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.
How much would you bet that Judge Land would not find the claim "so lacking in factual support" were Obama a Republican?
How much would you bet that Judge Land would not find the claim “so lacking in factual support” were Obama a Republican?
From 1995 to 2000 Judge Clay D. Land was a Republican state Senator from Columbus, Georgia. He was nominated for the federal judgeship by Georgia’s Republican Senator, Saxby Chambliss and Judge Land was appointed to the Federal District Court bench by President George W. Bush.
Wow, if his opinion wasn’t driven by ideology, then what? The only factual support lacking is Obama’s birth certificate. Did Land actually hold the original in his hand, or did he base his opinion on, Well, someone posted his COLB on Daily KOS, so what’s the big deal?
Wow, if his opinion wasn’t driven by ideology, then what? The only factual support lacking is Obama’s birth certificate. Did Land actually hold the original in his hand, or did he base his opinion on, Well, someone posted his COLB on Daily KOS, so what’s the big deal?
A birth certificate is known in the law as a “self-authenticating document.” Way before Obama was even born, courts were accepting notarized letters of confirmation from governmental officials.
A self-authenticating document, under the law of evidence in the United States, is any document that can be admitted into evidence at a trial without proof being submitted to support the claim that the document is what it appears to be. Several categories of documents are deemed to be self-authenticating:
Certified copy of public or business records;
Official publications of government agencies;
Newspaper articles;
Trade inscriptions, such as labels on products;
Acknowledged documents (wherein the signer also gets a paper notarized); and
Commercial paper under the Uniform Commercial Code.
I would assume that the defense briefs in Obama eligibility lawsuits include the two different authentification press releases issued from the state of Hawaii. In any event a Certification of Live Birth directly from the state of Hawaii with its Seal and the signature of the State Registrar of Records is all that is needed. At the bottom of every COLB issued by the state of Hawaii it says: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” The courts are very used to receiving those documents into evidence.
Defense attorneys would not have submitted a Daily Kos, Factcheck.org or “Fight the smears” copy but rather a short form computerized print out directly from the Hawaii Department of Health.
In Rhodes v MacDonald, Judge Land sanctioned “birther” attorney Orly Taitz $20,000 for wasting his time with foolishness. She appealed the sanctions and lost. Just this past week she appealed to US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for a Temporary Restraining Order blocking the sanctions. Justice Thomas rejected her request and she has now asked Chief Justice Roberts to confirm Justice Thomas’ signature on the denial letter. She’ll soon have to pay the 20 grand.
The Captain Connie Rhodes lawsuit never got to the “holding evidence in his hand” stage. It was dismissed as frivolous. If any lawsuit ever does get to the evidence phase, the “evidence” will be a notarized confirmation letter from Hawaii’s Department of Health and/or a state issued copy of a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth.
Many thanks for that explanation!
It was my pleasure! Take good care.
Sorry, but for you, it's a dead end street, as I've already shown.
Obama wrote a number one bestseller about his father not being a US citizen in 1995. That was 12 years before he ran for president.
Right and he wrote about a birth certificate that he refuses to produce for some odd reason, especially not in a court of law.
When he was running for president he posted his birth certificate on the internet for the entire planet to see.
No, he posted an unverified birth abstract ... not the birth certificate he wrote about. Try again.
That birth certificate has been authenticated by the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, also by the Registrar of Records for the State of Hawaii, also by the Director of Communications for the state of Hawaii and also by by the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle who is a member of the opposition party to the president and who gave one of the nominating speeches for Governor Sarah Palin at the 2008 Republican National Convention.
Absolutely false. The alleged COLB has NEVER been authenticated by the issuing agency despite have full statutory and discretionary authority to do so. You need to quit peddling falsehoods.
Obama was vetted by primary opponents, and by the other political parties in the General Election, and by Congress in its role as challenger to his electoral college votes.
No, actually he wasn't vetted at all for being a natural born citizen and you know it. Again, let's not deal in falsehoods, james.
Allan Keyes, a challenger for the presidency from the American Independent Party went to court to have Obama’s candidacy and election invalidated. His lawsuit was thrown out and was rejected again on appeal.
His lawsuit was rejected on incorrect rationale. The judge said, "Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15." This is false, as we now know there are state laws that allow citizens to challenge findings of eligibility for placing candidates on local ballots. One such state is Hawaii. Why the court didn't understand the law better is a mystery, but it was demonstrably wrong.
As the 12th Amendment to the Constitution clearly states: “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
Irrelevant to the argument. This says nothing about certifying the candidate's constitutional eligibility.
“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.“ US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land, September 16, 2009
You chose a really bad time to to post this since just today a different court had to reverse an order to pay damages and court costs based on a suggestion that the eligibility case was frivolous. Such a reversal would only occur because it turns out there is merit or that the court doesn't want to create the standing it was trying to deny for the plaintiff. Ouch, james, ouch!
That makes you about 0 for 12. I love knocking down weak, faither arguments. Who's next??
You chose a really bad time to to post this since just today a different court had to reverse an order to pay damages and court costs based on a suggestion that the eligibility case was frivolous. Such a reversal would only occur because it turns out there is merit or that the court doesn’t want to create the standing it was trying to deny for the plaintiff. Ouch, james, ouch!
That makes you about 0 for 12. I love knocking down weak, faither arguments. Who’s next??
In the last several days: “Jones v Obama” was dismissed for lack of standing and Justice Clarence Thomas rejected Orly Taitz’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order against the imposition of $20,000 in sanctions for wasting the Court’s time with a frivolous lawsuit down in Georgia. The lawsuit was Rhodes v MacDonald. Captain Connie Rhodes didn’t want to deploy to Iraq until Barack Obama showed his birth certificate. She lost and the judge imposed a $20,000 fine on Orly Taitz for wasting his time. Taitz will have to pay but hey, she has a PayPal account so get out your checkbook!
Obama: 71/Birthers: 0
And I have to close with something almost as hilarious as Edge’s joke above: Orly Taitz has requested that Chief Justice John Roberts allow her to bring a signature expert to the Supreme Court to verify that it is REALLY Justice Thomas’ signature on the order telling her to go to hell and pay the sanctions!
Too bad you're not smart enough to know you're conversing with a skeptic, not a birther. But faithers are known for gullibility and mindless recitation of talking points, not mental acuity.
And evidently you're not up-to-date on the latest news ... snooze and you looze ...
Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress
" ...based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause, filed. Sloviter, Authoring Judge."
This judge was originally trying to go the frivolous route and realized it was a losing move. These guys keep tipping their hands ... and in the meantime ... still ... no competent authority has declared Obama'a alleged COLB to be genuine nor has any competent authority declared Obama to be a natural born citizen.
Its called the Death of a Nation.
We are a ignorant, dumb, ill-informed, and lazy population.
Obama is what we are as a whole and we have only ourselves to blame.
Too bad you’re not smart enough to know you’re conversing with a skeptic, not a birther. But faithers are known for gullibility and mindless recitation of talking points, not mental acuity.
And evidently you’re not up-to-date on the latest news ... snooze and you looze ...
Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress
” ...based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause, filed. Sloviter, Authoring Judge.”
This judge was originally trying to go the frivolous route and realized it was a losing move. These guys keep tipping their hands ... and in the meantime ... still ... no competent authority has declared Obama’a alleged COLB to be genuine nor has any competent authority declared Obama to be a natural born citizen.
The judgement in the Kerchner appeal is entered. The appeal was dismissed. The Court was considering imposing ADDITIONAL penalties on Mario Apuzzo in the form of court costs and sanctions. They decided not to further penalize him for filing a frivolous appeal but he still LOST THE APPEAL.
Anyone wanting to read the ENTIRE Precedential Decision of the 3rd US Court of Appeals in Kerchner et.al v Obama, et. al for themself, please click on the following link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33861604/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Appeal-Decision-2-Jul-2010-US-3rd-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Phila-PA
If anyone just wants to confirm that fact that the US Court of Appeals DISMISSED Apuzzo’s appeal, go straight to page 13 of the decision.
But here’s the bottom line: “For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court’s order of dismissal.”
The appeal in Kerchner v Obama is dismissed. A “precedential ruling” by the US Court of Appeals means that they intend their decision in this case to be a precedent for future, similar cases.
Mario Apuzzo escaped without being sanctioned or saddled with court costs. The three judge panel still dismissed a frivolous appeal but didn’t sanction the attorney.
You don't give yourself credibility by stuttering and name-calling. When you can respond like an adult, try again.
The task is really not difficult. Summoning up the will and then the courage is the hard part.
Ceaser was done by his colleagues on the steps of the Forum. Caligula was done on the way into the games by his Praetorians.
The trick is to do the job right. Dealing with Napoleon showed merely removing him was not a good choice. The problem tyrant must be dead to cease being a problem.
You don’t give yourself credibility by stuttering and name-calling. When you can respond like an adult, try again.
It was you, Edge who initiated the childish name calling and the ad hominem attacks. I thought that I might try getting down on your intellectual level since that appears to be where you are most comfortable.
Its obvious now that you can dish it out but you can’t take it.
No where in my own words did I call you a name and I was responding to the tone you set earlier in post #69 by saying I was ‘too stupid.’ You don’t fool anyone and you’re still carrying water for a fraud. When you want to start acting like an adult, let us know.
No where in my own words did I call you a name and I was responding to the tone you set earlier in post #69 by saying I was ‘too stupid.’ You don’t fool anyone and you’re still carrying water for a fraud. When you want to start acting like an adult, let us know.
I hope you feel better now.
Wake up.
Wake up to what? We're all going to the re-education camps, or the gulags? Is that what you're trying to say?
If you're convinced of that, then why do you continue to post on this website every day? Shouldn't you be distancing yourself from all us political subversives?
You forget that Hitler (and every other dictator in history) disarmed their people before they enslaved them. Have you turned your guns in to Obama yet? No?
Then stop spewing the paranoid crap and realize that you still have a choice between slavery and freedom.
Hope you are not an NRA member because Harry Reid got the membership list and O knows which houses have the guns.
That’s certainly true. If someone really believes it’s all over, they should be packing up and leaving the USA now, while they can.
All that type of posturing and hysterics from our side is dreadful. Actually, it’s dreadful when it comes from any side.
Well said. I too am disgusted with the talk radio hosts over their failure to address the subject of Obama's eligibility. They ought to be hammering on it day and night, but they're all too cowardly to broach the topic.
One host, Rusty Humphries, has done better than all the rest put together. He's tackled the subject on his program on numerous occasions, even though he was highly skeptical in the beginning. At least he's got the courage to invite discussion about it.
If and when Obama is proven to be ineligible to hold the office of president, I don't want to hear a single word from these so-called patriots.
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.