Posted on 09/25/2009 10:05:29 PM PDT by pissant
When I first became aware that the Democratic National Committee prepared, signed and notarized two slightly different Certification of Nomination documents for the Obama-Biden ticket in the 2008 election, I was shocked and after verifying both documents as real, I wrote about it in The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie released on September 10, 2009.
The question was obvious – Why TWO different DNC Obama certification documents, and why did one have proper certification of constitutional eligibility in it, while the other had that certification deleted?
The Obama camp had been using the defense that the DNC had properly vetted and certified Obama’s eligibility for months. Judge after judge had used that claim and the fact that Obama’s COLB (Certification of Live Birth) had been “Snoped – FactChecked – blogged and twittered” as “legal proof” that Obama was eligible for office, despite the very real fact that Obama has never released any authenticated proof on the subject.
Then we find out that the DNC did NOT certify Obama as eligible under Article II – Section I of the Constitution, in 49 of 50 states. The DNC had only filed such certification in the state of Hawaii, Obama’s alleged birth place. The other 49 states received a Certification of Nomination which did NOT certify Obama as constitutionally eligible for office.
This story caused a firestorm of interest, comment and speculation across the web, leading Bob Unruh at World Net Daily to ask, What does Pelosi know about Obama’s eligibility?
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Bump for later.
Ten pounds of dangling meat and enough hair for an Indian blanket and you call me "BOY"?
Regards,
GtG
I do not believe he was eligible, but I am at the point where I realize that the powers that be are never going to let him be removed from office.
2010 we MUST take back Congress.
2012 we must take back the White House and PRAY we can fix the crap BHO has done.
In the end, I think those slandered and dismissed as ‘birthers’ have a very good chance of being vindicated, and those who slandered them for asking questions, will be the ones forever relegated to the category of being ‘useful idots’ for Obama.
When all is said and done, this isn’t going to be pretty.
It requires 2/3rd of both the House and the Senate to submit an amendment for ratification.
2/3rd of the state legislatures can make a call for a Constitutional convention, but any proposals still have to be ratified by 3/4th of the states.
Different Strokes. It’s a joke. Get over it.
More to the point, you said “WE are going down.”
Maybe YOU will go down. I do not intend to. THAT is the point.
If there is any way, no matter how slight the chance, that this lawsuit can come to a favorable conclusion for this country, lawfully, peacefully, and without bloodshed, then I will ride it out until every single option under heaven has been exhausted.
Because failing that, I don’t like the thought of what is coming. The democrats under obama are conspiring to render the Constitution null and void.
If you have been paying attention, it is looking more and more as if they do not intend to abide by the Will of the People, and the only reason I can think of for why they are so disdainful of us as a whole, is that they do not intend to give up their power willingly. And THAT cannot stand.
mark 52
PS: I have a lot of hair myself. Last year, I let them cut it to make wigs for women whose hair had fallen out from chemotherapy. You might give that a thought.
It’s mostly all grown back now. I sit on it sometimes and give myself whiplash.
Intriguingly, it has recently become more difficult to go through someone’s posting history. We used to be able to go back several years. But now, it’s only one page worth and it slips over to what articles were posted by that FReeper.
Where have we read this motive before?
From our resident troll NS.
Gee, makes me wish for Michael Rivero again and his merry clowns. ;^)
Either they’re the same person, or they’re typing from the same script.
Really?? I’ve actually checked about 10 peoples’ posting history in the last week or so but only went to the first page. That’s terrible - we should be able to check back in time!
I did notice that a lot of the people who were very suspect had very checked posting history - gaps of months or even years on the first page.
That name didn’t ring a bell. Looks like I didn’t miss anything of worth...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/602065/posts
To: Republican_Strategist
He has been nailed over and over and over and over and over again on FreeRepublic and on the Internet and on Usenet ad infinitum. The guy is King Troll of Troll Land and a nut to boot.
7 posted on Friday, January 04, 2002 11:47:35 PM by this_ol_patriot
“Your view is important to us and to the country. However, for the moment it appears you may represent the view of a minority of the officer corps.”
I am NOT active duty. However, the discussions I have privately conducted with regulars have all surprised me at how little thought they give to this. It is a non-issue to them...they are more concerned about deployment, their troops, family, etc. than who is the POTUS and is he qualified to be so or not. So, I am the “minority”, but not as you imply. I am the minority that has actually given this matter thought. Actually, amoung the active duty officers I associate with....the issue is not discussed or given much thought....they don’t have the time or inclination. If they do, they are very careful to keep their opinions to themselves. The military must remain neutral. We are not some free militia...we are a standing army and must maintain discipline in the ranks and in ourselves.
If Major Cook and Captain Rhoades had been successful, I would be very glad. It would have forced POTUS Obama to come clean on his records and forced the Congress to deal with it. However, if congress failed to act....the same situation remains....I cannot for my oath of office and the authority of my commission does not include removing a POTUS from office.
I cannot nor will I participate in any action contrary to the U.S. Constitution. No where in that document does it gives officers of the armed forces the responsiblity/authority to remove a POTUS declared ineligible by the SCOTUS. Even IF a sitting POTUS obtained office by fraud....then it is still the proper proceedure under the constitution for the Congress to impeach that person in the House and try and convict him/her in the Senate. At that point, his/her authority as CINC ends. Now should the sitting POTUS attempt to use the military to stop Congress from properly impeaching and trying him/her then the situation changes. I would refuse any such issued order because they would be unlawful.
Whatever, as this speculation is not fruitful and as I previously wrote....it could be construed as attempts to sow seeds of mutiny and sedition in the Armed Forces. It is best to leave the military out of your discussions and speculation.
Also, I think many here don’t grasp how limited a “commission” is in scope. It can be given and the stroke of a pen and removed just as easily.
btt
The oath you swore, just as I did, many times over, is to the CONSTITUTION (and thus to the People, the bedrock of its authority), NOT to the government, the President (though you did swear to obey his LAWFUL/CONSTITUTIONAL orders), SCOTUS or the Congress. If competent authority (SCOTUS) says the “man” is a usurper, that, in my mind, is enough to act on. ESPECIALLY so if the Congress refuses to act in that situation.
I’m going to stand by with 12 gauge rifled slugs. That is all.
“The oath you swore, just as I did, many times over, is to the CONSTITUTION (and thus to the People, the bedrock of its authority), NOT to the government, the President (though you did swear to obey his LAWFUL/CONSTITUTIONAL orders), SCOTUS or the Congress. If competent authority (SCOTUS) says the “man” is a usurper, that, in my mind, is enough to act on. ESPECIALLY so if the Congress refuses to act in that situation.”
This is the oath I took (the POTUS is NOT mentioned):
“I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
If you want to see the actually form, it can be found at:
www.maaf.info/regs/ArmyForm71v1999.pdf
Don’t attempt to tell me what my oath means. The Founding Fathers were afraid of a large standing army because of fear of them acting as they see fit. I WILL NOT betray that trust. The CONSTITUTION does not authorize the military to remove a POTUS.
You speak of duty to the people....I agree. However, the people DO NOT pick the SCOTUS they elect the Congress. Therefore, it must be the congress that acts. If the Congress doesn’t act, then the people act by removing individual Congressmen. As I have repeatedly told persons on this thread...it is not the place of the military to overthrow a POTUS.....even if the SCOTUS rules against him/her. The congress must act, then the process proceeds. Anything else is inciting mutiny and sedition in the Armed Forces and cannot be allowed to continue.
I “personally” do not think that Mr. B.H. Obama is constitutionally qualified to sit as POTUS. However, I have to rely on the courts in conjunction with the legislative branch to deal with this issue (or the election process). It should NEVER be mentioned that there is EVER a military option. We are not a banana republic.
In response to my #160, you stated:
“Now should the sitting POTUS attempt to use the military to stop Congress from properly impeaching and trying him/her then the situation changes. I would refuse any such issued order because they would be unlawful.”
Thank you.
There could be a number of variations to the event, but the view you express is exactly the extent of what most on this board would want and expect of the military, and no more.
Further, I submit such view more accurately describes the view of the majority of the officer corps.
Which may be why O and Rahm have expounded on the need for a Civilian National Security Force.
In which event, other Civilians will defend the Constitution.
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.