To Absolutely Nobama.
Check out # 226 on this thread for answers to your question, with photos and more information.
Here's the link to #226:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2701161/posts?page=226#226 .
Posted on 04/07/2011 10:42:20 AM PDT by null and void
Not racist, just deranged. There are legitimate questions about Obama's background and even his citizenship, but it is unbecoming for Freepers to suddenly cling to a particular non-binding standard (some guy's opinion from 30 years before that Constitution was written) and start treating it like it's the Word of God, instead of simply accepting the the plain language of the Constitution. It's the sort of hypocritical, slippery, unprincipled approach Democrats are known for. If we claim to respect the Constitution, we should treat it better than they do.
Congrats, you chose your screen name well.
Doesn’t work that way. Even if he were to be found ineligible (which a wild goose chase) he was still certified by congress. What would happen is that he would be impeached and removed from office. At that point he most likely face criminal charges for half a dozen forms of fraud, but no, nothing would be automatically reversed. He still will have been the President of the United States of America from January 2009 until removal, fraud or no fraud. That’s what Rush is trying to point out.
I have a hard time seeing Angela and Donald Trump being planted, however, one can speculate on Trump's motivation and I would compare Angela to Miss Cao shouting the truth to ALL in Congress!
The political hack Jack Maskell took effectively care of the House and Senate members by his memo thereby "silenced" them preventing them from "break marks" in their underpants. Anyone NOT in lockstep with the establishment in D.C. would be banned, and I have experienced that here as well. I have heard with my own ears, more than once, that Rush would cut off callers bringing up the NBC scolding them and hit the hazard button and change subject. I have heard caller fooling Mr. Snerdley and same thing would happen. A local guy here Todd Schnitt has blocked my e-mail access to him for holding HIM accountable. So "somebody" got to the "Conservative"(?) media somehow, while the TPM didn't need such instruction because they already was in the tank. The talking heads are now free to cover it, because it was FIRST brought up by the liberal chatter/rumor gal Joe Behar on VIEW, where Trump only talked about the "irrelevant"(?) birth certificate, but NOW he has graduated by covering the NBC as well, rightfully so and equal to what we here have been saying all along, hmmm!!
We also know SCOTUS had an "unreported" visit on January 14, 2009 causing Clarence Thomas sending smoke signals down line to the lower courts: "We are EVADING" and they too are scared to death soiling the underpants. IMO Trump has far too much a stake or risk if he doesn't have the goods by now shouting this out from the roof tops, i.e the Rezko deal comes to mind!!!
But because Starr and the House GOP steered completely clear of the substantive issues related to Clinton's misfeasance in office (Chinese contributions coming first to mind), Clinton and the media were able to spin it as being about a BJ in the WH.
This too is about the rule of law and defending the Constitution!
And for the reason I gave above, it will never go any further than Clinton's impeachment, if that far.
” s it possible that Rush was using the caller....Playing the “devil advocate” to what she was saying?)
I don’t think so because Limbaugh seemed unprepared to factually discuss the topic and as a result got angry and defensive.
Neither the caller or Limbaugh
were up to speed on the facts.
Hannity now admits that he didn’t pay attention and put it on the back burner, but, Trump has made him aware.
When Humphries plays Devil’s Advocate it’s obvious that he already
knows the facts
before he asks the questions.
It’s obvious which side he’s on.
Rush brought up Larry Johnson and said he was a conspiracy nut and the driving force behind the birthers -which is so 2008.
It’s too bad Rush didn’t know about the court cases of the military members who have been given the finger by their Commander in Chief.
Especially LTC Terry Lakin .
That should enrage every American .
And for the reason I gave above, it will never go any further than Clinton’s impeachment, if that far.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For the same reasons patriots must continue to relentlessly defend the rule of law and the Constitution!
I’ve posted time and time again that there are procedures to remove Obomba from office. How Rush Limbaush is going to change that fact puzzles me, but then again, this entire thread is puzzling to me. Harp on your elected representatives to advance the issue. They are who can do something about it. Having a guy on the radio talk about unconfirmed and unproven accusations, no matter how legitimate, is not one of them.
If you’re going to call me a troll, I suggest you read what I’m actually posting, FRiend.
Melas, you are correct and realistic. Maybe too much so! We conservatives are frustrated.
(1) A Writ of Quo Warranto is obtained, and discovery proves him ineligible
(2) He would be impeached and removed from office.
Sorry. (1) and (2) are not necessarily connected. Nor are "impeached," and "removed." Congress may remove a sitting President by Impeachment in the House and by Conviction in the Senate. Both require a 2/3 vote. Note the "may."
The evidence presented by an order for the Writ of Quo Warranto ... or indeed any court ... is not a binding order for action by the Congress. They are free to accept or reject the evidence or ruling; to act upon it or not. They "shall" not do anything, they "may" do as they please.
As you and Rush indirectly point out: like it or lump it, the Constitution violated by Obama, ironically enough for any man, is his protection!
However, Rush, who could have been a beacon of factual information throughout all of this, shamefully followed the timid RINOs. He was absent when it counted. Just as he did in the illegal immigration controversy, he came late, and without solid research and the facts.
Unfortunately for America, due to the spinelessness of the Republican Party, these blowhard disc jockeys, with very shaky educations, are accepted as political philosophers. They ain't. They are radio time salesmen.
Yup.
The big names ignored it, made fun of the issue or took Barry’s word.
The word of a guy they call a pathological liar every other sentence.
--------------------------------------
The irony of your 100% correct statement just boggles the mind.
Being a fraud and being a usurper are not necessarily the same thing.
He could be a fraud for taking the oath of office under a name other than his true legal name. That doesn't necessarily make him Constitutionally ineligible from the start.
If, on the other hand, he's found to be a usurper because he was never Constitutionally eligible...then Congress would have no role. The Constitution doesn't prescribe how a usurper is "removed" from that position. Presumably, it would be a law enforcement issue at that point.
Furthermore, who's to say Congress properly counted the E.C. votes when Cheney violated TITLE 3, CHAPTER 1, § 15 when he didn't call for any objections?
The whole thing's a mess and "We The People" deserve and demand adherence to the rule of law and our Constitution.
How about we "treat" that "some guy's opinion" like the founders and framers did....when:
Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted The Law of Nations, as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774.[31] Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of The Law of Nations in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation.[32] [Franlin/Dumas connection]. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel, It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own publick library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts-Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author."[33]
or when...
a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:
"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers
or...when:
June 27 1787. IN CONVENTION (Vattel's legal work is read aloud during the Federal Convention) "...that an equal vote in each State was essential to the federal idea, and was founded in justice & freedom, not merely in policy: that tho' the States may give up this right of sovereignty, yet they had not, and ought not:In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he [Luther Martin] read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers -- Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he [L.M.] read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford:" From Madison's Notes on the Convention. Similar notes on Vattel being read during the convention can be found in the notes of Rufus King and Robert Yates as well.
Or a whole host of other examples, a tiny fraction of which can be found in my profile.
To denigrate the importance of the "Law of Nations" to the founding of our country, is to denigrate the framers and founders themselves as it's crystal clear they knew Vattel's work well and relied upon it for our founding...if for no other example than the fact that they read and referenced his work aloud during the drafting of the Constitution itself.
Whether Article2, Section1 is defended or not will happen in the court of public opinion. Trump is winning that in the media. Obama is going down!
Excellent post!
Fundamentally this is about defending the rule of law and the Constitution. I am suspect of the so-called “conservative” claims of those who just can't seem to wrap their minds around that.
You keep posting about the rule of law and the Constitution, I post what channels should be used, and you talk about winning the battle in the media.
I’m confused with you at this point, and you appear to be a bit confused yourself.
OUTSTANDING thread! Thanks to all posters. BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!
“He took a second oath in private.
There is no video, just a snip of an audio with a still image, no Bible....”
Hmmmmm....This is worth looking into. Is there really no video ?
To Absolutely Nobama.
Check out # 226 on this thread for answers to your question, with photos and more information.
Here's the link to #226:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2701161/posts?page=226#226 .
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.