Thread: The Outfit

Several more attempts at proving Hussein is not constitutionally eligible are swirling around:

This week, Ohio private investigator Susan Daniels filed suit in the Geauga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas to petition the Ohio Secretary of State to remove Barack Hussein Obama’s name from the ballot based on alleged inconsistencies with his social security number.

Obama’s legal identity problem
Doug Hagmann Thursday, July 5, 2012

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47858

And this:

Birthers not giving up: Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is preparing to reveal what his team claims is explosive new evidence that President Obama was not born in the United States. Arpaio, whose “Cold Case Posse” has already held one press conference on the supposed forgery of Obama’s birth certificate, plans to hold another media event on July 17th with the new details. “I can’t disclose to you what we’ve discovered, but it’s going to be a shocking revelation at our press conference,” Mike Zullo, head of the posse, told a Tea Party radio program, according to the birther website WorldNetDaily.

Thursday, Jul 5, 2012 08:20 AM EDT
Birthers’ next move
By Alex Seitz-Wald

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/birthers_next_move/

Chances of either one getting Hussein in court are fading faster than the hope of keeping him off the ballot in Florida:

WASHINGTON, July 3, 2012 – A Florida judge yesterday dismissed with prejudice an amended complaint challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to appear on that state’s ballot.

Florida Judge Terry Lewis: Obama is not the nominee for the Democratic Party

http://communities.washingtontimes.c...ominee-democr/

Those who followed the saga of Hussein’s ineligibility from the beginning were buried in legalese. In case after case anticipation was followed by disappointment. In truth, the preordained outcomes were not that complicated. Protect the quarterback kicked in the minute Hussein was elected in 2008. Perhaps a Mafia analogy is more apt. The Outfit protects the godfather. In the case of Democrat presidents the government is the Outfit.

Parenthetically, the government against the people applies in all things. The recent decision upholding Hillarycare II is the clearest example the public will ever see. There was not a chance the High Court was going to overturn that law. Speaking for myself, I thought there was a slight chance the Court would uphold the Constitution and protect the people, while in the pit of my stomach I knew there was no chance at all. I feel the same way about repeal. The wheels are already in motion for NOT repealing. Romney himself is laying down his cover story knowing very well he can say he is for repeal when he has every intention of blaming Congress for not acting. Republicans, in turn, will blame Democrats for blocking repeal with some obscure Senate rule. Democrats will say the public is more than willing to pay a massive tax increase because they benefit from socialized medicine.

If Hussein’s eligibility was going to be determined by the Constitution it had to be done before he got the nomination. It wasn’t. The real crime is that the Outfit protected Hussein before he was the godfather. Expecting the government to harm, or even embarrass, their president is naive in the extreme. Protecting an individual’s lack of eligibility before he gets the nomination is criminal. The same applies to Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal although their ineligibility is a straightforward interpretation of the Eligibility Clause.

Then there is this. Think about all of the personal crap brought up to destroy wannabes before they get their party’s nomination; larceny, sex, mental problems, etc., yet a constitutional issue like eligibility is the one thing that was too trivial to mention.

Finally, several pluses did come out of the more than 100 challenges to Hussein’s eligibility.

1. The challenges are on the record for future presidential historians to interpret. And there is always the possibility that details pertinent to Hussein’s ineligibility will surface years from now. By then the soldiers in Outfit will no longer have a vested interest in protecting a long-gone godfather.

2. The entire affair showed millions of private sector Americans that the Outfit and the media are enemies of the people as well as enemies of the Constitution. There is no greater demand on a free people who wish to remain free than identifying the enemies within.

Hussein never told the truth about anything in his life; so this has to be recorded as a first:

“The law I passed is here to stay,”. . .

Obama: Health law ‘here to stay’
By Alicia M. Cohn - 07/05/12 12:52 PM ET

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/23...s-here-to-stay

Even when Hussein tells the truth he tints it with a lie. He did not pass a law —— he signed the legislation Democrats rammed down the public’s throat.

Up to now it’s been impossible to give Hussein credit for doing anything for anybody. To be fair, his comment was a weak attempt to turn the public’s attention to himself and away from congressional Democrats who actually passed the law.

Telling the truth is something new for Hussein. I’m sure he knows that he has nothing to fear from this:

House Republicans late Thursday released their proposal to repeal the 2010 healthcare law, arguing that it has increased healthcare costs, puts Americans at risk of losing coverage, and is dragging down the economy.

The boy liar’s flirtation with the truth is on solid ground:

The measure is expected to pass the lower chamber but die in the Democratically-controlled Senate.

GOP releases 'Repeal of Obamacare Act'
By Pete Kasperowicz - 07/06/12 08:11 AM ET

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...-obamacare-act

It matters not which party controls the Senate. As I said in the OP:

The wheels are already in motion for NOT repealing. Romney himself is laying down his cover story knowing very well he can say he is for repeal when he has every intention of blaming Congress for not acting. Republicans, in turn, will blame Democrats for blocking repeal with some obscure Senate rule. Democrats will say the public is more than willing to pay a massive tax increase because they benefit from socialized medicine.

lol, birthers.

obama will of course be on the ballot in all 50 states.

Originally Posted by rahl

lol, birthers.

obama will of course be on the ballot in all 50 states.

Obviously.

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

Obviously.

To BullsLawDan: Hussein’s lies are a conspiracy. Move the cursor to 1:56 to hear the bit about his lying:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obama-lies-about-everything/

Originally Posted by Flanders

To BullsLawDan: Hussein’s lies are a conspiracy. Move the cursor to 1:56 to hear the bit about his lying:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obama-lies-about-everything/

Big deal, he lies... He's a politician. That has nothing to do with the topic of your blog po... errr, "thread", which thankfully has been moved to the correct subforum.

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

Big deal, he lies... He's a politician. That has nothing to do with the topic of your blog po... errr, "thread", which thankfully has been moved to the correct subforum.

To BullsLawDan: It’s my thread. I can go in any direction I choose as I did in #2 permalink.

Incidentally, censorship does not work very well. I often post censored messages on backup boards where hundreds of additional viewers read them. In fact, I should thank the person that moved this thread to another forum after 4 or 5 hundred views it in the Law & Justice forum. Moving it made it available to those who did not see it the first time.

Originally Posted by Flanders

To BullsLawDan: It’s my thread. I can go in any direction I choose as I did in #2 permalink.

Incidentally, censorship does not work very well. I often post censored messages on backup boards where hundreds of additional viewers read them. In fact, I should thank the person that moved this thread to another forum after 4 or 5 hundred views it in the Law & Justice forum. Moving it made it available to those who did not see it the first time.

It's like graffitti- no one can prevent anyone from posting any nutty posts they want to- somewhere.

Originally Posted by Flanders

To BullsLawDan: It’s my thread. I can go in any direction I choose as I did in #2 permalink.

Incidentally, censorship does not work very well. I often post censored messages on backup boards where hundreds of additional viewers read them. In fact, I should thank the person that moved this thread to another forum after 4 or 5 hundred views it in the Law & Justice forum. Moving it made it available to those who did not see it the first time.

I don't think you actually know what the definition of the word "censorship" is. It's certainly not "private owner of a message board moving an incorrectly posted thread to the proper subforum."

BullsLawDan;1061436544]

I don't think you actually know what the definition of the word "censorship" is.

To BullsLawDan: I know enough to see through guys like you who assume the authority to decide what is and what isn’t a conspiracy.

It's certainly not "private owner of a message board moving an incorrectly posted thread to the proper subforum."

To BullsLawDan: No one questions that Right when the motive is pure and the move is justified. The objection is to the result when the motive is impure. Every interpretation and analysis can be made into a conspiracy theory when censorship is the true motive. In case you missed it see this OP for Cass Sunstein’s blueprint which has taken root on message boards in particular:

Vrwc

Everything Sunstein says gives a government official the authority in the first definition:

censor (noun)

1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.

3. One that condemns or censures.

4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.

5. Psychology. The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.

Trivializing someone else’s opinion, interpretation, and analysis by calling it a conspiracy theory is not as effective as is the total ban Sunstein called for, but it is the best Hussein’s ostriches can hope for on message boards.

censorship (noun)

1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.

2. The office or authority of a Roman censor.

3. Psychology. Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.

Ironically, liberals who always screamed the loudest about censorship whenever their “ideology” was censored, (movies, books, etc.) are all in favor of shutting down opposing views.