PDA

View Full Version : There is no opposition to Obama




nonpartisan
04-01-2010, 07:52 AM
If there Was any Real opposition to HC takeover, amnesty to intruders, and the schredding of the Constitution,

more people would be demanding Mr Soetoro to show his birth certificate.

Proof 0bama is hiding something big... a executive order to hide his past.

C4L is a joke, doing nothing to stop 0bama.

Mahkato
04-01-2010, 07:53 AM
And if Mr. Obama were removed from office, how exactly would that accomplish anything?

nonpartisan
04-01-2010, 07:54 AM
oh yea,
LOL @ the OathKeepers.

"Not on our watch". Everyone must be sleeping.

Bman
04-01-2010, 07:59 AM
He has shown his birth certificate. Sorry it's not the gold plated, stamped by god version you are looking for but if you've come here to beat dead horses and insult groups for not going on witch hunts, or becoming violent you've come to the wrong place.

wizardwatson
04-01-2010, 08:01 AM
oh yea,
LOL @ the OathKeepers.

"Not on our watch". Everyone must be sleeping.

I think you misunderstand the Oathkeepers. Oathkeepers are people who vow that they themselves will not violate the Constitution. Meaning they will not violate the oath they took.

The problem isn't that the Oathkeepers aren't doing anything about Obama. The problem is that Obama is not an Oathkeeper.

nonpartisan
04-01-2010, 08:02 AM
And if Mr. Obama were removed from office, how exactly would that accomplish anything?

That almost makes it sound like it's OK to have a usurper in the White House.
btw, no proof he changed his name from Barry Soetoro.

It would stop his radical agenda to fundamentally transform our nation into socialism/communism/marxism.
Maybe, expose the CFR's stranglehold on the two major parties.
The globalists are winning, it's about time for a new flag.

Chester Copperpot
04-01-2010, 08:04 AM
That almost makes it sound like it's OK to have a usurper in the White House.
btw, no proof he changed his name from Barry Soetoro.

It would stop his radical agenda to fundamentally transform our nation into socialism/communism/marxism.
Maybe, expose the CFR's stranglehold on the two major parties.
The globalists are winning, it's about time for a new flag.

The real usurpers do not live in the white house.. They live down the road at the federal reserve...

nonpartisan
04-01-2010, 08:08 AM
He has shown his birth certificate. Sorry it's not the gold plated, stamped by god version you are looking for but if you've come here to beat dead horses and insult groups for not going on witch hunts, or becoming violent you've come to the wrong place.

Take an image of a photo copy of a printout to DMV, and see if that works for you.

Show me one with the Dr's signature and name of hospital.

Bman
04-01-2010, 08:12 AM
Take an image of a photo copy of a printout to DMV, and see if that works for you.

Show me one with the Dr's signature and name of hospital.

Obviously you have proof that he is lying. That means the burden is on you.
Innocent until proven guilty.

Welcome to America. Show me your proof and I may be inclined to search for a birth certificate in Hawaii.

Fozz
04-01-2010, 08:13 AM
If there Was any Real opposition to HC takeover, amnesty to intruders, and the schredding of the Constitution,

more people would be demanding Mr Soetoro to show his birth certificate.

Proof 0bama is hiding something big... a executive order to hide his past.

C4L is a joke, doing nothing to stop 0bama.

You are a kook. STFU.

wizardwatson
04-01-2010, 08:15 AM
Take an image of a photo copy of a printout to DMV, and see if that works for you.

Show me one with the Dr's signature and name of hospital.

Who cares if Obama is from Kenya, Hawaii, or Sirius B. It's his blatant violation of 'everything' in the Constitution that is the problem. Violating the citizenship requirement, even if it were true, is way down on the totem pole of things that are wrong with what he's doing.

And whoever thinks a viable strategy includes getting a court to throw out a sitting president based on shaky evidence that he's operating under a false birth certificate, is smoking better drugs than me.

noxagol
04-01-2010, 08:15 AM
People who attack Obama and his birth certificate make me laugh. Do you people really believe that if Obama is ejected because of that, that the next guy will actually be better? If history has taught us anything, its that almost always the next president is worse than the last one.

sevin
04-01-2010, 08:28 AM
If there Was any Real opposition to HC takeover, amnesty to intruders, and the schredding of the Constitution,

more people would be demanding Mr Soetoro to show his birth certificate.

Proof 0bama is hiding something big... a executive order to hide his past.

C4L is a joke, doing nothing to stop 0bama.

http://protos.dk/public/pictures/forumgfx/go_away_noob.jpg

AlexMerced
04-01-2010, 08:42 AM
People who attack Obama and his birth certificate make me laugh. Do you people really believe that if Obama is ejected because of that, that the next guy will actually be better? If history has taught us anything, its that almost always the next president is worse than the last one.

I agree, Obama isn't the problem it's the Keynsian/Collectivist/Marxist logic that permeates this society, Obama is only empowered cause whter we like it or not the majority of VOTERS do think like him, changing the way VOTERS think and WHO VOTES will do more to actually change the course of history than just dethroning the guy without addressing the holes in his logical framework.

Carole
04-01-2010, 09:49 AM
Order of Presidential Succession
According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, the Senate president pro tempore1 was next in line after the vice president to succeed to the presidency, followed by the Speaker of the House.

In 1886, however, Congress changed the order of presidential succession, replacing the president pro tempore and the Speaker with the cabinet officers. Proponents of this change argued that the congressional leaders lacked executive experience, and none had served as president, while six former secretaries of state had later been elected to that office.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, signed by President Harry Truman, changed the order again to what it is today. The cabinet members are ordered in the line of succession according to the date their offices were established.

Prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, there was no provision for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. When a president died in office, the vice president succeeded him, and the vice presidency then remained vacant. The first vice president to take office under the new procedure was Gerald Ford, who was nominated by Nixon on Oct. 12, 1973, and confirmed by Congress the following Dec. 6.

•The Vice President Joseph Biden
•Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
•President pro tempore of the Senate1 Robert Byrd
•Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
•Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner
•Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
•Attorney General Eric Holder
•Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
•Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
•Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke
•Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis
•Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
•Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan
•Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood
•Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu
•Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
•Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki
•Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano

NOTE: An official cannot succeed to the Presidency unless that person meets the Constitutional requirements.

1. The president pro tempore presides over the Senate when the vice president is absent. The president pro tempore is elected by the Senate, but by tradition the position is held by the senior member of the majority party.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html

We're done.:D :rolleyes:

Stary Hickory
04-01-2010, 10:22 AM
He has shown his birth certificate. Sorry it's not the gold plated, stamped by god version you are looking for but if you've come here to beat dead horses and insult groups for not going on witch hunts, or becoming violent you've come to the wrong place.


He has not shown anything. Lets not pretend he has. He and everyone else knows how easy it would be and would have been to solve this issue. He has chosen not to do this. Why? Who knows maybe he likes to keep the skeptics out there. Or maybe he has something to hide, no one can know until he takes the obvious steps to put the issue to rest.

sratiug
04-01-2010, 10:37 AM
He has not shown anything. Lets not pretend he has. He and everyone else knows how easy it would be and would have been to solve this issue. He has chosen not to do this. Why? Who knows maybe he likes to keep the skeptics out there. Or maybe he has something to hide, no one can know until he takes the obvious steps to put the issue to rest.

+1.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-01-2010, 11:02 AM
And if Mr. Obama were removed from office, how exactly would that accomplish anything?

Yes. There is no alternative to president Obama other than an alternate party that is going to legislate even more, administer even more, and judicate even more. The intentons of establishing "a more perfect union" was supposed to move the spot light away from legal precedence, the three part "necessary tyranny" our Founding Fathers established to serve, in order so it would shine on the people's Civil Purpose.

Acala
04-01-2010, 11:11 AM
Who cares if Obama is from Kenya, Hawaii, or Sirius B. It's his blatant violation of 'everything' in the Constitution that is the problem. Violating the citizenship requirement, even if it were true, is way down on the totem pole of things that are wrong with what he's doing.

And whoever thinks a viable strategy includes getting a court to throw out a sitting president based on shaky evidence that he's operating under a false birth certificate, is smoking better drugs than me.

This^

There is a deliberate and widespread effort to focus hostile public attention on Obama the individual rather than on the policies of his administration. The reason: the Republicans intend to replace Obama with a Republican who will follow the same policies. If the public gets focused on the Obama policies, it will be harder for the next guy to follow the same policies. But if you make Obama himself the issue then there will be no problem with the next puppet following the same policies.

It's a trick.

sofia
04-01-2010, 11:15 AM
Obviously you have proof that he is lying. That means the burden is on you.
Innocent until proven guilty.

Welcome to America. Show me your proof and I may be inclined to search for a birth certificate in Hawaii.

circular reasoning


..how the hell are we supposed to "prove him guilty" if he refuses to release the original birth certificate???? Thats the whole point.

According to your logic, I should be able to get a job based on the claim that I graduated first in my class at MIT. When my prospective employer asks me for the transcripts....can I say..."I'm innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on you"...

please...you arent making any sense here. We the people are Obama's boss...anbd as his boss, I want to see if he is born here or not.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-01-2010, 11:34 AM
He has not shown anything. Lets not pretend he has. He and everyone else knows how easy it would be and would have been to solve this issue. He has chosen not to do this. Why? Who knows maybe he likes to keep the skeptics out there. Or maybe he has something to hide, no one can know until he takes the obvious steps to put the issue to rest.

As the fountainhead legislating the authority establishing the U.S. government poured forth primarily from the New Covenant, with this being the lone commandment given to the prostitute, to the slaves, and to the multitude by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul was later necessary as the chosen vessel to interpret it. He then administered the New Covenant as the New Testament by focussing on the Lord's crucifixion and resurrection (this is why his writings aren't considered part of the four gospels).
In contrast, as they were weaker vessels needing help, our Founding Fathers convened in fellowship to justly found a new nation on self evident (this being the linguistic explanation of it) truths and unalienable (this being the evidence of it) natural rights. These truths and natural rights in turn reduced to become a political Truth.
Without the light from the New Covenant, all legal precedence, with this being the legislating, the administering, and the judicating of laws, is blind to this Truth. The New Covenant exposes the people's natural right as their Civil Purpose. This is why Civil Purpose supercedes all legal precedence.
As civil rights are only guaranteed by legal precedence, they are poorly guaranteed in comparison to our natural rights as such literally reduce down like DnA on the physical level.
The natural law established by our Founding Fathers is unique. While they claimed that the cruel reality they observed directly with their senses was deceitful, they also declared that a Truth they perceived in the deep theoretical existed in every soul, or what is now referred to as the conscience, or what many like to refer to as the heart.

ARealConservative
04-01-2010, 11:50 AM
He has not shown anything. Lets not pretend he has. He and everyone else knows how easy it would be and would have been to solve this issue. He has chosen not to do this. Why? Who knows maybe he likes to keep the skeptics out there. Or maybe he has something to hide, no one can know until he takes the obvious steps to put the issue to rest.

The state of his supposed birth has stepped forward claiming he is in fact a citizen.

that's the ball game right there.

sratiug
04-01-2010, 12:16 PM
The state of his supposed birth has stepped forward claiming he is in fact a citizen.

that's the ball game right there.

Don't you mean a couple of individuals in the state have made claims, but refused to back up those claims with any evidence, making those claims actually illegal?

AlexMerced
04-01-2010, 12:25 PM
circular reasoning


..how the hell are we supposed to "prove him guilty" if he refuses to release the original birth certificate???? Thats the whole point.

According to your logic, I should be able to get a job based on the claim that I graduated first in my class at MIT. When my prospective employer asks me for the transcripts....can I say..."I'm innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on you"...

please...you arent making any sense here. We the people are Obama's boss...anbd as his boss, I want to see if he is born here or not.

Actually... yeah, you don't have to volutarily give up proof to a potential employer, but equally they don't have to employ you, but they can't call you a liar without proof.

Plus, not forcing people to incriminate themselves is the purpose of the 5th amendment, and even if he wasn't born in the US the voters for the most part agree with is ideaology and policies, and as long as they agree with it, he doesn't really matter.

ARealConservative
04-01-2010, 12:47 PM
Don't you mean a couple of individuals in the state have made claims, but refused to back up those claims with any evidence, making those claims actually illegal?

Why would those individuals feel compelled to answer to you?

They claim him as a citizen of their state. That is all we should need, unless you are looking for some ultra draconian policy of enforcing a persons citizenship status at the time of birth.

I don't get what the birthers are after. They need to see a piece of paper created by the hand of fallible man to prove what exactly?

Stary Hickory
04-01-2010, 12:51 PM
Why would those individuals feel compelled to answer to you?

They claim him as a citizen of their state. That is all we should need, unless you are looking for some ultra draconian policy of enforcing a persons citizenship status at the time of birth.

I don't get what the birthers are after. They need to see a piece of paper created by the hand of fallible man to prove what exactly?

Oh good grief just show the piece of paper already. This is ridiculous, stop making excuses. Even McCain did this and his background was much more open. You cannot defend this without sounding absurd. One little piece of paper solves the entire thing.

I grow weary of how ridiculous this is. This man is POTUS. A qualification is to be a citizen at birth. A piece of paper proves this, so present the piece of paper.....is it so hard?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-01-2010, 01:09 PM
Actually... yeah, you don't have to volutarily give up proof to a potential employer, but equally they don't have to employ you, but they can't call you a liar without proof.

Plus, not forcing people to incriminate themselves is the purpose of the 5th amendment, and even if he wasn't born in the US the voters for the most part agree with is ideaology and policies, and as long as they agree with it, he doesn't really matter.

The people of America were not justifiably divorced from tyranny by the use of logic or our new nation established by the use of it. The use of logic had temporarily fallen by the wayside during the time of our Founding Fathers. Natural law, the scientific method in use during their time, was based more of Plato's best-principled "Theory of the Forms."
Besides, most Americans are just too busy to think logically. So, we need to be empowered by being envisioned.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-01-2010, 01:14 PM
Oh good grief just show the piece of paper already. This is ridiculous, stop making excuses. Even McCain did this and his background was much more open. You cannot defend this without sounding absurd. One little piece of paper solves the entire thing.

I grow weary of how ridiculous this is. This man is POTUS. A qualification is to be a citizen at birth. A piece of paper proves this, so present the piece of paper.....is it so hard?

If legal precedence has determined that it is illegal for an illegal alien to be legally charged for something because he or she is illegally here, then what makes you think legal precedence is going to care whether Obama is legal? We have to stop thinking in terms of civil rights as those are only as good as the integrity of those legislating, administering, and judicating the laws. Legal precedence is only as efficient as the amount of light shining upon it.

sevin
04-01-2010, 01:23 PM
http://discussion.l-word.com/images/smiles/yawn.gif

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-01-2010, 01:24 PM
Why would those individuals feel compelled to answer to you?

They claim him as a citizen of their state. That is all we should need, unless you are looking for some ultra draconian policy of enforcing a persons citizenship status at the time of birth.

I don't get what the birthers are after. They need to see a piece of paper created by the hand of fallible man to prove what exactly?

What was the intent in the law? To avoid having a tyrant rule by abolishing Congress and the Supreme court while also banishing the Constitution. In other words, we as United States citizens have adopted a higher, formal culture that needs protection from the savage, primitive cultures outside of our borders.

ARealConservative
04-01-2010, 01:25 PM
Oh good grief just show the piece of paper already. This is ridiculous, stop making excuses. Even McCain did this and his background was much more open. You cannot defend this without sounding absurd. One little piece of paper solves the entire thing.

I grow weary of how ridiculous this is. This man is POTUS. A qualification is to be a citizen at birth. A piece of paper proves this, so present the piece of paper.....is it so hard?


Stop acting like a retard. He has been in office for over a year. The state of his residence is comfortable with his residency status. He will remain POTUS until he is replaced via election, not via court order.

M House
04-01-2010, 01:26 PM
Have no fear my dad is fighting him at every turn, by watching Glenn Beck religiously.

DapperDan
04-01-2010, 01:27 PM
He will remain in office unless he gets impeached....which is unlikely.

The crooks are the Federal Reserve, and all his buddies that he surrounds himself with.....oh and don't forget Congress. The man isn't the one pulling the strings.

sratiug
04-01-2010, 01:30 PM
Why would those individuals feel compelled to answer to you?

They claim him as a citizen of their state. That is all we should need, unless you are looking for some ultra draconian policy of enforcing a persons citizenship status at the time of birth.

I don't get what the birthers are after. They need to see a piece of paper created by the hand of fallible man to prove what exactly?

Because it is against the state laws of Hawaii for them to make these claims. They must release their evidence under their own freedom of information laws if they make such claims and they have not, so they are breaking their own laws and their statements have zero validity.

AlexMerced
04-01-2010, 01:36 PM
ok, whatever, do what makes you happy, I'm gonna continue teaching the austrian business cycle to anyone who'll listen.

ARealConservative
04-01-2010, 01:37 PM
Because it is against the state laws of Hawaii for them to make these claims. They must release their evidence under their own freedom of information laws if they make such claims and they have not, so they are breaking their own laws and their statements have zero validity.

Hawaii has a law preventing people from making claims?

:rolleyes:

you know how ridiculous that sounds

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-01-2010, 02:30 PM
ok, whatever, do what makes you happy, I'm gonna continue teaching the austrian business cycle to anyone who'll listen.

Our nation's economy is based on the Truth which is its social agenda.

Bruno
04-01-2010, 02:47 PM
For anyone who doesn't feel that it is an issue whether Obama was constitutionally eligible to become president, realize that if as a country we didn't care about that ("He got elected by a majority of voters, so what, move along, other things to worry about...") then not only could have other non-natural born citizens run against him, but also other non-natural born citizens could in the future.

Arnold? Soros? Who else do we open it up to in 2012? I mean, if its not an issue for the majority of Americans, then the playing field is much more open.

sratiug
04-01-2010, 02:56 PM
Hawaii has a law preventing people from making claims?

:rolleyes:

you know how ridiculous that sounds

A law preventing state officials from proclaiming whatever they want without backing it up with evidence upon request.

AlexMerced
04-01-2010, 03:03 PM
For anyone who doesn't feel that it is an issue whether Obama was constitutionally eligible to become president, realize that if as a country we didn't care about that ("He got elected by a majority of voters, so what, move along, other things to worry about...") then not only could have other non-natural born citizens run against him, but also other non-natural born citizens could in the future.

Arnold? Soros? Who else do we open it up to in 2012? I mean, if its not an issue for the majority of Americans, then the playing field is much more open.

That wouldn't matter if people believed in free markets and liberty cause if they ran, they'd lose, I mean I wouldn't mind Ludwig Von Mises or Jorg Guido Hulsmann as our president cause they understand liberty. I vote based on ideas not based on birth

Bruno
04-01-2010, 03:07 PM
That wouldn't matter if people believed in free markets and liberty cause if they ran, they'd lose, I mean I wouldn't mind Ludwig Von Mises or Jorg Guido Hulsmann as our president cause they understand liberty. I vote based on ideas not based on birth

True, and I could agree with that, we'd just need to change our U.S. Constitution first.

AlexMerced
04-01-2010, 03:08 PM
True, and I could agree with that, we'd just need to change our U.S. Constitution first.

agreed

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-02-2010, 11:44 AM
That wouldn't matter if people believed in free markets and liberty cause if they ran, they'd lose, I mean I wouldn't mind Ludwig Von Mises or Jorg Guido Hulsmann as our president cause they understand liberty. I vote based on ideas not based on birth

1. Once a small company becomes a major corporation, it starts acting similar to a corrupt government.
2. The insurance industry arose from a scheme devised to protect tyranny during their many colonial conquests to exploit the resources of precious minerals and spices of foreign lands.
3. Some companies simply have to be regulated by the state.
4. As Social Security has by way of legal precedence become a corruption against the will of this nation's posteriety and its Civil Purpose, so are certain industries assured of making a steady profit from the scheme, namely the pharmaceutical industry.
. . . and so on.
As the social agenda of our Founding Fathers was to establish a three part necessary tyranny to serve the people, as legal precedence is meant to serve the people's Civil Purpose, this implies government regulation in favor of the people.
For the sake of the people's Civil Purpose, we should start thinking in terms of solving problems with the creation of small businesses on the intimate local level. This is in stark contrast to problems caused by major corporations that lobby promiscously against the people on the Federal level.