Posted on 08/10/2008 8:13:54 AM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
I approach the Birth Certificate issue with a healthy dose of skepticism, yet there are just too many anamolies in this story to simply dismiss it.
Now, just as things seem to be reaching a tipping point in this whole story, Obama takes a week-long vacation to Hawaii. Why Hawaii, why now? And why does he say he's going to see his grandmother after ignoring her for years?
If the adoption theory is true, then the original COLB is sealed somewhere in the Hawaii DOH files. The original COLB should list Saetoro as Barack Obama. If somehow Barry could get his Grandmother to verify that Barry's Indonesian stepfather did something illegal in the process of the adoption, it could invalidate the Saetoro COLB and allow the original COLB to stand?
Wherever Barry is staying, there will be amazing security. However, one whould watch for the appearance of anyone connected with the DOH visiting Barry.
I believe that Barry will try to coerce DOH to unseal his original COLB, and then request some "corrections" to it that will make it match what he has posted on his web site.
Is this feasible, or am I being sucked into a well-concocted trap?
I think you are right on the money.
All Mr. Obama would have to do is produce the original, raised impression sealed documents from the State of Hawaii and the “VRWC” would have nothing to say.
Having said that, what shame is there that he may have dual citizenship, not of his own free choice but rather as a consequence of his parent’s citizenship. I have never seen anything to refute the fact that his mother was born in Kansas of American citizens, and thus he would be an American citizen by birth, regardless of her age and residency. Similar logic and suggestions in other blogs I have read would have him as a dual citizen of Kenya. Others suggest that he is a citizen of Indonesia because of the nationality of his alleged adopted father.
None of the above would be a disqualifier, in my mind, for ascending to the presidency. After all, we are a nation of immigrants. Satisfy the Constitutional requirements are you are free to run.
But as is often the case in politics, the greater crime is in the cover up. If he sought to obfuscate some relevant fact about his background, illegal or not, it goes to his judgement, fitness and character - all of which are important considerations in choosing the next President of the United States.
Barack Obama is a very dangerous man and must never be elected President of the United States. However, his defeat must be a repudiation of his stand on the issues of the day in a free, open and fair election, not upon rumor and innuendo.
I don’t know what mess Obama has going on about his birth status, or name, or a tape of a Michelle rant against “whitey” in a church. But if there IS something- Hillary has it. And IF she has anything, she will wait until close to the convention to release it. She looks awfully like a cat with canary feathers all around her these days. I can’t WAIT! this could be the most fun election season in YEARS.
Thank you.
You could add when/whether he registered with the SSS to your list.
We have open elections. Not so sure they are fair. Would you comment on fair? That is my concern.
“I tend to be skeptical of things like this. Has it got legs?”
Same here. So far on the Birth Cert story, I just passed it up and said yea right, get back to me when you have something solid. This Hawaii vacation right smack dab in the most important four weeks of the campaign raises some serious questions. What is he trying to cover up?
Are you talking about the original “data entry document” or the “COLB” which is going to be printed out on demand at any future time and give you information from the secure data base?
Every now and then you'll hear one of these unassimilated types complaining about how we, on the net, hide our true identities with false names. (Bwahahahahahaha).
>>Who or what is the controlling legal authority mandated to establish that the constitutional qualifications are met?
Since the eligibility requirements are defined by the Constitution, I would presume that the SCOTUS has the final say. Given the makeup of the Court, I have little or no faith in their acting before it is too late.
Well, SCOTUS probably thinks so, too - but they're wrong.
There is an elaborate and well-designed political process to deal with these issues.
Too bad it wasn't used in 2000.
Since the eligibility requirements are defined by the Constitution, I would presume that the SCOTUS has the final say. Given the makeup of the Court, I have little or no faith in their acting before it is too late.>>Who or what is the controlling legal authority mandated to establish that the constitutional qualifications are met?
Actually IMHO the enforcement of the Constitution would fall to a bunch of Democrats in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan VFW who are types. A patriot won't vote for someone who is constitutionally unqualified for office. Certainly not if the alternative is RINO John . . .The issue would only arise, apparently, if in fact Stanley happened to be out of the USA at the time of Barak's birth. From that perspective it is a technicality - but from the perspective of the fact that as a young child Barak was raised by an Indonesian stepdad, his being born in HI (if so) is the technicality. And, having gotten opponents knocked off the ballot in both his state senate and in his US senate bid, Barak Obama is the last one to be qualified to complain that he is being snagged on a "technicality."
If you were referring to the possibilities of a full recount, the Florida state courts were not asked for that option.
The Supreme Court was asked to review a Florida decision ~ not to rule on the necessity of a full or partial recount.
Another Constitutional procedure was for the Florida legislature to sit and vote ~
So, exactly what "procedure" were you referring to ~ something no one asked for (a full recount) or a vote by the legislature?
There are no other options (which is why the Algore request for a third option was essentially dismissed as so much rubbish).
The options are only limited by your lack of imagination, and deficient Constitutional understanding.
Bush v. Gore was always a nonjusticeable political question. Fortunately, the founders anticipated it and provided for a proper, Constitutional resolution by the political branches.
FIRST: Florida's electors were appointed properly, "as the Legislature shall direct". SCOFLA had no role whatsoever to play.
SECOND: It was possible, although not likely, that SCOFLA would have directed the appointment of a slate of Gore electors. So what? Such a slate would have had no legal validity whatsoever.
THIRD: Nevertheless, if Katherine Harris were negligent in her duties, it is possible that two slates of electors from Florida would have been transmitted to the President of the Senate, as directed by Article II and the Twelfth Amendment.
FOURTH: This controversy would have been resolved in five minutes, as it should have been, by the special Joint Session of Congress meeting on January 6, 2001. Why do you suppose the founders had the votes counted in public, by the full Senate and the full House? Because they had nothing else to do?
George W. Bush would have been properly and Constitutionally certified on January 6, 2001 by the Republican Congress, eliminating all of the ill feeling occasioned by the SCOTUS' unwise and unConstitutional intervention in Bush v. Gore. It is possible, although unlikely, that Lieberman would have become Vice President.
Do you suppose he should have maybe been ...... or, more horrifically, ......?
Myself I favored a full ........!
It's not like "W" filed suit! At the same time the Administration was under the control of Bill Clinton and he wasn't at all motivated to lend "W" the army or anything.
None.
My point was, the "verdict" of SCOFLA was irrelevant because they had no Constitutional role to play AND the Congress had a Republican majority.
The only power SCOFLA had was a nonexistent power which, it seems, you would be anxious to confer on them.
>>Well, SCOTUS probably thinks so, too - but they’re wrong.
There is an elaborate and well-designed political process to deal with these issues.
Too bad it wasn’t used in 2000.<<
I presume that you mean the debacle started by Al (Mr. Clean) Gore, with a RAT-designed ballot, hand-picked operatives who claimed they voted for the wrong person (AS THEY EXITED THE POLLING PLACE) and run through his hand-picked court.
Their was no other alternative than for SCOTUS to settle the issue.
As for B (whatever his name is), there could be a constitutional issue here that only the SCOTUS can decide. Again, I have little faith in ANY court.
How about the Joint Session of Congress accepting the Bush electors from Florida, and rejecting the SCOFLA Gore electors?
That, at least, would have had the advantage of being Constitutional.
In your theory, SCOTUS is in charge and has authority to dispose of anything which causes passionate controversy among the political branches.
This has led to untold trouble since 1954, and should be discouraged going forward.
Actually, I believe that the SOLE purpose of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution. Our problems have come about because of their insistence on CREATING words (i.e. rights) that are not there, nor where they intended to be there.
What about the Article II-Amendment XII process for appointing electors, collecting, and counting their votes do you think requires learned or legal interpretation?
It's perfectly clear. No decree or enactment of SCOFLA in 2000 had any part of the process at all.
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.