Posted on 03/28/2010 10:09:01 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Now that the regime currently occupying the White House has bribed, threatened, intimidated, bullied, manipulated and cut unconstitutional and illegal deals exclusively with Democrats to vote for the totalitarian nightmare of socialized medicine, the subject of Obama's missing birth certificate is more timely and relevant than ever — precisely because the ugly spectacle emphasized once again the degree to which Obama has arrogantly flouted, sneered at, and spit upon the U.S. Constitution, a document he and his handlers and henchmen clearly revile and are determined to shred and destroy.
The same contempt for the bedrock foundations of our country was apparent during Obama's run for the presidency and his refusal to produce his birth certificate. It reminds me of the search I conducted in 2004 for my mother's birth certificate, a non-negotiable prerequisite for her admission into a nursing home. Although she was born in a farmhouse in 1913 to immigrants who didn't speak English, it took me only three phone calls and not more than 20 minutes to locate this valuable document. Unlike Obama, who was born, he says, in 1961, I didn't pay nearly two-million dollars to lawyers to fight the nursing home's request.
To this day Obama has failed to produce proof that he was born in the United States and that he is a natural-born American citizen, one of only three absolute requirements in the U.S. Constitution to become President of the United States. In fact, if Obama is not a natural-born American citizen, he is acting as president under false pretenses, which de facto makes every statement he has made as the usurper POTUS, every bill he has signed, every tsar he has appointed, every act, proclamation, signing statement, executive order, and law, et al, fraudulent, illegal, and therefore null and void — including this unconstitutional healthcare so-called reform bill.
As I type, Mr. Hope & Change is working on granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants to further bankrupt the United States and thereby etch in stone a constituency that relies on free everything — and will therefore return the favor by voting Democratic in future elections. This will actualize his and the far-left's goals of turning our democratic Republic into a Communist share-the-poverty facsimile of a Russian, Cuban or Venezuelan state!
But that is not all: Obama is putting on the fast track the cap-and-trade scheme to tax every person in the U.S. every time he or she flushes the toilet, turns on a light, opens the refrigerator, drives a car, the list of penalties for merely living go on and on.
When this or that writer or commentator asks, "Doesn't he realize that X. Y. Z?" — the answer is, of course he does! His entire raison d'être is to convert the country he hates — America — into the kind of socialist/communist/fascist country he clearly admires. Exhibit no. 1 is surely his serial embrace of foreign dictators and his undisguised hostility to our most trusted allies.
How did this happen? As blogger Daniel Greenfield notes, Obama's election "was not about what the people wanted. It was about his own victory by any means necessary. Hardly surprising from the man who began his political career by betraying and destroying his own mentor, climbed into the United States Senate over two sex scandals that were a product of his opposition research, and reached the White House through voter fraud, illegal campaign donations and an owned media corps....Each win for Obama was another loss for fair and honest elections. And each time Obama won, it was not because the public decided he was the better man, but because the sheer array of dirty tricks, fraud and media propaganda insured that no choices would be allowed."
Today, there are few Americans, even Obama's acolytes and fans, who now think he is a natural-born American or, for that matter, a Christian, as he pretended to be as a congregant for 20 years in his Chicago pastor's Black Theology church. In short, black theology is Marxist doctrine: hate America, hate whitey, hate Jews, hate free-market capitalism, hate the U.S. Constitution. Here, he just about admits as much. From where I stand, that pretty well sums up Obama's first 14 months in office.
THE USURPER-IN-CHIEF
At this point, every member of the Congress and media, as well as ordinary citizens, knows that there was something putridly rotten about Obama's election. Not just the billion dollars in campaign donations, most of which are still unaccounted for but known to have flowed from foreign donors, many of them enemies of America. And not just the missing mountains of qualifying data that all presidential candidates are expected to produce, including:
His Illinois law license. Is he even a lawyer? Where is his supposed Harvard Law degree? Where are the papers he wrote in law school? Why does he not correct people when they say he was a law professor when he was never a professor but only a lecturer?
His Selective Service registration, which investigative-journalist and lawyer Debbie Schlussel has reported to be falsified, an accusation that Linda Bentley quite persuasively documented just the other day.
His visa or more probably visas. After all, he did travel to Pakistan in 1981 when Americans were forbidden into that country. Did he use the Indonesian visa he got when he was a citizen of that country?
His school records from Indonesia and Hawaii.
His college transcripts from Occidental College in CA, Columbia College in NY, and Harvard Law School in MA
His Baptism certificate.
His Illinois State Senate records.
His law practice client list.
His University of Chicago records, where Obama, the instructor, supposedly taught.
Just as mysterious is the question of who exactly backed this virtually unknown neophyte senator with the paper-thin résumé and almost non-existent voting record, this man who had lifelong associations with countless dubious-if-not-criminal friends and associates as well as political radicals.
We now know the leftist billionaire financier George Soros was and is a major backer. And we've also learned that dozens of Clinton administration leftovers and elected officials, all of the hard left, as well as a number of hugely influential executives and bankers from AIG and Goldman Sachs were part of Obama's toxic brew. But how, you may ask, could these arch capitalists be leftists? Like Soros, they fancy themselves Kings of the Universe, smarter than the average Joe and therefore destined to join a new American oligarchy in which the few rule and the many are under their collective thumbs.
The motives of these megalomaniacs involve the tenacious belief — facts to the contrary — that the proven tyrannies of socialism and communism will improve the lot of the masses they consider so stupid, combined with a driving lust for absolute power — you know, the kind that corrupts absolutely. Underlying both is a worldview in which most people are perceived to be "victims" of "the system." And of course a fulminating rage.
Again, Greenfield weighs in, explaining that that rage is part of "the bargain leftists always strike: I Will Only Love You, If You Kill Yourself. Leftists only love an America, he says, "in which the Constitution is wielded to protect Islamic terrorists and a man who hates the country can take office in the White House, in which the lives of Americans are worthless but the comfortable treatment of captured terrorists is worth more than gold, in which all of the country's history and values are viewed as nothing more than the brutal atrocities of greedy savages, while the brutal atrocities of newly arrived greedy savages are treated as heroic achievements worthy of celebration and praise..."
"In their more honest moments," Greenfield continues, "leftists will admit that they do not love America, only its potential...to be changed by them...moments like Michelle Obama proclaiming that she had never been proud of her country before...a chilling glimpse into the mind of the left that cannot love anything that is not an expression of their own ego..."
"They love [an] America that legalizes illegal aliens, displaces its own citizens to make way for them and tears down all barriers against crime and terror. They love America, so long as it frees terrorists from prison, and when war is declared against it by a fanatical cult of mass murderers, it gives the murderers their day in court with lawyers and a trial...This is the America they love. I will only love you, if you kill yourself."
A CABAL OF IMMENSE PROPORTIONS
A coup d'état is never an overnight phenomenon. It takes years, often decades, of planning, and more often than not there are thwarted attempts along the way. In America, leftists have been actively trying both to undermine and overthrow our country since at least the 1960s (actually well before then, unquestionably for the last hundred years). They tried with Jimmy Carter, but in spite of the lasting harm he did, his stupendous incompetence ultimately did him in, relegating him to one ignominious term.
They tried again with Bill Clinton, who spent years — when he might have been fighting for our country in Vietnam — hanging around England smoking pot and, oddly, "visiting" Communist Russia. Clinton lasted two terms, largely because he was too narcissistic and undisciplined to stick to the leftist party line, craving the spotlight to such a degree that when the electorate smacked him and his wife down for trying to inflict socialized medicine on our citizens, he moved ever so nimbly to the center, where he stayed until he practically had to be dragged off the stage during the most self-aggrandizing departure of a president in American history.
Through these failures, the left learned never to depend on a genuine natural-born American citizen to actualize their coup, that the real thing would somehow retain some random DNA strands of affection for our republic. They would have to find a faux American, one that looked and sounded like the real thing, but whose allegiance to America was non-existent — perhaps someone who had lived in a Muslim country, studied the Koran, subscribed to Sharia law, and had lifelong relationships with Marxists and Communists and other America haters. Enter the man who calls himself Barack Obama.
In a stunning piece of journalism — Who's Your Daddy? Who's Your Mama? AND WHERE IS YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE?, a "concerned citizen" speculates about several plausible scenarios that describe who Obama's parents might have been, where he might have been born, and how the idea to insinuate this Manchurian Candidate-Trojan Horse into America's body politic came to pass. The article raises numerous provocative questions:
What exactly happened in the Teresa Hotel in Harlem in 1960?
Where does Fidel Castro fit in? Khrushchev? Malcolm X?
How could Obama's "mother," Stanley Ann Dunham, have delivered him in August of 1961 in Honolulu when official University of Washington records show her 2680 miles away in Seattle attending classes that same month? (Pamela Geller: www.atlasshrugs.com).
Was Madelyn Dunham really Obama's mother, and not his grandmother?
Was he the product of an affair between his "grandfather," Stanley Armour Dunham (who he looks like) and one of the Asian, Polynesian or Indonesian girls who frequented the beaches of Hawaii in the 1950s? On the cover of Obama's book, Dreams From My Father, why is the man he claims is his father, Barack Obama Sr., not pictured, while his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, is pictured? Was the dark-skinned woman on the cover his real mother?
Was he really the son of his earliest mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a prominent poet, Communist political activist, and self-professed pedophile? Davis wrote about raping a 13-year-old girl. Could that girl have been Stanley Ann Dunham? Could this be why Obama wrote on his Facebook page that he was born in 1957?
Was Obama really the only son of Malcolm X and his wife Betty Shabazz? They had six daughters but did they leave the care of their only son to surrogates to protect him from the same fate — assassination — that killed Malcolm X?
Or did Malcolm X father Obama with one of the dozens of daughters of the Communist Indonesian President Sukarno, after the older man invited him to the anti-white, anti-capitalist Bandung conference in 1955? Sukarno loathed America. Was it he who hatched the plot to take over America? Did he then share his idea with Malcolm X because he believed the American Muslim was capable of succeeding?
Where do the Rockefellers fit in? Recent speculation has it that Michael Rockefeller, the Harvard graduate who is thought to have died in Papua, New Guinea, may have fathered Obama with a Papuan woman. Here's a film of Michael's strange odyssey. Is it coincidence that Obama's "grandfather" Stanley and his stepfather Lolo Soetoro both worked for the Rockefellers' Standard Oil Company?
Is it coincidence that the Marxist-praising Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Rockefeller crony and Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, now acts as an advisor to Obama?
What are we to make of Obama's old friend from high school, Illinois Army National Guard Major L. Tammy Duckworth, telling (The Honolulu Advisor on January 8, 2006), that she was "happy to point out that she and Hawaii-raised Punahou (Indonesia) high school graduate Obama have "a karma'aina connection"? Both of them, she said, were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand. Predictably, Duckworth retracted her statement a few days after the article appeared in print.
Was it just a fashion statement when we witnessed Michelle Obama on election night appear in a dress of the revolutionary and anarchic colors of red and black, with a gigantic sash in the unmistakable configuration of an X — and Obama's very young daughters also dressed in revolutionary red and black? As an observer wrote, "What if the garb worn by the Obama's was a silent tribute to Barack's real father, Malcolm X?...the red and black dress and that X that hits you between the eyes...where are the various shades of red, white, and blue?..."
Was the CIA behind Obama's attempted coup d'état? Where does the Ford Foundation fit in? If you want a much more extensive history of the Ford Foundation, the CIA and the ghastly Indonesian coup, read David Ransom's piece here.
What is the likelihood of Obama's so-called mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, meeting two "husbands" — Barack Obama Sr. and Lolo Soetoro, both connected to "Big Oil" — at the University of Hawaii?
Obama denies he's a Muslim but "the accumulated research from primary sources who knew Obama from his childhood indicate that he was a devout Muslim, the son of a devout Muslim, the stepson of a devout Muslim and the grandson and namesake ("Hussein") of a devout Muslim. He was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim and demonstrated his ability to chant praise to Allah in impressive Arab-accented tones even as an adult. Just as he has not disavowed his 'uncle' Jeremiah, neither has he disavowed the Muslim faith that he was born into and raised in. Here, with George Stephanopoulos, Obama says as much.
Is Obama the son of spooks and a spook himself?
In a can't-put-down article, Deanna Spingola writes of Pastor James David Manning, who in May is holding a public trial at Columbia University in New York (just blocks from Manning's church in Harlem) that is charging Barack Obama with treason! Here is what Spingola writes:
"Obama...was recruited [at Occidental College in CA] in 1980 by the CIA [when Stansfield M. Turner was the director] which has made it a practice since its inception to recruit college students. He was, by his own admission, a 'C' student, a dope smoker and a member of the Marxist Club at Occidental, a co-educational liberal arts college. In 1981, Obama allegedly transferred from Occidental to Columbia University...Columbia had a foreign student program and the CIA has major connections and influence with Columbia and the nation's other educational facilities...the CIA needed Muslims or others who could easily blend into the Muslim environment in the Middle East...Obama, as an undercover agent, was the lead agent in the arms and money supply for the CIA-trained Taliban Army against the Soviet Army war machine. His actions were integral to the Taliban's success in their opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Obama, it is publicly acknowledged, went to Pakistan in 1981. There is no way of knowing how often Obama traveled between Pakistan and Russia.
"According to Dr. Manning," Spingola writes, "Obama was an interpreter for the CIA during the war in Afghanistan. When Obama completed his CIA operations in the mid 1980s and returned to the U.S. he persuaded the State Department to maneuver his entrance into Harvard Law School..."
Needless to say, Pastor Manning's life has been threatened and continues to be threatened by people who are deeply afraid of his explosive charges.
And here is yet another bizarre oddity: an article saying that Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, "voluntarily surrendered" his law license back in 2008 in order to escape charges that he lied on his bar application, and that First Lady Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993!
MASSIVE MEDIA MALFEASANCE
I have written at length of the many lawyers and journalists who have addressed the birth certificate issue. You can read some of their names here. But with the notable and noteworthy exceptions I've mentioned, other so-called investigative journalists who should have been asking and answering the above questions and dozens of others are an extinct species, killed off by leftist media moguls in league with the Obama regime or too timid and pandering in their own rights to have taken up the cudgels on behalf of the public they pretend to serve.
People understand why hacks from the former, now moribund, mainstream media have avoided the subject of Obama's eligibility like the plague it is. By and large they are liberals and leftists who shilled for him during his campaign, concealed mountains of damning evidence about his lack of experience and shady associations, and studiously avoided any mention of his still-unknown country of birth.
But harder to understand are the hacks at Fox. In a startling display of dishonesty and pretension, Bill O'Reilly, who wants to be considered intelligent and so never fails to tell his audience that he earned a master's degree at Harvard, apparently never studied coups d'états, never realized that the Marxist Castro's shining moment came only after years of agitation, rebellion, subterfuge, et al. But the idea of Obama being part of a conspiracy was apparently too much for the former elementary school teacher to contemplate... above his pay grade, so to speak. Never even consulted Wikipedia, as I just did, to learn of the hundreds of coups d'état that took place in the 20th century alone.
Apparently Harvard never taught Mr. "looking out for the folks" about the successful coups in Argentina in 1943, in Thailand in 1947, in Czechoslovakia in 1948, in Egypt in 1952, in Paraguay in 1954, in Pakistan in1958, in Venezuela in 1958, in Turkey in 1960, in Ecuador and Syria and Brazil and South Vietnam and Ghana and Libya and Somalia and Greece and Chile and again in Pakistan, the list is endless — and the immense and lengthy planning that went into these government overthrows. Or the more recent coups — since 1999 — in the Ivory Coast, Fiji, Peru, Mauritania, Haiti, Congo, et al.
Without acknowledging the widespread existence of coups and the years or decades of planning they entailed, O'Reilly decided to slam "the birthers" — as he pejoratively calls those who still believe in the Constitution and think presidents of the U.S. should abide by it, starting with their eligibility — and stated that he personally had seen Obama's birth certificate.
Of course he hadn't. He lied. Then in an orchestrated charade, he trotted out two of the women, both lawyers, he routinely disrespects by barking out their last names and in essence had them standing on their hind legs, yapping in agreement about those misguided "birthers." It didn't take long for Glenn Beck to echo their yaps. That's right, the guy who routinely looks straight in the camera and exhorts his audience to seek "the truth."
Why would O'Reilly lie? Why would Beck avoid seeking "the truth" in this one glaring instance? Were they threatened, as Douglas Hagmann — a respected journalist, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network and longtime private investigator, and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press — suggested? After a nine-month investigation, they discovered that prominent media people had indeed been threatened by the heads of major TV and radio stations and also Federal Communication Commission officials — with job losses and worse — to never raise, allude to or mention the birth certificate issue! Or was it the huge influence the Saudis have over Fox content since they bought and then increased their shares to nearly 20 percent in Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp?
Whatever. The fact that O'Reilly and Beck caved — and continue to cave — has forever negated their credibility.
WHAT NOW?
So appalled are a majority of Americans at the hijacking of one-sixth of the American economy through the healthcare legislation, and so revolted by the hideous process it entailed, that upwards of 15 state attorneys general — and counting — are suing the federal government on grounds that key parts of the Deathcare law are unconstitutional — that the law includes taxpayer-funded abortions (smoke-and-mirrors to the contrary), kill-the-elderly cuts to Medicare seniors, huge tax increases that will wipe out the entire middle-class of our country, and a Nazi-like brown-shirt $16-billion-taxpayer-funded force of Internal Revenue Service goons to reinforce our descent into tyranny. Ordinary citizens are suing too, among them four residents of Michigan, represented by the Thomas More Law Center and attorney David Yerushalmi.
And dozens if not hundreds of groups are crying Repeal, which former speaker Newt Gingrich explained was not possible because Obama would veto such a move. What is possible, Gingrich said, is for Republicans to gain majorities in the House and Senate during the midterms in November and then cut off funding for this horrific, bankrupt-the-nation law. And if the GOP gains the presidency in 2012, they can then repeal this socialist blueprint.
But there may lie the rub. As writer J.D. Longstreet reminds us: "The democrats' lust for power is so great and their zeal for socialism so intense that I cannot see them allowing their hold on power to be placed in jeopardy by, of all things, an election where the voice of the people is actually heard...in less than eighteen months the Obama Regime has managed to take America from a constitutional republic to a socialist republic...that accomplishment alone should give you reason enough to suspect that when their power is threatened they will use the full force of the Central Government to ruthlessly crush any and all who they perceive as a threat. At this moment in history, a threat is anyone, any American, who does not agree with them."
Longstreet and others imagine Obama creating a national crisis or emergency — sort of like the phony swine flu "pandemic" last year — in which Martial Law is declared and the midterm elections are suspended. "Who decides what a national emergency is?" he asks. "You've got it — the Obama Regime!"
Longstreet then issues a warning: "The American people are a patient people. We will put up with a lot of nonsense from our government — for a while. But we draw the line when that government ignores the Constitution, as the Obama Regime and the Democrats in the Congress have done. There is a seething rage in America today...my senses tell me it is too late to avoid the 'lashing out' Americans are about to unleash. [Americans] are waiting, just waiting, for an incident that will knock the chocks from the dam wall holding back the cascade. Postponing, or suspending, the midterm election...would be the spark that ignites a firestorm that will consume all in its path."
Journalist Sher Zieve concurs. "The political party that promoted the slavery of Africans, established Jim Crow laws, created the Ku Klux Klan, refused to follow court orders barring segregation...is now is full raging power within the borders of the United States of America. Most of them — including their dictatorial leader Barack Hussein Obama — realize that the chances for their reelections to power are, at best, marginal. I have warned that any and all 'free' elections would probably soon be a thing of the past. The Marxist way is to not allow them, in the first place.
"The current US government is moving quickly and forcefully against the American people," Zieve continues. "I have to now wonder how close We-the-People are today toward reaching the same conclusions as did our founders...I think we may be as close to our founders ultimate decision as we will ever be. Do we wish to be free and sovereign or submit to bondage? For a brief window of time longer, it's still our choice."
Then there is Michael Connelly's stern warning: "...I have some bad news for all of the socialists, or progressives, or whatever you choose to call yourselves this week, you have made a huge mistake. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto who led the attack said that: 'I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.'
"I suggest to President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid that you have awakened the giant again and that this giant, made up of freedom loving Americans, is going to be coming at you from every direction you can imagine. Individuals and State Governments will be challenging you in the courts, and Americans will take you on in the polling places. In every city, town and village you will hear the voices of angry Americans and despite your best efforts we will not be silenced. You will hear the outcry of Americans of every race, religion, and creed and we will prevail. "
All of this takes time, of course.... time well spent. But it will take less time to revive the serious question of Obama's very suspect eligibility to be president in the first place!
"Forget the dispute over the 'natural born citizen' requirement of the U.S. Constitution for presidents," writes Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily. "Barack Obama may not even be a 'citizen,' according to a new filing in a long-running legal challenge to his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office."
If there is even one court in our land whose judge has not been threatened, intimidated, bought off or bribed, the case for Obama's ineligibility should be tried immediately. If found guilty, I suspect Obama would be responsible for the greatest purchase of confetti in the history of the world!
I’m a very conservative Republican
Oh really?
You seem to be a newbie. Let me attempt to explain.
There are perhaps three main groups following this. One believes he is not eligible to be president and they can undo all the damage done if only they could prove to some court that he is ineligible. These folks are delusional because they ignore the fact that no court will overturn an election.
The second group are those who think all of this is nuts and that Obama is definitely a citizen and that anytime spent on this issue not only distracts from the prime issues of blocking his progress on votes, it makes conservatives look bad.
The third, probably smallest group, are those of us who think there is something not quite right about Obama’s extraordinary efforts to block all access to primary records which indicate he is hiding something. What they may be could be anything from something embarrassing about his family to some major flaw in his origins. For me at least this issue is interesting to follow because there is a mystery here.
White collar resumed a few weeks ago, it’s been good. You should catch up.
I didn't question anyone's 'conservative street cred.' I asked a very specific question regarding Obama being found out as a fraud in response to Raycpa saying the BC issue was a waste of time in hoping his policies could be overturned. Why on Earth would you assume it was about so-called street cred and feel compelled to make an irrelevant comparison on what I think about other issues??
What part of this statement means his policies should stick?? "I would not support virtually everything he signed or stands for."
At the time of the election, when the House counts the votes it is implicitly approving the eligibility.
This argument can't hold under the Constitution. IF the person elected president were, in fact, ineligible *under the Constitutional standard* (which no one seems to know what that is, exactly), nothing the House -- or anyone else -- did or could do would make him eligible. This is not a procedural defect that can somehow be overcome. Like if it were later determined that the president was only 22 years old when he was elected, there's no way he could be deemed to have met the age requirement.
If the SC got involved on this part they would be extending their power over an issue that is not given them by the constitution.
I don't see how this holds water either. The eligibility standard is set out in the Constitution. The SCOTUS always has authority to determine if an act of government violates the Constitution. All the usual rules, of course, would apply -- there would have to be a case or controversy, jurisdictional requirements must be met, and the party bringing the case must have standing to do so. The latter seems to be one of the major procedural snags. Who has standing? I'm not familiar with how whatever complaints have been filed were disposed of by the Court.
Wrong. I asked a question. Go back and read it again.
You are illiterate as well as delusional.
You alleged that that my position is dependent on fraud. It is not. Fraud is not relevant to my position on Obama’s policies. He could be a full fledged bare but natural born citizen with 99% approval and I would still be opposed to his policies. Fraud has nothing to do with it.
However, there is nothing fraudulent here except maybe his BC. He is the president, he has signed laws. The laws are valid as it relates to being signed and not dependent on his age, citizenship, illegal voting etc.
There’s a fourth group of us who know exactly what the truth is, but we’re scared of the Trilateral Commission so we keep quiet.
The question I asked was dependent on that factor. You replied directly to the question. Why aren't you standing behind your own words??
A lot to digest indeed.
However:
THe fact will bear out in time. Not soon enough for me, but in time.
And those of us who were tolling the alarm bell and called “nut job” will eventually be vindicated.
/<off soap box....
I have never heard of 1H.
My read is the constitution distinguishes between a president elect and a president.
It gives instructions regarding a president elects eligibility and it gives separate instructions for a president that is not able to serve. For a president, it no longer gives eligibility requirements. In fact, it is possible that the succession rules provides us with a president who would not be eligible to be a president elect.
My read is that once the president is elected, there is no longer an eligibility issue because he is already the president.
The House appears to be given control over a president elect and a president. First, by counting and approving the electorate votes and then by impeachment. It also provides a solution if the president elect is ineligible but is silent when a president is ineligible. It also specifically limits impeachment to the House. If the SC began to determine the president did not have power then it would be effectively impeaching the president, a power specifically limited to the House.
You read the whole thing? I could only get as far as speculation that Michael Rockefeller fathered Obama before my head started spinning. You're a stronger man than I.
“Why are people afraid to challenge him?”
It just doesn’t seem to be answerable with either logic or empirical inquiry.
But whether he’s the ac is way above my pay grade.
It's lunacy.
I didn’t know some people were still going on about this!
Welcome to FR. If you hang out on Birther threads, you'll see the same few dozen players espousing the same conspiracies and unique interpretations of the Constitution over and over again and calling anyone who disagrees with them a troll.
Was this a variation of the "are you still beating your wife?" question?
I have to tell you that those who happen upon this thread are not going to be impressed by this argument of yours.
Please enlighten us and explain just how the idea that the SC is going to overrule a law passed by a duly elected sitting president and its congress because Obama is not a natural citizen? You think some claim to fraud is going to work?
Class 1-H: Registrant Not Subject to Processing for Induction.
WTF?
I hear you, but this still focuses only on the effect of an ineligible president having served. And on the House’s role in counting votes, etc.
In effect, you seem to be saying if the House gets it wrong — if in fact, it allows an ineligible person to be seated as president — there is no remedy. Again, I’m not focusing on the effect of the ineligiblity on that president’s acts (treaties, etc.) But surely there must be some way to remove an ineligible person from office based solely on his ineligibility. Or are you arguing that, by virtue of being seated as president, there could never be a challenge that the president is ineligible?
Also I have yet to see what process the parties take in nominating, and the House takes in seating, to ensure a person is eligible. If no one can even produce a Supreme Court precedent on what, exactly, constitutes “natural born citizenship” (as opposed to citizenship), how in the world do the parties or Congress even know what to look for?
As I said, I haven’t followed the legal briefs, but it seems to me that if there are questions that are legally cognizable, they need to be sorted out now and evaluated before the next presidential election.
Everyone who registers these days is 1H. It's defined as "Registrant not subject for processing for induction". Since there is no draft then nobody is subject for induction.
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.