Posted on 05/30/2012 4:25:42 AM PDT by pistolpackinpapa
I see there are three new replies from you. Pity I didn’t actually see them nor do I plan on scrolling up to look at them. If FR had a block feature, I’d be using it right about now, but instead I will continue to ignore you. Nothing else remains to be said. Have a happy life.
“If FR had a block feature, I’d be using it right about now, but instead I will continue to ignore you.”
Right back atch ya!
One day, maybe. But not before November.
I think a good outcome would be that Obama and his party get decimated in the November elections, and then Obama and his henchman are indicted and charged on January 22, 2013 one day after inauguration day.
Nope. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CAN BE DONE. Nada. Not a thing.
Once a usurper is sworn in by the Chief Justice that’s it. It’s over.
He cheated his way over the finish line. He took possession of the prize. End of story.
That’s absurd.
It would depend on which government branch wanted to have him removed. Just because they are not doing it doesn’t mean it’s not possible.
I’m sorry, I’m not a Constitutional scholar. If only I were, I’d come up with the bright idea of impeaching someone who can’t be impeached. Useless.
Are your fingers broken? Can’t you research how he should be removed?
You know as well, as I do, it would happen in a heart beat if they wanted to do it.
Court orders would go out and the Marshals would be sent in to arrest him.
That would be great, but it starts with getting him voted out of office in November. I don’t accept that he’s above the law. I accept that others aren’t willing to do what needs to be done, and those who are aren’t capable of getting it done (legally speaking).
What AZ SoS Bennett received from Hawaii after eight weeks of stonewalling was a steaming pile of legalese nothingburger. And this was only after Bennett caved to HI demands that he withdraw the form he had submitted to them and revise the information he wanted "verified." Interesting how the date of birth was left out. . .
The issue was discussed at considerable length here.
” What AZ SoS Bennett received from Hawaii after eight weeks of stonewalling was a steaming pile of legalese nothingburger. And this was only after Bennett caved to HI demands that he withdraw the form he had submitted to them and revise the information he wanted “verified.” Interesting how the date of birth was left out. . .”
Thank you.
I thought about saying something initially, and then looked at your tag line and presumed you meant to type it the way you did originally. Major sarc, no /S needed.
LoL
Old article from before the 2008 election from
OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
What are some of those consequences?
First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.
Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.
Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:
[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”
Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”
Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.
Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”
Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.
The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment
I did, and also hope everybody else who cares about getting to the bottom of this debacle does as well.
Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.
And the little bastard commie has already slipped such a forgery through with media complicity, and we see what 'the American people' are doing about it. Nada. Sheriff Joe is doing something, but the media vermin are spinning as fast as they can and are covering up the trail as it is exposed. I still see no specific description of the actual physical act(s) which will remove the lying sjiftless commie bastard from the White House. A law enforcement person who shows up at the WH gate with a warrant will be summarily taken into SS custody and the Eric 'Just Us' Holder unJustice Department will incarcerate and throw away the key. What we have is an actual coup, and I can find no legal means, even a SCOTUS means, by which the lying bastard may be lawfully removed other than voting the sonofabitch out in November and isolating him until January when an actual President is sworn in ... preferrably NOT by the pirate Roberts.
My view isn’t shared by many, but I have a theory that a number of people understand Joe Biden is legally POTUS (Vice President is always sworn in first) and has been since January 20, 2009.
Watch the media’s treatment of Biden. No, not Biden the gaffe-meister. Not Biden the court jester. Seriously, people. Today’s news had him campaigning in the swing states. At what point will the powers that be smile sheepishly and say “Just kidding, folks, ignore the Kenyan entertainer, we have a President after all, say hello to President Joe, he’s been here all along.”
On another note: it seems the more the definition of “natural born citizen” is discussed by lay people, the more the media seems to be worrying it to bits as a dog worries an old shoe (think of bits of leather and spittle flying hither and yon). To hear some pundits talk, the term NBC is meaningless. You’re an NBC if you’re born on U.S. soil regardless of the citizenship of your parents. You’re an NBC if you’re born anywhere else, as long as your parents are both citizens. You’re an NBC if you have one citizen parent, regardless of where you were born. Etc.
Try to imagine interviewing people on the street (likely voters?) about what would make someone eligible to be President. What do you think the responses would be?
[Jay Leno “Jaywalking” - for example]
“What would DISQUALIFY someone from becoming President?”
If a couple didn’t get a marriage recorded at the county, they could have been married in church/synagogue/mosque/temple and still been able to get a divorce.
My mother-in-law was married to my husband’s dad in church, and there is no record in the county of it. But 25 years later they divorced. We have the church document and divorce document in the family archives.
Tophat, interesting and certainly different path of investigation!
Butterdezillion, hoosiermama, LucyT, FredNerks pinging to this angle!
I’ll be working toward Obama’s electoral defeat. But that only works if there is an election and if the people who count the votes have a reason to fear the rest of us if they cheat.
Neither of those is a given at this point.
He’s committed fraud with EVERYTHING.
And the “verification” - if it’s even a legal document, given the initials other than Onaka’s by Onaka’s “signature” - actually indirectly confirms that Obama’s HI BC is legally non-valid. See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/verification-verifies-if-anything-that-obamas-record-is-legally-non-valid/
Pressuring on this issue has gotten us to the point where anybody who’s paying attention knows Obama is a fraud and the government agencies and media are all just putting on a front. That is really gonna hurt the propaganda efforts to get Obama elected, at the very least.
Well, that and bomb the crap out of them with B17s, but yeah....
Bennett asked them to verify that what Obama posted is a “true and accurate representation of the original record” but the HDOH wouldn’t verify that; they downgraded it to this. How could the information on Obama’s posted BC match the information on the original record and STILL not be a “true and accurate representation of the original record”?
If the original record has more than is on what Obama posted. All the items that were supposed to be there were on what Obama posted so what’s extra on the original isn’t items. It’s LATE and ALTERED stamps, and the notation of the evidence/affidavits filed to support the late and amended filing.
Late and amended BC’s are not legally valid, and Onaka’s refusal to verify the items from the request form that Bennett filled out showed that the BC is not legally valid. Here’s what I posted on my blog explaining this:
Bennett told TheCipher (a Freeper) he DID ask for the birth date – which was only on the request form, so he must not have withdrawn the form request. If that’s the case, then this verification is the official response to that form.
The “verification” references HRS 338-14.3 and calls itself a “verification of birth”. HRS 338-14.3 says, in part:
“(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”
By responding at all the HDOH acknowledged Bennett’s eligibility to receive a verification. By referencing HRS 338-14.3 they are acknowledging that what they disclose is governed by that. They are REQUIRED to verify the existence of a certificate, and they did that. They did not claim that the place of birth was Honolulu, HI – only that the birth certificate “indicates” (not verifies) a Honolulu, HI birth.
The procedure for verifying the facts of birth is that the person applying for a verification gives the facts in question and the HDOH repeats back to them anything that they got right and verifies that it is correct. Anything they don’t verify as correct is not correct – either because there is something else in that field on the birth record, or because the facts about the birth cannot be certified as accurate (because the certificate is not legally valid).
When filling out that form, Bennett presumably gave the HDOH the following guesses for facts:
Gender: male
Date of birth: Aug 4, 1961
City and island of birth: Honolulu, HI/ Oahu
Father’s name: Barack Hussein Obama
Mother’s name: Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama
The HDOH did not verify any of those facts, so they are either not what is claimed on the BC or the BC they’re on is not a legally valid record.
But the HDOH verified that the information on Obama’s posted long-form matches the information on the original record. So that can’t be the reason.
That leaves a legally non-valid record as the only reason for their refusal to verify those “facts of birth”.
This “verification” – if it legally verifies anything, given the initials by the certification on it – actually verifies that Obama’s birth record is not legally valid.
That being the case, the other items to be verified “from the record” are clearly being verified only as being ON that record – not being the true facts of his birth. If they couldn’t verify the true date and place of birth or parents’ names because the record was legally invalid, then they can’t verify ANYTHING from that BC as being true. All they can verify is what is on it, not that what is on it is true. Which is actually what is implied in the certifying statement.
Again – if the HDOH has verified anything with this “verification”, it is that Obama’s birth record is legally non-valid.
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.