Oh Goody. You da man!!!
Posted on 09/25/2009 10:05:29 PM PDT by pissant
S.O.S.!!! (sorry Obama socialist)
Whatchu mean “WE,” boy???
I do think they’re trolls - shills actually, for the zer0.
If i was you, I would try REAL targets with REAL bullets instead of verbal ones. You might need it if we lose this.
Stick and stones and all that.
You’re not me.
“You’re not me.”
Praise the LORD and Hallelujah!!!
You’re so much fun to toy with.
LOL - No. And that is a very good question ;o)
...do you really want members of the military to make decisions on who is or is not POTUS? The moment that happens, then the military becomes king and not the people. Transition of authority must be orderly and constitutional and not based upon the military acting. At that point we no longer have a country, when the military deposes the CinC.
Firstly, transition of POTUS authority only ever happens because the military either acts, or decides to do nothing. That's the de facto reality. Every President who has ever served in that capacity has only been able to do so because the military decides to obey him, and to not stage a coup. That's the de facto reality—which so far has always operated in support of what's true de jure (and a good thing, too.)
Yes, your authority to serve as an officer of the military comes from the US Congress. However, that commission simply allows and requires you to obey the POTUS as CIC. If a court of competent jurisdiction (i.g., the SCOTUS) issues a decision to the effect that Obama cannot Constitutionally be POTUS, then he is not, and never has been, POTUS. Which means he is not, and never has been, CIC.
So, not only would be there be no need for any action by Congress, it would be logically and legally impossible to remove someone from an office that he does not hold, and has never held. At that point, your duty as a commissioned officer would be to respect the chain of command, which means you obey the CIC, and ignore orders from anyone who is not in your chain of command—such as Obama, subsequent to such ruling by the SCOTUS.
Oh Goody. You da man!!!
I’m sorry, maybe I’m dense but what does LURVED mean?
I agree. I know solid freepers who are not interested in this, think it’ll go nowhere, etc. And what do they do? They leave these threads alone, and post on the topics that hold their interest.
Anyone who disses the topic of 0bama’s eligbility and hagns out on these threads trying to demoralize everyone are very, very suspect.
“You’re so much fun to toy with”.
Where have we read this motive before?
The entertainment version of the CoLB troll.
A lot of longtime FReepers fall into that category. Interestingly enough, if we went back through the chemtrail conspiracy threads, the Vince Foster threads, and others, we’d see these old time FReepers right alongside the crazies, full of encouragement. Now that the issue is a constitutional one, suddenly they’re worried about making FR “look bad”. I wouldn’t doubt it if these very same FReepers keyed up on any supporters of Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers, saying that supporting those bimbos makes FR “look bad”. Whenever one of these real issues gathers momentum, they’re suddenly in the forefront trying to minimize the damage. What side are they on?
Indeed....
This story caused a firestorm of interest, comment and speculation across the web, leading Bob Unruh at World Net Daily to ask, What does Pelosi know about Obama’s eligibility?
On September 15, I released a follow up report, The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—II in which I was able to provide answers to many of the questions swirling around the two DNC docs.
•Both docs were real and both docs had been filed with Election Commission offices
•Only the doc filed in Hawaii certified Obama as constitutionally eligible
•Nancy Pelosi did in fact sign both documents, indicating awareness
•Both documents had been used before by the DNC, in 2000 and 2004
•Different states have different state statutes on the matter
•But the Constitution is clear, and the DNC ignored it
More interesting however, is the news I got back from a document and handwriting expert, a graphologist, which asserted the following in a detailed analysis of both documents.
In short, the answer to Bob Unruh’s question at WND seems to be yes, Nancy Pelosi knew that she was signing a false statement on behalf of Obama. But she also knew that this false statement of eligibility would only be filed in Hawaii, which has a very specific state statute that requires that each party certify the constitutional eligibility of their candidates, using specific text.
It further appears that this Certification of Nomination which includes text concerning constitutional requirements is the basis for statements made by Hawaii officials, who have proclaimed that Obama is a “natural born citizen” on the basis that Nancy Pelosi said so in her false Certification of Nomination.
After all, NO actual birth certificate has ever been released by Obama. A COLB, which anyone born anywhere in the world could purchase from Hawaii in 1961, in fact at least two different COLB’s from Hawaii, are all that has been offered by Obama.
The 2000 and 2004 DNC letters to the states for Gore and Kerry were missing the same constitutional certification.
The question then becomes did the DNC insert the constitutional certification specifically for Hawaii in 2008? If so, why?
We’re awaiting copies of the 2000 and 2004 DNC letters to Hawaii for Gore and Kerry to find out if this is an issue or not.
Exactly. When peoples’ posting history is viewed, it becomes clear who is who and what is what. I wish I had more time...
“So, not only would be there be no need for any action by Congress, it would be logically and legally impossible to remove someone from an office that he does not hold, and has never held. At that point, your duty as a commissioned officer would be to respect the chain of command, which means you obey the CIC, and ignore orders from anyone who is not in your chain of command—such as Obama, subsequent to such ruling by the SCOTUS.”
This is all extremely hypothetical and it is not going to happen. So, it really isn’t worth continued discussion. Let us all hope, that should POTUS Obama were, which I doubt, to be ruled against by the SCOTUS...that things will devolve in a lawful(constitutional) manner without any need for lines to be drawn. My duty, as I understand it (and your views aren’t going to change it), is to stay out of setting up or tearing down a POTUS. I have to put aside my personal feelings and stay neutral when acting in an official capacity. Anything else would be to violate the intent of my oath as I understand it.
Major Cook and Captain Rhodes, in my opinion, acted properly - using the courts - to question the authority of POTUS Obama. When ruled against, they saluted smartly and drove on. They did not violate their oaths. However, some of the stuff you are saying...in my opinion....smacks of inciting mutiny and sedition in the Armed Forces; this must NEVER happen. With true respect and concern I implore you to be careful what you write.
Your view is important to us and to the country. However, for the moment it appears you may represent the view of a minority of the officer corps.
But, you have almost turned the corner with your reasoning when you say -
“Major Cook and Captain Rhodes, in my opinion, acted properly - using the courts - to question the authority of POTUS Obama. When ruled against, they saluted smartly and drove on. They did not violate their oaths.”
What would be your view if the court had ruled in their favor?
Most on this thread do not advocate military force to remove O from office, and none should be necessary. But many argue if the USSC determines O is not qualified for the office then – no matter how the politicians in the Congress may act - the officer corps that swore fealty only to the Constitution are bound to ignore orders he may issue.
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.