26 Responses to “from a supporter”

1. Fluffy
   September 6th, 2011 @ 4:48 pm

   Wanna make a bet?

2. Elizabeth
   September 6th, 2011 @ 6:18 pm

   Fluffy, dear Fluffy,

   I wait with bated breath for you or
   your followers, to tell us succinctly but
   clearly, and with a great deal of
   supportive evidence, just what it is
   that you perceive in the man of lawlessness, that is so overwhelmingly upright and patriotic in regards to his past actions, his
   present agenda, and his future plans
   for the United States. I would like to know
   how you think.

   Pretend you are a 12th grade student giving a book report, summarizing all of the plot, the theme, the motive, the protagonist, antagonist, the characters therein.

   We shall, for this report, forget about the birth certificate..
   forget about his lack of records,
   forget about his multitude of SS numbers,etc.
   forget about his citizenship being
   here, there, and everywhere.

   Just tell us what he has DONE, how
   he THINKS, how and WHY he manages to fulfill
   so many BROKEN RULES/LAWS, such as open borders.

   Then tell us which of the above are for America’s benefit and which will benefit us
   in the next generation.

   Just do that, will you?

   Tell us, please, what it is that
   gives you this on-going support of
   Mr.O.

   Maybe then we would understand
   where it is you ARE in relationship
   to our Constitution and our Republic.

   Right now, I/we just don’t get it.

3. pi314
   September 6th, 2011 @ 6:19 pm

   HA! HAhahahaHAHhAHHAhha!@!@!#

   IN yo DREAMS 2discern@#!@#

4. Fluffy
   September 7th, 2011 @ 2:58 am

   Oh Elizabeth, honey, I have no followers that I know of. If I did, I’d have them painting my house right now.

   If you want succinct, then there will not be very much detail (look up the word, as I would tell a 12th grader). However, based on how things have gone to this point, I find it extremely unlikely that Dr Taitz’s crusade will ever gain any more traction than is has now. the judges will grant hearings because they are obliged to do so. However those hearings have all ended in defeats for the estimable Dentist (except some purely procedural wins) and I will be very surprised if that trend changes.

   That, my sweet and lovely Elizabeth, is how I think, not that I am under any obligation to you or anyone else to explain.

5. Zeth
   September 7th, 2011 @ 5:24 am

   I don’t see any case going anywhere. Orly has lost them all. The 14th one in Hawaii will be another devastating blow. Obama has his tentacles of corruption all over. I think Obama not only will win the next election by a landslide through fraud, but change the constitution to keep reelecting himself. If you think otherwise, you have absolutely no clue how communists operate. The only one who can get Obama out of the White House is the military and probably that has been taken care of by his minions overseas and domestic. Communists are like a devastating cancer.

6. RacerJim
   September 7th, 2011 @ 6:44 am

   @Elizabeth,

   Fluffy’s brain is too kool-aid impaired to pretend to be a 12th grade student…a K student at best.

7. outraged
   September 7th, 2011 @ 9:29 am

   @Fluffy,

   Of course dr. Orly will prevail in Hawaii. She served a court odrered supoena on those people and they tried to blow her off. Not only will the state judge order them to produce the records, Hawaii will have to pay for Orly’s expenses, and to fly her experts back again. No state judge is going to defy a federal court suponena.

8. Elizabeth
   September 7th, 2011 @ 9:31 am

   Well, RacerJim,

   All I know is that I never receive any itemized reasons why the Obama-lovers support him. It is like a huge vacuum or black hole. Nothing is in there to spew out except nasty, kindergarten like drivel; (not from Fluffy, she was very courteous, thank you, very much).

   Now, I am not trying to be denigrating in saying this. It just is so apparent that there is nothing upon which to base the stubborn support of this lawless personage, who has sneaked into the Oval office and is
   above the laws of the land.

   How does he do it? If you know your Bible,
   you realize why this is happening and if we interpret it correctly, then we know that there is a purpose behind his reign of terror and that all logic has been set aside.

   God is in control.

   So if this man of sin is re-elected,
   then we also know where we are in
   the Last Days.

   Thanks, Fluffy, for validating what
   seemed to be the situation
   and now appears to be the reasoning
   behind an empty suit becoming a
   dictator over America.

   Meanwhile, we who are able to
   comprehend the whole frightful
   scenario, can be assured that it is
   going to end as it is supposed to end.

   Repeat: Good will overcome Evil.. whether
   it is in 2012 or in some future time,
   unknown for now. There will be Justice.

9. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   September 7th, 2011 @ 11:02 am

   subpoena is part of the federal case, state court case is based on state statutes

10. Insight
    September 7th, 2011 @ 12:04 pm

    I am outraged that Outrage has no insight.

    Thank for for the correction, Dr. Orly.

    What is the next hearing in the Fuddy case about?

11. The Truth
    September 7th, 2011 @ 12:06 pm

    Elizabeth,

    Don’t be too quick to judge Fluffy. You are obviously new here .

    Fluffy is overflowing with kindergarten drivel.

    Since she did not answer your question about why she supports Obama, I will.

    She is a Marxist like he is and agrees with his policies, and/ or she is a racist, and chooses sides for the color of his skin. Both are equally reprehensible.

12. Elizabeth
    September 7th, 2011 @ 4:17 pm

    Hi, The Truth,

    No, I am not a new kid on the block.
    I have been reading and commenting for
    about 10 months, only to help Dr. Taiz
    realize that she is not alone in her spiritual warfare,

    though she is Joan d’Arc in the
    physical battles with the corrupt
    court systems that have taken over
    in our country.

    I don’t believe Fluffy is a racist.
    This would mean she is prejudiced
    about Caucasians.. and is therefore
    of another color, herself. Just
    a guess, of course.

    So, you are probably correct in theorizing
    Marxist leanings. That is really a sad
    state of affairs.

    It is very difficult to educate a person of
    that mind-set. Maybe if a person of that
    belief, actually LIVED in a Communist country,
    instead of enjoying the freedoms of
    America, there would be a sudden change
    of heart and mind. There is nothing quite
    as traumatic as living the dream of Communism.

    Then, too, there is the option of living
    in Muslim land; out there in the steaming
    hot desert with Sharia Law, stonings, rapes,
    submission to the male egos, etc.

    What a way to get on-the-job training.

13. Fluffy
    September 7th, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

    Who ever said I support Obama? I certainly never did. I have simply observed that these legal manoeuvrings have yet to result in anything beyond a few procedural wins that have led to…well…not much. And I don’t think that is about to change. But let’s just suppose, for the sake of argument that all goes a planned this time and the document is produced for examination. Do you really think Dr Taitz’s “experts” will go unchallenged or that there will not be at least as many experts giving testimony for the other side? We’ll be arguing this for more than the next four years and anyone who wants to see Obama out of office before then had better find something more substantial than this case to fight him on.

14. Laura
    September 7th, 2011 @ 5:04 pm

    Give the Truth a big hand…as he can read minds, how about that…and do we really need the name calling?? how old are we here ??

15. The Truth
    September 7th, 2011 @ 8:28 pm

    Yes Laura, I can read minds. You’re thinking that you actually have a clue about anything,and that you’re the smartest one in the room. Unfortunately, there’s a fly on the wall and he’s got you beat.

    It’s sure is funny how Obots get so upset when you turn the tables on them and call them “horrible” names like marxists and racists, or ridicule them, like they do to my side.

    People like Fluffy and Laura continue to pretend they know what is going to happen with the fraud cases. Their endless “drivel” is just laughable. They try to discourage, nay-say, and defend Obama’s indefensible position for not producing his records, but look more clueless with each attempt.

    These bone-headed statements are just plain idiotic. No one is buying it!

    What it comes down to is, do we think Obama is an honest man? My side doesn’t, and wants to verify who Obama is and investigate him. The reason we do this is because of his highly suspicious activity of hiding his records and documents, but claiming nothing is wrong!

    The likes of Laura and Fluffy don’t want us to get this information. They want to make up excuses why the nation’s top employee shouldn’t have to show his credentials. This is absolutely absurd!

16. Rick Lastley
    September 8th, 2011 @ 3:53 am

    > pretend they know what is going to happen with the fraud cases

    Haven’t Obot predictions as to the outcome of such cases been, dunno, 100% correct so far?
    If not, please show me one case where a birther won.

    > but change the constitution to keep reelecting himself. If you think otherwise, you have absolutely no clue how communists operate

    And if Obama will have done no such thing by late 2016, you will find an excuse why you were right anyway, correct? Because conspiracy believers are never wrong, correct?

17. RacerJim
    September 8th, 2011 @ 9:04 am

    @Fluffy,

    “But let’s just suppose, for the sake of argument that all goes a planned this time and the document is produced for examination. Do you really think Dr Taitz’s “experts” will go unchallenged or that there will not be at least as many experts giving testimony for the other side?”

    On the other hand let’s also just suppose, also for the sake of argument that all goes as planned this time and HDOH Fuddy doesn’t produce a document for examination that’s similar in appearance (LOOKS 50+ years old) and content (has the same certification statement on the bottom and a legible embossed seal) to the Nordyke twins’ BC’s, or is so visually desparate in appearance and/or content from the PDF image posted on whitehouse.gov on April 27th that no expert from the other side is willing to testify that it is the source document of the aforementioned PDF image. Do you really think the Judge should/would dismiss Orly’s case?

18. RacerJim
    September 8th, 2011 @ 9:14 am

    @Rick Lastley,

    Not sorry to burst your Obot bubble but Obots predictions as to outcomes of cases against Obama have not been 100% correct thus far.

    Just one case where a “birther” won was Orly Taitz’s case in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii wherein she “won” a subpoena against HDOH Director Fuddy to produce Obama’s BC which, of course, Fuddy has refused to comply with at risk of being found/held in contempt of Court.

19. Elizabeth
    September 8th, 2011 @ 11:03 am

    Here is one example of Obama’s hand on the
    Constitution.

    This is from the Expose Obama website:
    It is a letter to the editor written
    by a man who lived in CT.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    President Obama has dictatorial tendencies

    Richard Wilson Whispering Pines, NC

    Publication: The Day
    Published 09/03/2011 12:00 AM
    Updated 09/02/2011 11:50 PM

    “We are just being made aware of President Obama circumventing Congress, again, to move forward on what is considered “Immigration Amnesty.” He is utilizing prosecutorial discretion through Homeland Security/I.C.E. to not assert the full scope of our immigration law. This is after Congress failed to pass the Dream Act twice.

    This is clearly a move for the president to get his way without the popular support of the nation and Congress. We must ask ourselves What is the motive behind the president’s action? I believe it is pretty clear. He has no regard for our laws, the Constitution, the will of the people and many in Congress.

    He continues his pursuit to work at positioning a favorable vote in 2012 at any cost. If we weren’t so close to an election, impeachment action should be considered by Congress to address his dictatorial tendencies.”

    Editor’s note: The writer formerly lived in Stamford, Conn.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    When Obama decided to sue AZ for its stance on the illegal border crossings of various cultures, and allowing them to cross into this country, by the thousands, he circumvented our laws.

    He has issued the statement that he will bypass the Executive Branch and will mandate whatever he desires.

    The most well-known act is his Health Care Reform. That has been pronounced as unconstitutional as written below:
    Sorry it is lengthy but this is just
    one more of the impostor’s many
    purposeful inroads to destroying
    the documents that keep this country
    from becoming a dictatorship.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    MJ Martin (2 Jan 2010)
    “Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional”

    If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything.

    ORRIN G. HATCH, J. KENNETH BLACKWELL AND KENNETH A. KLUKOWSKI

    President Obama’s health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional.

    Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.

    First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress’s powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

    Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

    In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.

    Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the “general welfare.” Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.

    A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states’ obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed “cash for cloture” because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.

    A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.

    This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.

    The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

    This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.

    America’s founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

20. mara
    September 9th, 2011 @ 3:13 am

    all i can say: I’m Praying… HARD!!! May the truth win out and God’s will triumph!! And thank you, thank you, thank you for all your hard work and dedication. America owes Dr. Olry Taitz an inestimable debt of gratitude, no matter what the outcome. God bless!

21. Laura
    September 9th, 2011 @ 7:08 am

    Hehe…You are funny The Truth.. thanks !!!

22. Bob J
    September 9th, 2011 @ 10:01 am

    1. I don’t support the President. I support the office. The guy who won is the President. In this case Barack O’bama.
    2. @ Elizabeth

    Citing a letter to the editor ( to the Expose Obama website) as proof of anything is almost as absurd as..

    3. Racer Jim claiming a change of the hearing date as a victory.

    4. Aug 8th was the day to see. Then it was September 14th. Then October something. Then November something. Now it is October again.

    5. If this case ( the whole case) is ruled in favor of Dr. Taitz(i.e; she is allowed to see what she wants, and proves it to be a fraud), I will reimburse her for the flight to Hawaii.

    6. You have my e-mail address Dr. Taitz. I will be here again. Do you accept?

23. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    September 9th, 2011 @ 10:08 am

    that is nonsence. If one wins a competition by virtue of fraud and using forged and fraudulently obtained docuents, he is not a winner, he is a fraud, who not only needs to be removed from office, but also criminally prosecuted

24. Paul Jackson
    September 9th, 2011 @ 10:29 am

    Racer… no one “wins” a subpoena. A subpoena, in Orly’s case as she’s pro se, was issued by the Clerk of the Court in HI, to subpoena a non-party in a D.C. federal court case.

    That is standard procedure and is a simple ministerial duty performed by clerks dozens of times a day.

    There’s no win or loss there.

    One can win a motion, one can win a case, but one does not “win” a subpoena.

    If Judge Lamberth grants Orly’s motion to reconsider, then there will be a hearing on the motion to compel in HI, or it will be decided on the papers. If the HI court rules in her favor then she’s “won” that motion.

    If he denies her motion to reconsider, the motion to compel is moot and there will be no hearing nor a decision on the papers.

    She can certainly appeal Lamberth’s decision if he denies her motion, but it’s highly doubtful a stay would be issued on the HI-issued subpoena while that appeal is pending… possible but unlikely.

25. The Truth
    September 9th, 2011 @ 9:05 pm

    “What do you have against people knowing the truth of the matter?” Thanks Paul! Great question!

    Unfortunately, he asked it of someone who IS trying to get to the truth, and not an Obot! The hypocrisy here is ridiculous!

    It will only take one significant victory to sink the Usurper’s boat. Each hole being punched in his story is a victory on the side of the righteous. There are alot of Obot fingers plugging the leaks, but the truth is starting to pour over the sides.

    Where will you rats go when the S.S. Obama goes under for good? My guess is, you’ll be drowning in your idiocy and hypocrisy all the way to the bottom.

    Our side grows stronger everyday, and will not stop until we get the answers we seek. Enjoy the swim! It will be a long cold one.

26. Bob J
    September 16th, 2011 @ 5:34 am

    @ the t

    You are right; it will only take one victory to “sink the Usurper’s boat”

    When will that happen?

    Has not happened yet.

    Let me know when you win something.

Leave a Reply