Posted on 02/26/2009 1:15:06 PM PST by jackofhearts
I have it on impeccable authority but cannot disclose my source within the Fox Network. Rest assured that Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdock are sitting on the Obama eligibility/birth certficate story. Everyone else wants to jump all over it, including Sean Hannity.
I say storm the Ailes/Murdock fax machine/email servers--let them know (politely) we need this issue thoroughly.
Maybe someone has the email/fax numbers?
You said — “Carry on! (You must be paid by the word...)”
And there you have it... more evidence of the “conspiracy-minded” — “paid by the word”, as if one cannot have their own opinions.
But, of course, this “paid by the word” — only applies to those who disagree with the Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd (not to one of their own...).
:-)
also see 121
Are you on Prozac or any other anti-depressant drug? Your posts reminds me of Helter skelter.
You said — “No one can show proof of anything but Obama. How would you suggest I prove the allegations when the person committing the fraud is refusing to allow access to the records? I have seen this simple straightforward question presented to you before and yet, you either ignore it or don’t understand the simple logic behind it.”
Any court could order the document if they wanted to, if shown that it was required by law. But, they don’t. That’s because there’s not a requirement, in law, for a person to do so and we see that this is true from past candidates. So — *that* — is the loophole in the system.
In other words, the vetting system *is defective* and it has to be corrected. And once the *law* is there that requires the documentation to be *show* and the qualifications to be *proven* that way — it will be done.
It should be *so, so obvious* that if this were something that a court saw that it was legally required — they would take care of it in about two seconds.
—
You said — “Any of the governmental bodies I mentioned had the authority to call for his qualifications. None has done so, to date and thus we are left with the constitution just being a meaningless piece of paper.”
No, the Constitution is no more meaningless than it was after the 21st President of the United States was shown to be not qualified for office. If that were the case (that it is “meaningless” after such a thing happens) then it happened as a result of the 21st President of the United States not being qualified for Office of the President of the United States (proven by Leo Donofrio on his website).
So, no, the Constitution is still as effective as it ever was...
—
And lastly you said — “In the real world we expect the truth. You chose to fight against that call. That’s almost as disturbing as the fraud itself.”
But, are not the “courts” in the real world? And are not the judges in the real world. And are not the Electoral College Voters in the real world. And is not Vice President Cheney in the real world? ... and so on, down the line.
You see, it’s not just *me* — but you go down the line to courts, judges, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the certification process in the Congress, Vice President Cheney, even President Bush (who was President and had the power to “do something” if he wanted to).
After you see *all of those people* doing exactly what they did (and not according to what you or others may have demanded) — then one has to ask “what else is going on?”
The answer is that there is a “loophole” in the vetting process that did not *legally require* this to be done. And that’s why I support the process of legislation that is going on in Oklahoma and Arizona right now to *legally require* the showing of specific documentation for any candidate for office.
A wise man once explained to me the importance of this site and the amount of connected folks that frequent it.
The ones who don’t realize the seriousness of the task here put the true purpose of freerepublic at risk. To “Zot” them is a fate far too kind.
You said — “Are you on Prozac or any other anti-depressant drug? Your posts reminds me of Helter skelter.”
LOL..., okay, it’s being a troll, an Obot, a liberal, voted for Obama, and “on Prozac” and “anti-depressent drugs”...
Boy, those of the Obama Derangement Syndrome people *really really try* — don’t they....
—
It is *very instructive* that the only kind of disagreement that can be “fathomed” in the mind of this type of person is *only* if someone is a liberal, an Obot, or a troll or mentally disturbed and on drugs.
Very interesting that this “kind” cannot accept conservatives with different ideas than their own...
So many trolls...so little time.
It is illogical, assinine, ridiculous, illogical, and supports fraud to say that there are qualifications for president but the people who approve the candidate for the ballot, the people in the electoral college and the congress have no responsibility to require the candidate produce the qualifications.
With no proof, the constitution is just an old piece of paper and a person can commit fraud and be elected. Worse, sedition and treason can be committed if the founder's fears regarding this qualification come true.
Any secretary of state, supreme court justice or member of congress could have done this. None had the courage or the political will.
Not to mention that he never legitimately took the oath anyways.
Granted, one brave Senator and one brave Representative could have done more good than dozens of lawsuits if they would have challenged the electoral votes for Obama in every state he won, due to the fact that he was born in Kenya.
I saw it after I wrote my lengthy response to the others.
I'm feeling a bit neglected, since I was diagnosed on this thread with Obama Derangement Syndrome, and yet my response has gone totally ignored by the key parties.
I can only assume that it was irrefutable.
-PJ
Impeachment by the House and Conviction by the Senate...
Now, how do you convince a party member to impeach one of his/her own, if you can’t get a copy of the document that might prove that it is a necessary measure based on the Constitution?
You said — “I’m only commentiong on your first point because I believe you are fanatically fighting to avoid the truth being produced for some reason and I don’t want to stay around until you have an epiphany.”
I wasn’t fighting against producing the documentation. You can go back and search out my posts prior to the election. You’ll find that I wanted the documentation to be produced. So, you’re wrong there. It’s a long ways back, but my posts *are there* and they were asking for that very documentation that you’re talking about.
So, right off the bat, you’ve stated something that is untrue — in that I’m “fanatically fighting to avoid the truth being produced”...
What I am saying is that — I found out that there is no legal requirement to produce that specific documentation, after I asked for it to be produced.
Do you see the difference between the two?
I’m hoping so, because I’m giving you the *explanation* of *why* it was never produced. That’s not saying that I did *not* want it produced. It seems that people can’t pick up on these kinds of distinctions...
AND THEREFORE, once I found out that there is no legal requirement to *produce specific documentation* and that all the candidates ever did before (and in the present) was to sign statements that they are qualified — I found out that this meant that there was a *big loophole* in the system.
And it’s the existence of this *big loophole* in the system that requires the legislation be passed in the states requiring this specific kind of documentation be produced.
I really don’t know why people cannot “get it” when I explain this...
—
And then you said — “It is illogical, assinine, ridiculous, illogical, and supports fraud to say that there are qualifications for president but the people who approve the candidate for the ballot, the people in the electoral college and the congress have no responsibility to require the candidate produce the qualifications.”
Well, apparently this has been going on for a very long time. They haven’t made it a requirement for specific documentation before. What can I say? No one ever bothered for some reason. I didn’t know that and apparently neither did the posters here know that. Now we know...
Well, that’s the mechanism and you asked “how”. That’s how.
You could also ask how you get a court to require specific documentation be produced for proving the qualifications for office, when that specific kind of documentation has never been required before, and only signed statements have been used before. Apparently the courts can’t get it done either...
And that’s why I said that there needs to be legislation enacted in the states that require *specific documentation — by law* to be shown in order for a candidate to be on the ballot.
And, by the way, we found out with Clinton that even though you break the law, you can’t get the Senate to *convict* — if there are enough party members to resist that...
It is clear for most president many knew where they were born. People come out of the wood work and put up plaques, signs etc. Nurses and docters and hospital staff come forwared. neigbhbors, store clearks, friends. When you know where the guy was born because there's 100 witnesses, no one bothers. But when that's not the case, someone has to do their job and require the documents.
We will continue to point out forever, that Mr. Transparency refused to open his files. Let his legacy be that of a fraud.
Again, you are on the wrong side if you don't call for the truth.
I'm out.
You said — “I can only assume that it was irrefutable.”
Sorry, I must have missed it — but then again, you probably wish I did miss it... :-)
Your argument is very circular.’
I have to say this man has broken the trust of the American people, probably because he has no regard for us.
What a cynical candidate the Democrats have put up!
In the past, people could actually go see the house where former presidents were born. It was no secret! There were actually people in the population that who were witnesses to the birth or knew that the family of the president actually lived in a location that was claimed to be the birthplace. Mo one questioned because presidents up to this point were demonstrably natural born, no others have taken citizen ship in foreign countries or were adopted by foreigners.
Everyone knows that a candidate must be natural born, so who would expect a major political party to pretend that that Constitutional requirement no longer matters? Who would think that a party could be so corrupted? Maybe the issue is that the Democratic party is corrupt and should be disbanded, but that still doesn’t give justice to the American people if a candidate has been falsely nominated and elected.
Now, suddenly, a person can claimed to be born somewhere, without anybody stepping forward who claimed to be a neighbor, a friend of the family, a member of the community or even the physician or attending nurse. How odd for someone claiming to be an American.
Such details are kept in the ‘american’ side of Obaman’s geneaology, but when it comes to his birth, suddenly there are no records? How can that be?
-PJ
I think they have little chips planted in their head that directs them how to respond. Kind of like Alan Colmes with Hannity.
You'll keep you sanity and of course, I can't forget the LOL, lol
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.