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

Skip to comments.

MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO!
YouTube ^ | September 03, 2010 | ppsimmons

Posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:04 AM PDT by RatsDawg

BREAKING! SHOCKER! MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO! Check out the video on YouTube


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armyvsamerica; armyvsamericans; armyvstruth; bc; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; islam; kangaroocourt; military; muslim; naturalborncitizen; nobc; nobirthcertificate; nochainofcommand; nojustice; obama; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-291 next last
To: RatsDawg

yikes..is he really calling it “evidence” ?


21 posted on 09/04/2010 10:33:42 AM PDT by stylin19a (Never buy a putter until you first get a chance to throw it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alecqss

>Think of all those who participated in the cover up

They could rightly be charged with Treason; for how can invalidating the legitimacy/integrity of a whole branch of Government NOT be aid and comfort to America’ enemies?


22 posted on 09/04/2010 10:34:17 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

” but rather that it would be embarrassing to the Commander in Chief to be compelled to give evidence (of any kind) in such a proceeding. “

Embarrassment should not be a defense if
it’s pertinent to the issue.
It’s stunning that it’s come to this when
Barry could allay all doubts in a 1 minute phone call to Hawaii.
It’s jaw dropping that it didn’t happen in 08 when the questions were first raised by the Clinton campaign.
Commander in Chief George Bush or Ronald Reagan and heck, even a Bill Clinton would never in a million years sit back and allow any member of the Armed Forces
to have doubts about their Constitutional eligibility.
When the answer could so easily be given by
unsealing a single sheet of paper.
Of course, their documentation would never be sealed in the first place .
They would understand how toxic and deleterious it is to have the troops , even just one soldier ,
doubting a CinC’s eligibility
and they would be proud to voluntarily
substantiate their Constitutional bona fides.
Obama’s stonewalling and mocking attitude is extremely bizarre behavior by a Commander in Chief.


23 posted on 09/04/2010 10:35:16 AM PDT by Wild Irish Rogue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Actually if it's discovered that Obama isn't qualified to be President then a Presidential Impeachment would be targeting President Biden, who would be the President "should the President Elect fail to qualify."
24 posted on 09/04/2010 10:38:39 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

Interesting. Thanks for posting the link. I forwarded it onto a retired military friend.


25 posted on 09/04/2010 10:39:05 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

Where is the picture of Obama bowing to Netanyahu?


26 posted on 09/04/2010 10:39:05 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This post is not a statement of fact. It is merely a personal opinion -- or humor -- or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

Sorry. The judge does not have any evidence at all. There has been no discovery yet.
Therefore the judge is speculating. Much as it kills me, her reasoning is probably sound. The defendant is requiring the commander-in-chief, an elected official, not a military officer, to prove his Constitutional rights. That would seem to be a role for Congress, not the military. It is not the role of the military to question their civilian masters.

Yeah, I’m a birther. So don’t blast me. But, I think the judge is correct. On the other hand, rather than see a competent officer court marshaled, as a legitimate commander in chief, I’d just hand over the appropriate documentation. I’ve had to produce my birth certificate at every job I’ve ever had. At my present job, I’ve had to produce it three times in five years.

Incidentally, after I was interviewed by a Homeland Security Special Agent, I asked him, “If I told you I had been mentored by Frank Davis and had worked for Saul Olinsky, would I get a security clearance?” He himmed and hawed, but finally said “no.” Obama is not fit to polish the colonel’s shoes.


27 posted on 09/04/2010 10:40:21 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

>The defendant is requiring the commander-in-chief, an elected official, not a military officer, to prove his Constitutional rights.

What Constitutional Right is there to be President?
How can the Commander-in-Chief *NOT* be considered a military officer when it is by his order that the military goes somewhere or does something?
Authority is inseparable from accountability [responsibility, if you will] and the way that people excuse the President from being accountable [”because he’s a civilian”] is inexcusable.


28 posted on 09/04/2010 10:49:17 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All

Could someone tell me if obama was actually vetted? And, if so, what goes on in the vetting process? My sister says it is impossible for him to NOT be vetted. Could this be true?


29 posted on 09/04/2010 10:58:53 AM PDT by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"He is merely demanding to know if Obama is qualified to be the CIC, and that he is therefore bound to follow his commands."

He isn't charged with refusing to follow Obama's commands. Courts don't do investigations on unrealted questions. They have cases before them that have to be decided.

30 posted on 09/04/2010 11:01:32 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly
What do you mean by "vetted"?

He had to get nominated by his party, he had to get elected by the people, the Electors had to cast their votes, the Congress had to certify them. The same process that works in every Presidential election.

31 posted on 09/04/2010 11:04:48 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I know that Congress is the only body who can remove this president but, this Congress is also part of the conspiracy to block and or cover up this supposed POTUS eligibility documentation.

What do we do now? SCOTUS?

In my opinion this is a true Constitutional crisis.

32 posted on 09/04/2010 11:06:30 AM PDT by alice_in_bubbaland (Professional Politicians are a Threat to the Republic! Remove them on 11-2-10!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

Never mind the embarrassment to BHO, it is the embarrassment to the US that is more important. I doubt if any congressman wants to be involved in this issue — he would have to grow a pair first.


33 posted on 09/04/2010 11:07:01 AM PDT by 353FMG (ISLAM - America's inevitable road to destruction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
"What do you mean by "vetted"?"

Make sure he qualified to be President under the Constitution. Did everyone do the checking that was required?

34 posted on 09/04/2010 11:07:13 AM PDT by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly

>My sister says it is impossible for him to NOT be vetted. Could this be true?

I think it’s entirely too possible. Consider this:

My state, New Mexico, has the following in its State Constitution:


Article II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but
nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No
municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep
and bear arms.

It’s very simple: the state cannot legitimately pass laws restricting my right to carry weapons openly for self defense; neither can cities or counties punish/persecute me for choosing to do so (i.e. charging me with “disturbing the peace” because I was open-carrying).

Now, there also exists a State Statute which reads as follows:


30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1) a peace officer;
(2) university security personnel;
(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property.

B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.

C. As used in this section:
(1) “university” means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) “university premises” means:
—(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
—(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.

D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.


Now it’s obvious to even the casual reader that there is a conflict here. One that should be easy to resolve: the State Constitution is of greater authority than the state law; yet, I cannot challenge the contradiction between state statute and state constitution [without violating the state statute and challenging its legitimacy there in court] because all I get is the run around:
State DA says talk to the state supreme court who says, via recording, talk to the state-bar who says talk to either a local atty (who says they’ll look into it but never contact you again) OR talk to your state legislator who says that she’ll have to talk to the State DA who has to talk to the State Supreme Court who.... *bleh!*

See what I mean?
It’s because everyone is saying that “it’s someone else’s problem” that this isn’t being fixed; and if I were to challenge this law in court, by breaking it, I would be placing myself in a position of weakness for my attack [fighting uphill against the accusation of being a criminal] instead of attacking from a position of power [that of a Citizen noting something illegal/wrong with his government].


35 posted on 09/04/2010 11:08:44 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

So, you’re saying that it’s very probably he was NOT vetted? That someone didn’t do their job(s)?


36 posted on 09/04/2010 11:11:19 AM PDT by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly

very probably = very probable


37 posted on 09/04/2010 11:11:53 AM PDT by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Question: From whence does an officer gain his authority to issue a command to a soldier?


38 posted on 09/04/2010 11:12:21 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mlo
McCain was vetted by Congress. Research was done to prove that he was born on a US Navy Base in Panama.

Research was never done to prove beyond doubt, that Obummer is a natural born citizen. All his records were sealed way before he ran for POTUS. They just took as evidence, a affidavit, signed by Nasty Pelousy, the DNC Chairman that “The One” was a citizen. It was signed the day he was “selected” Democratic Party nominee.

39 posted on 09/04/2010 11:14:06 AM PDT by alice_in_bubbaland (Professional Politicians are a Threat to the Republic! Remove them on 11-2-10!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: alecqss

“...the country will be busy for years fixing all this horrible mess.”

.
Why should it have to take years to fix the mess, when it did not take years for Obama to create it? Besides, any mess is worth fixing if it improves the situation.

There is ever more reason to pursue the question of his eligibility. If action is not taken by the expected new republican congressmen next year, then we’ll know that we elected a bunch of RINOs.


40 posted on 09/04/2010 11:14:21 AM PDT by 353FMG (ISLAM - America's inevitable road to destruction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-291 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