Obama wants us to be unified like we were on 9-11. But the very fact that government officials including Obama and multiple levels of federal and state offices have been willing to lie and falsify legal records that we CAN check somewhat leaves me not able to trust them on things we can’t check for ourselves. They’ve lost all credibility.
If Bin Laden is dead I’m glad for that. The fact that I can’t know when the government is telling the truth ruins the whole “effect” Obama is after. I see his face and all I can see is a liar. Same thing when I see Stephanopaulos and the other media liars.
The only reasonable response a person can have on ANYTHING claimed by either the government or the media at this point is agnosticism: “Maybe what is reported is true, maybe not. We’ll probably never know for sure.”
It’s a very, very uncomfortable place to be in, but it matches the only reasonable stance regarding the rule of law also: “Maybe the Constitution will be followed, maybe not. Maybe the laws will be obeyed, maybe not. There’s no way to know whether the laws will “stick” or not.”
The psychology of this should not be underestimated. An environment where anything is possible is not secure because there are no protections. Daddy may or may not feed and shelter me; he may or may not beat or rape me; he may or may not blame me if I put sugar in his tea or if I don’t; he may shrug off if I put sugar in his tea or he may beat me to within an inch of my life if I put sugar in his tea...
As I understand it, we use psychological operations during interrogations to create exactly this same kind of “no protections” feeling, to break the person’s will and get them to stop resisting.
That’s being done on a national scale. Maybe my money will be given to the unions, maybe not. Maybe Obama will make an executive order voiding the Constitution, maybe not. Maybe a birth certificate presented will be genuine, maybe not. Maybe gardening will be outlawed, maybe not. Maybe the government will claim possession of our children, maybe not. Maybe we will have free speech on the internet, maybe not. Etc ad nauseum.
Agnostics are passive. If people don’t know what to believe and have no way of finding out what is true, they will stand by while even unimaginable things are being done right under their noses. We are being conditioned for passivity, to keep us from resisting.
There's as big a chance the guy's been dead for ages and this is a manufactured for manipulation, as there is that this acutally happened last week.
It's the same way I regard Wikipedia. Take everything in it with equal parts salt.
I suppose you have seen that they are claiming the body was dumped in the sea. What a bunch of in your face BS!
I would like to see the emphasis shifted to the, 20th amendment, “implied requirement to qualify the President Elect”(After the Electorial College votes get counted).
This election raises the question, “is there a process for qualifying the President Elect?”.
The 20th amendment shows in section 3 that the President Elect may fail to qualify (note: this would be after the electorial votes have been counted and certified).
I would hope that the highest priority for becoming Commander In Chief(CIC) would be to get a TOP SECRET Security Clearance.
Also, high on the list of security issues is being eligible for office.
Next on the list might be “potential for being blackmailed” you know, having something to hide.
In Obama’s case, if he has a Security Clearance then it is inexcusable that he did not take steps to put the military personnel at ease.
Furthermore allowing Col. Lakin to be mistreated and jailed, in and of itself calls for Obama's removal, due to a state of “NO CONFIDENCE TO LEAD”.
Every senator and Representative has sworn to uphold and defend the constitution and thereby has standing and an obligation to challenge eligibility.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was posted by Uncle Sham. As can be seen he is knowledgeable on this subject. Uncle if you would post a link to your post I would appreciate it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
To: mickie "This should be sent to State Sen. Mae Beavers."
In the interest of helping her out,here is the Constitutional case for establishing the “eligibility” of a President elect.
First off, what is a “President elect” in the full legal sense of the description? Since we are talking about the Constitution, we must assume that the term is referred to ONLY in its legal sense. The identity of a "President elect" is not established at election time, nor is it established after the electoral college cast their votes. It is only established once Congress has ratified the electoral votes as legal and binding. Winning the election in November is just step one of a four-step process.
Step two is the electoral college.
Step three is Congressional review and ratification of those results which finally establishes just who the President elect is.
Step four is section three of the Twentieth amendment. Miss any one of these four steps and there is no LEGAL Constitutional President. Like perhaps, now.
Twentieth Amendment, Section three: ”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.” .
Note the time indicated in the initial passage. It clearly refers to that period AFTER Congress has ratified the Electoral College results because the beginning of a term of office can only occur once there is someone to "begin" that term. Not only this, but Congress ratifies the electoral college on January 15th. The beginning of a Presidential term is January 20th which is after the Electoral College ratification process is completed.
In addition to the Constitution, here is U.S. law... U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19 TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act ”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.“
Once again, from the U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials: ” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious.
The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done. There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one. ” No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Section three of the Twentieth amendment comes in to play as the LAST step in a process to ensure that a President is in fact legal. To satisfy meeting the requirement of the Twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a President elect must present evidence that he meets its requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president.
In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the Amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress. If someone does not have a birth certificate as the governor of Hawaii has stated, how was this proof of eligibility established? Where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act? If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and cannot be serving as a legal president of the United States of America.
Remember, the Constitution says in Article two, section one that "NO PERSON" who does not meet the eligibility requirements may serve as President. There is no wiggle room in this language.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in section three of the Twentieth Amendment), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law. 3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place.
28 posted on Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:59:06 PM by Uncle Sham
-----------------------------------------------------------
MY POST -CITE- 3 USC Sec. 19 01/07/2011 -EXPCITE- TITLE 3 - THE PRESIDENT CHAPTER 1 - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES -HEAD- Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
-STATUTE- (a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.
(2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection. (b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
MY COMMENT And so on>>>>>>>>>>>>>until the whole list is depleted, with Napoloteno(sic) being on the bottom of the list(GOD Forbid!!) As you can see each person in succession has to be qualified for President in order to serve.
If no qualification process exists. Congress better get on the ball.
Cheers:>) Easy Does It