“PEOPLE WERE SCREAMING, ‘TRAITORS!’”

The Post & Email ^ | November 19, 2011 | Sharon Rondeau

[flamberge]

The powers-that-be all live in glass houses. They are not inclined to throw stones at each other (spitballs, maybe).

Open admission of fraud undermines the position of the entire political system, with unpredictable consequences for all of the current players. Most of the politicans have illegal, unethical, or immoral behaviour their recent past (or current activity). That is why nobody in authority wants to make a decisive takedown of one of their peers. They are all vulnerable to factional retaliation.

There is nothing unique about Obama in his background or attitudes, and his election was not a "historical accident". Rather it was the intended result of a system that was (and is) functioning as it was designed to do.

The purpose of our current system has evolved to maintain the current elites in power, to indulge themselves in whatever activities may please them, in perpetuity.

Changing the purpose of the system is very difficult, since a large number of people benefit from things as they are - even during periods of decline. The appeal of "free stuff for everybody" is hard to beat. The early adopters and supporters do indeed get the goodies and have every reason to support a corrupt system. It is the latecomers to the party who get stuck with the bills.

As the writer says “I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it.”

The best prospect that we have now is reducing the amount of money that the Government can collect or spend. Corruption in the political process becomes less important if the amounts at stake are smaller.

The systemic removal of incumbents in all elections, and mandatory term limits on all elected or appointed positions in Government would help. A consistent rule-of-law would help. Eliminating the votes of of dead people, imaginary people, and non-citizens would help.

Unfortunately, it is easy to prescribe effective measures that will change the direction and purpose of a system, but much more difficult to implement them.

Of course there are other ways to change the system. The key question is "to what direction and purpose?".

[W. W. SMITH]

Intelligence is not an attribute required for a law degree or to practice law. From 63 years observation being intelligent can be a detriment to a successful law practice.

[W. W. SMITH]

One further requirement “we the people” should demand when Obama is shown to be a legal fraud.Obama not being eligible for the office and despite being sworn in, is not now and never will be the president therefore, That all future histories of this nation reflect that the office of president was vacant from noon 20 January 2009 through noon 20 January 2013 and that Obama never be referred to as president Obama. No retirement check, no secret service, no office, nothing that normally accrues to a former president.

[thesearethetimes...]

Because FRiend, they do not want scrutiny.

May God guide our course.
Tatt

[El Sordo]

I'm reasonably sure that it wasn't Microsoft making that up.

[El Sordo]

It sure is a crying’ shame then that you didn't record any of that prior to the end of 2009.

Or possibly present a story that didn't claim to support all the most desirable Birther articles of faith as they were at the time. Artciels of faith that have never seen a whit of rational support.

Such a shame...

[El Sordo]

Also, that should change your claim to ‘Obama allegedly told a person that...’ rather than ‘he told people’.

Because you seem to be the only person on earth who Obama every made this claim to.

[sport]

Sharp! You are sharp. You are as sharp as a rat turd is on both ends.

[DiogenesLamp]

No claim to fame. No stain of infamy. I have practiced law for over 20 years without being sanctioned for incompetence, or dishonesty. I've even gone to court and had public officials removed from office. Which a lot more than Orly Taitz can say, in any language.

It is my perception that the court system is seriously out of whack nowadays. It is broken and needs to be fixed. Issues like Kelo are in my mind demonstrable proof that our system of justice has become evil. If you are contributing to its dysfunction, then you are part of the problem.

[DiogenesLamp]

Really? Who?

What, you didn't see the first half dozen examples I have shown you?

[DiogenesLamp]

me. 1980

Are you that soldier mentioned in that article floating around the internet?

[DiogenesLamp]

Intelligence is not an attribute required for a law degree or to practice law. From 63 years observation being intelligent can be a detriment to a successful law practice.

That and principles.

[DiogenesLamp]

Also, that should change your claim to ‘Obama allegedly told a person that...’ rather than ‘he told people’.

Because you seem to be the only person on earth who Obama every made this claim to.

And yet Chris Matthews, sitting in the star chamber of media connectivity somehow got the idea that Obama was born in Indonesia, and likewise indicates that Hillary Clinton thought so as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"But didn‘t Hillary dump on Obama a few days ago for playing up his Indonesian roots? So, what is she up to here? Is she pushing how great he is for having been born in Indonesia, or what, or simply reminding everybody about his background, his Islamic background?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Geeze, if Chris Mathews thought that back in 2007, how could you blame everyone else for thinking the same or similar?

[El Sordo]

You've never produced a single example of BHO claiming he was born in Kenya.

You cite people saying BHO was born in Kenya and assume they must have learned this as a result of Obama making such a claim.

[El Sordo]

When people make erronous claims about a person, does it follow that the source of the claim must have been the person in question?

[Pilsner]

From 63 years observation being intelligent can be a detriment to a successful law practice.

Then Orly should have the most successful law practice in California.

And perhaps, from her point of view, she does. Depends on what one wants out of life. If she wants to give good legal advice to her clients, and either win, if it comes to litigation, or do everything ethically possible to give her client the best chance of winning, then Orly is an unmitigated failure.

If, on the other hand, what she wants out of life is a small, but devoted, band of snarling followers, whom she deludes into thinking that her farcical publicity stunts are actually brave feats of litigation, which fail due to the machinations of a shadowy conspiracy, and not because she is attempting the impossible, in a grossly incompetent manner, then Orly has a very successful practice.

[DiogenesLamp]

You've never produced a single example of BHO claiming he was born in Kenya.

You cite people saying BHO was born in Kenya and assume they must have learned this as a result of Obama making such a claim.

Apparently he told Lynn Sweet that he had a childhood in Kenya.

"Obama's next big international journey will be in 2007r--he's looking at China, India and Indonesia, ``where ironically I actually have more of a childhood than I do in Kenya.'' "

She went with him on that overseas trip, so I suspect she had a LOT of time to talk to him. Seems strange that she would have written down such a quote in error.

Hillary Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson insisted he had never before seen the photo of Barack Obama in Somali garb and said he was "not aware" that anyone in the Clinton camp circulated it ... The Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet, who was with Obama on that Kenya trip, provides the back story about his Somali outfit.

[DiogenesLamp]

Mr. Pilsner.

As you are an attorney, I assume you know something about adoption? Perhaps you’ve never been involved with one, but I would think that you should still know something of this section of law.

*I* am adopted. I have an ORIGINAL birth certificate that states all the particulars of my birth, and I have a replacement birth certificate created 6 years later that contains information which is mostly not true. (And yet it has the same doctor’s signature as the original. How do you suppose they did that?)

For all intents and purposes, the state regards me as having been born under the name I now have. That this is legally so is apparent. However it is not ACTUALLY so.

All the evidence that I have seen regarding Obama tends to indicate that he was adopted at least once, and possibly even twice. (First by Lolo Soetoro, Second by his Grandparents.)

With all of this in mind, do you not think it is not only reasonable that the American Public should know the particulars of such a history regarding Mr. Obama, but beyond that it is in fact a DUTY to know of these things?

[Pilsner]

As you are an attorney, I assume you know something about adoption? Perhaps you’ve never been involved with one, but I would think that you should still know something of this section of law.

I've done both domestic, and international.

*I* am adopted. I have an ORIGINAL birth certificate that states all the particulars of my birth, and I have a replacement birth certificate created 6 years later that contains information which is mostly not true. (And yet it has the same doctor’s signature as the original. How do you suppose they did that?)

The Judge signed a Court Order that the State produce a new birth certificate, showing that your adoptive parents were your birth parents. Its a crime to forge a birth certificate, so the State officials would have been careful to preserve the Court Order, and the original birth certificate. The only thing you reference that is not 100% like what I've done, and seen done, in Texas, is the doctor's signature. And that could have been done in the past.

For all intents and purposes, the state regards me as having been born under the name I now have. That this is legally so is apparent. However it is not ACTUALLY so.

OK. But did they change the date, time or place, or is that exactly the same on both? I've seen Texas birth certificates, issued after an adoption, that show the names, and addresses, of the adoptive American parents, but the date, time and place of the birth is copied exactly from the original birth certificate. Even when it was an international adoption. Texas birth certificate, foreign place of birth.

All the evidence that I have seen regarding Obama tends to indicate that he was adopted at least once, and possibly even twice. (First by Lolo Soetoro, Second by his Grandparents.)

Yes. But BO has either gotten the State of Hawaii to issue a copy of his original birth certificate, which may, or may not, have been superseded when he was adopted, or you believe in a half century old conspiracy to fake the place of BO's birth, so that he could run for President one day. Adoption would be an explanation for an inability to produce a "long form" birth certificate -- in many adoptions the adoptive family will never have had an original "long form" birth certificate. But adoption explains nothing about the long form birth certificate BO has produced, unless you are alleging that it too is a post adoption birth certificate, and that BO has yet another, earlier birth certificate.

With all of this in mind, do you not think it is not only reasonable that the American Public should know the particulars of such a history regarding Mr. Obama, but beyond that it is in fact a DUTY to know of these things?

I don't think that we ought to elect corrupt, Anti-American, socialists to anything. But 53% of the voters disagreed with me in 2008. What makes you think there is any chance that Americans will be ready to re-elect BO in 2012, ready to approve Obamacare, trillion dollar deficits forever, corruption, thuggery, vacillation, betraying our allies, promoting Jihadism, and all the rest. But that the discovery of some event that took place before BO's birth, or while he was an infant, will be what it takes to swing the voters to the GOP? Does that make any sense at all?

The fabled Kenyan Birth at least would have, under the law as it stood at the time, disqualified BO from the Presidency. Heck, it would have made him an illegal alien.

But it never made any sense. How did the couple travel to Kenya? Boats would have taken months. Airlines did not allow late term pregnant women to fly internationally, back then. What airline was there? BOAC (British Overseas Air Corp. -- or close enough) flew into Hawaii, and Kenya. There were two flights a week into Kenya. One from Cairo, one from India. In DC3s.

Why did BO's daddy spend money he didn't have, to take his American "wife" to Kenya? So that she could meet his other wives, and give birth to his child under third world conditions? And if they somehow did manage to get there, and have BO born in Kenya, how did they get him to Hawaii, with no passport, and no paper trail? And why the conspiracy since BO's birth, if not before, to fake his place of birth?

None of that ever made any sense. At all. And if there was any grain of truth to it, how come the Clintons didn't dig it up, and and have some third party drop it on BO?

At least Orly has given up on trying to litigate BO out of office, and is filing ballot access lawsuits. I've been telling Birthers that was their only shot for 18 months. Now she didn't form a political party, and get a Birther on the ballot, so the lawsuit is not Candidate A vs. Candidate B, which I've told Birthers is their best shot. But Disgruntled Conspiracy Theorist vs. Candidate B is a big step up from Disgruntled Conspiracy Theorist vs.POTUS. Who knows, she may even lose this case on its lack of merits, and not the usual way -- on the fact that she is asking the court to overturn Congress's certification of the winner of the 2008 election.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks bitt.