Posted on 09/19/2014 3:27:56 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
Personally I find it most significant that none of Obama’s most sympathetic/supportive biographers have been able to locate even one single person who saw his mother in HI during the entire 9 mos of her pregnancy, nor in the several weeks following Obama’s birth [whenever that was, exactly—i.e.: Obama once claimed it happened in the third wk in July]. & one fact I have never seen an Obot mention is that neither Stanley Ann nor Obama SR ever lived at the address given in the ‘birth announcements’.
Why, if Stanley Ann were living in HI, would the ‘birth announcements’ not list her actual address?
Absolutely right.
Over the last six years there have been more than 200 original jurisdiction court rulings on Obama’s eligibility, there have also been close to 100 state and federal appellate rulings and there have been 25 denied appeals to SCOTUS. No court ruling has found him to be ineligible.
Congress voted unanimously to certify Obama’s electors in January, 2009 and again in January, 2013. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the electors “shall be the president.” Obviously the clock runs out on challenging a candidate’s or a President-Elect’s credentials BEFORE the certification of the electoral vote.
Since 2009, Congress has sent Obama hundreds of bills to sign into law (as recently as this week’s continuing resolution on appropriations) and the Senate has confirmed hundreds of Obama appointees including 280 federal judges, many of whom have been confirmed unanimously. In my humble opinion, nearly six years in is a bit late to challenge eligibility.
While the issues concerning Obama’s past that you listed and are concerned about are interesting, they have little relevance at this point in time to his eligibility. He can’t run for another term and he already received 332 electoral votes.
Over the last six years there have been more than 200 original jurisdiction court rulings on Obama’s eligibility, there have also been close to 100 state and federal appellate rulings and there have been 25 denied appeals to SCOTUS. No court ruling has found him to be ineligible.
Congress voted unanimously to certify Obama’s electors in January, 2009 and again in January, 2013. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the electors “shall be the president.” Obviously the clock runs out on challenging a candidate’s or a President-Elect’s credentials BEFORE the certification of the electoral vote.
Since 2009, Congress has sent Obama hundreds of bills to sign into law (as recently as this week’s continuing resolution on appropriations) and the Senate has confirmed hundreds of Obama appointees including 280 federal judges, many of whom have been confirmed unanimously. In my humble opinion, nearly six years in is a bit late to challenge eligibility.
While the issues concerning Obama’s past that you listed and are concerned about are interesting, they have little relevance at this point in time to his eligibility. He can’t run for another term and he already received 332 electoral votes.
Exactly! In fact, I think one of the times she prefaced her comments with “Neener, neener, neener.”
Since you place such a premium on the validity of court decisions, you’ll no doubt be pleased & eager to weigh in on a closely related question.
Namely, the courts have overwhelmingly found that the Constitution is more concerned with redefining ‘marriage,’ so as to establish and protect the right of two homosexuals to legally marry in a manner identical to that of a man & a woman, than it is with respecting States’ Rights. Do you agree that the vast majority of decisions on this subject have been correct? If so, why?
I disagree with those rulings but whether I personally agree or disagree is irrelevant. Those decisions stand until they are overturned by higher courts. Court decisions on homosexual marriage can also be rendered moot by legislative action that is subsequently upheld as constitutional.
It is the Obama ineligibility movement that has placed a premium on court decisions. The movement has almost exclusively relied on the civil courts as the preferred means of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. At last count, 340 civil judicial actions and appeals have been filed.
If those who believe Obama is ineligible had pursued criminal actions or legislative remedies, I would be discussing those results. But its been lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.
Dr. David A Sinclair did. He delivered her baby and he signed the birth certificate as attending physician at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ivalee-sinclair-widow-dr-david-sinclair-delivered-president-obama-idea-article-1.109257
So you think the courts get it wrong time after time on the Constitution, redefining marriage & states’ rights, & yet you keep quoting the courts’ track record on eligibility cases. If they are so prone to getting it wrong, as you say they are in homosexual marriage vs states’ rights cases, why do you obsessively quote their decisions on eligibility cases?
A dead man ‘remembers’ a pregnant Stanley Ann? Tell me you’re not this desperate/silly.
He signed for the birth when he was alive.
Are you by any chance aware that the LFBC Obama eventually released is considered by many to be a forgery?
Wait, I misspoke. The LFBC has never been ‘released’. Some online images of it have been posted, but the document itself has never been viewed by any non-Obot.
Hawaii law allows for inspection of the original document under a court order. If a member of Congress or a congressional committee wanted to see the original, they can obtain a court order for its release.
If someone alleges forgery, the probative evidence of that crime is submitted to a prosecuting attorney because forgery is a felony. No one has ever been able to interest a prosecutor in convening a grand jury investigation of forgery.
Apples and oranges. “One of theses things is not like the other.”
Here’s what’s interesting. No one in HI remembers a pregnant Stanley Ann. No one has the foggiest idea where she lived. No one recalls her going to the hospital, coming home, or leaving for Seattle. People do recall Stanley Ann in HI prior to the ~10 mo black out period, but no one remembers her during that time.
Your response is to quote a document accepted as legitimate by 100 percent of Obots and fundamentally questioned by many conservatives. [Conveniently, the only person who ‘remembers’ SADO is dead. Nice how that works out for you & Obama.] You also cite a legal system revered by far left liberals and despised by conservatives.
What is it with you Obama defenders lately? You all are going out of your way to self identify as far left liberals.
Apples and apples. In one case, the vast majority of judges/courts decide your way/the liberal way, and you cite that figure robotically & relentlessly. In the other case, the vast majority of judges/courts decide the liberal way, and you claim to disagree & ignore the results.
Apples and apples, but it puts you on the hot seat so you try to tap dance your way out of it. Dance faster. Maybe you will fool a couple of clueless onlookers. You won’t fool a soul who’s actually paying attention.
It pains me to say this, but as liberal anti-birthers go, you are not one of the honest ones. This post illustrates that.
Let me explain. Some time ago, Virginia Sunahara’s brother tried to obtain a copy of her birth certificate. According to the law, he had every right to do so. Prior to HI’s decision on the matter, I visited an anti-birther site. [Back then I occasionally did that. These days, never.]
Anyway, one of the posters, a total Obot anti-birther, said this case would either validate or invalidate birther claims that HI is corrupt and predisposed to protect Obama and thwart birthers. The poster said if the state allowed the brother to obtain a copy of his sister’s BC, birthers would have egg on their faces. If he were denied, it would prove our claims in a troubling and indisputable way.
That was maybe the only honest anti-birther in the world. The rest of you just shill for Obama. You don’t do so objectively or intelligently, but just by rote. You have your talking points which you repeat forever. You never admit what that lone anti-birther admitted—the deck is stacked for Obama and against birthers. You just prattle along like a good shill, repeating your mindless drivel. What a sordid way to spend your time.
There can be a considerable difference between the way courts might deal with a request from the brother of an infant who died 53 years ago and the way they would deal with a request for a court order from the Chair of a congressional investigative committee fulfilling its constitutional duty to insure that Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution has not been violated by an ineligible candidate or officeholder.
Duncan Sunahara received a short form Certification of Live Birth for Virginia and the appellate court ruled that the Hawaii Department of Health
had that discretion under the state law.
The legal standard is “direct and tangible interest.”
Yet prior to the short form being substituted for the one he wanted, anti-birthers predicted he would get the long form, no problem. They said he was entitled to it, and that birthers’ claims of discrimination were false. It was viewed as a test. When what anti-birthers predicted would happen—that he would receive the original LFBC that he requested—actually happened, they would throw that in the face of birthers and say, ‘See?! There is no conspiracy, & no anti-birther bias. Virginia’s brother got exactly what he was entitled to, and birthers are just full of it for even imagining it would be otherwise.’
You see, Nero, anti-birthers are the world’s worst prognosticators. All their assumptions are wrong, which is why they can’t accurately predict squat. But the instant the opposite of what they predicted happens, the 99.99 percent of them who are nothing more than Obama shills pretend that that is what they expected all along. It happens again & again. You are a case in point.
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.