Major Stefan Frederick Cook v [et. al] (RE: Obama eligibility - Dr. Taitz)

page: 14
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Back On Topic:

In this, the latest Salvo of the neocons (following, Obama is a Muslim and the Anti-Christ)
I am left to ponder the huge WHAT IF.........(As I have an utter appreciation of the absurd)

Let's pretend: Obama is ousted and so with him goes Biden.

Doubtful of a re-election in the midst of 2 wars and a failing economy, I presume we follow protocol:



* Speaker of the House
* President Pro Tempore of the Senate
* Secretary of State
* Secretary of the Treasury
* Secretary of Defense
* Attorney General
* Secretary of the Interior
* Secretary of Agriculture
* Secretary of Commerce
* Secretary of Labor
* Secretary of Health and Human Services
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
* Secretary of Transportation
* Secretary of Energy
* Secretary of Education
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs
* Secretary of Homeland Security


wiki.answers.com...

Is that the end game? Is that the big win neocons are pushing for?

This whole Obama Bashing tantrum reminds me of:

Car drives by.
Dog chases car (barking and foaming at the mouth)
Car stops at Stop Sign.
Dog bites tire.
Car pulls away.
Dog runs home whimpering.

How about a biscuit?




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
The Major is a total nut job if he thinks this will do anything / change anything.

The Guy is crazy in the head. It's why his orders got revoked.

MSM or not, if they were going to illegitimatize any presidency it should have been Bush's second term in office that got it. The more I see threads like this and all the BS hype attached to them, the more I have to wonder at the sanity of such folks pressing the matter forward.

Even if the birth certificate myth is correct and I sincerely think it is not, do you really think they are going to remove him from office? No, they wont. Simply from the perspective of how embarrassing it would be for the country.

However, since all of this is nothing more than ultra-right/left/whatever attention mongering/propaganda from the party/(ies) that lost the election; it needs to be regulated to file 13.

So just stop already, nothing will get changed, and more than likely the Major will die, forgotten in his home/cell/street corner someplace, as he ruined his life for this malarkey.

I can't say I will feel any pity for him when he dies... but I will admit to some pity for his family; as there is no doubt in my mind he screwed them over when he made a stink about -nothing-.

He isn't a whistleblower, he isn't a hero, he's a nut job like Timothy McVeigh, the Branch Dividiots, Jim Jones and countless others.

You won't catch me drinking any Koolaid with folks who think this attack on President Obma will achieve anything.

I'm not that gullible.
M.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
quick question to insert: why do people consider saying someone (obama or anyone) is a muslim an insult? it is a religion that is believed in by millions of people. surely they don't consider it an insult, any more than people who are christiams, jews, catholics, episcopalians etc consider it an insult to be identified with their religion?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by earlywatcher
 


They use it to try and bolster their claims.

What it really does is show that they are bigots.

When people start screaming that Obama is a Muslim it just reminds me of that babbling lady at the McCain town hall meeting.



Kinda funny, McCain is also under the impression that Obama is a citizen. Strange how that is, his opponent in the campaign is telling everyone that Obama is a citizen? Wonder why he would do that if there was any question?

[edit on 7/17/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You believe mcamnesty!?
This makes me all the more suspicious.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AmericanDaughter
 


I should do a cut and paste job for these threads. I really should.

Go ahead, believe WND, believe every blog, every tidbit of bull dunk that is on the internet. Won't do you a damn bit of good.

Wanna know why?

Do you want to know why the SCOTUS refuses each and every case that is brought before it due to lack of standing?

Want to know the TRUTH?

Anyone else ever read a little document, it was written in 1776, by a group of guys that were a heliva lot smarter than you.

These guys didn't even have a typewriter, they had to write this thing out on animal skin.

Here's the TRUTH about this whole thing. Ready? The SCOTUS will NEVER hear any case brought before it concerning the POTUS. The reason is that they cannot do anything about it. YOU do not have legal standing to do diddly squat about it, and neither does the SCOTUS.

They don't. At this point in time the SCOTUS has no recourse it can do.

But who can?

Can anyone tell me what branch of the government can do something about this issue? What branch of the government could possibly hear this case, bring it to trial and in the event (however unlikely as it is) that Obama is found guilty Impeach the President?

Anyone, anyone?

That's right According to that spiffy document penned in 1776 The United States Constitution. The only people that have Legal Standing to bring charges against the President of the United States is the Legislative Branch.

Want proof?

Ill give you proof. You CAN handle the truth.

Article I Section 2 Paragraph 5


The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


And

Article I Section 3 Paragraph 6 & 7


The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.


Article III Section 2 Paragraph 3


The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.


All of you have been barking up the wrong damn tree this entire time. I tried to tell you. But did you listen? NOOOO



[edit on 7/17/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

and yet this little russian immigrant "mail order bride" is bringing this to trial with 100+ soldiers in her arms ready to file claims because the POTUS is NOT VALID TO BE POTUS! impeachment laws do not apply to him!

just like geneva codes don't apply to terrist!!




[edit on 17-7-2009 by JulieMills]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JulieMills
 


Let me inform you of what will happen to each and every one of these "soldiers" being represented by your Dentist.

Each case will be heard on the merits of what the SCOTUS can do.

None of the cases involved will amount to anything but the soldier being removed from service.

EACH AND EVERY ONE!

Mark my words.

That is all that will happen. Just as it happened before. Bring a case, the SCOTUS will say, "Sure, you want out of the military? Go right ahead, your GONE!" And that will be the last of it.

Not a single one of these cases will cause the president to be Impeached. Not one of them.

The reason is, the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction and no standing to bring forth such a case against a POTUS.

The House, on the other hand is the only legislative body that can bring forth an impeachment. NOT THE SCOTUS. (don't believe me? look it up for yourself. I have provided you with the full text of the United States Constitution.)

Your "Dr" Tiatz has no idea what is going on, and probably got her law degree out of a box of cracker jacks.

None of these cases, will ever go to trial, the reason is, the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to try an impeachment against the POTUS.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 
So you are saying that if 100+ soldiers file suit and have their orders revoked also, congress will not take action?

Do you not think that they are selfish whores that will do what will save their own ass if pushed to do so by their constiguents???

buddy you have lost any respect I may have had for you. you are wishful thinking now :lol
these people will throw their own grandma under the bus to save their narrow asses...Obama proved this during the election



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JulieMills
 



So you are saying that if 100+ soldiers file suit and have their orders revoked also, congress will not take action?


Not at all, I am saying that if every single soldier in the military brought a case before the SCOTUS about this issue the SCOTUS could not take action because of the Constitution. Congress would have nothing to do with it because no real evidence exists on the matter. Your little Russian mail order bride, could launch a thousand lawsuits in the Supreme Court and Congress would have to do nothing.


Do you not think that they are selfish whores that will do what will save their own ass if pushed to do so by their constiguents???


Actually, without any hard core evidence, the House would do nothing. Articles of Impeachment can only originate from the House of Representatives. I agree, they are selfish whores. And as selfish whores, they will do what selfish whores do.

Honestly, when is the last time you have written your representative and gotten a personal response?


buddy you have lost any respect I may have had for you. you are wishful thinking now :lol


No, what I have posted is the truth, sorry your too delusional to read the United States Constitution. Sad, but true. That's how reality works my dear.


these people will throw their own grandma under the bus to save their narrow asses...Obama proved this during the election


Absolutely correct. These people will step on their own mothers to get ahead. They will also stab each other in the backs given half a chance.

What I posted was the real way of going about things. But unfortunately your too angry at me personally to figure out that I am telling you the truth.

Put your own overinflated ego aside dear and actually read what I wrote. Then and only then you might actually get a freaking clue how the United States Government works.

Your "Savior/Dentist/Russian Mail order bride" Is barking up the wrong tree. The reason she has no clue? Is because she is completely ignorant of the law. Even basic constitutional law.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

i guess we will just wait and see what develops won't we?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JulieMills
 


Wanna wager on what happens?

Ill take a bet.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


i still want you to validate your russian mail order bride claim. you said you meant it as an insult rather than it being accurate, but why keep repeating it? why attack the attorney because you don't like the case? it's only because she is white female, blue eyed blond at that. no person "of color", or valid victim group would be insulted like that. if you're so sure of yourself, stop attacking the attorney. stick to the issue.

that's not my point though. this case isn't about impeachment. it's just a small thing really. documentation. that's all. taitz has certainly not suggested impeachment. she has mentioned that until he proves eligibility he is an impostor. yes yes i know, he doesn't have to present his long form birth certificate if he doesn't want to. rights. it's interesting though that this issue keeps gaining momentum. what would have been a small problem at the beginning is getting lots of people interested. i don't know what it would take for house to get interested. in the meantime, the courts could ask for documentation. that is within their puny power.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

Anyone else ever read a little document, it was written in 1776,


and



That's right According to that spiffy document penned in 1776 The United States Constitution.


Is that your final answer on the year in which the Constitution was written?

Didn't take your Constitutional class from Dr. Obama, did you?


One other question, not being snide but rather being serious: are you quite sure impeachment is the proper avenue for removal of an unqualified pretender to the presidency, if that were to turn out to be the case?

As sure as you are of the date of the original Constitution?

Sorry about the mixture of the snide with the serious, but that's just me. I learned from the best.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The constitution was written in 1776. It was officially ratified and became effective March 4, 1789. After revisions.


Yes I am sure that at this point the only way to remove Obama is through Impeachment.

Obama was confirmed by congress and then sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme court.

Now it would take articles of Impeachment to remove him. It's the only way.

I know it's hard for you to understand. I wish there was a 4th grader translation of the constitution so that it would be easier for you to read. But unfortunately there isn't one.

This is how the law goes I am afraid.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I know it's hard for you to understand. I wish there was a 4th grader translation of the constitution so that it would be easier for you to read. But unfortunately there isn't one.


Again, everybody understand that the courts cannot remove the President.


The courts however can rule that he does not meet the requirements of the Presidency. Then Congress can bring impeachment.

You really need to stop putting forth your lame opinion as fact because you are only proving yourself ignorant.

You keep telling everyone to read the Constitution carefully, yet your argument is nothing but your flawed opinion mixed in with some law. Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.


Just because you can read does not mean you are comprehending.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


SCOTUS can't even bring an opinion up to the House.

It doesn't work that way. They can't rule that he is not eligible for the job at this point. They already swore him in.

The House is the only place articles of impeachment can originate from.

That's why every single lawsuit will never be heard by the SCOTUS. They don't have legal standing.

[edit on 7/18/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
SCOTUS can't even bring an opinion up to the House.

They don't have to bring anything. They courts only have to do their normal activity.


The House is the only place articles of impeachment can originate from.

OMG! We know this already! You keep repeating this but this is not in dispute. Why do you not understand?

The courts can still rule that Obama does not meet the requirements to be President if evidence is brought to light which proves this. Once this happens, Congress can procede with impeachment hearing. Please tell me how this is incorrect.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 



The courts can still rule that Obama does not meet the requirements to be President if evidence is brought to light which proves this. Once this happens, Congress can procede with impeachment hearing. Please tell me how this is incorrect.


No they can't on January 19th they could have, but the moment the chief justice swore Obama in, their hands were then tied.

If evidence is brought to light at this point it must be presented to the House of Representatives. They then can start Impeachment proceedings against Obama.

The SCOTUS hands are tied at this point as far as Obama goes. It's way way too late for the SCOTUS to do anything about the issue.

[edit on 7/18/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
No they can't

Yes they can.


on January 19th they could have, but the moment the chief justice swore Obama in, their hands were then tied.

No it's not. This is what I am talking about. This statement by you is ONLY YOUR opinion and not based on anything.

Of course the courts can currently hear a case about the President meeting the requirements to be President. Why would they not be able to hear a case regarding this issue? If evidence comes to light which proves that Obama is not eligible, the courts can take the case. Once they make their ruling, Congress can start impeachment.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join