Posted on 04/22/2012 9:10:12 AM PDT by Daffynition
Let me tell you a little story.
A year ago this month, Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” blockbuster was the top-selling book in the nation – weeks before it was even released!
On top of that, Donald Trump was telling everyone who would listen that he couldn’t understand why Barack Obama refused to release his birth certificate.
It was in the midst of all this that I got a call from Corsi one morning. He told me his sources were telling him Obama was so desperate he was going to release a phony birth certificate to quell the controversy.
Within a week or 10 days, Obama did just that.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
More to the point, that is exactly what should happen in the short term...the Federal government isn’t going to do it, but the states could pass laws to keep people like Obama from getting on the ballot, which should have been done in the first place. If some of those big electoral college states do it, that would fix it right there.
Kind of wish that were true, but it would depend upon that state's election laws. At present, I doubt that any state's statutes would authorize such an action by its AG, and even if any AG did so, it would require, as you hint, a lot of guts.
That's why a federal constitutional amendment, or federal legislation along the lines I suggested earlier this thread, would, IMHO, be necessary in order to enforce the Article II constitutional requirements for the presidency and vice presidency.
0b0z0 isn't "gay" for three (3) reasons :
1- Medically speaking, 0h0m0 IS an h0m0sexual in general. Further sub-classification may describe him as bi-sexual, which I can't be sure of.
2- Colloquially speaking, he's a fag.
3- His mood isn't gay = happy because he's known to be depressed and a druggie.
Caution has to be exercised when talking about POTUS.
Dr. S. Alinsky, Ph.D. in Deviancy and Perversion
We already have that in the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The problem is that Congress has simply ignored it's duty. Congress would ignore it's duty to any other Amendment as well. Besides that, you're asking the same folks who are complicit in the usurpation to pass an Amendment catching them in the act. It will never happen.
A better, more readily available approach lies in the state houses all across the country. It may not pass in every state, but if one or two passed this simple law, it would END the charade. See my post in post 101.
Remember that McCane was ahead in the polls until the market went crazy....At that time there was much speculation over who manipulated it...Recent voter fraud investigation in IN shows that Obama didn’t even quality to be on the ballot. Remember posting at the time of the election that IN (the home of Klan) had too many bigots for BO to win here. Well, he manipulated the vote by having out of state students use their college ID to vote.
Thanks justiceseeker93.
That's pretty basic, but to do what you and I and the rest of us paying attention want to see happen will take both rock solid proof and the political will to do the right things.
My guess is that it takes time for all the stars to align just right, so that can happen.
I also think we have gone way past the point of no return for ignoring it and something this way comes. I can feel it.
If anything, the Clinton impeachment taught them that things have to be just right or you don't take the shot.
This is much bigger, with so many dirty hands and potentially worldwide repercussions, the return fire for this will be intense. No second chances.
Interesting times, eh?
(2)but if one or two (states) passed this simple law, it would END the charade.
There is ample "law" now. What, imnsvho, is required is the courage to enforce the law at the state level.
For instance, Real World: Sheriff Joe and his Posse haven't really ... legally ... proven a thing. However, they have raised MANY questions of reasonable doubt; many more than enough for the AZ AG to pull Obama from the AZ ballot pending presentation of bona fides.... or to (get this) at the very least, ASK for them.
Look, youse guys, this is a very specific and very thorny problem that has never really come up before exactly liket his. That's one reason the issue has not been addressed.
The other reason of course, is institutional cowardice. If a couple of thousand, a couple of hundred, or two or three, people in a state think a guy is ineligible to run for ANY office, which happens all the time, that is ample cause for the AG to... or a committee which he heads ... to pull that SOB from the ballot ... or threaten to do so ... until the bona fides are forthcoming.
If the system works for mayoral candidates, Congressional and Senate Candidates, etc., it is in place. Therefore it ought to work ... right now ... for the Presidential Candidate Obama, who after all is said and done, has presented NO, NONE, bona fides as to his Constitutional Qualifications for the office.
Since it's forged, it's clearly immaterial.How dare you members of the VRWC bring such an amateurish fake to an American Court of Law! You are all in contempt.
Next case.
I keep asserting that the document was created by Hawaii's department of health, and the reason it is so poorly done is because it was created by bureaucrats in the normal process they use to create replacement birth certificates for adopted people.
I really cannot comprehend why people believe that it was created by some other third party forger, the consequences of which would have half a dozen people in jail.
Seriously people, the document *IS* fake, but it is a LEGAL fake. Obama's lawyer got a court order to get Hawaii to produce a replacement birth certificate. No other explanation makes any sense.
What happened to the one he had?
Did the dog eat the one he talked about in his book?
Did he simply lose it?
I wish a reporter would ask Obama why he ordered a new long form birth certificate.
A reporter should have quickly asked Obama and his staff at the April 27, 2011 press conference the obvious question as to why Obama ordered a new long form birth certificate in the first place.
You are falling behhind in your Deconstructionist and Post-Modern reading.
cf: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada
FYI, the HDOH NEVER released a Certified Copy of the LFBC. What they gave Obama's Lawyer was a Digital File ABSTRACTED from data allegedly "on file" in their archives.
It was the WH that took this digital file and turned it into a digitally produced "copy" of what they thought a BC should look like, complete with "official" stationery background and stamps. There is no "document," was no document," and never will be a "document."
Try registering an automobile with this sort of "documentation." After you catch up on Dadaism, you will soon see that there is no "there," there.
Yes, that is exactly my argument. The PDF came from Hawaii.
It was the WH that took this digital file and turned it into a digitally produced "copy" of what they thought a BC should look like, complete with "official" stationery background and stamps. There is no "document," was no document," and never will be a "document."
This I do not believe. It is a felony, and Officials in Hawaii would be aware of it. To remain silent during the perpetration of a felony is itself another felony. People in Hawaii could face prison, and as much as they may love Obama, they love themselves more. I do not believe any of them would risk such a thing. Obama's own lawyer would also be complicit in it, and if discovered, his career would be over.
Again, the third party forgery theory makes absolutely no sense. What makes sense is that Hawaii's DOH produced it, and as far as they are concerned it is a valid legal document.
The 50 states create 120,000 fake birth certificates every year. (There are 120,000 adoptions every year in the U.S.) *I* have a fake but legal birth certificate because *I* was adopted too.
You are spot on, it seems to me.
And the bottom line is that the courts are no more likely to view original intent in regards to NBC than they are to view original intent in regards to the ‘general welfare’ clause or the ‘interstate commerce’ clause.
Fighting for a general restoration of the Constitution can be successful, trying to unseat a sitting president based on an original intent theory that is in practice for no other part of the Constitution is not going to be successful.
Thank you. I've put a lot of thought into this, and I keep coming back to this as the only explanation that seemingly fits all the pieces. For some reason, many people are simply against it. I don't know why, but it inspires downright hostility from some.
And the bottom line is that the courts are no more likely to view original intent in regards to NBC than they are to view original intent in regards to the ‘general welfare’ clause or the ‘interstate commerce’ clause.
Fighting for a general restoration of the Constitution can be successful, trying to unseat a sitting president based on an original intent theory that is in practice for no other part of the Constitution is not going to be successful.
And I have woefully come to realize this as well. As Sir John Harrington said: "Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
That is exactly where we are at. Violations of the constitution have become so routine that they are no longer even remarkable.
Listed under horror-fiction.
I know you can’t be specific, but is anything “coming down” sooner rather than later? Later being after the election.
end of this month and start of the next
Excellent!!
Thank you for sharing that tidbit!
And thank you, JohnnyP, for asking the question. :)
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.