Posted on 12/29/2010 7:06:53 AM PST by jdoug666
Although Hawaii's newly elected Democrat governor, Neil Abercrombie, has recently given a flurry of high-profile media interviews condemning "birthers" who question Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, suddenly he is declining to answer a few hard questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
What was the snafu that Roberts didn't administer it right the first time, leaving open a question of legality - and then later, he was made to do it again, in some hallway, if I remember.
So you really think Roberts didn't know how to do it correctly - or maybe he was trying to keep from legally swearing in a fraud - but when it was caught, they forced him to do it correctly? - Remember the secret meeting, also, of the 'bummer with the members of the SC just before a case was to be presented? (WAsn't that illegal?)
the election was over - a done deal. Were the SC justices coerced - for "the good of the country" - i.e., to prevent a scandal that would likely rip the country apart and cause full scale riots in every city in the land - were they coerced to acquiesce?
Coerced how?
Evidence where?
Yes, that’s truth, but, having the birth certificate released will remove all doubt who his real daddy is, no more Frank is his daddy if it’s proven that Obama SR is his daddy.
Very revealing. I hope Congress takes this up.
I cut the financial cord in June. Lets see if getting a job and paying taxes changes her Obot-infected mind.
I fail to see how that would let the Chief Justice “off the hook.” If there’d been ANY question in his mind of the legality, do you really think he’d have administered the oath?
What was the snafu that Roberts didn’t administer it right the first time, leaving open a question of legality - and then later, he was made to do it again, in some hallway, if I remember.
So you really think Roberts didn’t know how to do it correctly - or maybe he was trying to keep from legally swearing in a fraud - but when it was caught, they forced him to do it correctly? - Remember the secret meeting, also, of the ‘bummer with the members of the SC just before a case was to be presented? (WAsn’t that illegal?)
the election was over - a done deal. Were the SC justices coerced - for “the good of the country” - i.e., to prevent a scandal that would likely rip the country apart and cause full scale riots in every city in the land - were they coerced to acquiesce?
181 posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 4:43:05 PM by maine-iac7
Neither the first nor the second Oath was constitutionly administered. Chief Justice Roberts is no dummie. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew that BO didn’t have a clue.
Some people seem to think that CJ Roberts had the authority not to administer the Oath. That is not true. Once the election was certified by congress, Roberts had no choice but to administer the Oath. Neither he nor any other SCOTUS just could sua sponte decide that BO was not qualified without a proper case before the them. Then problem with all the eligibility cases so far has been that the Plaintiffs lacked standing.
http://standupamericaus.com/our-privilege-our-right-and-our-duty-civilian-grand-jury:33320
It is not necessary to continually post links to blogs..free republic has more information regarding the birth certificate and natural born citizen than any blog...the majority of blogs attain their information here.
I would guess that the Commentaries are available online, but the second paragraph of "Chapter the Tenth" states:
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural born subjects. Natural born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king: and aliens, such as are born out of it.
But regardless of the common law of England, or whether the law of Switzerland was ever as Vetter wished it to be, James Madison who attended the Constitutional Convention and participated in the debates (and who was often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution") wrote that the place of birth was definitive in the United States and that no further inquiry was necessary.
In my book, Obama is evil incarnate; his only redeeming feature being that his abject incompetence keeps him from achieving even greater depths of evil. But, the way to stop this guy is to firmly oppose his legislative agenda in the next Congress, undo as much of the damage caused by the last Congress as possible and work tirelessly to make sure that this guy and his minions in other elective offices lose as overwhelmingly as possible in the next election cycle.
But, what will the spot where Father say ?
Obama SR ? then, automatically, he’s not eligible.
Frank Pervert Pedophile Marshall Davis ?
Then, all that Obama said, all that the MSM said about Obama, and the Democratic Party has all been a lie and fraud...
Malcome X ? same as Frank Marshal, all a lie and fraud, and Malcome X a Mulism Terrorist and traitor to the USA.
191 posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:40:09 PM by American Constitutionalist
They are painting themselves in the corner and setting themselves their own trap...
They go ahead with this supposed forged birth certificate that Obama paid for, and pay experts to lie for him, so ? now ? Obama SR is his daddy, still ? he can’t get around the fact that he is still not a natural born citizen because his daddy was born a British subject... check mate...
193 posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:47:28 PM by American Constitutionalist
Exactly.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/05/aka-obama-ineligible-if-he-was-born-on.html
The theory that the Clintons had the info on Obama, but didn’t want to use it, because it would backfire on them somehow, doesn’t hold water. There were plenty of media and other groups on the right, to whom the info could have been leaked, heck, ev en Drudge..over the transom, and they would have been thrilled to use it, and run with ut, and it would never have gotten back to the Clintons’ hands..
so you think that a name entered on a BC is proof of paternity? ARe you really that innocent?
since he has plenty of living 'relatives' - how about a simple blood test?
And maybe include a sample from his 'half sister' Maya Soetoro - you know, the one with the same coloring and hair, the natural child of the 'bummer's step dad
or
'bummer and sister Maya
If there were no questions, which man would you think he most resembles?
the Indonesian listed, on the only school record we have, as his 'father.' - and his citizen ship "Indonesian", Faith "Islam"
"
'bummer and 'step' dad
the dark as coal Kenyan?
"BUT HE'S BLACK!"
REally?
this man isn't. this man, 14 years 'bummer's junior, was - what's the odds - born in the same town the Soetoro's lived. (Take 14 yrs off 'bummer and...?
It might be interesting to know this young mans genealogy - cousins often resemble one another closer than siblings.
Well, just stuff to chew on. As much possible validity as anything else connected with the fraudster.
There's always hope - Reagan was once a democrat.
A friend of mine, LL Beans granddaughter was a lib - then she married a conservative and now has been a staunch conservative for decades - now an avid Tea Partier - so keep the faith!
You obviously raised her right - but then there are the outside influences, particularly the Government Indoctrination Camps, aka public schools.
No, my thesis is that making everyone who questions your origins to be a crackpot.
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.