Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve!, page 10

privacy

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 09:42 PM by Gregarious

Originally posted by Office 4256

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You know BH, it would be one thing if the SCOTUS had taken the case, done the research, was provided the original long form vault copy, and then came to the conclusion that Obama is natural born. I think I can speak for many here that really just want the same thing- and would be willing to accept that as final. Done deal.

As it stands, I cannot accept this as final. Too many questions remain, and this is the ultimate cop out- refusing to hear the case.

SCOTUS does not have the time to take on every case filed by people that lost their Paxcil prescription. The constitution requires that a candidate be a "natural-born" citizen. It certainly DOES NOT require that the BC be published to the public at large. You people need to pool your money, hire a good constitutional lawyer, and then he will look at your argument, laugh in your face and take your money. The Federal Elections Commission is satisfied that Obama is a "natural-born" citizen. Noboby gives a flip whether you are satisfied or not.
SCOTUS has the power to hear a case, return a case to a lower court, or dismiss a case. That is all part of the "redress" procedure. You don't want to be heard; you want your opinion validated. Too bad!!!

I find it incredible that you are so callously attacking the people that are demanding the law be observed, when TPTB choose to ignore the law. You are stating that it has been proven, done deal. We say 'show us'. And you blow us off. YOU are the reason we reserve the right to bear arms, to protect ourselves from your smug despotism. But I have to admit, without a revolution now and then, we would be rather bored. So thanx for encouraging one. By the way, I am neither a Communist Democrat, nor a Socialist Republican, as you are too radical for my conservatism.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 09:50 PM by Frankidealist35

reply to post by Gregarious

I find it unbelievable that you believe this stuff. I don't believe everything I hear just because it sounds good. John McCain said he was born on a military base that apparently didn't exist when he said it did (according to Alex Jones) and you weren't saying that about him.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 10:32 PM by DarrylGalasso

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
I also have a question, if he does in fact have a legitimate BC, why would he spend all the time and money involved if the case did get heard?
Do you have any evidence that he has spent ANY money on this matter? Someone else kept saying he'd spent a million dollars on three law firms, but I have yet to see any proof of that.

[edit on 12/8/2008 by JoshNorton]

I am not saying he has spent money. Here is the exact words I wrote:

"I also have a question, if he does in fact have a legitimate BC, why would he spend all the time and money involved if the case did get heard? Wouldn't it just be easier to provide it? Unless of course he don't know about that either."

Also I want to say, that I find it absolutely amazing that someone would get stars for misquoting someone. That in itself would imply bias on their part.

The most important word in this sentence is the word "if" that is located between the words "involved" and "the".

If that sounds rude it is not meant to be in any way so please do not take it that way. But every time I write something it seems as though someone else either does not read what I wrote or else interprets it in a totally different language or something and I start getting accused of things that I not only never said, but never implied or meant either.

[edit on 12/8/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:00 PM by Pauligirl

A bit long, but interesting reading ( for some anyway). I suggest that you actually go the site to read as it has imbedded inks that are relevant. I don't how to make them show here.

www.salon.com...

Why the stories about Obama's birth certificate will never die
Barack Obama was, without question, born in the U.S., and he is eligible to be president, but experts on conspiracy theories say that won't ever matter to those who believe otherwise.
By Alex Koppelman
Dec. 05, 2008 |

Barack Obama can't be president: He wasn't really born in Hawaii, and the certification of live birth his campaign released is a forgery. He was born in Kenya. Or maybe Indonesia. Or, wait, maybe he was born in Hawaii -- but that doesn't matter, since he was also a British citizen at birth because of his father, and you can't be a "natural-born citizen" in that case. (But then, maybe his "father" wasn't really his father; maybe his real dad was an obscure communist poet. Or Malcolm X.)
You might think these rumors would have died off after Obama produced proof in June that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii to an American citizen, his mother, Ann, or after Hawaii state officials confirmed in October that he was born there. You might think the rumors would have died off after he was elected by a comfortable margin. Instead, they've intensified. There have been paid advertisements in the Chicago Tribune questioning the president-elect's birth certificate and eligibility, and one group is raising money to run a similar ad on television. The right-wing Web site WorldNetDaily has been reporting on the issue almost nonstop. Numerous plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in various states. And Friday, the Supreme Court's nine justices will decide whether they want to hear one of those suits, which also contends that John McCain, born in the former Panama Canal Zone, does not meet the Constitution's requirements to hold the presidency.
The people hoping this is a sign the court will agree with them and stop Obama from becoming president are almost certain to be let down. The fact that the case has gone to conference doesn't mean anything about its merits -- the court will also be deciding whether to take up a number of other cases, and the chances that the suit will actually be heard is exceedingly small. Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, has calculated that over the past eight years the court has considered in conference 842 cases that sought a stay. Only 60 of them were actually heard. Seven hundred and eighty-two were denied.
But that doesn't matter. The faux controversy isn't going to go away soon. Yes, Obama was born in Hawaii, and yes, he is eligible to be president. But according to several experts in conspiracy theories, and in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there's little chance those people who think Obama is barred from the presidency will ever be convinced otherwise. "There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," says Michael Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a columnist for Scientific American, and who holds an undergraduate and a master's degree in psychology. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it ... Once you're committed, especially behaviorally committed or financially committed, the more impossible it becomes to change your mind."
Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory "develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence," Chip Berlet, a senior analyst with Political Research Associates who studies such theories, says. "As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy."

Evan Harrington, a social psychologist who is an associate professor at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology, agrees. "One of the tendencies of the conspiracy notion, the whole appeal, is that a lot of the information the believer has is secret or special," Harrington says. "The real evidence is out there, [and] you can give them all this evidence, but they'll have convenient ways to discredit [it]."
Whatever can't be ignored can be twisted to fit into the narrative; every new disclosure of something that should, by rights, end the controversy only opens up new questions, identifies new plotters. Perhaps the most common argument of those questioning Obama's eligibility is that he should just release his full, original birth certificate, rather than the shorter certification, which is a copy. His failure to do so only proves there is reason to be suspicious, they say, and if the document was released, the issue would go away. But that's unlikely. It was, after all, the Obama campaign's release of the certification this summer that stoked the fever of conspiracy mongers.
For believers, it works like this: So what if Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health, released a statement saying she has verified that the state has the original birth certificate on record? So what if she said separately that the certification looks identical to one she was issued for her own Hawaii birth certificate? Why didn't her statement specify Obama's birthplace? So what if a Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman later clarified that Fukino meant that Obama was born in Hawaii? So what if researchers for FactCheck.org actually saw the physical copy of the certification and debunked much of the key "evidence" supposedly proving that the image posted online is a forgery? They're not really independent. They're funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and Obama once (with Bill Ayers, no less) ran an entirely unrelated program that happened to be paid for with money donated by Walter Annenberg. And on and on and on.
If the long-form birth certificate were released, with its unequivocal identification of Hawaii as Obama's place of birth, the cycle would almost certainly continue. Rush Limbaugh already suggested that Obama's trip to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother, who died not long after, was somehow connected to the controversy. Others, like Michael Savage, followed Limbaugh's lead, saying Obama was going to Hawaii to alter the record.
Not surprisingly, almost all of the people who've been most prominent in pushing this story have a history of conspiracist thought. There's Jerome Corsi, who's best known as the co-author of the book that launched the Swift boat vets; he's a chief proponent of the claim that the government is secretly planning to form a "North American Union" with Canada and Mexico. Philip Berg, who filed the lawsuit that had until now drawn the most public attention, is a 9/11 Truther. Andy Martin, who's credited with starting the myth that Obama is a Muslim and has been intimately involved in the birth certificate mess as well, was denied admission to the Illinois bar because of a psychiatric evaluation that showed he had "moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character." He also has a long history of anti-Semitism. Robert Schulz, who's responsible for the ads in the Tribune, is a fairly notorious tax protester. In 2007, a federal judge ordered Schulz to shutter his Web site because he and his organization were, in the words of the Justice Department's Tax Division, using the site to promote "a nationwide tax-fraud scheme."

We could be dealing with the repercussions of the tangled web these people have woven for years after Obama is inaugurated. We already have some hints of what's to come. Gary Kreep, who heads the United States Justice Foundation and is representing Alan Keyes in one of the lawsuits over the president-elect's eligibility, has said his group will file suit to challenge each and every one of Obama's actions as president.
He may well inspire others. There are a surprising number of people out there -- tax protesters, for instance -- who rely on similarly creative legal thinking based on conspiracy theories for their defense. So don't be too surprised if, sometime after Jan. 20, defendants in federal trials suddenly claim they can't be prosecuted. If Obama isn't really president, then laws he signs have no effect, Department of Justice prosecutors have no authority and judges he appoints aren't legally judges. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just part of the conspiracy.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:04 PM by Ahabstar

And yet another thread...

I wonder of all those fighting on this issue of natural born or not are aware where this particular bit comes from...good old Thomas Jefferson. And the reason behind this was not that America could fall under the influence of another nation, no it was not that at all.

The whole reason behind it was because Jefferson hated Alexander Hamilton and since Hamilton was born in Haiti, this little bit prevented him from being eligible to run for the Presidency of which Hamilton would have more than likely won and followed Washington's parting advice to remain out of foriegn affairs.

Jefferson, of course promptly ignored and financially supported Napoleon via the Louisiana Purchase. Somewhat odd that we should give large amounts of cash for a war effort in Europe in support of a man that countermanded the effort of the French Revolution in proclaiming himself Emperor, but hey we kept that foriegner out of office, right?

So here we are today, fighting over what was basically an old grudge between two people that have been dead nearly 200 years. Which reminds of the story of why a royal guard stood post in the middle of a courtyard from a Sci-Fi show (B5, I think) in order to protect a flower that was there 500 years ago.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:04 PM by themamayada

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by themamayada

I think you clealry knew what I meant. I was saying he is our elected President so I support him! Bush isn't our President, GORE IS! Bush just stole the election via the Supreme Court.

Hey, *I* voted for Gore. Can you imagine where we'd be today if Gore was elected, I mean appointed, instead?

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:15 PM by redhatty

Well, #2 in the long list of cases either at SCOTUS or on the way to SCOTUS is now going to get the attention.

Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

This will be #2 of 5 already at SCOTUS and there are still something like 17 working their way up to SCOTUS.

I do not think it will go away until it is properly heard and ruled on.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:27 PM by Gregarious

reply to post by themamayada

From what I understand, Barack Hussein Mohammed Obamma is NOT 50% Black at all. He is 15% black, and 35% Arab.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:32 PM by Gregarious

reply to post by Ahabstar

An absurd and ridiculous law is one issue. A candidate who lies about it and even about his citizenship, is another issue entirely. I don't know enough to make an informed decision on either, and am glad I don't. But I don't like any idiot who thinks he is above the law. That includes the gangsters in blue, or in the banks.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:37 PM by Convex

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso

[edit on 12/8/2008 by JoshNorton]
I am not saying he has spent money. Here is the exact words I wrote:

(snip)

The most important word in this sentence is the word "if" that is located between the words "involved" and "the".

how do you know he wouldn't have produced it IF the case had been heard? its all just speculation on your part.

and really this is indicative of the whole argument.

one thing that that this whole situation proves is that we really don't have enough laws against frivolous lawsuits. a simple monetary penalty of court costs clearly isn't enough. i agree with bush about that.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:47 PM by Gregarious

reply to post by Pauligirl

Sure, that was rather interesting. Thanx. But he/she/it claims that the evidence has been shown. That is the entire problem. There has been no evidence, and he is stonewalling. The BC was NOT shown, only accounted for second hand. What happened to highest and best test? Alls he must do is show the darn thing. His refusal speaks volumns. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its' a duck! All his surepticious attempts at prevarication not withstanding, we still are denied any proof to try and refute! You can't accuse us of ignoring proof until you submit some, real or manufactured. The document submitted in lieu of the bc has been called a forgery, but not the original, which we want to see. Just stinkin show it and it will be put to rest. I dare 'em! I double dog dare 'em!

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:50 PM by danx

Originally posted by Ahabstar
The whole reason behind it was because Jefferson hated Alexander Hamilton and since Hamilton was born in Haiti, this little bit prevented him from being eligible to run for the Presidency of which Hamilton would have more than likely won and followed Washington's parting advice to remain out of foriegn affairs.

That’s an interesting perspective and a nice little piece of history, however, in regards to Hamilton being ineligible for the Presidency, this is not true.

While you are right that Hamilton didn’t qualify as a “natural born” citizen, I think you are forgetting the second part of that clause:

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

Alexander Hamilton would qualify because he was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by danx]

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:52 PM by Gregarious

reply to post by DarrylGalasso

From what I understand, after spending about a billion in questionable contributions, some from overseas, he is still trying to figure out what to do with another $30 million. You know, the pocket change.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:53 PM by danx

Originally posted by Gregarious
From what I understand, Barack Hussein Mohammed Obamma is NOT 50% Black at all. He is 15% black, and 35% Arab.

Stop trolling, this is a serious thread.

There are plenty of other places where you can spew all your ignorance and spread all the lies you want.

Now let the grown ups talk.

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:54 PM by stander

Originally posted by redhatty
Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

According to your other expert opinion,

Stander, Donofrio's case did not focus on Obama. It was against the NJ SoS for not verifying the eligibility of the candidates placed on the NJ Ballot. One candidate was born in Nicaragua, Roger Calero.

>>> Please understand, Donofrio never disputes Obama's birth in Hawaii nor makes any comment whatsoever on Obama's birth certificate.

and the coverage of the case,

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth. The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election.

>>> Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio petioned the court using a language no longer spoken and written in New Guinea, right?

reply posted on 8-12-2008 @ 11:58 PM by DarrylGalasso

reply to post by Convex

Dear sir,

This is the last time I am going to respond on this thread. For some unbeknown reason the people on this thread continue to imply that I am saying something I am not saying. I did not speculate anything. If a person asks a question, can you please explain to me how that is speculation? Here are the exact words:

"I also have a question, if he does in fact have a legitimate BC, why would he spend all the time and money involved if the case did get heard? Wouldn't it just be easier to provide it?"

I asked Wouldn't it just be easier..... if anything the "speculation" would be on the part of the person answering the question.

Also if you people are continuing to try to play word games with me because you think I am against the court's decision to not hear this case, PLEASE go back and read my first post in this thread. I am in total agreement with their decision, albeit, probably not for the same reason you or anyone else here is; however, that does not change the fact that I totally support the decision.

I think that if you are (and I do not mean you specifically, before that is the next insinuation) going to disagree with someone, you should first make sure you do not hold the same position.

Good day to you sir.

[edit on 12/9/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 12:03 AM by redhatty

reply to post by stander

not sure where you were trying to go with the sarcasm, but if you are asking about the next case, it is against the Connecticut Secretary of State, and very similar to Donofrio's case. It will go to conference on 12/12/08.