Also Folks Mr. Cook has also pointed out that Obama has a number of SS numbers and many mailing addresses. I say; all this would suggest a major money laundering operation, and he abused his power while on the CIA committee as a senator to get inside the CIA operations to set these things up. Threes a lot to be answered and all highly Illegal.
LEGAL BO BORN IN THE USA? Eligibility arguments to get court hearing
- Thread starter SassyinAZ
- Start date
Lou Dobbs poll, go vote:
http://www.loudobbsradio.com/
It's about 1/2 way down the page, right hand side.
http://www.loudobbsradio.com/
It's about 1/2 way down the page, right hand side.
Oilpatch Hand
3-Bomb General, TB2K Army
There won't be another election. Succession will occur pursuant to Section 1 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as follows:
Amendment XXV said:
In short, it's the 1974 Gerald Ford scenario all over again, except Biden was actually on the 2008 Democrat ticket (hence a duly elected and sitting Vice-President), whereas Ford was a Congressman from Michigan at the time of the 1972 election of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.
Spiro Agnew resigned under a cloud of chicanery, and Nixon, the President at the time, appointed Gerald Ford as VP, with the approval of both houses of Congress. With Nixon's resignation in August, 1974, Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency, and appointed Nelson Rockefeller as his VP.
Gerald Ford has the distinction of being the only man to hold both the office of Vice-President and President without running for either office prior to taking the Presidential oath of office in 1974. In the words of Archie Bunker, "Ford was the best President nobody ever voted for."
In this instance, if Barry Soetoro is found ineligible to hold the office of President, Drunken Joe Biden will be sworn in, and he will likely become the 44th President of the U. S., a label now worn by Barry the Boob. (If Soetoro is ineligible to serve, it will be as if his election and presidency never actually occurred.) Biden would then nominate a Vice-President, whose confirmation is subject to a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress. Biden will probably have to act retroactively to sign all the legislation and executive orders signed by Soetoro since January 20, 2009, since Soetoro was ineligible to serve as President, and his signature would have had no legal effect insofar as those matters are concerned.
Mind you...I don't really think any of this is going to happen, but if it does, that's about how it will play out.
BlueNewton
Membership Revoked
lectrickitty
Great Great Grandma!
Doesn't [FONT=Verdana,Arial]Amendment XXV Section 1 [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial]assume that a legally elected POTUS was setting and then removed from office? Would that apply to a fraudulent election? Would a fraudulent candidate for Pres mean the party was at fault including the VP?
We are looking at uncharted waters.
An emergency election could be called to replace the fraudulent election that did not produce a legal POTUS. The people were cheated out of the right to elect a legitamate POTUS, the same as if no election had been.
OR...
A temporary POTUS could be placed in position until the next legal scheduled election in 2012. A very scary thought the big P could take control of the office. That would be as bad or possibly even worse than what we have now!
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial][/FONT]
We are looking at uncharted waters.
An emergency election could be called to replace the fraudulent election that did not produce a legal POTUS. The people were cheated out of the right to elect a legitamate POTUS, the same as if no election had been.
OR...
A temporary POTUS could be placed in position until the next legal scheduled election in 2012. A very scary thought the big P could take control of the office. That would be as bad or possibly even worse than what we have now!
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial][/FONT]
I don't think so, kitty, I mean it's a given it will be argued, but the Constitution doesn't say you have to be eligible to run, it only says the process for seating a President if the one elected is found to be ineligible.
It's disturbing to type it, but the PEOPLE voting were well aware of this issue and voted anyway. The electoral process is supposed to protect the minority from the majority that have been duped. The people didn't do their jobs as citizens before voting, the electors didn't do their jobs in challenging him before they voted, then the House and Senate didn't challenge him either, they just confirmed the votes.
I don't think you can call the election itself fraudulent, well except for all those bogus ACORN votes but those went unchallenged as well (shame on Juan), but, it was the people themselves that brought this on.
The DNC won't escape, but I think it would be hard to prove fraud or a conspiracy at their hands, BO though, is another matter.
I do find it hard to believe that someone somewhere didn't know.
Having said that, I'm not at all convinced that his supporters (or a majority of them anyway) care one yot whether he is eligible to be POTUS or not, nor do they know the difference between a democracy and a republic.
I'm not opposed to a special election, just that I'm not sure that would be the best thing given the environment it would have to occur in.
It's disturbing to type it, but the PEOPLE voting were well aware of this issue and voted anyway. The electoral process is supposed to protect the minority from the majority that have been duped. The people didn't do their jobs as citizens before voting, the electors didn't do their jobs in challenging him before they voted, then the House and Senate didn't challenge him either, they just confirmed the votes.
I don't think you can call the election itself fraudulent, well except for all those bogus ACORN votes but those went unchallenged as well (shame on Juan), but, it was the people themselves that brought this on.
The DNC won't escape, but I think it would be hard to prove fraud or a conspiracy at their hands, BO though, is another matter.
I do find it hard to believe that someone somewhere didn't know.
Having said that, I'm not at all convinced that his supporters (or a majority of them anyway) care one yot whether he is eligible to be POTUS or not, nor do they know the difference between a democracy and a republic.
I'm not opposed to a special election, just that I'm not sure that would be the best thing given the environment it would have to occur in.
Oilpatch Hand
3-Bomb General, TB2K Army
Naaaah. No "do-overs" in presidential elections...it's just not feasible.
Besides, Drunken Joe Biden was legally elected VP, and he fulfills all the requirements for both President and VP. If Barry the Boob has to go, Biden is the man, and he appoints a replacement VP.
It might be nice to have a "mulligan' on this last election, considering the President we got kinda sucks out loud, but they don't do it that way. Instead, we apply the 25th Amendment.
Oilpatch Hand
3-Bomb General, TB2K Army
Ya never know 'patch. The .gov today doesn't seem to know what the first 10 amendments are, let alone the 25th...
I suppose you do have a point.
Northern Scout
Contributing Member
He will be removed when TPTB decide it is the oportune time, when chaos is about to peak, and it is decided that they are ready to put in the final death nail in the coffin of our nation to make way for the instalation of a global union. Until that time the issue will continue to simmer and escalate among the people so we are ready to tear ourselves apart when the time comes.
Copter Doctor
Inactive
What if????
What if all the other solders, airmen, sailors and marines who were scheduled to deploy entered into a class action suit, a la Major Cook's. Would the DOD revoke their orders too. This may get very interesting....
Jarhead
You bet. That's my thought as well. VERY interesting. Would LOVE to see it happen, too.
mt4design
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Ya never know 'patch. The .gov today doesn't seem to know what the first 10 amendments are, let alone the 25th...
sysman, that's so fricken' true and sad but I still laughed out loud.
Question: Isn't this Major's job PROTECTED from such action by his employer because he was in the reserves?
Also, wouldn't his job also be protected as a possible "Whistle Blower"?
Mike
TECH32
Veteran Member
Now that Lou Dobbs is on it, maybe we'll get some answers...
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=338132
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=338132
Sassy;
Thank you for some clear and informative posts. You're one of the few who seem to grasp the issue.
More amazingly stupid language in their argument:
Then they claim the act of revoking his orders has "removed the threat" (the "if it ever were" disclaimer on the end looks suddenly very feeble).
What this looks like, to me, is "defense on auto-pilot" still trying to keep this away from a judge on the basis of standing.
But, and I think you said this too, what they have actually done may well serve to make the matter of standing "moot". By acting as they did, to revoke his orders, they have set a precedent which raises the stakes where the "good of the public" is concerned, and that makes it even more likely a judge will exercise his own "discretionary jurisdiction", and proceed with hearing evidence.
I certainly hope a judge went home last night, took a LONG LOOK in the mirror, and grew a pair.
Fred
PS To all the DGI's re. the case:
No, there won't be another election. Biden becomes President. Then he'll simply "re-sign" anything he likes, let fall what he doesn't, and go on his way.
PPS: If the Republicans has run Ron Paul instead, we wouldn't be in this fix, and I'd be a Republican again. :d
Thank you for some clear and informative posts. You're one of the few who seem to grasp the issue.
More amazingly stupid language in their argument:
his classification as a "de jure war criminal," not entitled to the protections of international law, is no longer an actual or imminent threat (if it ever were),
First they actually did it; revoked his orders.Then they claim the act of revoking his orders has "removed the threat" (the "if it ever were" disclaimer on the end looks suddenly very feeble).
What this looks like, to me, is "defense on auto-pilot" still trying to keep this away from a judge on the basis of standing.
But, and I think you said this too, what they have actually done may well serve to make the matter of standing "moot". By acting as they did, to revoke his orders, they have set a precedent which raises the stakes where the "good of the public" is concerned, and that makes it even more likely a judge will exercise his own "discretionary jurisdiction", and proceed with hearing evidence.
I certainly hope a judge went home last night, took a LONG LOOK in the mirror, and grew a pair.
Fred
PS To all the DGI's re. the case:
No, there won't be another election. Biden becomes President. Then he'll simply "re-sign" anything he likes, let fall what he doesn't, and go on his way.
PPS: If the Republicans has run Ron Paul instead, we wouldn't be in this fix, and I'd be a Republican again. :d
There's not been an blog updates yet, curious on what the Major's attorney has to say and the status of the other 2 officers that joined.
But, there is this:
Pathetic!
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/292/v-print/story/779031.html
Since I've been lurking and then became a member on this board, the question of whether the military would be against the people or support the people has been asked at least a hundred different ways, I don't think there is a need to wonder anymore.
But, there is this:
Pathetic!
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/292/v-print/story/779031.html
Since I've been lurking and then became a member on this board, the question of whether the military would be against the people or support the people has been asked at least a hundred different ways, I don't think there is a need to wonder anymore.
It's working too, MissTina!
Interesting that despite how this is being spinned, it was NOT dismissed for lack of standing.
This case or similiar cases isn't going to go away.
Related thread here (just wanted this one to be updated): http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=338161
Interesting that despite how this is being spinned, it was NOT dismissed for lack of standing.
This case or similiar cases isn't going to go away.
Related thread here (just wanted this one to be updated): http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=338161
Flippper
Time Traveler
The birth certificate is a red herring and moot.
He is disqualified to serve as POTUS because his father was a citizen of Kenya. Period. On those grounds alone the Kenyan should not be in the White House. People forget.
The BC issue is a set up. They will miraculously find a "real" and "genuine" BC that says he was born here and everyone will mistakenly shut up and assume he's filled the requirements. No one will bring up the father's citizenship and push the obvious disqualifier. Are Taitz and Berg really working for the Kenyan after all? The liberal communists are famous for their disinformation specialists and dirty games.
He is disqualified to serve as POTUS because his father was a citizen of Kenya. Period. On those grounds alone the Kenyan should not be in the White House. People forget.
The BC issue is a set up. They will miraculously find a "real" and "genuine" BC that says he was born here and everyone will mistakenly shut up and assume he's filled the requirements. No one will bring up the father's citizenship and push the obvious disqualifier. Are Taitz and Berg really working for the Kenyan after all? The liberal communists are famous for their disinformation specialists and dirty games.
No, not me. I've always said it is going to take a combination of documents for BO, he knows it too, that's why he's blocked access to all documentation instead of just his BC.
But, you're right, the rest will say, certainly the MSM, STFU now, like he said, he was born in Hawaii -- starting with our own members who've already said if it was on every billboard across the Country we'd still not believe it.
I think that was a mistake in the pleading requesting specifically the long form BC, instead they should just request verification that he meets the eligibility requirements. So, with this case, had it gone forward, it could have played out just like you said.
I don't want to believe that Taitz and Berg are working for BO, I'd like to think there really are a few Patriots left, especially amongst those they are representing, but I'm not about to deny anything either. There's lots of things I don't want to believe happening in my face everyday.
But, you're right, the rest will say, certainly the MSM, STFU now, like he said, he was born in Hawaii -- starting with our own members who've already said if it was on every billboard across the Country we'd still not believe it.
I think that was a mistake in the pleading requesting specifically the long form BC, instead they should just request verification that he meets the eligibility requirements. So, with this case, had it gone forward, it could have played out just like you said.
I don't want to believe that Taitz and Berg are working for BO, I'd like to think there really are a few Patriots left, especially amongst those they are representing, but I'm not about to deny anything either. There's lots of things I don't want to believe happening in my face everyday.
I'm not sure I follow you there, Sassy. With the order to report came the proof of "injury" hence standing to file the suit.
From the story on RageNoMore's thread:
From my reading of the old Berg case, "subject matter jurisdiction", is precisely the language used in re. to "standing". The complete "logic" of the argument being that:
- Since the plaintiff cannot show direct "injury",
- Then they no longer have "standing" with which to file suit,
- Therefore, the judge no longer has "subject matter jurisdiction", and
- May not hear evidence in the case.
I agree, and hope so, but the lawyer in this case now has an answer to the rhetorical question they asked the other day: "Am I going to have to rush all over the country filing suit for each order?" (paraphrased slightly) It looks like the answer, thanks to an endless line of cowardly judges, is "YES". It may end up speeding the process along though in the end, even if all the publicity is negative.
________________________________________
You point out something which seems to happen a lot. It has to do with people "forgetting" who they are, or not taking notice when their status changes.
A prime example of this is the term "My Commander In Chief". The term really has two distinct meanings.
1. "my Commander In Chief": "My boss whom I obey without hesitation."
2. "MY Commander In Chief": As in, "My car keys. My shoes. My employee."
Everyone in the armed forces gets #1 drilled in their head, a lot. Most who've served have seen many situations where the practicality of it has proven itself, in goals accomplished, and lives saved.
Where a potential problem arises is that once service is over, He is NO longer "my Commander In Chief" but "MY Commander In Chief"! doesn't always "sink in".
As a sovereign citizen government draws its authority from you. No one in govt has any inherent authority whatsoever. The authority "loaned" them only comes by taking, and upholding, an oath to protect the agreement which grants them same. Powers, limitations, and all!
One hears, "Once a Marine, always a Marine", quite a bit. It would be comforting to hear, "Once a Sovereign Citizen, always a Sovereign Citizen", just as often.
Oilpatch Hand
3-Bomb General, TB2K Army
Flippper said:
Right you are, Flippper. Barry the Boob might well have been born in Hawaii, as he says, but it doesn't matter, since the question is whether a person born with dual citizenship can actually fulfill the requirement of being a "natural born citizen," or one who has no potential for conflicting loyalties. While it would be useful for historical purposes to know whether in fact Barry was born, as he says, in Hawaii, it's really a side issue.
Some people think being a "natural born citizen" depends on where you were born, but that really ain't so. It's more a matter of what citizenships you inherited from your parents, irrespective of where you were born. For instance, if you were born to two parents, both of whom are American citizens, no matter where in the world your birth occurs, you are a natural born citizen. You have one citizenship, one nationality, one natural loyalty.
However, if what Barry Soetoro tells us is true, that his father was in fact Barack H. Obama, Sr., from the British Crown Colony of Kenya, in 1961, then Barry is a dual citizen and not natural born, because he would have inherited British citizenship from his father under the applicable statute at the time, the British Nationality Act of 1948.
We don't even have to deal with the "Framers' Exception" to Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, because clearly, Barry Soetoro was not alive at the adoption thereof. But the fact that the Framers made an exception in Article II, Section 1, to permit some among themselves to serve as President indicates that they knew there was a difference between themselves, as dual citizens (subjects of the British Crown by birth, American citizens by right of conquest), and "natural born citizens," which they envisioned the Presidents of subsequent generations to be.
If James Madison was alive today, he'd be saying, "This is the very situation we feared. Why are you permitting a man who has dual citizenship to serve as your President? This guy wasn't alive at the adoption of the Constitution, hence, he's not eligible for the Framers' exception. Besides...given the antipathy we Framers had for the British Crown, we are mightily displeased that your President was born a British subject. We fought the British in the American Revolution, remember? Most of our foreign policy for 125 years after that little fracas was oriented toward limiting British influence in the Western Hemisphere. And now you make this doofus your President? Please. How stupid have you people become, anyway?
"You should be taking steps to remove this usurper. Now. "
NICE job of channeling Madison, Oilpatch Hand!
Except, I doubt he'd have been that polite. We are SO screwed.
Summerthyme
Except, I doubt he'd have been that polite. We are SO screwed.
Summerthyme
oh Fred, my apologies, I just meant the Judge is using one point of law to nullify another without having to address the validity of the plea, because they can't exercise jurisdiction over something that doesn't exist.
Mostly it was addressing the MSM spin that shouldn't surprise me by now, that the kook-birther challenges BO's eligibility and the Court dismisses the case, when really the case wasn't dismissed because he was a kook-birther, it was never addressed.
All fine points you make and I don't disagree with any of them but so far as we know they only apply to the DoD's Motion to Dismiss (obviously granted), nothing has been said about the Injunction, the enjoining of the other 2 officers (without deployment orders and likely to never get them) as well as the request for protection and relief from retaliation under the Federal and Military Whisteblowing Statutes.
The Major has new damages and they can be definitively calculated, the 2 officers enjoining don't have standing or jurisdiction in Georgia (this was only filed in Georgia because that was where the Major was to deploy from, he is a resident of Florida) and no one has yet addressed the retaliation and requests for protection and relief.
I don't think the fat lady has sung yet, there's more to this story, it's just not out there yet, and that makes me think it could be good stuff.
Mostly it was addressing the MSM spin that shouldn't surprise me by now, that the kook-birther challenges BO's eligibility and the Court dismisses the case, when really the case wasn't dismissed because he was a kook-birther, it was never addressed.
All fine points you make and I don't disagree with any of them but so far as we know they only apply to the DoD's Motion to Dismiss (obviously granted), nothing has been said about the Injunction, the enjoining of the other 2 officers (without deployment orders and likely to never get them) as well as the request for protection and relief from retaliation under the Federal and Military Whisteblowing Statutes.
The Major has new damages and they can be definitively calculated, the 2 officers enjoining don't have standing or jurisdiction in Georgia (this was only filed in Georgia because that was where the Major was to deploy from, he is a resident of Florida) and no one has yet addressed the retaliation and requests for protection and relief.
I don't think the fat lady has sung yet, there's more to this story, it's just not out there yet, and that makes me think it could be good stuff.
No it isn't, Fred, nodding! The threads and postings on the case and Major at that site are scarier yet.
If anyone wanted to seriously pursue this issue, they need to get it into the MSM somehow that there was and is no vetting, that there must have been is an an erroneous assumption on wee the people's part.
Here's the WND update, more at the link, I just copied what was new, they'll be re-filing in Florida.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104208
If anyone wanted to seriously pursue this issue, they need to get it into the MSM somehow that there was and is no vetting, that there must have been is an an erroneous assumption on wee the people's part.
Here's the WND update, more at the link, I just copied what was new, they'll be re-filing in Florida.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104208