Posted on 04/14/2013 10:14:12 AM PDT by Nachum
President Obama and I were college classmate at Columbia University, class of ’83. I know all too well how mindlessly liberal the students and faculty of that institution can be, and Barack Obama is certainly no exception. My time at Columbia made it crystal clear: liberals always believe they are morally superior. While they publicly state that their mission is to save the world from prejudice, patriotism, racism, greed, and inequality, they are, in fact, hostile and resentful towards anyone who has achieved self-made success through American values. It is in this cesspool of intolerance that Obama and his Marxist cronies hatched a secret plan to destroy our country.
There are two things you need to know about Obama at Columbia University. First, he was Pre Law and a Political Science major- just like me. I thought I knew everyone studying Political Science during my four years at Columbia. Not Obama. I never met him, never saw him, never even heard of him. Strange. Same major, same career path, and graduated on the same day– where was he? Was he busy attending communist party meetings? No need to guess. In his autobiography he proudly admits attending Socialist Party meetings at Cooper Union in downtown Manhattan. He also admits publicly in his own book to not wanting to meet anyone at Columbia who wasn’t black, Hispanic, gay, or a Marxist professor. His words. So it’s possible he was so busy attending communist meetings and trying to avoid guys like me (white, straight, loved America) that our paths never crossed. Unlikely, but possible.
But, it’s the second thing you really need to know about Obama at Columbia. He says he graduated Class of ’83.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
ping
Bill Ayers' wannabees...
Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?
A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.
That was a powerful video. Hope it makes the email rounds successfully.
Thanks. Another one will be out soon, you’ll know it by the same trademark intro.
I don’t think it would matter at this point . Let’s say there was incontrovertible proof that Obama wasn’t qualified. What could be done? File a lawsuit, I suppose. Let’s say that happens and it gets to SCOTUS. All the they’d do is declare it a “political question” and deny jurisdiction. No way SCOTUS would touch that one with a 10 foot pole. I’m not happy about that, but as a lawyer I gotta say that’s probably how it would go down.
Cloward-Piven plan assumes that the federal government would even survive in the context of a collapse. Sorry, folks, but that doesn’t seem to be the way it works. When big countries collapse, they collapse back down onto their more easily-managed internal borders. Yugoslavia, the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, Azerbaidjan, and on and on. I see no reason to assume that a financial collapse would increase the power of the federal government. Quite to the contrary - if we get something like, say, a 2008 financial crisis on steroids, it will be places like Texas and the Dakotas and Alaska that will be holding all the cards. The federal government will be vilified. Power will devolve, from DC to the State capitals, from the State capitals to the counties, and perhaps most importantly, from Wall Street to Main Street. Cloward-Piven is just another leftist fantasy, IMHO. When SHTF, nobody will care much about what DC says about anything, and their worthless money won’t be accepted. The States and localities will step in. I say bring it on.
Yes, Well worth the read.
Glenn Beck can legitimately claim to have attended Yale. He did. He took courses there in the Yale University School of General Studies. He did not attend Yale College.
Thanks KB.
PING!
Great post.
Attacking the appointments of a usurper (appointees of Obama; Judges, Cabinet Secretaries, etc ...) based on a violation of the Appointment’s Clause of the U.S. Constitution will not force a Court to consider whether or not Obama should be ordered to vacate the office . It will neutralize Obama in that his appointees will not be able to adjudicate adverse actions against the accused or those who have been ordered to respond to a summons and complaint.
SCOTUS has held a usurper cannot appoint individuals to hold court over the accused if the accused objects to the appointment by the usurper prior to the final ruling. Furthermore, SCOTUS has held the De Facto Officer Doctrine applies if the accused does object to being tried by an appointee of the usurper.
So, if the accused objects to the appointment by a usurper, then a Judge who has not been appointed by a usurper will have to adjudicate the case or the usurper will have to vacate and an eligible President will have to make appointments to replace the appointments by the usurper.
I’m saying that SCOTUS won’t even hear the issue of whether Obama is a legitimate president based on the “political question” doctrine. They’ll just rule, in effect, that the issue of Obama’s qualifications for office were wholly given over to other branches of government and that they therefore lack jurisdiction to even hear the issue of whether or not Obama is a “usurper.” They’ll just throw the case out of court. It’s over.
The appeals probably ought to concern future candidates who are in the qualification stages and whose candidacy is challenged.
PS: Speed counts.
SCOTUS won’t be asked to determine if Obama is the legitimate President.
SCOTUS will be asked to opine on an objection by a defendant alleging a violation of the Appointment’s Clause of the U.S. Constitution if the President who appointed the Federal officer is a usurper.
Defendant is alleging Obama is a usurper, appointments by a usurper are a violation of the Appointment’s Clause, and an objection by the defendant before conclusion of the trial should be sustained.
In the extreme case, the Judge does not hold a hearing on Obama’s eligibility, but sustains the objection so a Judge who was not appointed by Obama can hear the case. Also, an objection to an Obama appointed Judge could be made after Obama leaves office. Consequently, SCOTUS won’t rule on the political question of, “Is Obama eligible?
SCOTUS could be asked, “Can a defendant who objects to an Obama appointed Judge demand a hearing on Obama’s eligibility and can a defendant object to a usurper appointed Judge assigned to hear their Federal lawsuit?” If necessary, a defendant could object to an Obama appointed Judge after Obama leaves office.
SvenMagnussen, Gluteus Maximize,
See this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2827742/replies?c=148
Maximize s/b Maximus
Nothing new to anyone here, but it’s good to see confirmation.
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.