Posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:04 AM PDT by RatsDawg
BREAKING! SHOCKER! MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO! Check out the video on YouTube
yikes..is he really calling it “evidence” ?
>Think of all those who participated in the cover up
They could rightly be charged with Treason; for how can invalidating the legitimacy/integrity of a whole branch of Government NOT be aid and comfort to America’ enemies?
” but rather that it would be embarrassing to the Commander in Chief to be compelled to give evidence (of any kind) in such a proceeding. “
Embarrassment should not be a defense if
it’s pertinent to the issue.
It’s stunning that it’s come to this when
Barry could allay all doubts in a 1 minute phone call to Hawaii.
It’s jaw dropping that it didn’t happen in 08 when the questions were first raised by the Clinton campaign.
Commander in Chief George Bush or Ronald Reagan and heck, even a Bill Clinton would never in a million years sit back and allow any member of the Armed Forces
to have doubts about their Constitutional eligibility.
When the answer could so easily be given by
unsealing a single sheet of paper.
Of course, their documentation would never be sealed in the first place .
They would understand how toxic and deleterious it is to have the troops , even just one soldier ,
doubting a CinC’s eligibility
and they would be proud to voluntarily
substantiate their Constitutional bona fides.
Obama’s stonewalling and mocking attitude is extremely bizarre behavior by a Commander in Chief.
Interesting. Thanks for posting the link. I forwarded it onto a retired military friend.
Where is the picture of Obama bowing to Netanyahu?
Sorry. The judge does not have any evidence at all. There has been no discovery yet.
Therefore the judge is speculating. Much as it kills me, her reasoning is probably sound. The defendant is requiring the commander-in-chief, an elected official, not a military officer, to prove his Constitutional rights. That would seem to be a role for Congress, not the military. It is not the role of the military to question their civilian masters.
Yeah, I’m a birther. So don’t blast me. But, I think the judge is correct. On the other hand, rather than see a competent officer court marshaled, as a legitimate commander in chief, I’d just hand over the appropriate documentation. I’ve had to produce my birth certificate at every job I’ve ever had. At my present job, I’ve had to produce it three times in five years.
Incidentally, after I was interviewed by a Homeland Security Special Agent, I asked him, “If I told you I had been mentored by Frank Davis and had worked for Saul Olinsky, would I get a security clearance?” He himmed and hawed, but finally said “no.” Obama is not fit to polish the colonel’s shoes.
>The defendant is requiring the commander-in-chief, an elected official, not a military officer, to prove his Constitutional rights.
What Constitutional Right is there to be President?
How can the Commander-in-Chief *NOT* be considered a military officer when it is by his order that the military goes somewhere or does something?
Authority is inseparable from accountability [responsibility, if you will] and the way that people excuse the President from being accountable [”because he’s a civilian”] is inexcusable.
Could someone tell me if obama was actually vetted? And, if so, what goes on in the vetting process? My sister says it is impossible for him to NOT be vetted. Could this be true?
He isn't charged with refusing to follow Obama's commands. Courts don't do investigations on unrealted questions. They have cases before them that have to be decided.
He had to get nominated by his party, he had to get elected by the people, the Electors had to cast their votes, the Congress had to certify them. The same process that works in every Presidential election.
What do we do now? SCOTUS?
In my opinion this is a true Constitutional crisis.
Never mind the embarrassment to BHO, it is the embarrassment to the US that is more important. I doubt if any congressman wants to be involved in this issue — he would have to grow a pair first.
Make sure he qualified to be President under the Constitution. Did everyone do the checking that was required?
>My sister says it is impossible for him to NOT be vetted. Could this be true?
I think it’s entirely too possible. Consider this:
My state, New Mexico, has the following in its State Constitution:
It’s very simple: the state cannot legitimately pass laws restricting my right to carry weapons openly for self defense; neither can cities or counties punish/persecute me for choosing to do so (i.e. charging me with “disturbing the peace” because I was open-carrying).
Now, there also exists a State Statute which reads as follows:
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
(1) “university” means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) “university premises” means:
—(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
—(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Now it’s obvious to even the casual reader that there is a conflict here. One that should be easy to resolve: the State Constitution is of greater authority than the state law; yet, I cannot challenge the contradiction between state statute and state constitution [without violating the state statute and challenging its legitimacy there in court] because all I get is the run around:
State DA says talk to the state supreme court who says, via recording, talk to the state-bar who says talk to either a local atty (who says they’ll look into it but never contact you again) OR talk to your state legislator who says that she’ll have to talk to the State DA who has to talk to the State Supreme Court who.... *bleh!*
See what I mean?
It’s because everyone is saying that “it’s someone else’s problem” that this isn’t being fixed; and if I were to challenge this law in court, by breaking it, I would be placing myself in a position of weakness for my attack [fighting uphill against the accusation of being a criminal] instead of attacking from a position of power [that of a Citizen noting something illegal/wrong with his government].
So, you’re saying that it’s very probably he was NOT vetted? That someone didn’t do their job(s)?
very probably = very probable
Question: From whence does an officer gain his authority to issue a command to a soldier?
Research was never done to prove beyond doubt, that Obummer is a natural born citizen. All his records were sealed way before he ran for POTUS. They just took as evidence, a affidavit, signed by Nasty Pelousy, the DNC Chairman that “The One” was a citizen. It was signed the day he was “selected” Democratic Party nominee.
“...the country will be busy for years fixing all this horrible mess.”
.
Why should it have to take years to fix the mess, when it did not take years for Obama to create it? Besides, any mess is worth fixing if it improves the situation.
There is ever more reason to pursue the question of his eligibility. If action is not taken by the expected new republican congressmen next year, then we’ll know that we elected a bunch of RINOs.
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.