scott e.'s new birther thread...

I'm glad you've finally admitted you have absolutely no evidence his BC doesn't exist. and that you have no evidence that he isn't eligible.

 

Why am I not surprised that you believe every word that Orly says?

Every single thing you wrote is what she has claimed, and there is no actual evidence that any of it happened. Is she delusional or a liar? I do not know.

Why doesn't it make any sense for 'fair and objective people' to treat her mania as nonsense? She has been filing frivoluous lawsuits for two years, making claims she cannot back up and just comes off to rational people as a nut.

My hope and dream is that she will be seen as the voice of Michelle Bachmann....

 

Exactly.

Doesn't deter him at all.

After all Obama is from Chicago.

Scott/Wash just knows that all of his theories must be true because Obama is from Chicago.

Like Scott is.

Strange enough, that is about the essense of what I have been able to gleam from him.

 

Scott- this is what you said on 8/9

there is no issue i have turned away from, if i can't address it i will say so.

So I posed you three seperate issues, in three seperate posts, including one which I had asked you two seperate times about.

No reply.

No response.

No 'addressing it'

Face it. You don't want a dialogue.

You want a joint Birther monologue, where you and your fellow travellers can all agree that your speculations, innuendo and lies all add up to something, and you can discuss the latest thing that you demand Obama provide, and you can all agree with each other that this is a real issue, and why isn't anyone listening to us?

So I will just say it again.

All Birthers have is speculation, innuendo and out right lies. Birthers are willing to trample on the law and the Constitution in their efforts to remove a lawfully elected President that they oppose either because of his politics, his race or some other issue unrelated to eligibility.

 

no, cause i'm a smart guy too.

 

me too, thank you.

 

good luck with that

 

i think you mean "glean" not gleam

that's what theories are guys, until it moves back to "current events", which i think it always was/is, but i think the mods got tired of the bickering.

 

As of this post, there are 34 comments in this thread. 16 of them are from Scott. He doesn't want a "Birther monologue." He want's a personal monologue.

And he appears to be getting it.

 

and you are ?

nevermind, i'm only kidding. actually you've been here half as long as I, yet you have 3378 posts to my 665. did you want to say something frank ? or is that it

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRt64dO0opE&feature=related"]Obama's Social Security Number(s) - Jerome Corsi on the Jeff Kuhner Show - 5/18/10 - - YouTube[/ame]


i predict this will be proven before before the vault opens up.

 

I predict you will continue to make nonsensical posts completely devoid of any facts or evidence until you are eventually banned.

 

Still no reply from Scott/Wash

Which means this statement was outright false:

there is no issue i have turned away from, if i can't address it i will say so.

 

Not sure what you think will be proven but here is my prediction:

Nothing that Corsi claims will ever be proven. That is not his m.o. He likes to make big claims which he then avoids responsibility for.

Remember how he had a 'mole' in the Hawaii Department of Health that was going to break this wide open and that he was going to reveal.....yeah.

 

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/08/plot-thickens-in-gerrymanding-of.html

http://vimeo.com/pixelpatriot/naturalborncitizen-constitutionalcrisis

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/zieve/110427

 

So this is all you're doing now? Posting links to debunked, legally incorrect nonsense?

Ok then. As long as you keep to "your" thread and don't bother the rest of us that are trying to actually discuss real topics, instead of birther fantasies.

 

here it's put in a way you guys can understand.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFX6a0Koh18&feature=player_embedded"]OMG! Obama Was Born In Kenya! Thanks, Lucas Daniel Smith! - YouTube[/ame]

 

bubye.....

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf9nr3HW_iU"]Obama KENYAN Birth Certificate from Lucas Smith - YouTube.flv - YouTube[/ame]

do people realise that if the baby footprint on the kenyan birth certificate matches, that's it ??

 

heheheheh Gotta love Birthers.

Lets recap: Birthers reject the word of Hawaiin officials, and reject two offiical Hawaiian birth certificates, which have been verified and confirmed by the originating agency.

But- the Lucas BC? Birthers assume it must be real.

This Birth certificate was offered by Lucas Smith- who is- big surprise- a convicted forgerer.

And did Lucas Smith go to the newspapers with this birth certificate?

No- he offered it for sale on Ebay.

He has never shown the hard copy to anyone.

The Kenyan BC has not been verified by any government agency.

This is how desperate Birthers are- they would prefer to believe a convicted forgerer rather than multiple government officials who are actually legally responsible for birth certificates.

My suggestion to Birthers- take up Lucas's offer and pony up the money for the BC. I believe Smith might be in jail in Arizona right now, so he may not be able to reply immediately.

 

In general, I avoid posting in these threads, although, I do enjoy reading them.

I just wanted to point out that it is legally impossible for a court case to be won on this issue. That's the problem I don't think you, nor frankly, many of those who discuss the issue, understand, so I wanted to explain it.

When a case is filed, it can be dismissed before the trial begins under a certain set of circumstances. The very first test that a court will make is to determine whether it is even possible to provide judicial relief. To do this, the court begins on the assumption that every accusation, complaint, and statement made by the plaintiff is true. Assuming it is true, are they capable of acting, within their consitutional authority, resolve the issue?

An example: Person A is suing Person B, whom they dated, for breaking up with them. Person A wants to no longer be upset, or failing that, to have back the time they spent with Person B.

A judge would assume that Person B did, knowingly and maliciously waste the time of Person A. Given that assumption, is the court capable of providing relief? The court would determine that, since they cannot stop Person A from being upset, and they cannot reclaim the wasted time with Person B. Regardless of the strength of Person A's argument, the evidence, testimony, even confession of Person B, the court is incapable of providing judicial relief. Thus, the case is dismissed.

Here's how it relates. A court cannot try a sitting president. They lack the consstitutional authority. Moreover, even if they could, they are incapable of removing a sitting president from office. Moreover, even if they could, they cannot retroactively appoint somebody else as president, or invalidate all laws they signed. The court is in the same situation of being unable to provide judicial relief.

This is why, regardless of the evidence you have, every case will be dismissed. Obama could publically confess that it was all a scam, and a court would still be barred from trying him.

This is also why each court that has ruled, has implored the lawyers to take their case to Congress, since they are the only body with the authority to impeach a president.

A court cannot try the president. Period. That's the end of the story.

 

thank you alan dershowitz... we all know the senate tries the president after he is impeached by the h o r. the supreme court can interpret the constitutional perameters and definitions (of natural born, vattel etc.) of eligibilty and set a precedent for future presidential elections.

while i do appreciate your weighing in, what we are specifically saying is that the lower courts (still federal) can open the safe in hawaii or release some records through subpoena (social security etc), campaign funds, rezko and so forth.

but you are right, notwithstanding the possibility that he is not a sitting president in which case he cannot be impeached by the house or tried by the senate, which of course would again revert to the supremes to decide (interpret after coming up through the chain). but a congressional intervention, would start in a house committee and proceed from there, which is to assume he is lawful, which he may not be, he is quite clever, but unlike a chess game, it won't end up with obama winning, or a stalemate, historically speaking.

if he were to admit today that he is a total fraud, which i wish he would, there really is no precedent, so again it would end up in the supreme court. people may not know that chief john roberts would preside in the event over a senate trial. one thing for sure is that the more he hides and avoids transparency and disclosure the harder it will be. we americans don't like being hoodwinked, then subsequently strung along.

i'm glad you enjoy reading here, sorry about the dershowitz crack... i encourage anyone to weigh in on this timely and most important subject. thank you.

 

See, this is why I think you don't understand the issue. The court can not issue subpoenas for the records. In order for there to be discovery there needs to be a case. There cannot be a case because they cannot provide judicial relief. A case against the president goes through impeachment proceedings. Nowhere else.

The Supreme Court does not enter into it at all. No matter what happens. Congress can use Supreme Court rulings to inform their rulings and decisions, but the Supreme Court cannot indict the president. This is why what you're doing is a waste of time. You're focusing on the wrong branch.

If you actually wanted to do something, focus on Congress. If you keep going to court, you're going to find that there will be more fines. Which is what happened with Taitz. The courts are issuing a show cause order on each case now, and instituting fines, because you're going to the wrong place.

This is like if your house is on fire and you call for an ambulance. You need to be calling the fire department. The ambulance doesn't have the ability to put out the fire you're seeing. If you keep calling them, they're going to sue you for wasting their time. The EMTs have been begging you guys to just call the fire department.

Please call the fire department.

 

Huh? There is zero possibility he is not the sitting President. He was sworn in. He lives in the White House. He signs legislation into law as the President of the United States. There is absolutely zero possibility that "he is not a sitting President".

Why would you bother exploring a possibility that is completely ridiculous?

Oh, wait, because you're a birther. Carry on.

 

Of course you are correct.

But Birthers don't want to go to Congress, because that would involve convincing the very same people who confirmed Barack Obama's eligibility when they confirmed the election, that they were wrong, and getting hundreds of otherwise reasonably sensible Republicans and Democrats to sign onto the nutball express.

If Birthers were serious, they would indeed focus on Congress. Congress is the only body with the ability to remove a President. Congress is also the body entrusted with deciding whether a President is eligible- which by the way is why they passed the non-binding resolution about John McCain- they were signaling that they would find him eligible if he was elected.

What Birthers hope is that they find one incredibly biased judge who will go along with their agenda, which is a fishing expedition, to find something on President Obama. Birthers don't know what it is- but they are convinced that if they are ever given permission to rifle through President Obama's house, and attic, and the papers of every person who ever knew him, they will find something to harm him with.

Anyone want to take a bet on whether Orly gets sanctioned on the SSA case?