Posted on 10/01/2010 10:41:23 AM PDT by STARWISE
How does this statement set with you, in terms
of reality, veracity and application to the
Founders’ documented intent for a Constitutional
potus for this brave new nation for which so many
had lost fortunes, suffered, bled, sacrificed,
and, in many cases, died?
~~~~~
“Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen to a British Subject/Citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and never intended to be one. Obama’s father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident.”
Question 1: Where is that requirement stated? Citation and/or link please.
Question 2: Where does it say that the question doesn’t have to be asked if no written objections were received? Citation and/or link please.
Since an awfully lot of powerful people who vouched for Obama's eligibility would be taken down with him, it's critical to them that the eligibility issue never be proven. My guess on the most likely scenario is that the Kenyan resigns or is otherwise removed from office for health reasons well before 2012. Biden takes over with no changes to any of the laws and appointments made by the usurper. The ruling class will all solemnly sign onto this to provide continuity during a time of national trauma.
When the government breaks a law, what can the normal everyday citizen do about it?
Kerchner is military. How could it be possible that military personnel would not have standing to sue the government for not giving them a lawful CINC?
People keep saying that the election was certified by Congress, but it wasn’t. Not legally. The law concerning how that was required to be done was not fulfilled. Congress did NOT give the US military members a lawful CINC, and Kerchner and any other military personnel should certainly have standing to sue.
If the line the judges were told to take is that McCain or Palin are the only people who would have “standing”, then McCain’s shushing of Palin takes on a whole different level of significance, and John McCain should be answering some very, very pointed questions.
If the line the judges were told to follow was to deny standing to anybody but McCain, then McCain is the critical person to the success of their plan. There are only a few people who would have to be threatened into submitting to the communist coup. Maybe they already knew McCain would never challenge. When the run on the bank happened, who exactly did McCain hear from about what was going on? He suspended his campaign to go back to DC. I would dearly love to see who all talked to him privately during that time.
Active duty members of the military are in the worst possible position to challenge the Commander-in-Chief due to the military chain of command.
Again, it didn’t have to be John McCain. Sarah Palin could have made a strong case for standing as the person who could become president in the event of infirmity or death of an aging Republican presidential candidate. Also the Republican National Committee on behalf of nearly 60 million average citizens who voted Republican could make a strong case for legal standing. The minute the election was held, Sarah Palin was a free entity, free to choose her own path. The Governor doesn’t strike me as a woman who is easily “shushed.” I believe that Governor Palin could have become a national conservative heroine (even more than she already is) by agreeing to become the lead plaintiff (along with scores of average citizens) in Obama eligibility class action lawsuits.
Standing is irrelevant on the criminal justice side of the judicial system. When laws of the land are broken by governmental officials, that is a crime, not the stuff of civil lawsuits. The chief election official in each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia is the person responsible for insuring that only eligible candidates appear on the ballot. In most states, that official is the Secretary of State.
As I would tend to agree.
My conspiratorial side believes this is an inside the beltway "known issue". So the issue is, survive two more years and shove obama aside; or pursue during his presidency and watch all hell break loose. I am of the latter mind set as of the past six weeks; its clear as day that both parties and numerous judges are 100% out of touch with American values and the American people. Their in self-preservation mode.
If the courts used the same line of BS that they used to refuse Alan Keyes standing, they could say that it was very unlikely that McCain would die leaving Palin as president - therefore it’s none of Palin’s business whether anybody got due process or whether the system screwed everybody.
You do realize that the rule of law is really just a big game of blackjack, don’t you?
It’s very unlikely that somebody not active duty would be called up so screw ‘em.
It’s likely that somebody active duty would be called up so screw ‘em.
The case can’t be tried until after the inauguration so screw everybody suing before the inauguration.
The case can’t be tried after the inauguration because it’s already a done deal so screw everybody suing after the inauguration.
Do you see the pattern? The only thing consistent about any of the reasoning is that they ALL say to America a big fat “SCREW YOU”.
I’ll say it again: I think there’s more to this story than meets the eye.
Alan Keyes was only on the ballot in three states and Judge Carter seriously contemplated granting him standing but since he was only on the ballot in so few states, had no chance of winning.
McCain-Palin got nearly 60 million votes.
A crusading, fearless, conservative prosecuting attorney is the way to go.
Your last question was EXCELLENT !!
Perhaps the 2 questions would drive the marxists into a dry heave vomit seisure.
I think they’ve been threatened with a financial panic if they didn’t give Soros’ puppet the keys to the kingdom - which he has been using to dismantle the nation ever since.
I think Cheney refused to ask the question in protest. I think the SCOTUS justices and eligibility judges have done bizarre and/or unlawful/unethical things as their way of protesting the actions they were forced to do and to let the country know something was wrong.
Nothing makes sense otherwise. But if this was the case, it makes sense how decent people who love this country would step aside without a peep. It also fits the headlines we saw when the electronic run on the bank took place that started this crisis, and it fits the things we heard Bush, Chavez, Castor, Ahmadinejad, and Kanjorski say about capitalism failing. It fits the Cloward-Piven Plan and the Chicago lawyer (Obama) who carried out 2 of the big legal planks of that plan. It fits his comments about supporting the Islamic agenda. It fits the threats Obama’s lawyers made to the media heads if they reported on the eligibility issue.
There are so many things that fall right into place if Obama is the communist-Islamist puppet to effect a coup from which America is never meant to recover.
There are connections that people before the election were saying were far-fetched, conspiratorial, and crazy. We would see, they said. Obama would be fine and everybody would see how crazy we were to wonder about the communist and terrorist connections Obama has had his entire life. Well, we have seen. We’ve seen the banks taken over, Chrysler taken over, the DOJ taken over, health care taken over, college loan industry taken over, Arizona reported to the UN, bills having to be passed before anybody can know what’s in them, terrorist attempts enabled by PC surveillance, etc.
I think a lot of people are feeling in their guts that something is definitely not right, and that we are facing a government hell-bent on destroying this nation’s foundations, economy, and people. Based on what we see, I don’t think that what I’m contemplating as the explanation for the bizarre behaviors tied to the eligibility issue is actually very extreme at all. I think it fits with what a lot of Americans are feeling in their guts as a result of just observing where this country is headed, and the utter lawlessness which we seem unable to change.
Something is very fundamentally wrong with what’s happening in this country. We all know that. I think if we look at the way that both the communists and Islamists have always said they would destroy this country we will see that’s exactly what they’ve done. We’re only in disbelief because we never took them seriously, just like we never took Bin Laden seriously until 9-11.
Don’t waste your time, butter. He’s indicated
he’s paid to be here.
Just bypass those posts.
The guy has a locker full of categorized
disputative arguments against any poster
or post theorizing on the possibilities for
remedying the massive despicable sham and
fraud that was foisted upon this land, with
obvious willing accomplices who have betrayed
us all and all that’s sacred.
He forgets that such an issue has NEVER
before been brought for adjudication in
this country, and that not he nor anyone
else has any certitude about the many complex
variables herein .. and that Edison failed
over a thousand times before he finally
successfully invented the lightbulb.
He just never gave up.
The truth is known, the road is long and hard,
trod by a few brave, determined, patriot souls,
the right formula uncertain until the one that
succeeds, and the truth will come out in time ...
it ALWAYS does. We pray mightily that it’s
sooner rather than later.
God bless and protect the seekers of truth.
Thank you for all your diligence, hard work
and refusal to give up.
Nebraska and Idaho State are playing in the BCS Championship Football game. Nebraska is winning with a score of 47-3 in the 4th quarter. Nebraska’s tight end catches the ball about 2 yards out of bounds, runs back onto the field and runs it all the way for a touchdown. The referees put their hands up, indicating a TD.
The Idaho State coach asks for the referees to check the instant replay.
The referees say, “You loser, there’s no way you can win this game so you can’t ask for a review.”
Is that cool with you? Why or why not?
Yeah, you’re right.
Most of the discussion on the boards aren’t really about convincing the people who are discussing. Usually the people discussing already have their minds made up. The discussion is mostly for the sake of people following along who might not have their mind made up yet.
Usually the arguments here are blatant enough that if a person is willing to see the truth they’ll be able to, and if they can’t see it already it’s probably because they’re not willing to.
But sometimes the arguments posted here can help people respond to the same points brought up in daily life by people who may not know any better.
And sometimes something the Obots say causes me to see a different angle that I can use for research. Jamese777 inadvertently showed me something that I want to research now. Something that can give me clues as to what actually happened and why.
Normally I do just bypass the posts, which is a more efficient thing to do. Sometimes I just have to fight back.
My house looks like it would be better for me to not waste my time right now though, so your advice is well-taken. =) My husband will thank you. lol
:)
Courtesy posting, since you mentioned
the name.
“So have a number of judges in the eligibility cases - ethics violations which they had to know would be obvious and could actually get them disbarred.”
Such as?
US Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#law
Counting electoral votes in congress
§ 15. Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors.
-snip-
Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.
-snip-
McCain was the worst candidate we could have had in such a circumstance, that’s for sure. But he wouldn’t even hit back on the stuff that he could have. Like gagging Palin when she brought up the terrorist ties that should have alarmed any patriot. It’s almost like he was told not to try to win it.
There was all the talk about needing the moderates, independents, undecideds, but he was wooing them and woefully failing in generating any enthusiasm. What lifted him out of the dung heap was when he chose Palin, because it energized conservatives. Trying to be Mr Nice Guy did nothing for him so it wasn’t politically expedient to gag her.
God knows he wasn’t too principled to hit Hayworth hard so why not Obama?
If McCain had even so much as allowed Palin to attack on Obama’s radical ties Obama still wouldn’t dare bring up the eligibility issue to use against McCain. So why wouldn’t he?
It just feels like there’s more to the story, especially given the submission by people who I think really do love this country. Dick Cheney? Clarence Thomas? Judge Carter? The argument the Obots have used is actually a valid one: Why have people who have spent a lifetime serving the country they love just rolled over on this issue? Of course, they try saying that it proves that the decisions made were right. It doesn’t. But the question itself is hard to answer, unless you believe they don’t really love their country. Or unless you believe they love their country but were forced to do the very thing they hate. In which case, they would probably draw a silly mustache on the whole scenario somehow so people would know they participated against their will.
I think that once Judge Carter had acted like he took the issue seriously, somebody had a talk with him and he knew his decision was going to have to stink, and that’s why he hired a clerk from Perkins-Coie before giving the stinky, 180-degree-turned-around decision he gave. It caused people to immediately say that something stunk about that whole situation - and to wonder why a man whose reputation was that of being fair and patriotic had switched personalities and stances so radically shortly after making an unethical hiring decision. It’s like he was willing to present himself as an unethical villain if that would scream to the world that something was wrong. The ethics violation could also possibly be a way to reverse the decision he felt he had to give.
I don’t know. I’m still mulling it over. But there are so many things that don’t add up. If it was just the Republican Party I’d probably chalk it up to the good ol’ boy system, you cover my axx and I’ll cover yours. But I don’t think that explains Cheney, Thomas, or Judge Carter, for instance.
Thank you. It says the objections are to be written but never says that they had to be submitted beforehand. Anybody in that room could have come forward with a written objection if Cheney had asked the question.
He didn’t.
The requirement of the law was never fulfilled for Barack Hussein Obama. Congress never LAWFULLY certified the electoral vote, because Cheney didn’t ask the question as required by law.
Thanks STARWISE.
: )
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.