Posted on 07/19/2010 5:31:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
"The hope that fired up the election of Barack Obama has flickered out, leaving a national mood of despair and disappointment. Americans are dispirited over how wrong things are and uncertain they can be made right again. Hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has proved a poor supper." -- Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief, US News & World Report, July 2, 2010
This from a man who on Fox News recently said he voted for Obama, his newspaper, the New York Daily News, endorsed Obama, and that he even helped one of his speeches!
The problem is an ancient one. How to remove from office a king or, in a republic, an elected leader who has broken the law and/or is perceived to be a threat to both the present and future of the nation? In earlier eras, the solution was usually bloody.
"Who will rid me of this meddling priest?" England's King Henry II was reputed to have said of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1170, his complaint was obliged when Becket was murdered on a cold December evening.
I cite this famous quote only because the tide is rising among Americans who would be rid of Barack Obama. I would never suggest or condone the sword, but surely one would think we the People might have recourse to the courts or Congress.
The fear in both the courts and Congress is the torturous process involved and, of course, the outcome.
Twice in our history, impeachment has been tried and failed, first with Andrew Johnson whose Reconstruction policies following the Civil War were in much disfavor and, in more recent times, with Bill Clinton whose perjuries and other problems were not deemed to rise to a level worthy of removing him from office. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
The Constitution stipulates that "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
The drawback of impeachment is the way it would inevitably cast Obama as the victim of predatory politicians. It is not a good choice.
Presumably, lying about one's eligibility to hold the office of President and spending huge sums to ensure that one's birth certificate and actual place of birth shall remain unknown would justify removal.
We all know by now that, constitutionally, only a "natural born" citizen may serve as President. His father was a British citizen and both parents must be American to qualify as natural born. We all know that considerable controversy exists as regards the birthplace and citizenship status of Obama. Was he a Kenyan? Was he an Indonesian citizen at one point?
The enduring question on the minds of many is why the court cases filed to get at the facts regarding his eligibility have encountered so much resistance? Surely this is a matter of major national concern. What nation would permit an imposter to serve in its highest office?
Alas, early cases were dismissed when those bringing them were deemed to have no "standing" before the court though one might think the lowliest citizen should have standing.
As wrenching as the process of removing Obama from office via the judicial process might be deemed, there is no legitimate reason not to proceed.
There appears to be no evidence his birth was registered with the American embassy or consulate in Kenya. I have seen a photo of a document said to be his Kenyan birth certificate. Having no way to authenticate it, I am reluctant to pass judgment.
The birth certificate from Hawaii, offered during the 2008 campaign, is said to be one issued upon request as opposed to the "long form" issued for those actually born there. There was some question raised at the time as to its authenticity with allegations that it was photoshopped. There is a question whether a long form certificate exists.
My personal view is that many in government fear the consequences of removing even an illegitimate President from office, given that it would require that all legislation signed into law and all executive orders issued by him would be rendered invalid. I suspect some fear that chaos more than waiting and hoping the electoral process will end his term in 2012.
My problem is that the nation must endure some 900 more days of the malevolence or sheer incompetence he will initiate; including a lame duck session of Congress following the midterm elections that would impose Cap-and-Trade, card check, and other legislative abominations.
A large majority of the electorate presently wants Obamacare repealed and will likely feel the same about the alleged financial "reforms."
There are constitutional scholars who know far more about such things than me, but I confess to remaining baffled by the failure to attend to the critical question regarding the right of Barack Hussein Obama to be the President of the United States.
Being allergic to lies, I literally threw my TV in a dumpster in 1973 and never looked back. I never watch TV, and I almost never say “never.”
Please post a link if you know where that actual flag design can be bought, I must have one!
If you made it then you might have started something thats IMHO absolutely awesome, thanks.
You like to wave the white flag and surrender early, I see.
For someone who almost never says never...
LOL! Really, almost never.
After Obama IS removed so will all the incorrect history books stating that he was an eligible President.
I for one will gladly spend my remaining days on earth happily correcting my children, their children and henceforth that Obama was never legally qualified to be President of the United States.
When my great grandchildren come to visit me I will tell them it was all a lie in the books their teachers give them about Obama.
To my final last breath on earth I will never acknowledge Obama as a President, he failed to qualify, and he won’t defend the allegations either.
Impeachment is for real Presidents, those Constitutionally eligible to serve in the office.
Impeachment is for an Andrew Johnson or a William Jefferson Clinton.
Explain the TWO Documents of Certification that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond are responsible for....
‘Splain that....why were TWO used unless something FRAUDULENT was being perpetrated on voters??
Wouldn’t explaining Pelosi’s motivations be the job of the more than 70 plaintiffs’ lawyers who have submitted legal briefs to local, state, federal, appeals, and Supreme Court of the United States Justices?
I do believe that it is the job of the Chief Election official in each state plus the District of Columbia (usually the Secretary of State) to enforce that state’s election laws and each state has different requirements and different forms to be used to qualify for the ballot.
For example in Arizona Obama had to sign a statement that he is a natural born citizen. Here’s a link to a copy of that statement: http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf
“(usually the Secretary of State) to enforce that state’s election laws”.....
My God, man!
Aren’t you aware of Soros’ PURCHASE of the Secretaries of State???!!!
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/soros-eyes-secretaries
Soros likely purchased this troll too:
And two days later,
Statements like this really reveal the total ignorance of any particular court on this issue. Obama did not release his alleged COLB until AFTER the primary was OVER. No one knew prior to that point he was going to release a shady and shaky document. All the stuff about the length and costs of the campaign is completely irrelevent and speculative in regards to anyone challenging Obama's eligiblity. The stuff about Congress being 'satisfied' is ignorant of the partisan make-up of Congress. And certainly no court is stupid enough to think a Congressional resolution = statement of fact, particularly in proving the details of one's birth. As a matter of procedure, people don't prove their citizenship with senate resolutions. What an embarrassment this Judge Land turned out to be.
Statements like this really reveal the total ignorance of any particular court on this issue. Obama did not release his alleged COLB until AFTER the primary was OVER. No one knew prior to that point he was going to release a shady and shaky document. All the stuff about the length and costs of the campaign is completely irrelevent and speculative in regards to anyone challenging Obama’s eligiblity. The stuff about Congress being ‘satisfied’ is ignorant of the partisan make-up of Congress. And certainly no court is stupid enough to think a Congressional resolution = statement of fact, particularly in proving the details of one’s birth. As a matter of procedure, people don’t prove their citizenship with senate resolutions. What an embarrassment this Judge Land turned out to be.
Obama doesn’t have to “prove” his citizenship. Vice President Cheney certified his electoral college votes at a Joint Session of Congress, without objection and Chief Justice Roberts swore him in. He IS the president.
Obama’s eligibility opponents have to “prove” his ineligiblity which to date they have been unable to do in more than 70 attempts in lawsuits heard in civil courts.
try google images...that’s what i did....
<>I’m afraid that I can’t explain ... <>
Perhaps this article on America’s Ruling Class can explain it to you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2553634/posts
Perhaps this article on America’s Ruling Class can explain it to you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2553634/posts
George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were all members of America’s ruling class in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries. They did just fine by the nation. Barack Obama is far from being a member of America’s ruling class, the son of an itinerant anthropologist from Kansas and an African foreign exchange student.
I did a bit of research and found a better explanation for
Pelosi, the DNC and the story of the two letters of Certification
Canada Free Press made much of the discovery that Nancy Pelosi and the DNC, sent two kinds of letters to the States to certify candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency. They claim that only one, the abridged form, was submitted to (all) the States, but we know that at least Hawaii, which has very specific requirements, received the “unabridged version”.
Most of the discovery of actual certification documents comes from lawsuits against the Secretary Of State of various states and there have been various state case filings that shed additional light on this issue. There have been filings in Hawaii, Texas, South Carolina and Washington which are relevant.
In fact, there appear to be not just 2 documents but perhaps as many as 50 different documents, probably because every state would like an original, notarized document. The Washington State document and the South Carolina document for example are two different documents as can be determined by completely different signatures on them.
There may very well have been 49 letters, and then an additional one, to deal with the special requirements of Hawaii. Then again, the Republican National Committee similarly had 50 separate letters be sent to their state headquarters for filing.
The “unabridged” version states:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:
The “abridged version” states:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively: Presented in: South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington.
So how to explain the difference in text? Its simple really…different States have different requirements for the certification. For example, we know that the letter with the complete text was sent to Hawaii. We also know that the example of the abridged text was filed in South Carolina. During the complete election cycle, and depending on the specific state laws, a candidate files a “declaration of candidacy” to run in the primaries of the State in question. Once selected in the primaries, the state representative of the Party in question files a “certification of candidates” which verifies that the candidate meets the requirements of the State to run for office.
Let’s look at some of the “declarations of candidacy” filed by President Obama
Declaration of Candidacy: New Hampshire
The document signed by Mr Obama states that he meets the qualifications for the office of the President of the United States and is a registered member of the Democratic Party. Dec 1, 2008
Illinois: “I, Barack Obama, …. that I am a candidate for nomination to the office President of the United States of America,…, and that I am legally qualified (including being the holder of any license that may be an eligibility requirement for the office I seek the nomination for) to hold such office”
Kentucky and Arizona:
“You are hereby notified that I, Barack Obama, am seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of President of the United States from the Democratic Party, at the Presidential Preference Election to be held on the 5th day of February 2008. I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years.”
The bottom line is that any state COULD have filed election fraud charges if there was a legitimate legal issue. No state’s Chief Election Official (usually a Secretary of State) has filed those charges or even launched an investigation.
For the resolution ... not for the birthplace statement. You forget that politicians who challenge anything about Obama's eligibility get instantly demonized by faither politicians and media, and there would be no point in stalling a statehood resolution over a toothless political statement. Here you show the judge relying on complete hearsay and logical fallacy .... not official documentation of Obama's citizenship.
Obama doesn’t have to “prove” his citizenship. Vice President Cheney certified his electoral college votes at a Joint Session of Congress, without objection and Chief Justice Roberts swore him in. He IS the president.
Certifiying the votes is not the same as certifying eligibility ... either these people chose to remain ignorant, not get involved and/or made calculated moves to avoid political demonization ... of course, you forgot to mention how Obama botched his oath. He may be a a defacto president, but he's not a constitutionally qualified president.
Obama’s eligibility opponents have to “prove” his ineligiblity which to date they have been unable to do in more than 70 attempts in lawsuits heard in civil courts.
Of course not. The courts hide behind standing so they don't have to deal with the eligibility issue. That's not something to be proud of. Second, it ignores that some states, like Hawaii, have laws that allow citizens to challenge the eligibility of candidates. Unfortunately no one realized soon enough that they could use these laws, which would grant standing to plaintiffs who don't get proper hearings and resolutions on the matter. Such won't be the case in 2012.
Well I agree with you on one point, the Courts definitely hide behind the Constitution and historical precedent.
That’s why the eligibility legal scorecard is Obama: 69/ Birthers: 0.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
Birther attorneys are too incomptent to present a plaintiff who would be granted standing and there is no requirement for standing in a criminal investigation of election fraud or forgery. Grand juries can investigate (and subpoena) anything they want to investigate.
ping
Um...no thanks.
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.