Real reform
Published Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!To the editor:
Those who have long predicted doom in our economy have made the point clearly: Continuing on a consumption- and debt-based economic path has led us to this mess. They also have made the point that it’s been our government that has been behind the mess all along, with artificially low interest rates, budget and trade deficits, regulatory failure, and now the bailouts, to highlight just a few.
Do we actually think that doing more of the same thing that we’ve done for years to now, and borrowing to do so, will actually magically spring us out of this mess? Have Paulson and Bernanke come out and told the public that they have got this all figured out? All they are essentially saying now is for Congress to give them more authority, so they can bail out the rest of country. I guess they expect us to believe that the wizard behind the curtain will somehow work this all out, no matter how much debt, regulation and printing of money it takes. I expect the new economic team that arrives shortly in Washington will do more of the same, because they’ve all been feeding from the same trough for decades.
Where is the discussion in our “elite” and in our “representation” in Washington that says we need to make a fundamental change in how we operate as a country? I’m afraid that the discussion has been of a fine-tuning nature, that changes in regulation and structure and more money are what’s needed. Conversion and repentance from this fatally flawed system of consumption and debt is not happening.
The notion of our populace to “set it and forget it” at election time and let those sent to Washington to run things and put out the fire has failed. If Washington cannot, and will not, put the nation on track from the top, then we citizens below, will have to do it on our own. First by cleaning up our own balance sheets (household, municipal and state) and then, secondly, demanding real reform and real change at the national level.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Get real, Michael Dunton. The foundation of a consumer economy is consumer confidence. If any of the jokers in Washington come out and discuss how bad this mess is, the public will find out the fraud. No consumer confidence. Total economic collapse. It's inevitable, but at least this way it's a slow process. If they reaveal how dire it is, the collapse will happen overnight.
Legalized corruption. How'd they manage to legalize conflict of interest and collusion?
Wow, WOW. I actually agree with CurtJ on something!
This is what you call legal plunder. Let the car manufacturers go bankrupt as that is the best way to get healthy results. It's happened before. Read what Mitt Romney wrote on this subject. It's quite interesting considering that his father was American Motors' CEO in the late 50s to 60's. It was through his predecessors' bankrupting the company that Romney Sr. was able make such a success out of it.
This country has to face the reality that with it's cry for globalization and world wide free market, it put the US manufacturing out of business. How do you compete with countries who do not regulate a darn thing, pay workers a few dollars a day for working themselves 12 hours a day/7 days a week and are glad of a job. name one thing the US produces, icluding governments, that is not looking for a tax payers bail out. The new US economy, government makes jobs, collects taxes to pay workers, and then makes more jobs and raises taxes. Our economy is becoming the world's biggest Ponzi scheme.
Let's all get together and buy a great big 'thank you' card for Phil Gramm. Every piece of bad economic news for months has had the stench of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act all over it. Everyone from Bush on down has been telling us all year that the economy was fine when, in fact, we've been in a recession since Dec '07. The plan was obviously to keep a lid on the disaster until Jan 20 so Limbaw and the other crazies could blame it on Obama.
slider - I hope you're being sarcastic, otherwise the good news for you is that there's talk of a bailout for the psych center.
Hey, only two more days for the supreme court to meet on the writ of certiorari concerning Obama's birth certificate. But don't worry, liberals don't like the constitution either.
palinview, do you still believe that crap about obama's birth certificate? please check out this link.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/ha...
there's also another link which someone else posted basically stating the same thing.
We're obviously off topic here, plain, but what exactly is the deal with Obama's birth certificate? I can't be bothered with the Enquirer or the Limbaw show so I'm out of the loop. There doesn't seem to be any question as to the identity of his mother, a U.S. citizen. A checker at Fred Meyer claimed Obama was really born in Kenya, though I don't see why that would matter. McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizens, not that I care about that either.
Suppose you and your spouse had a baby on the way and one of you (at least) were a U.S. citizen. Suppose you guys needed to go Juneau for some reason but Ak Air wouldn't let you fly because the due date was too close. So you guys decide to drive to Haines to take the ferry. Well, it wasn't the plan, but suppose the baby was born in Whitehorse. Now the baby is clearly a U.S. citizen despite the fact that he/she was born outside the U.S. My understanding of the Constitution, having actually read the thing, is that there is no reason this perfectly good child, a U.S. citizen from birth, could not grow up to be the president. So what exactly is the problem?
Ever since I first came to understand economics, I have been waiting for our economy to fail. It is akin to me, making 22K a year, spending 300K each year on credit cards, and just adding the interest to the amount I spend every year.
Honestly, I dont know what you could do at this point. Even if we cut the military budget in half and shut down Medicaid/Medicare, there is no way our nation could get out of debt in our lifetime.
Its all going to collapse, it has to. Luckily, Alaska is in a better position to survive it.
roost - You're actually evading the question. Assuming you've read the Constitution too, would a kid born in Whitehorse to U.S. parents be barred from becoming president? Obviously, someone like Schwartzenegger could not be president because he was born an Austrian citizen. No one argues about that. How about the child of the U.S. ambassador to England? A Bush appointee representing U.S. interests in a foreign yet friendly country if you want, not that it matters. Assuming his wife wants to deliver the child at the local hospital instead of on top of the pool table in the embassy, which is of course U.S. soil. If you can't give a reasonable argument here then it just makes you look foolish dude.
majast2211 - Oh , I'm quite familiar of the whole affair, factcheck included. You are referring the the factcheck by the Annenberg group whose members includes Bill Ayers. This is the group who Obama solicited millions for ( long before the certificate issue). Don't you think that is akin to the fox watching then henhouse? Notice any conflict of interest? That group presented a copy of live birth,not a bona fide birth certificate, which in of itself has issues as to it's authenticity. People are confused over the stay of Election suit that was shot down and this Writ of Certiorari, which is yet to be considered. This is the original suit along with separate ones,such as the colonel Hollister suit contending that Obama is legally Barry Soetero as Indonesian citizen. which brings me to address:
slider - If it was like the example you gave, then there's room for argument. The argument is messy. There is issue over Obama not releasing a birth certificate and by not responding within 30 days to a civil suit against him . I believe rule 36 of civil constitutional code states that a non-respondent forfeits contention and not only that, but by not responding, legally is in admittance to all charged against him. This is the done in the same civil manner to everyone , including small claims. there is question to Obama even being a U.S. citizen , let alone one who was born here. His tenure in Jakarta and Pakistan in times when U.S. citizens were banned from those countries also bring up question of his citizenship. As a matter of fact there's a separate suit on that alone, which I believe was before Phillip Berg's, which is the most politicised. There is also another suit challenging an english/indonesian dual citizenship.
For you folks to consider this man as absolutely constitutionally suited for presidency before the supreme court does is 'interesting' to say the least.
Oh, and by the way, McCain was born on a U.S. base by U.S. citizens; that axe was ground a long time ago.
There is a big difference between a birth certificate and a certificate of live birth.
Now, if this is pushed through without consideration ( which I think it unfortunately will), Berg's ( Berg is a lifelong democrat, by the way) fears of worldwide blackmail and views on America having a non-qualified leader to be ignored will come true.
plain- Lots of interesting information there. If I understand you correctly, then if a person with international business interests like, say, Neil Bush, were moved by their company to Jakarta for a time then the U.S. citizenship of Neil's 5-year-old kid would be in jeopardy? News to me, if true. I'm still waiting on the citizenship question. To me, it doesn't matter if a couple is in Canada in transit between two points of U.S. soil or in Canada on official U.S. business, their child is automatically a U.S. citizen. Likewise, the child of illegal aliens born in El Paso is a U.S. citizen. Regardless how one feels about this, it is a fact of U.S. law. And, once again, McCain is a natural-born U.S. citizen because his parents were U.S. citizens, case closed.
Here is a good link on the economy and how it broke:
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/na...
This cartoon is also pretty good:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/12...
slider - What I'm saying is that around the years of 1984, no one with a U.S. citizenship was allowed in Pakistan. Obama was there then. Ditto for Jakarta . Unlike McCain's parents, Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and the united Kingdom at the time, not a U.S. citizen. Obama's mother was 18 years old when he was born. This in itself is significant because ,as I assume you know, that a parent has to have been a U.S citizen at least 5 years before the child is considered one, but here's the problem: one has to be so over the age of 16. Although she was a U.S.citizen for ten years , only two years are valid before Obama's birth. As you can see, your examples are not even in the realm of this.
To make matters worse, there is a phone conversation between Bishop McRae and a translator with Obama's grandmother present. What wasn't disclosed was the fact that this Bishop spoke Swahili. The translator was guiding the conversation away from the grandmother's statement that she was present at Obama's birth in Kenya. This phone conversation has been recorded.
There are other problems concerning Obama's citizenry and faith. My contention is there should be none, as he claims he also has the original birth certificate in a vault.
I am not saying he isn't qualified to being president, but that there is serious doubt that he is and a doubt at this level shouldn't exist. The Democratic National committee has made many efforts to blockade the supreme court investigation into this matter and that in itself is worrisome.
slider said "A checker at Fred Meyer claimed Obama was really born in Kenya".
And that, Slider, is why the person is a checker at Fred Meyer! Most likely a high school dropout who believes everything he/she hears!
And please try and stay ON topic, folks!
plain- I have to say that this is a level of nitpicking that I have never seen before. It's hard to believe that a child of U.S. citizens is a U.S. citizen if and only if at least one parent is at least 23 years old. I would rate this as very unlikely but will admit that I haven't looked this up. Maybe you could point to a statement of the law.
You seem a lot more knowledgeable than rooster. What do you think of rooster's comment? That U.S. citizens must apply for citizenship, presumably subject to denial, for their child if not physically born on U.S. soil. Assume the parents are over 23. This is unlikely relevant in Obama's case, as I still see no documents proving, as would a birth certificate, that he was specifically born in Kenya. Just a lot of talk. Frankly, if there were actual evidence that he was not a U.S. citizen he'd have been shut down a long time ago.
rooster - you are exactly the kind of numbed person this takeover is thriving on. I suggest you do a little research on your own, check some of the websites that have been posted, before you you decide whats scaring you.
I checked the link to Obamas birth certificate provided above, and to my eyes it is a forgery. Blown up to original size, you can see it uses the Helvetica font, which was only developed in 1957, and to my knowlege was never used on a typewriter, much less in 1961.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetica
heres the link to the suspect certificate:
http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%...
Right, so Obama's birth certificate is a forgery? Is that what you idiots are saying?
Let's take stock of who is involed in this conspiracy...
The State of Hawaii (verified the authenticity of the certificate)
The FBI (performed background check)
The CIA (performed background check)
Senator McCain (conceded election to Obama)
President Bush (welcomed Obama to white house as President Elect)
The US Supreme Court (threw out both lawsuits)
The University of Pennsylvania (owns and operates the Annenberg Public Policy Center which maintains factcheck.org--incidentally, Walter Annenberg no longer has any role in the APPC)
That's quite the conspiracy. Who on earth could have pulled that off? Was it Jim Whitaker? The Liberals at UAF? Al Gore? Dermot Cole? The Tok UFO?
Seriosly... get over it. He's a natural-born US citizen. If you don't like it, that's tough. Oh, and Plainview, the SC already decided not to issue the Writ of Certorai several weeks ago.
The thieves in washington will continue to do what benifits them until we throw them out, and then the next ones will too. It is a downward spiral. Thew one and only benifit to financial collapse is that in about ten years it will re-set the system. I hope we can all survive the ten years.
rooster- I survived both the Clinton years and the Bush years and have to point out the country was in about a million times better shape after Clinton was done with it than it is now.
Obama will continue the ridiculous policies of the past administrations. It's not the person in office, it's the people in power who make the decisions. Our government is "of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations" and has been for decades. Even now, in the face of such illegal gains, not one person has been held accountable for any wrong doing at all, and most likely won't be. We reward bad behavior of the crooked rich. It's the American way, don't ya know?!
Hey slider, how is iceman? Do you guys even remember what the article was about. Why don't you and the other guy go balistic with Penny Benjamin, if you don't stay on topic then you'll be flying a plane full of rubber dog crap out of hong kong! Just watched Top Gun again, and your name brought back some good 1 liners.
Obama is our next President, deal with it.
slider - You missed the mark. 21 is the age and it applies to one of the parents , the other not as a citizen. In other words, if only one parent is a U.S. citizen, that parent has to have been one for ten years, five being over the age of sixteen in order for the child to be considered a natural born citizen. To complicate matters more , those laws that are on the books during the time an individual was born are the ones used for qualification, regardless if they are changed.
I believe Roosterdude is correct on the issue he mentioned.
the problem with it all is there's no document materialized that proves he's an American born citizen.
You may find all this a bunch of talk and indeed it all may pan out that a real certificate of live birth pops up, but why hasn't it yet?
If the original is lost, why not pay the $20.00 or so to obtain a copy from vital statistics?
This is future exasperated by the photo example showing only one fold in the document instead of the two one would have if sent by mail. There are other problems with it,another being what DenaliGuy mentioned.
Like I've mentioned before,what is shown in the media is a certificate of live birth which is not a birth certificate. A birth certificate includes information about the parent and doctor,etc. that is not in the document shown and even that document's authenticity is in question.
As pastor Manning ( who is not my favorite character, by the way)aptly said:
"just show the doggone birth certificate!"
So you see, there's a lot of talk about having a simple item like a birth certificate, but there's none to be seen in an objective proper legal manner - the supreme court ( well ,I have doubts about objectivity for two reasons:1) our country will be in a big hurt if Obama is found to be disqualified and 2)the supreme court's in-objectivity will surely have a liberal leaning if indeed in-objectivity exists,seeing who the justices are).
Don't you think Obama would have strengthened his campaign by producing something so 'trivial' when challenged at the time? Remember, the supreme court was aware of these challenges long before the voting booths opened, with the exception of Hollister's.
Isn't it interesting that January ninth hasn't been discussed in the media? I'm hoping it will be at least in a timely fashion.
Hi folks ! What birth certificate?
Like Phillip Berg stated , that this could be the greatest hoax of the century.
Remember , it only takes four out of the nine supreme court justices to grant the petition of writ of certiorari. The supreme court conferenced the case for the ninth and the sixteenth of this month.
So, I guess the supreme court is a bunch of idiots just like some of us.
Oh, by the way, legally; Obama has already admitted guilt and lack of qualification by non-response in this civil matter, whether you or I like it or not. For those of you that are pro-Obama don't worry, I'm sure he will slide along just fine regardless of his status - it's just that we may not in the long run world scope of things.
OMG!!!!!!!
A copy of Obama's birth certificate surfaced today on the major networks. And it ain't from the U.S.! Look and see!!!:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1761/...
The Supreme Court will HAVE to get involved now, plainview and jroosterdude!!!!
The Supreme Court is already involved. It concludes that the questions warrant observation and so do some of us. I guess we're just constitutionally 'funny' that way.
Hey, if Obama is legit, no prob. with me.
So what's your deal with the lack of interest and all ?
Hey jr. I didnt hear from you after you infantile post yesterday and since you bring up Old Phil Gramm again I will repost
OK I'll bite jr. and I wont even use capitals!
From http://www.politico.com/news/stories/100......
"But the main justification for these attacks – that congressional Democrats colluded with Fannie and Freddie to block increased regulation – ignores a central fact: The fight to impose tougher oversight on the two government-sponsored secondary lenders was predominantly waged between the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill – with Frank playing a bit role in the stalemate.
In fact, in 2005, Republicans on the Financial Services panel, led by then-Chairman Mike Oxley (R-Ohio), pushed for tougher regulation, but the White House fought those efforts, preferring instead to privatize the two mortgage giants, which rely on government guarantees to package home loans and resell them for a profit."
From the googles...
Democrats:
PACs 1.540.749
Indiv 1.222.353
Totals 2.763.102
Repubs:
PACs 603.922
Indiv 1.470.298
Tot 2.073.970
So gasp, it seems that Democrats do indeed get more money from FNM/FRM.
But ... this list does not say at all how much repubs or dems got from the 30 OTHER banks, who are part of this scandal.
Not that this list has no value, but are democrats more culpable than repubs just because they got a 'staggering' 700.000 more?? Methinks not.
Especially if there's merit to the NYT list
McCain got $169,900 + 21.550 = 191.450
(of which 21.550 from individuals)
Obama got $16,000 + 126.349 = 142.349
(of which 120.349 from individuals)
Shows what kinda president both would be:
Mccain got his cash mostly from the companies, but Obama? From the people.
Dont forget that Mclost was also responsible for...
1. Credit Default Swaps - The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 forbade their regulation. He voted for it
2. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act. He voted for it.
3. Freddie Mac - Access to him was paid to his Campaign Manager.
Alls well that ends well!
Henry,
you forgot to list THE AYATOLLAH!!!!!!! amongst the conspirators.
plain- Thanks for the info. I had no idea the rules were so Byzantine. You would think if Obama's mother had to go through all this paperwork on her hypothetical return from Kenya that there would be a paper trail a mile wide. Of course, paperwork can be erased if you have the right connections. A good example of that is how they erased Bush's original Texas driver's license (the one with the DWIs) and issued him a new one with a new number and a clean record. They won't do that for you, and that's a fact. I don't have any idea where you're from, but if you were to go back there after a 30 year absence and want a driver's license it'd be the same old number. btw I do know that 16+5 is 21 - I put the number 23 to remove quibbling about the number as an issue in the thought experiment. I appreciate your civility on this. I will say though that for all the quibbling about the font on the photocopy and the lack of a crease and whatnot that there remains no actual evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. I felt the same way during all the flap about S. Palin's 'pregnancy' last spring. I have kids and have been around many women 7 months pregnant and it is only possible to miss this if the woman weighs 500 pounds. Producing Trig Palin's birth certificate would have complete squelched all of those rumors but it never happened.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43...
------
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?Progr...
------
The national dialog about REAL REFORM in 2009
would be incomplete and stinky
if it does not include the valuable works of-->
The Hon.Sen.Mike Gravel-AK
http://ni4d.us/
http://ni4d.us/
http://ni4d.us/
+++++++++++++++
Plainview, where'd you go to law school? The Imaginationland School of Fake Law and Ridiculosity?
I'm curious, since you seem to know so gosh-darn much about laws, rules, and codes that don't actually exist in Real People World, like the "Civil Constitutional Code."
*hands you back your tinfoil hat that blocks out the voices of reason*
oh, stories? Thats it? That is all you got? Wow, you loss.
slider - It's got me scratching my head as something like this shouldn't be an issue, bu wouldn't surprise me either way things may go.
I tend to believe Palin's kid is hers due to her age and his having Down's syndrome (old egg that shouldn't have been used?)and she's just another ambitious politician. I'm sure Bush has had strings pulled for him at one time or another, but don't believe he's the dolt that the media portrayed him as being. I think anyone with average intelligence would be crying for their mama after a couple months of presidency, assisted or not. There's enough valid blame to go around concerning Clinton, Bush, Nixon, Carter,etc.,etc. and that doesn't help me place Obama in a better light by any means. Thanks for your civility also and I apologize for being not so civil initially.
gless complains about name calling in 3...2...1
RabbleRabble - Tell it to the judges. They will be looking into it on the 9th and 16th of this month. Also please tell it to Phil Berg as you would save him the embarrassment of using fake and ridiculous non-existing civil constitutional code as a charge. You may want to look into his credentials first though.
You're welcome to test against this : just find someone , violate them in a non-criminal fashion, and when they take you to court,don't show up. Don't respond via letter postmarked under 31 days. See what happens. What do you have to lose ?
Plainview, a quick Google search reveals that Phil Berg has already been embarrassed enough as it is, including being sued by his clients for legal malpractice: ( http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/o... ) and being fined over $10,000 for "a laundry list of unethical actions" that the led the judge to note that "other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession." ( http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=11... ).
Sounds like just the kind of guy I'd want representing me (the American citizenry) in court.
But yes. Berg, like every other nutjob in the US, has a right to file a writ of cert to the Supreme Court asking them to hear their nutjob case, and the Supreme Court will, as it does to every other nutjob case, decline it. Oh, the injustice of it all!
I'm still interested in learning more about the "Civil Constitutional Code" though. Do share!
Yes, dealreal when you have been proven wrong time after time, I find you guys go away...but here you are?
I kiiiid, I kiiiid....TAC take it easy, dealreal can fend for himself.
Oh well ,can't please everyone. I guess even lawyers can be sued , how about that .
Look up Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , rules 36,38 and 6 of 38 for starters. Why are you capitalizing something I didn't . Are you trying to fabricate an official title to something I didn't. The code is constitutional in that it is not illegal, 'fake and ridiculous' as you suggest.
Berg also served in a capacity honorably. Is it that you don't know what that is or that you chose to leave it out. So since it's question and answer time , please let the folks know ( not that it matters,as we may find out the 9th and 16th).
It may be a nutjob case for all I know. I just can't call it that until the supreme court does in a revealing manner. Why would you?
DistantThunder - I went to that NI4D site and got a creepy feeling about the talk of citizens being able to change the Constitution by voting on it. If we had any kind of informed public, that idea might seem like a good one, but with the rampant ignorance and apathy of America, the thought of them being able to change the Constitution kind of scares me. Granted, the Bush administration and Congress have done a pretty good job of ripping our sacred document to shreds, but it seems that in a democracy, if the majority of the people are stupid and ignorant, we're ruled by stupid, ignorant people. I respect what you bring to these comments sections, so I'd really like to hear your comments on that site. Thanks! I DID like the idea that no corporations would be in on the deal. We sure got ripped off in 1886, didn't we?!
I dont need to get after it? You do all of that for us, Thanks.
Palin 2012
Okay, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That *does* exist, but Rule 36 doesn't make a whit of difference in this case. Process was served on Obama in this case on September 4. On September 24, Obama's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss, which the judge granted. Since the case was dismissed as being bogus, nothing was ever actually "admitted" or "denied."
But seriously, why not just take a look at the history of this ridiculous case for yourself: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-p...
Look at Document 28, in which the first judge explains exactly why this is a nutjob case (he even uses those Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in explaining why this is a nutjob case): http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/dis...
Interestingly, the judge cites a similar nutjob case filed against John McCain, claiming *he* couldn't be President because he was born in the Canal Zone.
Since then, this guy appealed to the Third Circuit, who told him to go away, and since then has kept on filing writs of cert to any Supreme Court Justice unfortunate enough to hear from him. And the Supreme Court already *has* said it's a nutjob case in a revealing manner. ( http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/doc... ) Souter said go away, Kennedy said go away, and soon enough, Scalia will say go away. And when Scalia tells an anti-Obama nutjob to go away, you know he really should go away.
YouMustBeConscripted: Are you Twin Cities libs raising a Franken Stein at the brew pubs?
Oh, and how's the weather back there?
jroosterdude - As to the birth certificate, I simply looked at a link posted on this thread and made a judgemental comment on it based on both experience and research(Im a sign painter and work with the Helvetica font all the time, and I provided the link to wiki). Whether or not that particular page is the exact certificate turned over by Obama, I dont have a clue; Never the less it IS a fake.
Secondly, you accuse me of "butting in"; since when is this your private forum? I think you should instead stop typing long enough to do a little research and get a little knowledge, instead of blowing off everyone that has a different opinion than you. Like I posted before, you exemplify the numb mind that these 'take-over predators' are feeding on, now I will add to that 'in-grated'.
Third, I got the idea you were scared from the post you made just before my last post, where you said:
"the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Get real, that is a paranoid take if ever I read one. It's beliefs like that which scare me more than the politicians."
apparently, your mind is so numb you cant remember what you said an hour and 12 minutes earlier. Quit making a fool of yourself. Didnt your parents teach you anything?
RabbleRabble - Berg may be a nutjob and I concede that his tactics and advertising is distasteful to say the least. I also predict what you say will happen ,will happen.
There still lies the problem whether Manson or Mother Theresa is the messenger, unless concrete evidence is shown on the 9th or 16th, which at that time only Obama's timing would be in question if it indeed does.
The only groups I'm aware of that claim to have seen the original are in conflict of interest ( factcheck/Annenburg, worldnewsdaily or worlddailynews ( forget which and admittedly were conservative but strife with internal conflict)). Hawaii's director of health personally verified that his department holds the original certification, but would not state if it was even Hawaiian or an amended one provided by it's law.
There is a big difference between a certificate of live birth and a birth certificate. If Berg's, Hollister and a claimed sealed suit are a bust due to a materialized proof, nothing would please me more as it would be disastrous if suspicions were true. Unfortunately, I assume this fear is shared by the Supreme Court and that may play in its decisions.
It's not what the plaintiffs are saying or doing that makes me wonder, but what Obama and the DNC are not doing.
I hate to beat a deadhorse, but just THINK for a minute. During Pres. Bush's presidency, he has assisted in ruining this nation>>>>see The Carlyle group (.com & .net). The EX Presidents Club in investing. Gawd, it's scarey, the affiliates in the Carlyle Club,...they're stock ain't wanning, oh, and neither is the war or the billions invested with Carlyle thanks to the military contracts and defense spending. Do a search on The carlyle Group....frightening, it's a global cushion for billionaires.
Now just take a looksie at China's expansion during the Bush legacy. Why golly gee, what president in his right mind would allow the trade imbalance currently with China? Yeah, yeah, people like cheap $hit, but ya know,...everyone isn't that stupid.
What American president HUGS an Arab leader? That's too wierd. (did Bush kiss that Arab leader?) With ALL the domestic oil, why are we thirsty for OPEC? It can't be solely because of EPA, and folks fearful of drill rig on their ocean view. I mean Dubai has cooling systems under their sandy beaches!
You want to save the economy and spend your way to economic recovery? Well, keep buying imported crap,...our landfills can't absorb much more garbage from China. Lead or no lead, how can a nation supporting civil rights spend 1.2 trillion in 7 years to China? Get your head on straight. Geeesh, keep buying imported junk.
Basic logic tells me that if I spend all my money on imports, well, ummm you figure that equation.
Keep US dollars in the USA,...good place to start. 11 trillion national debt = roughly $34,000.00 debt per person. Thank you Bush for selling us to China/Saudi Arabia.
Plainview, I'd like to apologize for my tone of my last few comments. We clearly disagree on the relevance of Berg's claims, but at least in making your points you kept it polite and civil; I can't say the same for myself. You caught me in a curmudgeonly mood, and I'm sorry.
RabbleRabble - No problem and thanks. This whole thing has me scratching my head. The berg camp is claiming that the only reason Souter and Kennedy denied him ( seven times total, I believe) is due to an application for an injunction to stay electoral vote count and stay electoral college vote count , therefore the court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss in berg v. Obama. The Obama camp is arguing that the writ of certiorari in it's entirety has been denied. The court is mum, or unclear at best to the actual meaning. It's my understanding that the court hasn't considered evidence through investigation,but in all fairness, Berg may have presented only charges at that point.I admittedly may be assuming things since this writ will be in conference soon, that the writ is valid in it's entirety. It wouldn't surprise me that this particular is a war of semantics. I should also point out that although the court set the deadline for Obama to respond, in all fairness, does not mean it requested proof from Obama because it didn't. I does concern me that no response was given, but there may or may not be revelation to the why of that.
I'm glad you called me on it, as I shouldn't have given an impression of simplicity by generalization. Thanks for that.
Plainview, you got me thinking about why Obama didn't respond to the allegations in the suit, and honestly, I think it might simply boil down to not wanting to dignify it with an actual response. If I were trying to put myself in Obama's shoes (or McCain's, for that matter, when someone sued him for a similar reason), and someone who can arguably be called a "conspiracy theorist" sued me saying I couldn't be President because I wasn't a natural-born citizen, I'd probably either roll my eyes or get offended. But I wouldn't want to dignify it with a response. And if I legally had a choice to either respond to the claims or ask the court to tell the guy to go away, I'd ask the court to tell the guy to go away. I don't have to go around whipping out my "vault copy" of my birth certificate to anyone who asks me for it, and neither should he. Berg sounds like some guy in the Civil War days demanding to see
The legal system is a double-edged sword. The beauty of it is that the doors are open to anybody and everybody. The downside of it is that the doors are open to anybody and everybody. Like this discussion board, people can show up and have their concerns be heard publicly, or people can show up to harass people. I think this Berg guy wants attention, and suing the President-elect is a good way of getting some.
Well ,just when I thought it couldn't get messier: Yesterday ( 1/07/09) Justice John Roberts has stated that there is a problem present needing the attention of all justices and called for a conference on Jan. 23 in response to the Lightfoot v. Bowen case .This is according to Lightfoot's lawer who talked with Roberts yesterday, at least that's what I understand. Gail Lightfoot was the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate for California, I think. This is on the claim that 1) a failure to provide evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth 2) Failure to provide evidentiary documentation of the United Kingdom citizenship at birth, from a Kenyan father when that country was a British colony
However ,no writ of certiorari has been filed.
Many consider the U.K. argument the strongest yet, but it remains to be seen. This is not an argument for or against validity, but suggests that January may be a very busy month for the supreme court and if anything, will publicly bring to light the court's considerations/views on these cases.
Obama vows cutback in Social Security
Buzz up!
President-elect Barack Obama vowed Wednesday to tackle Social Security and Medicare spending as this year's deficit was projected to reach $1.2 trillion and with Congress preparing to run that figure even higher with its economic recovery package.
Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill were staggered by the deficit number, with some calling for renewed restraint and others placing blame.
About the only person who was silent on the deficit projection was Mr. Bush, who took office facing a surplus but who saw spending balloon and the country notch the highest deficits on record. (www.washingtontimes.com)
Small wonder Bush sat silent! Bush only shuts up, when round those who HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE! George Bush SR believes this country would "welome" jeb Bush as president. Laughing my A$$ off.
I see Bush facing a lynching of his own making!
RabbleRabble - I have to agree with you that Obama is in no way obligated to show proof of citizenship at this point. whether this status changes is yet to be seen. On a personal level, I hope the court is in finding that he will indeed have to show it proof to confirm qualification and that he indeed does so. It has to be the best case scenario,leaving no doubts or lawsuits ( well,surely much less) in the future concerning this matter ( The Hollister suit is on the contention that he, Colonel Hollister, is not under obligation of reactivated service to the Executive in charge if qualification is not revealed, but will challenge - imagine all the lawsuits based on challenges, frivolous or not). We also shouldn't leave this unresolved for the sake of world perception as it may affect how it's leaders relate to us on a practical sense. Obama , at least for now; does have the prerogative of non-disclosure, but I think it's in the best interest for all to just disclose proof and lay it to rest.
Now, being a constitutional lawyer, Obama may be letting this run a course toward a disclosure through the Supreme Court to give a legitimacy and finality to it all , for all I know. It might be a very wise choice. The Supreme Court might definitively expose these cases as products of quackery on it's own. It all may pan out to be quite outrageous or anticlimactic.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.