Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Show it, step down, or be removed by force

Posted on 07/22/2009 7:22:24 PM PDT by Grig

Why don't he Joint Chiefs go to Obama and say "Sir, you must either present a valid full form birth certificate, step down, or we will remove you from office by force."

Isn't it their duty to do something like that? Isn't their accepting orders from Obama potentially carrying out illegal orders?


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; chat; citizenship; colb; constitution; oathofoffice; obman; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-214 next last
To: Bailee

I’m not picking on you, by the way and I’m not just spouting that phrase off just to be saying it, because I have had some precise definitions of this “Obama Derangement Syndrome” from what I’ve seen posted here over a period of time.

I’ll outline a few so you can see what I’ve defined as that...

(1) A military coup because Obama is not qualified and the military forces his resignation (there are variations on that but they all center on a military coup, forcing Obama out of office by the military people).

(2) Obama is not President right now... (a real detachment from reality).

(3) Obama can be removed from office as President right now by a judge ordering a U.S. Marshal to walk into the Oval Office and arrest Obama and remove him from the White House.

(4) The reason why Obama has not been removed from office thus far and the courts have not removed him is because there is a widespread conspiracy, fear, or collusion or whatever other reason supplied for the conspiracy. “Everyone” is involved in the conspiracy and thus Obama can’t be removed. (can be variations on this but it’s all about a general and widespread conspiracy as to why Obama is still in office).

(5) The idea that Obama must present his birth certificate, even though there is no legal requirement to do so, and even though no other candidates have ever been compelled, legally, to produce their birth certificate, and that if Obama doesn’t produce his birth certificate, then he is not qualified.

(6) The rejection of simple, real-world solutions to this birth certificate problem (like getting an ordinary state law requiring the showing of a birth certificate), and instead, insisting on “solutions” that don’t work in the real world and/or “solutions” that have not worked in all this time.

So, these are a few of the definitions. They are discrete and identifiable items and so the phrase isn’t thrown out there as a slur or a slam at someone, “just because”, but rather is something “identified” and “defined”.


141 posted on 07/22/2009 9:39:32 PM PDT by Star Traveler (The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: mlo

If a president’s birthplace is known and there’s no issue over it, there’s no need to ask for irrefutable proof.

Once a “president” issues a fake document and claims it’s real, plus has trouble recalling which hospital was the location of his birth, there comes a need for irrefutable verification of the facts at hand.

I can prove to you where I was born and I can produce a copy of my actual birth certificate and I can prove to you that my parents are my parents and they are U.S. Citizens. 0bama can’t do that. There are too many problems in his story for anyone to take him at face value. That’s why he must be required to prove his eligibility.

And the question no one’s answered so far is: Why spend upwards of a million dollars to hide a document that only costs pocket money to produce and end this once and for all? That alone should be enough to make everyone doubt his natural born status.


142 posted on 07/22/2009 9:39:40 PM PDT by Two Kids' Dad (((( ))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

May I offer some thoughts?

Whatever is on Obama’s BC may be something that could embarrass President Obama, But I don’t think it will prove him unqualified for the office of President.

If that turns out to be the case, then when obama finally reveals it, the birthers will be declared idiots by the entire nation.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.


143 posted on 07/22/2009 9:41:25 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Where's this tagline thing everyone keeps talking about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Two Kids' Dad

Here’s the real problem.

He should have been required to provide the necessary documentation before the election.


144 posted on 07/22/2009 9:45:40 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Where's this tagline thing everyone keeps talking about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
Conclude what you want about the other presidents. I am discussing the current one. You don't let somebody commit fraud because you didn't check on someone else.

Have you ever have a course or studied logic? Every one of your posts seems impractical, twists the responsiblity people have for enforcing the constitution, and seems aimed at supporting what may well be the biggest fraud ever. Strange.

145 posted on 07/22/2009 9:46:07 PM PDT by nufsed (Release the birth certificate, passport and school records.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

You said you’re discussing the current one, but what I’m saying is that when the current one is qualified in the same way as the previous ones, then there’s nothing questionable about it.

And as far as supporting what *may be* the biggest fraud ever, well, you need a bit of perspective on that one.

For one thing, it was shown by Leo Donofrio (on his website) that the 21st President of the United States, Chester A. Arthur, was not qualified to be in office, and yet he was. So, if you’re talking about not being qualified to be in office — it’s happened before — so it’s not the “biggest thing ever” (especially if it’s happened before).

Then secondly, you say what *may be* the biggest fraud ever. Well, there’s that “may be” — in which no one knows, but people “speculate” and then on the basis of “speculation” they make it out to be a “fraud”...

That’s not good enough for me. If someone is committing fraud, then we better have some proof of it. If we need to get a “Special Counsel” out there to investigate, then the government needs to do that. But on the basis of “speculation” someone is going to be “convicted of fraud” (at least in the minds of people, if nothing else)... sorry, I don’t think that is the way to operate for anyone and/or any President.


146 posted on 07/22/2009 9:52:32 PM PDT by Star Traveler (The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Grig
'Why don't he Joint Chiefs go to Obama and say "Sir, you must either present a valid full form birth certificate, step down, or we will remove you from office by force."'

Probably because of the pesky little ole Document called the "Constitution"...

147 posted on 07/22/2009 9:54:21 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (will work for bailout bonus.... Twitter: maddawggmorgan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig
Want another reply? (I'm also upset and worried, btw)

Our Country's Government is based upon our Constitution. The Founding Fathers did a very good job in its creation.

A flaw is that those who are elected were expected to have similar integrity and honesty as did the Founding Fathers.

I recall George Washington declining to be named King. (and those that have and do act as though they are, regardless of area of responsibility)

Abiding by our Constitution is what is needed, not ignoring or over riding it.

148 posted on 07/22/2009 9:55:33 PM PDT by This_far
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia
I think I said they'd need proof, didn't I? With that proof, yea, if no one else would, they should honor their oaths of office. The only other choice is to leave a usurper in office, continuing to obey his orders.

How would that be any different than continuing to obey someone who would not vacate the office after serving two terms, declaring an emergency, postponing elections "for the duration"?

The answer is, it would be no different. A usurper is a usurper, regardless of which part of the Constitution he violates to get into or remain in power.

149 posted on 07/22/2009 9:56:31 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
Because we are not a military dictatorship.

Yet. Give it a few years. We're already developing aspects of the political culture of a third world country.

150 posted on 07/22/2009 10:00:31 PM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Grig

The House has to bring up impeachment charges on this, and the Senate has to convict before a sitting POTUS is removed, even if he is deemed ineligible by a Federal court or the SCOTUS (IE his birth certificate is found to be fake and Obama is found to be a foreigner). Which means we are stuck with Obama until 2013.


151 posted on 07/22/2009 10:04:05 PM PDT by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
There is nothing questionable about the previous presidents you listed or their parents and birth places. There is about this person who may be unqualified, so I will not refer to him by name and title.

Don't need the history lesson. Thanx anyway.

Don't really care if it's good enough for you. I was trying to point out the illogic of your posts and how you support ignoring the constitution and people ignoring their oaths of office.

The rest is yours. Good night.

152 posted on 07/22/2009 10:04:52 PM PDT by nufsed (Release the birth certificate, passport and school records.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

Well, there was something not only “questionable” about a previous President but it was pretty much proven by Leo Donofrio that the President was not qualified. It’s not me that is proving it, but another one of the “group” of people who believes that the President right now also is not qualified (according to what he says, i.e., Leo Donofrio). And this particular President didn’t hide things but actually *destroyed* documents never to be found again.

And what is not “good enough” is basically saying that someone is not qualified just on the basis of speculation, while, at the same time, they have qualified in the same way as all the previous Presidents have.


153 posted on 07/22/2009 10:22:39 PM PDT by Star Traveler (The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

The great irony under the (let’s face it, unlikely) scenario of Biden becoming POTUS, is the people who voted for Obama because they thought Sarah Palin wasn’t smart enough to be POTUS !! Just wait on ole Joe.


154 posted on 07/22/2009 10:27:16 PM PDT by EDINVA (A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul -- G. B. Shaw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Grig

We are a federalist system and I believe that may save us. I believe that if a State or States challenge Obama right to be President in court then they would have legal standing to force the Supreme Court to hear the issue (Article III, Section 2).

Also it was the States that fought the Crown during the Revolution and the States that broke away during the Civil War. If we can’t find one State out of 50 to stand up to Obama on behalf of the People then I think it is over already.


155 posted on 07/22/2009 10:28:07 PM PDT by Swiss ("Thus always to tyrants")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig

“Why don’t he Joint Chiefs go to Obama and say “Sir, you must either present a valid full form birth certificate, step down, or we will remove you from office by force.””

They dont do that because we dont live in a military dictatorship, thats why.

The Congress can impeach and remove him.
Possibly a Federal court could rule him ineligible to serve, but since he’s been sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts even that might have to require impeachment and removal after that court has so ruled. Either way it would be CIVILIAN branches of Government so deciding not our military, who report to the CinC.

“Isn’t it their duty to do something like that?”
NO! It’s not the military’s job to determine who is or is not eligible for their term in office.

” Isn’t their accepting orders from Obama potentially carrying out illegal orders?”
Again - NO! Obama was sworn in and as such is duly elected and inaugurated. the PROCESS for removing him is impeachment, none other is mentioned in the Constitution.


156 posted on 07/22/2009 10:33:42 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bailee

“Supreme court does not seem to be concerned with issue.

Dems in Congress has the Majority to what ever the wish.

Who is left but the Military. They are sworn to protect the constitution from ALL enemies both foreign and domestic.”

Two wrongs dont make a right. The ends dont justify the means.

Who is left? THE PEOPLE. THE VOTERS. WE will fix this in 2010 and 2012 I assure you.


157 posted on 07/22/2009 10:35:02 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; GAB-1955

Wrong, see Nixon-Ford, FDR-Truman, JFK-LBJ etc.

This is not temporary incapacitation.

The removal, death, resignation or impeachment/conviction of a President would lead to the Vice President becoming the President.

Hello, President Biden!


158 posted on 07/22/2009 10:41:16 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: calex59

“No one has demonstrated that a violation of the constitution exists.”
“A violation of the constitution has been on going since Bozo took office. I am not talking about the BC business, I am talking about the blatant take over of GM and Chrysler. “

If so (and I dont disagree), they are impeachable offenses. The cure for those High Crimes and Misdemeanors is impeachment and removal via Congress.

“Certainly Bozo would be up for impeachment by now if we had an unbiased legislature that actually cared about the country and the constitution. “
If we had that, Al Franken wouldnt be the Dems 60th Senator!


159 posted on 07/22/2009 10:43:52 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

And did we not say here on FR long before the November 2008 election that the SCOTUS must take up the issue of Obuma’s failure to produce a valid Birth certificate and nothing was done about it...Last i recall some suits were filed but nothing ever came of it...

The Press went after Palin, and McCain, and laughed at Biden’s gaffes, but it gave a free pass to Obuma...We no longer have a free press, just as we no longer have a democracy...We are becoming more of a Fascist nation—private ownership, controlled by the government...


160 posted on 07/22/2009 11:16:37 PM PDT by billmor (Have you had enough of CHANGE ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-214 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson