Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

That Bleeping Birth Certificate
Intellectual Conservative ^ | December 6th, 2008 | Steven D. Laib

Posted on 12/07/2008 10:08:01 AM PST by vietvet67

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 next last
To: vietvet67
The question is can he be President or not. If Obama isn't constitutionally qualified to be President, what would be the legal status of anything he does or signs?

If he's not qualified and someone or some country can prove it, sounds like Obama is a good blackmail target. Do we want that in a President, with access to everything? Again.

Why would Obama spend time and money making other people spend time and money forcing him to produce a document that he should have volunteered the day he announced he was running for President?

81 posted on 12/07/2008 1:18:01 PM PST by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
We might even end up with President Ahhnold, who could claim that he wasn’t really born in Austria, and that he doesn’t have to prove he was born here. See what I mean?

The case against Arnold being American is a lot clearer than the case against Obama. Just about all of Austria would want to claim him as still one of them, and I'm pretty sure that many or most Austrians would be very happy to insist in producing Arnold's birth certificate to prove that he is one of them. Austrians are still very happy to claim Arnold as one of them.

The case against Obama is not as cut-and-dried. Which means that the best and perhaps the only way to make the issue and conspiracies about the birth certificate go away is to produce the birth certificate. It is very simple to remove all doubts with the proof in the form of a birth certificate. If it is never produced, it will forever indicate that someone had something very damaging to hide.
82 posted on 12/07/2008 1:19:38 PM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
"These are ready exits to the court if they decide to call this a political question and not a legal controversy."

There is one member of the Supreme Court who has no "ready exit":

The Justice (usually Chief Justice) who swears in a candidate who does not meet all Constitutional requirements for the office of President has violated his own oath of office.

For that one Justice, there is no "ready exit"!!!

There is only honor or dishonor.

83 posted on 12/07/2008 1:42:38 PM PST by TXnMA (Chief Justice: "To administer this oath would violate my oath to uphold the Constitution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

How many times have Physicians practiced medicine only to find out later they not only didn’t have a medical license, they never went to medical school.

How many times have attorneys practiced law for years and then we find out that the attorney fraudantly got his license and has been practicing law without ever going to law school.

Each time this happens, fingers start getting pointed at everyone from the licensing board on up.

Now to my knowledge we have had elected officials that have run with bogus credentials but we have never had a bogus official run with good credentials.

Interesting to note, social security has his mother’s death on line, as Stanley A Dunham. I ran across an article that said she went by 4 different names (not counting going by her middle name).
Stanley Ann Dunham
Stanley Ann Obama
Stanley Ann Soetero
Stanley Ann Sutero
Ann Dunham
Obama then could have gone by any of the names below
Barak Obama
Barry Obama
Barak soetero
Barry Soetero
Barak Sutero
Barry Sutero
Barak Dunham
Barry Dunham


84 posted on 12/07/2008 2:32:34 PM PST by ODDITHER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Specifics, please, and then I can answer more accurately.

Specific case, technology, location, daily access to what. . .etc.

In the meantime, it is up to the adjudicators is to issue a clearance, and it is not at all uniform in its application——sad to say. I’d run it differently.


85 posted on 12/07/2008 2:57:13 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

Interesting point.


86 posted on 12/07/2008 2:58:17 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
Specifics, please, and then I can answer more accurately.

If I'd known specifics off the top of my head, I'd have posted them, lol.

But, what I am recollecting was at Los Alamos, and involved the eventual deportation of Chinese nationals. I'll look to see what I can find, to flesh that out.

87 posted on 12/07/2008 3:01:52 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

No worries.

I recall the general case and was appalled at the access grated by the DOE.

DOE operates under its own rules when it comes to clearances and access, but some things should not be waived-—like when dealing with Chinese (or muslimes).


88 posted on 12/07/2008 3:16:49 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
No! I detest brainless rules-based approaches like this. It's almost like we don't want to single out Obama. Yes we do. Most Presidential candidates have established family histories in this country and producing documentation is unnecessary. Obama does NOT have established family history in this country which in of itself is a problem for someone wanting to become President of this great country. I can't believe they essentially elected a foreigner for this office.

If America has to ask, he probably doesn't have one.

89 posted on 12/07/2008 3:40:00 PM PST by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
The Justice (usually Chief Justice) who swears in a candidate who does not meet all Constitutional requirements for the office of President has violated his own oath of office.

Wouldn't that be a mess? If true, who could handle the impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Talk about unprecedented.

90 posted on 12/07/2008 4:12:49 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: dusttoyou

“...any authority for W to step into this?”

Members of Congress - who have sworn to defend the Constitution - have direct authority to “step into this”.

As I point out on my About page, 3 USC 15 gives Senators and Representatives the authority to challenge O’s qualifications at the Jan 8 joint session of Congress.

No matter what happens in any courtroom this authority survives and can be effective so long as O does not present evidence he is natural born.

Assuming we have any politicians with the guts to present a challenge.


91 posted on 12/07/2008 5:09:11 PM PST by frog in a pot (Is there a definition of "domestic enemies" as used in federal oaths, or is that just lip service?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“There is however another means for the court to dodge this case which has troubled me from the very beginning. The court might well hold that there are other venues for these matters to be determined. First there is the matter of the secretaries of state of the individual states acting to remove from the ballot someone who is disqualified”

I’ve been following the “birth certificate issue” from the time it first became known, but frankly, I don’t think any actions that have been taken up to this point are going to prevent Obama from assuming the office of the presidency.

The operative phrase, however, is “up to this point”. I don’t believe that the matter will be settled on January 20th, or at any time in the future until the facts are revealed and the original birth certificate is unsealed for all to see.

However, our defeat on this issue _today_ should not preclude us from taking action that may bring us victory at a later date. And here’s what I think could be done:

There are still conservative states with majority-conservative legislatures. I propose that between now and 2012, conservatives should concentrate their efforts on or two (or possibly more) states in attempting to pass laws governing the eligibility of presidential candidates, insofar as their qualifications to be candidates in those states is concerned. That is to say, such laws should mandate that the Secretary of State should not permit a presidential candidate (or that candidate’s electors) to be on the ballot unless and until sufficient evidence has been provided to confirm that that candidate meets all Constitutional qualifications to BE a candidate for president, including (but not limited to) the furnishing of an original copy of the candidate’s birth certificate.

Of course, this does nothing for the person who will be inagurated on January 20, 2009. But once these laws are on the books, if that same person wishes to appear on these states’ ballots in 2012, he will be required to comply with specific state laws regarding elibility for office.

I think my proposal is logical and could be reasonably expected to pass, at least in one conservative state. Once done, it would change the game plan for 2012.

- John


92 posted on 12/07/2008 7:14:21 PM PST by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"Wouldn't that be a mess? "

Yeah -- but what if the Chief Justice (Roberts, in this case) held firm to his own oath and said,

"You have refused to demonstrate that you meet the Constitutional reqirements for serving as President. Neither I nor anyone else who has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution can administer to you the Presidential Oath of Office -- because you have already demonstrated ultimate disdain for our Constitution.

The Presidential oath will now be administered to the Vice-President Elect."

Talk about a profile in courage!!!

93 posted on 12/07/2008 8:27:22 PM PST by TXnMA (Chief Justice: "To administer this oath would violate my oath to uphold the Constitution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

Right. I do understand. I guess I’ll have to give up any hope of a top security clearance because I do have relatives elsewhere. Shucks.

I think we all knew that Obama could not get a security clearance anyway, with all his Kenyan relatives as well as his buddies who like to blow up things.


94 posted on 12/07/2008 10:22:31 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: seowulf

See my previous post. I don’t believe there is any way Obama could pass your clearance, could he?


95 posted on 12/07/2008 10:23:24 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

The notion has been spittled several times already at FR, but phrased as ‘the election is over, Obama won, the issue is dead, the time to prove he was ineligible was before the general election, move on’ or some variation on that theme. And in fact, if the SCOTUS does not do something to aid a state in vetting this fraudulent man, there in fact will be no controlling legal authority and any act his executive branch makes/takes will be ambiquous at best. The obamanoids are becoming more numerous at FR and moire nasty and more vocal and more whiny. There favorite now seems to be to semar and malign FR and freepers, then when responded to in kind they whine that name calling is the sign of someone losing the argument, or other similar crap. Democrats are liars. Their operatives are liars. The next few days will be interesting reading at FR. Hone your jibes!


96 posted on 12/07/2008 10:30:43 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

The democrats didn’t care if he was actually eligible only if he could game the system for their success. You see, the black voter is assumed to belong to the democrat party. The black voters were guaranteed to vote for a black candidate even if ineligible, so the democrats just used Barry Soetoro to manipulate black voters and whine-prone liberals. And it worked, so far ...


97 posted on 12/07/2008 10:33:55 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
The state of Hawaii is asserting that privacy laws forbid it from revealing the certificate. This should be considered a bogus claim.

I would think that Article VI supreme law of the land trumps state privacy laws. The Constitutional requirement of Article II qualifications falls to the candidate to prove, not the voters to guess at.

I suppose Obama could claim Fifth Amendments protections against self-incrimination to refuse to show his birth certificate.

-PJ

98 posted on 12/07/2008 10:35:30 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onepostwonder

Barack Obama’s sister was born after he was (he was supposedly born in 1961) and she was born in Indonesia, yet she has a valid COLB from Hawai’i. So you see, anyone can get a COLB from Hawai’i, it would appear.


99 posted on 12/07/2008 10:39:07 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: onepostwonder

BTW, welcome n00b.


100 posted on 12/07/2008 10:39:42 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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