Posted on 01/25/2009 8:32:35 PM PST by FreeAtlanta
I am a retired (25) police officer and spent 26 years in the United States Air force as a MSGT in charge of Training for the 482 Security Police Squadron. Was in Vietnam and also served in the Gulf War. For the last year I have been watching this site on a daily basis not believing that Barack Hussein Obama has become our president. I coach a High School softball team and everyone of my players had to produce a birth certificate to be eligible to play through the state. I hate to say this, but we in a total crisis and something will happen if this man is allowed to continue to lead this once proud nation. I have never posted before but know many FBI, Secret Service Agents, CIA and many other Federal Agents who have told me they are not to discuss this issue about Obama or they will be terminated from employment. We all need to take a step back and pray that something will come out on all of these lawsuits. I spoke to the Supreme Court Justice in my state who advised that the US Supreme Court have been ordered to throw out any case that deal with the fraud President elect. May God Help us All (Emphasis added and typos corrected)
(Excerpt) Read more at australia.to ...
Yes, it was. I have read that Hitler worked around this by having himself named as an attache to a German foreign office so he could claim title to German citizenship.
Now that is interesting. Have you put any of your research online? I’d like to read more, I bet Howard Hughes is interesting too.
I’d heard Hitler turned his hometown or fathers’ hometown into an artillery or bomb range, but that could be another rumor.
The plot sickens is more like it.
“in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens”
Thanks for the correction. That Hitler was a sneaky little bastard, wasnt’ he? I have not studied Hilter, just saw a few programs on his twisted life. So adding your info to the list of Obama-Hilter similarities, they both violated the rules to become Furher. As G.Gordon Liddy says “Oh My!”.
“in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens”
(Note: in California, the appearance of presidential candidate names on the presidential primary ballot is determined by the California Secretary of State. They are unable to tell people exactly what they do when people call them-- at least, not immediately. The procedure for determination is (somewhat surprisingly) not spelled out in the code either. Concerned individuals can call Maxine at the California Secretary of State's office in Sacramento, (916) 657-2166. Maxine tells callers that it is up to the Democrat Party in California to ensure that the Democratic candidates are Constitutionally qualified; but Chris at the California Democrat Party, (916) 422-5707, tells callers that his office did not have anything to do with putting Barack Obama's name on the California primary ballot, as far as he is aware, and refers callers to the California Secretary of State office and the California Elections Code. It is interesting that the candidate has to file an affidavit to get his or her name off the ballot but nothing in the code itself specifies nothing that he or she has to file to get his or her name on the ballot. )
6040. This article shall apply to the designation of candidates by the Secretary of State for placement only on the presidential primary ballot.
6041. The Secretary of State shall place the name of a candidate upon the presidential primary ballot when he or she has determined that the candidate is generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. The Secretary of State shall include as criteria for selecting candidates the fact of qualifying for funding under the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974, as amended. Between the 150th day and the 63rd day preceding a presidential primary election, the Secretary of State shall publicly announce and distribute to the news media for publication a list of the selected candidates that he or she intends to place on the ballot at the following presidential primary election. After the 63rd day preceding a presidential primary election, the Secretary of State may add candidates to the selection, but he or she may not delete any presidential candidate whose name appears on the announced list except as provided in Section 6043.
6042. When the Secretary of State decides to place the name of a candidate on the ballot pursuant to Section 6041, he or she shall notify the candidate that the candidate's name will appear on the ballot of this state in the presidential primary election. The secretary shall also notify the candidate that the candidate may withdraw his or her name from the list of recognized candidates by filing with the Secretary of State an affidavit pursuant to Section 6043 no later than the 60th day before the presidential primary election.
6043. If a selected candidate or an unselected candidate files with the Secretary of State, no later than the time specified in Section 6042, an affidavit stating without qualification that he or she is not now a candidate for the office of President of the United States, and stating that similar documents, also without qualification, have been or will be timely filed, where applicable, with the appropriate public election official in all other states holding open presidential primaries, that candidate's name shall be omitted from the list of names certified by the Secretary of State to the county elections officials for the ballot and his or her name shall not appear on the ballot.
For the future, I think the vetting should be performed at the first time a candidate name is presented to a state election authority for appearance on a presidential primary ballot (to the best of my knowledge, that does not occur in any state or DC at this time).
As it currently seems to stand, Arnold Swarzenegger could under current procedure become US President by running for election, relying on his popularity with the voting public, and avoiding inconvenient questions until he is elected and sworn into office. Apparently that is a situation permitted by existing procedures, but at variance with the express intent of the authors of the US Constitution.
There was an additional opportunity for any two (one Representative and one Senator were required) of 535 members of Congress to object to Vice President Cheney’s Certification of the Electoral College vote during the joint session of Congress held on January 8th to count the Electoral College votes. No Senator and no Representative objected to the official certification of the Election.
It sounds to me as if you are already aware that it has been reported that Dick Cheney, when he presided over the Senate on January 8 did not, as prescribed by the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15 ("Counting electoral votes in Congress"
Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.
stop and ask the Senate for objections.
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Nary a truer word. My computer has troubles and was down, but to a good purpose. I trotted off and got the National Post, previously a somewhat conservative newspaper. Still, I should have gone to FR boot camp and known how to link. Herewith:
"Fans protest radio host firing
Something he said?"
by Melissa Leong (page A2 2nd paragraph)
Richard Syrett's final broadcast had been about Barack Obama's elegibility for the U.S. presidency: Was he really born in Kenya and not in Hawaii?"
We read further that the cancelled program was ended on inauguration day. The manager of CFRB stated that the show was cancelled because of low ratings. Book store owner Patrick Whyte, who lead a demonstration to re-instate Mr Syrette, claimed that such a subject would have been of interest.
The no doubt fairly objectively trained journalist Ms Leong, may have chanced it a little. Perhaps she cleared her little column with the big wigs though. She did however equate the supporter of Mr Syrette with U.F.O's and cover ups by the government. I guess she gets a pass.
Redoubtable Bill Cunningham mentioned Mr Syrett on Sunday night. He mentioned the subject matter. He also mentioned lovely Grandmother Sarah Obama, travelling to America and not being at the inauguration. Bill said this good lady has it that she was at the birth of Barack. This was not in America.
The National Post and that radio station is in Canada?
“The manager of CFRB stated that the show was cancelled because of low ratings” may very well be true.
Speaking of Canada, had you heard that Bill Ayers was turned back at the border not too long ago?
http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/19/bill_ayers_rejected_at_canadian_bor.php
“In other anti-Ayers news, Ill. state senator Larry Bromke (R-Springfield) wants to ban “admitted terrorists” from teaching at Illinois colleges because he is outraged that Illinois taxpayers are paying his salary.
“If we had a known pedophile, an admitted pedophile who had not been convicted, but an admitted pedophile, any school would be outraged to have that individual teaching kindergarten,” Bomke said. “So why would we want an admitted terrorist, an unrepentant terrorist, teaching kids at a university?” “
I suppose we in far off Northern Ontario might take too much for granted. Naturally, just a spit from Upper Michigan we think these things are well known. Much of America pretty remote from the UP though in some ways. The National Post started up ten years ago. It was felt that the heavyweight Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star were inclined to be a little, well 'er liberally inclined. Conrad Black owned it. He stepped down and the much respected Asper family, though liberal persons then owned it. Hopefully they were to continue the general flow of thoughtful conservatism Some might think that it has changed to a little left since.(chuckle).
CFRB Toronto is however controlled from Astral Media Radio in Montreal. It is am radio. Also an icon of veteran Canadian radio.
Yep, I learned of Bill Ayres. Any sneaking sympathy for him, because he has gained some eminence in education, went when I read of the bomb. A cruel, wicked , cunning thing, to splatter human beings. I think the Canadians may have been under the gun and like to maintain they are consistent. It was they who turned back Clifford Irving, who claimed the figures of the holocaust were more likely 300,000 not six million. Irving was only a child during WW2 and has served time for his historical revision. They turned back Rev. Phelps from the United States. Phelps does deal in hate but the "wrong" targets. Gays for example. By that criteria, poor, misunderstood Bill, deserved to be rejected.
If you go to my profile, you will see where I got my information about Adolf Hitler. I just posted it.
The man turned back when he was to lecture in Canada, but not on the subject of the holocaust, was DAVID Irving. Certainly not Clifford Irving, who conned a big American magazine with the Howard Hughes "interviews". Clever lad Clifford, who never spoke to reclusive Howard, got half a million dollars for the accounts. Hughes worked the court from a telephone and Clifford got a year durance vile.
I’ll check out some National Post articles and keep them in mind while clicking around the news sites online.
Obama has known Ayers for a long time, served on a few boards in foundations like Annenberg along with Ayers’ father and brother. A friend of a known, unapologetic terrorist, and his family, and Obama is now the president. Truth sometimes is stranger than fiction as you alluded to in your book review. Thanks for that, I’ll have to find a copy.
lol Fake Hughes interviews. If he didn’t have to give the $500,000 back, a year in jail might have been worth it to him. ;)
What is relevant to a presidential election is whether a candidate is a natural born citizen at the time he or she runs for office. A candidate who has never in the public record conclusively established his or her status as a natural born citizen or whose self-documented life includes visiting countries banned from visitation by US citizens or attending foreign schools whose students are restricted to be only citizens of a foreign country to begin with or who has relinquished whatever claim to citizenship he or she may have formerly held or who has otherwise yet to provide proof elegibility to become president under the US Constitution is by way of creating a vacuum of certainty over his or her claim to legitimacy of authority, effectively inviting legal and physical challenges to whatever authority he or she exercises in his or her presidential capacity. This effective invitation covers lawsuits, writs, domestic insurrections, and everything up to and including hostile nuclear actions from foreign countries or powers.
For the future, I think the vetting should be performed at the first time a candidate name is presented to a state election authority for appearance on a presidential primary ballot (to the best of my knowledge, that does not occur in any state or DC at this time).
As it currently seems to stand, Arnold Swarzenegger could under current procedure become US President by running for election, relying on his popularity with the voting public, and avoiding inconvenient questions until he is elected and sworn into office. Apparently that is a situation permitted by existing procedures, but at variance with the express intent of the authors of the US Constitution.
There was an additional opportunity for any two (one Representative and one Senator were required) of 535 members of Congress to object to Vice President Cheney’s Certification of the Electoral College vote during the joint session of Congress held on January 8th to count the Electoral College votes. No Senator and no Representative objected to the official certification of the Election.
It sounds to me as if you are already aware that it has been reported that Dick Cheney, when he presided over the Senate on January 8 did not, as prescribed by the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15 (”Counting electoral votes in Congress”
Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.
stop and ask the Senate for objections.
“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Barack Hussein Obama II presented a certified document from the state of Hawaii’s Department of Health which states that he was born in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii at 7:24 P.M. on August 4, 1961. That document further states that Obama’s birth was registered with the state of Hawaii on August 8, 1961 and there are two notices of his birth which appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulliten newspapers on Sunday, August 13, 1961.
Therefore the ONLY legal issue regarding his status as a Natural Born Citizen is whether the document that he has presented from the state of Hawaii is a forgery or a fraudulent {altered and invalid) document.
I am suggesting that his vault copy, long form, original Certification of Live Birth be subpoenaed by any authorized officer of the Court (in accordance with Hawaii law) such as a District Attorney or a state Attorney General to ascertain the validity of his original birth certificate and his short form Certification of Live Birth. Thus far, to my knowledge no subpoena has been issued.
All objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote on January 8th had to be submitted IN WRITING before the Joint Session of Congress met. The Vice President received no written objections, therefore he did not inquire as to whether there were any objections. It would have taken one Senator and one Representative stating their objections IN WRITING to stop the Certification of the Electoral Collge vote.
Once the Electoral College has voted, their votes have been certified by the President of the Senate, and the person with the most electoral votes has taken the Oath of Office at Noon on January 20th, there is a President.
The process of removing a sitting President is via impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors in a Senate trial.
Earlier you asked me
Whose job do you think it is to determine whose credentials are acceptable as a natural born citizen in order to become President of the United States?
I was merely responding in the idealistic sense.
Barack Hussein Obama II presented a certified document from the state of Hawaii’s Department of Health which states that he was born in the City of ...
I'm sorry, to whom did he present the certified document and for what specific reason? By "certified document" are you referring to a certification or a long form birth certificate?
Apparently Obama has signed statements for various states to the effect that he is Constitutionally qualified to serve as president, and copies of these signed statements are apparently publicly available (at least they show up on the Internet). IMHO that's a stronger assertion than merely that he was born in the US. Anyway, there seem to be are four possible outcomes.
One, the statements are true and will be publicly proven to be true-- if so, his authority will be enhanced by the discrediting of some of his detractors.
Two, the statements are false and will be publicly proven to be false-- if so, the US is IMHO likely to be thrown into mass confusion if not civil war.
Three, the veracity of the statements remain in doubt for the duration of his presidency.
Four, some event occurs that makes the question of the veracity of the statements moot, such as if Obama dies or is determined to be mentally incompetent to carry out his duties while in office, or he declares martial law.
To me, it is difficult to imagine Obama being able to maintain an airtight lid on whether or not he is qualified. Every presidency since Washington has had a honeymoon period followed by political discord to a greater or lesser degree. Because of the large magnitude of political forces being exerted in such times, those times are when such secrets tend to come out, if they do not already come out during the election process.
Alternative four is particularly scary to me.
All objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote on January 8th had to be submitted IN WRITING before the Joint Session of Congress met.
Cite?
The Vice President received no written objections, ...
Cite?
I’m sorry but you are mistaken. There is no FEDERAL law against running for President as non-Native Born CANDIDATE.
Earlier you asked me
Whose job do you think it is to determine whose credentials are acceptable as a natural born citizen in order to become President of the United States?
I was merely responding in the idealistic sense.
Barack Hussein Obama II presented a certified document from the state of Hawaii’s Department of Health which states that he was born in the City of ...
I’m sorry, to whom did he present the certified document and for what specific reason? By “certified document” are you referring to a certification or a long form birth certificate?
Apparently Obama has signed statements for various states to the effect that he is Constitutionally qualified to serve as president, and copies of these signed statements are apparently publicly available (at least they show up on the Internet). IMHO that’s a stronger assertion than merely that he was born in the US. Anyway, there seem to be are four possible outcomes.
One, the statements are true and will be publicly proven to be true— if so, his authority will be enhanced by the discrediting of some of his detractors.
Two, the statements are false and will be publicly proven to be false— if so, the US is IMHO likely to be thrown into mass confusion if not civil war.
Three, the veracity of the statements remain in doubt for the duration of his presidency.
Four, some event occurs that makes the question of the veracity of the statements moot, such as if Obama dies or is determined to be mentally incompetent to carry out his duties while in office, or he declares martial law.
To me, it is difficult to imagine Obama being able to maintain an airtight lid on whether or not he is qualified. Every presidency since Washington has had a honeymoon period followed by political discord to a greater or lesser degree. Because of the large magnitude of political forces being exerted in such times, those times are when such secrets tend to come out, if they do not already come out during the election process.
Alternative four is particularly scary to me.
All objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote on January 8th had to be submitted IN WRITING before the Joint Session of Congress met.
Cite?
The Vice President received no written objections, ...
Cite?
You have to apply to be on the ballot in each state. That is why so many of the lawsuits concerning Obama’s eligibility are directed at various states’ Secretaries of State, the official most often responsible for implementing elections. For example, one of the law suits that is still alive is Ambassador Alan Keyes’ suit in California which is entitled “Lightfoot v Bowen.” Bowen is Debra Bowen, California’s Secretary of State. Obama himself is not named in the suit.
ALL state issued birth documents in Hawaii are called “Certifications.” Hospitals issue birth certificates, the state issues Certifications whether they are long form or short form.
Obama can’t maintain “an airtight lid.” As I keep saying over and over, what is needed is a subpoena for his original Certification of Live Birth. All that is required under Hawaii Law (HRS 338-18 Part 9) and I quote, is a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
The citation for submitting objections to the Electoral College vote is Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended) Section 15 “Counting electoral votes in congress.” is the specific section.
The citation for Cheney not verbally asking for objections is Section 18, and I quote: “While the two Houses shall be in meeting as provided in this chapter, the President of the Senate shall have the power to preserve order, and no debate shall be allowed and no question shall be put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to withdraw.” —Chapter 1, Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672,as amended, Section 18.
You’re overlooking the fact that there is speculation out there, which served as the premise for the comment in question, regarding the possibility that a fraudulent entity (meaning a group of individuals) has positioned itself in such a way as to exert control over our government.
Having read the above, you are now faced with either accepting the potential legitimacy of the speculation or rejecting it. If you reject it you can do so either directly (for which you have no reality-based claim so your ability to participate adequately in the discussion would be significantly damaged), or by running away from the challenge through the use of deceptive language.
Just for clarification, in Hawaii there are 4 birth documents:
- Certification of Live Birth
- Certificate of Live Birth (long form or vault copy)
- Certificate of Delayed Birth
- Certificate of Hawaiian Birth
The certification is issued in lieu of any of the other 3, and which one is not specified, nor are any changes or modifications to the original shown on the certification.
I’m sorry, but I can’t help but think that future historians will be awfully cruel to people like Congresswoman Pelosi and the members of the Supreme Court who—for strange reasons known only to themselves—sacrificed the integrity of the Constitution of the United States in order to allow a person to be sworn in as president who presented NO legal evidence whatsoever that he was even eligible to become President of the United States.
I can’t help but feel so sorry for future members of the Pelosi family and for the families of the present members of the Supreme Court who will have to face the public’s eternal outrage over the fact that an IN-eligible person—-IN-eligible according to the laws of the Constitution—–was allowed to be sworn in as President of the United States on Jan. 20, 2009.
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.