Posted on 01/12/2009 5:34:10 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
The highest justice official in the land will knowingly use Abraham Lincoln's personal bible to stand before the world and swear in a President who is entirely unqualified for the position...
Has Chief Justice Roberts considered the full implications of the action he will take on January 20, 2009?
At this moment in history, one man has the power to stop this monumental fraud and uphold the Constitution. That man is Chief Justice John Roberts. He can and should refuse to swear Obama into office until such time that he has delivered proof of his compliance with Article II Section I, which he has thus far spent a million dollars in legal fees refusing to do.
But if you expect Roberts to do it, you had better think again...
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com ...
Like who?
"You should do your homework, because you are making a fool of yourself at present."
Once again, I have. It doesn't support the claims you are accepting. You may think I'm a fool for disagreeing with you, but I have a higher standard.
"Obama has NOT delivered his official birth records and congress has issued no formal position on the matter concerning Obama, even though suits are pending on the matter."
The Obama campaign did provide a public copy of his birth certificate. He may have also provided it to states that required it. Nobody really knows.
"McCain did not spend a million bucks running from the question. But Obama has..."
Your evidence for this is?
"You are making a fool of yourself spouting off without doing the homework."
Telling the truth is not foolish. Homework is not just repeating what you've seen other people post.
Generally with their own sources. Legal cites that don't say what they claim. Agency web sites that don't say what they claim, etc.
It doesn't have to be the "long form". It is a legal birth certificate and is proof of time and place of birth.
People were saying, show us the birth certificate! Then he did and people were saying, no, not that one, the other one! It's a moving target.
"Some Hawaii state agencies do not accept the “Certification of Live Birth” as irrefutable verification of Hawaiian birth."
Not true. The site you are quoting, and that everyone else making this claim has quoted, is for a specfic program relating to land homesteading for people with Hawaiian ancestry. The requirements of that program are specific to that program. It needs more than a birth certificate because the applicant needs to prove ancestry, not just Hawaiian birth. It does not indicate that the state of Hawaii has an issue with accepting its own birth certificates.
This is one of those things I'm talking about where the claims don't check out when you read their own sources.
One of your best dittys - o’ poetess laurate of FR.
(The Platters?)
“You may think I’m a fool for disagreeing with you, but I have a higher standard.”
You are not a fool for disagreeing. You are a fool for refusing to do your own homework.
And the fact that you have wasted so much time defending Obama on this thread proves only that you have the lowest of standards...
Provide the links you used to check out these claims please...
“This is one of those things I’m talking about where the claims don’t check out when you read their own sources.”
You are making the case against your own arguments here.
Once again, understand this. I have done the homework and it doesn't support the claims you accept. It is you that needs to do the homework.
I'm not defending Obama. I'm telling you what the truth is. Truth matters, no matter who is president.
The target does not move after producing the orginal long form Certificate of Live Birth. So why does he protest?
The requirements of that program are specific to that program.
And the requirements explicitly stated in the Constitution of the United States of America are very specific. And they require more information other than the "time and place" as provided by Obama on a computer generated print out reproduced on a web site.
I hardly think so.
Besides, what exactly have you presented? You don't even back up that comment. Come on, if you are going to express an opinion, support it.
Has he? Where?
"And the requirements explicitly stated in the Constitution of the United States of America are very specific. And they require more information other than the "time and place" as provided by Obama on a computer generated print out reproduced on a web site."
Time and place do meet the constitutional requirements, if time is more than 35 years ago and place is somewhere that confers US citizenship.
"And the requirements explicitly stated in the Constitution of the United States of America are very specific..."
This is an evasion. We were talking about the assertion that Hawaii doesn't accept its own birth certificates. But the very site offered to prove that assertion, disproves it. That's what I pointed out. Rather than evade that, you should acknowledge it and admit someone had misled you.
Prove that statement!
Has he? Where?
Well I guess hiring a team of lawyers to defend him from having to produce the original would answer both questions.
Prove what? What do you dispute? The constitution requires a president to be 35 years old and a natural born citizen. A birth certificate can prove both points.
"Well I guess hiring a team of lawyers to defend him from having to produce the original would answer both questions."
I'm not aware of his having done this. None of the suits actually name him as a defendent, and as far as I'm aware he's never filed a brief in any of the cases. So again, where is the evidence for this? Is there any, or are you just repeating what you've seen other people post?
Your argument is laughable! You are evading the what is explicit in the U.S. Constitution and it is not misleading.
Yep, the song was originally released in 1955 by The Platters. Their rendition of the song is rather unique and makes for enjoyable listening. The record reached the #1 "hit song" spot in 1956.
This famous composition should definitely be designated by Obama as his official Inaugural Song.
If not by the usurper himself, then by us.
Leni
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, :
Plaintiff
:vs.
CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, :
Defendants
:ORDER
ON DEFENDANT’S, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
And the fact that you have wasted so much time defending Obama on this thread proves only that you have the lowest of standards...
*********
ding ding ding, we have a winner!
Anyone here on FR have the ability to get these lyrics - see post #46 - prepared for The One’s big day, sent to RUSH? It is such a perfect fit!
Anyone here on FR have the ability to get these lyrics - see post #46 - prepared for The One’s big day, sent to RUSH? It is such a perfect fit!
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.