Go Back   Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) > Project Camelot Forum > Project Camelot > Unconfirmed News Reports

Notices

Unconfirmed News Reports Please post any unconfirmed/unverified reports here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-23-2008, 07:42 AM   #51
Northern Boy
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: On this Rock
Posts: 1,390
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregorArturo View Post
Did you see Obama born in a hospital in Hawaii? If not, then shove it as everything you read online, see in the news, told at work, or dish fed in the classroom can inherently all be hearsay! It's a war on truth out there, and we're your fellow comrades here who just want to find out the truth so stop thinking you know how it is.

And Obama is no one's savior. Go to mirror and look into it, for that's your answer to all the bull **** in the world and who's going to fix it.
Great answer Gergor yes we are our own Messiah
Northern Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 07:43 PM   #52
Fredkc
Project Avalon Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Riverside, ca.
Posts: 898
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

Quote:
A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen

....shall be eligible to the office of President..."
Berg's poorly planned attempts have been largely a waste of time, because the federal courts have ruled 4 out of 4 times that a citizen does not have standing to bring such a suit.

Now, in terms of wrong or right, this positively sucks. It means a citizen has no right to insist the person elected to a job serving him be qualified. But, it is the law. The job of qualifying candidates is given to Congress, along with the authority to delegate the job.

Berg continually insisting his facts are correct was meaningless. T'werent his job to point it out.

Next, we come to another sense of the term "compelling reason". It is standard fare in federal court, that although a plaintiff is found to lack standing, the judge can order the facts of the case to be presented anyway, where the judge determines that the there is a "compelling reason" to hear them, where he suspects they have merit.

This is where we come to the importance of the Dec 1 Supreme Court review of the matter. They can decide that such "compelling reason" exists, hand the matter back to the lower courts and order said federal courts to hear the evidence. Remember that to this point, no court has heard the facts of the case. The entire argument has been over whether or not Berg had standing to file the suit.

The facts of the case aren't in the S. Court's department. They are a court on process, and law, not facts.

If that happens, and no I don't know, but I suspect, Mr. Obama is sunk. Mind you I am basing this on human nature, and little else; but... who goes through a year-long court battle to prevent the facts of a case from being heard, when they are positive that such a hearing will prove the case groundless?

Re. the opinion Obama was "the best candidate we were offered". The way it's p[ut makes me think of baby chicks in a nest, beaks open, waiting for whatever is dropped in their mouth, "knowing" there isn't anything else. What happened to insisting on a genuine choice? What happened to the concept of being the owners of our own freedom, and choice?

Fact is, the coice of Obama vs. McCain was exactly the same as getting to choose whether your daily feeding of horsecrap was vanilla, or strawberry. No more. T'was clear to anyone who did research beyond their hopes, which were never either candidates concern.

Finally:
Change! Gosh, it sounds important. But stepping deeper in the same hole is "change". If the idea is change for the better, wouldn't it have a better standing if it was based upon a different beginning? Like the truth?
__________________
"Life IS mystical! It's just that we're used to it"

Evil cannot be killed. Only redeemed.

Chat us up at: Avalon Chat
Fredkc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2008, 01:13 AM   #53
Subsonik
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 50
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

The Clintons, Obama, McCain - they're all the wrong choice!!!
You're being blinded by thinking you're getting what you want!
Subsonik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 08:42 AM   #54
Euphor|a
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 44
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

Is it hot in here, or is it just me??
Euphor|a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 04:57 PM   #55
bodhisattva
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 42
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

This is an IMPORTANT video by a witness, Dr. Ron Polarik certifying the FORGERY of BO's birth certificate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z104q...g/facts/?p=371
bodhisattva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2008, 12:04 AM   #56
Frank Samuel
Project Avalon Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: i live in puerto rico
Posts: 643
Talking Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

McCain was born in Panama, he ran for president. He is the senator of AZ. I'm sure he will join Obama's team to stir this country.
Frank Samuel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2008, 07:33 PM   #57
Lotus
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 90
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.

The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2008, 12:45 AM   #58
pineal-pilot-in merkabah
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: england
Posts: 1,153
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

barrack hussein lol obama.. a fully made up name incorporating some nice hate figure names obama(osama) hussein (saddam obv).. i like barry satoro better its somehow more down to earth
pineal-pilot-in merkabah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2008, 01:25 AM   #59
NancyV
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 80
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Samuel View Post
McCain was born in Panama, he ran for president. He is the senator of AZ. I'm sure he will join Obama's team to stir this country.
It doesn't matter if McCain was born in Panama. Both his parents were US citizens and his father was in the Military, so he is a natural born US citizen. Obama is not. Even is he is he still lost his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and never became a "naturalized" US citizen upon his return. But since the constitution is basically already trashed, I won't be at all surprised that they won't do anything to find out or acknowledge the real truth about Obama's citizenship.

It's obvious the powers that be want Obama to be president. I will enjoy watching it unfold. Eventually reality will dawn on some who supported Obama when they find out that the only "change" we will get will be more control, fewer freedoms and the New World Order. Higher taxes are another fun thing to look forward to. Today they were reporting that the Obama administration/Democratic congress plans to raise the federal gas tax from 18Cents per gallon to 40Cents per gallon in increments over the next few years. So Neocons or Ultra-liberals are all the same. I used to vote for what I considered to be the lesser of two evils. No more. They are basically the same.

I personally don't care who won the election, it's going to be corrupt, controlled and will continue to tell lies about the real agendas going on in the world. Obama will not change things for the better as so many were hoping for. It was all a nice illusion. Politics is basically a farce, a way to create constant conflict which keeps the masses busy hating the other party.

Nancy

Last edited by NancyV; 11-27-2008 at 06:16 PM.
NancyV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2008, 03:12 AM   #60
Gnosis5
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,659
Default Re: Seeing & Thinking this through

bump



Quote:
Originally Posted by StClair View Post
Dear Friends

Will explain here a few generic things in simple terms and will not go into too many details, although I am briefed in great detail.

As a few here know, I have been advising some of the "Constitutionalists" (Ron Paul / Palin type constituency people) from the background with rather "intellectual-spiritual" type guidance ideas, as to how to proceed, from an esoteric and legal stand point.

What eXchanger and Bodhisattva are explaining here to you all is actually important if you who live in the USA care to understand how the system is supposed to work according to the constitution.

Everyone ought to stay realm level headed and calm now and not go into any kind of mental overdrive - ok.

Now that the practical available legal steps have been taken, the "rest of the work" has to be done silently, from the minds of the seers. Noise will not produce results. Activism has to be peaceful and of spiritual nature to protect the LANDS of the ancient shamans.

There is one issue, which is that for all intents and purposes, practically speaking, the court system that rules the LANDS is under Admiralty Law, and not any longer under the old Common Law.

In other words you live under hidden Martial Law.




Furthermore there only very few Judges left inside the USA who are "approved" to dispense as experts on constitutional matters. Attorney Berg was not able apparently to ask the courts for a "Constitutional Session" in court. Most if not all courts are "Corporation" courts who work for the "Corp. US" or "corpus" for short.

Let me explain something shocking to you which I did try to explain to Project Camelot off the record in May 08 when we shot my videos at Lake Geneva.

This was all planned since way back in the early Nineties. For the machine behind the Indonesian passport holder to take out the Clinton machine in the primaries you can imagine what types of powers are involved, and this includes also occult technologies.

The fact that during September October these powers acted as if it was all a "done deal" shows you not only that the matter was decided before hand, but that they knew they had what it takes to quash everything in sight. This is serious stuff we are talking about here.

I have stated and say it again, that the people actually did vote in majority for McCain/Palin, and the votes were switched with a technology I know only the rudimentary outlines of, not the details. Seers know this.

OK and while it is correct that to some degree McCain also is somewhat part of NWO, he is on the fringes on his own, cut lose from the machine, "off the reservation" at the very least from the moment on when at the end of August he brought in the "Independent" Palin who is only "nominally" a Republican, but at heart a "Constitutionalist."

As some of you who know things in more depth do know well, Palin was most unhappy with the handlers of McCain, ashe himself was. These are the same handlers as the ones who handled the seeming "other side."

Why do you think Palin "went rogue" ???

So you make of this what you want, and this is why I did NOT predict the one who seems to have been elected to become President.

The actual President elect, believe it or not, is John McCain, and he knows it and I know it, and a very few in the know do know it. We decided to go silent and wait and see.

I suggest you all do the same and stay safe and use your minds to do the rest of the work by going within. Here we apply now our Krishnamurti type teachings.

Like the other smart and enlightened ones who spoke up here, I am on no one's side but on the side of the Constitution, and the side of human spiritual ORDER, whereas all the others are promoting human disorder. If people wish to be "radical" they must become knowledgeable first.

As to the rest - it is here: http://Passage11.com/Mirror.htm
This page is generically written and includes the above matter,
among many other things that fall into exactly this category worldwide.

Peace
Michael St.Clair
Gnosis5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 05:05 AM   #61
KathyT
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: America
Posts: 427
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

Quote:
Originally Posted by NancyV View Post
But since the constitution is basically already trashed, I won't be at all surprised that they won't do anything to find out or acknowledge the real truth about Obama's citizenship.

It's obvious the powers that be want Obama to be president.

So Neocons or Ultra-liberals are all the same. I used to vote for what I considered to be the lesser of two evils. No more. They are basically the same.

I personally don't care who won the election, it's going to be corrupt, controlled and will continue to tell lies about the real agendas going on in the world. Obama will not change things for the better as so many were hoping for. It was all a nice illusion. Politics is basically a farce, a way to create constant conflict which keeps the masses busy hating the other party.

Nancy
Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.............

If that isn't enough... I agree!
KathyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 04:30 AM   #62
hueyii
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 211
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

Time to move on to another conspiracy theory...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...citizensh.html
hueyii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 04:38 AM   #63
Squeptikal
Avalon Senior Member
 
Squeptikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Near Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 52
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

Quote:
Originally Posted by NancyV View Post
It's obvious the powers that be want Obama to be president. I will enjoy watching it unfold. Eventually reality will dawn on some who supported Obama when they find out that the only "change" we will get will be more control, fewer freedoms and the New World Order. Higher taxes are another fun thing to look forward to. Today they were reporting that the Obama administration/Democratic congress plans to raise the federal gas tax from 18Cents per gallon to 40Cents per gallon in increments over the next few years. So Neocons or Ultra-liberals are all the same. I used to vote for what I considered to be the lesser of two evils. No more. They are basically the same.

I personally don't care who won the election, it's going to be corrupt, controlled and will continue to tell lies about the real agendas going on in the world. Obama will not change things for the better as so many were hoping for. It was all a nice illusion. Politics is basically a farce, a way to create constant conflict which keeps the masses busy hating the other party.

Nancy
Welcome to reality. What emotions are conjured up here? Helplessness, fear, suspicion, anger?

Examine that. Don't fall for it. If it does not matter who wins the election, then the election does not matter - period!

Please do not lose your/our focus.
Squeptikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 04:53 AM   #64
hueyii
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 211
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

Settle down people. Lick your wounds, the court battle is over.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...citizensh.html
hueyii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 10:20 AM   #65
Steve_A
Project Avalon Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northeastern Brazil
Posts: 1,259
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

Hi hueyii,

We can't argue with the courts, so it's case closed for the time being. There is room for one more appeal.

If Obama is or isn't a natural born citizen, for me I couldn't give a toss.

However, if the case has been thrown out because of a technicality and not because of its' merits, it does leave one with a sour taste in ones' mouth. Does it not?

Best regards,

Steve




Quote:
Originally Posted by hueyii View Post
Time to move on to another conspiracy theory...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...citizensh.html
Steve_A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 12:32 PM   #66
CIRIE
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Missouri USA
Posts: 2
Question Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

I've seen recently that Hawaii quarter is to be 2009 release? And, there are ads online for Obama coin?
C
CIRIE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 07:34 PM   #67
Argante
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Frostbite Falls, MN
Posts: 287
Default Selective Constitutionalism by Chuck Baldwin

I read this article today and immediately thought of this thread... I agree with everything Chuck Baldwin has to say concerning this topic.

"Selective Constitutionalism" by Chuck Baldwin, December 9, 2008

"Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore, not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.

Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . ." Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's U.S. citizenship.

Historically, "natural born Citizen" has always been understood to mean someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii's secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to date, Obama's actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.

Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a "constitutional crisis." The fact is, however, we have been in a "constitutional crisis" for years! The problem is, most conservatives only get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives "go ballistic," but when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn with utter indifference.

For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to actually bring about some meaningful investigation and resolution to the Obama citizenship brouhaha is none other than Senator John McCain. After all, he was Obama's principal opponent in the race for the White House. Plus, as the standard-bearer for the only other major political party, he has the attention of the national media, as well as the national legislative and judicial branches of government. So, why is John McCain not at all interested in the Obama citizenship issue?

Perhaps one reason that John McCain is so uninterested in where Barack Obama was born is because he, John McCain, was not born in the United States. He was born in the country of Panama. So, let me ask readers a question: Does anyone believe if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack Obama that any notable conservative would have been distressed about a "constitutional crisis"? Get real!

Yes, I know McCain was born to a naval officer serving in Panama at the time. That fact changes nothing. John McCain was still born in a foreign country, and under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is not qualified to be President of the United States. Even our current State Department policy (7 FAM 1100) reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

Does anyone not remember the controversy surrounding the potential Presidential campaign of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Born in Austria, Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen of the United States and is now Governor of California. However, since Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen, but not a natural born citizen, he is considered unqualified to run for President.

But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution's requirement that a President be a "natural born Citizen." Like liberals, most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W. Bush repeatedly ignored--and even trampled--the U.S. Constitution.

Where were these "constitutional" conservatives when George W. Bush was assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of Transportation to open up America's airlines to foreign ownership? Where were they when President Bush nullified (using "signing statements") over 1,100 statutes he did not like? Where were they as President Bush and his fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could go on and on.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has been just as culpable in violating constitutional government as the Democrat Party has--maybe more so! If the Republican and Democrat parties had any allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama would have been chosen as their respective Presidential nominees.

While we are on the subject, if anyone cared about constitutional government, Hillary Clinton (or any other U.S. Senator or House Member) would obviously be determined as ineligible to be given any appointment in the Obama administration under Article. I. Section. 6. of the U.S. Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution prohibits House or Senate members taking Presidential posts if the salary of the job they would take was raised while they were in Congress.

However, several past Presidents have skirted this constitutional prohibition (including Presidents Taft, Nixon, and Carter) by lowering the salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee could accept the job without receiving the pay increase that was approved while the appointee was in Congress. In fact, this sleight of hand actually has a political name. It is called "the Saxbe fix," after Nixon's appointment of Senator William Saxbe to be attorney general.

Do we have a "constitutional crisis"? You bet we do; but it is not limited to Barack Obama or the Democrat Party. The real constitutional crisis is the manner in which the American people have, for years, allowed civil magistrates from both major parties to routinely violate their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. God help us!"

Brightest of Blessings to all,
Argante

.
Argante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 08:00 PM   #68
hueyii
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 211
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

...and nevermind that the birth certificate in question was shown, in its physical form, in this reality, to investigators. I posted a link about this somewhere. No wonder the Supreme Court threw it out. And for the record, the Supreme Court only releases statements about high profile cases. This obviously did not qualify.
hueyii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 08:06 PM   #69
feeler
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 360
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

Quote:
I read this article today and immediately thought of this thread... I agree with everything Chuck Baldwin has to say concerning this topic.

"Selective Constitutionalism" by Chuck Baldwin, December 9, 2008

Urging you to vote for Ron Paul if Obama gets disqualified. Go back to our roots i.e. the Constitution. Recognize that 9/11 was a false flag intended to attack our Constituion.


-feeler
feeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 04:04 AM   #70
peaceandlove
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Turtle Island
Posts: 2,776
Default It doesn't appear to be going away, it's growing instead.

This at G. Edward Griffin's site: http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

Obama's eligibility issue explodes on White House "dialogue" site as millions demand that he disclose his birth certificate. WNDN 2009 June 1, 2009 (Cached)

BORN IN THE USA?
Eligibility debate explodes on White House 'dialogue' site
77% of voters demand Obama release long-form birth certificate


Posted: June 01, 2009
9:14 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The entire transparency portion of the White House website on "open government dialogue" has been overrun with citizens calling on Barack Obama to release his elusive "long-form" birth certificate to establish his constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

The forums are open to the public for participation. Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, has been urging those concerned about the issue to get involved.

As WND reported, on Sunday night only 30 percent of respondents in one forum demanded the president release the document. But that number exploded to nearly 80 percent after the public became aware of the White House resource.

Continues: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=99884



SOME LINKS IN ABOVE ARTICLE:


OPEN GOVERNMENT DIALOGUE (FORUM): http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4423-4049
WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?


WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? (ARTICLE)
Americans vote with wallets to see Obama birth certificate
$40K in 1st 4 days for 'truth and transparency' billboard campaign


Posted: May 21, 2009
10:45 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily
UPDATE: The "Where's the Birth Certificate?" billboard campaign has exceeded $40,000 in its first four days.

WASHINGTON – As WND's billboard campaign to raise visibility of the issues surrounding Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility yesterday continued to attract eager donors, the president had this to say: "I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable."



Excerpt:

Quote:
Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama's background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

"As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama's promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records."
Continues: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98787
peaceandlove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 05:54 AM   #71
orthodoxymoron
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lunar Base II
Posts: 3,093
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

If Obama is not qualified...his handlers could use this to keep him in line...to provoke a constitutional crisis...to destroy him...to destroy America...or all of the above.

I'd love to see that old 'Where's the Beef?' commercial...modified to 'Where's the Birth Certificate?'
orthodoxymoron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 06:06 AM   #72
Humble Janitor
Avalon Senior Member
 
Humble Janitor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,201
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

I have nothing to say but GET OVER IT!

I love how they pull numbers out of their asses. 77% of voters? Sounds like a total lie.
Humble Janitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 06:43 AM   #73
peaceandlove
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Turtle Island
Posts: 2,776
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

Quote:
Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron View Post
If Obama is not qualified...his handlers could use this to keep him in line...to provoke a constitutional crisis...to destroy him...to destroy America...or all of the above.

I'd love to see that old 'Where's the Beef?' commercial...modified to 'Where's the Birth Certificate?'
Blessings Orthodoxymoron,

The arms of government corporatism spread far and wide. Perhaps America is already destroyed. "Where's the Freedom?"

PaL

From G. Edward Griffin...

"America's largest billboard company refuses to sell space for an advertising campaign that asks: "Where's the birth certificate?" It is not politically correct to question the President's eligibility to hold office." WND 2009 June 3 (Cached)

Cover-up: CBS Bans Eligibility Billboards
Industry signage leader rejects campaign asking simply 'Where's the birth certificate?'


Posted: June 03, 2009
8:05 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – The company touting itself as the "world's largest out-of-home media" enterprise has banned WND's national billboard campaign that asks one simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

CBS Outdoor, a division of CBS Corp. that sells more outdoor advertising than any other billboard company in North America, refuses to accept purchases of space on any of its 550,000 displays nationwide, media buyers for WND report.

Excerpt:

"Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?" asks Farah. "Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant 'Fourth Estate' was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it.

Article continues: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100022

CREED OF FREEDOM http://www.freedomforceinternational...seaction=creed

SOURCE: http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html G. Edward Griffin's site.

Last edited by peaceandlove; 06-07-2009 at 07:13 AM.
peaceandlove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 08:12 AM   #74
dolphin
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 277
Default Re: Seeing & Thinking this through

Quote:
Originally Posted by StClair View Post
Dear Friends

Will explain here a few generic things in simple terms and will not go into too many details, although I am briefed in great detail.

As a few here know, I have been advising some of the "Constitutionalists" (Ron Paul / Palin type constituency people) from the background with rather "intellectual-spiritual" type guidance ideas, as to how to proceed, from an esoteric and legal stand point.

What eXchanger and Bodhisattva are explaining here to you all is actually important if you who live in the USA care to understand how the system is supposed to work according to the constitution.

Everyone ought to stay realm level headed and calm now and not go into any kind of mental overdrive - ok.

Now that the practical available legal steps have been taken, the "rest of the work" has to be done silently, from the minds of the seers. Noise will not produce results. Activism has to be peaceful and of spiritual nature to protect the LANDS of the ancient shamans.

There is one issue, which is that for all intents and purposes, practically speaking, the court system that rules the LANDS is under Admiralty Law, and not any longer under the old Common Law.

In other words you live under hidden Martial Law.




Furthermore there only very few Judges left inside the USA who are "approved" to dispense as experts on constitutional matters. Attorney Berg was not able apparently to ask the courts for a "Constitutional Session" in court. Most if not all courts are "Corporation" courts who work for the "Corp. US" or "corpus" for short.

Let me explain something shocking to you which I did try to explain to Project Camelot off the record in May 08 when we shot my videos at Lake Geneva.

This was all planned since way back in the early Nineties. For the machine behind the Indonesian passport holder to take out the Clinton machine in the primaries you can imagine what types of powers are involved, and this includes also occult technologies.

The fact that during September October these powers acted as if it was all a "done deal" shows you not only that the matter was decided before hand, but that they knew they had what it takes to quash everything in sight. This is serious stuff we are talking about here.

I have stated and say it again, that the people actually did vote in majority for McCain/Palin, and the votes were switched with a technology I know only the rudimentary outlines of, not the details. Seers know this.

OK and while it is correct that to some degree McCain also is somewhat part of NWO, he is on the fringes on his own, cut lose from the machine, "off the reservation" at the very least from the moment on when at the end of August he brought in the "Independent" Palin who is only "nominally" a Republican, but at heart a "Constitutionalist."

As some of you who know things in more depth do know well, Palin was most unhappy with the handlers of McCain, ashe himself was. These are the same handlers as the ones who handled the seeming "other side."

Why do you think Palin "went rogue" ???

So you make of this what you want, and this is why I did NOT predict the one who seems to have been elected to become President.

The actual President elect, believe it or not, is John McCain, and he knows it and I know it, and a very few in the know do know it. We decided to go silent and wait and see.

I suggest you all do the same and stay safe and use your minds to do the rest of the work by going within. Here we apply now our Krishnamurti type teachings.

Like the other smart and enlightened ones who spoke up here, I am on no one's side but on the side of the Constitution, and the side of human spiritual ORDER, whereas all the others are promoting human disorder. If people wish to be "radical" they must become knowledgeable first.

As to the rest - it is here: http://Passage11.com/Mirror.htm
This page is generically written and includes the above matter,
among many other things that fall into exactly this category worldwide.

Peace
Michael St.Clair
it doesn't matter if it was McCain/Palin.... they ARE ALL CORRUPT!!! including OBAMA... (exception of Ron Paul)

it's the SYSTEM that needs to change! tptb are the ones who choose. it's all theatre!

why do you insist on what the "real" votes were when the choices aren't REAL choices to begin w. you KEEP talking about Palin as if she would be good for this country .... NOT!!!!! ....you mention McCain as "WE keep silent" what are you inferring by that? sounds like you're a bit too close to the elite which just keeps this false drama going.
dolphin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 03:33 AM   #75
Unified Serenity
Avalon Senior Member
 
Unified Serenity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 893
Default Re: supreme court ruling on obama's elig. for presidency

It looks like we may finally have a case heard on BO eligibility or the lack of clearning his eligibility. I'm not sure yet, but here is what WND has on it:


Article states:

"A judge hearing one of the cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has taken the unusual step of describing the dispute as a serious constitutional issue and further has begun adding letters of comment from the public to the court record.

Word of the action by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider in Camden, N.J., comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the Kerchner vs. Obama case.

Apuzzo filed his lawsuit in January on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

The Constitution provides, the lawsuit said, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified," the case explained.

"Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them," the lawsuit said.

The defendants "violated" the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements," the lawsuit said."
Unified Serenity is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Project Avalon