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

To: jaxon72
It looks like the courts are not going to touch the Obama eligibility issue with a ten foot pole during Obama's first term, if we can use the dismissal of this soldier's lawsuit as a measurement stick.

To put it frankly, the soldier's inexperienced lawyer was completely outplayed by the slicker, smarter Obama lawyers.

Still, we must not give up the good fight, and we must continue to do everything legally possible to bring lawsuits that challenge Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States throughout his first term.

That is, we may not get Obama in his first term, but when the 2012 presidential primaries arrive, Obama will see lawsuits that he can't even imagine today, and the community organizer-state senator will not get a free pass this next time, because Obama will be challenged in every state over and over once he signs his name to an application form to run in each state's primary.

Stanley Ann Dunham:

Myself, I think we should turn some of our energies and resources to finding out if Obama's mother was even in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, the day Obama claims he was born in Hawaii.

For instance, we should continue to put heavy pressure on Kapiolani Hospital to tell us whether or not a Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama---or any variation of that name---was a patient at the hospital on Aug. 4, 1961, the day that Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii.

1.I say this: Let us move our focus away from Obama---the Obama camp loves it when we focus on Obama, because they know that Obama can hide behind the tight medical privacy laws---and put our focus and energy on finding out if Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was a patient at Kapiolani hospital on Aug.4, 1961, the day Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii.

2.I say the above because I believe that the Obama camp knows that Obama and Kapiolani hospital are on shaky ground when they argue that Obama has the legal right to stop the public from finding out if Stanley Ann Dunham, who died many years ago, was or was not a patient at Kapiolani hospital on Aug. 4, 1961.

3. Myself, I don't understand what legal power President Obama as a private citizen has to stop Kapiolani Hospital from officially telling the public whether or not Stanley Ann Dunham or any variation of that name was a patient at the hospital on Aug. 4, 1961.

4.Remember, we are NOT asking to see Stanley Ann Dunham's detailed hospital records.

5. Rather, we are simply asking if she was a patient on the date of Aug. 4, 1961, the day Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii.

6.Finally, I wish some bright, never-give-up lawyer or lawyers would challenge Kapiolani hospital officials when the hospital officials argue that they are restrained by medical privacy laws from even admitting that Stanley Ann Dunham was or was not a patient there way back on Aug.4, 1961, nearly 50 years ago for pete's sake.

130 posted on 07/16/2009 11:45:08 AM PDT by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: john mirse

That is, we may not get Obama in his first term, but when the 2012 presidential primaries arrive, Obama will see lawsuits that he can’t even imagine today, and the community organizer-state senator will not get a free pass this next time, because Obama will be challenged in every state over and over once he signs his name to an application form to run in each state’s primary.


Thinking Cap Award


134 posted on 07/16/2009 11:48:55 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

To: john mirse
john mirse said: "To put it frankly, the soldier's inexperienced lawyer was completely outplayed by the slicker, smarter Obama lawyers."

I'm puzzled by what you are saying here. Are you claiming that it was the inexperience of the lawyer that caused the military to cancel the soldier's orders? What would a more experienced lawyer have done to prevent this?

What I expect will happen is that the lawyer will now find five other candidates who are willing to become plaintiffs. It will be more difficult then for the military to just cancel all five sets of orders. Eventually, the government would have to abandon this "surrender" mode or the military might cease to exist. I am confident that there are plenty of military who would just love to suddenly become civilians.

Do you recall what happened to the Berlin Wall when the Soviet Union made it clear that it would not shoot people escaping to the West through Czechoslovakia? A trickle of people quickly became a flood.

136 posted on 07/16/2009 11:52:51 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

To: john mirse

I like your thinking here. We could toss around all day back and forth impeachment vs. congress vs Supreme Court vs. military taking him away, and in truth none of us know. Now let’s get busy on the SAD (Stanley Ann Dunham)line of inquiry.


140 posted on 07/16/2009 12:08:44 PM PDT by bunster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

To: john mirse

I think you are on to something. What you said really makes sense about focusing on o’s mother. Is there any one out there that could follow thru with finding out where Stanley Dunham really was on Aug.4, 1961?


209 posted on 07/16/2009 9:00:33 PM PDT by NorwegianViking (Organizing for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

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