Posted on 08/18/2009 12:57:17 PM PDT by pissant
It's not the nature of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge.
When William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, most Democrats and the entirety of the mainstream media were outraged that a sitting president should be so ill-used for purely political ends. The argument made by the Clinton spin machine – and eagerly gobbled up by their slobbering allies in the media – was that the impeachment was about Mr. Clinton's private sex life, and that Prosecutor Ken Starr was simply digging up salacious material to smear Their Guy. Clinton's polling data remained high, and the knock-kneed Senate was too frightened of this popular President to vote to convict. RINO Benedict Arlen Specter tried to vote "not proved" but changed his vote to acquittal when he was not allowed to do so.
But the Republican-controlled House of Representatives did not fear the dark of night, nor the political arrow that flies by day; they impeached the randy Mr. Clinton despite the potential political ramifications. Why did they do that? Because they understood the arguments, understood that what Mr. Clinton did was not a personal matter between himself and Monica Lewinsky (and Hillary and Chelsea) but involved a wrong committed against a largely unknown woman from Arkansas. Clinton was not impeached over Lewinsky; she was simply evidence of corruption, of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and perjury.
Perjury. Keep that word in mind.
(Excerpt) Read more at intellectualconservative.com ...
Your statement seems inflammatory but it cannot be proven so without a long form Birth Certificate from Mr Obama himself.
He’s lying about something - hence the cover-up of all those documents.
At an international level, any country can challenge the legitimacy of ALL actions of the US since the inauguration regarding via the BC issue...a nightmare if it should happens....Israels’ ace in the hole(?) with regard of the current administrations ice-cold relations with Israel.
I’m repeatedly surprised by the number of conservative columnists and talk-show hosts who sneeringly dismiss what they call “birthers,” saying that Obama’s birth certificate has been provided to the public and exhaustively proven to be valid. Really? I’ve been following this issue fairly closely and I’ve never seen this alleged birth certificate. I did see the Certificate of Live Birth, which is not the same thing, and which appeared to have erasure marks all around Obama’s name.
I’m perfectly willing to let the issue drop. Just show me the birth certificate. The real one. You know, like John McCain did within 48 hours of being asked to do so by the Democrats. I’m easy to satisfy, and I’m not interested in being part of any conspiracy. I just want to see the birth certificate.
” Now, here we have a President who swore an oath that he was qualified to be president, and yet he refuses to allow the American People to verify the veracity of that claim – and his refusal has cost him a million dollars.
Is this a case of perjury? President Clinton was impeached for perjury.
The media used to howl about the “public’s right to know” yet remain silent here.
Many good conservatives are telling the disclosurists to shut up, to stifle themselves (you gotta love Archie Bunker) in a manner almost identical to the Obama Administration, which is demanding silence from critics. Now, I’m not impugning their motives, but I am saying they are wrong to attempt this; it suggests an embarrassment, a sense that, yes, we are a bunch of kooks who are trying to keep quiet lest the general public get wise. But this is about more than just politics (though it is a solid political weapon); this is about the rule of law.
We heard much about the rule of law during the Clinton impeachment. The whole reason the House went forward was to uphold the rule of law. The Constitution lays out the qualifications for office holders, and Congress codifies those qualifications. One qualification is that a person must be either born here, or be born to citizens. In the case of Obama the law at that time specified that a woman could not pass on her citizenship if the father was a non-citizen and the child was born overseas, if she had not reached the age of majority. Under U.S. law at that time Barack Obama would not be a citizen, since his mother was only 18 IF he was born in Kenya – something his maternal grandmother has claimed. Oh, and Obama was a dual citizen of both Kenya and the U.S., a point he neglected to tell the American voters.”
Produce one and we'll find out.
Under what clause of the Constitution?
Obama and his cohorts have made an error of major historical (and geopolitical) proportions with this. We Americans who are demanding that he come clean with us, are the least of his troubles.
Any tin horn dictator, or even a sworn ally can blow the bc controversy wide open by declaring that they will not recognize a government whose leader has not proved his legal right to hold the position.
Obama has put himself and the US in the terrible position of having to kowtow to every country on earth, lest they accuse him of being illegitimate.
Who knows what sort of political blackmail might be occurring through diplomatic back channels this very moment?
The founders were birthers.
“Make Mine Freedom!” 1948 cartoon about saving the American dream!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehDvnlyJPTA
That's not a Constitutional issue, but rather one of raw power. Think of Stalin's question regarding the authority of the Pope, "How may divisions does he have?" The same question could be asked of the SCOTUS. Or of the POTUS. If the SCOTUS says the person claiming to POTUS in fact is not (and has never been) the POTUS, the issue may ultimately have to be resolved by getting an answer to the question "how many divisions does he have?" In other words, will the US military respect Obama as CIC after the SCOTUS rules he is not? That's the issue. If they don't, then he's not.
So you want to destroy the Constitution in order to save it? The military has no role to play in this. It's a matter for the judiciary, to rule on Obama's eligibility and the Constitutionality of his actions, and perhaps the legislature, to remove him from office.
A falsified COLB is enough for me. Now we’ll just have to get this into court. It is demonstrably obvious that no state or federal authority has demanded proof of NBC status as well.
Of course, the Arpuzzo/Donofrio argument is also trying to get a hearing.
“Who are you... really?” - Sarah Wheeler, Pale Rider
The true scandal is the cover-up, and the lack of pressure to release ANY document that might shed light on Barack Obama’s past.
It’s not just the birth certificate. The apathy is stunning.
www.winkydog.net has had some very level headed coverage on this issue.
The blame goes from Obama to the DNC and party and Mr. Soros, the prime perpetrators. Obama had to satisfy Mr. Soros especially. Political coup unprecedented in world history.
This has nothing to do with what I want, and everthing to do with reality. Do I want the military to decide this? No. But they do so every day they continue to decide to remain neutral. They don't have to remain neutral. They have the power, because they have the weapons. So far, in our history, they've never staged a coup. But it could happen, and smart Presidents never forget it.
Here's the key point: The US military could decide at any moment that Obama is Constitutionally not the POTUS (and therefore not the CIC)—with or without any decision by the SCOTUS. If they reach that conclusion, and decide to act on it, who would have the power to oppose them? Reminder: I'm not advocating any such thing, merely pointing out a fact.
IF the SCOTUS rules that Obama is not, and has never been, POTUS, what happens then? Unless Obama meekly stands down (which he might do,) there would be a Constitutional Crisis. There are many ways such a crisis could be resolved. Perhaps there would be purely political resolution, and the US military would simply stand aside and watch, as they have always done up until the present. But if they do take one side or the other, and back up that stance with more than just words, then whichever side they decided to back would emerge as the victors. That's all I'm saying. It's an observation of fact, and is not an attempt to condon, express approval, or recommend a course of action.
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.