Several more attempts at proving Hussein is not constitutionally eligible are swirling around: Obamas legal identity problem Doug Hagmann Thursday, July 5, 2012 http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47858 And this: 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: Florida Judge Terry Lewis: Obama is not the nominee for the Democratic Party http://communities.washingtontimes....a-judge-terry-lewis-obama-not-nominee-democr/ Those who followed the saga of Husseins 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 Husseins eligibility was going to be determined by the Constitution it had to be done before he got the nomination. It wasnt. 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 individuals 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 partys 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 Husseins eligibility. 1. The challenges are on the record for future presidential historians to interpret. And there is always the possibility that details pertinent to Husseins 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: Obama: Health law ‘here to stay’ By Alicia M. Cohn - 07/05/12 12:52 PM ET http://thehill.com/video/campaign/236305-obama-healthcare-law-is-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: The boy liar’s flirtation with the truth is on solid ground: GOP releases 'Repeal of Obamacare Act' By Pete Kasperowicz - 07/06/12 08:11 AM ET http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/236405-gop-releases-repeal-of-obamacare-act It matters not which party controls the Senate. As I said in the OP:
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.
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."
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. 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: http://www.politicalforum.com/other-miscellaneous/226976-vrwc.html 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.
LOL... Your lack of ability to "see through" anything is demonstrated by the fact that you think I have assumed any authority. Did I move this thread? No, I'm not a mod. Again, being that I wasn't the person that moved the thread, I can't say what the motive was. I suspect it was, contrary to your belief, actually so that more people who are interested in the topic would see it. People don't go into "Law and Justice" subforum looking for Obama birther stuff, they come here.
BullsLaw To BullsLawDan: Labeling everything about Hussein’s lack of eligibility a conspiracy has been your last recourse more than once. You, and others, do it as though you are the final word on the subject rather than simply expressing opinions. To BullsLawDan: You’re denying something you were not accused of doing. To BullsLawDan: Take a guess! To BullsLawDan: Where is here? Do you realize this thread is back in the Law & Justice forum? Finally, I doubt if you read the link I provided about banning “conspiracy theories,” but you might remember Cass Sunstein for this: Obama Lunges Toward Global Government by Phyllis Schlafly June 6, 2012 http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/column/2012-06-06.html I’m willing to wager that any opposition to the government forcibly harvesting organs from the living and the dead will qualify as a conspiracy theory among Hussein’s ostriches.
To SFJEFF: Teaching dogs! Dogs can only learn tricks like how to sit up and beg. That’s certainly how liberals see their role in society. Is that how you see BullsLawDan’s responses? In this case the lesson appears to be “Believe everything BullsLawDan says and beg for more.” I know that you two are like Daffy Duck and Wily Coyote teaming up to catch Flanders. Just be careful you don’t catch him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJW7EF5aVk&feature=player_detailpage
