Posted on 05/21/2012 1:56:55 AM PDT by Kukai
It is reasonable to believe that someone attempted to commit fraud in a commercial context when Barack Obama's literary agency published that he was born in Kenya. The few known facts seem to provide enough to constitute probable cause to probe whether an unlawful act occurred. Regardless of whether this is probed at law, and depending on what other underlying facts may come to light, there appear to be troubling legal and moral issues involved.
The free market depends on honest quid pro quo. Fraud is generally defined as misrepresenting a material fact to induce another person to part with something of value.
The quid pro quo between private parties to a transaction need not be equal in the eyes of others, or government regulators, but just fair to the parties to the transaction.
It may be of more value to me than to others to acquire what you have or do, so that I may be willing to pay more than the market price. However, if you were to intentionally deceive me about your goods or services to lead me to believe that they have a higher value, you have committed a fraud.
There are mutual incentives for honesty in the free market, because once someone is exposed as dishonest, fewer if any people will transact business with that person. Just as mutual honesty is incentive to play fair in the free market, the free market is an incentive to mutual honesty.
The free market does not always result in honest transactions because people are not perfect. Penalties for fraud developed under the law to punish those who intentionally disrupt the integrity of honest transactions.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
But it would sure be interesting to see his admission records, wouldn’t it?
If he was registered as a foreign student, and thus receiving certain special perks and such, that would definitely cross the line.
Which is why they are locked up tighter than Fort Knox.
Time for a class action lawsuit.
Interesting that you should mention that - see link below for signing up to Class Action Lawsuits against the DNC filed by Liberty Legal Foundation....
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/
Past time! ! ! ! ! ! !
Sheriff Joe is our only hope since the LSM never pursued it. . . . . .
I think at this point...the MAIN thing is NOT to question where Obama was born. Let’s take him at his word that he was born in Hawaii.
Now let’s insist that we look at how he got into Havard and Columbia etc. No doubt he rec’d some type of affirmative action benefit same as Elizabeth Warren.
Let’s insist on seeing the transcripts, course work, application papers etc. This time, unlike the idiot McCAin, we want to know everything.
THe left loves to take advantage of all things so they benefit, then they disallow others to do the same. I saw it in my college days. They had their little clicks.
So the American People,(DOLTS),Elected to the Presidency Of the United States Of America, A FRaud,Then the Fraud Signs an Excutive Order Sealing all of His Records to Complete the Fraud.The Fraud then appoints another Crook and Fraud to Run The JUSTICE Dept. Appoints another Crook&Slum Lord from Chicago as His Top Advisor,Boy, Only in America
Obama: “I was FOR being born in Kenya before I was AGAINST it”.
I just pretended to be, to get into Columbia and Harvard."
Obama's book jacket is more parallel to Keebler's claim that their cookies are made by elves. Any reasonable person would put no more faith in a statement by Obama than in one from a cartoon elf.
I have no doubt that Obama's lawyers would happily make the three claims in a court case on the bio that (1) the bio was true, (2) even if the bio wasn't true, he didn't write it, and (3) Obama wrote it but believed it to be true at the time. The same lawyers would claim in front of an Impeachment Committee that Obama was (1) a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii according to the missing documentation, (2) still eligible for the office he claims to hold, regardless of where he was born, because "natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution, and (3) entitled to keep the job regardless of eligibility because the Congress failed to intervene before his alleged swearing in ceremony. The best answer is to remove that usurper through the ballot box in November. The challenge is to make sure that he loses by so much among living voters that the fictional and dead voters can't steal another win for him.
Given your position that the best way to deal with Obama is the ballot box -
Do you think there is a moral hazard to not upholding election, fraud, and forgery laws?
Who gets to decide which laws should be maintained, if there are some that should be ignored?
It's more a case that patriotic Americans would not be able to remove Obama from office prior to next January in any case. The possible fraud in the book bio is a minor legal issue, one that cannot be decided by the courts while Obama is in office and that would not be considered by Dems to rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Congress is not going to attempt to remove Obama from office without a smoking gun, something a whole lot more convincing than lying under oath with proof in the form of a semen-stained dress, which was still not enough to dump the perjurer-in-Chief. The Obama bio narrative is not that smoking gun. We've seen what happened with removing Clinton from office, where the democrats will close ranks around a fellow criminal to retain power, and we know they would never support Obama's removal if they could get away with backing him. There just isn't enough evidence to remove Obama, and there there is no indication that there will be enough, not in time for it to matter. The problem is access to the evidence, and we can't get that access without proof of what is hidden.
Consider the "Just War" theories. They all include something to the effect that: "A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable." While I don't entirely agree in the case of war, an attempt to remove Obama from office would require a reasonable chance of making America better before it would be worth undertaking. Remember that there is a political cost to making the attempt, and it would be foolish to try if the most likely outcome was making the situation worse - four more years with an anti-American communist in our White House. I would prefer that this election be decided based on the economy and Obama's pathetic performance, rather than based on what the media would report as a "birther" narrative.
Consumers who purchased Obama’s book believing that he was Kenyan born should form a class action lawsuit and sue for fraud.
So, we should take a poll, and see if we think we can win the case against Obama for election fraud.
Then, if that passes, file for impeachment.
That is just silly.
Prosecutors should not seek public opinion to make a determination on which laws to enforce against whom. Justice dictates that the laws be enforced equally.
Unfortunate for all purchasers of that book, such a lawsuit itself would be a fraud as Obammy took the advance and never delivered the book. He NEVER wrote it. Apparently he found he suffered from incompetent writer's block. Sad.
Unfortunate for all purchasers of that book, such a lawsuit itself would be a fraud as Obammy took the advance and never delivered the book. He NEVER wrote it. Apparently he found he suffered from incompetent writer’s block. Sad.
And the publisher didn’t demand a refund of the advance why?...because it would hurt poor Barry’s self-esteem perhaps?
We have limited resources, and a corrupt Dem party will shield their “leader”. It is useless to prosecute when the chances of success are zero, useless and counterproductive when that prosecution will distract voters from the economy, which is our strongest issue. If the Dems had integrity, I would agree with you, but this is like trying a Klan leader knowing that half the jurors will be Klan members whose votes are already decided regardless of the evidence. There is no point in devoting our time to a doomed prosecution at the cost of paying attention to other issues. The Dems disgust me precisely because they have corrupted the system to the point that we have to make decisions like this.
Silly - now you are comparing Obama to a klan leader? What?
Then claiming that it was/would be a waste of time to prosecute Klan leaders. What!?!
(BTW - just full “discovery” would be sufficient in any court/trial/case to satisfy many people.)
Silliness - and really poor analogies. (good bye)
I thought I was comparing Obama's followers in the House and Senate to Klan followers on a jury - they have already found the verdict and don't need to listen to evidence.
Then claiming that it was/would be a waste of time to prosecute Klan leaders. What!?!
Local trials for the Klan were in most cases a waste of time - my grandfather prosecuted several and failed every time. That's why the FBI got involved. Unfortunately, we don't have a higher authority other than the voters to remove Obama if Dem Senators won't do their job honestly.
Silliness - and really poor analogies. (good bye)
I guess analogies are like fries, some people like the softer ones and some like crunchy. Sorry mine didn't suit your taste.
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.