the records till Nov 5th Is the judges ruling more important in the context of what standing does the citizen have when he challenges the constitutionality of anything after he found Berk had no standing for failure to show injury was Burk stupid in his filings did he file in the the wrong court? Something is not right here I don't have the answers but I'll keep digging
Your misemotional reaction aside I'll repeat the very reasonable question: Upon what factual basis do you judge the denials of the allegations to be the truth in preference to the allegations which remain unanswered and avoided? At what point would you prefer to believe a lie because it is more comfortable and fits your mindset?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Some of you loathe Barack Obama and want a scapegoat to be a whipping boy for your angst. I am here to tell you that is not me. I come here to engage in lively discussion on politics and the issues and have done so here a few years now. In fact I've been doing this since I joined 'The Well' in 1995 and had a incredibly wonderful time on an open forum with liberals and conservatives who actually made community and got along at Time.com/Politics. This is the first forum I have established myself on as an interlocutor in good standing where that standing is disregarded because some people need a scapegoat. At Time.com/Politics, if you called someone a fascist, communist, socialist, or whatever that was a blanket, generic accusation to try to win an argument or somehow taint your opponent with it, we all defaulted to a rule named after Tom Mandel who developed it. We would call 'Mandel Rule,' and by common consent the argument was over. The intellectually lazy and malicious person doing the broad brush accusation would back off, and real, meaningful discussion would replace the foolish, "you are a commie!!!" "Am not!!!" "You are!!!" etc. OI, understand this, I absolutely positively and with no reservation do not find this desperation gambit you hawk credible or believable. And if I don't want to play on the hamster wheel with you, honor that. Rotara and Flintlock, both of you have made your fucking point you don't like me. That is your perogerative. It is not your job though to try to drive me away or try to rattle my cage with a constant barrage of posts. Christine, I respect you and like you, but I am here to talk issues, politics and current events. I am not here to play games with these two jerks who have no sense of propriety or respect for anyone with whom they stoutly disagree with. I also have the right to roll my eyes at a foolish topic like the birth place fairy tale and not post on it, much as we all wish BeaChooser had done the same with 9-11 when he made it clear he felt the same way about that topic, but refused to stop disrupting the discussion. Enjoy your discussion on that topic, but I am not going into it when all that would happen is I would be obliged to act like BeaChooser after a very short time dealing with it. I am quite serious, I am giving you an honest answer; I absolutely do not believe that crap and don't want to talk about fantasy bullshit like that. I also am done trading insults with R and F. I left high school decades ago, that is where those childish tactics belong. These two need to grow up. I can come keep coming down to their level and bitch slap them about it, but that is perpetuating nothing good or positive in this forum. That is not what I come on line to do in this forum. As per the mission statement of this forum, I have a right to be here, and so do you. Everyone needs to remember that, and honor this. Mike McCarthy
No desperation here. I loathe both of the two candidates put up by our Plutocratic Oligarch's equally, and I hate no one - not even them. However, I do not see my question as unreasonable, particularly given your assertions. I am simply exploring, and directing your attention, to the key question: Upon what basis do you accept the denials of the validity of the question as regards Obama's personal history? It is either true or false. If you accept the denials as true you then either do so upon facts which you can point to or it is simply your personal preference to believe it regardless of facts. At this point the evidences, as demonstrated by the various players, suggests that the representations made by Obama are false. The only attestation to their validity is one document, which is not a "Birth Certificate" but a "Record of Live Birth" which is a significant factual distinction, followed by attacks, legal maneuvers to avoid the question, and character attacks upon those who raise the question. These are all red flags which suggest that an address to the facts would be damaging. Yes, I do loathe Obama - as I do McCain, but that is not the point in a matter of factual issues. The question is one of facts and truth not my personal opinion. I have at no point addressed you other than as one adult to another, despite our disagreements, so your attempt to obfuscate by referencing someone else's personal attacks on some other forum have no factual relevance to the question at hand. As well referencing the personal attacks of other posters at other times has no bearing or relevance upon my questions and comments. You have made an assertion of fact and I am simply exploring the question of: Upon what factual basis do you make that assertion? You are avoiding that question. Why?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Pussy
It's the second mouse that gets the cheese
The sad thing is that they're probably grown but all kaka roaches have their limits, no matter how much kaka they consume because most of the kaka they ingest they end up regurgitating, then re-ingesting it with little benefit to their growth.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I might add that it is not even a matter of going and researching the question to come up with a refutation. The question is why do you believe the unsupported denials NOW?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Mike, While it may be so that some here loathe Obama, I don't believe that anyone wants a scapegoat for it. Many believe there are good reasons to loathe Obama as his political ideology is an affront to all they hold dear and they view anyone who supports that ideology in the same light (see Greg Evenson's commentary here). I would guess that you have the same opinions and feelings towards certain politicians and those who support them as well. At Time.com/Politics, if you called someone a fascist, communist, socialist, or whatever that was a blanket, generic accusation to try to win an argument or somehow taint your opponent with it, we all defaulted to a rule named after Tom Mandel who developed it. This compelled me to refer to my Free Speech thread. I read my policy and every post on that thread. I would invite you to do the same with particular attention to robin's, Freedom William's, and Indie's. I am convinced that it is a sound policy. Your posts on it indicate to me that you were in full support of it too. I don't care for the Mandel Rule imposed at time.com/Politics as I feel that it restricts and limits the speech of the participants. That's not the atmosphere that I want to promote here. Now having said that, I know that there are occasions when interlocutors (to use your term) will go over the top in their rhetoric and personal attacks, but that reflects poorly on them, does it not, and not the forum as a whole.
Upon what basis do you accept the denials of the validity of the question as regards Obama's personal history? It is either true or false. If you accept the denials as true you then either do so upon facts which you can point to or it is simply your personal preference to believe it regardless of facts. At this point the evidences, as demonstrated by the various players, suggests that the representations made by Obama are false. An excellent post. The Obamaphiles are not big on truth, at least they don't seem to expect it from their messiah.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Thanks. I think I can sum up the Obama Phenomena in one word: PsyOps. With a combination of triggers and phrases, likely thoroughly Focus Grouped, the Obamaniacs have been very effectively herded through the application of scientific perception management.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Greg Evenson has zero credibility, and I have no interest in his nonsense. I also disagree with you on the Mandel Rule, as it hits at intellectually lazy attacks with a broad brush that has no bearing in fact. It ends pointless attacks that are only malicious in purpose. I also know well that racism is a point that deserves no further debate and is a waste of time and has no place in a real free speech forum. I would say we disagree on allot, and agree on some things.
So, Mike, you don't think that the point that some may "loathe Obama for his political ideology" is worthy of a respectful response to christine? Your last post to her was just goddam disrespectful and you're running the serious risk of validating what Obama's critics have been saying all along-cries of racism will be used to deflect all legit questions and criticisms, and if you're starting that shit now then we can expect it in spades (no pun intended) if he is elected. Now, you'd better try a little harder to show some respect or she may realize that she's been showing you more than you deserve. And, I'm starting to lean that way myself.
At worst my post was blunt. It expressed to the point my opinion. I already said and meant earlier today that I like and respect Christine. When this is so, I usually do not then start pandering to people I like and respect. As far as the lack of politesse goes, it seems to be a chronic trait of the virtual community here to not use it. So it goes, I can play it that way as well. Thanks for the feedback though. As far as the sentiment on racism, it has been my stated opinion since I first posted in 1995 elsewhere. I have been very consistent on what it is. The presidential race has had zero influence on it, and I speak here for me, no one else.
Well, Mikey, you despise it when you're pigeonholed as a "commie" leftist" "socialist", etc., and trust me when I say that christine wrote a very insightful post to you which you dismissed without responding to even a single point. You simply implied that she is a racist and unworthy of your pearls of wisdom. I'll bet that if you ask her she'll tell you that it frosted her. (it's not her way to say so but ask her and see what she says) And if your last post is your recollection then you're being too kind to yourself. I read her post and yours and Mister, you were awfully rude to her. She made valid points which you may be too tired and gwumpy to address now, (it's been a long day) but to dismiss them with a blanket "racism" stamp was really unacceptable.
Comments (81 - 88) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestFrankly, all of the candidates are criminals, but to watch this man flaunt the laws and the Constitution prior to achieving office is beyond scary, it's insanity. I would readily admit that Bush has destroyed the Republican Party and the country if hadn't already been destroyed before his arrival and he was just adding the necessary police state legal planks for someone like Obama to implement.
#42. To: christine (#41)
and then it opens the door for "the terminator"
#43. To: noone222, Ferret Mike, Ada (#40)
a. Frankly, all of the candidates are criminals, but to watch this man flaunt the laws and the Constitution prior to achieving office is beyond scary, it's insanity.
#44. To: Lady X (#43)
#45. To: scrapper2 (#44)
#46. To: Lady X, farm friend, Original_Intent, Ferret Mike, angle (#45)
Look, the Obama cat will be disqualified and we will end up with Biden and then the race riots will proceed apace..
#47. To: scrapper2, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, lodwick, Jethro Tull (#46)
#48. To: scrapper2, Lady X, farm friend, Original_Intent, Ferret Mike, angle (#46)
#49. To: noone222 (#48)
Everyone's assumptions as to how this matter woulda, shoulda or coulda been settled are based largely on the Constitution, WHICH DOESN'T EXIST.
#50. To: Lady X (#47)
Okay is there a possibility that this is all political Jerry Springer show and that ultimatly Junior will declare himself dictator for life?
#51. To: Lady X (#49)
(Edited)
Huh??
#52. To: Lady X, noone222 (#49)
Everyone's assumptions as to how this matter woulda, shoulda or coulda been settled are based largely on the Constitution, WHICH DOESN'T EXIST.
#53. To: HOUNDDAWG (#52)
well, let's just say that all of the politicians, judges and armed agents who secretly resented being public servants have taken to this new tyranny like ducks to water.
#54. To: noone222 (#53)
#55. To: HOUNDDAWG (#52)
#56. To: Lady X (#55)
Okay but none of the seniors are gonna be real happy when they find out Obemebas health care plan recquires them to be euthanized..
#57. To: HOUNDDAWG (#56)
#58. To: Lady X (#57)
(Edited)
That's strange you mention flu shot because getting one this has sure been promoted by everyone. Even at the apt complex where I live they are giving free shots and they have never ever done that!!
#59. To: Original_Intent (#38)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#60. To: Ferret Mike (#59)
Fair notice,
#61. To: Ferret Mike (#59)
(Edited)
Fair notice, I never bozo, but I am done with fantasy birth threads. I have no interest in wasting my time with them. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Jerk yourselves off on this crap without me, I answer no pings any more to these garbage threads on this topic.
#62. To: Original_Intent (#61)
#63. To: Original_Intent (#61)
"You are simply avoiding the issues."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#64. To: christine (#62)
(Edited)
your post brought to mind this Patrick Henry quote (one of my favorites)
#65. To: Ferret Mike, christine (#63)
(Edited)
Read my lips thick headed one, I--D-O-N'T--B-U-Y--T-H-E--L-I-E.
#66. To: Original_Intent (#65)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#67. To: Ferret Mike (#66)
#68. To: Ferret Mike, christine (#66)
Fuck off. Can't you understand English? So why are you pinging Christine? I am not obliged to indulge in your fantasies.
#69. To: Original_Intent, Flintlock, Rotara, christine (#65)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#70. To: Ferret Mike, christine (#69)
OI, understand this, I absolutely positively and with no reservation do not find this desperation gambit you hawk credible or believable. And if I don't want to play on the hamster wheel with you, honor that.
#71. To: Ferret Mike (#69)
I also am done trading insults with R and F.
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#69)
These two need to grow up.
#73. To: Ferret Mike, christine (#70)
#74. To: Ferret Mike (#69)
(Edited)
Some of you loathe Barack Obama and want a scapegoat to be a whipping boy for your angst. I am here to tell you that is not me. I come here to engage in lively discussion on politics and the issues and have done so here a few years now.
#75. To: Original_Intent (#70)
I am simply exploring, and directing your attention, to the key question:
Lord Acton
#76. To: James Deffenbach (#75)
An excellent post. The Obamaphiles are not big on truth, at least they don't seem to expect it from their messiah.
#77. To: christine (#74)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#78. To: Ferret Mike, christine (#77)
#79. To: HOUNDDAWG (#78)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#80. To: Ferret Mike (#79)
.
.
.