Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court told 'citizen' Obama actually may be alien
WND ^ | March 25, 2010 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 03/25/2010 6:53:40 AM PDT by opentalk

Forget the dispute over the "natural born citizen" requirement of the U.S. Constitution for presidents, 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.

"Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born," says a new filing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Kerchner v. Obama.

"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii."

The submission comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the case. His brief argues against the earlier document from Obama's attorneys demanding that the case be dismissed.

WND reported earlier when the lawyer argued that the most common reason judges have used to dismiss cases against Obama – a lack of "standing" – is just wrong.

Obama's arguments in this case, in fact, rely almost exclusively on that issue to suggest the case by Apuzzo should be dismissed.

"How can you deny he's affecting me?" Apuzzo said recently during an interview with WND. "He wants to have terror trials in New York. He published the CIA interrogation techniques. On and on. He goes around bowing and doing all these different things. His statements we're not a Christian nation; we're one of the largest Muslim nations. It's all there."

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; article2section1; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; citizen; citizenship; eligibility; indonesia; ineligibility; ineligible; jakarta; kerchner; kerchnervobama; lawsuit; marioapuzzo; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamaisabirther; pelosi; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-136 next last

1 posted on 03/25/2010 6:53:40 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: opentalk
"At no time in these proceedings or in any other of the many cases that have been filed against him throughout the country has Obama produced a 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate from the state of Hawaii showing that he was born there … We must conclude for purposes of defendants' motion that since Obama is not a 14th Amendment 'Citizen of the United States' let alone an Article II 'natural born citizen,' he is not eligible to be president and commander in chief.
2 posted on 03/25/2010 6:59:26 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Take control back in Nov and impeach his sorry socialist ass!


3 posted on 03/25/2010 7:03:52 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Folks! The quotation was "The law is a ass." Maybe it should be revised to read "The law can make a ass out of you."

Lawyers dream up The Law, lawyers write The Law so that it can mean anything they want, lawyers interpret The Law, lawyers administer The Law.

All you have to do is to obey The Law - and Good Luck with that!

4 posted on 03/25/2010 7:04:54 AM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

About time someone grabbed onto the 1948 Act that I posted 14 or 15 months ago!


5 posted on 03/25/2010 7:07:12 AM PDT by WellyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

So just for grins, let’s suppose someone “proves” that Obama was not born in the US. What’s next?

Have him perp-walked out of the Oval? Jailed? Deported? Joe Biden sworn in as President? (that would be a Big #$%@ing Deal!)...or what?

And this would help, how exactly? Dems would somehow stop pushing for the same agenda?


6 posted on 03/25/2010 7:08:35 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Our first responsibility is to stand up for the Constitution. We deal with the consequences afterward, but keep in mind if the Democrats knowingly supported a fraud, they will lose the confidence of the citizens in this country and will be voted out of office very fast.


7 posted on 03/25/2010 7:12:03 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I don’t mean to diminish our role in supporting the Constitution, but was just thinking in practical terms...turning Obama into a defacto martyr would only cause the Dems to double-down on their destructive policies, IMHO. As long as they maintain control, that is.

That’s why I’d rather see us focus on getting conservatives elected who can actually make changes than on the BC issue, from a pragmatic point of view.


8 posted on 03/25/2010 7:14:58 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

He should face more than impeachment.

If Obama KNEW that he was not a citizen of the U.S., yet presented himself as such, he is guilty of fraud.

In such a case, he should be made to pay back all the salary and benefits he has accumulated, all bills he has signed should be voided, and he should receive a prison sentence.

Obama impeached and sitting in Fort Leavenworth - it doesn’t get any better than that!!


9 posted on 03/25/2010 7:16:31 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

I believe that if Obama is found to be ineligible then his whole team would also be ineligible. They would lose by default, and McCain/Palin would be the winners. If that’s not the case it should be the case.


10 posted on 03/25/2010 7:18:26 AM PDT by derSchurfer (When the Rule of Law is ignored good citizens will take the law into their own hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

I disagree. They barely got the health care bill passed. The public scrutiny and outrage that would occur after Obama is exposed as a fraud would shut these people down.


11 posted on 03/25/2010 7:18:33 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I agree, it would shut them down. They would do everything the could to distance themselves from him and his agenda. They would be SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you.

At least with the HCR enacted, possibly we will ALL have standing now, as these court cases come up? Just hopin’.


12 posted on 03/25/2010 7:20:52 AM PDT by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

If someone isn’t allowed by the Constitution to be President, then remove him. Whether or not we like him is a moot point. Enforcing the Constitution, is most important.


13 posted on 03/25/2010 7:22:07 AM PDT by castlegreyskull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: derSchurfer

We would be stuck with Biden or Pelosi, however, since Pelosi signed off on nomination forms declaring Obama as eligible, she could also go down with the ship. I forget who is next in line. Ultimately, we’d be left with a substitute who would be nothing more than a really lame duck until 2012.


14 posted on 03/25/2010 7:22:08 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Okay, just for grins, Impeach Zero the Magnificent, then the foul mouthed Idiot Vice President and every other politician that takes their place until we get one that will actually obey the Constitution.


15 posted on 03/25/2010 7:22:53 AM PDT by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Oh they would just declare him legal. We make up the rules as we go along, you know.


16 posted on 03/25/2010 7:23:48 AM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

Ultimately, it looks to me like Apuzzo’s case will get thrown out for lack of standing. I don’t see him making an effective argument as to why this case has standing. I think there’s a better case for trying to prosecute Obama for criminal fraud, but I don’t think there’s a prosecutor or judge willing to take it on.


17 posted on 03/25/2010 7:27:08 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

So Nancy slime ball Pelosi signed off on an illegal presidential candidate and Nancy also slammed down the gavel on a bill not passed by protocal and the Republicans aren’t screaming bloody murder? The GOP needs to CHALLENGE, CHALLENGE, CHALENGE and stop being so nice.


18 posted on 03/25/2010 7:27:20 AM PDT by jetson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Law suit overview Table of Contents - 12 counts.

complete lawsuit

19 posted on 03/25/2010 7:27:31 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jetson
So Nancy slime ball Pelosi signed off on an illegal presidential candidate and Nancy also slammed down the gavel on a bill not passed by protocol and the Republicans aren’t screaming bloody murder?

She was also pushing the use of deem and pass, slaughter rule. It highlights her lack of ethics and willingness, to do as she has said "whatever it takes"

20 posted on 03/25/2010 7:31:48 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

He has planned a good retirement with 32 social security cards.


21 posted on 03/25/2010 7:33:18 AM PDT by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: derSchurfer
I believe that if Obama is found to be ineligible then his whole team would also be ineligible. They would lose by default, and McCain/Palin would be the winners. If that’s not the case it should be the case.

That belief is not based in law or the Constitution. The former doesn't speak at all to this issue, and the latter is maddeningly vague on this specific point.

The actual, legal realities are:

Barring some actual reason to impeach and remove Biden, he is undoubtedly the legal Vice-President.

The problem is what to do if Obama is found to be ineligible. Becoming ineligible is simple enough -- the President is removed and the Vice-President takes over. I.e., President Biden, who would then nominate a new Vice-President, to be appointed with advice and consent of the Senate.

Of course, if Obama had been found to have been ineligible prior to Congress' ratification of the Electoral College vote, the matter would also have been simple (Constitutionally, though certainly not palatable to the Democrats), then no (valid) candidate would have achieved an Electoral College majority, and therefore the House of Representatives would have to select one of the top 5 (valid) people having received Electoral College Votes. But there was only one person who qualifies under that scenario: John McCain, who would be President with Joe Biden as his Vice-President.

The problem arises in that the Constitution makes no provision for when a sitting President becomes ineligible because it was shown that he never was eligible in the first place. In this case, it would likely be up to Congress to deal with the matter (as they are the judge of elections and nothing in the Constitution would restrain them, apart from the actual eligibility requirements). I would expect that they would do the most politically expedient thing: declare the office vacant, and then proceed as in the first scenario above with President Biden.

22 posted on 03/25/2010 7:33:35 AM PDT by kevkrom (De-fund Obamacare in 2011, repeal in 2013!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: seemoAR

Biden, at the very least, is not anti-American!


23 posted on 03/25/2010 7:34:11 AM PDT by WellyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
--Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

--The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

24 posted on 03/25/2010 7:39:08 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

“And this would help, how exactly? Dems would somehow stop pushing for the same agenda?”


It would F___ up the Dem agenda. That is enough for me.


25 posted on 03/25/2010 7:42:05 AM PDT by freedomlover (Make sure you're in love - before you move in the heavy stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Ping.

Where are his “kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records”????


26 posted on 03/25/2010 7:45:26 AM PDT by azishot (J.D. Hayworth...U.S. Senator FOR Arizona...http://www.jdforsenate.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

I think that’s the key to getting the public on-board with this whole issue. Everybody knows the dems are making a mockery out of the rule of law. At this point so many laws have been broken to get Obama in as president it’s not even funny. The failure of our law enforcement, courts, administrative offices, etc to obey and enforce the rule of law is what the public needs to realize.

Right now, the AG’s who are fighting against Obamacare might want to call for impeachment of Nancy Pelosi for perjury - since she had to know that Obama wasn’t eligible. There was no birth certificate she could have seen that was able to be taken at face value; the only way she could have determined him to be a natural born US citizen is if she had a judge or administrative body or person make a determination based on a finding of facts, since his BC is amended and isn’t prima facie evidence. Pelosi, as a legislative “person or body”, does not have that authority.

She signed a different Certification of Nomination for Hawaii because Hawaii - who normally certified Constitutional eligibility and hand-delivered their forms independently of the DNC after the Dem Convention - broke with their normal protocol by refusing to certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. This forced the DNC to make a different certification for Hawaii and send the certifications from both the Hawaii Democratic Party and DNC together to the Hawaii Elections Office. Pelosi knew there was a different form for Hawaii, and she most certainly knew why Hawaii refused to say Obama is Constitutionally eligible.

The attorney who usually represented the HDP was William H Gilardy, Ann Dunham’s lawyer in the divorce from Soetoro. He may well have seen Obama’s birth certificate. Until Obama amended his BC in Hawaii sometime during his consideration of a presidential run in 2006, the only birth certificate that could have been printed out for Obama would have been his real one - the Kenyan one. Hawaii could not print out anything for Obama until his BC was completed in 2006.


27 posted on 03/25/2010 7:49:07 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
Take control back in Nov and impeach his sorry socialist ass!

Two things to consider for the mid term elections:

Soros Eyes Secretaries

Forget amnesty, look where Democrats now stoop for votes!
28 posted on 03/25/2010 7:50:03 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bigbob; All

That’s why I’d rather see us focus on getting conservatives elected who can actually make changes than on the BC issue, from a pragmatic point of view.

Being pragmatic, we need conservatives who are also willing to take care of this when they swear in starting January 2011. We can't do much about this sticking issue until we have the Majority in Congress.

As A.W. Dicey, one of the chief references in the famed "US vs. Kim Wong Ark" case, states in "Conflict of Laws":

"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions."

This extends up to two generations, regardless of where the infant is born.


“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


29 posted on 03/25/2010 7:59:54 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Oh he's an alien alright, of one variety or another.

Obama,alien

30 posted on 03/25/2010 8:02:40 AM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
from article:

--Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

31 posted on 03/25/2010 8:05:11 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
He has planned a good retirement with 32 social security cards.

related link

32 posted on 03/25/2010 8:14:29 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Here in Nebraska we don’t require any legal verification of eligibility. All we ask for is the certification by the DNC and RNC. But the charters of those organizations require that they only nominate eligible candidates. When the Certification of Nomination is signed by the certifying people from the DNC they are making a notarized oath that they know what they have said on the document to be true.

That is absolutely perjury on the part of Pelosi - not only because she didn’t know it to be true that Obama is Constitutionally eligible, but because she knew it was NOT TRUE.

The reasons for Congress saying that McCain was eligible was because both his parents were US citizens and (they said) he was born on a military base which would legally be considered US soil. Their facts may or may not have been accurate, but the criteria they used were clear. Obama doesn’t fit those criteria, even if he was born in Hawaii.

But the truth of the matter is, there is nothing that Hawaii has which qualifies as prima facie evidence that Obama was even born in Hawaii. And Pelosi would certainly have known that if she had even so much as TRIED to see his documentation.

The fact that she didn’t even TRY says that she knew she was perjuring herself when she swore on penalty of perjury that she knew Obama was Constitutionally eligible to be president.

There is no defense for her. You can’t swear to the truth of something you know you don’t know.


33 posted on 03/25/2010 8:20:34 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

“I would expect that they would do the most politically expedient thing: declare the office vacant, and then proceed as in the first scenario above with President Biden.”

You may well be right. But if Obama held the office illegally, shouldn’t that invalidate every Executive Order and even some bills he has signed since Jan. 20, 2009? Admittedly, Joe Biden could sign all these bills/orders himself, but in some cases, these bills would have been considered “pocket-vetoed” since Congress recessed during the 10-day period that the Constitution gives the president to sign a bill. That would appear to apply to health care reform reconciliation, since Congress plans to recess for Easter etc.


34 posted on 03/25/2010 8:29:41 AM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: derSchurfer
I believe that if Obama is found to be ineligible then his whole team would also be ineligible. They would lose by default, and McCain/Palin would be the winners. If that’s not the case it should be the case.

That's not the case. But you're entitled to keep hoping.

35 posted on 03/25/2010 8:32:36 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
President Biden, who would then nominate a new Vice-President, to be appointed with advice and consent of the Senate.

Both houses of Congress. Per the 25th Amendment.

36 posted on 03/25/2010 8:35:21 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
“Right now, the AG’s who are fighting against Obamacare might want to call for impeachment of Nancy Pelosi for perjury - since she had to know that Obama wasn’t eligible.”

Yes and the AG’s can also demand discovery of Obama’s original HI BC and demand a legal ruling on NBC status.

See jbjd’s post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2479489/posts

I think your deductions as to the underlying fact pattern (Obama amended his HI BC to remove Kenya birth location) will prove to be correct, hopefully in time to cut short his usurpation.

37 posted on 03/25/2010 8:35:52 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

“Joe Biden sworn in as President? (that would be a Big #$%@ing Deal!)”

Frankly, I’d rather have stupid than evil.


38 posted on 03/25/2010 8:36:00 AM PDT by bjorn14 (Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DrC
You may well be right. But if Obama held the office illegally, shouldn’t that invalidate every Executive Order and even some bills he has signed since Jan. 20, 2009? Admittedly, Joe Biden could sign all these bills/orders himself, but in some cases, these bills would have been considered “pocket-vetoed” since Congress recessed during the 10-day period that the Constitution gives the president to sign a bill. That would appear to apply to health care reform reconciliation, since Congress plans to recess for Easter etc.

In my opinion, the executive orders would be invalidated and whomever assumes the office would need to re-institute them (or not, at his discretion).

Legislation, on the other hand, needs to be explicitly vetoed in order to be halted. If the President simply fails to sign it, it becomes law in 10 days anyway. The question becomes how to handle the situation -- the simplest approach is to just say that the bills were unsigned but not vetoed, and are therefore valid law. But that does set a dangerous precedent that Congress can act without Executive branch oversight. It would certainly be ugly either way -- again I would expect expedience to be the main issue. If the new President states that he would have vetoed a particular piece of legislation, it may be an issue -- if he explicitly states that he wouldn't have vetoed anything, then it's just an academic exercise anyway.

39 posted on 03/25/2010 8:36:44 AM PDT by kevkrom (De-fund Obamacare in 2011, repeal in 2013!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BP2
As A.W. Dicey, one of the chief references in the famed "US vs. Kim Wong Ark" case, states in "Conflict of Laws":

"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions."

If you are going to bring up US v. Wong Kim Ark, you should mention that the majority opinion actually implies that Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States (assuming he was born here):

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

40 posted on 03/25/2010 8:37:29 AM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Both houses of Congress. Per the 25th Amendment.

Whoops! Thanks for the correction!

41 posted on 03/25/2010 8:37:51 AM PDT by kevkrom (De-fund Obamacare in 2011, repeal in 2013!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14
Frankly, I’d rather have stupid than evil.

I'm not so sure. Obama's machinations may take a generation or more to undo the economic damage and harmed relations with formerly friendly governments.

On the other hand, Biden's verbal diarrhea could get us into a shooting war by accident.

42 posted on 03/25/2010 8:39:30 AM PDT by kevkrom (De-fund Obamacare in 2011, repeal in 2013!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

“If the President simply fails to sign it, it becomes law in 10 days anyway.”

Only if Congress does not adjourn during that 10-day window. If they do, failure to sign becomes a “pocket veto.” There aren’t that many laws this technicality would affect, but health reform reconciliation is one of these. Strictly speaking, Congress would have to re-pass such bills before they could be signed—else they’d be subject to constitutional challenge.

With the furor over health care and ESPECIALLY after members return to their districts over the Easter break, it’s not at all clear the House could secure 216 votes for the bill anymore.


43 posted on 03/25/2010 8:43:48 AM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
Have him perp-walked out of the Oval?

well.. that video i would play for days

as for how it would help... in the immediate... all bills he signed into law would be null and void

ie: healthcare

44 posted on 03/25/2010 8:47:41 AM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
This article names Pelosi as a member of The Democratic Socialists of America.Progressive Nancy Pelosi’s History

--The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International (also in Francais and Espanol). DSA’s members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics…

--Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

The Alternative to Capitalism is Democratic Socialism link

45 posted on 03/25/2010 8:47:54 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“I forget who is next in line”

That would be President pro tempore of the Senate Bobby Byrd of WV and then Sec. of State. Hillary Clinton and then Sec. of the Treasury Timmy Geitner

Not all that appetizing...


46 posted on 03/25/2010 8:49:12 AM PDT by bjorn14 (Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DrC; kevkrom
But if Obama held the office illegally, shouldn’t that invalidate every Executive Order and even some bills he has signed since Jan. 20, 2009?

No. There is something called the de-facto officer doctrine which says that any acts performed while someone holds office are valid even if it is later found that they are ineligible to hold that office. If Obama is found ineligible and removed tomorrow that would not change anything done to date.

47 posted on 03/25/2010 8:54:03 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: All
The Apuzzo case mentions how Obama has failed to conclusively prove he was born in Hawaii, I took another look at the FactCheck photos and found a pretty telling discrepancy between them and the scans that were given to Kaos and Politifact. FactCheck took photos of what looks like the back of Obama's COLB (although the front of the certificate doesn't show through). I copied the date stamp from the scan, flipped it and pasted it side-by-side with the date stamp in one of the photos. Notice how the 6 and the zeroes are shaped differently. The zeroes from the photo are more oval and the zeroes on the scan are flattened on the sides. Even the two looks a little different. The seven has what looks like a glitch in the scan, but the leg doesn't seem to curve as much as in the FactCheck picture. Also, shouldn't the items that bleed through from the back to the front should be thinner and not thicker??


48 posted on 03/25/2010 8:55:18 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
More from, same link.(progressive Pelosi) This helps explain the progressives in the Democrat party.

--Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in WND, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress.

--The Democratic Socialists of America’s chief organizing stated goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to “socialism” in the eyes of most Americans.

49 posted on 03/25/2010 9:02:25 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14

We have enough decent people in Congress (believe it or not) that if the rule of law was followed we could keep an America-hating, America-destroying communist in check until they could be replaced. That’s why the rule of law is so absolutely vital.

The founders put a good system in place - one with separation of powers and the checks and balances, realizing that power corrupts. The reason we’re losing America legislatively is because we FIRST allowed America’s law enforcement and government agencies to institute lawlessness.

That’s why people have to realize that we’ve only gotten where we are now because the fox has been guarding the henhouse. We have corrupt law enforcement, corrupt government, and corrupt media - all of which have broken laws in order to allow this usurper into office and to push his agenda.

We really need to emphasize that lawlessness is not a laughing matter - even if the perpetrators laughingly call the evidence “conspiracy theories”.

My hope is that the HCR vote has slapped so-called “conservatives” into seeing that confronting lawlessness is not a “distraction”, “conspiracy”, or “extreme”. It is absolutely critical at all times, but especially in times like these, when it is OBVIOUS that a government takeover is underway.


50 posted on 03/25/2010 9:05:04 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-136 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson