Posted on 01/14/2009 10:26:13 AM PST by sportsone234
[...] The reason why you should care should be self-evident. It has been said that when American catches a cold the rest of the world should watch out for pneumonia. The world wide financial recession is a case in point. If it is discovered that Mr. Obama was never eligible to run and hold the office of POTUS we, our country and the interconnected world, will be thrown in a state of disorder and turmoil. That is because any law, any treaty, any action taken under the Obama administration would be illegal.
[...] If Pravda RU is calling Obama a fraud before his inauguration, how long before enemies of this country figure out this can be used as a reason not to cooperate with the U.S. or sign a treaty, or do anything that moves negotiations forward on any front because an illegally elected/ineligible Obama actions would be null and void . . . unenforceable . . . worthless. How long before Iran, or Hamas, or Russia, for that matter, figures this out and refuses to deal with the U.S.because of the Pretend President?
(Excerpt) Read more at hillarynme.wordpress.com ...
There's less than a week left, have pity and indulge them. BTW: IMO, history will show Bush is part of the NWO gang just like the president elect and the past president.
Well, I won’t quote your comments and make responses to them, but will just comment in general here.
As far as policies are concerned and the fact that he’s very liberal and left-wing, it’s true that it’s a really big problem for conservatives (and I’m in that boat, too...). Those things are not things to ignore or put aside. I’ve never said that. I advocate fighting against whatever liberal policies he tries to put out, through Congress, and do the very best we can to offset them.
My only talk about “conspiracies” has to do with people who are *absolutely sure* that Obama is not qualified (per the Constitution), without any legal and court-documented proof — which is absolutely required if someone is going to “have a case” in the first place. They don’t have anything — so this turns into “grand conspiracy theories” as to why “no one is doing anything about it”... That’s the conspiracy that I’m talking about — not anything to do with liberal politics and liberal legislation.
And talking about the drastic economic circumstances — well..., no matter who would have been elected, this was coming down the pike, regardless. Now, *if there is a silver lining* in all this — especially as it concerns Obama being in office — it’s that he’s going to not be able to put forth all the programs that he thought he could — before — this huge economic (and world-wide) meltdown happened. That’s going to put a sort of a limit on his ability to do all that he might have wanted to do. That’s a small silver lining, if you accept the fact that this was coming regardless of who was in office.
Now, you mentioned that he’s stated he’s willing to bankrupt an entire industry — and that would be the coal industry. However, because of this severe economic circumstances — he’s not going to be able to do that. That’s part of what I mean by the small silver lining there.
And you’re right about these severe economic circumstances and I think we’re headed into a Great Depression, which is going to hang around for a few years. So, it’s going to be bad. And — if so — then perhaps Obama will be *kicked out of office* the next time around — if he’s going to be as “bumbling” a President as you say he’s being right now. And that would be good news.
If he cannot get things together, because he’s inept, all the better for the conservatives, because he’ll never make it past one term, in that case, and during his one term — he won’t be able to get anything done. All the better for us..., I would say.
So, yes, the prospects are very grim..., but, at the same time, I think that God has given this country exactly the kind of “judgement” that it deserves for “voting in” this kind of candidate, which I would call very anti-God and anti-values (per the Bible and what God says). So, it’s not surprising that this has happened.
America may very well be suffering the judgement of God, compliments Obama.
You said — “It’s a lame answer so the question remains.”
It might be a lame answer, but it’s very much the truth of the matter, lame or not.
And I could add to that — because he doesn’t want to (and no one is able to make him)
[Yeah, I know..., another lame answer. Life is lame sometimes... ]
You said — “There’s less than a week left, have pity and indulge them.”
LOL..., you’re right, and I kinda/sorta have been laying off a bit.
I haven’t nearly posted as much as I did over a week ago. And we will see what happens in between now and January 20th.
Nothing is as lame as your verbose, substanceless posts. I have never seen anyone who writes so much and says so little. I automatically scroll past everything you post. Can’t say that about any other FReeper.
Well, thank you for not bothering me too much with your responses... I appreciate that... :-)
I agree wholeheartedly. His pestilential nurdish posts aren’t worth the time to even scan.
I wish those who still don’t seem to grasp the enormity of the situation we find ourselves in regarding Obama’s eligibility would watch this video. Alan Keyes explains this issue so clearly that one does not have to be a Constitutional scholar (which he is) in order to “get it”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0sQroiCYNc
How am I supposed to respect the next President of the United States when he has shown such disrespect for us?! If he cared at all, he would have provided us with the evidence that proves he is eligible.
Ummm..., the easiest answer to that one is because he’s not required to...
You don't have to be required to do something to do it. Especialy when it's the right thing to do. Even more so when it's really not much bother or expense.
Meant to add:
Especially when you've prattled on, and continue to do so, about "transparency" and how your administration will be the most open and transparent one ever.
What could be more transparent than authorizing release of your birth certificate?
2.) All:
Conservatives and Democratic Voters:
" Come Now, Let us reason together"...
fyi - posts # 3,4,6
Yes, worse than SPAM. At least with SPAM you know the exact same thing is coming by the formatting. The repetition has been mind boggling.
Mark to watch later.
You said — “You don’t have to be required to do something to do it. Especialy when it’s the right thing to do. Even more so when it’s really not much bother or expense.”
This is the “disconnect from reality” that some posters on Free Republic have — in that they “insist* and *maintain* that Obama *must do* these various things they say — and yet — he doesn’t. That’s the disconnect from reality in these posters’ minds.
The rational person sees the problem in our system and how there’s a “big hole” in it — and then goes to work to fix it and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
That’s what Oklahoma is doing, right now, in its state legislature, just like I’ve been saying all along. At least they’ve got a few rationale legislators there. And that’s a bill that I will be supporting in the Oklahoma legislature, instead of groaning about what Obama won’t do...
With that kind of law (in the states) it won’t matter what someone “doesn’t want to do” — because it will be *mandated* (in the explicit details of the “procedure required” to prove these things.
You said — “Especially when you’ve prattled on, and continue to do so, about “transparency” and how your administration will be the most open and transparent one ever.”
You’ve never heard me talk about his transparency or that he would be or not be. You’re mixing me up with some other poster.
I didn’t vote for Obama. I’m on this board, before the election, posting against Obama and saying that this Qualfications issue should be solved before the election — but — I was outvoted by a lot of other Obama voters. So, they defeated me (and others here, too). All someone has to do is go back to that time period in my posts and find them; they’re there.
A lot of posters, who seem to have similar thoughts as you, and are as disconnected from reality as you are, seem to think that someone who can *see reality* of what’s going on with Obama — must be an Obot... LOL.. That’s how conspiracy-minded a certain number on Free Republic are.
As for me, I prefer to take the losses (that are obvious), move to something that *will work* and then pursue it. That’s why I’ve talked about legislation to close up the loophole that Obama walked right through. It’s being done in the Oklahoma legislature right now and I’m supporting that bill. I would suggest others do the same in their respective states and shut down Obama.
I was writing about HIM, not you.
That should have been obvious since YOU don't have an administration to be the most open and transparent ever.
As to moving on, and fixing the lack of a verification system, we can do that AND continue to pursue his possible/apparent lack of Constitutional eligibility.
You said — “As to moving on, and fixing the lack of a verification system, we can do that AND continue to pursue his possible/apparent lack of Constitutional eligibility.”
That’s where I think y’all are totally off-base here. And I’m willing to sit it out and see how well this all works out. I don’t think it’s going anywhere, at all, because from the looks of it, from the way our system is — right now — you don’t have a chance. That’s my estimation of the situation, which is why I think the system needs to be revised (with those state laws).
Now, you say you’ll keep doing it, which is fine — but at some point in the future, I’m sure I’m going to be back here again (on this issue, that is) and saying — it didn’t go anywhere at all and the new state laws are the only thing that’s going to work.
That’s what I’m saying about this whole thing. And..., you’ll see too, soon...
Right now of course, there is no way in Hell that the Congress is going to pass such a law to enforce the natural born citizen provision of Article II.
And therein lies the danger in your position. How large or probable it is, I cannot say. But if Obama really is not a Natural Born Citizen, he must know it, and be willing to violate that provision. What other provisions might he violate? Quite possibly the one that requires another election in 4 years. Most Certainly Amendment II, he's already promised to do that, although he couches it in different terms.
In other words, there might not actually *be* a chance to fix this problem later.
Well, on the Federal level, I think it would be too difficult, politically speaking, to get it through. It seems the easiest to deal with it and get a solid state law in place (for that particular state’s Electoral College votes) that can be enforced.
It seems that when Democrats want to control the entire country, they want to take the power away from the states and make it a Federal issue, forcing all the states in line.
But, if we maintain state’s rights and with good backing from the Constitution, one can make things happen at the state level where it spreads from one state to the next and so on.
It doesn’t even have to be all or most of the states to pass such a law. It only requires a few, which would put a big dent in the number of electoral college votes a candidate could get, if he is disqualified within those particular states — plus — the spillover effects to other states and voters when they see the candidate won’t comply (if he won’t).
Most likely, it would make it so candidates wouldn’t even try to “get by with it”...
—
In regards to Obama not going through an election in four year (and staying in office)... well, that’s too far out of reality to be considered a real situation that we’ll ever deal with. I mean, I heard so much of that with Clinton. There were stories after stories how Clinton was going to remain in office, but no one could come up with something that seemed at all “real”. And it’s likewise with this idea that Obama is going to stay in office without another election. It’s simply “not real”.
And talking about the 2nd Amendment — you do know that it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any changes to the Constitution, which has to be put forth as an Amendment, first, by Congress (or another method is the states petition for it, but I don’t think that will be used...). So, it doesn’t have any chance in any form of *reality* to get by 3/4 of the states ratifying any changes to the 2nd Amendment...
THE EMBASSY: Keyes and Obama (Part One)
I have tried to do my best to transcribe what Dr. Keyes said in this interview for those of you who cannot view the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0sQroiCYNc
In Part One of this interview, he shares with Molotov Mitchell why the Constitution still matters, the potential ramifications of defying it and if doing so could justify revolution.
Transcript:
Dr. Keyes: “If a president is actually exercising his power on a basis that contradicts what the Constitution said is the ground and framework for eligibility, then he's not president.”
Interviewer: “Well, it is a tremendous honor to spend some time with you, Dr. Keyes. It's great to have you. I wanted to sit down with you and ask you about what you've been up to lately, specifically in relationship to President-Elect; or should I even call him “President-Elect Barack Obama”? Maybe you could tell me a little bit about your case and the federal election committee. What is going on there?"
Dr. Keyes: “Well, I was approached awhile ago about the issue. It had actually come up in the course of the campaign season, as I recall. Where some folks had gone to court to try to seek verification that Barack Obama met the eligibility requirement that is in the Constitution. That is, to say, that he is a natural born citizen of the United States. Um, and the courts as I recall, dismissed it on the ground of standing. They didn't address the issue itself, but said that the people who were bringing the suits didn't have standing to push for a look at his birth certificate.”
“So I was approached because I had been on the ballots in a number of states in the general election, and I think the folks who were trying to pursue this to the point where you actually got the information, were trying to ascertain whether they could find somebody that they would say had standing. And, as I understood it, the issue of standing for these judges turned on the notion that you had to be damaged in particular; in other words, you had to be able to argue that if this wasn't handled properly, you would be damaged.”
Interviewer: “Right”
Dr. Keyes: “This is ironic, isn't it?”
Interviewer: “Yes”
Dr. Keyes: “Here we have the Constitution of the United States. It starts out with the words, “We The People”. But if you're just a citizen who is part of “the people” you can't do anything to make sure that the Constitution is observed and for some reason, these silly courts assume that if the Constitution of the United States is destroyed, in its authority, meaning to say if it's ignored and undermined, that doesn't damage you. This is really weird.”“But anyway, so I became part of these suits. And I have to be very clear, some people may or may not have some objective in all of this that has to do with Barack Obama. Ah, I think that's incidental. The key question in my mind is simply that the Constitution must be respected and it must be seen to be respected because otherwise the legitimacy of the government that comes entirely from that Constitution, and from nothing else, will be destroyed, and we'll be in a very bad situation as a nation.
Interviewer: “Now that's very strong language to say that the Constitution would be destroyed. What, what makes you use that particular language? Is it really that serious?
Dr. Keyes: “Because the Constitution has to represent in essence a general consensus among the people about how we shall go about our business. So that it's clear that everyone has agreed on the rules of the game. That's what allows for the peaceful transition of power in America. So that even when you lose an election, you can be in the minority, you can be 30, 40, sometimes it's even been 48 and 49 percent, close to half the people who say, “no, I don't want this guy”. But the reason you go home at night and say it's o.k. is because our allegiance is to the Constitution. We've all agreed that that's how it's to be done, if that's been respected, then we accept the outcome.”
“That's not true everywhere. That's not true in countries where people will see an outcome go against them and take to the streets. See an outcome go against them and the military will start coos and all of this stuff. No, we don't do that in America because we have allegiance to the Constitution that represents our permanent will for justice. If you start saying that that can be amended now by a temporary whim of the majority, because every majority we have in any given election is changeable, it could be this way or that way. Then, we no longer have agreement on the rules of the game and one of the chief prerequisites of our peace is gone. Right? And, under ordinary circumstances you can go this way and that, but if the language is clear, if the requirement is plain, and you ignore it, then you're basically saying that the Constitution doesn't matter anymore.”
Interviewer: “And what happens if someone does say the Constitution doesn't matter anymore? What if, in fact, Barack Obama is ineligible yet he flouts the system and is sworn in. What does that mean for the Constitution in America?
Dr. Keyes: “Well, if Barack Obama is not president, in accordance with the Constitution which provides the general grant of authority for the whole government of the United States and everything about it...right? If by, if the Constitution contradicts his authority, says no, you can't have that authority, and he takes it anyway, by what authority does he govern? What is the basis for his claiming that his use of executive power is legitimate?
Interviewer: “Well, I know he would sell it as, “I am serving the will of the people”.
Dr. Keyes: “Right. But the will of the people in America, just be itself, is not the source of the government's authority. The source of the government's authority is the permanent will of the people expressed in the Constitution. Put the Constitution aside, and you've got one group of people saying one thing, and another group of people saying another, and who's to decide between them?”
“What usually decides between them historically is war, force, conflict, turbulence. Barack Obama appoints some judge and somebody standing before that judge and they say, “I challenge your authority because you've been appointed by someone who's not President of the United States according to the Constitution.” He issues orders to the military people. A soldier thinks that this is a bad order and he says, “no, I don't want to obey that order because it's coming from someone who is not Commander-in-Chief, according to the Constitution of the United States”. “And, and people say, “well, ah ah..it's not gonna happen”.....well, it has already happened, that private soldiers have challenged the authority of a sitting president. Michael New (sp?) was famous for refusing to wear a UN armband at the behest of President Clinton. Now, I argued, by the way, with respect to that, that Michael New should obey the President, because his authority is clear in the Constitution. But if a President is actually exercising his power on a basis that contradicts what the Constitution said is the ground and framework for eligibility, then he's not President. And you've got a conflict that's impossible to resolve under the Constitution itself. Because the Constitution says he's not president and somebody else is trying to say he is president, how can you work that out under the Constitution?
Interviewer: “How can you work that out?”
Dr. Keyes: “You can't. And some people misunderstand. They think that one swears allegiance to the United States of America. No, no, no, you don't. When you take the oath of office, you don't swear to protect the United States of America. You don't swear to uphold the country or a nation. You swear to uphold, protect, defend the Constitution of the United States. You take a specific oath to respect the Constitution. Interviewer: “From enemies foreign and domestic.”
Dr. Keyes: “And domestic. So, if you've taken that oath and you're faced with a situation where something is happening that is plainly in contradiction of the Constitution, then your oath says you can't go along with that. And I think it is irresponsible of leaders in this country, from the Supreme Court, whoever it might be, to act as if it's o.k. to put the entire nation in that situation. I think it's dereliction of duty if they do that. Especially considering that what is required in this case is simple. It's easy.” “ When I went into the foreign service, one of the things, you have to go through all kinds of checks and stuff, but one of the things that is required is that you have to obtain an actual copy of your, of the vault copy of your birth certificate. Correct? It cost twelve dollars and fifty cents. I think in Hawaii they told me this. You can actually as a private citizen you can throw down the twelve dollars and fifty cents and you can get a copy of your birth certificate. That's the fee they charge.”
Interviewer: “The running fee in Hawaii.”
Dr. Keyes: “That's the running fee in Hawaii. Instead, as I understand it, they have spent upwards of a million dollars trying to keep people from asking the question. Why? Look, people have been arguing, they said that, “well, I saw such and such on a website.” It was a digitized image on somebody’s website, alright...that people were supposedly saying...and that wasn't even a digitized image of the original. The, uh, people in Obama’s campaign and others who support him have said that this evidence is there, it's good, let's get on with it. And you look at them and say, “ok,where is it? Let's look at it.” And they say, “no, take my word for it.” “Well, if someone told you that they owned a piece of property. That were you going to buy from them. And, and you said, “well fine, let me see the deed.” “Oh, I can get it, it's right over there and I can get it anytime, and I tell you it's good and it's valid.” And you said, “let me see the deed.” And they said, “well don't worry about it. I'm telling you it's a good deed. I've looked at it myself, it's great.” The third or fourth time they didn't just go and get the deed wouldn't you start to be a little suspicious, that maybe...
Interviewer: “Or they bring you a picture of the deed or...”
Dr. Keyes: “Sold a bill of goods. I think that commonsense prevails in most transactions ought certainly to prevail when it comes to upholding the authority of the Constitution, making clear that its terms are being respected, and making that clear in such a way that we can get on with the orderly business of our country.”
Interviewer: “If indeed, Barack Obama is ineligible, is there a line at which people do take to the streets? Is there a line at which people...you did mention that there would be struggle, uh, potentially..and this, you can't settle it constitutionally. There's a lot of people, especially veterans and things like that, that have been saying we are supposed to defend the Constitution. What do you think about that? Is there a line?
Dr. Keyes: “First of all...there's a line, of course there's a line. You see that line referred to in the Declaration of Independence. That at some point, when rights are trampled upon and when liberty is being destroyed, you must stand in defense of it. So, without doubt, in the heritage of this country there is a line and there are graves that mark that line. They are the graves of all our patriot dead. They are the graves of the people who went into battle in order to make sure that the Constitution of the United States would be preserved; that the liberty it represents would survive. So, of course there's a line. And we've come up to that line, and we have fought on that line, and many good people have died on that line, and their families have grieved for them and missed them, and still do it to this day.
“So, without doubt, there's a line. Um, I think that that line in this particular case depends on something that is well within the reach of all right-minded and patriotic Americans who care about the country and the Constitution. It's simple. It does not require that we go anywhere near that line. It simply requires that we take a look to make sure that eligibility has been established under the Constitition. That's all. It's a simple thing. And frankly I don't know that it requires...I don't see why it requires all this discussion. I'm at a loss and have been for quite some time to figure out why there is so much resistance to this question.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.