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 ...
I think that's coming from you.
BS. Truth is exactly what I'm putting up with all the harrasment to try to share some reality.
And they would not have found anything to convince them.
(I'm ignoring the idea that the Supreme Court decides cases by doing web surfing.)
Thank G*D for that!
You just don't get it, do you?
One more time for those on the short bus:
Obama is obliged to produced proof that he is legally qualified. Lemme repeat that for the truly challenged:
Obama is obliged to produce proof that he is legally qualified. Now go home and meditate on that for a while.
Until and unless a court or relevant government agency requires Obama to present anything more than he has already done, I can guaranty he will not do so.
That's the problem for people who claim that he needs to show more- he can simply say "no" and unless someone with the power to do so forces the issue, this will go nowhere.
I do. I'm wondering about a lot of other people.
You took the statement out of its context. The poster asked whether the Chief Justice would *knowingly* swear in an imposter.
You see, he couldn't do it knowingly if he wasn't convinced of the proposition. Since nobody has proved it, he wouldn't be convinced. It had nothing to do with Obama's obligations.
Really? Legally obliged? Please cite the federal statute and/or any enabling legislation. (The constitution is not a statute.)
Wanna run for president? Great. Sign up here and present a proper birth certificate. Good luck! Next!
Looks like the person to present your proof to is the one who will administer the oath of office to the winner.
Simple enough. All else is obfuscation.
I doubt if there is a judge alive who is not totally familiar with Obammy's reluctance to produce a bona fide certificate of live birth. Therefore, that's all the judges have to know -- the fact that Obammy was not qualified because he failed to produce the required birth certificate. Knowing that, there is no good reason to administer the oath of office to someone with no valid documentation.
Like I said, the onus is on Obammy for not producing documentation -- not on anyone else for not proving Obammy wasn't fit to hold office. It's no one else's job except Obammy to produce or go away. Doesn't take a whiz kid to figure this out.
She was born in Kansas to parents who were U.S. citizens. Last time I checked, that makes someone a natural born citizen.
That's not the original - it's a copy. Some states have made such documents available on line so one does not have to pay the fees associated with having them mail you a copy.
And if a court compelled you to present one and you did not have one that is exactly what you would be required to do.
Where is the law that states that a document obtained via the web as I have indicated above is not accepted by the court?
It is most certainly the obligation of Obama to prove his eligiblity.
You may not accept the proof Obama has provided, but good luck getting the court to agree with you. I just don't see it happening.
HaHaHaaaa! Try to pass that off as an original BC and see how far you get without the raised seal and an original signature.
Well of course the BC you get from the State is a copy but it is a certified copy with the proper official signatures and the official raised seal of that State.
Apparently, English is not your native language. I never said a document off the internet would pass as an original. I asked you to provide the law that states that a judge cannot accept such a document to fulfill a request. Obviously, you cannot point to any such law.
Has it occurred to you yet what could ensue if a man is sworn in who is in fact not Constitutionally eligible to act as commander-in-chief, has fraudulently achieved the position of president, and who has acted as president illegally with regard to military orders and executive order to institutions such as the FBI and CIA? The agents ordered to carry out specific acts, ordered from an illegitimate CIC, quite possibly will be liable, individually.
The legal cases generated by such actions will all be thrown out of courts upon appeal, and may in fact open the agents acting for the federal interests to lawsuits of a punitive nature ... it is also an obscenity to me that my Constitutional contract with the federal governmental branches will have been abrogated by swearing in a man who has not shown Constitutional eligibility when called upon to do so, if and when the affirmative action fraud is found to have been lying and ineligible.
Even feckless McCain promptly provided the long form documents of his birth origins when called upon to do so. If Obama is your choice for POTUS, I can see why you would not want him to be as forthright as the wimpy McCain. I cannot fathom why you would allow such a fraud as Obama to place members of the military, FBI, and CIA in a compromised position.
Please tell me one situation where a computer generated, short form birth certificate is not sufficient evidence of birth. My children have only been issued short form computer generated BCs and they have been accepted for passports, drivers’ licenses, and college admission/financial aid. I know of no situation where a long form vault copy of a birth certificate is required. If you know of one, please let me know.
Please tell me one situation where a computer generated, short form birth certificate is not sufficient evidence of birth. My children have only been issued short form computer generated BCs and they have been accepted for passports, drivers’ licenses, and college admission/financial aid. I know of no situation where a long form vault copy of a birth certificate is required. If you know of one, please let me know.
The article said — “At this moment in history, one man has the power to stop this monumental fraud and uphold the Constitution.”
Well, I disagree with the choice of the “one man” that they are talking about. I do think that there *is* — definitely — “one man” who does have the power and the ability to stop any kind of violation of the Constitutional requirements for the office of President of the United States — and who is *sworn* by his official duties to uphold that same Constitution.
That one man is President George Bush.
He has the power and the ability to not merely *know* all the facts, by mere commanding it from the Office of the President (having many agencies at his disposal, plus all sorts of covert ops at his disposal, plus secret agencies at his disposal) — he also has the *power* to put a complete stop to it, if there is a violation of the Constitutional requirements for office of the President of the United States.
But, by the fact that he is not doing so and will not do so — brings me to one of two possible positions — he refuses to do so, because he knows there’s not an issue with the Constitutional requirements (i.e., Obama is qualified), or he is “conspiring” with those who want to put Obama in office and will ignore the qualifications issue (i.e., Obama is not qualified).
Now, it’s possible that some may argue that Bush may not “know”, but that’s sort of ridiculous since it’s been to the Supreme Court and it would be saying that Bush doesn’t know what the Supreme Court is deciding on... LOL...
Maybe one might say that Bush doesn’t want to know, so he’s ignoring it. But, that’s saying that he’s intentionally ignoring his Constitutional duties. I suppose some may say that’s true. And if that’s true, then I put that in the “conspiracy area”, up above, that I just mentioned.
Of those possibilities, I would say that Bush obviously knows (and has the full power of the government, secretly and not secretly, to *know* without a doubt) that Obama is qualified under the Constitution.
I guess there are others, here — however — that will say Bush is involved in the conspiracy. Well, there is Berg, who also says that Bush is involved in the conspiracy involving the attack on 9/11, since Berg says that in his 9/11 Truther case...
They are not only wrong...in fact they are attempting to over-turn an election...This is certainly unconstitutional. I don’t like the result-President Obama. However, we lost and they won...better luck next time.
The law is the law. Obama must provide proof that he is a natural born American citizen to be eligible for the Presidency. I don’t believe that he is. Someone with authority needs to stand-up to this issue.
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.