Posted on 09/30/2008 4:50:00 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
Ironic how history can repeat.
April 29, 1945, Adolf Hitler married Eva Braun. Funny thing during that marriage procedure though. Hitler couldn’t provide proof of german citizenship. Within 24 hours of that faux paus Hitler either killed himself or staged it and disappeared (Intell docs from Britain have sightings of him after April 30th...don’t know).
Hitler was born in Austria and remained an Austrian citizen until he gave up that citizenship in 1925. He remained stateless, meaning without citizenship to any country, until he found a creative way (a la forgery) to become a German citizen just a month before the 1932 presidential elections in which he was a candidate.
Amazing what we never learn from the past when we don’t learn history. Could you imagine if Hitler was required to provide proof of citizenship BEFORE becoming a presidential candidate??? Maybe WW2 would never have happened. Maybe Iran would still be Persia. The needless deaths that could have been prevented.
Have we learned nothing??
/steps off soapbox
ping
>>>What happened to Andy Martin’s book that was to cover this stuff..........?
The book is out. We had him out to our dinner on September 25th. He spoke and signed books for us.
He is getting ready to leave for Hawaii in a few days with a team to document Obama’s past.
Napoleon wasn’t born in France either and we all know how that turned out.
Perhaps it is a prerequisite for the whole Antichrist thing, first you have to be not what you say you are....
Mitchell Langbert has a great blog site. Make sure you read his interactions with applying for a copy of Obama’s certificate if you haven’t already. There is a picture of Obama Senior here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2040486/posts?page=4973#4973
and the odd thing is the woman front and center in the black dress looks like Janice Okubo (State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Director of Communications).
bump!
>>>If not, why the hell not? And if the case is dismissed as not havig standing, then who exactly has standing if an American citizen doesn’t?
Be still peasant!
(Bumping for emphasis)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2094408/posts?page=64#64
If McCain won’t, maybe Chuck Baldwin will. He is running for President and can use the attention.
>>...then he has no standing to pursue the suit. Standing means that the plaintiff has suffered real, tangible, measurable damage due to the fraud, unrelated to the costs of bringing the lawsuit, and I don’t think Berg can demonstrate this.
Would a former candidate for President 2008 count?
>>>I am admittedly not up on electoral college rules but I seem to recall discussiom about four years ago on the matter of whether electors are bound to vote according to how their states voted or whether they were free agents who could vote as they wanted.
Maybe that was the point of the Popular Vote Bill. Some states already made it law to give their electorals to the candidate receiving the popular vote.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com
Excerpt:
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee a majority of the Electoral College to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would reform the Electoral College so that the electoral vote in the Electoral College reflects the choice of the nation’s voters for President
Even a contributor to the Obama campaign would count so, yes, a former candidate would definitely count. She would have to prove that “but for” the fraud, she would have been the nominee but I don’t see her unable to meet that burden of proof.
Thanks!
A former Pres Candidate can join in this suit to how the the ‘standing’ for the Berg case.
I wonder if Dennis Kucinich would stand up since he filed with the FEC for the media not being balanced?
It would be nice to pull all the former candidates in though from the DNC and RNC. What do you think? Should we fax them all?
how = show
So what's he supposed to say? "I'm pretty sure my case is going to be thrown out of court but what the heck? I tried."
“The Obama DNC camp waited until the deadline date required by the court to produce evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen they did not.
Instead, they filed for a dismissal of the case.
Obama is a man that has something to hide here.”
So it would seem.
I woundn’t count on Ears Kucinich for anything. Besides, he must be related to Ears Obama.
Popular vote, suspend the requirements of the Constitution on qualified presidential candidates by looking the other way.
And then disempower thr Electoral College.
Hello liberal fascism!!!
Faite Accomplis!
It may take a few years for America to wake up, and when it does, I fear that things are going to be very, very bloody.
Friday night 6:30 pm article from::::::::::
NORTHEAST INTELLIGENCE NETWORK
Status: Phillip Berg vs. Barack Hussein Obama
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
3 October 2008 To discredit the merits of the lawsuit and have it summarily dismissed, all Barack Hussein Obama (a/k/a Barry SOETORO)has to do is provide a legitimate copy of his birth certificate. The lawsuit was filed by Philadelphia lawyer Phillip Berg in late August.
Instead, Obama has opted to fight the lawsuit as illustrated in the federal court documents which can be viewed online HERE.
As they say, however, the devil is in the details...
First, it is notable that Barack Hussein Obama retained Washington lawyer Joseph SANDLER of the Washington law firm Sandler, Reiff, and Young to fight the lawsuit. Who is Joseph SANDLER? He is a lawyer who has represented CAIR - the Council on American Islamic Relations and MoveOn.org.
Last week, Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. On Monday, Attorney berg filed a response to that motion, requesting (1) that the suit not be dismissed, and (2) that the Court order the production of documents that would validate Obama’s constitutional qualifications as a legitimate candidate for president.
As mentioned - the devil is in the details - well beyond the obvious (the obvious being a CAIR lawyer responding on behalf of Obama).
Over the last few days, there have been relentless Internet rumors that the court has dismissed the Berg lawsuit. As of this writing, that is untrue, and Attorney Berg claims that he is confident that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be defeated.
Based on information I obtained confidentially from sources close to this case within the last 48 hours, it appears that the court will, in fact, dismiss this complaint. Unfortunately, the dismissal will be based on a series of obscure technicalities and citations, thus setting the stage for a larger constitutional crisis in the months ahead.
Count on it.
That’s..... shocking.
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.