Posted on 05/06/2009 7:47:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I hope I am proven wrong.
I hope for the sake of our country that I and many other concerned citizens across the country are looked upon as well-intentioned but ultimately misguided individuals who chased a bad rumor based on lies and distortions.
The reason I hope to be thought wrong (although well-intentioned) is because the price of being right about the constitutional requirements to be president not being met by the current occupant of the Oval Office is too disturbing to be imagined.
If, in fact, Barack Obama does not meet the requirements set out by the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section I, it would throw this country into a constitutional crisis. Vice President Joe Biden would, obviously, become President Biden. The harrowing part of this taking place is that every appointment made, every piece of legislation signed, and every executive order issued by Barack Obama could, and should, be considered invalid.
Full-moon time? I know, I know; I sound like a raving lunatic. So where do I draw my conclusions that this is even a valid issue to entertain?
Let's review what's been accepted as "fact" by the mainstream press and the vast majority of Americans: Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Stanley Ann Dunham, 18, and Barack Obama Sr., 25.
Now let's look at some of the questions challenging these accepted "facts":
Concerned citizens across the United States since well before the November election have questioned Barack Obama's "natural born" qualification for the presidency. From sea to shining sea, at least 18 lawsuits with plaintiffs including a former presidential candidate, a former deputy attorney general, state legislators and retired and active duty members of the military, are attempting to compel him to verify his citizenship.
Candidate Obama's own Web site, fightthesmears.com, posted a "Certification of Live Birth," which, according to the Web site, proves that Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen. What the Web site won't tell you, however, is that a "Certification of Live Birth" is not a birth certificate, and that at the time, the state of Hawaii allowed foreign-born children of U.S. citizens (Stanley Ann Dunham) to have their births registered with this document based on a statement of only one relative. The obvious question must be asked: If Obama has an original "long form" birth certificate issued on the day of his birth by the state of Hawaii, why would he also have a "Certification of Live Birth"? It would not be necessary. Critics have called upon President Obama to just give the state of Hawaii his permission to release his original "long form" birth certificate. The "long form" birth certificate would include all the pertinent information about his birth: name of the hospital, name and signature of the attending physician and a seal of the Hawaiian Health Department. This simple action by President Obama would immediately end all speculation about his citizenship and the reasons for the various lawsuits. Instead, President Obama is spending time and money hiring lawyers to fight these lawsuits. Why?
Why doesn't the mainstream press cover these lawsuits? I mean, in 2004, Dan Rather did a bang up job covering something a lot less important. Rather had "authentic" memos critical of President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service record. Yet there are some legitimate questions about the constitutional eligibility of our president, and yet not one single major press outlet is covering it. Part of the reason is that this issue has supposedly settled by the independent authority on Obama's birth certificate, FactCheck.org. Yet on their Web site, FactCheck.org states:
"The document is a 'certification of birth,' also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response."
So the independent authority on this question has admitted that they have not seen the original long-form birth certificate. And the questions remain.
I sincerely hope that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1961 and therefore meets the constitutional requirements to be president. If not, our Constitution must be followed and procedures put in place for future elections wherein all candidates on the ballot must prove they meet the requirements set forth by the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
***********
Peter Aparicio is a resident of Victoria and a government teacher at Memorial High School.
Joseph Farah knows but he is milking it for all it’s worth before he spills his guts.
When a man hides his records he does so for a reason.
Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released
Certificate of Live Birth — Released — Counterfeit
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Obama/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released (by independent investigators)
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released — Counterfeit
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport — Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser.
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
http://www.theobamafile.com/obamalatest.htm
Didn’t he write in one of his books that he found his birth certificate and used it as a bookmark? Wonder why we can’t see THAT one.....probably a made up story anyway.
This is the official State of Hawaii comment from state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino:
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
There is nothing there that states the birth certificate Hawaii holds was issued by Hawaii; there is nothing there that states the State of Hawaii holds AKA’s “Hawaii birth certificate.”
It is very obvious, in reading the statement of the Director of Health, that this statement was very carefully worded, which leaves the inquiring mind asking why.
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/debunking-the-obamatoids-by-lynn-stuter/#more-5901
What are you inferring by that last remark ?
We can call on Obama to give permission to Hawaii for the release of his long form Birth Certificate, but he's obviously not going to do so. We might be better off to ask Gov. Lingle to release it without Obama's consent.
Seems as if subserving the interests of preserving the US Constitution takes priority over Obama's rights under Hawaii statutory law. After all, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land!
We can call on Obama to give permission to Hawaii for the release of his long form Birth Certificate, but he's obviously not going to do so. We might be better off to ask Gov. Lingle to release it without Obama's consent.
Seems as if subserving the interests of preserving the US Constitution takes priority over Obama's rights under Hawaii statutory law. After all, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land!
Not so simple.
If it can be shown that Obama became president as a result of a fraud, he’s not the president — he’s an usurper.
What then?
The fact is, in that case, there is no answer — we would be faced with a constitutional crisis.
I'll be damned if I can find it.
What then? He's removed from office and Biden becomes president, as the 25th Amendment states.
Look at the video. Pelosi makes her move to prevent Cheney from having the opportunity to do what is called for but not mandatory, ask if there are any objections from the floor. Pelosi takes over the preceedings before she rightfully is entitled to do so.
That's just a rumor. Somebody found a picture (not naked) and thought it looked like Obama's mother, so people started speculating. Soon enough somebody attributed the picture to Davis, but there's no evidence for any of that.
If you look at videos of Obama speaking, he very much resembles Malcolm X.
Sure ... if you've never seen a Black person before. A lot of this talk revolves around the pose Obama's in or his gestures or his haircut. It's embarassing. Look at Malcolm's chin and Obama's. They aren't related.
If the governor of Hawaii has seen
There is no concrete evidence whatsoever the Gov saw the BC! She SAID she did. The damn BC is most likely not is not or ever has been in HI.
I agree! We can not take the word of the Gov of HI. There is no evidence whatsoever confirming her claim she saw or examined the wretched thing! Lingel most likely is complicit or she was O-Thugged in May of 008
Malcolm X had a pronounced chin cleft. Obama doesn't.
I'm not a geneticist or anything, but there are a lot of pictures of Malcolm X out there that look nothing like Obama.
What if it’s demonstrated that Biden and Pelosi were parties to the fraud?
There are no answers to these questions, except in the minds of the the self-annointed geniuses that keep popping up on these threads.
“You say “stick with him” as if he were asking to head the ticket in an election. You’re treating this as a purely political situation, dismissing the Constitution as a technicality. Biden is the VP; that he wouldn’t have gotten there but for the hypothetical crimes of Obama is irrelevant.”
___________________________________________________________
No, I say “stick with him” as if he were a tainted choice made by Obama, and assented to by the delegates...and I deliberately leave as an open question whether they would continue to support him, and rest the imprimatur of their approval upon him in the event of Obama’s legal “viability” being properly and successfully challenged.
As concerns the US Constitution, it is certainly NOT a technicality, but rather the basis for all these objections and challenges. Our precious Constitution should be considered immutable, and applied fully.
Biden’s stature as V.P. rests too strongly upon his place on the ticket with Obama, as Obama’s choice (”ratified” by the delegates for the party and for Obama.) That he wouldn’t have gotten there but for Obama IS (IMHO) absolutely relevant.
Arguing otherwise opens the door to allowing any/all of his Cabinet Secretaries, the Attorney General, press secretary, or various White House Staff to retain their positions.
He chose Biden after a winning a series of primary elections he should have been legally ineligible to stand for, and the convention delegates voted their agreement.
He has chosen the various Cabinet members, etc...after winning a general election and being approved by the electoral college - that he should have been legally ineligible to stand for; the Senators voted to confirm his proposed CabSec candidates as a continuation of his deception.
If I may use an analogy, it is like a citizen being arrested, indicted and accused of a felony crime, being defended (unknowingly) by a public defender who was not a legally recognized attorney at law. Even if the citizen is found guilty convicted and sentenced, the subsequent discovery of the ineligibility of his “attorney” will invalidate the entire process.
The indictment, the pretrial arraignments and hearings, the trial itself, the sentencing phase...
Even if the fraud looked good while “practicing”, offered passionate and pointed arguments, and authored several insightful motions and demurs - the conviction must be overturned, because it must be considered that the citizen did not receive adequate, qualified, or competent legal representation.
____________________________________________________________
“If the Attorney General ordered the president’s arrest, the president would simply fire the AG. Arrested or not, in custody or not, the AG doesn’t have the constitutional authority to remove the president from office. An attempt to do so would be nothing more or less than a coup d’etat.”
____________________________________________________________
There is still a problem of precedent to be dealt with here. The shape of that problem is this: Ordinarily, impeachment is reserved for pursuit/prosecution of a sitting President who has been legitimately seated.
In this hypothetical situation, Obama has violated the proscription of lawful eligibility in the first place, by being an illegitimate candidate through the Democrat primaries.
He has continued the deception through the process of having his primary victories ratified through commitment of the delegates/democrat party electors, and carried that right through the general election.
Because of his legal ineligibility to stand for any of these elections, to ascend to, and to occupy the office of US President, he has violated the Constitution and committed crimes against the peace and safety of the citizens of the United States of America in attaining that office.
The Attorney General is considered the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the USA, right?
He is, therefore, an officer of the court charged with upholding the law - and the Const., so what would his responsibilities be in that scenario?
Once he was made aware of the laws (possibly) violated by Obama, what would his job obligations direct him to do in behalf of the American people?
We have a three branch system of checks and balances, therefore how could rightfully subjecting Obama to the law be considered a coup d’etat?
After all, either he is above the law, or he is not.
Somebody would have to present the evidence to a judge with proper jurisdiction to hear it and issue an indictment, or convene a Grand Jury. Charges in a case like this may necessitate a secret Grand Jury to investigate and hear them, and a sealed indictment to be presented.
Who has the authority to present and exercise instruments of the law in behalf of the American people?
If he is an imposter, a fraud, a poseur - then it surely cannot only fall to Congress and the political process of impeachment (could we safely assume that a Democrat majority in control would NOT act against him, any more than they did against Sen. Barney Frank?) to hold him to account, could it?
If so, then “We, the People...” are rather ill-protected.
Understand, I am no lawyer; I have somewhat better than a layman’s understanding of these ins and outs, but there may well be fine points of law,or procedure which escape me.
I am examining issues and asking “what if”, “how”, and “why”.
A.A.C.
Just two questions: Who taught you? What do you do??
LOL! Don’t get snippy!
: )
I would be interested in what led you to believe that Lingle has said she has examined the materials in the HI vault. There is a public news release which states that the material is seal in the normal way (not by the governor) and that ONLY direct family members or the person in question(barry soetoro) can examine them. If Lingle were to say she had seen and knew what was on the HI vault documents, she would be in violation of privacy laws and subject to prosecution.
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.