Posted on 11/25/2008 7:30:57 PM PST by pissant
That was the one thing that McC said that was worth repeating...STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR AMERICA!
Isn’t it amazing that all this is going on, the MSM is not covering it and only one AM radio show that I read on the threads here is covering this at all and while this is in the mill,0bama goes on blithely as though he is untouchable.
When someone with that kind of arrogrance goes down it is a joy to watch. My only worry is that with all the proof there is, the Supremes will just rule in an “ oh what the hell” frame of mind...we need to prevent race riots which is what would happen if we oust this thug.
Republicans need to step up and demonstrate he is disqualified by no later than Jan 8, ‘08.
With the exponential rate this thing is growing, I doubt that Obama can hold out til January 8th. And even if he's sworn in on January 20th, this thing will continue to grow, until it destroys him completely.
It will not go away until the world sees his long form BC.
If you're that uninformed on this issue, perhaps you ought to hold off the cynical statements about how "it'll never work."
Even though the talk radio hosts are avoiding the topic like the plague, callers are increasingly bringing the subject up to them for discussion.
Just three or four nights ago, host Rusty Humphries stated that he thought the birth certificate issue was a non-starter, and a waste of time (tin foil hat stuff), but just tonight, he seems to have changed his tune. Now his response to the BC calls is, "Obama needs to just release the darn BC to prove his citizenship so we can all move on."
It's progress, and a sign that the issue can't be contained much longer by the MSM.
I guarantee you that behind the scenes, MSM honchos and their staffs are writing the game plan to debunk the whole controversy, should they be forced to report on it. Bet they're nervous about it, though.
It's going to be very tough to do, without coming off even more partisan than they did during the campaign. They've already lost so much credibility cheerleading for Obama, that I'm sure that they fear the backlash, should they attempt to run interference for him now. Better that they remain totally silent on it altogether, from their standpoint.
Obama has already made public two accounts of his birth certificate. One, is his published biography where he describes in detail the contents of his Hawaii birth certificate. Two, is his pre-election public website publishing an (arguably) official Hawaii record of his birth certificate. It seems to me these two public self-disclosures, truthful or not, greatly reduce his claim of privacy (vs public record) of his vault copy Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth.
What does he say about his birth certificate in his book? I’ve just read a quote where he says he found it in a book or something.
I have no doubt that it was written that way on purpose. After all, Ayers most likely helped him with his books, and he’s been grooming 0bama for years.
I agree!!!
“Has Obama forfeited keeping his official Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth private?”
He can hide behind Governor Lingle’s (sp?) directive until a court may order otherwise. (My out-of-the-box hope is that Lingle’s intent was to prevent a Sandy Burglar operation.)
“It seems to me these two public self-disclosures, truthful or not, greatly reduce his claim of privacy”
One “disclosure” is the narrative in a book, and depending on what was said he would likely say the facts have changed. He is on tape saying at one time he was trying to determine who his father was.
The second “disclosure” was an intent to deceive (fraud).by publishing a forged document on his website (or in the alternative, by not timely renouncing the document). That should be viewed as quite serious, especially when the actor is an attorney!
There was at least a third disclosure. He stated/swore/represented in his primary filings in each state that he was fully qualified for the office. That is why the Keyes CA suit is attractive, arguably the CA SOS can ask him to prove he is qualified.
(But again, I do not want him to offer evidence he is natural born, I want the Republicans to demonstrate he was not.
At the moment, however, he is has no obligation to demonstrate he is natural born.
“It will not go away until the world sees his long form BC.”
Unfortunately, if he is sworn into office, the name of the game changes significantly. It goes from a clean “yes” or “no” on the issue of his qualification, to an impeachment proceeding. With a Dem-controlled Congress, I would not bet on an impeachment. But, if he is ousted from office he should be tried for criminal fraud.
But again, I do not want him to offer evidence he is natural born, I want the Republicans to demonstrate he was not.
Of course he is under an obligation to demonstrate that he is natural born! That’s a burden, a duty, of office, to respect “the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth”. To not suffer a vanity to hold it even under the appearance of fraud, when that appearance can readily be resolved.
Agree with both of you. Perhaps did not make myself clear.
He is today under no obligation to demonstrate he is a natural born citizen. That is to say, not until a court directs him to do so. Or perhaps he is invited to do so on Jan 8, ‘09 by a Republican Senator and Representative.
So far, it appears he has only certified perhaps simply by checking a box on each state’s primary filing form that he is qualified. (I emailed for a copy of my state’s form and got no response, plan to visit their office.) Clearly, he as an attorney-constitutional law lecturer has by several of his actions defrauded the voters.
Now what? Perhaps one or more of the lawsuits will succeed; I am betting the CA Keyes action is the most promising. But O, his handlers and his legal team have game played this are prepared to offer any number of misleading and distracting arguments and evidence until Jan 20, ‘09. Bottom line: we may or may not get lucky in the courtroom.
Then what? Will the USSC step in and stay the swearing-in process on the assumption he MAY BE disqualified? Who knows? It is possible they will conclude impeachment is the proper remedy whereupon we are looking at a Dem-controlled impeachment proceeding.
Would you bet on that outcome?
In my opinion, this issue is too important to leave anything to luck, our Republicans need to step up, go on the offense and stamp it out.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family and any others that may be reading our posts today!
You asked — “My question is, what happens to the constitution when the highest elected official, and congress openly defy it?”
Well, very simply, all the laws signed by the President or enacted during his term become invalid and do not need to be followed. They can be challenged, without end, in court. They can even be challenged long after he has left the office... LOL...
Nothing will “get done” as a result..., no law will remain unchallenged — *none*...
You said — “Obama is the Messiah, and his disciples will never allow it.”
Ummmm..., I don’t know of anyone who can stop lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit from being filed. That can’t be stopped. It will tie up everything in the process.... LOL...
There’s nothing they can do to stop this...
You said — “He is not the P-E until the people we voted for, the electors, formally vote for him on on after Dec 15. But try telling that to the MSM, they have all but sworn him in. They are giving us a bum’s rush.”
Well..., this one has applied on both side, either the Republicans or the Democrats. They’ve *always* called the guy who wins the election. “President Elect so-and-so”.
The public has done it, the news media has done it, both parties have done it — and I would be willing to bet *you* have done it, as well as the fact that I know that *I* have done it....
That particular point is not really relevant (i.e., what people have “called” him — in terms of “President Elect”).
What is relevant, though, is the fact that there is still the Electoral College vote coming up and that can be made clear to a lot of people — but — I don’t think that is going to be any different, either....
The article said — “... organizing plans to challenge, even after the inauguration, every order, every proposal, every piece of paperwork generated by Obama.”
This is what I was saying in posts, before the election, that would happen, if Obama failed to produce the solid proof that he is a natural-born citizen. Every single law that is enacted by Congress will undergo a court case — every last single one will be challenged by *someone* — somewhere....
LOL... good luck Obama, with having a smoothly running Administration... :-)
“Well..., this one has applied on both side, either the Republicans or the Democrats. They’ve *always* called the guy who wins the election. “President Elect so-and-so”.
The practice was likely started by those unfamiliar with the Constitution. Given the fact so many voters, even some on FR, and particularly the MSM want us to believe the election is over, it is my effort the demonstrate otherwise.
“That particular point is not really relevant…”
Excuse me, it is very relevant to my argument.
Your argument seems to focus on the chaos that occurs after O enters office. My argument is that is entirely possible to keep him from office; that the necessary evidence most likely resides in government records available to our Republican politicians. Assuming, of course, there is substance to the impressive amount of circumstantial evidence before us.
In more earthy terms, while it is wise to have an antidote for snake bites it is wiser to take the basic precautions that prevent snake bites.
“Well, very simply, all the laws signed by the President or enacted during his term become invalid and do not need to be followed.”
There are legal arguments on both sides of this issue. Think for a moment about legislation passed by a Congress that had the votes to override a veto by O. Do you think the USSC would invalidate such laws?
You said — “Do you think the USSC would invalidate such laws?”
In a word — “yes”...., they do so all the time.
Whether a law is passed by a signature from a President, or passed by no signature from a President or passed by overriding a veto from the President — the US Supreme Court *can* and *does* invalidate such laws as being unconstitutional all the time (and/or affirming them, too)... that’s what they do... LOL...
You said — “Excuse me, it is very relevant to my argument.”
Well, what I was saying that wasn’t relevant is the MSM continuing the same practice that practically all the citizens do, too — which is *saying* “President Elect”. That’s not relevant.
What is relevant is what do the Electors do and what can be done about that...
It’s not the “title” that someone uses that is relevant — but rather the *facts* related to the Electors and what can be done legally in that regard. The “title” makes no difference in this fight...
That is a weak response. You are assuming the legislation I refer to is unconstitutional, apart from the validity of signature of the President. But keep laughing.
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.