.jpg)
(AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, file) Timberline Dodge, Oregon
This column reported December 5, 2009 that Leo Donofrio Esq. and Steve Pidgeon Esq. would be filing two cases against the Obama Administration and Chrysler. The first a Bankruptcy case in the New York District which was originally filed by Chrysler (This column originally stated that the case was against the Government, indeed this case is a motion within the case originally filed by Chrysler, not the Government - Dianna C. Cotter 12-31-2009), and the second to be filed in Washington D.C., a Quo Warranto case directly challenging Barack Obama.
It can now be reported the Bankruptcy case for the Chrysler Dealers who were stripped of their dealerships by the Obama Administration has indeed been filed. Donofrio and Pidgeon have filed a Rule 60 Motion to reconsider on behalf of 21 rejected Chrysler dealers. As was expected, several more dealers have joined in the suit as well. Docket number 6137 was filed today, 12/29/2009 Motion for Relief from Stay to Allow Appeal to Continue filed by Randyl Meigs on behalf of Tommy Manuel Chrysler - Jeep, Inc.. with hearing to be held on 1/21/2010 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 523 (AJG) Responses due by 1/14/2010. The Debtor in this case is the old Chrysler. (This statement is incorrect and I take full responsibility for the misinterpretation that caused it to be printed. The case filed by Randyl Miegs has nothing to do with the case who's lead Plaintiff is James "Island Jeep" Anderer. The Miegs case was filed in 2007 against Daimler Chrysler and has no relation to the case that was filed by Donofrio and Pidgeon on December 25, 2009. Those involved have my sincere apology for the confusion this has caused. Again, I take full responsibility for this error. - Dianna C. Cotter 12-31-2009)
In their briefing, Donofrio and Pidgeon assert that the Judge in the original case, the Honorable Robert J. Gonzalez, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Federal Court, Southern District of New York, committed an unintentional fraud by miss interpreting an important witness statement. That witness was Fiat executive, Alfredo Altavilla, who stated that restructuring of the Dealer network needed to occur before the Fiat purchase of Chrysler could move forward. The Honorable Judge Gonzalez interpreted Altavilla’s answer to mean that a restructuring did not occur when indeed it did. (This last statement is a repeat of the error made by the Judge in the case. Altavilla testified that a restructuring of the Dealerships DID NOT NEED TO OCCUR before the the Fiat purchase of Chrysler could occur. The above statement is the mistake that the Judge in the case made. The executive from Fiat testified that a restructuring of the Dealerships did NOT need to occur. The Judge construed it incorrectly, and it resulted in the loss of hundreds of businesses for numerous Chrysler Dealers across the nation. Again, my sincere apologies to those involved for the confusion the above statement created. I take full and sole responsibility for it. - Dianna C. Cotter 12-31-2009)
Attorney Donofrio has confirmed a report in the Post and Email as accurately depicting the basis of their case:
Altavilla had testified that the dealers’ agreements need not be rejected prior to the sale be formalized; but Judge Gonzales mistakenly related it thus in his ruling. The Memorandum of the movants explains this in detail, the crucial part of which responds to Judge Gonzales’ footnote, in which he says:
“Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.”
The Memorandum responded to this:
The record indicates by clear and convincing evidence that this assertion by Judge Gonzalez is unequivocally false. It gives the appearance of judicial ventriloquism concerning the most important issue related to the Rejection Motion. Without this alleged affirmative response, the record of the case lacks any evidence whatsoever suggesting rejection of the dealership agreements was ever requested by Fiat, the US Government or the United Auto Workers as a condition precedent to the deal closing.
Footnote 21 parses, “restructuring needs to occur” by ignoring the very next sentence of the very same answer given by Altavilla. And the complete answer made it perfectly clear that restructuring did not need to occur before the sale closed.
Wherefore, after a detailed analysis, the Movants request Gonzales’ order be vacated (i.e. canceled):We respectfully submit that the averment by Judge Gonzalez in Footnote 21 of the Rejection Opinion has caused the judicial machinery to work in an alien and wholly improper manner by subverting a clear response by a key witness as to the most important issue before the Court. Judge Gonzalez, in taking this action, has caused the appearance of impartiality to be disturbed by reckless disregard for the truth. The record of the case should not be allowed to remain so defiled. Accordingly, we request complete relief from the Rejection Order.
Further noted by the Post and Email, the Chrysler dealers are contesting that Business Standards were met in the rejection of 789 dealership agreements and the court completely overlooked many facts that would have altered the conclusions that resulted in the Rejection Order and following Opinion. In plain language, the court ignored what would normally be considered normal business practices in order to reject the Dealers claim and back the Governments deal, allowing the purchase of Chrysler by Fiat. It seems as if the court either intentionally or unintentionally bent over backwards to make sure that the Government and the Administrations desires were met regarding the sale of Chrysler to Fiat. That will certainly be determined in the hearings and case to come.
The Post and Email concludes:
In this regard the Memorandum challenges various aspects of the business judgment standard, such as:
• “Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code requires that before a Debtor may assume or reject an executory contract, the bankruptcy court must approve the Trustee’s (or Debtor In Possession’s) decision thereto.”
• “Judge Gonzalez also failed to discuss how the controlling authorities define “benefit to the estate”. The definition was established in the oft-quoted 2d Circuit precedent of In re Minges, 602 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1979) which held that “general creditors” must benefit from the debtor’s rejection of an executory contract.”
• and . . . “overlooked the fact that Old Co would receive no benefit whatsoever from a streamlined dealership network as Old Chrysler was not going to be selling automobiles anymore.”
• Cost allegations;
• and that “the Court overlooked the fact that had the 789 dealership contracts been assumed on May 14th instead of rejected, the Debtor in Possession Budget would not have been affected at all.”
• “The Debtor – as Debtor in Possession – had a fiduciary duty to consider the impact of rejection damage claims upon the Debtor’s estate and to weigh such damages against any perceived benefit of rejection. Judge Gonzalez overlooked this breach of fiduciary duty.”
• “There is no evidence whatsoever in the record of the case indicating that Fiat, the US Government, the Canadian Government or the United Auto Workers ever requested dealers be rejected by the Debtor.”
Finally, the movants appeal to the Court on the basis of its failure to use its powers of equity to safeguard the jobs of more than 39,000 employees of Chrysler LLC, and the financial assets of the Dealers, many of whom purchased excessive quantities of stock from the Corporation in an attempt to save it prior to the bankruptcy.
The Bankruptcy case originally filed by Chrysler is a pre-existing case. Anderer's case is challenging the dealer rejections. Because neither Fiat nor the Government requested the dealer rejections, there was no basis for old Chrysler to reject them.
This is the first of two cases that Donofrio and Pidgeon have planned publicly to file. This first filing is certainly indicative that the second does indeed exist, and is forthcoming. The second case will be filed in Washington D.C. in the District court, and this is the Quo Warranto case being brought by the Chrysler Dealerships, which will directly challenge Barack Obama’s qualifications for the office he holds. If that filing proves successful, it will result in the removal of a sitting President.
Memorandum Supporting Motion for Reconsideration
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A post script regarding corrections: I wish to apologize to the individuals involved for my personal misinterpretations of the case brought by the Chrysler Dealers. I offer no defense other than my own misinterpretations. I have been properly corrected and chastised by the right people, who have interest in the truth being published. In light of my own philosophy in Journalism and in light of a press uninterested in correcting their own mistakes, I take full responsibility for my errors, and further promise to do my utmost not to repeat them in the future. If further errors are found with this article, I can be reached directly at cotter.d.c@gmail.com. Any confirmed errors will be corrected immediately and with clarity. Again, my sincere apologies for the confusion this has created. -Dianna C. Cotter 12-31-2009
Comments
I have great confidence the two cases are the proper process, in the right jurisdiction, and plaintiffs have standing. Let the games begin.
Music to our ears.....Removal.... love it and it couldn't happen to a more deserving hip slick cool to your face kind of guy....Go team roto-rooter
is grinding away. Let's get a result before were all too old to remember what's been done to all the honest hard working folks. Tally-ho....
Off to work we go!!!! God speed and may lighting strike the cheaters!
We have been using the laws and playing fair... but it is crap in our faces. Were past tired of the games.... We get it! The game will stop very soon!
Bless the mess and pass the Champagne!!!! HAPPY NEW YEAR one and all!
I think many of us non-Chrysler folks are waiting for the second case to be filed.
Yes, many of us are waiting for the other shoe to drop: the quo warranto case questioning Obama's eligibility to be filed in the District Court of Washington, D.C.
You are incorrect. A successful quo warranto proceeding would not result in removal of a sitting President. Asitting President can only be removed by impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. Check the US Constitution, Article I, Sections 2 & 3, and Article Section 4. A successful quo warranto might lead to impeachment proceedings, but would not remove the President by itself. 6th grade civics. A real journalist would know better. You're just spewing propaganda for Donofrio and Pidgeon.
Article II, Section 4
As wrong as these rerminations were and as un-American as these actions were, attempting to challenge the elligability of Obama is just not ever going to happen.......EVER.
This removes any credibility from any attempt to reverse or get compensation for these terminated dealers.
There are enough FACTS to challenge these terminations without grasping at straws by RW extreemist tea baggers.
Last time I checked, the law was based on facts and proof of facts.
This dog won't hunt.
As wrong as these rerminations were and as un-American as these actions were, attempting to challenge the elligability of Obama is just not ever going to happen.......EVER.
This removes any credibility from any attempt to reverse or get compensation for these terminated dealers.
There are enough FACTS to challenge these terminations without grasping at straws by RW extreemist tea baggers.
Last time I checked, the law was based on facts and proof of facts.
This dog won't hunt.
"Last time I checked, the law was based on facts and proof of facts."
Facts are judged up or down in a court of law, not by bloggers. Let's have a judge decide. I don't know if a quo warranto will be sucessful or not. But if it puts the 2 political parties on notice that they will be challenged when trampling on the Constitution, that's got to be a good thing.
Obama was not the first canidate to have his Natural Born citizenship challenged.
That honor goes to Charles Evans Hughes born to a British subject father. He quit SCOTUS to run in the 1916 presidential election as the Republican nominee.
So quit your whining obot's and suck it up! LOL
62 cases have been shown the door. Dismissed. $20,000 sanction against the Birther Queen. Post and Email is Chuck Lincoln's blog, and all he cares about is posting love struck posts on his failed relationship with Oily Taters.
Anyone care to cover the definition of insanity? Do they teach that at your diploma mill Danae?
Scott: Only the House can bring articles against the President. Lacking any evidence to bring for Articles of Impeachment, it is the Birthers who are trampling the Constitution. And as Judge Land opined, it is not President to prove his innocence to you. You need to bring evidence to the House of Representatives.
I also find it amusing that you'd trust Donofrio when he proclaims to be the "Paraclete."
We're supposed to believe Obot DaveM's opinion on a complicated judicial matter when he can't even get the articles' authors name right. You can tell by the number of obot posts already that they are afraid. Real afraid!!
I think many of us non-Chrysler folks are waiting for the second case to be filed.
Mitch:
You mean Danae? That's her Freeper name.
And if you think that quo warranto can remove a sitting President, especially when you and yours have no evidence whatsoever to back it up, then you're dumber than I thought.
I'm still waiting for evidence that this piece of crap lawsuit has been filed in NY. Do yourself a favor, see if YOU can find it.
The Pigeon and the Paraclete only want your donations. Once birthers stop hitting the PayPal buttons, they'll lose interest.
Here come all the Obot thug soldiers, crawling out from the dark and slimy places where the light of truth never shines.
Obot DaveM, I believe that all the case information and documentation you claim to be looking for is linked to on Donofrio's web site. A quick google of his name will provide you the link as it is not allowed here.
Thanks for another great article, Dianna and thank you to Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon and all the others who represent truth and justice.
Really Obot DaveM, I have followed Leo's blog since its inception and have never come across a paypal button or any other way to donate to his cause. But I have seen donation buttons all over Obama websites. Hmmm.
Quo Warranto filings are another waste of the court's time. According to pro Birther blogs, a district attorney must agree to bring Quo Warranto charges. Only two have the authority in DC. The DC district attorney and U.S district attorney Eric Holder.
Holder's a definite "NO". And the other reports to Holder.
Anybody care to speculate on the chances of success for this filing? Have at it... Somebody wake me up when it's over.
Loggie, you are incorrect. The District Court can itself give a person the power to file Quo Warranto. That person must petition the court to do so. This was made possible so that it could be done in the face of the unwillingness of the Attorney General to do so.
Yet, Dianna, Birthers completely gloss over the little matter of lack of evidence showing that Obama is not an NBC. So, along with an absolute lack of standing, how do you expect anything other than to be shown the courthouse door?
Obot DaveM, You are incorrect.
It was up to those certifying that Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen to offer him as a candidate or to correctly disqualify him. They chose the rout of corruption, trusting that Americans lack of education about their own history and the specific meanings in the Constitution would cover their dishonesty and their crime. It takes Two American Citizen Parents to creat a child with ONLY American Citizenship. If you were born with more than one because one of your parents was not a citizen, then you do not fall into the definition as it was written and intended by the people who WROTE the requirement to begin with, and are not a Natural Born Citizen. Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. He never was. He defrauded all of America, as so too did every single elected official who covered up the truth for him. It's the people who supported him, gave his campaign money and fought for him at the polls who should be just mad as all hell at HIM.
Obot DaveM,
To continue, it should be people like you demanding he step down. As for standing, the Auto Dealers have standing. They have a legitimate and legal claim to injury. They have legal precedent and many legal cases supporting their claims. They do indeed have standing. This isn't a birther issue as you so cleverly deride. This is a Constitutional issue. If the Government is unconstitutional, headed by an unconstitutional President, it can do anything to you. Let me put it this way, imagine a Republican President and republican Congress in full control of the White House and Congress. What does that picture look like to you. If you let this slide now, then its a certainty that it will happen in the future that Republicans will return to power. Are you ready for what a conservative government will unconstitutionally shove down your throat? One so unconstrained as to mandate that you MUST buy health Insurance if you are an American. Fix it now while you can, don't whine later.
Obama's NBC status is not governed in any matter by British law. There's an obvious problem over sovereignty. Your explanation further fails to link de Vattell to any part of the original Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Obama's birth certificate presented last year during the campaign is legal and valid in all fifty states. The final nail in your case is brought by Wong Kim Ark.
In terms of the frivolous lawsuits filed by "D" list lawyers, they all fail on one fundamental, Constitutional point. Only the House of Representatives can bring articles of impeachment to remove President Obama from office before 2013.
But, my Constitutional concerns don't lie anywhere near the so-called eligibility issue. Where they lie is with the seditious element the Birther movement attracts, threatening to take matters into their own Second Amendment grasping paws. That is nothing short of the violent overthrow of a free and fair election. Birther enablers own that element completely.
Re: Former Chrysler Dealers
This is a similar case to Rhodes and Barnett, only with more duct tape and fewer false eyelashes. Nonetheless, the Bankruptcy isn't likely to be reopened on the basis of the document Leo provided on his web site.
Do the Chrysler dealers have standing? Sure, if the Courts reopen the banko. The stretch is straddling over into theoretical eligibility questions using highly unconventional arguments (the de Vattel argument). That has as much chance of flying as the mill on Wynooski does.
Obot DaveM The Bankruptcy case does not close until Chrysler comes out of Bankruptcy, and those involved have a year to appeal any part of it. Right there you tell me you are utterly ignorant of any of the issues involved and are merely spewing back an emotional response, a denial of reality. You have a great time there on your lala-land vacation, you have revealed yourself as the uneducated and uninformed fool I had thought you to be.
Your opinion is irrelevant. You are irrelevant.
Thank goodness serious people with serious resources are pursuing an issue that has serious ramifications on a constitutional level that will reverberate through history. Thank goodness people like you are not. I am grateful for the professionalism and ethical conduct of these folks, and doubly grateful they are willing and able to take on this Goliath that our government has become. Otherwise, we are no better than any other slave state. All real Americans should reject that Gov as well.
Dianna, I'll try to put this simply for you.
The British Citizenship of Obama's father has never been a secret.
Both Congress and the courts know it and have known it since he
started his campaign nearly 3 years before the elections.
This isn't a constitutional crisis, but a difference in interpretation on the conditions necessary to qualify a person as a "natural born citizen".
The problem for you is that your interpretation isn't shared by anyone in either the courts or congress.
They have heard your arguments and found them to be.. well.. wrong. I know you refuse to believe that. But it's true, nevertheless. He is a natural born citizen. The Quo Warranto is a waste of time.
"Obama's birth certificate presented last year during the campaign is legal and valid in all fifty states. The final nail in your case is brought by Wong Kim Ark."
Obot DaveM is correct, Dianna. I know you think otherwise. He's correct because that's the same thing Congress and the courts believe, including the U.S Supreme court. It's not what you or I believe that really matters. It's what they believe. And their belief that Obama qualifies to be president is universal.
The way I see it the Democrats did not vett there candidate and were successfull in winning an election. If you read A.P.Morse on eligibility, it is not the candidate that has to prove he is eligible to hold the office he was elected to. Candidate Obama is employing the strategy laid out by George Romney, get elected and fight it out in the courts. I will wait for the courts to decide if Quo warranto is the proper path for removing an ineligible President. I have not seen any opinions from legal scholars of note against QW. Just anonymous bloggers on the net.
Natural Born Citizenship is a legitimate campaign issue and always has been, just because the MSM refused to discuss Obama's, does not change that. Since candidate Obama has chosen to remain in the campaign mode for the duration of his occupation of the WH. I think it is only reasonable to treat NBC as a 2012 campaign issue, if C-BHO can survive the court challenges.
He was born British and no one can spin that fact. Happy N.Y.
"Since the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by
the United States is illegal, American citizens born in
Hawaiian territory after 1898 cannot be construed to
benefit from the nationality laws, and therefore cannot
claim to be Hawaiian subjects by birth, jus soli."
Hence, candidate Obama could have been born on foreign soil!
So what happens if the Hawaiians win their case in the Hauge?
hXXp://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Hawaiian_Nationality.pdf
"Obama's birth certificate presented last year during the campaign is legal and valid in all fifty states."
I was not aware Obama presented any birth certificate to any of the fifty states, no less a legal and valid one.
I agree Obama was born with dual citizenship. British citizenship through his father.. U.S citizenship through his birth in the U.S.
So he's a natural born U.S citizen. He is constitutionally qualified to be president. Our legislative and judiciary branches universally agree that he qualifies. No court is going to side with you.
"No court is going to side with you."
Maybe, maybe not.Your entitled to your opinion.
The Natural Born Citizen clause for POTUS is a legitimate campaign and legal issue. That's why congress has introduced bill after bill to define it.
If a former supreme court justice can be challenged on NBC while we were at the brink of world war, than anyone can be challenged. Those who cry foul are being disingenuous or ignorant of history IMO.
Thank you, citizenscott. You've pretty well summed it up.
It is astounding that there are so many Americans who have absolutely no awareness of the complexity of our laws and legal system and believe that any shmo can waltz in and make a declaration based on nothing more than their blatantly uninformed opinion.
"For decades, the “natural born citizen” requirement has cast doubt on the
eligibility to the presidency of any number of candidates. The 1916
Republican nominee, Charles Evans Hughes, was born in the United States of
non-citizen parents.8"
hXXps://law.slu.edu/journals/LawJournal/pdfs/Lawrence_Friedman.pdf
I've tried to be open minded about both sides on this issue. It seems pretty clear to me that you are trying to re-define Natural born as requiring two citizen parents.
The courts are using U.S vs Wong Kim Ark, as they have done so for over a century now, which only requires birth on U.S soil, with some limited exceptions.
If you seek to change existing precedent, I'm fine with that. But that will take many years to accomplish, if ever. If removing Obama during his term(s) is your goal, the "Obama's father was British" tactic simply won't work.
"For decades, the “natural born citizen” requirement has cast doubt on the eligibility to the presidency of any number of candidates. Charles Evans Hughes"
Charles Evan's Hughes- Nominated by the Republican party and deemed constitutionally qualified to run for President of the United States, though born of non-citizen parents- 95 years ago.
No past person played the slight of hand trickery card
"IN YOUR FACE" as The Demo have played us.
In OBAMA'S BOOK! "I SAW" "THE BIRTH CERT." in a drawer and we went with many untruthful LIES at the time. OUR laws were "never hidden" BEING tricked with dropped JAWS as RACE BAITING and GAME playing was used daily while we searched for answers we got "GOT JOKES"! OBAMA SAID I was born on "CRIPTON" at a dinner funny? stalled and diverted the Media hid information and they'll be held accountable for that! NANCY Peloise along with O are the crooks that are the cause. Stop stalling soon to be wide open & we'll start fresh with SELF RESPECT & move to STOP the past years which held US ALL HOSTAGE! SICK of this smug outrages plan that has been carried out this long? UNDER OUR NOSES,STOP AND MAKE THIS RIGHT! CAN IT BE STOPPED?
WE THE PEOPLE CAN AND WILL ONLY TAKE SO MUCH! STOP IT..STOP OBAMA & STOP PLAYING US FOR SUCKERS! WAKE UP WORLD PLEASE!!!
WE DESERVE BETTER THAN A USURPER CHEATER!
Loggie and others,
The reason the Natural Born Citizen statement was put into the constitutional requirements for POTUS was to make as certain as possible that no one with divided loyalties as evidenced by dual or multiple citizenship could ever become POTUS. That is why it is in there to begin with. It is a matter of National Security, and when this case finally makes it to SCOTUS, it is going to made clear. This was not up for debate in the 1700's, the writers of the constitution knew precisely what they meant by it.
Read Federalist #68 it is the perfect illustration: "These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?" Alexander Hamilton 1788
Nuts are those denying this truth.
But the case has already made it to SCOTUS.. 5 times, as I recall.
On Federalist 68, you left this out.
"But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes."
Seems they meant that the presidential selection was left up to the people, not to Congress. "Creature of their own" refers to congress. There's nothing about "divided loyalties", dual citizenship, etc.
Nice try though.. You almost sounded legitimate.
Sorry Loggie, Fail. Two different subjects. One the qualifications, the other the choice of the people of candidates who are qualified. Your argument fails completely.
Another fail, SCOTUS has not once gotten a case that would specifically and clearly define what Natural Born Citizen means in regards to POTUS. Not one. That's about to change I think.
FYI, the details RE: Wong Kim Ark actually disprove your theory. It clearly established there is a difference between citizen and Natural Born Citizen, and that is all it did while quoting Happerset. So if I were you, I would quit quoting it.
@Loggie
Nominated and elected to an office does not make one eligible. In theory the election process would weed out the ineligible candidate,if it was presented to the electorate as an issue.
As we have seen, the Dem's did not vett resident Obama.Political Parties are about winning elections and getting into power,not volunteering to follow the letter of the law.
I go back to George Romney. Do you think the GOP would have disqualified him from the ticket (if he had not imploded and won) for not being NBC, highly unlikely. As for Charles Evans Hughes, who's to say that he would not have been challeged if he had won? The Wilson camapign brought up the issue.
Since both John Mc Cain and Obama were not eligible for the office (IMO), the chances of it being made a 2008 campaign issue were ZERO.
Just curious, how many of you Obot's will except as proof of Natural Born Citizenship, a COLB image from a GOP Pres.candidate in 2012, released to Ms. Cotter and posted here or maybe on the Heritage foundation website?
Citizen Scott, I hope NO ONE WOULD!!! The issue is important enough that a LONG FORM should be used and widely dispersed to every media outlet that could or would carry it.
If its not worthy of being displayed like that, then it isn't worthy of qualifying someone for POTUS.
Anderer on Fox Business News. He says Chrysler should not have been bailed out with taxpayer's money, businesses including dealerships should succeed or fail based on their own merit. The secured bondholders were screwed, the American people were screwed, the successful Chrysler dealerships were screwed all so that the union could be rewarded with 60% ownership of the company as political payback.
hxxp://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/28138539/chrysler-dealer-striking-back.htm#q=james+anderer
When you think about it, it's amazing how little Obama himself is at fault in all this. He didn't hide his father's nationality. He didn't create the COLB as the only legal certification of birth.
You say the Democrats didn't vet Obama. And during a three year campaign, with this information public and available, Congress and the courts did.. What?
Were they co-conspirators in allowing an ineligible ursurper to run for POTUS?
Were they negligent in properly researching him?
Or were they simply ignorant of the law?
I'm amazed at your naivete. You actually think that after accusing the govt of 3 years of Fraud,negligence,ignorance that all of a sudden our Courts will finally have an epithany and say 'geez, I guess we screwed up?
SIMPLY.. WILL.. NOT ...HAPPEN.
Loggie
"In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen" from the pro Obama site factcheck.org
5 months prior to the general election, 2008.
Show us where in the Constitution it is the congress's or the courts job to vett candidates for president.
I think you need to study the facts of this issue more, you seem confused.
As far as conspiracy theories. You will have to ask the obot bloggers. Remember the vast right wing conspiracy the Clinton's used to complain about? LOL
{Were they negligent in properly researching him?
Or were they simply ignorant of the law?}
Judging by some of the responces I have seen from congress men , I would say both.
I would like to apologize to those that post on this blog.
(excluding obot's and other lefties)
Being from Chicago, I forget that not everyone understands how machine politics and the one party system works. I guess you all will be getting a lesson from team Obama.
Loggie, all Obama had to do was to rely on the ignorance and stupidity of the average American Citizen. The DNC knew, that's why all the Certifications are missing the phrase "Constitutionally qualified" in their language, except for Hawaii. Those in power know it, and are covering it up. They also know that the average American is stupid enough to believe what ever the liberal press tells them to. And thats just what has happened. he people, including you, were fed a certain line, and that line is "it's really not that important". Well it is, because an unconstitutional government can do anything it likes, include dictate to you that you MUST buy something to be an American. That you must pay 200% more for electricity for no reason whatsoever other than for the government reap more in taxes through cap and tax. If the government is an constitutional, it can do anything it wants. Imagine that with a fully republican government in power. It will happen, are you ready to say its ok then?
After months of following these posts, I'm confident that I clearly understand the issue.
Moreover, both the legislative and judicial branches of government agree with me. And that's the thing that doesn't fly about your arguments.
Your entire premise is based on the notion that the elected and appointed officials in our government who should know... don't.
That somehow you have some special insight in the constitution that somehow escaped the attention of our Congress, the Senate, the Supreme court,the Clinton and McCain campaigns, along with 71 million Americans who voted to elect Barack Obama into office.
I'm left to wonder, what drives a person to so completely disregard such an overwhelming concensus that Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president, by the very people you now expect to support your attempts to remove him?
Isn't it the more sensible path to just admit you may be wrong?
I think it's more a matter of Bammy embarrassing himself with the information that's on the long form than anything else (refuting info in the narcissistic book about himself he didn't write). Could be he wasn't born here, but either way, why spend a $mil+ trying to hide a $12 document? Only a liberal mind wouldn't wonder. I'm also guessing rather than reveal information about himself, Bammy will cut a deal with the Chrysler dealers so he and the media can continue to ignore his unconstitutional behavior.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!