Couple this with Sarah Palin's radio interview where she states that Obama's birth certificate issue is "fair game." [Note to self: Mike Rucker just might burst a blood vessel over this one!]
Then, read the following post (here, or over there) at The Obama File Latest News :
Here is a video of Ed Schultz talking to far-left blogger Markos Moulitsas about Obama's decision on a Surge in Afghanistan.
Moulitsas, operator of the George Soros-funded Daily Kos website, also mentioned the 2010 elections during his conversation, and he said pointedly that Obama's base is "actually very unmotivated" to turn out and vote. He said Democrats will be facing a great deal of "pain" in the 2010 midterms, as they try and defend Obama's decision to their base.
It was the Daily Kos that posted the now-infamous Certification of Live Birth (COLB) image along with a cover story on June 12, 2008. The Kos received 648 comments in a span of only 24 hours, of which the first 644 were about the most insipid, lame, and mindless reactions ever accumulated in one place.
This was the beginning of the COLB controversy. The controversy wasn't started by "Birthers." It was started by the Obama Campaign and the Daily Kos, and FactCheck.org was introduced into the conspiracy.
The vast majority of the associated comments consisted of derogatory remarks about John McCain and his eligibility issue.
HOWEVER, there was one, brave Kos commenter who identified all of the key anomalies in the COLB image and had the stones to question it’s authenticity. Her screen name is AsperGirl and her comment was #643, or one of the last five comments to be posted -- her comment begins, "Sorry to disabuse you folks, but this birth certificate on daily kos is an obvious fake."
Her comments hit too close to home. She struck a nerve, and that’s why the comments section was closed off to new ones less than three hours after the original post.
Here is the beginning of the Obama eligibility issue -- warning BIG file -- and here is a cache copy in case Moulitsas scrubs his website.
Page search on "AsperGirl" will bring you to the end of her comments. Just cursor up a bit. Even a loyal Daily Kos reader recognized the falsity of the document that Obama used to begin his coup d'etat.
WOW! Whoever thought that there might be an honest commentator posting at that rabidly liberal-leftist hate site?
Months ago, Glenn Beck was quoted as saying (about Obama's czars, Cabinet, and Congress)
"These people will do themselves in."
It appears that three lawyers do not want to be on that bandwagon when it goes over the cliff!
Who knows whether or not all of this will lead to Obama being removed from the White House? However, I think it might be safe to say that he will not be able to run again in 2012.
Hat Tips:
The Post & Email blog
The Obama File
Nice Deb
Posts
12 comments:
No.Some spineless cretins jumped ship on Clinton and Bush Jr. as well without exposing themIt's wrap-up time.Listen to Greg on DEc.4th show in survuve2thrive archives-- http://www.stevequayle.com/index1.html Greg's latest- http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg146.htm LTN- http://lasttrumpetnewsletter.org/2009/12_09.html
christine, i just LOVE seeing my name in print in your blog...
and, it's funny - before i even read this, i was lying in bed this morning, thinking of you...
(ahem)
... and thinking about your obsession with obama's birth certificate.
and a curious thought came to me. please try to hear and respond to this rationally.
suppose you were sitting in your living room, oh, two years ago. by yourself. closed off to the blogosphere. and you saw the democratic primaries rapidly pointing to obama as the likely party nominee. and, at this point, you knew the nominee for the republicans was going to be john mccain.
(of course, you knew nothing yet of the catty, conceited, couldn't-stand-the-heat-and-got-out-of-the-kitchen, self-before-party veep-nominee-to-be; but that's irrelevant to our discussion...)
so, you saw the race winding down to obama vs. mccain.
now, obviously, in those two nominees you clearly were going to vote for john mccain. understood. everyone has a vote.
how would issues around his birth certficate have even come into your mind? what would have been the motivation?
would it have been, 'we need to check his birth certificate, because every presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the united states, and we need to make sure the constitution is followed to the letter'?
would it then have been, '...and we need to check john mccain's, too'?
or would it have been something based purely on hatred and an i'm-going-to-do-everything-i-can-and-look-under-every-rock-to-find-anything-on-this-guy-so-he-doesn't-get-elected-president attitude?
or might it even have been, quite subtly, 'this black guy was probably born in africa ... i bet i can get the goods on him somehow'?
or even something a little less vicious, like 'i wonder if he was even born in america'? one could analyze the source of that thought for awhile, but i'll leave it to others.
but, so you say, your intention was to protect the constitution.
i'm just curious - what would really have motivated you in your pursuit? why would you have even asked the question? had you ever, ever asked the question before about a candidate in a race (pun intended)?
in spite of the thrust of this comment, i'm not simply offering it from a you're-a-racist point of view - that's not my push.
it's just, why? why would you have wanted to investigate the birth certificate?
just curious.
mike rucker
saw a few more posts, but didn't see an answer to this.
and i hope you heard general petraeus' comments about the afghan timetable; we can only hope that intelligent comments by someone in the know will quell all the bs from those who think they know (bloggers, talk radio magpies, etc.).
finally, i realized this week why i'm convinced obama is doing a stellar job as president:
both sides are disappointed in him.
one of my liberal friends called obama a 'major disappointment' after the afghanistan speech. of course, with no basis for the opinions you regularly posit, you've insisted he's wrecked the country in little over a year.
as i suspected when i voted for him, he is an extremely intelligent and capable man who will hear all sides of an issue, consider the possible solutions, and then make what he thinks is the best decision.
the reason you probably don't recognize that is because it's been so long since we had someone in the white house actually using that approach...
mike rucker
Mike wrote:
"it's just, why? why would you have wanted to investigate the birth certificate?"
Because if he is not a natural born citizen, according to our Constitution he is not eligible to be president.
You also wrote:
finally, i realized this week why i'm convinced obama is doing a stellar job as president
Yeah...he's doing a "stellar job" if you want socialism, Marxism and ultimately a Communist dictator system installed here in the United States.
Mike,
Despite the fact that I have posted numerous links here at this blog which demonstrate that Obama is hiding his ineligibility, you still can't seem to grasp the reason why investigation of the birth certificate is so important. It will prove, once and for all, if Obama is (or, is not) eligible to be POTUS.
The Obama File has re-posted a good essay that reiterates why Obama can't be a natural born citizen of the United States if his father is, indeed, Obama Sr. You can go to the link above to click on the additional links within the text.
Quote:
Obama Signed Resolution Describing Him As Ineligible
This is an oldie, but it needs to be revisited, since the Obots still argue that Obama is eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a 'natural born Citizen,' as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, that’s why she introduced this bill -- dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain's cause.
It was during the bill's hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:
"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen," said Leahy. "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate."
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff replied.
"That is mine, too," said Leahy. (see next comment)
What's interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of American citizen parents.
Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH parents.
Every time the words, "citizen" and "parent," are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, "citizens" and "parents," is used. The plural case is the operative case.
It is Sen. Leahy's opinion -- his own recorded words, in a formal Senate Resolution and on his U. S. Senate website -- that Barack Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of his birthplace.
Obama had one American parent --singular -- his mother. His father was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain.
Obama, himself, "at birth," was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain -- he says so on his own campaign website. This fact introduces the concept of "divided loyalties," -- the reason the founders created the eligibility requirement in the first place -- a fact that further underlines Obama's ineligibility.
The source of this information is Sen. Leahy's own website. The webpage contains a statement about the resolution; the resolution, itself; the Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); and an excerpt of Sec. Chertoff's testimony.
The plural word "parents" is used four times. When used to identify the parents, the word "citizens" is used five times. That's nine times that Sen. Leahy, on his own website describes the eligibility requirement. There is NO PLACE in any of these four documents where the singular case of "parent" or "citizen" is used.
The real purpose of this bill was to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a "natural born citizen" by the Democratic Party leadership -- paving the way for an Obama run.
Both Leahy and Chertoff avoid addressing the "in the US mainland" (jus solis) element of the eligibility requirement and focus solely on parentage (jus sanguinis) in making their arguments and by doing so bring focus to the fundamental reason Obama is not qualified. He had one American parent and one foreign parent. Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen -- no matter where he was born.
Obama is a co-signer of this resolution. So, I guess he too agrees that one needs two American parents to be eligible for POTUS -- except he doesn't care -- after all, he's the Obamamessiah. Rules don't apply to him. /quote
Despite the fact that I have posted numerous links here at this blog which demonstrate that Obama is hiding his ineligibility, you still can't seem to grasp the reason why investigation of the birth certificate is so important.
christine, do you have MTPD like gary does?
Miss The Point Disorder?
your statement is irrelevant to my question.
i have no doubt we should follow the consitution. whether or not you can see the full ramifications of what invalidating the election would mean isn't really that big of a concern to me.
the question wasn't, 'should we follow the constitution in the election of our president?'.
nope. wasn't that at all...
mike rucker
Hi Christine,
There is no way that President Obama is going to be removed from office. No way. The majority of the U.S. voting population voted him in. I'm sure he will run again in 2012 (I will certainly vote for him) and then in 2016, everything will be passed back to the Republicans. That is the way things go.
Funny enough, ten U.S. presidents were not natural born citizens since they were technically British citizens when they were born. They seemed to do just fine.
Mike - then explain what you want to know.
Kevin - I would have agreed with you regarding the ineligibility issue, but now with this new lawsuit, there might be a chance that the truth about eligibility will be forced to come out (see my new post).
Also, I'm not too thrilled that Biden would take over. He's just as scary.
The ten U.S presidents you mentioned were a result of the "grandfather clause" that obviously had to be written into the Constitution at its inception because everyone who came over to America was foreign born. That clause died out as the final batch of foreign born individuals of that generation died out - to which the clause was originally applied.
The portion of the clause I am writing about is in bold:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
the question, as i mentioned, was 'why?' - but not 'why shouldn't we follow the constitution?'. it was more like, 'why would you have thought to do this?', and 'why would you have done this on obama, since you likely have never thought about this re: any other candidate you've voted for your entire life?'. and the questions should be raised in a hypothetical situation: you have a ballot on a deserted island, you know what the candidates stand for, and i accept that you would exercise your right to vote for mccain.
i think you are intelligent enough to understand the issue.
your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to think about the scenario, and answer the question.
please don't point me to any more links; this is about you this time.
btw, on the way home yesterday i heard an npr piece on a dallas tea party group. it was a flattering piece, at the very least objective. of course, i agreed with little, for both logical and emotional reasons.
i'm thinking of starting my own party - the saniTea party.
maybe the realiTea party.
or the uniTea party.
the responsibiliTea party.
your puns are welcome...
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Oh spudsie wubsie...
The reason why just can't be because I totally disagree with his political position on just about everything.
The reason why just can't be because of his radical pro-death to unborn babies ideology.
The reason why just can't be because of his radical associations with people like Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Kahlid Rashidi (sp?), that were known about before the election. And now, his radical list of czars and appointees that include a self-admitted Communist - Van Jones (now resigned); a Mao lover - Anita Dunn; Mark Lloyd - who worked for George Soros, the foreign billionaire who funds anti-America groups; Cass Sunstein - a radical animal rights activist; Kevin Jennings - know for the notorious fistgate episode; John Holdren - who has been quoted as calling the United States the "meanest of wealthy countries." He has also, according to Hannity, "left the door open" to prosecuting "global warming deniers."
These are only a few - go here to read about the rest.
But no...it CAN'T be because of that! It can't be because I care about the direction of our country heading towards socialism, Marxism, Communism, social radicalism and tyranny! No...that's CRAZY TALK!
The truth is (according to your assumptions about me), I object to him being black and in the white house.
However, isn't Obama a mulatto? (sp?)...yeah...that's it! If he is supposed to be our first black president, then it should be someone who is 100% black...don't you think? Obama is only 7% or 9% black (according to several sources) so it is wrong to label him as our first black president.
Just to be open and fair, Tiger Woods wouldn't qualify as completely black, either. I hear that he is of African American, Chinese, Thai and Native American descent. According to wikipedia:
He refers to his ethnic make-up as “Cablinasian” (a syllabic abbreviation he coined from Caucasian, Black, (American) Indian, and Asian).[15]
Oh and last but not least, it just can't be because a man who would spend close to 2 million dollars hiding his bona fides instead of ending the controversy by showing his COLB to the public (and/or in a court of law so that he wouldn't have to spend any more money) means he probably has something to hide from the American people! No...more crazy talk!
Time for some honesty, Mike. If George W. Bush did this - hid his COLB, college records...(see next comment for the entire list), would YOU have had concerns about his eligibility, according to the Constitution of the United State of America, to be president?
What are they keeping silent about?
All of this:
Mr. Barack Hussein Obama -
The American People want to know, who sent you?
Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints -- none! There is no
Obama documentation -- no records -- no paper trail -- none -- this can't be an
accident.
Original, vault copy birth certificate -- Not released
Certificate of Live Birth -- Released -- Counterfeit
Obama/Dunham marriage license -- Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license -- Not released
Soetoro adoption records -- Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School School application -- Released
Punahou School records -- Not released
Selective Service Registration -- Released -- Counterfeit
Occidental College records -- Not released
Passport (Pakistan) -- Not released
Columbia College records -- Not released
Columbia thesis -- Not released
Harvard College records -- Not released
Harvard Law Review articles -- None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
Baptism certificate -- None
Medical records -- Not released
Illinois State Senate records -- None
Illinois State Senate schedule -- Lost
Law practice client list -- Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
Post a Comment