Posted on 06/05/2010 6:49:06 PM PDT by Red Steel
Michael Savage says Obama is a Usurper, questions Military on Obama's eligibility, Got Citizen Parents!?
Dr. Savage hit the nail on the head, once again. Declares Obama a Usurper due to Obama's father being a British subject at the time of Obama's birth, therefore not eligible to be POTUS. Also questions the Military on the dangers of having an ineligible Commander in Chief with dual allegiance.
Mentions the millions that want this issue resolved. Savage then hits a double by smacking the "90% of liberal American Jews" that voted for this fraud named Obama aka Soetoro.
Below is the audio uploaded to Youtube, Savage touches on it in the beginning and about 3 minutes in. Full show recorded on 6/4/10 located here; http://ConservativeReview.us
Contact your Elected official(s) and demand they act now, here; http://conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm
The Office of Congressional Ethics accepts allegations and details of misbehavior from the public in a section allowing for "public input" about members of Congress. It also gives an e-mail option for information that comes from the public. Send your complaint(s) about your reps inactions today by going here; http://oce.house.gov/public-input.html
If you wish, contact LTC Daniel J. Driscoll, Investigating Officer in the LTC Lakin court-martial hearing. LTC Driscoll feels LTC Lakin does not have the right to evidence to prove his innocence. Let LTC Driscoll know that LTC Lakin deserves a fair proceeding and access to ALL records to prove his innocence; driscoll@amedd.army.mil
Well, I am busy. Worked 37 hours in the last three days.
Where do you find the official version of God’s laws and those of nature?
http://books.google.com/books?id=-Yo0AAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=lIs0AAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q&f=false
A question deeply interesting to the American States now presents itself. Should the elements of a law education, particularly as it respects public law, be drawn entirely from another country—or should they be drawn, in part, at least, from the constitutions and governments and laws of the United States, and of the several States composing the Union ?
The subject, to one standing where I stand, is not without its delicacy: let me, however, treat it with the decent but firm freedom, which befits an independent citizen, and a professor in independent states.
Surely I am justified in saying, that the principles of the constitutions and governments and laws of the United States, and the republics, of which they are formed, are materially different from the principles of the constitution and government and laws of England; for that is the only country, from the principles of whose constitution and government and laws, it will be contended, that the elements of a law education ought to be drawn. I presume to go further: the principles of our constitutions and governments and laws are materially better than the principles of the constitution and government and laws of England...
States are moral persons, who live together in a natural society, under the law of nations. To give a state a right to make an immediate figure in the great society of nations, it is sufficient, if it be really sovereign and independent; that is, it must govern itself by its own authority.* Thus, when the United Colonies found it necessary to dissolve the political bonds, which had connected them with Great Britain, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station, to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them ; they had a right to publish and declare, as, in fact, they did publish and declare, that “ they were free and independent states ; and that, as free and independent states, they had full power to levy war, to conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do ajl other acts and things, which independent states may of right do j” though, at that time, no articles of confederation were agreed upon; nor was any form of civil government instituted by them...
By Sir William Blackstone, from whose Commentaries, a performance in many respects highly valuable, the elements of a foreign law education would probably be borrowed—by Sir William Blackstone,. this great and fundamental principle is treated as a political chimera, existing only in the minds of some theorists-; but, in practice, inconsistent with the dispensation of any government upon earth.
http://books.google.com/books?id=l24DAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q&f=false
According to our traditions, he cannot be a "Natural Born Citizen" because his father was not a citizen. The Constitution quite clearly lays out the citizenship requirements for every office, making the Presidency a very special case.
The framers neglected to put in much of an enforcing system for this requirement, never dreaming someone would try THIS! However, those states Attorneys General, The Electoral College, and the Chief Justice have placed the man firmly in office as the de facto President, so whether he WAS qualified is now a moot point.
If the Federal District Court of DC delivers the Writ of Quo Warranto, and his eligibility is denied by the next level, i.e., The SCOTUS, Obama might be impeached and convicted, Then again he might not. The Constitution Team Obama has attacked now, ironically, protects them! Only Congress can remove a sitting President, whether eligible or not. Conviction requires a unanimous vote in the Senate.
The point is, we'll have our definition, and this sort of anti-constitutional coup will not stand. He will not be able to run again and his socialist agenda will be discredited ... and perhaps, if (A BIG IF) the Republicans have the gumption and savvy ... the damage already done can be rolled back.
Personally, I believe the Socialist Plan is to sneak out of DC and let the Republicans shoulder the responsibility and the blame for the coming decade of economic chaos, i.e., Depression. If I can figure out that the Republicans have no program, no plan, no leader and no clue, so can they.
The Constitution does make a very special case for the President. It (unfortunately) doesn't clearly lay out the definition of "natural born citizen."
Does it mean born in the US to a citizen father and mother as you presumably believe? Or is it just another way of saying "native born citizen" or "citizen at birth," as I believe and as at least one Supreme Court decision strongly implies?
No matter how many times you make the claim, the term just is not self-explanatory.
The top military people love this clown.
True, and as it should be. I certainly don't want courts overturning elections based on penumbras and emanations that exist only in the pointy little heads.
Conviction requires a unanimous vote in the Senate.
Nope. Just 2/3 majority, which is almost equally impossible to achieve.
You are also correct about the ambiguities present in the "Natural Born Citizen" issue. That is precisely why I am supporting the quest for the Writ of Quo Warranto, and the appeal of it by either side to the SCOTUS. This confusion ... no matter who is correct ... has the effect of weakening the Presidency.
IMNSHO, the issue is clear enough. Natural Born Citizen is not a superior status to any other kind of citizen, but a qualification for one office: POTUS. Down at Subway, a Tuna Fish Hoagie is not superior to an Italian Deli Hoagie. Both are Subway sandwiches, but not the same.
Based on my read, I, along with several million of my fellow citizens, believe an Natural Born citizen is someone born to TWO (2) American Citizens. Chester Arthur lied about it. Charles Evans Hughes was disqualified for it. I anxiously await the decision of the appropriate courts. I hope I ain't goin' to be buying after it comes down, which I believe will be well after the present ineligible recumbent de facto POTUS leaves public housing.
BTW, I am watching the speech and the miserable commie SOB has finally learned to use a straight ahead Teleprompter. WOW! If he's looking for an ass to kick, permit me to suggest that it's the one the lazy, indept, lying son of a drunken foreign bigamist is sitting on.(SODFB)
I also support any legal action that will force the Supreme Court to define the term. Providing interpretation of the meaning of ambiguous terms in the Constitution is exactly the role the Supremes should play.
If they were to rule that you are correct, which I think highly unlikely, it would be extremely interesting to see how Congress would react to an admittedly unqualified president in office, in obvious violation of the Constitution.
BTW, I’d also be fine with an amendment that would clarify the situation by making naturalized citizens eligible to be president, after perhaps 20 or 25 years as a citizen. It seems perfectly clear to me that there are numerous indisputably “natural born citizens” who are anti-American, and many naturalized citizens who are patriots.
Absolutely true, and completely beside the point.
if an amendment were offered and ratified, I would have absolutely no qualms bout opening elgibility to Native-Born, Naturalized, or Dual Citizens.
Amendment first. in re: interpretation of the meaning of ambiguous terms
(1) These terms were perhaps vague in terms of asceraining the qualification, but not all that "ambiguous" until turned into a loophole by Team Obama and a complaisant Congress. I theorize that fear of "urban unrest" was the driving factor.
(2) I definitely would not place Mr. Obama on the "Patriot" team, as his policies seem deliberately designed to weaken the USA. He is NOT well-intentioned, rather he seems dead set on creating chaos.
Your point of view may sadly yet carry the day, because as the Writ of Quo Warranto process winds on, he will soon have a SCOTUS composed of something like Lula, Morales, Chavez. Sotomayor, and Raoul Castro, with Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas probably starring on "Survivor." IOW, a court that would sanction marriage bewteen Lassie, RinTinTin, Hans the Wonder Horse, and a utility homo yet to be named, will do anything Obama wants.
But as modern people say, "Why so negative?" And they are correct. What we need now is to stop belaboring the obvious and motivate the other party to shape up and ship out the most preposterous President in American history in 2012, and in the meantime to come up with a Program, a Plan, A Leader, and Some Clue as how to stymie this ruinous regime. Despite all the hoopla on this site and elsewhere about the coming "GOP Takeover" in 2010, I see no evidence of any of that. Yet. But why so negative? There's a whole three and half months to the elections!
In re "Our difference of opinion" on who's a Natural Born Citizen" and who ain't: The VFW in Livermore Falls could make a fortune because if I am wrong, I am buying. And I hope you ain't one of those fellows who believes that the child of illegal aliens is also a "Natural Born Citizen." Although I will not deny that it is a popular theory ... which tends to make me weep uncontrollably.
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.