I have read the typical name calling, ridicule attacks leftists make when they don't have facts to back their positions. Many such attacks have been made against Dr. Orly. Orly is a very brave dedicated patriot. As for the claims that she is an inexperienced lawyer I would remind her detractors that she doesn't need to win a trial. All she needs to do is get one judge, any judge to order that the discovery process for a trial begin.
From: All together now – say OMG!!
Another piece of information that many fail to realize is that in the birth certificate cases is that all that is needed is for the case to be heard. This case will be over in the “discovery” phase. Before a trail starts both sides are required by the court to put all their cards on the table to avoid “trial by ambush”. The Federal Courts call this an Omnibus Hearing. The judge orders all evidence to be presented by both sides. Since this case is about discovering documents that are hidden the case will be decided by court ordered presentation of all relevant records. Lawyers in birth certificate cases don’t need to win a trial they need to get a trail.
BORN IN THE USA?
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Federal criminal complaint contends Obama ineligible
Ex-officer alleges prez used 'contrivance,
concealment, dissembling and deceit'
By Bob Unruh
An ex-military officer has raised the stakes in the ongoing dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, filing a criminal complaint against the "imposter" with the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
Retired U.S. Navy officer Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who has run a campaign for two decades to uncover and try to correct what he believes are criminal activities within the military, accused the president of "treason."
In his complaint addressed to Obama via U.S Attorney Russell Dedrick and Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District, Tennessee, Fitzpatrick wrote: "I have observed and extensively recorded invidious attacks by military-political aristocrats against the Constitution for twenty years.
"Now you have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment."
He cited the deployment of "U.S. Army active duty combat troops into the small civilian community of Samson, Ala.," and said, "We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works.
"I identify you as a foreign born domestic enemy," he wrote.
The 1975 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis told WND that a short time after his complaint was filed he was visited by two U.S. Secret Service agents, but they left after telling him they perceived no threat to the president in the document.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join some 350,000 others and sign up now!
Officials with the Knoxville office of the Secret Service told WND the only person who could release information to the media was on vacation and they would not comment on the issue.
Likewise, officials with the U.S. attorney's office declined to respond to a WND request for a comment.
Fitzpatrick told WND the U.S. Justice Department needs to look into the issue.
WND reported this week that officials at the Justice Department, along with those at the Supreme Court, confirmed that documentation in a case challenging Obama's eligibility had arrived and was scheduled for an evaluation.
That case is being handled by California attorney Orly Taitz, who is working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation to handle several cases raising questions over Obama's qualification to be president under the Constitution's demand that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen.
Taitz was informed by Karen Thornton of the Department of Justice that all of the case documents and filings have arrived and have been forwarded to the Office of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, including three dossiers.
Fitzpatrick said he has devoted his career fulltime to investigating issues in military justice and defending wrongly accused soldiers, sailors and Marines. His own career was torpedoed by a court-martial more than 20 years ago over his authorization of the use of a ship's fund to sent an officer to the funeral for his brother, who had been killed by terrorists.
Fitzpatrick's situation has been described not only on his own website but forum pages on other websites that deal with military issues.
He alleges his case was fabricated and even his signature was forged by officials connected to his case. He points to the fact that he ultimately retired and was awarded a military pension as support for his allegations.
But he says the new complaint against Obama should define the issue of the president's eligibility.
"They either have to come and get me or get Mr. Obama's eligibility proved. He has an officer in his military saying he is guilty of trespass on the Constitution," Fitzpatrick told WND.
"They can recall me against my will to active duty," he said. "I would refuse. It's an illegal order by a man who is not by commander in chief."
WND has reported on dozens of civil case legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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 of the legal challenges question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
Hawaiian officials have confirmed they have a birth certificate on file for Obama, but it cannot be released without his permission, and they have not revealed the information it contains.
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."
Officials for the Obama campaign repeatedly have refused to comment on the questions, relenting only once to call the concerns "garbage."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=92835
10 hours ago
8 comments:
I love that you decry name calling then group her detractors as "leftists" in the same sentence. Classic...
Kael
Lefist isn't name calling you idiot! :-)
Can you define Leftist?
It pleases me to leve this post for all to see as an example of the debate style of leftists in general and Obma supporters in particular.
"Obama and the truth win though." This staement is an opinion that can't be substantiated because the weel is still in spin. See: http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/03/all-together-now-say-omg.html
The weakness of the other statments is addressed below.
Beware the Obama Supporters!
The "progressive movement" has shown itself to be a cesspool of intolerant, elitist's and bullies. Those who disagree with them are demonized, terrorized, swarmed over and threatened... and the many who don't engage in this hateful conduct condone it by their silence.
This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism. Do you accept that?
http://nobama.tv/page9/page9.html
I'll bet that you are an Obama supporter who shares man traits with other Obama supporters. See:http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/02/dumbest-generation-dont-trust-anyone.html You will note that there are comments on this post that are actually free of the thought trash of the above comment.
I say you are liberal/progressive because of the trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks that so characterize the debate style of Obama’s people these days. Most liberals don't think or analyze they just use low level debate tactics that would disqualify them for the grade school debate team. That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed voted Obama - Informed voted McCain - Poll... http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html
However, I will expose it for the low level tactic that it is and put you on notice that it is not an effective tool when dealing with me.
If you can point out something inaccurate I would appreciate your contribution to accuracy. If all you can do is "label" the source with a derogatory comment your opinions are not welcome.
You might also consult an article on this blog entitled. Spot false arguments and make strong ones. http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/11/spot-false-arguments-and-make-strong.html
A free hint on how to improve your posts. You will note that ad hominem arguments are at the lower end of the scale on the pyramid chart at the above link; only one step above name calling which is the other part of your content. Do you honestly expect to get somewhere with a post like that when many of the readers on this blog have triple digit IQs?
In case you need a little help with your Latin: An ad hominem argument, consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Have you had a logic class yet?
You might take a look at this site:
http://www.austhink.org/critical/pages/fallacies.html
Critical Thinking on the Web.
Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an " argument." This line of " reasoning" has the following form:
1. X, which is some form of ridicule, is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"
It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods ( such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: "Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill's claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremacist are not racist organizations."
Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremacist are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.
Examples of Appeal to Ridicule
1. These anti-Obama birthers fear the truth and delete it.
2. You birthers are losers in elections, court and life.
3. "Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
"Can you define Leftist?"
Rightists are enemies of the state.
Leftists are enemies of the nation because they aren't enemies of the state.
I have not yet had the time to respond to your statements in the level of detail that Id like but I hope to get to it soon.
Kael
I guess it was foolish of me to think that you would leave my comment stand unmolested. :-)
No honestly I was ready to unleash a manifesto on you but I have been slammed so its still swirlling only in my own mind at the moment but it will come =)
Post a Comment