Posted on 07/09/2013 7:26:23 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
There is a problem with President Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate: It’s a forgery, say multiple forensic experts who have examined it. A report detailing the evidence will soon be presented to Congress.
On April 27, 2011 the White House released Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate in an attempt to quell a public firestorm over the validity of the shorter version he provided prior to his 2008 election. A group of concerned citizens in Arizona suspected the Certificate of Live Birth produced in 2011 by the administration was fabricated; they asked Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County to investigate.
“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” said Cold Case Posse Lead Investigator Lt. Mike Zullo in an exclusive interview with WorldTribune.
This is a key development, asserts Lt. Zullo, because Mr. Hayes is a certified handwriting analyst and forensic document examiner who worked repeatedly for Perkins Coie, a reputable law firm, and was deemed a dependable professional in their legal cases. Moreover, Perkins Coie has defended Mr. Obama in his legal jousts on the birth certificate matter over the past five years.
The report by Mr. Hayes is now an affidavit that belongs to the Cold Case Posse and cannot be retracted, regardless of any political or social pressure he encounters, explains Lt. Zullo.
“There has been a very effective media campaign to discredit anyone who tries to work with us,” said Lt. Zullo. “It is impossible to discuss this issue without being lambasted.”
As a precaution against others misusing or manipulating Mr. Hayes’s report, Lt. Zullo has copyrighted it.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956
My point is that an ineligible person can not be impeached. Whether any court has ever ruled that Obama is not Article 2 eligible is a separate question.
Do you agree that that an ineligible person can not be impeached?
Can they be hanged? (Or is it hung? never sure)
I'm just a local, but "coup d'état" seems like you have gone down the road passed impeachment by about a light year or so.
President Butthole needs to be removed from office while the adults sort this thing out.
Remember, you can’t impeach a ‘president’ that was never qualified to be ‘president’ in the first place.
He’s an usurper. He should be arrested for treason by the joint chiefs along with most of his fellow democrats.
If there’s a way to save the Republic before it’s too late then we should do it. This may be our last chance.
I'm with you, Bro. All the way!
Well, since you've already decided you've been defeated then just fold your little pup-tent and go into that dark night as a slave to Obama and his communist democrats.
I, for one, will not go that easily!
sometimes I wonder if all of that story was the lie of an abandoned youth, to make himself look important, to gain sympathy
and to hide his lack of a biological father
No, I do not agree.
I agree with the federal courts who ruled on this issue regarding Obama in 2009: “...on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”—Barnett, Keyes et al. v. Obama, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
Under the doctrine of “de facto officer” whoever occupies an appointed or elected office functions AS IF eligible and their acts in that office are offical until they are removed from office. Impeachment is one option for removing an ineligible office holder whose ineligibility involved committing high crimes and misdemeanors such as forgery and identity theft.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-officer/
Barry Obama jumped through all the constitutional and political hoops that are required to be president. He won enough primaries and caucuses to receive a major party nomination. He qualified for the ballot in 50 states and the District of Columbia, twice. He received over 300 electoral votes, twice. His electoral votes were certified without objection from any member of Congress, twice. He took the Oath of Office, four times. Congress sends him legislation to sign into law. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of many of his policy actions as president. The Senate has confirmed hundreds of his nominees. Just last week the Senate confirmed Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Transportation on a vote of 100-0. He has ordered the U.S. military into harm’s way. He IS the president and he CAN be impeached.
Senate impeachment trials are a political process and a conviction under a Bill of Impeachment is unlikely with 55 Democrats and several RINOs in the Senate between now and January, 2015. Ten Republican Senators voted “not guilty” of perjury in Bubba Clinton’s impeachment trial.
That’s why I favor coalescing all ineligibility efforts around both holding congressional hearings and finding one willing prosecutor anywhere in the United States who is courageous enough to launch a grand jury probe into this issue with the goal being to produce enough evidence of criminal activity to force Obama’s resignation.
The problem is that the current Joint Chiefs are all Obama appointees, every single one of them. Obama quietly moved all appointees of previous presidents out and Generals loyal to him in.
From my (admittedly obsessive) reading the research threads about him, this is my conclusion about this particular aspect:
He had been told various things about who his parents were as a child, so he was pretty messed up by the time he was a young teenager. He was adopted by a well connected family in Indonesia and was being groomed to be President there. He very likely thought he was really part of that family. These were the Soebarkah family, there is at least one group family photo and Zero looks to be about 4 or 5. The only photo of Zero supposedly in Indonesia with SAD and “Lolo” is entirely photoshopped. When the political climate changed he was sent back to HI to live with “grandparents”. Perhaps he was told at that time that his father was the Kenyan. Claims of being Kenyan royalty at that time, before that claims of Indonesian royalty.
Then (this is just my conclusion mind you) he was told the truth about his parentage by FMD at some point - MX and the Lebanese woman. Then he got into drugs and very likely sexual perversion. He was such a big doper in high school and one of his best “friends” later died of being beaten with a hammer - and was a homosexual.
When he talked to you, he probably knew the “born in Kenya” thing was a lie but he used it anyway.
It looks to me that he was probably born in Canada and brought over to Seattle by SAD a few weeks later, doing her nanny job.
Zero is so broken that nothing can possibly fix him. A shell of a ruined human being.
So if a 30 year old person is elected and sworn in, a person who is not eligible, and removal can be effected only by impeachment, what then is the purpose of Article II?
The construction you are advancing is absurd and obstructs the purpose of Article II. The Constitution must be construed as a whole and it’s provisions read in a way that is compatible and not contradictory.
The absurdity of your position is abundant: a person who has never been to the United States, who was born 20 years ago in a foreign country to foreign parents but who is popularly elected would magically become eligible by being elected.
The cases you cite are foolish and political. Don’t be blinded by a desired political outcome.
Do you agree that that an ineligible person can not be impeached?
Something about this reminds me of Lance Armstrong.
There is One who can.
But he has to want to get fixed. No one gets fixed kicking and screaming and refusing the cure. Somewhere in the heart there has to be a “Yes, Lord”. Free will. I doubt Zero has even the smallest bit of desire. His life of crime and evil have calloused his heart too much for this lifetime.
Klaatu Baraka nikto?
Ramadan.
Maybe an ironic sort of re-twist on Alinsky + Proverbs 16:18 and done with sense of humor He has, but that's just my preference. He might not have much sense of humor left at this point, that Cup of Wrath brim full like it is now.
We'll just have to wait and see. His Will be done. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Personally, I finally found a good seat and I'm just kicking back, enjoying the show.
I hear you can get called from the audience to participate, too! How cool is that?
As I’ve continually said, I DO NOT AGREE that an ineligible person cannot be impeached. Impeachment is a POLITICAL process. Any elected or appointed official whether they are eligible or ineligible can be impeached for any reason. For federal officials what it takes is a majority vote in the House of Representatives to vote out a Bill of Impeachment. As I already said, one of the methods of determining ineligibility is via an impeachment trial however I never said that impeachment is the only method of removing an ineligible person.
There are lots of legal traditions under our system that I find to be, at the least bizarre and at the most, downright insane. For example, Statutes of Limitations. A person commits a crime, everybody acknowledges that they committed the crime yet if prosecution doesn’t begin within a certain time frame, they can get away with committing the crime....YUCK.
And just in case you missed it: I believe that an ineligible person who holds a federal elected or appointed office can be impeached.
Thank you for confirming a lack of intellectual integrity.
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.