Uh, Oh...Obama Birth Certificate

MonsterMark

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
looks like the google scrubbers are going to have their hands full.

This is BC issue is finally starting tp pick up steam. About 18 months too late but at least we are getting there, hopefully in time to stop some of this non-sense. So we do a do-over in 2009. Why not?

It's time for Obama to come clean and let the chips fall where they may. The guy got to be President of the most powerful country in the world for 6 months. Not a bad accomplishment. How he got there is a whole nother story that will also be pieced together by the MSM before this all over.

Get the popcorn and soda-pop ready.
:waving:

Future Google of Obama Birth Certificate
Somebody did a nice Chopped Screen Shot, LOL

GoogleOBC.jpg


obamacare.jpg
 
Just read this.

This is an CBS13/AP report. Just look how biased the story is. I had to stop at the end of what I posted. I couldn't read anymore. Our media is so twisted.

SACRAMENTO (CBS13/AP) ― Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California's legislative leaders agreed Monday on a plan to close the state's $26 billion budget shortfall, potentially getting the state back on firm financial ground so it can stop issuing IOUs.

The governor and leaders from both parties announced the compromise after more than five hours of closed-door talks. If the agreement survives its run through both houses of the Legislature, it would provide temporary relief to an epic fiscal crisis that has captured national attention, sunk the state's credit rating and forced deep cuts in education and social services.

Most analysts and top lawmakers expect that California will face multibillion dollar deficits into the foreseeable future as the economy struggles to recover and tax revenue lags far behind the level of the boom years.

On Monday, the focus was on balancing a state budget that had been thrown way out of whack by declining tax revenue since Schwarzenegger signed it in February during a rare emergency session of the Legislature.

Schwarzenegger and Republican lawmakers refused to raise taxes, limiting lawmakers' options. Democrats, meanwhile, had fought to preserve basic social services, including welfare, in-home support and health care for low-income children.
 
Remember you get Biden/Pelosi if you get rid of Obama... It isn't a 'do-over'...
The Dems had the same problem during the Nixon years- -how to impeach Nixon without having Agnew ending up as president. They at least had an 'OK' speaker of the house to bring up through the ranks, but do the Republicans want Nancy as president?
 
foxpaws said:
Remember you get Biden/Pelosi if you get rid of Obama... It isn't a 'do-over'...
The Dems had the same problem during the Nixon years- -how to impeach Nixon without having Agnew ending up as president. They at least had an 'OK' speaker of the house to bring up through the ranks, but do the Republicans want Nancy as president?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. That is a big question as to how do you constitutionally handle this. Is Obama de-facto impeached if he is found to not be a natural born citizen? Because if he is not a NBC, he was not legally elected, therefore the election results are invalid. So, Biden's election alongside Obama would presumably be invalid as well. So what happens at that point?
 
foxpaws said:
Remember you get Biden/Pelosi if you get rid of Obama... It isn't a 'do-over'...
The Dems had the same problem during the Nixon years- -how to impeach Nixon without having Agnew ending up as president. They at least had an 'OK' speaker of the house to bring up through the ranks, but do the Republicans want Nancy as president?
Click to expand...

The Democrats controlled the congress, had Agnew and Nixon both been impeached at the same moment, Carl Albert was the Speaker of the House- not Gerald Ford. I'm not sure I understand your point here. Ford was the minority leader, but they don't ascend to power.

If impeached, besides for the constitutional crisis, if Biden were to assume the role, Pelosi wouldn't necessarily become the VP.

But, more importantly, for the time being, those two buffoons would be far less capable of moving their progressive agenda as Obama is. They aren't as popular, polished, or scheming.
 
Ah, you're right Cal - Ford was picked and then approved by the congress...

But, I bet it would be Pelosi that would end up VP...

I think you would end up with Pelosi running the show one way or another - Biden is biddable... and Pelosi - blick

However we don't have a thing to worry about ;) ... Obama will serve at least 1 term.

The election results would stand shag, the people voted for both - Pres/VP - Biden would move up.
 
foxpaws said:
But, I bet it would be Pelosi that would end up VP...
Click to expand...

Do you really think so?
She's a woman with absolutely no national appeal, and I don't think Biden particularly would trust her. Biden would be better served, if President, to pick a "blue dog" type Democrat and then marginalize them.

However we don't have a thing to worry about ;) ... Obama will serve at least 1 term.
Click to expand...
At least.
I think he's prepared to be a one term President.
And if he won a second term, I wouldn't doubt that he may well be a third or forth term president as well.
 
I think it would be hard to repeal the 22nd... In fact, many people are for expanding the 22nd to include congress...

And congress likes Pelosi - but I can't imagine why...
 
foxpaws said:
I think it would be hard to repeal the 22nd... In fact, many people are for expanding the 22nd to include congress...

And congress likes Pelosi - but I can't imagine why...
Click to expand...

Maybe she's good at sexual favors? [edited for content]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rayner601 said:
Maybe she's good at sexual favors?
Click to expand...
40 years ago, who knows. I bet she was a party.
Now. I doubt it.

She's just from an extremely safe district and she's well funded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This Major Cook is not the first service member to bring a lawsuit against Obama, there was a LT who did the same thing but his case was thrown out. Maj Cooks order werent taken back, as a reservist who volunteers for deployment, you have the option to back out, and thats what he did.

http://www.military.com/news/article/anti-obama-gis-afghan-orders-revoked.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

I feel this guy signed up for a job, he should do it, he still has people to lead, I understand he has problems with the CIC, but he should not discuss in a work setting, he should deal with his propblem on his personal time. He is using the military to make a case, he is using the military for politics, and thats as wrong as two boys screwing.
 
Your point is valid,
but if he honestly believe that a fraud has been placed in charge of the most powerful military in history, he does have an obligation to voice his objection.

If he's disagreeing with policy, that's different.
But an issue of constitutionality is vastly different and more important. I would argue that he really does have a personal obligation to do so. You and he have sworn to defend the constitution, and that would be what he's doing.
 
Calabrio said:
But an issue of constitutionality is vastly different and more important. I would argue that he really does have a personal obligation to do so. You and he have sworn to defend the constitution, and that would be what he's doing.
Click to expand...
Ding, Ding, Ding.... We have a Winner. :D

That is EXACTLY what all of the military should be doing.

"I, lincolnx2, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

All these BC cases have been thrown out due to lack of standing, not one has been tossed due to the merits. Not one!

So who has standing? The military. And who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution? The military.

Get out there and defend the Constitution. We are under attack from an enemy from within. A usurper holds the keys to the nuclear weapons and the fate of the world.

Do your job and make this guy cough up proof of who he is. Defend America for Christ's sake.
 
MonsterMark said:
Ding, Ding, Ding.... We have a Winner. :D

That is EXACTLY what all of the military should be doing.

"I, lincolnx2, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

All these BC cases have been thrown out due to lack of standing, not one has been tossed due to the merits. Not one!

So who has standing? The military. And who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution? The military.

Get out there and defend the Constitution. We are under attack from an enemy from within. A usurper holds the keys to the nuclear weapons and the fate of the world.

Do your job and make this guy cough up proof of who he is. Defend America for Christ's sake.
Click to expand...

standing up for the constitution, or treason?
depends on your side of the fence.
 
MonsterMark said:
Ding, Ding, Ding.... We have a Winner. :D

That is EXACTLY what all of the military should be doing.

"I, lincolnx2, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Click to expand...
lincolnx2 doesn't think Obama is an enemy. How can he be? After all, he's black.
 
Everything you need to know about the Birth Certificate issue...

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report

Editors Note: In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report. Here is an unedited version of the report.

more
 
Calabrio said:
Your point is valid,
but if he honestly believe that a fraud has been placed in charge of the most powerful military in history, he does have an obligation to voice his objection.

If he's disagreeing with policy, that's different.
But an issue of constitutionality is vastly different and more important. I would argue that he really does have a personal obligation to do so. You and he have sworn to defend the constitution, and that would be what he's doing.
Click to expand...

There are different ways of handling it though, do you understand that he is destroying the military structure that has made deadliest fighting force ever. He is setting a presidence, he is saying if you dont agree with an order, you don't have to follow it. I dont agree with the war in Iraq, did I stand in protest? I think George Bush should be put on trial for "war crimes", but when my unit was deployed, I didnt allow my soldiers to hear me gripe, or complain.
He is wrong for using the military as a platform for this!
 
lincolnx2 said:
There are different ways of handling it though, do you understand that he is destroying the military structure that has made deadliest fighting force ever. He is setting a presedence, he is saying if you dont agree with an order, you don't have to follow it. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, did I stand in protest? I think George Bush should be put on trial for "war crimes", but when my unit was deployed, I didn't allow my soldiers to hear me gripe, or complain.
He is wrong for using the military as a platform for this!
Click to expand...

There is a constitutional role in this for the military as well. It is clear in the oath taken that was already pointed out here...
I__________do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)​
Now, I am not in the military, but what I have gleaned from people I know in the military is that there is a priority to those various oaths. So, above "obeying the POTUS" is "supporting and defending the Constitution". (If I am wrong the priority thing, please correct me).

If that is true, and if Obama is found to not be a natural born citizen, then the military is obligated to remove him from office if he refuses to leave (ala recent events in Honduras). Even if that priority thing is not true, the military would still be obligated to remove Obama from office if he refused to leave because he would not be the POTUS at that point.

As to the "questioning orders" thing; I cannot give you or any solider an order. Only qualified individuals (commanding officers) can do that. It is less then clear if Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be recognized in that role as Commander-in-Chief So it is a legitimate issue to bring up.
 
But shag, these soldiers aren't suppose to judge the constitutionality of Obama's right to hold the office.... That is for the courts -

By refusing to serve - they have become judge and 'jury' regarding Obama's birth certificate issue. That isn't their job. Once (and if) a judgment is handed down from the courts - then, they might be called in to remove the president - but they alone don't get to make that decision.

Unless, of course, a military coup is what you are advocating...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 119 (members: 0, guests: 119)
Back
Top