Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Birther Interruption
Human Events ^ | January 6, 2011 | John Hayward

Posted on 01/06/2011 2:41:15 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The scheduled reading of the Constitution in the House went off smoothly today, after a few of the usual procedural squabbles and legislative throat-clearing. Most representatives of both parties did a perfectly fine job of reading their assigned bit of the text. Speaker John Boehner got to read the really soaring words at the beginning, and gave an exceptionally powerful performance. At the other extreme, watching disgraced Democrat Charlie Rangel read from the Constitution was like watching atheist comedian Ricky Gervais read the Bible, but not as funny.

The only bump in an otherwise smooth process came when the requirements for presidential eligibility were read, by Democrat Frank Pallone of New Jersey. Article II, Section 1 states that only a natural-born citizen may be President. This prompted a woman who has been tentatively identified as Teresa Cao to upstage the unfortunate Pallone by screaming “Except Obama!” from the House galley.

Cao is a member of the “Birther” movement, which does not believe Barack Obama meets Article II, Section 1’s requirements. She’s an avid supporter of Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin, who was court-martialed and imprisoned last month for refusing to report for duty when his unit was deployed to Afghanistan. Lakin says this is because he challenges Obama’s legitimacy as Commander-in-Chief. He had hoped to use the discovery process of his trial to force the President to unseal his long-form birth certificate. The military judge ruled against his request.

Cao knows her way around the inside of a sandwich board, having been photographed outside the Supreme Court with a “No Proof U.S. Citizenship” sign by the Associated Press, as far back as December 2008.

(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 0b0z0; barackobama; birther; birthers; certifigate; citizenship; congress; constitution; eligibility; frankpallone; heckler; heckling; house; interruption; obama; protest; reading; teresacao; terrencelakin; trial

1 posted on 01/06/2011 2:41:23 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

If you listened to the entire reading of the Constitution there is no provision for verifying a Presidential candidate’s credentials proving his is qualified to serve.

That needs to be addressed.


2 posted on 01/06/2011 2:42:52 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Same for Congress. Maybe with such verification procedures, we might not get people like Raul Grijalva (D-Mexico).


3 posted on 01/06/2011 2:44:39 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Maybe someone should have cried out when they read the multiple instances of the Constitution’s protection of the life of every innocent person, and the securing of the blessings of liberty to posterity.


4 posted on 01/06/2011 2:45:31 PM PST by EternalVigilance (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! -- Samuel Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“Cao is a member of the “Birther” movement”

Things have come to a sorry state when citizens calling a lie a lie get stuck with a special label.


5 posted on 01/06/2011 2:48:21 PM PST by RoadTest (Religion is a substitute for the relationship God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The nuts of that sad piece:
A recent WorldNetDaily piece on the Lakin trial quotes her as saying, “I’ve been taking his message to the White House and Congress that Lakin was standing up for God, Constitution, and country. Puckett [his defense attorney] let Lakin down, and Lakin let all of us down.”

This whole story is a letdown. No action of Congress, from its wisest to its most foolish, is improved by hecklers shouting from the galley.

The British Parliament self-heckles. They do fine. Let's not put paste-jewelry of decorum before the diamonds of duty. Our Congress would do well to abide a heckler or two. Especially in this matter. The dear citizen was right. and the whole Congress wrong, having failed to fully validate credentials the CONSTITUTION requires for this man, Obama.
6 posted on 01/06/2011 2:49:25 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Coitus interruptus POTUS


7 posted on 01/06/2011 2:56:53 PM PST by polymuser ("We have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!" (HRC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

bump


8 posted on 01/06/2011 3:00:18 PM PST by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

That was short. What happened to the libs NO LABELS mantra?


9 posted on 01/06/2011 3:02:42 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I think the whole “birther” controversy was created by the left to encourage Republicans to try to impeach 0bama. I hope they are smart enough to avoid the trap and go to work on the Healthcare repeal, cutting spending and creating jobs. Let the voters take care of 0bama in the next election.


10 posted on 01/06/2011 3:10:15 PM PST by NRG1973
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

This will be blacked out by the MSM.


11 posted on 01/06/2011 3:17:48 PM PST by screaminsunshine (Beware the Big Government Media Complex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Yes, it does need to be addressed.

The Constitution provides the federal judiciary to decide all cases and controversies arising from the Constitution, but the courts have been able to refuse to do their job.

At this point any law which doesn’t prescribe a penalty for somebody who refuses to obey it may as well not exist because it has no legal power.


12 posted on 01/06/2011 3:18:55 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Maybe that hypothetical person should have cried out that we need a Human Life Amendment to outlaw abortion, euthanasia, etc.


13 posted on 01/06/2011 3:19:29 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NRG1973

Getting rid of Obama, through whatever means, is not going to undo the crimes committed in the process of getting him illegal entrance into the White House with access to the nuclear football. Nor is it going to prevent this from happening again.

If Obama was the only problem I’d agree with you. Unfortunately, through personal experience because of the research I’ve done on this issue, I have found that government, media, law enforcement, and courts at all levels are all so corrupt and/or criminal that Obama is the least of our problems. To really tackle the biggest problem of lawlessness, though, we just about have to address the treatment of Obama’s eligibility situation, because this one issue has REVEALED the total corruption and lawlessness of all these entities.


14 posted on 01/06/2011 3:24:23 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; EternalVigilance
...we need a Human Life Amendment to outlaw abortion, euthanasia, etc.

I posted here the idea that the Constitution actually does have a ban on abortion.

In the Preamble, it says "...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

I suggested that the "Blessings of Liberty" refers to rights granted from God (Blessings and Liberty being capitalized, and Liberty being one of three capitalized rights from the Declaration from our Creator), and "secure... our posterity" means for our children and their children.

How can we "secure" "Blessings" for "our posterity" if we allow "our posterity" to be aborted?

-PJ

15 posted on 01/06/2011 3:25:59 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too; EternalVigilance

The founders neither wrote abortion into or out of the Constitution. It was an unfortunate mistake.

We do indeed need to secure the blessings of Liberty to our posterity, and we do NEED ALL of our posterity to ensure the continuity of our country and civilization. Therefore, a Human Life Amendment is the thing to do.


16 posted on 01/06/2011 3:31:47 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Getting rid of Obama, through whatever means, is not going to undo the crimes committed in the process of getting him illegal entrance into the White House with access to the nuclear football. Nor is it going to prevent this from happening again.

If Obama was the only problem I’d agree with you. Unfortunately, through personal experience because of the research I’ve done on this issue, I have found that government, media, law enforcement, and courts at all levels are all so corrupt and/or criminal that Obama is the least of our problems. To really tackle the biggest problem of lawlessness, though, we just about have to address the treatment of Obama’s eligibility situation, because this one issue has REVEALED the total corruption and lawlessness of all these entities.

Trust me, if the Republicans go after 0bama for this it will be "Monica Lewinsky" all over again. With der SlickMeister, everyone said "no one cares if he lied about sex". With the 'bamster, everyone would say, "shouldn't the Republicans work on creating jobs, etc...no one voted for them to impeach the president".

If there are obvious instances of corruption the Republicans should investigate them. But a situation like the birthplace of the president...after he's been serving for close to his first full term, is a definate loser. We have to recognize that the world is imperfect...we can't run around trying to resolve every imprefection. the best thing the Republicans can do is be re-elected as the majority in the House, win a majority in the Senate and win the White House. Then they can start starving the left-wing beast (something George W. Bush didn't have the guts to do.).

17 posted on 01/06/2011 3:34:46 PM PST by NRG1973
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Is each state ultimately responsible for the candidates on their ballots?

If so, then each state has a duty to certify that those candidates are Constitutionally qualified for the office they are running for.

18 posted on 01/06/2011 3:38:14 PM PST by GBA (Not on our watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I agree that the Founders did not explicitly address abortion.

The point of my posting on this subject is that, unlike the absurd Roe decision, I'm using actual words from the Constitution that address securing the liberty of our children's children instead of suggesting a shadow that emanates from a penumbra of other words.

I think that my citations for life have more standing in the Constitution than the Supreme Court's citations for abortion, even though my citations are in the preamble and the Supreme Court's don't exist at all.

-PJ

19 posted on 01/06/2011 3:39:15 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The founders neither wrote abortion into or out of the Constitution. It was an unfortunate mistake.

The only way you can believe that is to do two things: A) Ignore the dictionary meaning of the word "posterity," and B) Agree with Justice Blackmun that the fetus is not a person. Why? Because the Constitution explicitly protects the life of EVERY innocent person.

Even Blackmun, in the Roe vs. Wade written opinion, admitted that if the fetus is a person, they are "of course" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

And so, he dehumanized the child, with the result being the brutal deaths of more than fifty million defenseless, innocent persons.

One other thing: Even if one accepted the false notion that the unborn aren't "in the Constitution," the portion of your post that I quoted at the top of this reply has you doing exactly what the Ninth Amendment expressly forbids.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

20 posted on 01/06/2011 3:41:03 PM PST by EternalVigilance (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! -- Samuel Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

You’ve got it exactly right.

In addition, the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments explicitly protect the life of every person, and require that all persons, in all the states, enjoy the equal protection of the laws.

Also, the Eight Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, even for the guilty. The act of aborting a child is the commission of a brutally cruel and unusual murder of the innocent.

The Ninth Amendment acknowledges that the individual has God-given unalienable rights whether they are enumerated to anyone’s satisfaction in the Constitution or not.

And the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that all must stay within their lawful powers. There is NEVER any lawful state power to violate God-given, unalienable rights. To say there is is to deny the first principles of our nation’s founding, as found in America’s charter:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”


21 posted on 01/06/2011 3:48:17 PM PST by EternalVigilance (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! -- Samuel Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
...Ignore the dictionary meaning of the word "posterity..."

Funny thing...

The first reference from a Google Define: for "posterity" is a paraphrase of the preamble to the Constitution:

descendants: all of the offspring of a given progenitor; "we must secure the benefits of freedom for ourselves and our posterity"

-PJ

22 posted on 01/06/2011 3:51:48 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Your quote of the Declaration does not do it proper justice for the context of this discussion. As I mentioned in the linked post to my post above, the actual punctuation in the Declaration is:

...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I point this out because it was the practice to capitalize all references to God, such as "Him" and "Creator." Following this practice, the gifts of the Creator, namely Rights to Life, Liberty, and Happiness, are capitalized, too. Furthermore, in the preamble to the Constitution, the word Blessings is also capitalized, which I take to mean from the Creator, and Liberty is also capitalized, which is one of the three rights from the Creator mentioned in the Declaration.

All this, taken together, tells me that the Founders intended the Constitution to protect the Blessings of the unalienable rights that come from the Creator, and not just to us but to our children and their children.

-PJ

23 posted on 01/06/2011 3:59:34 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Yeah.

Folks forget that when they kill the child they’re not just killing the child. They’re killing an entire blood line. They’re exterminating untold numbers of individual descendents who will never have any opportunity whatsoever to enjoy anything at all, much less the Blessings of Liberty.

Those officers of government who won’t put a stop to it - in any branch, or at any level of government in America - are in breach of their oath of office, the one they swore before God Almighty.


24 posted on 01/06/2011 4:00:43 PM PST by EternalVigilance (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! -- Samuel Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NRG1973

The HDOH has broken the Federal General False Statement Act and most probably also committed misprision of felony.

All to get an ineligible POTUS installed. That’s not peanuts, that goes to the very rule of law.

And Obama’s thugs have threatened to use the powers of agencies in order to punish people who would exercise their Constitutional or lawful rights. Those illegal threats were made to media heads if they reported on the eligibility issue, Chrysler lawyers if they pressed for bankruptcy law to be obeyed, etc. If this is not addressed, the federal government itself will officially be the worst, most powerful mafia in the history of this country, terrorizing the people it’s supposed to serve while disabling all the mechanisms for accountability (such as inspectors general, court cases, law enforcement, etc)

This is not peanuts. The is a battle for the rule of law.

What I hear you saying is that if it is found that the entire government, media, law enforcement, and judicial systems have perpetrated crimes against the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American people the American people will grumble that it wasn’t a big enough deal?

If the American public is that stupid we don’t deserve to exist, which is probably OK because in that condition we won’t survive for long. No democratic form of government can survive that level of stupidity on the part of its people. But I think there is a substantial majority of Americans who are disgusted by the lawlessness. I think that’s what the townhall meetings, the outbursts in various places, the 2010 election, the polls, etc are all saying.

People know we’re looking at something even more substantial than a sexual harassment case. We’re talking about the legitimacy of a presidency which has resulted in the takeover of the banks, the auto industry, the student loan industry, and healthcare while at the same time refusing to allow Arizona to protect the border in the face of beheadings, torture, etc on the part of drug cartels that are taking over parts of Arizona AND refusing to enforce laws when the perpetrators are Black AND groping old grandmas while allowing burka-clad folks to inspect themselves.

People know in their guts that something is radically different. They see the lawlessness in spite of government and media efforts to hide what’s going on. They see that the money thrown at unemployment hasn’t helped, most probably because it is a slush fund to pay off the support of union hacks and campaign contributors. They see that Obama meant what he said when he said he wanted %7/gallon gas. They don’t like their dishes coming out of the dishwasher dirty and their beds full of bedbugs because effective products are now banned by the EPA. They see their health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs for healthcare going up while the service goes down.

This crap sandwich is far more far-reaching than Clinton trying to force Paula Jones to have sex, or having oral sex with Lewinsky in the Oval Office while making decisions about combat in the ME and then lying and destroying records about all of it.

This crap sandwich threatens to destroy our entire infrastructure and the financial security of millions. This is NOT a tee-hee subject. Jeff Kuhner says the media is afraid to address it because it is so serious that there could be riots over it. Others have said that a conspiracy this large would have such huge ramifications that nobody dare touch it because it is SO profound.

For the American public to be mad at Congress-critters who address this is about like the American public being mad if the federal government tried to find out who committed 9-11 and how.


25 posted on 01/06/2011 4:03:24 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

I guess that’s what I get for a quick cut and paste of text from a secular source.

But your point is well-taken.


26 posted on 01/06/2011 4:04:39 PM PST by EternalVigilance (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! -- Samuel Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Not that I disagree with you, but in defense of the Founders, there is no way they could have conceived the day would come in this Nation where such a large segment of the citizenry in power is found completely bereft of common sense. It boggles my mind on a daily basis.


27 posted on 01/06/2011 4:15:27 PM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DManA

The closest I can find id the following.s

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

A reinvigorated Electoral College would be useful.


28 posted on 01/06/2011 4:16:50 PM PST by PeteCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

What was all the clapping after John Lewis breathlessly read his amendment about slavery? Yeah, we got rid of it a long, long time ago. Time to live in the now, Lewis. Move on dude!!


29 posted on 01/06/2011 4:34:01 PM PST by thirst4truth (The left elected a mouth that is unattached to an eye, brain or muscle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

Is their proof that he was born outside the U.S.?


30 posted on 01/06/2011 4:43:06 PM PST by nickcarraway (Repeal Obamacare/Republicare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

YAY Teresa! That was the right thing for the moment.


31 posted on 01/06/2011 5:29:51 PM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
"If you listened to the entire reading of the Constitution there is no provision for verifying a Presidential candidate’s credentials proving his is qualified to serve."

This is incorrect.

The Twentieth amendment, section three REQUIRES that Congress verify that a "President Elect" has not failed to "qualify" or they (Congress) must appoint an interim President. The burden of "qualifying" is placed squarely on the President Elect, thus he must show proof that he meets eligibility requirements to Congress or he is NOT legally able to serve as President.

32 posted on 01/06/2011 5:39:30 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

The amendment seems to assume there is some mechanism for proving qualification but doesn't say what it is. Odd oversight it seems.

33 posted on 01/06/2011 5:58:51 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DManA
There is no assumption allowed. It plainly commands that Congress verify a President Elect's qualifications OR they must name an interim President. A legal "President Elect" only comes into being after Congress has accepted as final the electoral college results. This means that the "qualified" referred to in section three of the Twentieth amendment has noting to do with the electoral vote count, etc. The only remaining "qualifications" referring to the office of President then are listed in Article two, the "eligibility" requirements to be able to serve as President.

The President Elect has to present sufficient evidence to Congress that he meets these requirements or he will not be allowed to serve. A proper birth certificate would surely be evidence of place of birth and legal age as well as the citizenship of both parents. Since the Constitution demands that this be done, was it? If so, we the people have a right to see what evidence was accepted by our representatives in Congress don't we? I don't think it was done. I don't think we have a legal President and if the new Congress doesn't get to the bottom of this soon, I don't think we have a legal government, period.

34 posted on 01/06/2011 6:19:20 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

A conspiracy to prevent a Constitutional crisis?

Maybe.


35 posted on 01/06/2011 6:25:43 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
How can we "secure" "Blessings" for "our posterity" if we allow "our posterity" to be aborted?

That is a brilliant observation.

36 posted on 01/06/2011 9:08:07 PM PST by Once-Ler (ProLife ProGun ProGod ProSoldier ProBusiness Republican for Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Obama himself admits he isn’t a natural citizen!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded


37 posted on 01/06/2011 9:14:32 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

“Is their proof that he was born outside the U.S.?”

Who knows? Everything in his past that could be hidden has been hidden.


38 posted on 01/07/2011 4:21:16 AM PST by RoadTest (Religion is a substitute for the relationship God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NRG1973
"If there are obvious instances of corruption the Republicans should investigate them. But a situation like the birthplace of the president...after he's been serving for close to his first full term, is a definate loser. We have to recognize that the world is imperfect...we can't run around trying to resolve every imprefection. "

The only definite losers are the cowards who have abandoned the Constitution and the rule of law.

39 posted on 01/07/2011 4:34:27 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson