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 ...
As an American citizen, I DEMAND to know who ordered SCOTUS to throw out any Obama non-citizenship case and then have the situation investigated.
Do you really believe any SCOTUS judge would tell a freeper this...it’s total BS.
We The People will continue to demand a legitimate investigation of Obama’s hidden original birth certificate and “British citizenship.”
Lightfoot is on the denied list...January 26th-bottom of page one and top of page two.
You are quite correct. I was objecting to jamese777 stating quite falsely that “The State of Hawaii does not issue long form Certifications...”
Sorry, I think you may have missed my point entirely.
james777’s logic— as best I can reconstruct it— is as follows:
SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of law within the US.
therefore
No one can order SCOTUS to do anything.
[check: I hope we all agree on this]
Now: what is wrong with the above logic??
I invite you to go back and think about what I wrote from a logical perspective— and not about whatI appear (to you personally) to be doing. IOW, for logic’s sake, it is easier to think logically when one entirely removes the personal and the incidental (eg you appear - he appears - she appears - they appear) from one’s thinking.
My mistake in misreading your post...apologies.
I saw it on another thread...Lightfoot is denied this morning.
Well that is quite an education that you just laid on us Freepers.It’s plainly obvious who you voted for,and you have that right.Now please step aside,and let all of us who didn’t vote for him just see his freekin’ birth certificate already.
I know that no one can “legally” order the Supreme Court to do something — however — it’s very clear that certain FReepers are of the opinion that “legal or not” — someone *is ordering* the Supreme Court to cover up things about Obama’s qualifications. That much I can say for sure (i.e., that I see, directly, that FReepers believe and say this...).
So, while I would agree with you that no one can “legally” order the Supreme Court do something that they think is politically expedient (no matter what legal decisions they think are right) — that leaves the door *wide open* for those who believe the Supreme Court is “illegally in collusion” with those who wish to cover up Obama’s lack of qualifications to be President of the United States per the Constitution...
Again, I agree with your logic and even go further than the “legal” part and say they are not going to be influenced illegally either (no matter what a certain number of FReepers are claiming...).
Oh..., by the way, if you’re not careful, you’ll be put in the same category as what the other poster was put into..., in post #89... LOL...
Well that’s quite an assumption on your part. I didn’t even notice your psychic presence in the voting booth with me!
;-)
Now would you please acknowledge a failed legal strategy and support a new legal strategy that has yet to be attempted?
That new strategy is getting any prosecuting attorney in the United States to request that a judge issue a subpoena for Obama’s long form, original vault copy birth certificate as a part of a criminal investigation of forgery, since it should be obvious to anyone that Obama has no intention of divulging it voluntarily.
As of the latest US Supreme Court order issued today, Obama has fifteen civil law suit victories for not releasing it and various plaintiffs all over the US have zero victories in getting it released through civil court means.
Not according to the US Constitution. For example, Arnold Swartzenegger is by his admission Austrian born. He therefore by the US Constitution does not qualify (Constitutionally) to be US president, even if he receives enough votes. By your argument on its face (unless I am missing something), if Arnold were to get enough votes (via electors favorable to him), then he could become president.
The President gets to qualify for a lot of things, above and beyond what he would qualify for, apart from the “job of President of the United States” — if he were simply an ordinary citizen.
Only under the presumption that no qualifications fraud has occurred in the election process by the candidate elected.
I would say that every last single President of the United States could *never* qualify for all the levels of security that he got as “President” — if he were an ordinary citizen, no matter what proof he put forth and no matter what kind of background he had that would qualify him. OK, strong statement. Let's test it: what disqualified Washington? Jefferson? I cannot think of anything in the historical context.
In this particular case with Obama, the complaint you have about him being in office is with the “voters” who put him there...
Again, two things permitted Obama to be recognized as the winner of the election: the votes his electors received, and the process in regards to vetting him as a candidate. If Obama took the oath of presidential office knowing that he did not for whatever reasons (eg not natural born citizen) qualify as a presidential candidate under the US Constitution, he violated the oath as soon as he took it, and deceived the voters who voted for him. If Obama in fact deceived the voters in this manner, we now have a situation in which an Constitutionally disqualified person is president. Obviously the Constitution was not intended to permit such a scenario, and such a scenario gives ample reason for persons in the executive branch who normally take orders from a president -- such as the military -- to question, ignore, or otherwise take issue with the orders issued by such a fraudulent president. Such a situation is inherently instable and IMHO invites a civil insurrection.
If I may comment, I observed in the 1996 presidential election that the process by which candidates are chosen for appearing on a primary was very loosely defined. This seems to me to be a very obvious candidate location in the process for inserting a Constitutional vetting for natural born citizen. The problem IMHO may go well beyond a specific candidate, well beyond the "natural born citizen" qualification, and well beyond Obama, and may need to be addressed in each government entity that has presidential electors.
Sorry, I think you may have missed my point entirely.
james777’s logic— as best I can reconstruct it— is as follows:
SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of law within the US.
therefore
No one can order SCOTUS to do anything.
[check: I hope we all agree on this]
Now: what is wrong with the above logic??
I invite you to go back and think about what I wrote from a logical perspective— and not about whatI appear (to you personally) to be doing. IOW, for logic’s sake, it is easier to think logically when one entirely removes the personal and the incidental (eg you appear - he appears - she appears - they appear) from one’s thinking.
“Methinks we are not in the same galactic cluster.
That’s been done hereon multiple times.
I’m skeptical we even have sufficient shared vocabulary to discuss dog poop with very meaningfully.
Cheers.”
You said — “Not according to the US Constitution. For example, Arnold Swartzenegger is by his admission Austrian born. He therefore by the US Constitution does not qualify (Constitutionally) to be US president, even if he receives enough votes. By your argument on its face (unless I am missing something), if Arnold were to get enough votes (via electors favorable to him), then he could become president.”
Since I’ve said that very same thing in some of my prior posts, I’ve taken that as a “given”. So, it’s already implied in my statement. And I can’t include all my prior posts in a present post, to make sure I’ve first cleared up the entire context of my statement... first, before making the statement... LOL...
I’ve made the explicit point on this very thing, saying the exact same thing you’ve said, in that with Obama, there is no evidence out there which has been able to be used in a court of law to disqualify him per the Constitution. But, with Arnold Swartzenegger there is ample evidence out there and he could never get past the initial stages of trying to do so. BUT..., I’ll have you know that I was told I was *wrong* and if the Bilderbergers and the Trilaterals (and all the other alphabet soup agencies) wanted Arnold Swartzenegger there — he would get to be President.
Now..., that is representative of the type of thinking that we have here on Free Republic... LOL...
—
And then you said — “Only under the presumption that no qualifications fraud has occurred in the election process by the candidate elected.”
Yep, I would agree there, and that’s contingent upon a court, though, to “prove it” — however. I say that, because according to many FReepers here the “fraud” of Obama in not qualifying is *clear* (to them). But, it’s not clear to a court (I say...). Thus, I qualify this in terms of a court verifying such a fraud. I say a “court” because obviously such things, even if claimed to be a fraud by some, don’t necessarily “ring true” with voters and they’ll vote a candidate in anyway. But, I don’t think they would vote in a candidate who had been proven in a court of law of being fraudulent...
—
You said — “OK, strong statement. Let’s test it: what disqualified Washington? Jefferson? I cannot think of anything in the historical context.”
LOL..., yes, definitely a strong statement — equal in capacity to those saying that Obama is not qualified, even without any proof that he is not qualified per the Constitution. So, I will not be like those and I will say you can most likely eliminate Washington and Jefferson from the list... :-)
—
And then you said — “Again, two things permitted Obama to be recognized as the winner of the election: the votes his electors received, and the process in regards to vetting him as a candidate. If Obama took the oath of presidential office knowing that he did not for whatever reasons (eg not natural born citizen) qualify as a presidential candidate under the US Constitution, he violated the oath as soon as he took it, and deceived the voters who voted for him. If Obama in fact deceived the voters in this manner, we now have a situation in which an Constitutionally disqualified person is president. Obviously the Constitution was not intended to permit such a scenario, and such a scenario gives ample reason for persons in the executive branch who normally take orders from a president — such as the military — to question, ignore, or otherwise take issue with the orders issued by such a fraudulent president. Such a situation is inherently instable and IMHO invites a civil insurrection.”
We have an example of a President who was not qualified per the Constitution and he knew he wasn’t. And it didn’t interfere with him being President and carrying out his duties. That was Chester Arthur, 21st President. Leo Donofrio has documented that. Since no one can prove this situation with Obama at the present time, he *is* President and has the very same full capabilities that any President would have. At such a time that it may be discovered by means of documentation that can be affirmed in a court of law that he is not qualified, it remains in the hands of the Congress to deliver any final adjudication on the matter. Until they choose to adjudicate (and depending on how they decide) the matter, Obama is still the President in his full capacity, as always. In the meantime, there is no effect (from this allegation) upon the personnel that the President commands.
—
And lastly — “If I may comment, I observed in the 1996 presidential election that the process by which candidates are chosen for appearing on a primary was very loosely defined. This seems to me to be a very obvious candidate location in the process for inserting a Constitutional vetting for natural born citizen. The problem IMHO may go well beyond a specific candidate, well beyond the “natural born citizen” qualification, and well beyond Obama, and may need to be addressed in each government entity that has presidential electors.”
I’ve consistently proposed that the various states enact laws that require specific documentation from a Presidential candidate in order to prove his qualifications per the Constitution. As I understand it, thus far, Oklahoma and Arizona are moving ahead on this state legislation...
OK, you certainly have a right to your opinion.
However, there is and always will be, among the common members of the public and lower levels of government, uncertainty in asserting facts not in public evidence. For example, I cannot categorically state that I know for a fact that no member of SCOTUS has been coerced into deciding for or against any party on any case before it, simply because I have not been physically present with any current (or former for that matter) member of SCOTUS at all. I for one do not understand how anyone else could logically claim they can rule out that any member of SCOTUS has been coerced, for the same reason. (I am here simply addressing certainty, not likelihood.) For logical argument and legal argument, it is preferable to restrain one's assumptions to facts in public evidence.
I admit it coercion may be a long shot under the circumstances, but I would argue that given merely the extraordinary stakes at hand, along with the existence of powerful political and economic forces near the seat of US federal government power, it may be prudent not to exclude the possibility of extraordinary means to ensure certain outcomes, either directly (eg, via corruption) or indirectly (eg, via coercion).
I consider myself to be merely following the chain of reasoning of William Pitt the Elder who said "[U]nlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where laws end, tyranny begins."
... Or, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The only verification of birth that the state of Hawaii issues is the Certification of Live Birth that Obama posted a photoshopped copy of on the web. The state of Hawaii does not issue long form Certifications
That turns out to be wrong. The state itself requires a long form certificate for purposes of the Hawaii Lands program, and the US State department does likewise under certain conditions.
The long form just takes longer to get, because someone has to drag out the file and xerox it, and then stamp the copy with the state seal.
From the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands site
Primary Documents
The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are:
* A certified copy of Certificate of Birth;
* A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,
including testimonies; or
* A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth.
You will need the certified birth certificates for:
* Yourself
* Your biological father; and
* Your biological mother
The state Department of Health, (DOH), Vital Records Section, records documents by island and district (geographically) and by the date of the event (chronologically).
If your biological parents’ documents don’t clearly prove that you have at least 50 percent Hawaiian ancestry, you will also need certified birth certificates for:
* Your biological father’s parents; and
* Your biological mother’s parents.
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
Please note that DOH no longer offers same day service. If you plan on picking up your certified DOH document(s), you should allow at least 10 working days for DOH to process your request(s), OR four to six weeks if you want your certified certificate(s) mailed to you.
So they will issue one. And they’ll issue one for other purposes as well. Nice talking point, but it’s wrong.
Okay...
You think it’s possible (and so do I, in a very, very longshot..., like me being hit by an asteroid, one of these days) — but I don’t think it’s probable or likely. I think I’ll get hit by lightning or have a plane fall on my head or be abducted by aliens or win the lotto — first...
My opinion, of course.
—
And, yes..., there is really *nothing* that we can say for a certainty, actually. That’s a word we use for beyond the circumstances of an asteroid hitting us or winning the lotto and so on...
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.