obamacrimes.com — So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abra
Oct 25, 2008 View in Crawl 4
waiting2awakeOct 26, 2008
Then why haven't you stopped the republicans from the wholesale rape of your children and grandchildren?
mjg2007Oct 26, 2008
Just keep beating that dead horse. He'll get up and start plowing the fields eventually.
waiting2awakeOct 27, 2008
Incredible..... OK, does a proud American:a: sit back when fellow Americans are being raped.b: Stand up and fight when your fellow Americans are being raped? It would occur to me, that most would say an American does "B", but clearly most Americans have done "A". Which hardly seems like a proud American thing to do...
raymondmarbleOct 27, 2008
Normally, I try to be a little more polite than what I'm about to write, but here goes.You, joinforfree, are full of crap. I don't know if you are lying or just stupid and wrong.The Annenberg Foundation is not Obama and Ayers, you moron. It was founded by Walter and Leonore Annenberg, Republicans. Yes, Walter, who supported and worked for both Nixon and Reagan. When he died in 2002, she took over as head of the foundation. Yes, Leonore, Chief of Protocol under President Reagan.Leonore's political donations are overwhelmingly to Republicans, and she has come out in favor of McCain in the 2008 elections, and Bush in 2004.Look at who she has given money to in 2004 and 2008:<a class="user" href="http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/leonore-annenberg.asp?cycle=04">http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributio ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/leonore-annenberg.asp?cycle=08">http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributio ...</a>This is your "Obama and Ayers" Annenberg Foundation. Luckily for all of us, though the founder and financial backer of the Foundation is unashamedly Republican, she can, unlike you, set aside her political ideology and support honest inquiry.And in addition, all of this should be irrelevant. The website in question, maintained by the Annenberg Foundation, is non-partisan. Any idiot (yes, I'm looking at you, joinforfree) should be able to take a quick look at the front page and see that they correct the lies and distortions of both parties and both candidates. And finally, your idiotic dismissal of a well researched source, based only on your perceived bias, means absolutely nothing unless you can demonstrate that the information in the article about the certificate is false. Go ahead, joinforfree, it's right there. If indeed the factcheck's certificate story is biased and incorrect, I am certain that you can show us where. Please, do so. You moron.
trimarkcOct 27, 2008
RaymondMarble - Good digging on the origins of FactCheck.org. But, what many people have issue with this website is that it has not been displaying ALL the relevant facts on specific facts.For example, when the site noted that they had "seen and actually touched Obama's birth certificate" what they didn't say was that it was only the short form document, the "Certification of Live Birth", which is not only amendable, but also only shows a few facts. The long-form, vault-copy of the actual "Certificate of Live Birth" is the full and complete data related to Obama's birth. And it is this latter document that Berg and at least two other cases pending are specifically requesting that Obama release to the public.And unfortunately, rather than answer the public's fair need for this complete information, Obama, his campaign, the DNC and even the FEC now are all hiding behind technicalities. Not exactly the best way to build trust in the electorate.Also, related to the same information, if someone were to read the actual Berg case documents, he lays out a number of reasonable claims relative to the actual statutes and case law existent at the time of Obama's birth, his mother's remarriage, and international travels. Rather than dismiss or ignore them as it appears FactCheck has done, why not answer them? Again, these are not negatively leading questions (eg, "have you stopped beating your wife?") but rather are reasonable interpretations of the laws at those times, and therefore, demand reasonable answers.Further, Berg brings up two other salient points in his suit.1) If voters are not eligible to challenge individual candidates on their eligibility for office, then who is?- The DNC and the FEC both say they are not required to do so.- And now the court has just said that individual voters are NOT permitted to challenge candidates since the "harm is too vague" - even though Berg demonstrated several specific harms to himself, both from his monetary and his pro bono donations to both the DNC and to Obama directly.2) Berg notes in his case that he was able to find ZERO law in the Constitution, the Articles, the Amendments, federal statutes, and federal judicial law that specifically identifies any single or group of person(s), group(s), agency(ies) or department(s) that is/are directly responsible to vet presidential candidates' ability to meet our Constitutional requirements for President. So, as you challenged JoinForFree, I therefore challenge you in return - why is Obama, Obama's campaign, the DNC and the FEC not simply answering these? Why are they hiding being technicalities? And why is no one in our federal government standing up for the second point Berg brings forward, that no one has completely vetted these candidates?
dimensioOct 27, 2008
"* Why wont Obama display his vault-copy, long-form birth certificate?"The Department of Health of Hawaii does not release copies of the "long form" birth certificate. It is entirely unreasonable to request a document that the state government will not provide.
raymondmarbleOct 28, 2008
Well, in the end, I guess we disagree about reason to suspect fraud, or cause for concern.I realize that earlier in this thread, I mocked someone for discounting evidence simply because he believed it came from a biased source. But when someone who I already consider a fraud, or perhaps a genuine quack who refuses to change his preconceived notions when evidence contradicts it (at the risk of starting an off topic flame war, I have a low tolerance for 9/11 conspiracy folks, and as anti Bush administration as I am, I absolutely cannot stand when people claim Bush had anything to do with it), when someone like that seems to have another fervent cause, my standard of proof is going to be higher. And he just hasn't met it.Anyway, glad to have a chance to have a good back-and-forth with you, TriMarkC.