Skip to comments.Question about Obama eligibility
Posted on 12/13/2012 12:20:29 PM PST by chuckles
Question,...Is it possible, that we could make some sort of statement, that if Obama is found out to be illegally elected, we could prosecute some of the people that covered up his lies to get him elected?
It's too late to stop anything now, IMHO, but later, investigations could turn up some evidence that may be accepted. To have Arapio say, positively, that Obama's records are fake and no one even looks at it is criminal, in my mind. If some knew we were coming after them no matter how long it takes, maybe someone would crack.
Someone has to sign off on this crap and their name should put them in jeopardy.
If someone stuffed a ballot box, they would go to jail. To me, it's the same thing. If he is not eligible and they knew it, they should be held responsible. Even as an elector, I would make sure my vote was for someone that was eligible. If I tried to plead ignorance, the person that verified he was legal should be held liable. It seems to me ANY elector would have the legal right, and indeed a responsibility to double check any questions before they cast their vote. That's a lot of electors to believe 100% that Obama has a legit Social Security number. It's easy enough to check E-Verify.
No, because his election was certified by both Houses of Congress.
He could be impeached, but then his defense, right or wrong, would be his election was certified by Congress.
Best of luck to you pal! Stand by for a vicious flaming from some of our friends who claim to love the truth, but have apparently decided this is not a winning issue, etc, etc, etc.
If you even dare to ask about Obama’s academic records, you’re considered a “worldnutdaily” nut.
I have great respect for Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s and others efforts efforts.
(Nothing to see here. Move along) </sarc >
Obviously if you don’t think hussein is eligible you are a racist. /s
[some people have] apparently decided this is not a winning issue
Not yet, but I think we have a real shot at keeping Obama from winning the 2016 election.
Don't hold your breath. I fully expect an Obama third term.
I don’t have to tell people that I have no love for 0bama, I actually warned people about taking his election lightly because once elected, he would be difficult to get rid of him.
The problems with the “eligibility issue” is that
1. Jerome Corsi has screwed it up so badly that no one actually believes he has any credibility anymore. One minute Obama is born in Kenya, the next his father is not even Obama Sr. Which is it Jerome?
2. Inconsistancy - One minutes it was Obama’s birth certificate then Emmerich de Vattel. Most of the birthers who bring up Emmerich de Vattel had never heard of him three years ago and now they are experts on the subject.
I welcome all opinions or debates on the subject, but there are people who never have stepped into a classroom let alone a law school claim to be experts on “Hampersnett” and know more than a Mark Levin on the subject.
Certification by means of fraudulent representations constitutes a High Crime punishable the same as any form of perjury, subversion, impersonation, and more. Furthermore, a number of U.S. Senators, Representatives, and justices may be impeached and convicted for their own roles in the fraud.
Please tell me you accidentally left off the < /sarc > in your post.
Obama in 2016? The way things are going, maybe?? LOL
In order to prove any thing “fraudulent”, one must prove that someone intended to mislead.
This type of Idea was brought up in a mailing list I was on in 2008 when rumors first circulated that Obama was ineligible. The answer back then was to stop challenging Obama, and challenge each State's Secretary of State on the eligibility of the candidate. This should have been done as a full court press for each State at the time. The second idea was to enact laws in States -- if not Congress to provide a more definitive set of procedures to ensure eligibility, including documentation verification, before the 2012 election came around. I know of no examples of organizations other than Orly Taitz to have tried to tackle the first part, and no person or organization to attempt the latter part. Nobody is going to go to jail over this. The problem is Obama was not illegally elected. He was legally elected because all the correct and right people deemed his documentation sufficient, then on top of that the election was certified and Obama was subsequently sworn in by the CJSCOTUS.
hardly anyone has any balls anymore. ‘specially the MSM.
even conservative commentators don’t have any.
Joe does, but few listen.
I have a birth certificate, and I can show it to you right now, no excuse whatsoever. If it was forged, then it must have been done in Oregon for some unknown reason that I know nothing about.
When it gets down to brass tacks, stupid is not qualified because he has not a “natural born citizen”. His supposed father was not a citizen of the United States. That negates even a problem whether he was born in the US or not.
He is disqualified on that point alone.
All the senate and house should be impeached along with the idiot and vice idiot for failing to defend the Constitution.
they gave an oath to do so.
In fact, the idiot should be charged for treason for pledging to support the Constitution and then undermining it.
If you need a lawyer or a judge to tell you what the Constitution says, you are too stupid to vote.
As far as I know.. IF we can prove it (pretty much already been done), and if we can get the proper representatives to act on it (so far, they have been real pussies), they can be charged for treason (each and every one of them)... and be shot at gunpoint.
Please tell me you accidentally left off the </sarc> in your post.I assumed it would be obvious. Silly me, this is the Internet... ;-)
Re: I welcome all opinions or debates on the subject, but there are people who never have stepped into a classroom let alone a law school claim to be experts on Hampersnett and know more than a Mark Levin on the subject.
Well FRiend, maybe you could enlighten me on Harrison J. Bounel. See grapic:
Sorry it’s from a Corsi article. I found it from a quick FR keyword search of “SSN.”
Corsi is hardly alone on the issue.
Look forward to hearing from you on the matter. (I will be out of the office until tomorrow.)
P.S. I have the greatest respect for Levin, but he told us George Allen was the only chance Republicans had of beating Tim Kaine for U.S. Senate last month. Allen was the least conservative of the 4 primary candidates. Kaine won anyway.
He was illegally elected. The only way he got on the ballots was through an Official Certification of Nomination that Bob Bauer (DNC Counsel) knew was both fraudulent and perjurious, since Attorney Larry Klayman informed him that HI state registrar Alvin Onaka had confirmed to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that the HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and there are thus no legally-determined birth facts for Obama based on that BC.
IOW, we know there was election fraud in every state of the union - to the extent that every electoral vote Obama got was a result of electoral fraud.
And we also know that with no legally-valid US birth certificate there is no way he could have qualified by Jan 20, 2008 or 2012 as required by the 20th Amendment - unless there is first an administrative and/or judicial proceeding to determine the probative value of the non-valid HI BC.
In addition to that, we know that anybody who claimed he was eligible either took that on faith without any proof from Hawaii whatsoever, they were deceived by a forgery created by Obama’s people, or else they outright lied. Both the short-form and long-form BC’s are known as forgeries, since Hawaii could not have certified a copy of a non-valid BC (either short or long) without having the legally-required marks of non-validity on the BC. Onaka has confirmed (through 2 different verifications) that the WH forgery is NOT a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” and that the information contained in the WH forgery is NOT “identical to” the information contained in the genuine record.
This is something I have been working on. We shall overcome someday. That still doesn't change his SS# from a dead person from Conn. /s
Either Dreams or the WH BC PDF is a lie.
For these reasons http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2967425/posts?page=39#39 I believe the WH BC PDF to be a lie.
The WH BC PDF was produced with the intent to mislead. It is for public consumption only, not official. It's only purpose is to deceive the public.
Obama/soetoro/whatever-his-name-is claimed that his online digital image of bc is a genuine copy of his bc from Hawaii, and that it proves he was born in Hawaii,
a USA sheriff has proven that that very digital image of his bc is forged.
As the owner of the bc he must know it is forged.
Knowing it is forged and using it to mislead Americans into believing it is a genuine authenticated doc is fraudulent -
there is no and or if but to it!!!
The very act of forging a gov doc is a crime!
We already know that from Sheriff Arapio's investigation. The people he used would be accepted in court on a murder case and no one will even look at their results. For me, That makes then co-conspirators.
Maybe Nancy Pelosi's dual certification forms (one for Hawaii, and another for the remaining states) would be a start in proving intent to deceive? Why the two forms when Republicans used the same form in all states? Why did Pelosi drop the phrase "and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution" from the all but the Hawaii certification?
I can ASSURE you that won't happen. Stock tip:.......Buy S&W and Ruger. Stay long and don't sell. Better yet, buy leap call options.
In case you haven't noticed, there was plenty of election fraud and cheating going on on the part of the Democrats in the recent election. Whether you have the same individuals deliberately voting multiple times (aided and abetted by early voting procedures, on might add), people ineligible to vote actually voting or voting under the name of deceased persons, or hacking of electronic vote counting equipment to falsify vote totals, it's all tantamount to the old-fashioned "stuffing ballot boxes," practically speaking. Yet few if any of the perps will be going to jail for it, even in states with Republican governors, secretaries of state, and/or attorneys general. So your statement is false in most cases, regrettably so.
I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think you can impeach Congressmen and Senators. They can be Censored, but impeachment is for Pres and VP. They can be prosecuted if they allow it themselves. A Congresscritter cannot even be arrested while in session. If Boehner or Pelosi doesn’t allow it, what then?
This time, it was also "unstuffing" the ballot boxes. There were many reports of Romney voters saying that error messages indicated that their votes were not being saved, but the poll worker told them to ignore the error and that the votes were indeed saved.
Then after the election, we heard about many districts with zero votes for Romney.
People turned out for Romney; it's just that there votes were not counted.
Bump to you post.
Like I said, legally elected. The documents were deemed satisfactory. He was placed on the ballot of all 50 states, the Electoral Collegiate voted for him, certified by the US Congress and sworn in by the CJSCOTUS.
At least you gave Orly is an idiot a rest.
<<Some day we will find out that this Muslim was not eligible to be President.<<
Could it be that this is (was) designed to marginalize the constitution at a later date?
Going out on a limb here, but seems I can hear the progressives now.
“See, we had a foreign born president and America is doing just fine.” Why not allow foreign born folks run for president.
I can hear it now.
February 5, 1798
To Arrest an Impeached Senator
Of course the fellow is illegitimate in office and everywhere else. So what? He's the one flying to HI (born there, you know) on AF 1 and living in public housing. It's definitely your problem, but its:
Local Judge of Election's Job
State Courts' job
Federal Courts' job
AG or SoS of 50 States' job
Your Congressman's Job
George W. Bush's job
VP Cheney's job
Not Arpaio's job.
Not Donofrio's job.
Not Apuzzo's job.
Definitely not Orly's job.
But thanks. Everyone has done a really nice job, except those whose job it actually is to guarantee constitutional eligibility of candidates. And congrats to you (and me) we have lived through a successful anti-constitutional coup.
Bye-Bye American Pie. But let's not give up when we still have the
Governor Thomas H. Moore, North Dakota, was removed from office for ineligibility shortly after being sworn into office and being certified by the state legislature.
Moore is not the only such example.
Obama can be removed even now by the simple expedient of the Republican Governors ordering the disqualification of their state’s Electors. Without the Electors from the Republican states, the Electoral College will not have the required number of Electors to constitute a Constitutional quorum. In the event the Electoral College lacks a Constitutional quorum, the election of the President reverts t the House of Representatives and the election of the Vice President reverts to the Senate.Under current circumstances, you would likely have a Republican President and a Democrat Vice President in January 203, and Obama would be out of office and out of power.
Yes, I heard about that in one county in Colorado in the early voting. What other geographical locations had this problem?
You would think that with modern technology, at least a few voters could have taken instant images of those "error message" screens with their iPads or whatever and would have the guts to take formal legal action. But it would seem to me that the RNC, the state and local GOP organizations, and the Romney campaign apparatus were caught sleeping, which is inexplicable in view of the fraud and cheating that had gone on in recent previous elections.
Unfortunately, the whole thing for those who bother to look is just proof that we don’t have a constitutional republic anymore. We have a democracy, and if there is someone charismatic enough to win over a majority of the population, then they get to rule over us, and they will rule over us in the manner in which they see fit, not that outlined under the Constitution. Sad, but true.
This election is not over - not YET.
We do not have time on our side. This is our LAST chance. Don't give up. We must act now.
If the vote count is FRAUDULENT, FLAWED, and CAN'T BE TRUSTED and
if the Electors have been FRAUDULENTLY allocated based on FLAWED vote counts
then WE CANNOT ALLOW THE GOVERNORS TO SIGN
THEIR CERTIFICATES of ASCERTAINMENT on December 17th.
We can stop this if we ACT IMMEDIATELY.
*** CALL TO ARMS *** FIVE STATE CAPITOLS *** LESS THAN FIVE DAYS LEFT ***
Patriots must rally NOW in the State Capitols of
Harrisburg, PA - Richmond, VA - Tallahassee, FL - Columbus, OH, and Madison, WI
PATRIOT LEADERS ORGANIZE YOUR LOCAL EFFORTS NOW
From Today on
****** MAKE PHONE CALLS CONTINUOUSLY *****
through Sunday December 16th
Help these five Governors understand that they can join together and withhold their
Certificates of Ascertainment and their action will be 100% SUCCESSFUL!
Ask them "Why can't we do this?"
If phone numbers do not appear to the right of each name below then go to http://www.HaltVoterFraud.com
Florida - http://www.dos.state.fl.us
A. Governor Rick Scott 850-488-7146
B. Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll 850-717-9331
C. Attorney General Pam Bondi 850-414-3300
D. Secretary of State Ken Detzner 850-245-6500
Ohio - http://http://www.governor.ohio.gov http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov http://www.sos.state.oh.us
A. Governor John Kasich 614-466-3555
B. Lt. Governor Mary Taylor 614-466-3555
C. Attorney General Mike DeWine 614-466-4986
D. Secretary of State Jon Husted 614-466-2655
Pennsylvania - http://www.dos.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/department_of_state/12405
A. Governor Tom Corbett 717-787-2500
B. Lt. Governor Jim Cawley 717-787-3300
C. Attorney General Paula Kelly 717-787-3391
D. Sec. Commonwealth Carol Aichele 717-787-6458
Virginia - http://www.commonwealth.virginia.gov/index.cfm
A. Governor Bob McDonnell 804-786-2211
B. Lt. Governor Bill Bowling 804-786-2078
C. AttY. General Kenneth Cuccinelli 804-786-2071
D. Sec. Commonwealth Janet Vestal Kelly 804-786-2441
Wisconsin - http://www.sos.state.wi.us/index.html
A. Governor Scott Walker 608-266-1212
B. Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch 608-266-3516
C. Atty. General J.B. Van Hollen 608-266-1221
D. Sec. of State Doug La Follette 608-266-3159
We can make HISTORY by fighting for our rights - protecting the integrity of our sacred vote.
The Governor's combined action will withhold enough EC votes so that
neither candidate will have the minimum required to win the Presidency.
Therefore, the U. S. House of Representatives will elect the President
We can save our Republic and PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF OUR VOTE.
Every single LEGAL vote (Especially the MILITARY votes) must be counted. "Chicago Style" thuggery must not be accepted, our leadership must not capitulate on this.
There was even the son who was working for his father Jim Moran’s re-election campaign (the same one who crushed the skull of his girlfriend) that was caught on video explaining how to commit voter fraud before the election.
You don’t get it. According to Hawaii law, what they’ve got has ZERO legal value and NEVER CAN have any legal value, without first being presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and having the probative value determined. Without seeing the actual complete record, there is not a soul on earth who can LAWFULLY claim Obama is eligible for anything.
IOW, if some SOS, Chief Justice, etc claims that Obama actually is eligible - without first going through the legal process to determine his actual birth facts - they are violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. They are overstepping the bounds of Hawaii law and thus overstepping the bounds of the US Constitution. The legal presumption is for regularity - that is, that the routine disclosure by Onaka was done in compliance with the law and Obama thus has no legally-established birth facts - without which he CANNOT “qualify” as required by the 20th Amendment of the Constitution
That means that the entire election was fraudulent - in 2008 and in 2012. The whole thing. Even without all the actual voter fraud that took place.
Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Marks father was
It was Obama’s older sister, Auma who said that referring to her “mum,” Kezia. Kenya being a former Brit colony, mum would be a word for mom for Auma and not normally a word that mostly US raised Obama would have used.
Here is the passage from Dreams posted by FReeper thouworm in comment #28 of this thread:
When I got home, told Auma how the meeting had gone. She looked away for a moment, then broke out with a short, bitter laugh.
Whats so funny?
I was just thinking about how life is so strange. You know, as soon as the Old Man died, the lawyers contacted all those who might have a claim to the inheritance. Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Marks father was. So of all of the Old Mans kids, Marks claim is the only one thats uncontested.
Again Auma laughed, and I looked up at the picture hanging on her wall, the same picture pasted inside Ruths album, of three brothers and a sister, smiling sweetly for the camera.
“Jerome Corsi has screwed it up so badly that no one actually believes he has any credibility anymore. One minute Obama is born in Kenya, the next his father is not even Obama Sr. Which is it Jerome?”
IMO, Corsi reported extensively on the claims of Joel Gilbert (Dreams from my Real Father) in Corsi’s capacity as a journalist without personally advocating on behalf of those claims.
Corsi always made it clear that these were Gilbert’s claims and not his own personal claims.
My reading of the tealeaves is that Corsi, like Trump and Arpaio, was basically told to sit down and shut up and drop their own investigations and advocacy in anticipation of a Romney win and in the hope of preventing attacks on the GOP for being racist for going.
Corsi still had to earn a living for himself and WND, so he took pleasure in poking a stick in Obama’s eye by reporting on Gilbert’s video.
At one point when Corsi came back from HI he seemed to be wildly excited by “evidence” he had found but then only small incremental information was released. I don’t think Corsi was faking his earlier excitement. Only time will tell what comes out next.
Trump took a big risk, too, and with Romney’s loss Trump is exposed to all kinds of retribution from Obama unless further efforts, such as the impending attack on Obama teased by Carl Gallups, come about:
It is irrelevant whether Obama attributes the utterance to Auma. In his book Obama is stating that his mother did not have any documents needed to prove who his father is.
Obama owns the narrative.
Thanks for the info. I'll try to check out the video.
I seem to remember hearing something about that. I suppose in the Moran family's case, the old bromide about the apple not falling far from the tree is appropriate. Jim Moran has been known to be quite a lout himself.
IMO, it is stretch to claim that by putting these words in his sister's mouth regarding Kezia and the situation in Kenya at the time, Obama is making an admission that back in HI there is no record showing his Sr. as his father, as the HI newspapers at a minimum indicate his mom and/or grandparents reported when they registered the birth (whether or not Barry was born there).
Ayers probably wrote this and failed to appreciate the implication you are suggesting for Obama.
The disclaimer that Ayers and Obama placed over the whole book means that Obama can deny anything in it that might make him look bad. Dreams is NOT a legal document or admission that could be considered evidence in any court.
Ayers, ever pushing race-victim status for blacks, might have made up the whole thing about how the children of the white mother got the estate and the children of the black mother didn't. Does that even make sense in post-colonial Kenya? Obama's relatives were paid off to keep quiet and telling the truth about discrepancies between Dreams and the truth is obviously the reason, IMO.
Dreams is so Ayers-infested, I don't take any of it seriously as fact.
Jim Morans son resigns from campaign amid video furor
It's not about being an "expert" ... Levin may have a learned opinion, but it is just ONE opinion. There were 9 Supreme Court justices in the Wong Kim Ark case that could not agree on whether the 14th amendment trump an international treaty. They did agree that birth on U.S. soil by itself was NOT sufficient to automatically make someone a U.S. citizen. They made a material distinction by quoting the UNANIMOUS Minor v. Happersett decision that all children born in the country to citizen parents were natural-born citizens and those who were born to alien parents BUT who had permanent domicial and residence were 14th amendment citizens by birth. Both these conditions inherently preclude Obama from any natural birth citizenship. They made a positive declaration of natural-born citizenship based on birth to citizen parents and they made a specifically NEGATIVE declaration that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. Further, the Luria v. United States decison several years later declared that Minor and NOT Wong Kim Ark was the precedent for Article II presidential eligibility. Again, Levin is entitled to his opinions, but these SCOTUS cases are pretty clear and self-explanatory for anyone who is honest enough to read them for what they actually say. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone pretending to be an expert.
We have had a bunch of crooked Congressmen over the years and I never witnessed an impeachment. They usually resigned after the ethics committee ruled. Some were censured but not removed. I will have to look closer into the Articles of the Constitution to see if it mentioned Congressman impeachment. I never noticed before.
There is a considerable amount of confusion over the subject of the impeachment of members of the Senate and House of Representatives, and it is for good reason. The problem arose when the House of Representatives impeached Senator Blount. See the U.S. Senate article:
February 5, 1798
To Arrest an Impeached Senator
When barely nine years old, the Senate confronted a crisis of authority. An impeached senator refused to attend his trial in the Senate chamber. Unlike the House of Representatives, or the British House of Commons, the Senate lacked a Sergeant at Arms to enforce its orders. On February 5, 1798, the Senate expanded the duties, title, and salary of its doorkeeper to create the post of Sergeant at Arms. It then directed that officer to arrest the fugitive senatorthe Honorable William Blount of Tennessee (pictured).
A signer of the U.S. Constitution, William Blount in 1796 had become one of Tennessee’s first two senators. A year later President John Adams notified Congress that his administration had uncovered a conspiracy involving several American citizens who had offered to assist Great Britain in an improbable scheme to take possession of the Spanish-controlled territories of Louisiana and the Floridas. Blount was among the named conspirators. He had apparently devised the plot to prevent Spain from ceding its territories to France, a transaction that would have depressed the value of his extensive southwestern land holdings.
On July 7, 1797, while the Senate pondered what to do about Blount, the House of Representatives, for the first time in history, voted a bill of impeachment. The following day, the Senate expelled Blountits first use of that constitutional powerand adjourned until November. Prior to adjourning, the Senate ordered Blount to answer impeachment charges before a select committee that would meet during the recess. Blount failed to appear. He had departed for Tennessee with no intention of returning.
On February 5, 1798, as the Senate prepared for his trial and still uncertain as to whether or not a senator, or former senator, was even liable for impeachment, it issued the arrest order. The Sergeant at Arms ultimately failed in his first mission, as Blount refused to be taken from Tennessee. A year later, the Senate dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdictionand possibly for lack of Blount.
Melton, Buckner Jr. The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998.
Melton, Buckner F., Jr. Federal Impeachment and Criminal Procedure: The Framers Intent. Maryland Law Review 52 (1993): 437-57.
As a consequence of the impeachment of Senator Blount and the aftermath of the failed effort to bring Senator Blount to trial in the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Senate have expelled their own members rather than resort to the formal impeachment process requiring impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate.
Many sources have since claimed that a Member of the House of Representatives or a member of the Senate cannot be impeached, but such claims are not necessarily suppported by the actual language of the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of any person who is a Federal officer. A Federal officer is arguably any person occupying a Federal office. A seat in the Senate is a Federal office, so the occupant of the Senate seat is arguabkly a Federal officeholder and a Federal officer. A seat in the House of Representatives is a Federal office, so the occupant of the House seat is arguably a Federal officeholder and a Federal officer. So, it appears the Congress has effectively disregarded the plain language of the Constitution by reinterpreting the authorization for impeachment in a way which creates a false impression of a lack of authority to impeach. In this way each house of the Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, were able to expel its own members without the cumbersome involvement or cooperation of the other house or chamber of Congress.
The resulting practice of expelling their own members from their own chamber of Congress has led to the perhaps false assumption that the Constitution did not authorize the impeachment of Senators or Congressmen. nonetheless, the language of the Constitution is still there in the Constitution, and the House of Representatives could attempt to revive the conflict over the power to impeach a member of Congress, if and when it found sufficient reason to do so. Imagine for example a case in which a bi-partisan 2/3 vote of the House of Representatives impeached Senator harry Reid, and the Democrat majority in the Senate refused to bring Senator Harry Reid to trial or brought Senator Harry Reid to trial and acquitted him when the required 2/3 vote could not be obtained.
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.