Atlantis Online
June 17, 2019, 06:04:41 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Were seafarers living here 16,000 years ago?
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=34805893-6a53-46f5-a864-a96d53991051&k=39922
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING ELIGIBILITY OF MULTIPLE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING ELIGIBILITY OF MULTIPLE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES  (Read 473 times)
Mitch McBushen
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 91



« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2008, 08:43:14 pm »



Lawrence Fragg,


You are just as naive as everybody else, haven't you noticed how your GWB goes along with EVERYTHING
'the messiah' does?

Remember the triumphal European Tour?  GWB never objected to the'substitute president', his words
or actions, did he?

And now, he is just as cozy and cooperative with him as if they belonged to the same party.


'the messiah' IS GWB'S   T H I R D   T E R M ! ! !


                                                  THE CHOSEN ONE

by the 'powers-that-be'.

No way, Bianca!  George W. Bush will be GWB's THIRD TERM!!!  We can trust no one else to lead the way like he does.  He's rugged, manly and he's from Texas!  The swagger alone is reason enough to keep him in there.

And thanks to Volitzer's information, we Republicans are back in power again!  America, get ready for the return of the white, purebred Republican male in the driver's seat again!  Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
DDDnD3D
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 248


« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2008, 08:52:08 pm »

The First To be Annihilated will be the English and the Jews ? ? ?
Report Spam   Logged
Vernon Guilley
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 286



« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2008, 09:55:10 pm »

Praise be to Jesus, our prayers have been answered.  Like a prophet of old, this Volitzer fella brings us good news.  And that God-fearin', ever righteous weapon of the almighty, George W. Bush will be President again, for tomorrow and for all time.
Report Spam   Logged
Vernon Guilley
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 286



« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2008, 10:14:02 pm »

And Jesus said, "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword."

And the sword that he brought forth was one George W. Bush, an enemy to the sodomites, the feminists that would destroy the traditional family and the Islamo-fascists who would destroy the good ole U.S.A .  And the people did turn their back on him and all that he represented, electing Barak Hussein Obama in his stead. And that is when the white, god-fearing Christian male knew that his days were numbered on this earth. 

Not all from the Bible, but maybe it should be.
Report Spam   Logged
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2008, 11:35:13 pm »






GOD(DESS) DELIVER US FROM   


                                                           C U L T I S T S   


DEMS AND/OR REPS ! ! ! !
« Last Edit: November 25, 2008, 11:36:20 pm by Bianca » Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Kerissa Faad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 914



« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2008, 12:48:22 am »

Last update - 11:53 13/10/2008     
 
 
Conspiracy theory faults Jews for Lehman Brothers' collapse 
 
By Anshel Pfeffer 


 
Tags: Wall Street, Lehman Brothers   

A new anti-Semitic conspiracy theory has been spreading online over the last few days, claiming that on the eve of Lehman Brothers' collapse last month, the firm transferred $400 billion to Israel.

The theory, which comes in the form of a news report, has already been distributed on dozens of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli sites. It alleges that senior Jewish officials at the Lehman Brothers investment bank passed their clients' money on to three Israeli banks, with the intention of then escaping to Israel to enjoy the take without fear of extradition.

Since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which was founded in the United States by Jewish immigrants from Germany in 1850, Web forums and comment pages have been flooded with anti-Semitic comments accusing Jews of causing the global economic crisis and branding them the greatest beneficiaries of the disaster. Such statements are especially common on clearly racist sites, but can also be found on more popular mainstream sites.
 Advertisement
 
The Anti-Defamation League in the U.S. and other international bodies monitoring anti-Semitism have documented hundreds of such cases in the past two weeks.

A number of Islamic organizations, including Hamas in Gaza - which called the economic crisis America's punishment for its bad deeds - have joined the chorus and accused the Jewish lobby of causing the crisis.

But the allegation of the transfer of $400 billion of Lehman Brothers' cash to Israel is much more focused. The story making the rounds was written as if it were a news report from Washington, and has a byline of the "Voice of the White House." The story names three Israeli banks that allegedly received the money, explains in detail Israel's extradition laws and bank-secrecy act, and charges American law-enforcement authorities of having knowledge of the transfer. It also cites excerpts from a real story that appeared on the Bloomberg economic news service wire about estimated losses of $400 billion in the brokerage division of the investment bank.

The "story" first appeared a week ago on the Web site of Jeff Rense, a former journalist who has published numerous conspiracy theories involving Jews, Israel and the American administration.

Since then, it has been picked up and posted on dozens of sites and anti-Semitic blogs. Surfers who read it tried to copy it to more respectable forums and comment pages such as The Huffington Post in the U.S. and The Independent in Britain.

The conspiracy theory is reminiscent of past allegations about Jews, ranging from the czarist-era "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to the widely circulated libel that the Israeli Mossad knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and warned all of the complex's Jewish employees not to come to work that morning.
 
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1028069.html
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2008, 01:42:46 am »

Look if the Supreme Court doesn't want to do its job then it is we the people who will have to file law-suits in order to resist this un-Constitutional President.

We have in essence another Taft-Administration.  A man holding the office who isn't Constitutionally legal to be there.

Quote
This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.
Report Spam   Logged
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2008, 07:56:46 am »







                                              Obama rips U.S. Constitution



                          Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 27, 2008
1:46 pm Eastern

2008 WorldNetDaily

Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a



                                            fundamentally flawed Constitution



that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.


MORE:


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79225
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 07:58:43 am by Bianca » Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Adrienne
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2428



« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2008, 03:13:07 pm »

DUO TAKE OBAMA BIRTH CHALLENGE TO COURT

Posted: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:57 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Courts, 2008 Obama


From NBC’s Pete Williams
When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion.

Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born American citizen.

Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.

Lawsuits over the inclusion of their names on state general-election ballots popped up around the country and were quickly dispensed with by local courts. But two challengers have pursued their cases to the Supreme Court.

Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg claims that the circumstances of Obama's birth are vague and that he may have been born in Kenya. Obama's mother, Berg asserts, later flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer, contends that election officials in his state failed to ensure that only legally qualified candidates were placed on the ballot. Obama may have been born in the United States, Donofrio argues, but "natural born" status depends on both parents being American citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan.

The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.

In dismissing Berg's complaint, a federal judge in Pennsylvania found that he failed to meet the basic test required for sustaining a lawsuit, because he couldn't show how the inclusion of Obama's name on the ballot would cause him -- apart from others -- some particular harm. Berg's stake, the judge said, "is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters."

Other courts presented with similar challenges have reached the same conclusion, ruling that there is no general legal right to sue over the Constitution's eligibility requirements. Federal courts typically reject claims of legal standing based simply on a litigant's status as a voter or taxpayer.

The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate. But that prompted further questions about its authenticity, which were compounded when state authorities in Hawaii said they could not vouch for it, because they were constrained by the privacy laws.

Then, on Oct. 31st, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx
Report Spam   Logged

"In a monarchy, the king is law, in a democracy, the law is king."
-Thomas Paine
Adrienne
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2428



« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2008, 03:18:58 pm »

Of course, I wouldn't get too excited by this, Volitzer.  The hearing is not the case in itself being heard by the Supreme Court, but whether it should be heard by the Supreme Court.

On the one hand, this is a more conservative court than the one that gave Bush the presidency in 2000, though, so you have that on your side at least! 

On the other hand, if they do try and overturn it, with all the supporters that Obama has, and as bad as the economy is right now, it will proably be the end of the United States as we know it.
Report Spam   Logged

"In a monarchy, the king is law, in a democracy, the law is king."
-Thomas Paine
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2008, 03:40:11 pm »




".......On the other hand, if they do try and overturn it, with all the supporters that Obama has,

and as bad as the economy is right now, it will proably be the end of the United States as we know it."


BLACKMAIL,

                             'ala "There will be blood on the streets - Donna Brazile'", again........?






IF THE



                                                     C O N S T I T U T I O N


IS NOT UPHELD, IT'S THE END OF THE UNITED STATES AS WE KNOW IT, ANYHOW.......


I GUESS ARNOLD SCHWARTZENEGGER IS GOING TO BE RUNNING FOR POTUS NEXT TERM.

I SUPPOSE THAT,THEN, I MIGHT, TOO......

WHY NOT?



                                                     W H A T   A   F A R C E ! ! !
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 03:51:12 pm by Bianca » Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Adrienne
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2428



« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2008, 03:49:18 pm »

Bianca,

I have been following this lawsuit since Volitzer brought it up, looked into all the details of it, too, and there is no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. There is even a clip from a Hawaii newspaper at the time he was born stating that he was born in Hawaii.

This was in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:


http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-likely-born-in-hawaii/

The people claiming otherwise are simply taking witnesses out of context. 

As for the Constitution, Bush has been shredding it for the last eight years.  Do we even stil have one?  Democracy actually died in 2000, back when the Supreme Court picked Bush over Gore, in fact, who won by over 500,000 votes. This time, Obama won by nine million, I doubt very much that they would stick their nose in this, but you never know.
Report Spam   Logged

"In a monarchy, the king is law, in a democracy, the law is king."
-Thomas Paine
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2008, 03:58:20 pm »






You are right, Adrienne,

This is going

                                                            NO WHERE


The  'messiah'  was chosen a long time ago, by 'the powers that be'

anybody who can't see that is indeed blind.


                                    He is the   THIRD (3) TERM OF GEORGE W. BUSH


Just for the record, though, his Kenyan step-grandmother keeps insisting that she witnessed
his birth in KENYA.

The current KENYAN ambassador has also stated, within the last week, that his BIRTHPLACE
has become a shrine.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2008, 11:46:54 pm »

Produce the Dog Gone Birth Certificate




 Cool

Okay now all of you who want to play the race card can just keep quiet.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #29 on: November 29, 2008, 11:57:30 pm »




 Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy