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

Skip to comments.

"if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
3-21-09 | Uncle Sham

Posted on 03/21/2009 9:58:28 AM PDT by Uncle Sham

The twentieth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains what might be the key to unlocking the mystery of Barrack Obama’s long-form birth certificate. It reads as follows:

”1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

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.

4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.”

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. This is further enforced with the passage at the end of section three where it plainly states "until a President or Vice President shall have qualified." 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.”

To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s 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. If this was done, 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 should not be serving as president of the United States of America.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: barackobama; berg; bho2008; bho2009; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; british; certifigate; citizenship; colb; conspiracytheories; constitution; coverup; democrats; democratscandals; donofrio; doublestandard; eligibility; hawaii; ineligible; kenya; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; obamatruthfile; orly; orlytaitz; scotus; taitz; truthers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-205 next last
To: packman
Right now our website Reward for Obama's Birth Certificate.com is offering to pay $100,000 to Barack Hussein Obama if he will produce his "real" long-form birth certificate. And we expect that number to increase as more people find out about it!
81 posted on 03/21/2009 11:09:12 AM PDT by Stayfree ((HELP US EXPOSE THE "REAL" BIRTH CERTIFICATE @ REWARD FOR OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE.COM!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Aroostok Republican

Hard to know what to believe. The document you sight was apparently proven falsified, ya know, if enough citizens are concerned, it is NOT expensive for the president to PROVIDE THE COURTS with the actual document. He apparently thinks he is above this, or else he does not believe it matters. It does. It needs to be put to rest. Obama has a very shady past and we at the very least deserve to know that he qualifies for this post he is screwing up so badly, legally.


82 posted on 03/21/2009 11:15:57 AM PDT by Republic (Jedem das Seine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Aroostok Republican
This is not evidence. There may be another reason he doesn't want the BC released (middle name Mohammad? Mother born out of wedlock). Or he may just not feel the need to release something he does not have to. While odd, this is not evidence that the information in the COLB is false.

The term absent from discussion so far including your posts is "best evidence."

With all due respect, let's phrase the question thusly:

Should a candidate running for presidential office, or a sitting president, be required to show best evidence proof that he or she is constitutionally qualified to assume the responsibilities in that office and be deserving of the public trust?

A certification of live birth is in no way "best evidence" given (as the State of Hawaii has now conveniently confirmed) that a birth certificate actually exists.

The State Department weasel words are likely intended for corner cases (e.g., a person has a certification of live birth but the courthouse containing the original birth certificate was burned down with all records destroyed, etc.). In any case, the quality of evidence required to be presented should be if anything higher for qualifications to become president than merely to obtain a passport (would you not agree?).

Best evidence is (cite: Black's 7th) "evidence of the highest quality available, as measured by the nature of the case rather than the thing being offered as evidence." Though since you seem preoccupied with evidence, I presume you already understand this and for some unknown reason have chosen not to divulge your understanding (???) in this discussion.

Aside: your arguments seem remarkably -- and unusually -- one sided for what you appear to portray yourself to be (Republican?) in this forum.

83 posted on 03/21/2009 11:18:24 AM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Aroostok Republican
Welcome to Free Republic.

May I suggest for your reading..."The Obama Timeline".

84 posted on 03/21/2009 11:18:40 AM PDT by Churchillspirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Helotes
They can only be grounded from combat if you are wounded or crazy.
If you want to be grounded you are obviously not crazy.
Obama may have been shaped by Ayres, he could have been scripted by Heller.
85 posted on 03/21/2009 11:23:16 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Aroostok Republican
It is not up to anyone to prove that the Certificat of Live Berth (an alleged copy of his true birth certificate) is false. It is up Barak Obama to prove it.

Why won't he do so???????

86 posted on 03/21/2009 11:26:40 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20 (Socialism is a good idea until you run out of other peopleÂ’s money. Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Aroostok Republican

It could have come into existence if Madeline Dunham had made false representations to the Registrar of Live Births.

We know that something very suspicious was done, since the Honolulu Advertiser published a birth notice that gave an address for Barack Obama and Ann Dunham, that is almost certainly false. There is NO record of either Ann Dunham, Barack Obama, or Ann Dunham’s parents ever having lived at the address on Kalanianiole Highway given in the Advertiser notice.

I know for a FACT that Stanley and Madeline Dunham lived on Kamehmeha Avenue in 1961. I know this because I was a neighbor at the time. I believe that Ann Dunham lived with them at the family home until she left for Washington (via Kenya?), however I do not know this for a fact.

The notion that Ann Dunham and Barack Obama senior (both students at the time) lived in a tony neighborhood in Waialae is ludicrous. Moreover, we know Barack Obama lined in Kaimuki at the time (sometimes reported as St. Louis Heights).

It has been stated often on this board that in 1961 birth notices in the Honolulu Advertiser were based on data obtained from the registrar of births. Is this the address as stated in the original birth registration? If it is, it is prima facie evidence that the representations on which the birth certificate was issued were false - and prbably made by Medeline Dunham, not by Ann Dunham, who was almost certainly NOT in Honolulu at the time.


87 posted on 03/21/2009 11:29:49 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: norton

Why Is Maya Soetoro’s Name on Barack’s Phony Certificate of Live Birth?
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor: Larry Johnson Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2] Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 Views 2.1 1996 2.2 1998 2.3 1999 2.4 2000 2.5 2001 2.6 2003 2.6.1 Plame affair 2.7 2008 3 Notes 4 References 5 External links [edit]Background Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to “open doors” for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America. Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant. After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC’s Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric (”a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year”). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003. Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson’s consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project. A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak’s controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence. [edit]Views This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline. Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list. [edit]1996 In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. “Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago.”[6] He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by “networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders.” Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7] [edit]1998 In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy: The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama’s status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8] In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in “virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States” in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by “hatred and craziness.” If left unanswered, “he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He’s a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude.”[9] [edit]1999 In an interview with PBS’s Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had “tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb.” “Actually,” he continues, “Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years.” Johnson continued: When you look at who’s killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he’s supported and backed—I’m basing that upon the initial information that’s been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities—Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he’s the threat. He’s serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he’s in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn’t have access to a cell phone, as long as he can’t just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11] In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden’s organization to plan and put their lives on the line: There’s not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we’re going to put our lives on the line, we’re going to go out and try and kill people and we don’t care what the consequence is? It hasn’t happened.[12] Frontline asked: [Is it] ... fair to say what you’re saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]? Johnson responded: They’re grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn’t be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying “terrorism’s rising,” it’s not. “Terrorism is spreading,” it’s not. “More people are dying from terrorism,” not the case. But what they should be saying is, “There’s one individual out there that really doesn’t like us, and he’s made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we’ve gotta deal with him.” But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what’s taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12] [edit]2000 Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require “a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations,” concluding: The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13] [edit]2001 After Johnson’s testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14] In an editorial entitled “The Declining Terrorist Threat,” published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says: Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15] Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his “Chatterbox” feature at Slate: “Johnson’s analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong.”[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks: The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17] After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI’s proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations: I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn’t the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us — they murdered Americans. And we’ve got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18] [edit]2003 In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer’s response was to tell him that “it didn’t matter what Saddam did or didn’t do, we were going to war.”[19] The paper warned that an invasion would “do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks.” Noting that Saddam Hussein’s regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda: There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . . Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that “Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless,” Johnson concludes, “it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20] In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire: In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20] Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a “sleep deprivation and reward system” might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: I don’t see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn’t subject someone to freezing but they don’t get to wear mink coats, either.[21] In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes: It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don’t know, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22] [edit]Plame affair After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson’s cover should have been respected whether she was an “analyst” or a “cleaning lady”: “if she’s undercover she’s undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue.”[23] He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, “My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other’s identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons.”[24] Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25] [edit]2008 In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson’s blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson’s blog—a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians—has been “refuted” Barack Obama’s Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27] [edit]Notes ^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/ ^ Larry C. Johnson, “About Me,” No Quarter (personal blog). ^ “Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address,” transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee’s website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006. ^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor ^ “Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative’s Name: Democrats’ Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides’ Role,” CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006. ^ Gail Russell Chaddock, “Why Terrorists Pick On the French,” Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1. ^ Larry Johnson, “Terrorists Among Us,” New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19. ^ Terrorism Today ^ Lee Michael Katz, “The Hunt for Bin Laden,” USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A. ^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. “Interview: Larry C. Johnson,” for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006. ^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS ^ a b [1]. ^ As posted in [2]. ^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 “Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset,” Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006. ^ *Larry C. Johnson, “The Declining Terrorist Threat,” The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19. ^ Timothy Noah, “(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson,” Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation: It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson’s op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson’s piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson’s prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it. But boy, is he glad he didn’t! Johnson’s analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time. ^ Larry C. Johnson, “Johnson vs. President Bush,” re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005. ^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260. ^ [3]. ^ a b Larry C. Johnson, “Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism,” posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006. ^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, “CIA ‘pressure’ on al-Qa’eda chief,” The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16. ^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, “Save Our Spooks,” The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6. ^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4] ^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003). ^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see “References” section.] ^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). “Will Obama’s Anti-Rumor Plan Work?”, Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:”a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson” ^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (994) on August 5, 2008 at 2:55 AM in Barack Obama, Birth Mystery, Current Affairs

We can now identify the woman’s name that appears on the phony Barack Obama Certificate of Live Birth (aka COLB). It is Barack’s sister, Maya Kassandra Soetoro. Credit for the discovery goes to TechDude. And the woman who has pursued this story relentlessly, Texas Darlin, has done it and has the story. She’ll post the full story here later today.

Here’s the simple summary–an authentic COLB was used as a template to create the so-called “birth certificate” that was first posted at Daily Kos and the official Barack Obama campaign site. Why doesn’t Barack come clean with his own, genuine Certificate of Live Birth? We do not know for sure but it appears that the name listed is that of BARRY SOETORO. Barry Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and, by virtue of that adoption, was registered as Barry Soetoro in Hawaii.

Barry aka Barrack has some “splaining” to do (to quote Ricky Ricardo).


88 posted on 03/21/2009 11:34:51 AM PDT by WellyP (obama must go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

Comment #89 Removed by Moderator

To: All

If the Certification of Live Birth that Obama posted on the web last July was fraudulent or forged, the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii (who is a Republican) could have sought a subpoena for the original vault copy long form document to compare it to the posted document.

The fact that he hasn’t done that says to me that in accordance with Hawaii law, there is no information on the short form Certification that isn’t also on the vault copy document.

At the bottom of every short form certificate it states “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”

Obama’s Certification says that he was born at 7:24 p.m. on August 7, 1961 and that he was born in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii.

Two notices of his birth appeared in the Sunday Honolulu newspapers on August 13th, 1961, the following Sunday after his birth.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg

At the joint session of Congress held on January 8, 2009, any one Representative and any one US Senator COULD have submitted a written objection to the certification of the Electoral College vote by Vice President Cheney. No members of Congress objected to the certification of the vote, the certification of the vote of the Electoral College was unanimous.
TABULATION JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS

The 2008 Electoral Votes (those formally cast by Presidential Electors back on 15 December 2008: these Electors having been “appointed [as well as- at least theoretically- “pledged”] via the results of the Presidential Election in each of the 50 States plus the District of Columbia back on 4 November 2008) are counted and tabulated before a Joint Session of both houses of Congress, presided over by the constitutional President of the Senate (Vice President Dick CHENEY), after which it is officially declared who has been elected President and Vice President of the United States of America.

Vice President Cheney gaveled the Tabulation Joint Session to order at 1:08 PM EST (1808 UTC)

538 total Electoral Votes (1 per each U.S. Senator and Representative in Congress to which each State is entitled, plus 3 for D.C.)- thus, there were 538 duly appointed Presidential Electors re: 2008.

No objections were raised by any Senators or Representatives to the counting and tabulating of the Electoral Vote from any State (or the District of Columbia). The Certificates of the Electoral Vote from all 51 jurisdictions seemed “to be regular in form and authentic” and the total Electoral Vote as “ascertained and delivered to the President of the Senate” by the four Tellers- two from each house of Congress, one from each side of the aisle:

from the UNITED STATES SENATE
Senator Robert BENNETT (R-Utah)
Senator Chuck SCHUMER (D-New York)
from the U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Congressman Robert BRADY (D-Pennsylvania)
Congressman Dan LUNGREN (R-California)

was determined to be as follows:

270 Electoral Votes (a Majority of same) necessary to elect

ELECTORAL VOTE for President of the United States:
for BARACK H. OBAMA of Illinois: 365 votes
for JOHN S. McCAIN III of Arizona: 173 votes
ELECTORAL VOTE for Vice President of the United States:
for JOSEPH R. BIDEN of Delaware: 365 votes
for SARAH H. PALIN of Alaska: 173 votes
Therefore, it was officially declared that

BARACK H. OBAMA was elected President of the United States
JOSEPH R. BIDEN was elected Vice President of the United States for four-year terms beginning at Noon EST (1700 UTC), 20 January 2009.

Vice President Cheney dissolved the Tabulation Joint Session at 1:36 P.M. EST (1836 UTC)


90 posted on 03/21/2009 11:36:50 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Aroostok Republican
I know there is a difference between a COLB and BC, but as I understand it the COLB is simply a short form of the BC, and that unless you think the COLB has information on it that is wrong, there is nothing in the full BC that could disqualify him.

I also know the difference, but what I don't know is what was in either original Birth Certificate or the ORIGINAL COLB --- the only COLB that was released, when thoroughly microscoply analyzed, had been tampered with, and changes had been made on it. And it was not numbered, and a couple of other things were wrong with it.

Hardly acceptable proof of anything -- and least as far as I'm concerned.

91 posted on 03/21/2009 11:38:31 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20 (Socialism is a good idea until you run out of other peopleÂ’s money. Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Aroostok Republican

Experts have said that Obama’s Hawaii COLB is a forged document. Let’s see the original birth certificate!


92 posted on 03/21/2009 11:40:06 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #93 Removed by Moderator

To: jamese777
If the Certification of Live Birth that Obama posted on the web last July was fraudulent or forged, the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii (who is a Republican) could have sought a subpoena for the original vault copy long form document to compare it to the posted document.

The fact that he hasn’t done that says to me that in accordance with Hawaii law, there is no information on the short form Certification that isn’t also on the vault copy document.

I would be beyond shocked if the Governor or Attorney General of Hawaii had gone and, without Obama's permission, had state employees pull the original birth certificate of Obama so they could have a peek at it.

If they did, the mainstream media would absolute crucify them for violating Obama's privacy.

It would be like if Condi Rice had asked State Department employees to pull Obama's passport application file so she could take a look at it. Can you imagine the firestorm that would have resulted from that?

On the contrary, my impression is that what Hawaii has done is merely confirm that Obama is on the list of people for whom there is a birth certificate on file. And that no Republican politicians have gone to have a peek at it.

94 posted on 03/21/2009 11:50:46 AM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

Experts have said that Obama’s Hawaii COLB is a forged document. Let’s see the original birth certificate!


Under the laws of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii (or any District Attorney) can get a subpoena for the original birth certificate if he believes that it is forged or fradulent. His name is Mark Bennett and he’s a Republican.


95 posted on 03/21/2009 11:51:56 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Let’s have them show the original birth certificate to the Supreme Court.


96 posted on 03/21/2009 11:53:27 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Aroostok Republican

Here is a good link about Obama’s background, its almost as long as War and Peace and has excellant resources to verify the facts.

Colony 14, Obama Timeline
http://www.colony14.net/id41.html


97 posted on 03/21/2009 11:54:01 AM PDT by Eye of Unk ("If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." T. Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Aroostok Republican
You're wrong. She stated several times that he was born in Kenya.

You're a troll, aren't you?

98 posted on 03/21/2009 11:54:25 AM PDT by Honcho Bongs (Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. - Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: spacejunkie01; Aroostok Republican
"There is WAY more evidence pointing to him not being a NBC than there is pointing to him being qualified. By Far."

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence and can convict someone of a crime in court. The circumstantial evidence that 0 has something to hide is overwhelming and the issue should be pursued given the gravity of the situation.

99 posted on 03/21/2009 12:08:57 PM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Aroostok Republican
But, as I understand it, the CLB is a legal document that meets the requirements for proving citizenship for, say, a passport.

The US Dept. of State accepts a COLB as proof of citizenship. However, the US Constitution sets a higher standard for the office of President.

100 posted on 03/21/2009 12:10:36 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-205 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