Posted on 08/31/2010 10:19:15 AM PDT by butterdezillion
I'll post the whole thing on the first response so the links will be clickable. This is an example of (probably criminal) journalistic malpractice by The Hutch News - an example of how the media behaves on almost every issue including the eligibility issue. I explain why I believe the media ignores our factual corrections at its own peril.
I believe this is what we need to be saying to the media whenever we find deliberate deception.
The “B”s know.
While I don’t like the idea of judges deciding qualification [too much power for people with Kelo-level ethics], I don’t see the logic, Jamese.
“Just because it is your personal opinion that the President isn’t the President and the two new Supreme Court justices aren’t really Supreme Court Justices doesn’t make it so.”
The reverse is even worse — assumption that a tyrant actually has power. I’m no lawyer, but I know this — there is only one truth. According to the Constitution, the burden of proof is on the President. If he can’t prove his qualification, he’s not qualified.
The Republican Governor of Hawaii has confirmed his birth in that state, the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii has authorized the release of official statements confirming Obama’s birth in that state and the Director of The Hawaii Department of Health and the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Records have both confirmed Obama’s birth at 7:24 pm on Friday, August 4, 1961 in the city of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii. Birth announcements appeared in both Honolulu newspapers for a male child born to Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama in the August 13 and August 14, 1961 editions of the local Honolulu newspapers.
Thus far in 73 adjudicated attempts to challenge his eligiblity including eight appeals to the US Supreme Court, no Court has ruled him to be ineligible.
I’ll let a federal judge who actually issued a ruling on Obama’s eligibility speak for me:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, HE BECAME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president.
The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009
You have the option of advocating for Obama’s impeachment by Congress as was done with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, trying to convince a prosecuting attorney to indict Obama for a crime such as forgery or election fraud which could force his resignation as was done with Richard Nixon, or at the very least voting against him in the 2012 election on eligibility grounds.
Presumption of innocence is the tradition of prosecution, not of qualification. Qualification requires vetting. And just because our leaders have been indoctrinated by colleges to ignore truth doesn't mean that the entire nation is brainwashed.
When the Constitution enumerates a requirement of eligibility, I would say that means you must prove your eligibility. That prevents some unknown stranger from running. I would call Obama an unknown stranger who hides his past.
“The “truth” that you think you know is incorrect. The United States legal system since the founding of the republic has operated under the ancient legal doctrine of “presumption of innocence.”
Presumption of innocence is the tradition of prosecution, not of qualification. Qualification requires vetting. And just because our leaders have been indoctrinated by colleges to ignore truth doesn’t mean that the entire nation is brainwashed.
When the Constitution enumerates a requirement of eligibility, I would say that means you must prove your eligibility. That prevents some unknown stranger from running. I would call Obama an unknown stranger who hides his past.”
In Arizona, Obama had to sign a statement attesting to the fact that he is a “natural born citizen” in order to get on the ballot. I’m reasonably certain that he signed similar statements in other states. If those signed statements are false, he could be charged with election fraud in any jurisdiction where his name appeared on the ballot. To date, no jurisdiction has initiated a Grand Jury investigation for election fraud, forgery, fraud or tampering with official documents and there has been not one single call for a congressional investigation by any member of Congress.
Here’s a link to a scanned copy of the Candidate Nomination Paper for Arizona that Obama signed:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf
I personally don’t dispute it being more of an impeachable matter, BTW [and had posted that point earlier today]. But the Constitution says “qualify”; it does not say, “assume one is qualified”. That’s the only point I’m making.
I personally don’t dispute it being more of an impeachable matter, BTW [and had posted that point earlier today]. But the Constitution says “qualify”; it does not say, “assume one is qualified”. That’s the only point I’m making.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”—July 27, 2009
[Post 184 is throught provoking BTW. It’s the best defense against certifigate I’ve read in a while, perhaps ever.]
Answering your question, I believe that each candidate is different. For example, each state has different policies [which evolve with technology] that makes proof of different aspects of one’s history investigated in different ways. I think it is the duty of a political party, of the senate, and of each state government to address every challenge as much as is neeeded prior to declaring a candidate being sworn in.
Since they did not insist on the simple solution of producing a long form birth certificate, our leaders created this problem. Evidence came out about a forged COLB, and that was not cleared up with the most obvious solution. Relatives and others are now quoted claiming he was born in Kenya. Was the obvious solution used? No. In fact, after all this time, even producing the birth certificate will continue to be less effective. Credibility is eroding more each passing month.
People are losing confidence in the entire system, and if you want to see a military coup one day, this is a good start. If our military continues to lose respect in our electorial system, they might one day do what all other military force would already have done by now — march on DC and hold our leaders at gun point. That concerns me. Just imagine if Obama were reelected! And imagine if he were followed by someone who slandered our fighting forces even more.
Proof read, fool.
To put it another way, our nation’s leaders calculated politically rather than truly attempting to make his eligibility indisputable. There’s nothing spurious about this controversy — it’s founded on rock solid reporting; it’s time tested. Our nation’s leaders failed us. You can blame the man on the street all you like. Who is supposed to be the leader who prevents the man on the street from being suspicious?
We had a president in the late 19th century who carried two nicknames for his entire term in office: “His fraudulency” and “Rutherfraud” B. Hayes! Doubt, suspicion and continual vetting goes with the territory of being president.
To put it another way, our nation’s leaders calculated politically rather than truly attempting to make his eligibility indisputable. There’s nothing spurious about this controversy — it’s founded on rock solid reporting; it’s time tested. Our nation’s leaders failed us. You can blame the man on the street all you like. Who is supposed to be the leader who prevents the man on the street from being suspicious?
It was fun discussing these issues with you but I’m moving on now.
“Doubt, suspicion and continual vetting goes with the territory of being president.”
Amen to that!
Karl Rove also admits that he’s imperfect. As a matter of fact, if Bush had been more courageous in following “conspiracy theories” about Chinagate and other major scandals [such as Sandy Berger, the Sloppy Sock Bandit], he was in a position to utterly destroy the DNC. He blew a golden opportunity by treating justice like a dog and putting justice on a short leash.
Karl Rove also admits that he’s imperfect. As a matter of fact, if Bush had been more courageous in following “conspiracy theories” about Chinagate and other major scandals [such as Sandy Berger, the Sloppy Sock Bandit], he was in a position to utterly destroy the DNC. He blew a golden opportunity by treating justice like a dog and putting justice on a short leash.
I can find no rational political reason why the Republican governor’s administration in Hawaii would risk their reputations and possibly their freedom if they were to be indicted to protect Barack Obama, a leftist Democrat.
If they are indeed covering for Obama for some unknown reason, you can bet that they have created records for him that say exactly what they need them to say. Governor Lingle plans on running for the US Senate.
I just don’t believe that they would go that far.
Haven’t you noticed that not one single conservative attorney who has ever actually argued a conservative issue before the Supreme Court of the United States has joined the Obama eligibility cause? There’s a reason that they stay away. Its the same for the conservative members of Congress. Not one of them has called for congressional hearings on Obama’s eligibility. There’s a reason for that too.
BO’s [missing] Kindergarten records would have included verification of his BC. And there’s more. Please note LucyT’s post 33:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2584059/posts?page=33#33
It’s damning as heck.
Here’s the research address:
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaEducation.htm#PreSchool
“I can find no rational political reason why the Republican governor’s administration in Hawaii would risk their reputations and possibly their freedom” [regarding certifigate].
Logical question. It only appears irrational IF you think academe’s ethics haven’t broken down.
We have had a kamizar system for a long time now.
If our leaders, intellectuals, and media did have ethics:
The reporting of Fatima [1917] would never have been buried. Every student would would be taught the miracle of Independence Day’s 50th Anniversary. Every student would be taught the miracle of George Washington, Bulletproof President. Every student would be taught about the miraculous storm that saved Washington DC in the War of 1812.
Laws are broken and shaped all the time not only to undermine our republic but also for kamizars. Otherwise, The image building of Algar Hiss would have been irrational. The failure to fully vindicate Whittaker Chambers in the press would have been irrational. The Fort Hood shooting would have been handled differently. I could go on and on about the illegal and improper ways investigations are rigged. What about the Anthrax Letters? Does anyone honestly think they weren’t Islamo-terror?
Letting Sandy Berglar off also would have been irrational. Failing to impeach Clinton over Chinagate would have been irrational. Judicial activism, such as Kelo, would have been irrational. Failing to hold a hearing on the strange death of Betty Currie’s brother would have been highly irrational.
Failing to dig up Ron Brown would have been irrational. The investigation of Vince Foster would have been irrational. Failing to impeach Clinton over the illegally obtained FBI files would have been irrational. The Gorelick Wall coverup would have been irrational. The court calling carbon dioxide a pollutant would be irrational. Carbon credits are irrational. Re-electing Cynthia McKinney and failing to lock her up would have been irrational. The coverup for Cold Cash William Jefferson [rat congressman from LA] would have been irrational.
Most of these coverups are never even mentioned by Republican congress critters. So your many quotes, while worth nothing, fail to impress a large percentage [and for good reason].
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.