Obama, I want a piece of you!
Posted on 09/10/2009 9:42:35 PM PDT by moonpie57
I just talked to Orly:
She has 2 good news items that she is very busy with right now:
1. Judge Carter is ‘giving her expedited discovery - immediately’.
2. Judge Land will allow her to present before the court in GA. She is leaving now to fly to GA to appear before Judge Land at the Federal Building in Columbus, GA at 2:00 pm tomorrow (Friday, 9/11/09).
She would like as many military supporters to be there as possible. I called Carl Swensson (RiseUpForAmerica.com), and he will see what he can do. If you have any contacts there, please advise them.
(Excerpt) Read more at resistnet.com ...
You lose. (But thanks for thinking that.)
“I never claimed it was a “choice”. “
Really?
Do you REALLY want me to call up the post numbers where you said exactly that?
“I only claim that it is plausible that in at least one instance, someone was allowed to write “African” in this blank.”
No such blank existed in 1961.
Your choices were what was ON the PAPER.
Period.
And yes, “negro” was used in 1961.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2336970/posts?page=904#904
Take a LOOK at what is at post 904.
Oh yeah, Obamabots don’t acknowledge hard proof of anything.
If Negro was a choice, that would be stupid since it was asking for race and NOT nationality.
What if Obama Sr. had been from India and was racially Indian, but that wasn't one of the choices? Either he would be forced into a choice that didn't exactly describe him, or he would be allowed to describe his own race.
Of course these are all plausibility arguments, since all that really counts is whether in this one instance someone was allowed to refer to themselves as "African" on their kid's Hawaiian BC. Since the Hawaiian DOH authorities have not squawked about the "African", I am assuming that Obama's long form BC contains the same term. But to be really certain we will have to see the original form. If it says "African" then this whole discussion will be moot.
YOU find a blank form from back then. YOU made the claim. The burden of proof is on YOU.
Actually you made the claim that "Forms are multiple-choice". I think you will find that this one is not.
Putting "African" on a form would NOT tell someone what your race is as there are WHITE Africans.
We already went over this. There are white Africans but no one refers to the race of these people as African, as I have already showed.
You do, do you.
I never heard anyone on FR or among my conservative friends and acquaintances call themselves “right wingers”.
I'd be interested to see what evidence you can find about this, although I would still wonder if this was formalized in 1961, when Hawaii had been a state for less than two years.
See #964.
bump to read later!
There are lots of things in the Constitution for which it does not lay out the procedure for discovering and correcting violations.
But there is a provision for such things.
Constution for the United States
Section.1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Listen Obamabot, there's a place for you, just go there.
Then you can regale all those who believe that Obama is the messiah about how the FReepers were mean to you.
See post 904...
D’oh!
Hence the need for laws that do. Unfortunately there don't seem to be any.
But there is a provision for such things.
And in this case the Supreme Court does indeed have appellate jurisdiction. But so far none of the cases filed have made it that far.
if law were my field, I am sure I would get sick to my stomach watching.
I would think that with that type of Investigation, you would need to have your ducks in a row, before you release details and names of those involved.
and yes it does sound conspiratorial. They are investigating a Conspiracy.
now to be honest, we do not know that it involves Glenn Beck at all.
It was a New York based network, but it does seem to point to Fox.
To me, it seems like he has taken the gloves off in every other area, except the BC/NBC issue.
Elgibility to hold the office of President of the United States is a core constitutional issue that lies at the very heart of our government.
To have information of a cover up and not release it is morally if not legally wrong.
Apparently you are suggesting this is the information Glenn Beck will be releasing in the near future. Is that right?
It was an ordinary law, passed by Congress. They passed another to repeal and replace it. Possibly because they realized that they had no power to define a Constitutional term. I really don't think they left out the two words "natural born", because they decided that persons born outside the US of US Citizen parents did not deserve to be "considered as Natural Born".
Did you notice Pelosi’s signature on these 2 documents.
Notice the “N” and then the lack of “s” in Pelosi.
I cannot believe that anyone so clueless actually lived through the segregation and riots of the 60’s. They weren’t called “Africans” then. Negro was the nicest thing they were called. So, no, I don’t believe you.
So you are saying that the Congress and President violating the constitution, is not against the law because of a technicality? Maybe Judge Carter will disagree. I hope so.
You can not get a hearing in Congress to enforce the constitution when it is the Congress violating the constitution by refusing to check Obama’s natural born citizenship as required by the constitution. They voted him in without responsibily and professionally checking to see that he is qualified! They certified that he is qualified without checking to see if he is! Like voting on a bill w/o reading it...only worse because the constitution lets them do that massive act of irresponsibility.
This is not the Watergate hearings where Nixon was accused of crimes and the Congress aired the findings of a special prosecutor for political reasons. People who did commit legal crimes in Watergate went before a JUDGE for trials unless they were constitutionally pardoned by Ford. Congress won’t appoint a special prosecutor to see if they committed a crime in this instance because the violation was “bi-partisan.”
This case is where the Congress and the President have not fulfilled the requirements of the constitution - assuring that the President is a natural born citizen. The constitution is the law of the land. By not doing their duty as constitutional officers, they have violated their constitutional duty. They have put themselves and Obama above the law. The Judicial Branch exists for a reason, Pete.
And now the lawyers, who are supposed to protect the constitution, are thumbing their noses at the people spouting legal technicalities that is supposed to make inequality before the law fine and dandy.
Don’t buy the modern Marxist attitude that only the inner circle of “educated” and connected people (The Party or the Oligarchy) are permitted to dictate to the “stupid” people what the constitution means as not officially amended or changed by the elite. We - the people - have permitted much more constitutional messing than we should have over the decades. This is why we have all this corruption because we have failed to keep it in check. You, too, Pete!
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.