The guy who called Ed’s show is an obot from PJ.
Look, I’m on PJ and I’m here, too, but my loyalties are here with the sworn foes of Obama. I tell them at PJ who I am — and they tolerate me.
The saddest thing is that they are right about the law and we are right about the morality.
What do I mean?
The law cannot help us, and morally, Obama owes the country full disclosure. He’s not moral, though, so he’s not going to do it.
Legally, he has the right to not show anything more than is necessary to convince the State Dept. and the political parties that he is a NBC. Legally, we are up a creek without a paddle.
I hate it. I absolutely hate it, but that’s the truth. So I was really hoping the Orly BC was real. But I’m so sick of half-baked claims that when I saw Koyaan’s post on PJ, I wanted to spare Freepers from getting taken in the way Orly was.
All along I have said that we had to have authentication of the document itself.
I am not a troll. I think JimRob knows how long I’ve been here and can look up all my posts for the past 4 or 5 years and see that I’m a true conservative.
I am sorely disappointed that this was a fraud. However, maybe it’s not. I still DO NOT KNOW. But the fact is that none of us CAN know, no matter how perceptive and clever we are. You simply CANNOT tell anything for sure by a photograph.
If this was a fraud, it most certainly was committed by an obot.
Check this out and tell me what you think.
Fake or not?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307402/posts?page=1019#1019
but everyone is really getting jumpy and making judgements about who is a troll...
Squishy.
Re: your #1319. “Legally, we are up a creek without a paddle…I absolutely hate it, but that’s the truth.”
Don’t throw in yet, TE.
As mentioned elsewhere, the biggest part of this shell game is that O and his handlers have convinced most of America that it has the burden of proving O is unqualified.
O, however, has always had the burden of proving he is qualified. He acknowledged that burden when he signed or arranged for his agent(s) to sign each state’s primary election certification that he was qualified/eligible for the office of the president.
Such execution, of course, was made under penalty of perjury.
Later, during the January 8, 2009 Joint Session called solely for the purpose of assuring America that the election was conducted properly, Obama had the burden of satisfying any request by Congress to demonstrate his citizenship (see 20th Amendment, “…if the President elect shall have failed to qualify…” as well as 3 USC 15).
Imagine that through the failure of Congress to conform with 3 USC 15, the EC votes for and the Congress accepts Mickey Mouse as president.
Is the nation bound by that action or can Congress take steps to correct that Constitutional defect? While there may be no legal precedent, clearly the latter is obvious.
Here is, perhaps, a work-around:
Imagine there is a Republican from each chamber of Congress that will stand and move for such action, but the motion is defeated by the Dem/Socialists. Would those members have standing to present the Constitutional defect to the USSC? One would hope so. Will the USSC be able to resolve the issue? Not directly, only Congress can correct its mistake, and that is the way we should want it.
But if the Court agrees Congress’ failure to conform with its statute was a defect and the Congress continues to take no action there will be substantial political reverberations.
At some point in such events, O’s handlers may cause him to resign rather than risk what they have achieved (much of which may be in the small print of unread legislation).
They would accept Biden and Hillary as backup players.
Whether or not O resigns, the result may slow the leftist juggernaut that has its arms around our nation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2296931/posts
YES YOU CAN.
If I see a photo of a unicorn, or of anything else that cannot exist in reality, like shadows under what is alleged to be laser-printed letters on paper, then I KNOW FOR SURE that it's bogus.