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

Skip to comments.

Tomorrow, Enforce the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three and OBAMA is GONE
U.S. Constitution | January 14th, 2013 | Uncle Sham

Posted on 01/14/2013 7:58:24 PM PST by Uncle Sham

The Constitution does not allow someone who does not meet the eligibility requirements for President to legally serve no matter what the election results are. It's right there in the Constitution under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three:

"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."

A few notes.

1. There is no such position as a "President elect", legally, until such a time as Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college votes and a person is actually named as the "President elect". This means that the term "shall have qualified" refers to something other than the results of winning an election. There is only one place left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" for the office of President, that being the eligibility requirements from Article two.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

2. Since it is the duty of Congress to name an interim President in the event of a President elect's "failure to qualify", they, Congress, must know whether or not to do so. This means that they, Congress, must be aware of whether or not a President elect meets the eligibility requirements from Article two. It is the burden of the President elect to "qualify" or "fail to qualify", thus NOT proving one is eligible under Article Two to Congress is the same thing as "failing to qualify." Congress avoiding its duty to uphold Section 3 results in the same "failure to qualify".

3. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.

4. The eligibility requirements start out with two simple words which forever preclude anyone who "fails to qualify" from serving as a legal president, "No person". Someone who sneaks in because Congress failed to uphold it's responsibility to enforce the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 doesn't legally exist. The Constitution cannot be fooled just because Congress didn't act when it was supposed to. A President elect either qualifies or he cannot ever be President, period.

Thus it is that we have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".

Now, as to who has "standing". Any elected official at the state or federal level who took the oath of office in Article Six has standing, to demand that the Constitution be obeyed. This means that no judge can deny them the enforcement of their oath to "support the Constitution" if they have a question about whether or not any portion of that Constitution has not been adhered to. In this case, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 has clearly been IGNORED by the primary party instructed to act under it, Congress.

Tomorrow, January 15th, they get another shot at upholding their oaths of office or committing treason by ignoring the Twentieth Amendment, Section three. Perhaps someone will finally have the courage to do what is right.


TOPICS: FReeper Editorial
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-125 next last
Who are the true Patriots? Tomorrow we find out if there are any at all.
1 posted on 01/14/2013 7:58:40 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; MestaMachine; Rushmore Rocks; Oorang; KC_Lion; Godzilla; Domestic Church; ...
.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Tomorrow, Enforce the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three and OBAMA is GONE

. . . . ?

.

2 posted on 01/14/2013 8:28:45 PM PST by LucyT (In the 20th century 200 million people were killed by their own governments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

On this issue, don’t turn blue.

All eyes are on OUR rights to own arms, unfettered. Without OUR 2A rights, the First Ammendment will fall. We can protest nothing at all, certainly not his eligibility.


3 posted on 01/14/2013 8:31:59 PM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK
"We can protest nothing at all, certainly not his eligibility."

This is not about protesting someone's eligibility but rather about the Constitutional REQUIREMENT that someone prove eligibility to Congress before being allowed to occupy the office of President. It's his job to prove, not our job to protest. If he offers no proof, he has failed to qualify. period. Anything past this point, you blame Congress. They, along with a complicite media are responsible for what has been allowed to transpire during the past four years.

4 posted on 01/14/2013 8:41:21 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

There aren’t any. We have our Hitler and the entire parliament is silent.


5 posted on 01/14/2013 8:41:46 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Just one thing I would add to what you’ve said, and that is this: Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has certified a letter of verification to AZ SOS Ken Bennett confirming that Obama’s Hawaii BC is legally non-valid and the long-form and short-form BC’s are forgeries to hide that fact. Obama has no legally-determined birth facts. It’s not just that he hasn’t proven to Congress that he is eligible; it’s that nobody can lawfully SAY he is eligible, without his non-valid BC being presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative official or body and had the Federal Rules of Evidence applied to all his vital record and citizenship records.

Right now the legal presumption is that his birth facts are NOT that he was born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961, etc.... because if he had been, there would be no reason for him to have a non-valid record.

And Onaka’s verification that Obama’s BC# is 10641 tells us something more: the HDOH gave Obama a different number than he could ever have had in 1961 - and the only legal authorization to do that is if a new, totally fabricated BC is created by the HDOH because law enforcement claims it is necessary in order to protect the registrant’s life. There are at least 3 other Aug 1961 BC’s that have BC#’s that could not have been on those BC’s in 1961, so the HDOH has been swapping a BUNCH of BC#’s for Obama’s sake. What this also tells us is that the BC at the HDOH office, that the White House information “matches”, is a total fabrication. It says what Eric Holder says it has to say. Has nothing to do with truth whatsoever.

Every Republican member of Congress was sent a fax explaining this, and every secretary threw the letter away or sent it to Adrian Smith or Mike Johanns. These people have pissed on the Constitution, justice, and truth from Day One and will go to hell pissing on it (most likely). The fate of Sodom and Gomorrah awaits them all.


6 posted on 01/14/2013 9:05:24 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

While there is no question that BHO is NOT “natural born” because of the self-admitted fact his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth (wherever that was), the same holds true for Marco Rubio. Neither of his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth.


7 posted on 01/14/2013 9:06:46 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
While there is no question that BHO is NOT “natural born” because of the self-admitted fact his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth (wherever that was), the same holds true for Marco Rubio. Neither of his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth.

once a precedent has been set, it is much harder to argue against it

8 posted on 01/14/2013 9:16:42 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Once a president has been set, it is much harder to remove him from office, even with clearer precedent that he is NOT and has never been eligible for office. We’re at the mercy of the will of the Congress and Judiciary who refuse to uphold the real precedent that was set in Minor and the overall rule of law. The Constitution has been effectively undermined and delegitamized.


9 posted on 01/14/2013 10:01:22 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Patriots, Patriots... aren’t they the guys in the blue and white with the tight pants who lost to the Giants last season?

Because that’s the only Patriots the Sheeple will ever pay attention to.


10 posted on 01/15/2013 12:58:29 AM PST by Old Sarge (We are officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Does this mean we’ll have to put up with birther stories until Jan 20, 2017 or will you end this foolish nonsense when Obama’s sworn-in again Monday?


11 posted on 01/15/2013 2:33:53 AM PST by newzjunkey (bah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

This is great! Have you sent it to Rush? I don’t think Rush Limbaugh even knows we have a Constitution!

Send it to Romney immediately; he probably didn’t know about it because he couldn’t afford to hire any lawyers for his campaign!

Well, even if Romney can’t work it out, at least this means we’ll have Joe Biden for president and that will be a huge improvement.

/sarcasm


12 posted on 01/15/2013 3:55:00 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
"Does this mean we’ll have to put up with birther stories until Jan 20, 2017 or will you end this foolish nonsense when Obama’s sworn-in again Monday?"

This isn't a "Birther" story at all. It's a "Constitution" FACT. The "FACTS" within the Constitution have protected both you and I from tyranny for over 200 years. Unfortunately, the present Federal government believes that the Constitution is just a "story".

13 posted on 01/15/2013 5:16:46 AM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; All

Unfortunately, mountains of evidences of bozo ineligibility, the Constitution, the laws don’t mean a thing now, because Congress, justice system, gov officials at all levels, and the media all turn a blind eye on the issue!

Even many people who are supposedly on our side fail to see this as a constitutional issue - they simply call this a ‘birther’ nonsense. When We the people don’t care enough (even the tea party leaders and many ‘conservatives’ ) to demand this issue be addressed, we help to bury this issue.

That is the sad fact.


14 posted on 01/15/2013 5:41:43 AM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

If they had enforced the Constitution’s ‘natural born citizen’ requirement for the presidency, obama would never have ascended to the Oval Office!

It is a sad fact - the US Constitution has been shredded.


15 posted on 01/15/2013 5:45:30 AM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Uncle Sham; All

Thanks for the ping; post.

“Everything about socialism is sham and affectation.” - 23.11 Ch23 Evil; Economic Harmonies; Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

“Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation.” - The Law; Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Socialists.png

They have breached the constitution. Witness the continuing treason...


16 posted on 01/15/2013 7:15:37 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; Uncle Sham; All
Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has certified a letter of verification to AZ SOS Ken Bennett confirming that Obama’s Hawaii BC is legally non-valid and the long-form and short-form BC’s are forgeries to hide that fact.

Is there a copy of the letter cited from Onaka to Bennett anywhere on the Internet?

17 posted on 01/15/2013 7:32:10 AM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Counting the first campaign, we’ve had 5 years of crickets and I expect the same for the next 4 years to infinity and beyond on this.


18 posted on 01/15/2013 7:40:42 AM PST by bgill (We've passed the point of no return. Welcome to Al Amerika.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
It is an image of the letter. As you can see, it clearly verifies that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, HI to an American mother.

How anyone could look at this letter and declare it "confirming that Obama’s Hawaii BC is legally non-valid and the long-form and short-form BC’s are forgeries to hide that fact" is beyond me.

Seriously, this letter, which is quite plain in its verification of Obama's birthplace is the "smoking gun."

None of this CONSTITUTIONAL argument matters, as Obama is an NBC and if we could just stop flogging this dead horse, we might be able to turn toward the work of fixing this country.

19 posted on 01/15/2013 7:49:12 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; butterdezillion; Ladysforest; Brown Deer; GregNH; Seizethecarp; LucyT; PGalt; ...
This isn't a "Birther" story at all. It's a "Constitution" FACT. The "FACTS" within the Constitution have protected both you and I from tyranny for over 200 years. Unfortunately, the present Federal government believes that the Constitution is just a "story".

Well said, Uncle Sham. The dreadful "irony" (if you can call it that) is that, come January 20, a man whose very presence in the office of President of the United States is a violation of the "natural born Citizen" clause of Article II of will again be taking an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Needless to say, it's an oath he has no intention whatsoever of keeping.

20 posted on 01/15/2013 8:05:48 AM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All
Obama is an NBC and if we could just stop flogging this dead horse, we might be able to turn toward the work of fixing this country.

That's the sad truth.

Obama loves that we keep chasing our tails with this nonsense. It destroys our credibility with the people we need to win over and distracts us from the job at hand.

I'd love to believe that this will all go away after the inauguration, but suspect that the fantasies of magically making Obama an un-president will continue until January 2017 (if not beyond).
21 posted on 01/15/2013 9:20:55 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Here’s what a google search turned up:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2012/05/hawaiis-verification-of-president-obamas-birth.php?page=1


22 posted on 01/15/2013 10:05:38 AM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: highball; Mr. Know It All
From what do either of you base your opinions on, that says the reigning King of Thailand or the current Dauphin of France, are eligible to be the Commander in Chief of our armed forces?
23 posted on 01/15/2013 10:23:52 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
From what do either of you base your opinions on, that says the reigning King of Thailand or the current Dauphin of France, are eligible to be the Commander in Chief of our armed forces?

I don't think either of those people were considered to be American citizens at birth. Either way, Obama had a parent (his mother) who was a US Citizen (or are the birthers trying to cast doubt on that, too?!), so these are totally different cases. Furthermore, neither of these people has ever claimed US citizenship, nor lived as a US citizen. Do they have a US passport? Obama does.

24 posted on 01/15/2013 10:39:23 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All; All
Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that Onaka is telling Bennett the truth with respect to Obama's place of birth, being a "Natural Born Citizen" carries with it the additional requirement that both of one's parents are citizens of the US at the time of one's birth. It is beyond controversy that Barack Obama II's father, as reported by Onaka to Bennett, was NEVER an American citizen at all. Thus, Barack Obama II is not a "Natural Born Citizen" within the definition of that term as universally understood by the Constitution's framers. (A "Natural Born Citizen," BTW, is a higher standard than a "citizen at birth" or a "citizen by birth.")

It doesn't take a constitutional genius to conclude, therefore, that Barack Obama II is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President.

25 posted on 01/15/2013 11:09:54 AM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All; bgill; Uncle Sham; LucyT; All
Do they have a US passport? Obama does.

That raises another set of questions that have been discussed here on FR ever since Obama became a serious candidate for POTUS. For some reason, Obama's passport records have never been publicly released, so we don't know, for example, how he might have obrained such a passport, how he traveled abroad to Pakistan during his college years and how he traveled to Kenya a few years later.

26 posted on 01/15/2013 11:22:19 AM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
Who are the true Patriots? Tomorrow we find out if there are any at all.

Well, no. Your answer does not address your question. We're still here.
27 posted on 01/15/2013 11:22:37 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

WND should put out a Birther calender to mark all the false hope deadlines.


28 posted on 01/15/2013 11:49:08 AM PST by Tex-Con-Man (<-------currently working through post-election anger issues.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

why is it foolish nonsense?

The “president” of the united states submitted a FAKE birth certificate to the american people. This is clearly shown to be a forged creation, and a bad one, not a copy of any document.

That ALONE should be enough to have everyone asking the same question.

What do you say we should do about the fake document? should we just accept it like good sheeple? what are you doing here then?


29 posted on 01/15/2013 11:59:34 AM PST by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All
They were both born in the US. According to today's bastardization of the 14th Amendment, that makes them US Citizens.

Do you think Barry/Obama is a "natural born Citizen" because he was (allegedly) born in HI? Or do you think he is a "natural born Citizen" because his mother passed her citizenship to him?

30 posted on 01/15/2013 12:04:34 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

It’s on my blog, contained inside the letter that Klayman sent to Bob Bauer, posted at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf Onaka confirmed these things by what he REFUSED to say, as Klayman’s letter explains.

I’m crazy-busy today so just a note here. Palmer, Onaka doesn’t have discretion to pick and choose which of the facts he will verify. If he is truly verifying Honolulu, then he also has to verify Oahu. The statute leaves no room for discretion; they have to provide verification of ANY INFORMATION submitted to be verified. If Honolulu was submitted then so was Oahu, and if Honolulu is truly being verified then the law says Oahu has to be also.

But the syntax in Onaka’s sentence is clear. What he is verifying is the existence of the birth record - which incidentally “indicates” (claims) a Honolulu birth.

If I was willing to lie, I could go today and get a birth certificate for me that “indicates” a Hawaii birth. It would be non-valid and wouldn’t mean a thing, but I could get it. All Onaka verified is that Obama or his parents (or actually law enforcement...) did what it takes to get a non-valid record “indicating” a Honolulu birth.


31 posted on 01/15/2013 12:13:51 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Uncle Sham; MestaMachine; Rushmore Rocks; Oorang; KC_Lion; Godzilla; Domestic Church
Twentieth Amendment, Section Three

N/A if you are of mixed race and claim birth in Hawaii.
"Native = Natural"
All questions of eligibility are to be settled by the HIDOH.
Turn up Don Ho "Tiny Bubbles in the Wine," and go with the flow.

To do otherwise would be racist. Besides, it is bad for one' s mental health to become upset everytime a gay African Chicago Street Organizer who was asked off the Illinois Bar becomes POTUS.

32 posted on 01/15/2013 12:22:15 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (Say, what the hell happened to Reggie Love? Who's in the playroom with Barry now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

If we could find just one judge anywhere in America to agree with you.
Six state and federal courts have ruled that Obama IS a natural born citizen:
Tisdale v Obama-US District Court Eastern District of Virginia
Rhodes v MacDonald-US District Court Middle District of Georgia
Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto)-US District Court for the District of Columbia
Allen v Obama-Arizona Superior Court for Pima County
Ankeny v Governor Daniels-Indiana Court of Appeals
Farrar-Swensson-Powell & Welden v Obama-Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings & Georgia Fulton County Superior Court.

This is important because judges are prone to follow the precedents established in earlier trials on the exact same issue. There needs to be some decisions to counter-balance these pro-Obama decisions.


33 posted on 01/15/2013 12:28:35 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
being a "Natural Born Citizen" carries with it the additional requirement that both of one's parents are citizens of the US at the time of one's birth

This is not true. This has never been true. This was invented by people twisting various court rulings. The actual court rulings that apply do not have a "two-parent" requirement.

34 posted on 01/15/2013 3:47:08 PM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
The “president” of the united states submitted a FAKE birth certificate to the american people. This is clearly shown to be a forged creation, and a bad one, not a copy of any document.

According to who? Not the state agency that issued the documents.

35 posted on 01/15/2013 3:49:20 PM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
so we don't know, for example, how he might have otained such a passport
Unless you have some actual evidence to the contrary, I'm comfortable assuming he sent a COLB to the State Department like everyone else -- or did a college-age Obama already have a secret Illuminati cabal backing him?
how he traveled abroad to Pakistan during his college years and how he traveled to Kenya a few years later
I'm guessing that he flew on a plane in both cases.
36 posted on 01/15/2013 3:53:29 PM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Six state and federal courts have ruled that Obama IS a natural born citizen.

IIRC, those cases were dismissed, true, but because of a lack of standing of the plaintiff or some other procedural defect. This conveniently enabled those courts to dodge the natural born citizen issue because they didn't have to reach it.

Furthermore, in so far as I recall, the SCOTUS has never in its history had a case where the definition of "natural born citizen" in Article II of the United States Constitution was dispositive. Only in Minor v. Happersett did the SCOTUS define "natural born citizen" (and did so in accordance with Vattel) but that case did not concern eligibility for the presidency.

37 posted on 01/15/2013 3:57:12 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
IIRC, those cases were dismissed, true, but because of a lack of standing of the plaintiff or some other procedural defect. This conveniently enabled those courts to dodge the natural born citizen issue because they didn't have to reach it.

Ankeny: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Tisdale: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."

I knew what Ankeny said from reading it before, and just looked up Tisdale. I don't have time to research the others. But that should be enough to show that courts have, in fact, ruled on the NBC issue.

Only in Minor v. Happersett did the SCOTUS define "natural born citizen"

They didn't actually "define" the term, except insofar as "there is no doubt that tigers are cats" is the definition of "cat."

38 posted on 01/15/2013 4:25:40 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All; Uncle Sham; LucyT; butterdezillion; ml/nj; ExTexasRedhead; patriot08; SatinDoll; ..
I'm comfortable assuming he sent a COLB to the State Department like everyone else -- or did a college-age Obama already have a secret Illuminati cabal backing him?

Needless to say, no one here is invoking a secret Illuminati cabal to explain that travel. But there is a good possibility that he was traveling then with a foreign passport, and may not have been able to obtain an American one. We'll never know until those passport records are made public. Additionally, his college records, which could possibly shed light on the issue of his citizenship, have been under wraps as well.

39 posted on 01/15/2013 5:32:41 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2040486/posts


40 posted on 01/15/2013 6:30:50 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All; sickoflibs
Well, even if Romney can’t work it out, at least this means we’ll have Joe Biden for president and that will be a huge improvement.

/sarcasm

I know right.

41 posted on 01/15/2013 10:11:56 PM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Allen v Obama: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v Happersett does not hold otherwise.”


Farrar, Swensson, Powell and Welden requested a “trial on the merits” and Georgia Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili agreed. Judge Mahili said in his ruling after the trial on the merits: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b).”

US District Court Judge Clay Land said in his ruling in Rhodes v Mac Donald: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”

There have been 23 Obama eligibility appeals or applications for stays or injunctions heard in Justice’s Conferences at the US Supreme Court. All Petitions and Applications have been denied.
When the Supreme Court refuses to grant certiorari or to grant an injunction or a stay, the ruling of the lower court stands.


42 posted on 01/16/2013 1:21:29 AM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus; justiceseeker93

It does no good to look at the “answer” unless you also look at the “question”. To get the 2nd page of Bennett’s request, TPM Muckraker had to have also received the 1st page - the actual application form which Bennett twice mentions in page 2 of his request. Why do you suppose TPM Muckraker CENSORED that actual application?

The fact of the matter is that the CRITICAL question - whether it can be verified that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama - got a resounding “no” for an answer.

The silence in that verification is deafening - but only if you know that was the question that Bennett clearly asked and that Onaka was required to verify (say that he specifically verifies) every submitted “fact” that he legally CAN verify. If he can verify Honolulu he also legally has to verify Oahu. He didn’t, so it is clear that he is not verifying Honolulu as the place the birth really happened, but only as the CLAIM on the non-valid BC (what the BC “indicates”, which has no legal meaning whatsoever).

He verified that the claims that are on the White House BC are also on the HDOH record. Why, then, did he not verify ANY of those claims as being the way the event actually happened? Why no mention of male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama, and only mention of the BC “indicating” Honolulu (which is as true for a non-valid BC as for a valid one)?

When asked why no DOB was verified, Bennett responded that it was a clerical error; somebody “just forgot”. He’s accusing Onaka of an unlawful response, after Bennett wrangled for months with the HI AG’s office over every jot and tiddle of the legalities. That’s a serious matter; what evidence supports that? Legally, the presumption has to be of REGULARITY - that the response was done in compliance with the law, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

And if Bennett or anybody else comes up with evidence that the verification was not lawful, then it is worthless and we’re back to square one - that even after proper and lawful procedures were done to verify Obama’s birth facts, we still have nothing. That’s the BEST-CASE scenario for Obama - a net score of zero after the legal authorities in Hawaii had responded to a lawful request for verification.

Don’t expect TPM to have the integrity to address this issue with serious legal reasoning; their job all along has been to provide a fig leaf, and because Americans are stupid, the truth has no big megaphone, and the legal system has been taken hostage, the lies have carried the day. For now.

When the Day of Justice arrives we will see who has been in the truth and who are children of the Father of Lies. He steals, kills, and destroys, and he and all his children will be exposed for who they are and what they have done. Count on it.


43 posted on 01/16/2013 2:28:09 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

All of those based on ZERO evidence. Now the HI state registrar has revealed that there IS NO legally valid HI BC for Obama. This means that the burden of proof has shifted to Obama. All those court cases operated under the presumption that the birth claims on Obama’s posted forgeries were true and that the HDOH’s 1960-64 birth index was a list of VALID BC’s. Now both those legal presumptions are out the window, since the 1960-64 birth index has been proven to contain non-valid BC’s, and Onaka has verified that Obama’s HI BC is non-valid.

Those court cases are all rendered moot by Onaka’s disclosure, since they put the burden of proof on the plaintiffs, when LAWFULLY the burden of proof now has to fall on the defendant. The defendant who has posted 2 forgeries off the record (as now confirmed by Onaka, as well as the forensic evidence from Arpaio and Zullo) and nothing on the record in those cases.


44 posted on 01/16/2013 2:35:51 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

Why 3 breaches of Obama’s passport record - the last right after the date that the camera documented for the photos of the forged short-form?

Why a forged “cable” from the head of the Passport Office (Alex Galovich), claiming that millions of passport applications were destroyed without ANY of the required procedures/authorization and documentation for such a destruction?


45 posted on 01/16/2013 2:38:27 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I don’t buy anything you’re selling and neither do most people.

I can’t prove your conspiracy theory wrong because CONSPIRACY THEORIES CAN NEVER BE WRONG.

Seriously, Onaka sent out a record verifying Obama’s birth in Hawaii and you keep insisting that it was actually a confirmation that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii. Up is down, right is wrong, facts are lies — there is no arguing with you.


46 posted on 01/16/2013 4:13:43 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

The state agency that issued the document does NOT say that this is the document they issued.

Joe Arpaio’s deputies went there to ask just that- and they dance around and around no matter how hard they tried they would not say that the certificate Obama gave to the public was the one they gave him, or unmodified from whatever they gave him.

They asked over and over “If a certificate is modified is it valid” and the only answer they would give was “but you still have a valid certtificate” That non-sequitor is not ‘proof’ but a simple “yes that is the one we gave him” was never given, and great contortions gone through to NOT say that.

AND

Computer image experts have demonstrated that it could not be a copy of anything- it was GENERATED from several different documents. Since I am a computere software enigneer and have written imaging software I know they are 100% correct in pointing out that it is manufactured. I saw it was a fake in a half hour of it being released.


47 posted on 01/16/2013 5:55:03 AM PST by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
The state agency that issued the document does NOT say that this is the document they issued.

It verifies that Obama was born in Honolulu, HI. That's all that's necessary to close the case on him being NBC.

Computer image experts have demonstrated that it could not be a copy of anything- it was GENERATED from several different documents.

No, idiots who don't understand scan-to-PDF software misinterpreted how it works. I've read their "analysis" and they weren't "computer experts." Basically none of the "expert image analysis" that you read on the web is worth a pile of rat dookey.

Daily Kos had a post proving -- PROVING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- that the Anthony Wiener photo was a forgery. Did I mention PROVING!!!!!! It has been a while since I've read it, but it had all kinds of high-tech sounding mumbo-jumbo that the Kos Kids ate up like candy. Hilarious.

In any case, even if for some bizarre reason the release document image was fake, the state of Hawaii has verified that Obama was born in Honolulu. If Obama was, indeed, trying to cover something up, it wasn't his birthplace.

48 posted on 01/16/2013 6:29:10 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

As far as I can tell, this posting is a hoax. It links to an article on a site that doesn’t exist. There is a Daily Kos poster named openDNA, but that person never posted a diary confessing to forging anything.


49 posted on 01/16/2013 6:57:15 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

There was a whole page of information that Bennett requested to be verified, and Hawaii statute says that the HDOH “shall” (mandatory) provide a verification of any submitted information, provided that a verification of that information is certification that it’s the way the birth actually happened (IOW, they have a record that is legally presumed to be accurate which claims it).

Onaka would not verify ANYTHING from that form. HRS 338-14.3 requires him to verify everything he legally can. He swore on the letter of verification that his response was in compliance with HRS 338-14.3. So you tell me: why did he not verify those things as required by the statute he swore he obeyed?

Tell me why he didn’t.


50 posted on 01/16/2013 7:20:35 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-125 next last

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