Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty
I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.
(1) Correct me if I’m wrong, but Lolo Soetoro was a citizen of Indonesia. Barry had to be one to attend the Indonesian school. That document is known, where it appears that Lolo asserts this to gain admission for his son.
(2) According to the scenario, it was an Indonesian passport.
The Constitution required him to be a natural-born citizen. Obama said he was and posted his COLB on line to prove it, which is more than Kerry or Bush or Clinton or any prior president did. He says that proves he is a natural-born citizen. You say it doesn't. So what? Unless you can point to what proof of natural-born citizenship requires then you haven't grounds for complaint. The Constitution doesn't define it. Federal law doesn't identify it. And until it does Obama skates out of doing anything further.
Oh for crying out loud the law at least is implied, tell me why federal law enforcement officers carry guns and what law allows them to do so?
I agree. You can not have a constitional republic work if you are afraid of a small segment of the population rioting. Those people need to be dealt with by the police or national guard. You dont see us normal people rioting becuase we know that a usuper is POTUS. We know better. So let people riot. Let the whole world see who the animals are in this country.
If the sworn officers of our government will not observe their positive obligation to uphold the simplest provisions of the Supreme Law of the Land, of what possible use would additional laws be? They would be even easier to ignore.
Pretty thin gruel.
In 1968, Eldridge Cleaver was thrown off the California presidential ballot. You see, citizens pointed out that he didn’t meet the simple requirements of our Constitution needed to qualify for the Office of the President.
Last year, Roger Calero was removed from the ballots in multiple states, because citizens pointed out that he did not meet the simple requirements of the same section of the Constitution.
Both Cleaver and Calero CLAIMED to meet the requirements. Your argumentation here would suggest that all responsible officers of government should have just taken them at their word. After all, “no law exists.”
Fortunately, the responsible officers recognized their obligations UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and removed both leftists from the ballot.
Please explain to us why the Leftist known as Obama deserves better treatment?
bump!
It's a common claim, and one that may well be true, but nothing has been posted proving it. And based on Indonesian citizenship laws in place at the time it's doubtful that Obama could have been an Indonesian citizen at that time in his life anyway. I've seen the document and it doesn claim he is a citizen. But what Soetoro had to show, if anything, to prove his claim is anyone's guess.
According to the scenario, it was an Indonesian passport.
Obama left Indonesia when he was about 10 or 11 and never returned. So if he got an Indonesian passport as a child of 6 or 7 then it would have expired long before he became an adult. How did he get a replacement?
N-S, your questions cannot be answered in lieu of appropriate documentation. We need to see it all, don’t you agree?
What the American people deserve and what we are entitled to are two different things. The American people deserved a better choice for president than what we had. The American people deserve better leaders than what we've got. But nothing I'm aware of entitles us to having our doubts about Obama's childhood satisfied.
[Why would Joe be disqualified?]
He’s the “Villages Idiot”, that should be enough.
The American people are sovereign, under God. They are entitled to everything.
Legal hairsplitting won't cut it here. This is the court of public opinion, not a court of law.
And you're losing in this particular court, by the way.
Well we can agree to disagree. Congress can pass laws and one law it can pass is a one-time special election because the country would be in crisis, and it would be constitutional to pass such a law. I just don’t see congress acting alone without a revolt from the American people. Yes there are provisions in the Constitution but this scenario would involve fraud and a coup d’etat, and the American people will not let democrats in congress do whatever the hell they want. Elevate Biden, Pelosi? I think not, not going to be allowed.
The nation will be in a state of shock followed by a staminous revolt. If the democrats think they can get away with such a fraud and then say “Oh! But the COnstitution says.....Madame Speaker it shall be!” Forget it, not going to happen. Biden, Pelosi or anyone else the democrats try to impose, they will be faced with no confidence and no recognition domestically and abroad, and then they will have a non-rino republican congress, both house and senate, to face in 2010. And that will be when major historical reforms happen so that this will never happen again.
Pelosi was right when she foresaw violence.
IF Obama is declared uneligible, then the repercussions are historical and will certainly usher in a large spate of reforms. I would bet without doubt one act will be to hold a special election for president to serve until a new election in 2012. People are not going to let the democrats use the constitution to impose their fraud. If Obama is shown to be a fraud, then the constitution will not have worked for Americans, therefore reform is the only course to ensure the constitution works in the future and that requires sweeping reforms of historical importance.
No way that business as usual is going to happen with the nation’s nonmandated aristocracy, both democrats and rino republicans, using the constitution to carry on their fraud. Because the constitution will have been subverted and there is no guarantee it won’t be again.
To put it simply, if a historical elite are found to have subverted the us constitution, they sure as hell won’t be allowed to use it to their own devices. History shows these kinds of subversion events lead to revolt and violence.
Which means it's open to interpretation. Why is your interpetation correct and his is not?
...tell me why federal law enforcement officers carry guns and what law allows them to do so?
I'm betting that whatever law established the particular law enforcement agency also authorized them to carry guns.
I am sure we would all like to see it. A lot of people might say they need to see it. But is Obama required to give it to us? No.
I have a 9:30 meeting. My shift here is over for now.
And is some states it didn't because in some states Calero was on the ballot.
Please explain to us why the Leftist known as Obama deserves better treatment?
Because no state that I'm aware of requires the candidates from the major parties prove their Constitutional qualifications.
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a ‘RESOURCE BURN.’ By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a ‘gossip mode.’ In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to ‘drive in the wedge.’ By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.
[I doubt that any conservative talk show host will cover this important news!]
Read through all the posts on this thread, everyone is all all over the place on the legalities of this issue and you think that talk show hosts should put their credibility on the line and comment on this mess?
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.