Monday, December 29, 2008

[bias] only one side is considered

"Truth is the first casualty."

We're living in an age of distortion and bias, where the truth is no longer loved. It's just astounding how someone can see a piece of evidence in front of him/her, a fact which no one disputes and just ignores it completely in making the opposite case.

1. Obama was given a clear order by the USSC to produce his vault copy birth certificate by December 1st, 2008, thereby clearing all doubt of his eligibility to be President.

Now that is unequivocal. Produce a document. He didn't. Now what I'm getting here from certain bloggers is, "Do you know more than the Supreme Court?" "Obama was democratically elected" and so on. No one is talking about that or arguing it. It has nothing to do with addressing the issue. We're arguing the statement in italics and it has not been addressed. That puts him in defiance of the judiciary.

2. Hamas has been constantly firing rockets at Israel for a considerable time.

In any global interpretation of such an act, if you fire rockets into someone else's country and you are the government, you are declaring war. Analogy - your neighbour across the road starts lobbing footballs at your house. Do you ignore it or do you consider that an act of aggression which requires a response?

Now anyone who sees these two things and who is basically sentient and able to speak and read the English language knows that these two statements have not been denied. They happened.

"But me no buts."

All the "buts" need to be addressed, yes. The whole scenario has to be seen in context, yes. But none of these "buts" negate the basic premises in 1 and 2. That is, they need to be addressed before the discussion can go any further.

So, to return to the start, it is astounding how these can just be blindly ignored by supposedly educated peole.


Gracchi said...

James, the US Supreme Court did not order Obama to produce his birth certificate- they ordered the lower judge in the Berg case and the Obama camp to produce evidence of Berg's lack of standing to take the case forward to the Supreme Court. They could afterwards have asked for Obama's certificate- but they didn't. Instead they dismissed the case.

James Higham said...

No, Tiberrius, that is wrong. there was as clear order to produce the certificate and that is what the scandal was over. The scandal was not over some lower court technicality. It was a clear order to produce it.

Now, not only that but it was understood to be so by America as a whole and that's why all the pundits were up in arms about it. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

James Higham said...

"At this point, Supreme Court Justice David Souter's Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond."

This was not a lower court judge. It was Souter and he is Supreme Court.

Lord Nazh said...

responding (or not) to a Writ of Certiorari does not mean you have to do anything.

It's like being sued in a lower court and not showing up; you simply pass. The court(s), then held that all of the suits were non-standing and dismissed them.

They did not require BO to produce the certificate, they gave him opportunity.

Gracchi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gracchi said...

Lord Nazh is entirely right about the writ of certiorari- the real point here is that a judgement of a lower court was being challenged in the supreme court. The lower court was asked to provide as was the Obama camp any documents they thought neccessary- they both beleived in the judgement made in the lower court and the Supreme Court agreed with them. This is just a legal formality.

Had there actually been a contempt of court issue here- as the Supreme Court has showed many times it is very jealous of its privileges against the other branches of government and it would have done something about it. There was no issue- and so it did nothing.

Lastly James its not all the pundits. I read a big selection of US right and left wing commentary and apart from denials of the argument- you will find nothing on mainstream right and left wing political sources like National Review,, the Atlantic and their stable of bloggers,, the New York Times, Washington Times or anywhere else of much significance. There are plenty of pundits who haven't paid this any attention whatsoever.

James Higham said...

The wording of Souter was quite unequivocal. Your interpretation of it is interpretation.

"Mr. Obama must present" are four English language words and they mean "Mr. Obama must present".

must: verbal auxiliary1 a: be commanded or requested to "you must stop" b: be urged to : ought by all means to "you must read that book"

This is just mischievous, gentlemen - the readers can see what is and isn't.

Gracchi said...

You are right James- if Soutar said that but I've been looking on the supreme court website- where did he say that?

(It might just be me being an idiot)

Gracchi said...

You are right James- if Soutar said that but I've been looking on the supreme court website- where did he say that?


Anyone accused of something as serious as Obama being ineligible for office,would prove he is,regardless of writs and orders, if he could.

He is NOT an American by birth,probably an illegal alien, and most likely in contempt of court.He's PERFECT for American politics!

Gracchi said...

Ubermouth he has already provided more evidence than any other US candidate for President going back to 1776 of where he was born and who his parents were. Anyway James's precise point was about contempt of court- I'm not convinced he is guilty of that because I see no precise order from the court for him to do this- James may correct me and this may because I have yet to learn how to use Google but I haven't seen that evidence yet.

Lord Nazh said...

read the whole thing

anonant said...

Who's truth?
1. If that is important then perhaps he should not be president.
2. I would throw footballs and rocks and whatever I could get my hands on if that neighbor stopped me from going to work, getting fresh water, getting fresh food, medicine, and I suspect you would do a bit more than throw footballs if someone prevented you from what is rightfully yours.

We are all blinded by our personal perspectives, all of which are wrong to some degree or other.