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.
The Link is Busted.
Does anyone have the The Delhi Statesman link?
I think the story may have been pulled.
Get a screen shot next time, it is critically important.
tahDeetz
All that needs to happen is for Netanyahu of Israel to refuse any peace talks as brokered by the US, due to a question of Obama’s legitimacy and all sorts of international hell would break loose!
Here it is at another site: http://www.boloji.com/myword/mwna079.htm
What I could see happening is that the Supreme Court examines the case. Then while strongly finding merit in the idea of of the president being illegitimate(there-bye strongly hinting at a course of action), the Court punts the case to congress stating that under the constitution, it is up to the congress and senate to remove Obama!(where it rightly should be).
What I could see happening is that the Supreme Court examines the case. Then while strongly finding merit in the idea of of the president being illegitimate, The Court punts the case to congress stating that under the constitution, it is up to the congress and senate to remove Obama!(where it rightly should be).
thanx...
That video is 22 minutes long!
1. Did you watch it?
2. Does he say it?
3. What minute mark does he say it at?
Thanks . . .
UPI: http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/UPIFirstSaid.bmp
Honolulu Star Bulletin: http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaBornQueensMedical.jpg
Snopes: http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/SnopesSaysQueens.bmp
The Obama FIle: http://www.theobamafile.com
When one person brings a torch and a pitchfork to a gunfight, that’s stupid.
Waiting to fight back with a gun, until you have a hundred people with torches and pitchforks, that’s more stupid still.
You might shoot one or two, it isn’t going to change the outcome.
>When one person brings a torch and a pitchfork to a gunfight, that’s stupid.
Waiting to fight back with a gun, until you have a hundred people with torches and pitchforks, that’s more stupid still.
You might shoot one or two, it isn’t going to change the outcome.<
If It is 100, it’s game on. I have had worse odds w less firepower than I have at my disposal right now and done just fine thanks.
If it comes to that scenario smart money is on The Munz, take it to the bank!
>What I could see happening is that the Supreme Court examines the case. Then while strongly finding merit in the idea of of the president being illegitimate(there-bye strongly hinting at a course of action), the Court punts the case to congress stating that under the constitution, it is up to the congress and senate to remove Obama!(where it rightly should be).<
I think that is one very possible outcome. If forced to make a decision, they would rather pass it off to elected officials who made the mess to deal with. they have the power to make the issue be investigated again under a fair guideline. Say another hearing and resolution like they did with McCain.
Then it would be up to the senate with public hearings.
It would actually be good because then elected leaders would be required to face it, ask questions and any people who want to really act like republicans can demand that the same standards be met.
Obama would fail, democrats would scurry to protect obama and the whole political arena would be wide open to the public.
But they could still make it so that standing legislation could be reviewed at the same time.
It’s brilliant all the way around.
Didn’t watch the whole thing. It bored me out of my mind. It looks like the article was talking about his book . The article doesn’t say he said he was born at Queens Hospital.
It is a vague article. It could very well mean the reporter dug up info that he was born at Queen’s hospital..and then went on to say how Obama described his birth.
Another very viable lawsuit that has a greater chance of not being thrown out is if someone donates money to the hospital , writes a letter saying it is based on the letter they put on their website, but if he really wasn’t born there you want your money back.
This is a charity fraud issue. There are some very strict guidelines regulating charity solicitation!
Show me where Obama, who has seen his birth certificate, said he was born at Queens Hospital.
The fact that his sister said it in an article really means nothing. She could have been lied to, misquoted, or just mistaken.
She was born about 9 years after he was. It is not like she has a recollection of the event.
The family has a history of lying. Obama said in his book he was lied to by his family.
He could have been told one hospital and it was really another. But he has seen his birth certificate so he knows what it says.
I think it is very possible that at least one family member was involved with the CIA. This could account for the web of lies. Maybe Grandad was a double agent, triple agent, ...god knows what. There is the rumor about why he was fired/quit.
*PHEW!*
*LOL!* 
...let the record show, I DID NOT say she was, a "ho"...
PC-ism: "just a person, of (very, very) low level of self-esteem..."
Plain speech: "a Soiled Prairie Dove, as they say."
“Story of the century for any reporter with the guts to pursue it.”
am startin to think BOB WOODWARD is on top of the ‘BO fairytale’, and this BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUE will be the centerpiece of his upcoming book....
You can not impeach a president who was never a legititament president to begin with. He never met the Constitutional requirement for even running as President of the United States. You CAN simply arrest him and remove him from office for impersonating a president.
And its not just this issue of not wanting to go or not, the issue is do you want to take orders from an illegal CiC. This country is ALL about the Constitution and the military takes an oath to protect it from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. This is not a monarchy, we don’t answer to the whims of a man. 0bama seems to have an issue with that concept.
I have at least six other such briefs, but stopped storing them. Herlihy mentions the large number of attempts to change Article II, but I didn't see the count 23. I actually recall that the number was probably 26, but I try to be conservative. I think I recall where I got it - a Harvard constitutional specialist, but I'll find it and get back to you. Others, if they are as interested as you, are sure to ask. I'll also pull out some of the other briefs, but Herlihy, 26 pages, pretty much covers the issues. She argues that times were different, and racism and globalization require that we accept worthy candidates who may not have had citizen parents. She suggests the usual - Schwarzenegger, Kissinger, Albright,.... She provides lots of other references, one which refer to Article II as “The Stupidest provision of the constitution...”
Thus far, with many attempts at amendments - one was initiated by Oren Hatch - we still require a natural born president, and Obama is not!
Thank you for the response.
The cite is
81 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 275 (2006)
Cached *.pdf file:
I read some of the article, and thought it had very "emotional" reasoning to it. It sounded almost shrill: "That's not fair."
Check out the first footnote in the article:
1. When asked to identify the stupidest provision in the Constitution for a symposium issue of Constitutional Commentaries, two separate constitutional scholars independently chose the natural born citizen clause. Robert Post, What is the Constitution's Worst Provision? , 12 CONST . COMMENT . 191, 192 (1995); Randall Kennedy, A Natural Aristocracy? , 12 CONST . COMMENT . 175, 175 (1995).
Post is now Dean of Yale Law School. http://www.law.yale.edu/news/9786.htm
As far as the parties cited being "worthy" though naturalized, I'd like to point out that when one's "home" country calls, a naturalized citizen may very well switch loyalties. I am thinking of a relatively recent and benign example, but some examples may not be so benign.
I would appreciate it if you would send me the other sources. I would like to look at them and try to figure out what a common thread there might be. I'm surprised Oren Hatch was behind the push for one of these amendments.
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.
