« What Do You Do When Unions Destroy an Entire Industry? | Main | The Heartbreak of Child Dumping in Nebraska and the Joy and Misery of Children »

November 12, 2008


Gina in a conversation today the 20th amendment was mentioned, particularly section 3 .
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

It's something to look into. I'm not a lawyer , nor do I play one....

Obama's delay is still very unsettling to me as well.

{From DR -- Thanks for this. I've posted this before also, and it may be good news. At least the Constitution planned for eventualities. It seems to say that if necessary, the feds can hold a new election.}

The Constitution requires he be natural-born, not that it be publicly known. It may be that the public could never be satisfied he was unless all is revealed, and yet he be natural-born without any proof ever provided.

You need to establish a step or two to bring out the requirement that his status must be proved publicly. You kind of assume and imply it, but don't establish it.

{From DR -- I'll check with Coambs and see what he says}

Obama is not President - Elect unless and until the Electoral College votes for him. Each elector is currently being personally contacted and presented evidence regarding Obama's eligibility. All patriots nationwide that would like to help with this effort can go to http://www.democratic-disaster.com/index.php and help with this effort.
I also see that there is another strong lawsuit as of this morning being filed at http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/archives/186
This issue is definitely not done yet!
Thanks for all your help, Ms. Cobb.

Great article! Too many uninformed citizens...

Wow, What a read! Thank You!
Much food for thought!

I too am bothered Dr Coambs about the stretch you have made
in constructing the major premise. But whether that stretch is
valid or not, since "Obama" won't reveal his true records, there
is real doubt that he is eligible.
If he is not eligible, then every single bill passed under his
"presidency" is null and void.
Here's the big one: The budget.
No tax collected is valid. No federal appropriation is valid.
No federal salary may legally be paid. All government workers,
including the armed forces, have no right to keep their pay.
In two years the ramifications of having to legally unwind all
these false transactions would bankrupt the US government.
Following on from that, all bonds sold over all time would
be in default. The ripple effects would engulf and take down
most of the world.
A wicked and scheming media can conspire to elect an impostor
though I doubt they know what they have done. But around the
world, investors and savers will protect their money. Will
you sign a contract with a government about to go bankrupt?
Even the fear of this event coming to pass will force "Obama"
to reveal his truth, and then step down.
As the first poster points out, "Obama" may be president though
the truth about his eligibility would never be known.
I point out: Will you invest your life savings in a financial
vehicle that may repay you - or may not - and the outcome
is not known to you. Will you work for a company that may
pay you - or may not. The collapse of confidence is a
thousand foot tsunami that even the Obamabots cannot turn aside.
{ From DR -- Yes, I see your point. I'll email Coambs and see what he says}

He's not my POTUS!

And now it looks like yet ANOTHER forgery may be showing up, regarding Obama's supposed Selective Service Registration.
Check out: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/

The only way for this argument to be settled is for Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate; which he refuses to do.

Rather than simply providing a copy of his birth certificate, as other candidates have done, Obama has engaged his team of lawyers to have his birth records (and every other record for that matter) sealed. My question is... Why?

My past experience as an investigator in the US Army MP Corps tells me that people who do everything they can to hide things in their past are doing so to prevent you from finding things that will implicate them in illegal and/or very questionable activities. People who have nothing to hide are very forthright in providing very basic information that substantiates their claims or provides proof of their background - birth certificate, college/university records (that need to verified even for simple employment purposes), passport, etc.

Since Obama has not provided any of these documents and no one can verify any of these documents because they have all been sealed as a result of legal maneuvering on the part of Obama's legal team, we can only assume that the information contained in said documents and records, if made public, would be detrimental to Obama and quite possibly disqualify him from being POTUS. If this is not true, then why not open the books and let us know the truth instead of continually maneuvering to keep the facts from all of us?


{From DR -- The reason I like the piece by Coambs is that it declares Obama ineligible from the very beginning, and he will remain ineligible until such time as the public knows otherwise.

Rather than making us go in circles, Coambs makes Obama go in circles, for at least the next 8 years, living in a house of mirrors and avoidance, in constant fear of discovery.}

We also need to have the US Embassy/State Department check with Indonesia and Kenya to see if any passports have been issued to any of the Obama aliases.


{From DR -- volunteers?}

One question:

Bill O'Riley on Fox News has a video out that states that Obama did show his birth certificate and that anyone who is trying to say he has not shown one is a hoax. Is he right or just very misinformed or biased?

Someone answer this, please.

{From DR -- These stories go round and round, but O'Riley is mistaken. Four "birth certificate sightings" are publicly known. (1) In one of his "memoirs", Obama mentions having his birth certificate in his hand. Since it is now known that Bill Ayers wrote large parts of these books, this may or may not be true. (2) Obama's own website shows a photo or a scan of a document that has been shown to be digitally altered, yielding a fake. (3) Daily Kos has published a document which has also been digitally altered, but in a different way than Obama's version. This is also a fake. (4) A website controlled by Bill Ayers has produced a photograph of a document which has a raised seal, but the document is too fuzzy to make out what it is.

Thus 4 versions exist in the public domain, but none are valid. Bill O'Reily is mistaken.}

Bill O'Riley states that Obama's certificate is genuine and that those who say it isn't are just perpetrating a hoax.

Is he right, misguided, or biased?


[Gina Cobb: See my response to your earlier comment. I don't think O'Reilly is necessarily biased, he's just often 100% certain of things that aren't 100% certain at all. In other words, he often shoots from the hip]

Thanks, Gina! For your answer to O'Riley. I sure like your web site and your blog. I'll keep visiting!

The reality is this - those who want Obama in office, regardless, are working an invalid logical argument and attempting to promote this as fact:

1. The elected US President must be a natural born US Citizen.

2. Obama was elected president.

Conclusion the AMERICANS are SUPPOSED to Make: Obama is a natural born US citizen because he was elected to the office of President.

And if we do not rise up and demand Obama be made accountable on the issue of his citizenship, the above model WILL be forced down our throats because those who want Obama in office are powerful and are pushing this false logic...

Trying to get him sworn in before anyone does anything to stop him - such as demanding he meet the Constitutional requirement of Article 2.
{From DR-- Yes you may be right, but I hope people keep fighting this before, during and after Obama's time in office. Obama may well do irremediable damage to the US.

To me, this is a serious Constitutional crisis. 8 years hence, I believe the world will be worse off. Salvaging a trashed Constitution is very difficult to do.

-- Pro Patria}

So, can this stand up in a court of law? If so, can the author of this premise please get it into the hands of Andy Martin, Phil Berg, and Donofrio, so that their suits can be beefed up to include this premise and become victories so we won't have to endure a fiasco of a poseur in the office of POTUS, and also so that the laws of the Constitution and this Country are not made invalid or null by default of the Supreme Court not acting from the law and adjudicating from the bench in favor of allowing him to remain.....

They would then be the ones that act in violation of the Constitution and make the law to suit their needs. Which along with every other thing would also not be valid, according to the premise above.
{From DR -- I'm trying to get the Coambs thing out there, but I'm just one person. Any help would be appreciated! I sent it to President Bush, but the response wasn't very, ah, "personalized".

Just cut it and paste it and send it to any blogger, news source, politician, or friend that you think might read it. -- Pro Patria}

This was on Mr. Leo Donofrio's website from this afternoon at 2:10 PM. regarding his lawsuit and to update Dr. Coambs comments:

UPDATED: 2:10 PM: Leo C. Donofrio was just contacted by Mr. Danny Bickell, Stay Clerk of the United States Supreme Court as a direct result of Mr. Bickell receiving phone calls from the public. THREE ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED:

1. He says he is now in the process of correcting the Docket to reflect that my case is before the US Supreme Court from a direct ruling of the NJ Supreme Court wherein a Constitutional issue had been raised.

2. Mr. Bickell informed me today that after he decided, improperly, not to pass on my Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd, that he did not owe me any special notification of such disposition of my case according to his interpretation of Supreme Court Rule 22(6) which states:

"6. The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application."

Mr. Bickell insisted that by "appropriately speedy means", the Court Rule only demands he use ordinary mail. I then asked him how is that different from the ordinary means by which you notify litigants as to the disposition of their cases? And he replied, "It's the same." And I said, then how is that by "speedy means"? And he said I wasn't entitled to a phone call or anything else. And I said, "Then it's your official position that Rule 22(6) calls for nothing more than the same notification as an ordinary case and that the words "appropriately speedy means" really have no special meaning at all. And to this he replied, "That's my official position."

He also stated that he sent me a letter informing me of the disposition of my case. I don't know what he means. On Thursday, Nov. 6th, by way of a phone conversation that I initiated, he informed me that he decided not to submit my Emergency Stay Application, which I filed four days earlier on November 3rd, to Justice Souter, which as I've said before was blatant Clerical misconduct since it's not his job to play Supreme Court Justice. Regardless, he never sent me a letter stating that he disposed of the case on his own. After speaking to him on Thursday, he agreed to finally Docket the case. But he did so erroneously as I have previously documented. On Friday morning, he somewhat corrected the Docket, but he also made it reflect that Justice Souter had already decided the case. And then he sent me a letter as to Justice Souter's denial dated November 6th.

Speaking to Mr. Bickell a few minutes ago, I asked him what happened to my letter informing me of the first disposition back on Monday Nov. 3rd when he decided not to pass the Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, "That wasn't a disposition so I didn't have to give you any notice." Incredible. He disposed of my case illegally and then said that since it wasn't a proper disposition I wasn't entitled to notice thereof, and certainly not by "appropriately speedy means". Sabotage.

This is truly unprecedented, my friends.

3. Mr Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on the day it is received. His word isn't worth much to me so I still need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay Application arrives.

Bickell also requested that people stop calling him, and I told him that these people are just citizens, I don't know who they are, and I can't command them to do anything but that they are watching the Supreme Court's actions and they want to see that Justice is done in this case, and that Justice pertains not just to the substantive case but to the procedural aspects as well under the Supreme Court Rules which have not been followed.

I don't think calling Mr. Bickell will do anymore good, although it certainly did influence him to get in touch with me. So Im asking people to concentrate on sending letters to the attention of Justice Clarence Thomas and the other Supreme Court Justices US Supreme Court instead of making phone calls. The phone calls were very helpful and served to alert Mr. Bickell and other interested parties at the US Supreme Court that the public is very interested in this case.


The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

United States Supreme Court

One First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20543.


Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog


Glad to have you here, Dotty.

Thank you for deleting my earlier comment.
{From DR -- You're welcome! If you post any more like that, Ill be glad to delete them too! -- Pro Patria}

Instead of demanding evidence, when the U.S. State Dept. has issued and re-issued passports (which state place of birth) and the state of Hawaii has issued a universally accepted document attesting to date and place of birth, why don't those of you who are so sure Obama is not "natural born" produce one shred of evidence yourselves? Conspiracy theories and straw man arguments do not count as evidence, no matter how elaborate they may be.

[Gina Cobb responds: Skeptic, Hawaii has not issued a birth certificate for Obama. No original or long-form birth certificate has been produced by Obama. Reporters have not seen a birth certificate. Nobody has seen the original that Obama claimed in his autobiography to have in his possession.

Nobody is pushing a conspiracy theory. Obama, however, clearly has something to hide or he would have produced the birth certificate long ago. Americans want proof that Obama is indeed qualified for the presidency. If you think such proof is unnecessary, then that's your choice, but natural born citizenship is an express requirement to hold the office of the presidency. As for passports, only after 9/11 were the requirements to obtain a passport tightened up even a little bit. Non-citizens have had no difficulty coming and going between America and other countries, as the 9/11 terrorists demonstrated. Assuming that a passport clerk did the job years ago of making sure that Obama was a natural born citizen is very questionable logic. That wasn't the passport agent's job and you are peddling a wild, unsupported theory by suggesting that issuance of a passport at some time in the past is an adequate substitute for an authentic birth certificate today. - Gina Cobb]

I have a Master's Degree in Mathematics that included two courses in logic, one Aristotelian and one on the Predicate Calculus. You know what I learned? If the premises are false, you can formally prove anything. But in the end, the proof means nothing.

The argument in the main article overlooks the fact that an independent fact checking organization examined Obama birth certificate (which says "Location of birth: Honolulu") and published close up photos of it. The Hawaiian Department of Health took the unprecedented step of saying Obama's birth was registered in Hawaii,

{This is false and you know it. If you do not know it, you are an irresponsible fool, parroting the garbage that others spew out, without bothering to check your facts}

and there is a birth announcement in not one but two Hawaiian newspapers.

{Which anyone could have called into the newspapers, even from Kenya}.

Saying that no one knows Obama's eligibility is a false premise. Therefore, the argument falls.

{From DR -- Dear "Doctor".

I am sorry to hear that such an illogical, emotional fool would be citing mathematical clap-trap in an effort to prove Aristotle wrong.

If I was your Dean, I would revoke your degree. You are incompetent. You are an embarrassment to science, and to rational thought.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. I learned that in grade seven, but apparently you did not. Of course if you falsify the premises, you can invalidate the conclusion. But can you read?

Read the logic piece again, you incorrigible skimmer. The first premise requires that Obama's eligibility must be made public. It is not public.

If you are willing to believe that an internet picture of a forged birth certificate is public evidence of presidential eligibility, then several species of bacteria are more intelligent than you.

Obama is not eligible. Are you dumb enough to believe that the Framers of the Constitution would accept a scenario in which secret eligibility is sufficient to qualify a Presidential candidate? Of course it must be public!

Obama clearly thinks the American people are dumb, but we would have to be dumber than you to believe that secret eligibility is sufficient grounds to become President.

Pro Patria}

thank you for an amazing analysis. however, i am wondering how you ultimately feel this will end...hopefully with BOGUS POTUS removed from office....but when?? how? do you have faith we will see the day when truth wins out?

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog."



  • Before posting a comment, ask yourself whether it is polite, fair, and truthful. Comments are auto-deleted if they contain profanity (even with ast*ri*ks). Comments may also be edited or deleted if they include anything false, misleading, insulting, unethical, illogical or spamlike. Rude comments or spam result in a permanent ban of future comments.