|
|
|
Why are Republicans so silent on the Obama eligibility question? Fr. John sent me this WorldNetDaily link to an article on the Obama birth certificate embroglio. WoldNetDaily is one of the small handful of slightly off-colour organisations that is campaigning to up-end Obama’s inauguration.
I really can’t see this or any similar effort disaccomodating the executive too much. The latter will more than tough it out, quashing each legal challenge with utter disdain - a response licenced by the curious and studied indifference of the GOP as to whether the man elected to serve as America’s 44th president is eligible by birth for office. At any other time we would see the defeated candidate’s party crawling all over something like this. Heck, look how they pursued slick Willy for his paltry little indiscretion with “that woman”. By comparison, Obama may be engaged in a staggeringly cynical electoral charade. And it gets worse once he is sworn in:-
Wrotnowski and Donofrio would very likely have triggered the “avoid” mechanism that serious politicians reserve for conspiracy theorists. Lightfoot, a CA libertarian, seems more substantial, but still unlikely in the extreme to break the presidential mould. But the Berg petition is said to be not at all frivolous, and is the one that requires the president elect’s elusive long form birth certificate to be produced. So why are the Republicans to a man looking the other way? Not wanting to appear ungracious losers? Not wanting to show disloyalty to the Washington insiders and the wider political class? Not wanting to associate with a bunch of oddball fringe activists? Not wanting to gamble on bringing the house down on the Obama victory, only to find that the long form certificate does, in fact, contain the word “Hawaii”? Not wanting to re-fight the presidential election? Comments:2
Posted by Ted on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:08 | # The nation owes more than thanks to three unlikely modern day patriots: professional poker player, musician, and retired attorney, Leo Donofrio; life long Democrat and former Pennsylvania assistant attorney general, Phil Berg; and Soviet emigree and attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz (she’s also a dentist). While Mr. Donofrio painstakingly established the airtight case that BHO could not be an Article II “natural born citizen” (at BHO’s birth, dad was British/Kenyan, not American, citizen) Leo’s Stay of the 12/15/08 electoral college vote was denied by SCOTUS as procedurally unripe. Nevertheless, since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress — rendering moot the Berg and Taitz (Lightfoot) cases — Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the Friday 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference Friday 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case Friday 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively. Now that BHO is in checkmate and cannot be POTUS, he can be a patriot as well. He need not subject the nation to the expense and trauma of requiring SCOTUS to overrule his ‘Presidency’. BHO can and should voluntarily step down with Biden becoming Acting POTUS under the 20th Amendment, and under the agreement all potential claims by the Government for itself and on behalf of others against BHO are released. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:04 | #
Good question, and while we’re at it, why are the Democrats to a man looking the other way before the issue of Bush’s war crimes and crimes against humanity, some of the worst of all time? Bush is one of history’s most sadistic mass-murderers. I agree fully with Paul Craig Roberts on this (though I haven’t let it turn me into some kind of Dem supporter as Craig-Roberts has bizarrely done). Why aren’t the Dems laying the groundwork for putting the psycho-fiend Bush on trial for his life? Don’t they hate him enough? 4
Posted by zuwr on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:18 | # “So why are the Republicans to a man looking the other way?” Suppose it was proven that Obama was born in Kenya, the Supreme Court would still find him eligible to serve as President because his mother was a US citizen. Which justices are going to vote against him? The only ones who might vote against him are Roberts, Alito, and Scalia. So at most the case against him gets three votes. 5
Posted by A Reader on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:44 | # > So why are the Republicans to a man looking the other way? Because, by this point, they’re equally culpable. Same with TVnews. They all failed at their gatekeeping and competitive duties. Now they’re fearing the destruction of their entire environment, the entire government. Of course they’ll laugh at “the crazies”. 6
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:43 | # Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States There are a few interesting possibilities to this case. There’s a reason why Obama doesn’t show his birth certificate. The one released by his campaign was an obvious forgery. What could this reason be? The one doing the rounds is that he wasn’t born in the U.S. Another possibility is that he was born to his mother when she was younger than claimed, a potential embarrassment to Obama. Yet another possibility is that Obama Sr. wasn’t his biological father but black communist Frank Davis. The facial features of Frank Davis are a much closer match to Obama’s than those of the Kenyan alleged to be his biological father. Obama’s mother, a leftist extremist, was promiscuous with black men, and Frank Davis was a photographer of nude women. Davis went after white prostitutes. You could do a search and find nude pictures of Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, shot by Frank Davis. There’s also the question of Obama being a citizen of Indonesia who never formally acquired American citizenship and hence may possibly be an illegal alien. Imagine if it turned out that Obama Sr. isn’t BHO’s biological father, that Obama was born outside the U.S. and that he is a citizen of Indonesia who never formally acquired American citizenship! It doesn’t just end here. When I first saw Obama’s mother’s profile (side view of the face and head shape), my first reaction was a Jewess, and I have come across some people refer to Obama as a half-Jew. So there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Why are so many important people silent? Some reasons are easy to figure out. The Republican Presidential contender, John McCain has numerous skeletons up his closet and wouldn’t want them brought out. There’s the question of whether John McCain was born in the U.S., and although he was officially declared a natural-born citizen, this could very well not be true. McCain almost certainly started the USS Forrestal fire, killing 134, injuring 161, destroying 21 aircraft and costing the Navy $72 million. McCain is a senile fool that showed himself to be either a traitor or a pawn of the Jews by pushing for illegal alien amnesty. His Presidency was all but written off. How did he miraculously revive and ended up as leading Presidential contender? Obviously, Jewish machinations, and neither McCain nor other Republicans aware of this would want the facts brought to public attention. I could say more but the following illustration aptly shows that McCain and Obama are in a roughly similar boat.
Why are the mainstream media silent? The mainstream media are under Jewish control, and the sole reason why an affirmative-action, incompetent, inexperienced person quickly went from obscure senator to Presidential candidate and then President-elect is that Jewry lent him a helping hand, obviously for their own benefits. The politicians know very well who’s in charge - malevolent Jews - and most are not going to smack the hand that feeds them. Potential embarrassment over seeking examination of Obama’s birth certificate, only to find that he is eligible to be POTUS is not a reason why important people are silent. One could simply insist that the constitution requires that Obama prove his eligibility without going into the details of why his eligibility is questionable. Is the Scroob losing it? Two Strange comments from the Scroob.
Bush is a puppet of the Jews. The blame rests with the hands pulling the strings.
For the same reason that when the Democrats wrested lots of seats from the Republicans in the 2006 elections, they were in a position to stop the Iraq war by cutting off supplies and impeaching Bush and Cheney - which was expected by the voters who gave more power to them - but they did nothing, except Dennis Kucinich. What was this reason? Jews again. The Jews control the Democrats’ purse strings. When Fred ‘blame-it-on-the-Jews’ Scrooby fails to mention Jews, something is wrong, and when he fails to see their handiwork when it should be obvious, something is seriously wrong. Scroob, maybe you need some rest. ———————
Impossible by law. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Lawmakers and judges are bound by it, and judges are limited to applying the law. An American citizen born outside America cannot be a President according to the constitution, even if his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth. Incidentally, a judge denied a motion to have Obama prove that he was born in the U.S., saying that it’s irrelevant because the American public has spoken. This judge should have been impeached. The U.S. is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. ———————
I’d say beware. When some Jews create a problem and other Jews offer a solution, chances are that the goyim are going to be Jewed no matter what. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:33 | #
This is correct. In retrospect, I see my queries didn’t make sense. I tend to think there are two different Jewish opinions on the Bush’s Iraq War, and there are indeed two — Jews are divided among those who love it and those who hate it. But what I tend to forget is the richest Jews, the ones with greatest “power of the purse” and therefore greatest political control, are pro-war (as they are fanatically pro-open-borders, fanatically anti-Euro, and of course fanatically pro-Israel) and this most powerful of Jewish factions will never permit Bush to get his just desserts for his genocide in Iraq. The Jewish faction which is anti-Iraq-War and would love to get its hands on Bush to try him on war crimes charges isn’t as rich as the pro-Bush Jews, so will never get its hands on him. I wasn’t thinking. 8
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:20 | # The Scroob losing it Part 2 More reasons to be concerned with the Scroob’s health.
It’s the “Jews’ Iraq War” not “Bush’s Iraq War.” As a general rule, the Jews who hate the Iraq War hate the fact that the war hasn’t yet given them what they wanted: complete control over Iraqi oil and much greater devastation of Iraq. They also hate that people are increasingly coming to realize that the so-called insurgent attacks and suicide bombings are more false flags by the Jews.
On all mentioned counts, the rich Jews are no different from the vast majority of other Jews.
This is a phony faction. As always, some Jews create trouble and other Jews come to the “rescue.” Seriously, people who blame Bush and Cheney for the Iraq war can’t hope to do anything about the war because they either haven’t figured out the chief perpetrators or are lying. Two main groups of Jews? The notion about two main groups of competing Jews appears to be correct, as alluded to by the Scroob, but what are these groups and what are they competing for? One group comprises of the super rich Jews (bankers and other finance people) that we can call the money Jews. The money Jews need to live among the goyim (places such as New York city and London) in order to leech from the goyim and govern their affairs. The few instances when we’d find the money Jews living in Israel is when they have fled to Tel Aviv to escape prosecution related to their swindling. So the existence of Israel is not of special concern to the money Jews and a potential liability because of the criminal behaviors related to the maintenance of Israel. A homeland for the Jews is not needed at all for the Jews to leech money from the goyim. The other group comprises of the vast majority of remaining Jews; let’s call them the mass Jews. A Jewish homeland and Israel are important to these Jews. Among these Jews, we find a minority of anti-Israel Jews, but a closer examination reveals that their objection isn’t to a Jewish homeland or an outlook where Jewish interests need to be served by undermining those of the goyim, but to the fact that Israel was not established in accordance with the way called for: after genuine mass slaughter of Jews rather than the phony Holocaust. The money Jews and mass Jews naturally work together. After all, the large sayanim army without which the money Jews wouldn’t get where they are comes from the mass Jews. But in recent years, a rift has developed between these groups, resulting from the the internet increasingly unraveling the Jewish crime network to more and more people. A logical response of Jewry is to take charge of the process of unraveling the Jewish crime network. Fake unraveling will only go so far. Eventually, the Jews will need to make some sacrifices in order to preserve the Jewish crime network at large. These sacrifices will comprise of a small number of Jews who will be blamed for most troubles created by Jewry. The problem’s that the money Jews would like to sacrifice the less important members of the Jewish crime network: the elderly, promoted sayanim from the mass Jews, etc. On the other hand, the mass Jews wish to sacrifice the big money Jews. After all, it’s easy to blame a lot of the problems on the Rothschilds and make the majority of Jews appear innocent. Naturally, there’s little scope for across-the-board agreement. We know that both the Democrats and Republicans are controlled by the Jews, but the money Jews appear to be controlling the Republicans and the mass Jews appear to control the Democrats. We have even recently seen a Rothschild publicly back McCain. To me it appears that the mass Jews are more dangerous. Whereas the money Jews are very powerful, they are also few in number and couldn’t have acquired their power without the mass Jews’ cooperation. The Jewish problem stems from the vast majority of Jews, not a small minority of them. I’m sure we can exploit the rift between the money Jews and the mass Jews, and I’ll post some thoughts on it later. 9
Posted by Voco Indubium on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:08 | # So why are the Republicans to a man looking the other way? These are excellent and well phrased questions, tried to answer them below. My guess is that McCain and his advisors still dominate the thinking of GOP. We know that McCain is a hero but not a fighter. He practically endorsed BHO during his campaign. He told his supporters not to use the well recognizable middle name of his opponent. (That probably cost him the election.) Sara was reined in by McCain’s managers when she wanted to uncover the weaknesses of the opponents. Michael Savage (conservative radio talk show host) who often exaggerates but sometimes enlightens said that McCain wanted to throw the election. This is one of his exaggerations, but it illustrates that the GOP is disorganized, abandoning its conservative base and maybe eventually disappearing all together from the US political stage. 1. Not wanting to appear ungracious losers? Politicians have thick skin. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:35 | # Voco Indubium, What about the possibility that powerful Republicans think they may need Arnold to run in 2012, and here’s their opportunity to get the law changed? But first, they have to get Obama in office and the threat from the oddballs faced down. Our hero will be 65 in 2012 - pushing it, maybe, for a steroid-user. But there are some excellent private clinics in Austria! What’s the alternative really? Jindal? 11
Posted by Voco Indubium on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:18 | # To Guessedworker, You maybe right that some republicans like Arnold, but please consider: “To get the law changed” requires a constitutional amendment (in this case). Congress alone can not change the eligibility requirement. It needs 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress and the states have to ratify it by ¾ majority. Such majorities are unlikely. 12
Posted by Guest on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 01:50 | # GW surely you are not THAT naive. This is the real deal:
Christopher Bollyn 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:01 | # There’s no question whatsoever but the McCain threw the election and no question as to who ordered him to do it. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:10 | # The reason I for one am not angry about those facts is not only would there have been no difference between a McInsane and a Magic Negro administration, the Magic Negro is actually better (less bad) in one important sense: he’s controlled by the Jewish faction that’s less likely to order a massive thermonuclear first-strike sneak-attack on Iran and Syria, an attack the Jewish faction controlling McInsane would have ordered within five microseconds after the swearing-in ceremony. In all other respects there simply is no difference between these two Jewish created, backed, owned and controlled criminals. Both, for example, will exert themselves equally strenuously toward the finalizing of the current race-replacement plan for the U.S.‘s Euro population, both will further entrench affirmative action against Euros, both will appoint extreme radical fringe misfits, degenerates, communists, dope addicts, clueless women bimbos, and Jewish proxies to the Supreme Court, and so on: no difference between the two Jewish-backed, wholly Jewish-owned degenerates. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:15 | # It’s like in the other big Jewish-owned governments, the U.K. and France, both owned and controlled lock, stock, and barrel by the Jews: does anyone think that on any substantive issue there’s any real difference between the Hungarian Midget and Bimbolène in France, or between Tony Liar and David Cameleon in the Mother Country? There’s none. No difference as regards anything substantive — certainly none on race-replacement, the Jews’ most passionate project all over the Eurosphere. 16
Posted by Guest on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:36 | # Fred you have summed it up very well. This is going to be one nasty sh*thole, post-American America. We should be so lucky as to have it become a Brazil. 17
Posted by Rusty Mason on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:26 | #
White Republicans are not looking the other way, they have their heads in a dark place. They are, almost to a man, the most ill-informed bunch of pig-headed, Bush-worshipping liberal idiots on the right. The few who do know the time have no support at all and have given up. There is a ton of bitching and moaning out there, and an incredibly tiny amount of action that will amount to anything helpful. Personally, I’ve given up on the U.S. government and both wings of the Marxist party. Fools and knaves, all of ‘em. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:40 | # David Yeagley:
( http://www.badeagle.com/2009/01/27/american-racism-reaches-japan/ ) The following is a video comment on the affair by someone who makes a lot of sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKI_yIR9VTg The reason everyone is so touchy about comparisons of Negroes with apes is there’s truth to the comparison. If there were no truth to it people wouldn’t be so touchy. The touchiest people (the so-called “liberals”) are among the ones most aware of this truth. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:47 | #
Of course the Jap company wasn’t comparing anyone to an ape. That monkey was its company symbol, a fact having nothing whatsoever to do with Obama. 20
Posted by Bill on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:22 | # There is an extraordinarily lengthy post in response to a Simon Heffer article entitled President Barack Obama:Perhaps he can’t fix it…. in today’s Telegraph 18.03.2009. It’s a real humdinger see… Posted by Chris Post a comment:
Next entry: What is ‘White Supremacism’? Why is it bad?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Sven Magnussen on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:29 | #
What purpose would it serve? If the President-elect is found to be ineligible, then the Vice President-elect will be sworn-in until a President qualifies.
Let’s say Obama is disqualified because of his birthplace or his dual-citizenship at birth. Republicans and Independents would have a big laugh until a new President is sworn-in. The new President will have 3 years to end two wars and turn the economy around. As a bonus, only a mere hint of success will sufficient to campaign for another term to finish the job.
On the other hand, what if the President-elect is sworn-in and then exposed as an urusper in 3 years. A Republican will virtually be assured of victory in 2012.
Only a Democrat or a RINO can save the Democrats now.