The Supreme Court

[Survival7201]

Is this the day that we thought would never come? It is possibly a fraud, and only time will truly tell. It appears that the Supreme Court has accepted , or will hear evidence to the effect that the President and his supporters did falsify documents , a passport, birth certificate and other documents.

For your thoughtful consideration:

The case was brought by attorney Orly Taitz on February 15, 2013 dealing with Barack Hussein Obama’s "alleged" use of forged IDs; The Supreme Court in an unprecedented move made the hearing a "closed door" session escaping scrutiny from the media and the public. Here is the link to the Supreme Court Docket since so many have written that they needed to see the docket with their own eyes.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a606.htm

http://syndicatednews.net/chief-justice-of-the-supreme-court-john-roberts-schedules-a-case-by-attorne-p744-161.htm



There may be some truth to the "Birthers" concerns.

Ron

[(1VB)compforce]

It's immaterial at this point. I do not believe that SCOTUS would find against Obama regardless of what the facts show. The international damage to the US image and ability to project democracy would be irrevocably damaged if he were found to be ineligible for the presidency. Any finding that we put someone in office that was ineligible, let alone reelected them, would result in the US becoming the laughingstock of the world. The best course of action for the long term benefit of the US is to let it ride for the next 4 years and block any attempts at a third term.

The time for challenging his eligibility was before or right after the 2008 election, not after he has been in office for 4+ years.

BTW, the article from "syndicated news" you linked to is rambling and nearly incoherent. I had to go research it separately before I could even believe that the case was a birther case. When articles are so poorly written, it immediately calls the credibility of the author into question.

[BrokenSwitch]

Better late than never. There's more important things than mere face to save-- Obama & friends certainly made sure of that.

[JJ_BPK]

The case was brought by attorney Orly Taitz on February 15, 2013 dealing with Barack Hussein Obama [/url]


I searched in the SCOTUS link you posted and can not find anything with obama and Taitz on the current docket..

I did find taitz in these two files:


2 items found for your search: Taitz


Search Results:
file type icon Journal October Term 2008
JNL08$IND1—10-14-09 07:41:28 JNLINDPGT MILES OCTOBER TERM 2008 Reference Index Contents: Page Statistics .................................................. ..................................... II General
file type icon Journal October Term 2010
OCTOBER TERM 2010 Reference Index Contents: Page Statistics .................................................. ..................................... II General .................................................. ........................................

[(1VB)compforce]

I searched in the SCOUS link you posted and can not find anything with obama and Taitz on the current docket..

I did find taitz in these two files:

It's not listed as Obama. It's Noonan et. al. vs Bowen. They are challenging the state of California for putting Obama on the ballot. That's why I had to dig to find out that it was even there. Taitz is part of the et. al. (and others) as well as being the Attorney for the Plaintiffs.

[pcfixer]

I don't see this going anywhere. Elana Kagan was USSC Solititor General
and IIRC had previous cases thrown out too. This is not the first one.

[Team Sergeant]

It's immaterial at this point. I do not believe that SCOTUS would find against Obama regardless of what the facts show. The international damage to the US image and ability to project democracy would be irrevocably damaged if he were found to be ineligible for the presidency. Any finding that we put someone in office that was ineligible, let alone reelected them, would result in the US becoming the laughingstock of the world. The best course of action for the long term benefit of the US is to let it ride for the next 4 years and block any attempts at a third term.

The time for challenging his eligibility was before or right after the 2008 election, not after he has been in office for 4+ years.

BTW, the article from "syndicated news" you linked to is rambling and nearly incoherent. I had to go research it separately before I could even believe that the case was a birther case. When articles are so poorly written, it immediately calls the credibility of the author into question.

I think we've passed that point some time ago.......:munchin

[Richard]

For your thoughtful consideration:

The case was brought by attorney Orly Taitz on February 15, 2013 dealing with Barack Hussein Obama’s "alleged" use of forged IDs; The Supreme Court in an unprecedented move made the hearing a "closed door" session escaping scrutiny from the media and the public. Here is the link to the Supreme Court Docket since so many have written that they needed to see the docket with their own eyes.

Read the "article", look at the "news" source, review the docket and you'll see the typical litany of so-called "birther" sludge (a dash of truth mixed with a heavy dose of cherry-picked half-truths, tin foil wrapped innuendo, and logical fallacy) that's been spewing forth and contaminating the blogosphere for nearly a decade now.

If anyone knows how the SCOTUS works, there was no "unprecedented move" :rolleyes: - it was merely a normal distribution of the case among the Justices to review and discuss among themselves in one of their two weekly "conferences" (Wed and Fri) prior to accepting or rejecting it as with all cases.

http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ConstitutionResources/SeparationOfPowers/USSupremeCourtProcedures.aspx

What tripe.

Richard :munchin

[SF18C]

Obama's not worried...with Biden as the VP!!!:p

[MR2]

It's immaterial at this point. I do not believe that SCOTUS would find against Obama regardless of what the facts show. The international damage to the US image and ability to project democracy would be irrevocably damaged if he were found to be ineligible for the presidency. Any finding that we put someone in office that was ineligible, let alone reelected them, would result in the US becoming the laughingstock of the world. The best course of action for the long term benefit of the US is to let it ride for the next 4 years and block any attempts at a third term.

This same thing was said by one side during the Clinton impeachment and the other during the Nixon impeachment.

[(1VB)compforce]

This same thing was said by one side during the Clinton impeachment and the other during the Nixon impeachment.

The difference being that both of those were accused of illegal activities while in office. In this case you are not talking about impeachment, it would be closer to voiding the election.

Has anyone thought about the ramifications if the SCOTUS was to find the election illegal? Biden becomes President (scary enough on its own), Romney sues for the presidencyon the basis that he had the highest number of votes of all eligible candidates. Democrats sue for a new election if Romney wins his suit and they put Hillary up as the candidate... chaos ensues... If Romney wins, he invalidates Obamacare and many other initiatives that Obama put in place or was laying the groundwork for. The entire government has to pivot... Our government has a hard time walking a straight line, how in the world are they going to take a sudden right angle turn? Those are just a small portion of the domestic ramifications. What happens when the government is effectively frozen waiting for the outcome? What happens to the guys and gals in Afghanistan? What happens to our standing with other countries?

[SF18C]

The difference being that both of those were accused of illegal activities while in office. In this case you are not talking about impeachment, it would be closer to voiding the election.

Has anyone thought about the ramifications if the SCOTUS was to find the election illegal? Biden becomes President (scary enough on its own), Romney sues for the presidencyon the basis that he had the highest number of votes of all eligible candidates. Democrats sue for a new election if Romney wins his suit and they put Hillary up as the candidate... chaos ensues... If Romney wins, he invalidates Obamacare and many other initiatives that Obama put in place or was laying the groundwork for. The entire government has to pivot... Our government has a hard time walking a straight line, how in the world are they going to take a sudden right angle turn? Those are just a small portion of the domestic ramifications. What happens when the government is effectively frozen waiting for the outcome? What happens to the guys and gals in Afghanistan? What happens to our standing with other countries?

Do you stay up all night and play "What if?" with yourself???

[(1VB)compforce]

Do you stay up all night and play "What if?" with yourself???

Pretty much :D That and read posts here...

[Detonics]

The difference being that both of those were accused of illegal activities while in office. In this case you are not talking about impeachment, it would be closer to voiding the election.

Has anyone thought about the ramifications if the SCOTUS was to find the election illegal? Biden becomes President (scary enough on its own), Romney sues for the presidencyon the basis that he had the highest number of votes of all eligible candidates. Democrats sue for a new election if Romney wins his suit and they put Hillary up as the candidate... chaos ensues... If Romney wins, he invalidates Obamacare and many other initiatives that Obama put in place or was laying the groundwork for. The entire government has to pivot... Our government has a hard time walking a straight line, how in the world are they going to take a sudden right angle turn? Those are just a small portion of the domestic ramifications. What happens when the government is effectively frozen waiting for the outcome? What happens to the guys and gals in Afghanistan? What happens to our standing with other countries?

Indeed. It is far better that we follow the Chicago model of "expediency" in politics by letting a person who would, at that point, be shown to not have been eligible for the highest office of the United States. remain in his position of benevolent leadership.

Obviously without that leadership and steadfast support the United States military would immediately fail and spin apart like a high speed grinding wheel shattering.

As far as our standing with other countries, I suppose it could, in the gravest extreme, lead to other world powers such as Nauru and Andorra failing to respond to phone calls from Secretary of State Kerry like Russia has.

But really.... We did that whole thing with the Clinton impeachment. "Oh, but then we'll get Gore! Lets just ignore our oath of office!" Which led to a perjurious bastard being able to return to public life and eventually take the campaign stage and quip about Romney, "Who wants a president who will knowingly lie to you?"

It lead to his wife who, while questioned before Congress gave variations of the answer "I have no recollection of those events" a few hundred times, being elected a Senator and Secretary of State and a possible candidate for future leadership of our country.

[(1VB)compforce]

Indeed. It is far better that we follow the Chicago model of "expediency" in politics by letting a person who would, at that point, be shown to not have been eligible for the highest office of the United States. remain in his position of benevolent leadership.

Obviously without that leadership and steadfast support the United States military would immediately fail and spin apart like a high speed grinding wheel shattering.

As far as our standing with other countries, I suppose it could, in the gravest extreme, lead to other world powers such as Nauru and Andorra failing to respond to phone calls from Secretary of State Kerry like Russia has.

But really.... We did that whole thing with the Clinton impeachment. "Oh, but then we'll get Gore! Lets just ignore our oath of office!" Which led to a perjurious bastard being able to return to public life and eventually take the campaign stage and quip about Romney, "Who wants a president who will knowingly lie to you?"

It lead to his wife who, while questioned before Congress gave variations of the answer "I have no recollection of those events" a few hundred times, being elected a Senator and Secretary of State and a possible candidate for future leadership of our country.


OK, so I read that as almost all in pink. I guess I should clarify my position. Personally, I would want him held accountable, even if it meant there was a mess to clean up afterwards. The invalidation of his presidency would destroy the democratic party for a long time and push us back into the conservative realm. No democratic (or Republican) candidate would be able to survive the scrutiny that would be the outcome if the presidency was voided, especially this President.

My points above are that I do not believe that the current SCOTUS justices will publically proclaim the invalidation. They will, instead, discuss in closed chambers and find a legal technicality to avoid hearing the case to avoid just these issues.

The other post (the one you quoted) is, as SF18C said, me playing what-if and attempting to provoke thought about the possible outcomes. Sometimes the devil you know is preferable to the one you don't.

[Richard]

Sometimes the devil you know is preferable to the one you don't.

Only if you fear the dance.

Richard :munchin

[Trapper John]

OK, this whole thread is bordering on the foolish, IMO. BHO must be having a good laugh on his detractors for spending so much time, effort, and intellectual capital on this nonsense. It's a red herring!

I am reminded of the words of Archibald MacLeish from "The Revolt of Man Against Himself" (June 6, 1942):

"No propaganda was or could have been more powerful than the anti-intellectual propaganda of the fascists because no propaganda responded more precisely to the prejudices and the emotional predispositions of those to whom the fascist revolution made its principal appeal. The bankrupt merchants, the frustrated apprentices, the disappointed junior engineers, the licked, half-educated, unsuccessful clerks and journalists and discharged soldiers to whom the fascist revolution called in every country where the fascist cause made headway, were men sick of a profound, a deadly sickness—a sickness they had caught in the swarming, crowded, fetid and unlovely air of the swarming and unlovely time which bore them—a sickness of which the name was ignorance and envy. For men whom ignorance and envy bred no conceivable propaganda was more seductive than the propaganda which presented all learning, all enlightenment, all distinction of the man and mind as false and foolish."

Some of you may know that Archibald MacLeish (one of the great thinkers of the last century IMO) was often the target of J Edgar Hoover and Joseph McCarthy as a suspected "Communist" because of his association with the folks like Lillian Hellman and Dash Hammel. Now before you dismiss him as such, please go back and read some of his prose and think about it in light of the highly fragmented and vitriolic society we are becoming. And ask yourselves one question: Has not the rule of reason been lost somewhere along the way? Has reason and the pursuit of truth been replaced by "tweets", "blogs", and entertainment based "news" directed towards ever narrowed and ideologically fragmented groups? Are we not, in effect, waging war on ourselves? (OK, it was 3 questions :D)

If you have answered "yes" to any of the three questions, then you have taken the first step in the twelve step program towards recovery.;)

[Detonics]

OK, this whole thread is bordering on the foolish, IMO. BHO must be having a good laugh on his detractors for spending so much time, effort, and intellectual capital on this nonsense. It's a red herring!

I am reminded of the words of Archibald MacLeish from "The Revolt of Man Against Himself" (June 6, 1942):

"No propaganda was or could have been more powerful than the anti-intellectual propaganda of the fascists because no propaganda responded more precisely to the prejudices and the emotional predispositions of those to whom the fascist revolution made its principal appeal. The bankrupt merchants, the frustrated apprentices, the disappointed junior engineers, the licked, half-educated, unsuccessful clerks and journalists and discharged soldiers to whom the fascist revolution called in every country where the fascist cause made headway, were men sick of a profound, a deadly sickness—a sickness they had caught in the swarming, crowded, fetid and unlovely air of the swarming and unlovely time which bore them—a sickness of which the name was ignorance and envy. For men whom ignorance and envy bred no conceivable propaganda was more seductive than the propaganda which presented all learning, all enlightenment, all distinction of the man and mind as false and foolish."



Thanks! I like that. Looking through some of his quotes I found:

''The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.''

From the same period, George Gurdjieff:

"Humanity is at a standstill and from a standstill there is a straight path to downfall and degeneration.... There is nothing that points to evolution proceeding. On the contrary when we compare humanity with a man we quite clearly see a growth of personality at the cost of essence, that is, a growth of the artificial, the unreal, and what is foreign, at the cost of the natural, the real, and what is one's own.... Contemporary culture requires automatons. And people are undoubtedly losing their acquired habits of independence and turning into automatons, into parts of machines.... Man is becoming a willing slave. He no longer needs chains. He begins to grow fond of his slavery, to be proud of it. And this is the most terrible thing that can happen to a man."

or

"The hypnotized masses, led by equally hypnotized leaders under the banner of preposterous slogans, must fall again and again into the ditch; leech-like ‘power-possessors’, under one convenient rubric or another, would suck the blood of subservient millions; the ‘burning question of the day’ would change again and again, but not the instability of human reason. Reform, on its own level, was futile: ‘There is no progress whatever . . . The outward form changes. The essence does not change . . . Modern civilization is based on violence and slavery and fine words."