Ron Polarik “Whether or not the judge allows Phil Berg and the American voter to have their day in court, we should not be waiting around for the judge’s ruling.”

by

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2089963/posts

To: Dajjal; et al

Everyone should con tact their local Republican lawmakers, state officers, governors, and anyone else committed to NObama ’08.

Send editorial letters to your local newspapers. Call into talk shows.

Circulate petitions demanding that Obama present his genuine credentials.

Spread the word to every blog that will post it.

45 posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:06:31 PM by Polarik

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2090450/posts

To: Red Badger

But if he’s a US citizen, natural born, they could end this whole matter immediately and lay it to rest forever. Every legal maneuver they make to delay it, makes Obama look more and more like he doesn’t qualify under the Constitution. If he , in fact, does win the election and then is found to be not qualified due to a technicality, then will the election be held again? Will the New House have to decide? Will The Supremes throw it out and declare the Republican the winner?………….It could get really messy……

There are no legal precedents involving either a person running for PResident or an elected President. However, there are precedents with elected mayors and state representatives being censured and asked to resign. Obama could simply say, “No,” and call it a smear campaign by Republicans. Good luck convincing those who thought OJ was framed.

95 posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:11:39 PM by Polarik

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2089949/posts

To: solfour

The MSM hasn’t breathed even a sigle word abojut the suit, and it should be our solemn duty, as loyal citizens who uphold the Constitution, to make sure that everyone we can think of, be told exactly what has transpired here.

Whether or not the judge allows Phil and the American voter to have their day in court, we should not be waiting around for the judge’s ruling.

It is a matter of common knowledge that Barack Obama has not been sufficiently vetted to serve as President, that he has not provided proof of being a “Natural born” citizen of the US, has not provided proof of what is his real age, has not provided proof that he does not have citizenship standing in one or more foreign countries, has not provided proof that he registered for the Selective Service, has not provide proof that he never accepted illegal campaign contributions while running for, and serving, as a Senator and candidate for President, that he has not violated the Logan Act by entering into or seeking to crerate any agreements with a foreign government to influence foreign policy, that he has not provided proof of his position and activities while at Harvard, has not provided transcripts of his time at Columbia College, has not provide proof to counter the evidence that he has been working with known terrorists against the interests of the US, that he has not violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, and many, many more.

If the media won’t say it, then we’ll take a page from Obama’s own playbook: “We’ll get in their face and tell them that Obama is a fraud, a liar, a miscreant who should never have been allowed to serve as a Senator, let alone be considered a candidate for President.

56 posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:35:09 PM by Polarik

To: Non-Sequitur

What if a person became President through fraudulent means? I do know that if there is substantive proof such as multiple voting, putting dead people on voter rosters, making payoffs to election officials, tampering with ballot boxes or voting machines, and other examples of election fraud are sufficient grounds for invalidating an election.

While it is true that the burden of proof falls upon on the plaintiff, that plaintiff can consist of a class action suit brought about by voters whose freedom to choose a candidate of their liking has been denied, thereby effectively disenfranchising them. The argument that the losing candidate is the injured party, and not the voter, should be challenged at every level, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Legally, election fraud can be quantified. Let’s say that everyone in a district cast their votes for Candidate A in the primaries, but somehow, Candidate B won. You don’t think that a court would deny hearing a motion for injunctive relief filed by Candidate A and the people who would testify, under oath, that they voted for him?

If some of these people also stand to lose their jobs if Candidate B is elected, then they can demand to be made whole again.

Just a thought.

57 posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:57:21 PM by Polarik


%d bloggers like this: