Posted on 07/18/2009 2:47:14 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Even while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pursues her five-day visit to India, an event has occurred in the USA that could conceivably snowball into a major controversy to cut short President Obama’s tenure. Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution states: “No person except a US born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of President.”
During the last US campaign a controversy arose about Obama’s birthplace. Critics were unsure if he was born in the USA or Kenya. Obama’s campaign committee released a Hawaiian birth certificate on 13 June, 2008. Sceptics alleged that it had signs of forgery.
Obama maintained he was born in Hawaii. One hospital, Honolulu ‘s Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children, claims it received a letter from the President declaring his birth there. But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to authenticate the letter. For nearly six months the hospital proudly declared Obama was born at its facility to create poll hype. Later it covered up and refused to confirm if the letter actually existed. The letter was purportedly signed by Barak Obama. If the signature was forged it was a most serious offence. Was any action taken against the Hospital?
This week the controversy about Obama’s birthplace resurfaced dramatically. A US Army Reserve, Major Stefan Frederick Cook, scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan, refused to serve claiming that the order was illegal because the American President was not legitimate. He argued that he should not be required to serve under a President who has not proven his eligibility for office. “As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is my duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief,” Major Cook said. “Then any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal order. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections.”
The military created shock waves by revoking the deployment order without giving any reasons. Thereby it evaded a reply to Major Cook’s objection and implicitly acknowledged that it could offer no proof of President Obama’s birth in the USA. If the military cannot vouch for President Obama’s legitimacy the implications can be very far-reaching. Major Cook’s case is being heard in the court of US District Judge David O Carter. The judge told the plaintiffs to fix their paperwork and that he would listen to “the merits” of their case. The date of the hearing was fixed for 16 July.
It is unlikely that the US mainstream media will highlight the event. But regardless of the judge’s verdict, will the issue die? If it snowballs into a crisis America could face a cruel choice. While it battles a severe economic meltdown it may have to either remove a most popular President or violate its Constitution.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Dissembling in the foreign press, now.
The term "natural born citizen" had clear meaning at the time the Constitution was written, and despite monumental efforts to cloud that meaning now, it still means citizen beyond a doubt. Look into the issue of "doubt" and "natural born," as far as precedent in legal cases.
Barack Obama cannot be "naturally" a US citizen, when he was born a British citizen, and according to the British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of Obama's birth, he remains a British subject to this day, no matter where he was born or what citizenship he held or holds.
Yeah, but if doing it under the orders from a judge, he is really not conceding anything. The important thing to remember is once served and the case is put on the docket, discovery kicks in. It being a federal case, they don't have to rely on a judge to issue subpoenas. Under Rule 45(3)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the attorneys in the case can issue subpoenas on their own. Thus they can subpoena the BC, college records, selective service, etc...
Correction- Rule 45(a)(3)
Point being - Obama didn’t say it as quoted by UPI. And the Dems say she was misquoted.
I am looking for where Obama said it as claimed by UPI.
Was it in the book or not? Did UPI make a mistake like Chris Parry or are they trying to hide something.
No one that I can find has said the exact quote or what page it is on and until somewhere here verifies I don’t think it should be quoted as gospel.
I skimmed the book and couldn’t find it but that means nothing. It may be there somewhere.
I agree with you that something should have been done long ago, but aren’t we expecting the DNC to police themselves and point out their own shortcomings? I don’t think that will ever happen.
If what this Major says is true, that an order by this President would not be legal to follow, then wouldn’t all legislation signed by and invalid President also be invalid? I would think all things, legally speaking, would go back to the way they were before, since he wouldn’t be able to sign new laws. I realize Congress can still write legislation, but if the signature needed to enact the law isn’t from a valid President, then I wouldn’t think the law is even enforceable.
Imagine if a foreign President/Prime Minister refuses to meet with this thug because he/she doesn’t recognize him as the head of state.
Was Obama's sister or Obama mis-quoted? I don't know.
I guess someone could try to contact the author of the article to find out if he misquoted either Obama or Obama's half-sister for the article about Queens Hospital.
If you have any problems with the link, get back to me and I will see if I can help you with the link.
http://www.obamacrimes.info/103008Exhibit%20Charter%20Schools%20Rainbow%20Edition%20Newsletter.pdf
When someone is born in one of the British Commonwealth countries (say Kenya circa 1961) how did the British gov find out about the birth? Did the country where the birth occur send some documentation to Britain? Or could any member of the British Commonwealth issue a British Commonwealth passport (if there was such a thing)?
I suggest you ask this of John Valentine. The disposition of such matters in colonial and post-colonial Kenya is a topic upon which he has apparently spent some time and effort.
He had citizenship through his father. His father originally had British citizenship when Kenya was a colony. At independence, he became a Kenyan citizen. 0bama had dual citizenship up until 1982 when he was the age where he would have had to swear allegiance to Kenya.
Of course, none of this addresses the question of his birthplace.
It reported the story in a fair manner, too. ( Unlike our Obama run media, the “ORM”.)
The SCOTUS doesn't have to rule any such thing.
During Watergate, the Supreme Court merely ruled that Nixon must surrender the tapes recorded in the Oval Office. The mere necessity to provide evidence to the nation was sufficient to bring down his Presidency.
In this case, the Supreme Court need only rule that Obama's privacy interests are outweighed by the nation's interest in knowing that he is eligible. The Court would merely order that all public agencies must release any information relating to the birth of the President.
“Uh, oh ... if an Indian newspaper is writing about this issue, it’s growing some long legs.”
Nah. Only Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and the Telegraph were really giving us the real dirt on Bill Clinton. So he was promptly transferred before mid-term of the old lecher’s time in office.
Liberals would tell me, “Well we haven’t heard that,” and I would cite the Telegraph, but not for long.
Thanks for finding this article. WoW! Someone over there is following this closely, they didn’t distort the story with hype. :)
For a simply $15 fee, Obama could produce an original birth certificate for the American people. But no, he spends around a million dollars to keep it hidden. Speaks for itself!
“the Supreme Court need only rule...”
You raise an excellent point. My question: What do you believe the odds are of this happening?
My only point is this - and this is just my view: The SCOTUS either lacks the will or the desire to do what needs to be done. Don’t misunderstand, I would like to see the matter settled one way or the other, I just don’t believe we are going to get any help from the court.
Has anyone ever discerned the whereabouts of Madelyn Dunham (”Toots,” B.O.’s white grandma) on Aug.4, 1961? As a grandma myself, I know without a doubt I would be at least in the waiting room awaiting the delivery of my first grandchild. I don’t know if Ann was her only child or if B.O. was her first grandchild, but knowing where she was on that day might reveal a lot.
It’s time to get this settled.
I'm thinking of all the people who knew what was going on, knew BO was violating the Constitution, and supported him anyway.
I'm not just talking about corrupt elections officials.
I'm not just talking about a complicit and supportive media.
I am also talking about so-called professors of Constitutional law, who teach at "universities" and "law schools" across this great nation, who have openly and vocally supported BO's candidacy and thus have helped perpetuate this horrible lie.
It is not too late to get this settled.
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.