When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
I didn’t read the whole article Craig. I don’t have to. It’s not an issue that’s going to go anywhere.
Craig
15 years ago
Mike, since you are not interested in this matter, maybe someone else will be. From that article, here is a few consequences of having an illegal POTUS:
– If he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces.
– Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them.
– Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].”
– Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
– if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.
– Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.
In this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”
This WILL NOT GO AAY, Mike! All the blogosphere is talking about this except here on this moderate site. They will never stop till they get the TRUTH even after he is sworn in.
Craig: It isn’t that I am not interested in it. I’d like to see Obama’s real birth certificate too. But the fact is that the issue is a non starter. Obama will not be prevented from taking the oath of office on January 20th because of this story.
But thanks for insinuating I am a moderate. I’ll keep that handy next time one of these lefties accuses me of falling off the rightwing.
Craig, I don’t know what you want me to take away from Vieira’s article that’s new. Nor is there anything in there I disagree with. But it changes nothing. Only a higher court can reverse the federal judge’s dismissal of Berg by saying Berg does have standing as a citizen. As I said, I doubt they will do that… right or wrong interpretation, I can’t see it happening.
Secondly, Vieira’s correct that the onus (or burden) of proof is on Obama’s shoulders. But that’s only true if the arguments are heard and the dismissal reversed. Until a lawsuit, with standing, is in the courts to argue, there is no burden on Obama. Period.
His attorneys can choose to provide the proof and stop it all (which they aren’t), argue that it’s frivolous, and move for dismissal (apparently that’s the direction), or… they comply the court decides to hear the arguments for both plaintiffs and defense.
Obama will not be stepping down from POTUS-elect, nor is he required to step up to the plate with the proof of birth at this time because *the Berg case was dismissed*.
Craig
15 years ago
Mata and Mike,
You do not understand. This is a big thing, it is all over the blogosphere and people will not let go. After he is sworn in, it will never stop, people want the truth. There is proof somewhere and some people know about it and it will eventually be known. Obama is making a lot of enemy right now, and someone will turn against him and present the truth. Your country will be in big trouble with no POTUS at his head. He will be able to do nothing like Viera explained in his article… and I have copied some of the consequences in my post #54.
And like Vieira says:
“If the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.”
And you both still think that this is not a problem, a big issue? I do not understand you. Do you have a Constitution or not? Do you believe in it or not? So why are you not doing something about it instead of accepting that nothing can be done? Is that what Americans calls MODERATES? People who surrenders that easily? Gee, I cannot believe this.
Vieira says:
“In this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and MUST DEMAND, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”
Craig: I understand that this is a big issue on some blogs. However, in my opinion it’s not a story that has any legs.
There are dozens of issues that I think stand a better chance of making the case against Obama.
Craig
15 years ago
“There are dozens of issues that I think stand a better chance of making the case against Obama.” (Mike)
Sure there is many reasons why Obama should not be POTUS: Corruption, lying, manipulating, flip-flopping, unexperince, etc. But NONE is bigger than his eligibility to be POTUS. You have to follow the Constitution if you still want to have one. At least this issue is the easiest one of all. Either he is eligible or he is not. It can be proven in 2 minutes. All it needs is sufficient people to ask for it, they are in their right to demand that, and one of the Judicial Court will have no other choice than to ask Obama for it. All the other dozen of reasons are much harder to prove.
BTW, this thing is bigger than you think on the blogosphere… it is everywhere, on Democrat blogs and on Republican blogs. It is worlwide now, they write about this in international blogs. NO WAY this issue is going to go away… NO WAY! Look for yourself, the whole world is waiting to see if you Americans will let Obama get away with your Constitution.
I will try to posted it one more time. It is so frustrating when you get stuck in spam.
“There are dozens of issues that I think stand a better chance of making the case against Obama.” (Mike)
Sure there is many reasons why Obama should not be POTUS: Corruption, lying, manipulating, flip-flopping, unexperince, etc. But NONE is bigger than his eligibility to be POTUS. You have to follow the Constitution if you still want to have one. At least this issue is the easiest one of all. Either he is eligible or he is not. It can be proven in 2 minutes. All it needs is sufficient people to ask for it, they are in their right to demand that, and one of the Judicial Court will have no other choice than to ask Obama for it. All the other dozen of reasons are much harder to prove.
BTW, this thing is bigger than you think on the blogosphere… it is everywhere, on Democrat blogs and on Republican blogs. It is worlwide now, they write about this in international blogs. NO WAY this issue is going to go away… NO WAY! Look for yourself, the whole world is waiting to see if you American will let Obama get away with your constitution.
Sure there is many reasons why Obama should not be POTUS: Corruption, lying, manipulating, flip-flopping, unexperince, etc. But NONE is bigger than his eligibility to be POTUS. You have to follow the Constitution if you still want to have one.
You still don’t get it. Wish I could sit your french speaking tush down in front of some expresso and/or french bordeaux and do a one on one. Alas… not going to happen.
We *are* following the Constitution. When you have a beef with a legal matter (in this case eligibility), your Constitutional recourse is the US judicidial system. Now you’ll just have to wait until all the cases run their course. And that doesn’t happen overnight.
And you may be sure of his eligibility, but here in the US we have the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty (at least we’re supposed to, but not always, eh?). In this case, what Obama is definitely guilty of is dodging the evidence bullet. That’s all we know. And until a case gets to a judge who is required to hear it, and can’t dismiss it for sundry side reasons, that’s all we’re going to know. So chill on this… it’s not going to be a headline overnight. And frankly, I don’t want to spend the next months discussing this over and over.
Facts are this: Obama is President-elect. Any lawsuit that his lawyers can’t beat down with a motion to dismiss, he will have to answer to in a US court of law. And that’s whether he’s in his first few days as POTUS, two years in, or beyond depending on specific statutes of limitations. You’re just going to have to be patient, and stop beating this unconscious horse. With no new news, it’s just a non story. Period.
Latest on Berg is his request to SCOTUS for an injunction to delay the Electoral vote was denied. He filed that Dec 8th. Yawn… expected. That action is separate from other issues INRE his case before the SCOTUS. The blind lady of justice is not quick to action.
Craig
15 years ago
“Wish I could sit your french speaking tush down in front of some expresso and/or french bordeaux and do a one on one.” (Mata)
That would be nice, I would love to meet you. If you ever come to Montreal on your bike (lol), be sure to get in touch with me, I would sure invite you for an expresso or a glass of wine. It would be fun.
Ok, Mata. Then we will wait. There is 18 law suits filed in the country regarding this issues. So if they are slow, it still doesn’t matter whether he gets sworn in or not, this issue will never die till the population gets the truth. Let’s wait. The truth will eventually come out , it always does. And then you will get rid of this impostor.
blast
15 years ago
MataHarley
Facts are this: Obama is President-elect. Any lawsuit that his lawyers can’t beat down with a motion to dismiss, he will have to answer to in a US court of law. And that’s whether he’s in his first few days as POTUS, two years in, or beyond depending on specific statutes of limitations. You’re just going to have to be patient, and stop beating this unconscious horse. With no new news, it’s just a non story. Period.
Craig: You may think this is a huge issue but I don’t see it.
I haven’t heard more than two words about it on talk radio or Fox News. If there was the slightest hint that this story had legs and was worth pursuing Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and others would be all over it.
I know there are blogs that are all over it but why put some huge amount of energy into something that wont’ go anywhere?
Isn’t that exactly what the Obamatons would hope we do?
I’d rather invest my time in some areas that I think will be more fruitful to the cause.
Now that we have that cleared up, can we get back to the topic here? There was some news about this today but I haven’t had time to blog it because I was responding to these other matters.
Craig
15 years ago
No problem, Mike. But INRE the silence of the MSM on this matter, why does it surprises you? They have done this thing for 2 years thru the election, the real facts were only on Internet. Besides, Fox News was told recently not to talk against Obama, remember? But the MSM in other countries are talking about it..
Craig: I’d hardly call Rush Limbaugh a willing participant in a msm coverup. Same goes for Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly who may do TV shows at Fox but also have their own radio programs and are under no editorial control whatsoever.
Craig
15 years ago
Mike, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly can not do what they want on their own radio shows since they work at Foxnews who told them to stop talking against Obama. If they would do it, Fox would fire them.
And Sean Hannity and Bill O”Reilly are totally independent on their radio shows and don’t even have to clear their television material with anyone.
Fox would never fire their most popular hosts no matter what.
Craig
15 years ago
I don’t agree Mike. Fox and all MSM have been told to shut up about it. Fox cannot have Hannity and Reilly if they don’t shut up on their radio shows. You are already in a fascist country where everybody has to shut up on MSM, thanks to Obama. Fox is a prostitute for compelling to shut up on this matter… so they would fire them very easily… this is what prostitutes do.
Craig
15 years ago
Mike, Limbaugh is also a prostitute. See these to links:
Craig: Rush Limbaugh is the voice of modern American conservatism. Some people may not take it kindly that you would refer to him as a prostitute.
I have told you that this story has no legs. It’s a dog that won’t hunt. It’s not going anywhere. It’s a non starter.
Rush, Sean and O’Reilly know that. They aren’t going to waste all their time and effort on it.
Again, I would remind you that the topic of this post is the very real live wire that Obama, Emanuel and Axelrod are dancing around. Would you rather have us drop that and go chasing this wild goose birth certificate story through the woods?
If you feel so passionately about this issue then compose a reader post and submit it to Curt. If he decides to publish it then have that serve as the forum here for that issue.
Right now, this non starter of an issue is serving as a distraction away from the one politically threatening Obama scandal that might actually amount to something.
Craig
15 years ago
Mike, you are the one who is perpetuating this BC matter by your response to me. All I am saying is that all three, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity where all talking about it before they were ask to shut up. These are facts and you have to accept them. That’s all I am saying but you keep contradicting the facts.
No, I do not want to write a thead on this matter, my English is not good enough and besides there is thousand of blogs that speak about it and I get tons of information from them on this BC issue. I particulary like Texasdarlin blog, the best political blog award of 2008. Great bloggers there, each post as one or two fascinating links that I read. But I only post here.
Craig: I keep contradicting these “facts” because they are not facts.
No one tells Limbaugh to shut up. And the same is true for O’Reilly and Hannity.
There is just NO STORY HERE.
Craig
15 years ago
Mike, we will have to disagree on this one. I brought you the facts with links that these 3 were talking about the birth certificate before they were told to shut up. They are in my comment # 70.
But I did make an error on Limbaugh, on the second link that I give you in post #70: Rush Limbaugh Flips to Obama. I read it too fast. That was in the primaries when he was going for Hillary and then switched to Obama. So I guess he is not a prostitute after all, he is still on our side. Ouf! That would have been awful. But he now shuts up for the BC.
Craig: Despite what you may think, neither O’Reilly or Hannity have ever been shut up on any subject this one included. Even if Rupert Murdoch personally told them to lay off they would not.
Now, can we get back to talking about something that isn’t a fantasy?
Craig
15 years ago
So why were they always talking about it and now they don’t?
Craig, Mike’sA is correct. The Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and O’Reilly radio shows are all syndicated. They program their own material, and live or die on ratings alone. The radio networks that buy their syndicated shows have no say in their content. You can “disagree” with Mike all you want, of course. But you are unaware of how syndication works.
Any of the networks are free to drop any of the shows at will. If, however, the ratings are good, and they are usually packaged (as Rush is with Dr. Laura usually), they are fools to do so. They don’t care about content, but volume of listeners…. because big audiences attract the advertisers.
O’Reilly and Hannity’s cable news shows may or may not have some limitations as it relates to legal risk. However the networks do not play “producers” with their segments.
Now… if you’ve come to your erroneous conclusion just based on the notion that – if they aren’t talking about the Obama birth certificate that they must be censored – then you can go back and revisit my comments about how this is a non-story until the courts actually make a notable decision in any of the sundry cases. And they, like me, or sick to death of discussing something that is still a ways into the future as to it’s outcome. There are other more pertinent and expedient issues to be addressed. Waiting for a lawsuit to make news is like watching grass grow. It took six years for the SCOTUS to deal with the RKBA in Heller. But you didn’t find it in the news everyday until then, right?
Craig
15 years ago
Well Mata, you are right, I don’t really know how your Network works. But here in Canada you could be sure that everyone would be talking about it, night and day, if this had occurred here in our country. We do not wait for the Court to decide, we make sure that the Court knows that we care deeply about this matter; so we talk a lot about it and hope that it will finally influence the Court’s decision to act quickly and to give us an honest answer, because we believe that WE the people deserves one.
That’s okay, Craig. I would confess considerable naivety about Canadian issues, so you’d run circles around me there.
Here, even tho the issue may be “cared” about, indicated by the level of discussion, the courts act on one thing only (again, in theory…)… interpretation of the law. The way the three branches of power in is the US is set up is:
Congress/legislature: creates the laws (with veto power by POTUS), and controls the US budget appropriation/spending
Judicial: interprets the laws – but only when they are challenged in a court of law. They do not read Congressional legislation before it is passed and let them know if it’s unConstitutional. Nothing happens until it’s challenged. And no amount of public opinion is supposed to hold sway.
Administrative/POTUS: (includes law enforcement) enforces the laws
Thus, in reality, Congress can pass a bill with unConstitutional authority. The POTUS can sign that bill into law, and that law is enforced until someone challenges the law in a court. Meaning, of course, that your Constitutional rights must be violated in order to file a lawsuit. You can’t file a lawsuit just because you believe a law is unConstitutional without having been “wronged”, so to speak. Sometimes you can, however, solicit an Attorney General opinion on a law without having a lawsuit.
At that point, the judicial system examines the law for interpretation. A lower court can find it Constitutional, and the plaintiff can appeal to higher courts, working his/her way to SCOTUS. That’s the dead end of the judicial road.
The SCOTUS deals with lower court decisions, and all that was involved in their decision. That’s why the “no standing” argument in Berg is what they will address… because that was the only decision made by the lower courts.
Does this help?
Craig
15 years ago
“Does this help?” (Mata)
Yes a bit. But am I still stunned. I was sure that the only thing in USA that was important to the judicial was your Constitution.
I cannot believe that a POTUS has the right to hide his birth certificate and get away with it. Why doesn’t the Court ask him his BC to be sure he is eligible? He could be a Kenyan Muslim for all we know. No ones knows where he comes from because he hides it and pays lawyers millions dollars to hide it. Something is very wrong here, for sure. Why does the Supreme Court let him get away with that? This is what I don’t understand. Never mind how the Justice fonction, just tell me why they won’t ask for his birth certificate and I will be happy. I am really stunned and cannot believe that he will get away with it. If he does, then tell me why you have a Constitution if you can bypass it so easily? If the Court cannot do anything, can the FBI or CIA do something about it and ask for poofs? There must be someone in the States that can stop this fraud… because it sure looks like a fraud, a massive fraud.
P.S.: If McCain… no, not Mccain, he doesn’t have the guts, but let’s say Hillary Clinton would have file a law suit in the court to get Obama’s BC, would the Supreme Court have also reject her case ?
Craig, slow down and think for a minute. The court system does not enforce, they interpret laws. They are not the entity that qualifies individuals for public office.
If someone… like Hillary… filed a lawsuit as Keyes and Berg, etal have, it does not start out with the Supreme’s. It starts in the lower courts, depending on the district and jurisdiction where the lawsuit was filed.
The Supreme’s have not rejected anything yet that I know of except the injunction Berg requested on Dec 8th. I do not know if they have refused to do a review (or writ of certorari) of the lower court’s decision to dismiss.
And who knows what they would have done with a Hillary lawsuit because it depends on the brief filed, and the arguments used. What you do not know, or do not present, isn’t used as an argument in a court. They don’t fill in the blanks for you. So your brief must be complete, hopefully stocked with evidence, and compelling.
Craig
15 years ago
Thanks for your patience Mata.
“They don’t fill in the blanks for you. So your brief must be complete, hopefully stocked with evidence, and compelling.” (Mata)
This is the way I would do it:
I would just ask them if they or anybody else have ever seen Obama BC? They would have to say NO, since he has never presented it to no one yet. That is a proof: NO ONE SAW IT, not even the Court. And then, I would say that Constitution stipulate that a POTUS has to be born citizen with no dual citizenship. And I would ask them if they have seen some proof of that he is a born citizen with no dual citizenship? They would of course say no. So I would just ask them to get one. That’s it that’s all. How easier can it get?
Let’s face it, who can take Obama word on that? He is such a pathological liar.
gaetano
15 years ago
Isn`t it amazing how many closet doors Mr.Obamma has? One after another just keep opening.
Thats what I call “BEING ABOVE THE LAW”.Now we all know that Obamma has conned the world, and the government is to embarassed to face the fact that our security isn`t worth a damn,BUT, when it comes down to WHO PUT OBAMMA INTO OFFICE,there is no such thing as being above the law.The people that put him in, will take him out,and I don`t mean the voters.You must remember,Obamma comes from chicaco,and that should simply expain whats going to happaen to him.Ask the Kennedys, what happens to the ones that fu%% with the wrong people. I wonder why Ted Kenndy is keeping his mouth shout.
Craig: That boat sailed a long time ago and there is nothing that will come of that issue.
It just isn’t going to happen.
There are a million good reasons to find Obama objectionable that might actually resonate with the American people.
That’s just not one of them.
Mike, it is clear that you haven’t read the article linked in my post #50. Please do.
I didn’t read the whole article Craig. I don’t have to. It’s not an issue that’s going to go anywhere.
Mike, since you are not interested in this matter, maybe someone else will be. From that article, here is a few consequences of having an illegal POTUS:
– If he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces.
– Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them.
– Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].”
– Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
– if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.
– Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.
In this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”
This WILL NOT GO AAY, Mike! All the blogosphere is talking about this except here on this moderate site. They will never stop till they get the TRUTH even after he is sworn in.
Craig: It isn’t that I am not interested in it. I’d like to see Obama’s real birth certificate too. But the fact is that the issue is a non starter. Obama will not be prevented from taking the oath of office on January 20th because of this story.
But thanks for insinuating I am a moderate. I’ll keep that handy next time one of these lefties accuses me of falling off the rightwing.
Craig, I don’t know what you want me to take away from Vieira’s article that’s new. Nor is there anything in there I disagree with. But it changes nothing. Only a higher court can reverse the federal judge’s dismissal of Berg by saying Berg does have standing as a citizen. As I said, I doubt they will do that… right or wrong interpretation, I can’t see it happening.
Secondly, Vieira’s correct that the onus (or burden) of proof is on Obama’s shoulders. But that’s only true if the arguments are heard and the dismissal reversed. Until a lawsuit, with standing, is in the courts to argue, there is no burden on Obama. Period.
His attorneys can choose to provide the proof and stop it all (which they aren’t), argue that it’s frivolous, and move for dismissal (apparently that’s the direction), or… they comply the court decides to hear the arguments for both plaintiffs and defense.
Obama will not be stepping down from POTUS-elect, nor is he required to step up to the plate with the proof of birth at this time because *the Berg case was dismissed*.
Mata and Mike,
You do not understand. This is a big thing, it is all over the blogosphere and people will not let go. After he is sworn in, it will never stop, people want the truth. There is proof somewhere and some people know about it and it will eventually be known. Obama is making a lot of enemy right now, and someone will turn against him and present the truth. Your country will be in big trouble with no POTUS at his head. He will be able to do nothing like Viera explained in his article… and I have copied some of the consequences in my post #54.
And like Vieira says:
“If the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.”
And you both still think that this is not a problem, a big issue? I do not understand you. Do you have a Constitution or not? Do you believe in it or not? So why are you not doing something about it instead of accepting that nothing can be done? Is that what Americans calls MODERATES? People who surrenders that easily? Gee, I cannot believe this.
Vieira says:
“In this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and MUST DEMAND, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”
Craig: I understand that this is a big issue on some blogs. However, in my opinion it’s not a story that has any legs.
There are dozens of issues that I think stand a better chance of making the case against Obama.
“There are dozens of issues that I think stand a better chance of making the case against Obama.” (Mike)
Sure there is many reasons why Obama should not be POTUS: Corruption, lying, manipulating, flip-flopping, unexperince, etc. But NONE is bigger than his eligibility to be POTUS. You have to follow the Constitution if you still want to have one. At least this issue is the easiest one of all. Either he is eligible or he is not. It can be proven in 2 minutes. All it needs is sufficient people to ask for it, they are in their right to demand that, and one of the Judicial Court will have no other choice than to ask Obama for it. All the other dozen of reasons are much harder to prove.
BTW, this thing is bigger than you think on the blogosphere… it is everywhere, on Democrat blogs and on Republican blogs. It is worlwide now, they write about this in international blogs. NO WAY this issue is going to go away… NO WAY! Look for yourself, the whole world is waiting to see if you Americans will let Obama get away with your Constitution.
Africa
http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-birth-certificate-lawsuit-african.html
Israel
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=1584
http://www.israelforum.com/blog_article.php?aid=1758974
United Kingdom
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/slidingbye/blog/2008/11/18/obamas_birth_certificate_debacle__origin_earth_
Canada
Obama constitutionnellement inadmissible à la présidence américaine
France
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/amerique/obama-en-guerre-contre-la-calomnie_515976.html
Etc.
I will try to posted it one more time. It is so frustrating when you get stuck in spam.
“There are dozens of issues that I think stand a better chance of making the case against Obama.” (Mike)
Sure there is many reasons why Obama should not be POTUS: Corruption, lying, manipulating, flip-flopping, unexperince, etc. But NONE is bigger than his eligibility to be POTUS. You have to follow the Constitution if you still want to have one. At least this issue is the easiest one of all. Either he is eligible or he is not. It can be proven in 2 minutes. All it needs is sufficient people to ask for it, they are in their right to demand that, and one of the Judicial Court will have no other choice than to ask Obama for it. All the other dozen of reasons are much harder to prove.
BTW, this thing is bigger than you think on the blogosphere… it is everywhere, on Democrat blogs and on Republican blogs. It is worlwide now, they write about this in international blogs. NO WAY this issue is going to go away… NO WAY! Look for yourself, the whole world is waiting to see if you American will let Obama get away with your constitution.
Africa
http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-birth-certificate-lawsuit-african.html
Israel
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=1584
http://www.israelforum.com/blog_article.php?aid=1758974
United Kingdom
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/slidingbye/blog/2008/11/18/obamas_birth_certificate_debacle__origin_earth_
Canada
Obama constitutionnellement inadmissible à la présidence américaine
France
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/amerique/obama-en-guerre-contre-la-calomnie_515976.html
Craig, INRE:
You still don’t get it. Wish I could sit your french speaking tush down in front of some expresso and/or french bordeaux and do a one on one. Alas… not going to happen.
We *are* following the Constitution. When you have a beef with a legal matter (in this case eligibility), your Constitutional recourse is the US judicidial system. Now you’ll just have to wait until all the cases run their course. And that doesn’t happen overnight.
And you may be sure of his eligibility, but here in the US we have the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty (at least we’re supposed to, but not always, eh?). In this case, what Obama is definitely guilty of is dodging the evidence bullet. That’s all we know. And until a case gets to a judge who is required to hear it, and can’t dismiss it for sundry side reasons, that’s all we’re going to know. So chill on this… it’s not going to be a headline overnight. And frankly, I don’t want to spend the next months discussing this over and over.
Facts are this: Obama is President-elect. Any lawsuit that his lawyers can’t beat down with a motion to dismiss, he will have to answer to in a US court of law. And that’s whether he’s in his first few days as POTUS, two years in, or beyond depending on specific statutes of limitations. You’re just going to have to be patient, and stop beating this unconscious horse. With no new news, it’s just a non story. Period.
Latest on Berg is his request to SCOTUS for an injunction to delay the Electoral vote was denied. He filed that Dec 8th. Yawn… expected. That action is separate from other issues INRE his case before the SCOTUS. The blind lady of justice is not quick to action.
“Wish I could sit your french speaking tush down in front of some expresso and/or french bordeaux and do a one on one.” (Mata)
That would be nice, I would love to meet you. If you ever come to Montreal on your bike (lol), be sure to get in touch with me, I would sure invite you for an expresso or a glass of wine. It would be fun.
Ok, Mata. Then we will wait. There is 18 law suits filed in the country regarding this issues. So if they are slow, it still doesn’t matter whether he gets sworn in or not, this issue will never die till the population gets the truth. Let’s wait. The truth will eventually come out , it always does. And then you will get rid of this impostor.
MataHarley
I agree completely.
Craig: You may think this is a huge issue but I don’t see it.
I haven’t heard more than two words about it on talk radio or Fox News. If there was the slightest hint that this story had legs and was worth pursuing Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and others would be all over it.
I know there are blogs that are all over it but why put some huge amount of energy into something that wont’ go anywhere?
Isn’t that exactly what the Obamatons would hope we do?
I’d rather invest my time in some areas that I think will be more fruitful to the cause.
Now that we have that cleared up, can we get back to the topic here? There was some news about this today but I haven’t had time to blog it because I was responding to these other matters.
No problem, Mike. But INRE the silence of the MSM on this matter, why does it surprises you? They have done this thing for 2 years thru the election, the real facts were only on Internet. Besides, Fox News was told recently not to talk against Obama, remember? But the MSM in other countries are talking about it..
Craig: I’d hardly call Rush Limbaugh a willing participant in a msm coverup. Same goes for Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly who may do TV shows at Fox but also have their own radio programs and are under no editorial control whatsoever.
Mike, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly can not do what they want on their own radio shows since they work at Foxnews who told them to stop talking against Obama. If they would do it, Fox would fire them.
Craig: Rush doesn’t work for Fox News.
And Sean Hannity and Bill O”Reilly are totally independent on their radio shows and don’t even have to clear their television material with anyone.
Fox would never fire their most popular hosts no matter what.
I don’t agree Mike. Fox and all MSM have been told to shut up about it. Fox cannot have Hannity and Reilly if they don’t shut up on their radio shows. You are already in a fascist country where everybody has to shut up on MSM, thanks to Obama. Fox is a prostitute for compelling to shut up on this matter… so they would fire them very easily… this is what prostitutes do.
Mike, Limbaugh is also a prostitute. See these to links:
Rush Limbaugh Suggests Obama’s Hawaii Trip Was About Fake Birth Certificate
http://www.zimbio.com/Rush+Limbaugh/articles/103/Rush+Limbaugh+Suggests+Obama+Hawaii+Trip+Fake
Rush Limbaugh Flips to Obama
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/05/08/rush-limbaugh-flips-to-obama/
On the following video, O’Reilly says: UNLESS there is a Massive fraud in Hawaïi, his birth certificate is good.
But we all know his birth certicate is a massive fraud from Hawaïi… why do you think Obama went to Hawaïi to seal his BC… and spent almost a million $ so no one could see it?
Back stage conversation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT1SXCQgv2A&eurl=http://www.mofopolitics.com/2008/11/21/video-bill-oreilly-on-obama-birth-certificate-controversy/
And for Sean Hannity, here is this link:
Per Mod Ruling: The ONE, the ONLY Obama Birth Certificate Thread
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1027681&page=1978
Craig: Rush Limbaugh is the voice of modern American conservatism. Some people may not take it kindly that you would refer to him as a prostitute.
I have told you that this story has no legs. It’s a dog that won’t hunt. It’s not going anywhere. It’s a non starter.
Rush, Sean and O’Reilly know that. They aren’t going to waste all their time and effort on it.
Again, I would remind you that the topic of this post is the very real live wire that Obama, Emanuel and Axelrod are dancing around. Would you rather have us drop that and go chasing this wild goose birth certificate story through the woods?
If you feel so passionately about this issue then compose a reader post and submit it to Curt. If he decides to publish it then have that serve as the forum here for that issue.
Right now, this non starter of an issue is serving as a distraction away from the one politically threatening Obama scandal that might actually amount to something.
Mike, you are the one who is perpetuating this BC matter by your response to me. All I am saying is that all three, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity where all talking about it before they were ask to shut up. These are facts and you have to accept them. That’s all I am saying but you keep contradicting the facts.
No, I do not want to write a thead on this matter, my English is not good enough and besides there is thousand of blogs that speak about it and I get tons of information from them on this BC issue. I particulary like Texasdarlin blog, the best political blog award of 2008. Great bloggers there, each post as one or two fascinating links that I read. But I only post here.
Craig: I keep contradicting these “facts” because they are not facts.
No one tells Limbaugh to shut up. And the same is true for O’Reilly and Hannity.
There is just NO STORY HERE.
Mike, we will have to disagree on this one. I brought you the facts with links that these 3 were talking about the birth certificate before they were told to shut up. They are in my comment # 70.
But I did make an error on Limbaugh, on the second link that I give you in post #70: Rush Limbaugh Flips to Obama. I read it too fast. That was in the primaries when he was going for Hillary and then switched to Obama. So I guess he is not a prostitute after all, he is still on our side. Ouf! That would have been awful. But he now shuts up for the BC.
Craig: Despite what you may think, neither O’Reilly or Hannity have ever been shut up on any subject this one included. Even if Rupert Murdoch personally told them to lay off they would not.
Now, can we get back to talking about something that isn’t a fantasy?
So why were they always talking about it and now they don’t?
I don’t recall it ever being a top story with any of them and I watch and listen to them all on a daily basis.
Craig, Mike’sA is correct. The Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and O’Reilly radio shows are all syndicated. They program their own material, and live or die on ratings alone. The radio networks that buy their syndicated shows have no say in their content. You can “disagree” with Mike all you want, of course. But you are unaware of how syndication works.
Any of the networks are free to drop any of the shows at will. If, however, the ratings are good, and they are usually packaged (as Rush is with Dr. Laura usually), they are fools to do so. They don’t care about content, but volume of listeners…. because big audiences attract the advertisers.
O’Reilly and Hannity’s cable news shows may or may not have some limitations as it relates to legal risk. However the networks do not play “producers” with their segments.
Now… if you’ve come to your erroneous conclusion just based on the notion that – if they aren’t talking about the Obama birth certificate that they must be censored – then you can go back and revisit my comments about how this is a non-story until the courts actually make a notable decision in any of the sundry cases. And they, like me, or sick to death of discussing something that is still a ways into the future as to it’s outcome. There are other more pertinent and expedient issues to be addressed. Waiting for a lawsuit to make news is like watching grass grow. It took six years for the SCOTUS to deal with the RKBA in Heller. But you didn’t find it in the news everyday until then, right?
Well Mata, you are right, I don’t really know how your Network works. But here in Canada you could be sure that everyone would be talking about it, night and day, if this had occurred here in our country. We do not wait for the Court to decide, we make sure that the Court knows that we care deeply about this matter; so we talk a lot about it and hope that it will finally influence the Court’s decision to act quickly and to give us an honest answer, because we believe that WE the people deserves one.
That’s okay, Craig. I would confess considerable naivety about Canadian issues, so you’d run circles around me there.
Here, even tho the issue may be “cared” about, indicated by the level of discussion, the courts act on one thing only (again, in theory…)… interpretation of the law. The way the three branches of power in is the US is set up is:
Congress/legislature: creates the laws (with veto power by POTUS), and controls the US budget appropriation/spending
Judicial: interprets the laws – but only when they are challenged in a court of law. They do not read Congressional legislation before it is passed and let them know if it’s unConstitutional. Nothing happens until it’s challenged. And no amount of public opinion is supposed to hold sway.
Administrative/POTUS: (includes law enforcement) enforces the laws
Thus, in reality, Congress can pass a bill with unConstitutional authority. The POTUS can sign that bill into law, and that law is enforced until someone challenges the law in a court. Meaning, of course, that your Constitutional rights must be violated in order to file a lawsuit. You can’t file a lawsuit just because you believe a law is unConstitutional without having been “wronged”, so to speak. Sometimes you can, however, solicit an Attorney General opinion on a law without having a lawsuit.
At that point, the judicial system examines the law for interpretation. A lower court can find it Constitutional, and the plaintiff can appeal to higher courts, working his/her way to SCOTUS. That’s the dead end of the judicial road.
The SCOTUS deals with lower court decisions, and all that was involved in their decision. That’s why the “no standing” argument in Berg is what they will address… because that was the only decision made by the lower courts.
Does this help?
“Does this help?” (Mata)
Yes a bit. But am I still stunned. I was sure that the only thing in USA that was important to the judicial was your Constitution.
I cannot believe that a POTUS has the right to hide his birth certificate and get away with it. Why doesn’t the Court ask him his BC to be sure he is eligible? He could be a Kenyan Muslim for all we know. No ones knows where he comes from because he hides it and pays lawyers millions dollars to hide it. Something is very wrong here, for sure. Why does the Supreme Court let him get away with that? This is what I don’t understand. Never mind how the Justice fonction, just tell me why they won’t ask for his birth certificate and I will be happy. I am really stunned and cannot believe that he will get away with it. If he does, then tell me why you have a Constitution if you can bypass it so easily? If the Court cannot do anything, can the FBI or CIA do something about it and ask for poofs? There must be someone in the States that can stop this fraud… because it sure looks like a fraud, a massive fraud.
P.S.: If McCain… no, not Mccain, he doesn’t have the guts, but let’s say Hillary Clinton would have file a law suit in the court to get Obama’s BC, would the Supreme Court have also reject her case ?
Craig, slow down and think for a minute. The court system does not enforce, they interpret laws. They are not the entity that qualifies individuals for public office.
If someone… like Hillary… filed a lawsuit as Keyes and Berg, etal have, it does not start out with the Supreme’s. It starts in the lower courts, depending on the district and jurisdiction where the lawsuit was filed.
The Supreme’s have not rejected anything yet that I know of except the injunction Berg requested on Dec 8th. I do not know if they have refused to do a review (or writ of certorari) of the lower court’s decision to dismiss.
And who knows what they would have done with a Hillary lawsuit because it depends on the brief filed, and the arguments used. What you do not know, or do not present, isn’t used as an argument in a court. They don’t fill in the blanks for you. So your brief must be complete, hopefully stocked with evidence, and compelling.
Thanks for your patience Mata.
“They don’t fill in the blanks for you. So your brief must be complete, hopefully stocked with evidence, and compelling.” (Mata)
This is the way I would do it:
I would just ask them if they or anybody else have ever seen Obama BC? They would have to say NO, since he has never presented it to no one yet. That is a proof: NO ONE SAW IT, not even the Court. And then, I would say that Constitution stipulate that a POTUS has to be born citizen with no dual citizenship. And I would ask them if they have seen some proof of that he is a born citizen with no dual citizenship? They would of course say no. So I would just ask them to get one. That’s it that’s all. How easier can it get?
Let’s face it, who can take Obama word on that? He is such a pathological liar.
Isn`t it amazing how many closet doors Mr.Obamma has? One after another just keep opening.
Thats what I call “BEING ABOVE THE LAW”.Now we all know that Obamma has conned the world, and the government is to embarassed to face the fact that our security isn`t worth a damn,BUT, when it comes down to WHO PUT OBAMMA INTO OFFICE,there is no such thing as being above the law.The people that put him in, will take him out,and I don`t mean the voters.You must remember,Obamma comes from chicaco,and that should simply expain whats going to happaen to him.Ask the Kennedys, what happens to the ones that fu%% with the wrong people. I wonder why Ted Kenndy is keeping his mouth shout.