Did you read his first point?
Posted on 01/25/2009 8:32:35 PM PST by FreeAtlanta
I am a retired (25) police officer and spent 26 years in the United States Air force as a MSGT in charge of Training for the 482 Security Police Squadron. Was in Vietnam and also served in the Gulf War. For the last year I have been watching this site on a daily basis not believing that Barack Hussein Obama has become our president. I coach a High School softball team and everyone of my players had to produce a birth certificate to be eligible to play through the state. I hate to say this, but we in a total crisis and something will happen if this man is allowed to continue to lead this once proud nation. I have never posted before but know many FBI, Secret Service Agents, CIA and many other Federal Agents who have told me they are not to discuss this issue about Obama or they will be terminated from employment. We all need to take a step back and pray that something will come out on all of these lawsuits. I spoke to the Supreme Court Justice in my state who advised that the US Supreme Court have been ordered to throw out any case that deal with the fraud President elect. May God Help us All (Emphasis added and typos corrected)
(Excerpt) Read more at australia.to ...
You said — “You are exactly right. The US Supreme Court have lifetime appointments and they answer to nobody but themselves. No one can legally “order” them to do anything. “
From looking over your posts, I would say that although no one can “legally order” you to post things here — it does appear that someone is making you post things in a certain way (at least the way it looks to me...). Someone has obviously “ordered” you to do so....
—
[in fact, it looks like someone has “ordered” a lot of FReepers to post some very curious things on the “qualifications issue”... on Free Republic...]
You said — “The “order” that I’m most interested in is a court ORDER from a judge, any judge, anywhere, that issues a subpoena for Barack Hussein Obama II’s original, long form, vault copy Certification of Live Birth from the Hawaii Department of Health.”
Yes, it would definitely be something I would like to see, also. I don’t think it’s going to happen, though. And I think state laws are going to be required which demand this documentation, in order plug the loophole in the vetting system that has been discovered.
Arizona and Oklahoma have started this process.
What logic demands a publicly recognized precedent to a logical argument? If every reasoning requires a precedent, in fact, SCOTUS would have no formal (legal) responsibilities since it deals with setting (legal) precedents. Logic should inherently stand by itself, regardless of existence or non-existence of any precedent. If so, every logical argument may be considered invalidated since logic is manmade and prior to man, has no precedent known to man.
And I am making (not "attempting to make") an logical argument. If someone is implying otherwise, the burden is on them to provide logic (not just questions) in refutation.
Not to make a comparison, but didn’t I read that there were rumors that Adolf Hitler had to have his lienage covered up because of some connection to Jewish lines? Or was that someother psy-ops operation against the Nazis? Just occurred about how some dictators had trouble with their pedigrees or origins...
Lightfoot vs. Bowen is in Federal Court, Santa Ana, CA. by attorney Dr. Orly Taitz.
I was referring to the Supreme court .... one.
Do you think this will go anywhere?
You stated your opinion that every president is disqualified, and I think I successfully refuted that with some degree of ease. As to Chester Arthur, that does not necessarily prove the remainder of your original assertion. I would hesitate to concede Obama is president without fraud since there is plenty of smoke obscuring the verification of his Constitutional qualifications. The importance of this can be judged historically (I would imagine, among other ways) by tracing the phrase "avoiding the appearance of impropriety." That is a basic principle of legal ethics and legal conduct. Obama has a Harvard law degree. In my humble estimation, he has chosen not to avoid the appearance of impropriety by choosing not to release his certified birth certificate. Beyond that, there exist (IMHO not dissimilar to the case of Chester Arthur that you noted earlier, thanks) questions of whether he is or is not a natural born citizen by virtue of his claim that his father is Barack Obama Senior, a citizen of the United Kingdom. I hesitate to believe that Congress has exclusive authority to determine whether fraud has occurred in the 2008 presidential election; rather, I tend to think this is first a question for the judiciary to render adjudication; IANAL, but anyone in the chain of federal executive command would seem to have at least the possibility of legal standing to bring up the issue in his or her defense in a court of law if he or she were accused of disobeying a presidential order from Obama (and please note that the potential for this only existed once Obama began to assume the presidential office on Jan. 20).
Also, whether or not Chester Arthur carried out his presidential duties responsibly given Arthur's prior historical background has (again IMHO) no direct bearing on whether a different person, Barack Obama Junior, will carry out his presidential duties responsibly given Obama Jr.'s distinct prior historical background. IMHO there is little or no hint that Arthur was commonly viewed as a political extremist or that something in his political behavior could had the potential to have been swayed by extra-legal influences. OTOH, Obama has a voting record that is widely recognized as being politically extreme, and here and there are allegations of questionable alleged associations such as Tony Rezko and William Ayers (ref: http://www.colony14.net/id41.html; 932 footnotes as of Jan. 25). As Obama Jr. is the 44th President, note that subtracting him and the other 3 presidents mentioned above still leaves 44 - 4 = 40 presidents alleged to be somehow unqualified (but yet to be shown here to be so, at least as of now).
“Rumors that Hitler had his lineage covered up..”
I heard that Hitler’s mother was Jewish. And of course Hitler was born in Austria and then ruled Germany. Obama was born in Kenya and rules the USA. At least in the case of Hitler, it was not against “the rules” for him to be a foreign born leader of the country. There are many many parallels between Obama and Hitler, and also between Hitler’s followers and Obama’s.
IMHO, Chief Roberts is the stumbling-block on all of the BHO “natural born citizen” cases and won’t allow any of the cases to be heard. His photo giving BHO the oath of office will be printed in tens of millions of textbooks! Afterall, BHO is the first (partially) African (but mostly Arab) American President! That’s a great legacy for anyone to have and a supreme ergo bust for Roberts! Now contrast what his legacy would be if Roberts decided to hear any cases? Can you say Kenneth Starr?!?!
Cite?
Obama has presented that.
Cite?
The only legitimate legal question is whether or not the documentation that he has presented is forged or fraudulent.
Cite?
[With all due respect, etc.]
You said — “You stated your opinion that every president is disqualified...”
I only stated that in context of qualifying for a security clearance, as a normal citizen. I “gave you” two Presidents (Washington and Jefferson, not the rest of them...) that I wouldn’t contest on that issue..., that’s all... (of a security clearance, but I’m not sure how relevant they are to today’s security clearances).
But, in terms of Chester A. Arthur’s “qualifications” — that was not in the context of security clearances — but rather — in terms of the *Constitutional requirements* for holding the Office of the President of the United States. That’s a completely different matter, altogether.
And so, the 21st President was not qualified per the Constitution and he knew it, while it’s not been proven (other than simple allegations) that Obama is not qualified per the Constitution.
You’re talking about two different things here (security clearances that a President has, versus him being an “ordinary citizen” — and then — a President being qualified to hold office per the Constitutional qualifications — two different matters...).
—
As for the rest of it, I’ll say just like I was saying *before* the inauguration — We’ll see what happens on Inauguration Day. And we “saw” didn’t we... He’s now President.
So, now, I’ll say (to the rest of what you posted), we shall see if anything — at all — comes of anything that FReepers have been posting about Obama’s qualifications per the Constitution to hold the office. I don’t think so — but “we shall see...”
Did you read his first point?
Just one: Let's see the real thing. Why the subterfuge? Just produce it already!
OK, one question, one demand!
Some people have certainly worked that way. Do you have a dispute with any of his facts?
The image on the internet is intended for the public. It isn't being used in an official capacity. There is no reason to assume the photographs are altered.
"But it can't certify was is not on it."
But the data on it is enough.
"The US State Department will not accept a short form certificate from some states, or from any state if the time between the birth and the registration date is more than a year. In those cases they insist on the long form. Why? Because the short form is much more subject to being altered, and they want to check the reason for the late filing, because a late filing is also more apt to be fraudulent."
Which does not apply to Hawaii and Obama's certificate, does it?
I don't think we know that. It is possible that at least one state requested or received the birth certificate.
Admitting a problem exists is the first commonly recognized step towards fixing a problem.
And the process of "fixing" the vetting "problem" seems to me as if it will inevitably generate questions of motivation by whoever (Democrats?) constitute the "loyal opposition." And those questions will inevitably generate answers on the public record. All of which do not to me seem to bode well for a coverup or instilling public confidence in retaining an existing coverup under normal circumstances.
IOW Obama Jr. has (IMHO) put a pendulum in motion, albeit perhaps unintentionally, and it will be IMHO at a minimum interesting to observe if attempts to stop the pendulum of the Hegelian Dialectic will in fact have the opposite effect.
Specifically, it is difficult for me to imagine to bring up the issue in a state legislative body without bringing about the strong possibility that the said legislative body will find a credible way to solve it. Similarly, it is difficult for me to imagine that some states will solve the problem while other states will leave the problem unaddressed. Beyond that, it is difficult for me to imagine that Obama will not be forced by the sheer weight of public opinion to address the issue squarely (all it might take, for example, is to discuss "ex post facto" considerations in a state legislative body, and then stand back and grab a box of popcorn for the argument that would ensue). Again this all presumes, of course, that federal and state government takes the normal course, martial law is not declared, etc.
Certainly similar questions-- such as Presidential succession-- have been brought up and successfully dealt with in the past, but IMHO never under such immediate political pressure and such high political stakes.
There were accusations that he was born in Canada, but that wasn't proven.
Well, go to Leo Donofrio’s website where he documents that he wasn’t qualified. That’s not the only place where it’s shown that he’s not qualified and that *he knew it* during the time he was President — but Donofrio’s info is something that a lot of Freepers would accept, in any case...
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.