Posted on 05/25/2011 7:08:02 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
The Post & Email recently reported on the lawsuit Taitz v. Astrue, in which Attorney and dentist Orly Taitz filed a Freedom of Information Request which was denied by both Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue and Judge Royce Lamberth at the United States District Court in Washington, DC. Taitz filed a petition for a default judgment on May 13, 2011, after a 30-day period which allowed the government to respond but no response was received.
Taitz had originally requested a copy of the Social Security number application allegedly completed by Obama, as she alleged that his use of the number 042-68-4425 is fraudulent. She included documentation to the U.S. District Court on April 8, 2011 that Obama’s Selective Service record showed that he had used that social security number to register. Exhibit 3 of Taitz’s documentation, included with her First Amended Complaint, shows that entering the number into the Social Security Administration’s online search feature yields a “SSN not in file (never issued)” message.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Your illustrations are powerful. We have been failed a little by the Dems [they’re just being Dems, after all] and catastrophically by the GOP. DC is a cesspool, and we haven’t really begun to clean it out yet. May ‘12 shake the place to its core, and at least be the beginning of REAL change.
he said it convinced the rubes. there are a lot of smart people here, who aren’t convinced. it is very clear he’s gone to great effort to hide something. even if it as simply as he was adopted by Soetoro, and never legally changed his name back. And NO ONE has shown why he has a Connecticut SSN.
and “Defeating Obama on the issues instead?” Why can’t we do both? As Fantasywriter pointed out, he has violated other laws. should we ignore that also, just to discuss issues? It doesn’t matter if the War Powers Act is violated?
And i don’t see even “birthers” here ignoring the issues. They are smart people, and know their stuff on Obamacare, unemployment, TARP, and many other issues.
And if you would post some threads, about the key issues, and suggest how we can best frame the discussions, and get the message out, to defeat them, i would be happy to read them !
I have a really good answer for you. It just now occurred to me that Obama, by releasing what he claims to be his birth certificate, has made that document public knowledge and has by default consented to the release of that information. In other words he no longer has an expectation of privacy concerning that document. SO, a subpoena can reach that document because there is no privilege left for him to exercise to prevent it. Hawaii has no privilege or privacy rights only Obama does. Now that he has “released it” the State shouldn’t have grounds to quash.
I think they could still legally refuse to present the document with the criteria demanded. Legally, mind you.
But politically, people better start questioning - if the “released” BC is legit, why not produce the typewritten one?
Although I am a card-carrying partisan of the conspiratorial demi-monde where a tinfoil chapeau is la mode de rigueur, I think I agree with the premise behind your intelligent question.
In fact, during those semi-lucid moments when I remove my Mu-metal beret, I am often assailed by the sneaking suspicion that the entire BC Fraud is sponsored by Team Obama, precisely to keep us from focusing on the issues.
Yes, he's constitutionally ineligible. Yes, the BC is a scam. Yes, he is still wrecking my country. Which can I and my party do anything about? If every legal move against Obama were to bear fruit tomorrow, he would still remain in office. Obviously then, we really ought to be working with what we do have: the Republican members of Congress and our Republican Governors and State Legislators. Our focus should be to get them to perform their duties a whole lot better than they have been doing. Instead of writing to each other, we really ought to be writing to them. Maybe they ain't much, but they're all we have.
2012 is just around the corner. Even if we get Obama out of it, his Team can still win.
absolutely !!! good point!
...and it’s not just the lack of info by the President who promised transparency, it’s the obvious scrubbing, that made me curious.
the class photos at the university you mentioned, disappeared from the archives. page 11 of the divorce papers. the earlier years of SAD’s passport files, the kindergarden records. the hard copy of the Hawaii newspapers, disappearing from the archives, and much more.
even if ALL that is a coincidence, it certainly is worth an honest question, without being branded a lunatic.
again, he has a Connecticut SSN, which should be impossible.
...and Occam’s razor. ALL these things support the theories of Butterdezillion and other researchers here. But instead we are told “nothing to see here, those aren’t the droids you’re looking for”.
So, now that the crisis is over, what’s next? Defeating Obama on the issues instead?
Right, hmmm hmmm...
“And yet Republicans everywhere ask, “Who do we have to beat him?” In head-to-head matchups, Mr. Obama beats all of the Republican hopefuls in most polls.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2724814/posts
The rubes are the majority of the voting public. If your strategic goal is winning elections, you need tactics that match.
While *you* personally can walk and chew gum, as the Birther saying goes, that doesn’t fly in America. For instance, Ron Paul can walk and chew gum with his views on the Fed and his views on foreign policy. Once you get into what most people consider ‘kooky’, then your other, better ideas are tainted and discredited.
As far as the War Powers Act, there’s no outcry because most people in this country don’t understand why the Constitution was written the way it was, and they don’t care. Appealing to Constitutional purity is wasted breath; most Americans don’t care. If you want to win elections, you’re going to have to look at the battlefield for what it is, and play the game by the current rules.
What you guys aren’t grasping is that you live in a country where Obama can show up with a crayon birth certificate, a 5 digit social security number, and Martian antennae growing out of his head, and he’ll still be reelected if we can’t persuade enough people to vote for someone else based on the issues of the day.
The Constitution isn’t a magic scroll; it’s an idea. Obama’s not banished back to the netherworld if you cast the right spell from Article II to break the curse of the Non-Natural Born Citizen.
Thus, the only thing that matters now is to beat Obama using ideas that the mainstream of America finds palatable. Obama is very vulnerable there. He’s not vulnerable on the NBC angle. Pursuing it further makes us all look like fringe theorists, and damages our chances to win elections.
If your goal is not to win elections, but to be right, then to sit around in terror when you realize that too few Americans care about the Constitution to remove someone who openly violates it, then be my guest.
Absolutely correct.
Enough to win an election?
Absolutely incorrect.
Despite the release of his abstract, a large number of US citizens continue to doubt that Obama was born in the USA. As more questions are raised about this strange document, the number of people who doubt Obama’s official nativity rises. How is that helpful to Obama’s reelection? If we had shut up when we were first told to, only a tiny fraction of US voters would have fundamental doubts about Obama’s fabled history. Now an ever rising, very significant percentage does. Are you saying that will be a plus to Obama in ‘12?
I join with others who say it is possible to attack Obama on multiple fronts at once. The Dems attack our candidates on every conceivable front. Why should we play nicer than they do?
My question to folks like you who understand this reality: what is the actual mechanism which could be activated to remove a sitting president who is guilty of criminal acts, some of which are present day acts? If the House musters bills of impeachment, the Senate under Democrat rule can deny the trial on the grounds that he is not legally the elected president, but that doesn't remove him at that point.
Because of our god-curséd two-party system, you are right in two ways. One good. The other not-so-good.
(1) Obama can be beaten on the issues. That's the good.
(2)The not-so-good is that we stand an excellent chance of winding up with RINOS who will not reverse the tide of Socialism. They will just slow it down (Fabian Socialism) and promise to do it better, faster, and cheaper than those corrupt, anti-family, queer loving Democrats.
The fight is for the votes of the non-ideological, the illogical, and the politically ignorant.
If we can't beat Obama on the issues, then it's because the electorate wants Obama, or someone with policies like him. What does it matter if we martyr one Obama administration on a legal technicality, and get another instead?
If our plan is to disqualify opponents based on technicalities rather than meet them in open competition, it's pretty much an admission that our ideas are inferior. Is that the case?
That's not an easy question. America is increasingly a country of men and not a country of laws.
I don't know if Obama desires this drift, or is simply enjoying the benefits of it. Countries of men don't have formal mechanisms to remove bad leaders. They'll leave when their term is up, because they fear the wrath of other men, not because they fear the law.
Beyond that, I don't know what to tell you, other than to suggest you read up on how the Romans fared with issues of succession and removing corrupt leaders. This isn't the country you grew up in, but its change is nothing new. This path has been walked before by the republics of old.
you make excellent points. maybe you are correct. (and, i have read posts by you on unrelated topics, that i admired.)
...and i agree talking about “smiley faces” makes us look like lunatics. and i am not a techie, and i avoid the complex “layers” etc. i agree, that is not going to convince most people.
Sadly, you and Kenny Bunk are correct about most Americans.
...but, they don’t understand the issues either. MOST Americans still BELIEVE there is a Social Security Lockbox! and if you try to explain to them, that that money has already been SPENT by congress, their eyes glaze over.
The mainstream media, has controlled the dialogue on most issues. HOW would you suggest anything can be done?
that same majority you speak of, are too busy watching “American Idol”, to catch more than a sound bite, of any issue. ...so we might was well resign ourselves to becoming the next Greece.
...but, people ARE curious about tabloid stuff. If i keep it simple, and tell someone, about Obama’s Connecticut SSN, or about Virinia Sunahara, they get curious. If i point out, it is logical to adopt a young child in a new marriage (i’m getting ready to do it myself), they understand that... they believe he was Barry Soetoro in Indonesian schools, especially when i show them the registration photo. THEN, i ask them, how and when did his name legally get changed back to Obama ?
when i show them, these 2 SIMPLE photos, they understand it, a lot better than trying to explain how Obama is drowning us in debt.
ml/nj has it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2720608/posts?page=23#23
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186343
If you have a better plan, to teach people about issues they don’t understand and don’t care about, in the face of overwhelming mainstream media propaganda, i am all ears!!!
and discouraging and criticising people like Butterdezilliion, Red Steel, Bluecat6, ml/nj, Robinmasters, etc., doesn’t accomplish anything. they are patriots!
...until you give me a better way of reaching people, then, i quietly use those photos as a hook, to get people CURIOUS. THEN, i can give them some facts.
...maybe futile. but i will continue to “light one candle...”
If our plan is to disqualify opponents based on technicalities rather than meet them in open competition, it’s pretty much an admission that our ideas are inferior. Is that the case?
Disqualify on technicalities???
Then let’s run Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal right now. If being born on American soil is the new qualification, what are we waiting for?
Better yet, Bibi Netanyahu attend high school in Philadelphia. What an improvement over a turd who attended some private school 3 time zones away from the Western US don’t you think.
But then when it’s our candidate, the loonies on the left will certainly push for disqualification.
And one undeniable fact:
Mark Schatz, the Chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, refused to sign the state Certificate of Nomination (CON) for Obama to be on the ballot in 2008 with the state mandated language “meeting the constitutional requirements’ to hold office.
WHY??? Because he wasn’t constituionally eligible....and election fraud occured.
We are busy rewriting election laws in other states but the fact remains election fraud occured in at least 6 states which required proof that Obama met the constitutional requirements to hold office. By the way, which included Texas which had a REPUBLICAN as Chief Election Officer.
A sitting President, which despite the illegality, is what Obama is, can be removed only by:
(1)Impeachment in the House and Conviction in the Senate.
(2)Resignation
(3)A congressional finding of incompetence to exercise the office
(4)Death
MHG has long felt that by the original ineligibility, Obama is actually not the President. Since he occupies the office and exercises the powers, that is a moot point. Furthermore, there is nowhere to bring that point for consideration.
Eggs ackley. Thanks for clarifying what I obviously muddled. At this stage, barry bassturd is the sitting presdient, so what happens if criminal behavior is proven via discovery? The Paula Jones thing was a civil suit, not a trial on criminal charges, IIRC. What is the mechanism, or is there such to address unprosecuted past criminal behavior of a sitting president? The issue really comes down to harping on the criminality to the point that democrats see they will be held accountable at the ballot box for protecting a criminal in office and continuing to enable his criminality. Or so it seems to me, and that’s why I don’t intend to stop harping on the BC issues ... there is criminal behavior folded into several layers of that issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.