C: "Bush will be president until he dies"

[bltay]

Well, to throw more confusion into the mix:

Bill Clinton was impeached... so why was he not evicted?

If I recall, Congress voted to symbolically to impeach Billy-Boy
as if to send a message of disapproval (slap on the hands that
got into the cookie jar), but not to evict him from office?

Perhaps this will help clarify that situation:

US Supreme Court: Impeachment
Top
Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > US Supreme Court

Is the procedure by which “the President, Vice President, and all other civil officers of the United States,” including members of the federal judiciary, can be removed from office if guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Articles of impeachment, or accusations of misconduct, are drafted in the House of Representatives and approved by majority vote; the trial is before the Senate, with a two‐thirds vote needed for conviction. In cases of presidential impeachment, the trial is presided over by the chief justice. Conviction in a case of impeachment can result only in removal from office and disqualification from holding office in future, but does not prevent the guilty party from being held further accountable in regular courts of law. Finally, the presidential pardoning power does not extend to individuals convicted in cases of impeachment.

_http://www.answers.com/topic/impeachment

and:

Impeachment of Bill Clinton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presiding. The House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president's personal counsel on the right.

Bill Clinton, President of the United States was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones law suit. The trial proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 55 senators voted not guilty, and 45 voted guilty on the perjury charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of obstruction, with 50 votes cast as not guilty, and 50 votes as guilty.[1] It was only the second impeachment of a President in American history, following the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Bill Clinton was 'indicted', then 'acquitted' at trial. What a shock that was

If (1), (2), and/or (3) of the powers fails in its responsibilities to be unbiased and
separate powers for the benefit of the (all) people, then the psychopaths win.
There is very little transparency in our government, so there is no possible way
to ensure that 1-3 are `responsible' servants of our government? In other words,
who is watching the fox?

FWIW,
Dan

If you are a U. S. Citizen, then that would be you. (i.e., in theory under this republican form of government, if it were truly free to function for truly awakened people )

 

[bltay]

bltay,

I am certainly not an attorney, and do not claim to know the specifics of the law in this manner. My responses to adam7117 were based on the questions asked. You are asking about points of law that I do not have the answers to.

I will try to answer your questions as best I can. I will start with the fact that all documentation to qualify a person for President is supposed to be verified prior to acceptance of their application. If this information was fabricated or falsified, that would change everything. I do not know what the process would be, if this were in fact the case, when it applies to the current situation.

Now, consider the world we actually live in. The PTB are in total control and they decide who and who not is placed into power. Do you think that they would allow someone who could be removed from office for something along these lines to ever become President? The answer is yes, if that is what works for their future plans, and no, if they chose to not allow it to happen!

It all comes down to what they have planned for us and where Obama fits into those plans (osit). I don't think that the laws we are familiar with apply to those who are part of the plans of the PTB.

fwit,
gwb

gwb, I could not agree more with you here. The PTB will put in power and remove from power as it suits them. Their problem is that Obama has free will, and although he may have promised to do certain things to achieve this lofty position, he could still possibly act contrary to the will of the PTB. This could get him removed if they deem it necessary.

However, publicly to maintain the illusion, (once again, my opinion) they will either assassinate him with some patsy, or use some other means to remove him. To maintain some sort of control over the chaos that could ensue, my opinion is that they could use legal channels such as this issue to remove him. I have been interested in this game since it first became public, and am interested in seeing how it plays out.

As a side note to your last statement, I agree with you that all public officials should present qualifications; however, from what I have been able to find, the rules as they stand now are that it has been left to the respective party committees to qualify their candidates and the states to qualify the candidates on their ballots. The DNC has refused to cooperate and provide any documentation that they properly qualified Obama. Likewise, several secretary of states have been asked to produce the documentation they have and none have produced. Some have even been sued unsuccessfully in court. Unsuccessfully in the sense that the courts have refused to require the documentation and have dismissed the suits. Why do they resist so strongly in providing this info?

I read recently that a congressman from Florida has introduced a bill to have the federal government require all candidates for federal office produce their legal qualifications. I was trying to find this article to reference it here but have been unsuccessful. I find it strange that we have gone this long without this federal requirement of elected officials at the federal level.

After posting the above, I realized that the names that appear on state ballots for president are those of the members of the electoral college. That seems to let the state officials off the hook for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates because these candidates do not actually appear on state ballots. So the question becomes even muddier. Just who is responsible for checking on the qualifications of presidential candidates? Is it the electors? I have had no luck finding an answer to this and have almost decided that is is a serious flaw in the system that has been exploited by Obama (should he prove to be ineligible).

 

[bltay]

And the drama continues:

WND Exclusive

BORN IN THE USA?

Justice, Supremes confirm getting eligibility challenge
Taitz documents demanding proof of Obama's birthplace to be reviewed
Posted: March 24, 2009
9:29 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Supreme Court
and the U.S. Justice Department today confirmed that documentation challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has arrived and soon will be evaluated.

Confirmation came from Defend Our Freedoms, the foundation through which California attorney Orly Taitz has been working on a number of cases that raise questions over Obama's qualification to be president under the Constitution's demand that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen.

Taitz was informed by Karen Thornton of the Department of Justice that all of the case documents and filings have arrived and have been forwarded to the Office of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, including three dossiers and the Quo Warranto case.

"Coincidently, after Dr. Taitz called me with that update, she received another call from Officer Giaccino at the Supreme Court," the website posting said. "Officer Giaccino stated both pleadings have been received and [are] being analyzed now."

The report from the Supreme Court said the documents that Taitz hand-delivered to Chief Justice John Roberts at his appearance at the University of Idaho a little over a week ago also were at the Supreme Court.

See full story here:

_http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92810

 

[bltay]

More drama on the stage. Now a criminal complaint of treason has been filed against Obama:

WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
Federal criminal complaint contends Obama ineligible
Ex-officer alleges prez used 'contrivance, concealment, dissembling and deceit'
Posted: March 25, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

An ex-military officer has raised the stakes in the ongoing dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, filing a criminal complaint against the "imposter" with the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Retired U.S. Navy officer Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who has run a campaign for two decades to uncover and try to correct what he believes are criminal activities within the military, accused the president of "treason."

In his complaint addressed to Obama via U.S Attorney Russell Dedrick and Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District, Tennessee, Fitzpatrick wrote: "I have observed and extensively recorded invidious attacks by military-political aristocrats against the Constitution for twenty years.

"Now you have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment."

He cited the deployment of "U.S. Army active duty combat troops into the small civilian community of Samson, Ala.," and said, "We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works.

"I identify you as a foreign born domestic enemy," he wrote.

Full Story here:

_http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92835

 

[Gimpy]

Retired U.S. Navy officer Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who has run a campaign for two decades to uncover and try to correct what he believes are criminal activities within the military, accused the president of "treason."

And he waited til Bush was out of the White House to raise these concerns....why? I find that interesting, but not surprising. Sounds like a fishing expedition, osit.

 

[bltay]

Retired U.S. Navy officer Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who has run a campaign for two decades to uncover and try to correct what he believes are criminal activities within the military, accused the president of "treason."

And he waited til Bush was out of the White House to raise these concerns....why? I find that interesting, but not surprising. Sounds like a fishing expedition, osit.

I do not follow your reasoning here. You cannot bring charges against Obama for fraudulently holding presidential office until he actually tries to hold that office. He cannot do that until Bush is out of office. How could Fitzpatrick bring these charges while Bush was in office? And what would he be fishing for? This is a criminal complaint, not a civil action.

 

[Beau]

Retired U.S. Navy officer Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who has run a campaign for two decades to uncover and try to correct what he believes are criminal activities within the military, accused the president of "treason."

And he waited til Bush was out of the White House to raise these concerns....why? I find that interesting, but not surprising. Sounds like a fishing expedition, osit.

I do not follow your reasoning here. You cannot bring charges against Obama for fraudulently holding presidential office until he actually tries to hold that office. He cannot do that until Bush is out of office. How could Fitzpatrick bring these charges while Bush was in office? And what would he be fishing for? This is a criminal complaint, not a civil action.

But if Obama was ineligible to be President, he could have brought these issues up far earlier, like when Obama announced his candidacy. Like Gimpy says, he could have raised his concerns then. If he had proof of this, why wait until he is in office to bring this issue up? I think that is where the timing of it becomes questionable, and makes the whole thing look less legitimate. This could merely be pressure on Obama to conform to what the PTB want him to do.

 

[Gimpy]

Retired U.S. Navy officer Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, who has run a campaign for two decades to uncover and try to correct what he believes are criminal activities within the military, accused the president of "treason."

And he waited til Bush was out of the White House to raise these concerns....why? I find that interesting, but not surprising. Sounds like a fishing expedition, osit.

I do not follow your reasoning here. You cannot bring charges against Obama for fraudulently holding presidential office until he actually tries to hold that office. He cannot do that until Bush is out of office. How could Fitzpatrick bring these charges while Bush was in office? And what would he be fishing for? This is a criminal complaint, not a civil action.

But if Obama was ineligible to be President, he could have brought these issues up far earlier, like when Obama announced his candidacy. Like Gimpy says, he could have raised his concerns then. If he had proof of this, why wait until he is in office to bring this issue up? I think that is where the timing of it becomes questionable, and makes the whole thing look less legitimate. This could merely be pressure on Obama to conform to what the PTB want him to do.

I also have to wonder where Fitzpatrick was during the Bush years, and why he wasn't vocal during that time?

 

[bltay]

First of all I am not an Obama protagonist or antagonist, I am just watching current events. But I must say the questions being asked here could easily be answered with a little effort. Many of those questions have already been answered in this thread. So I will just summarize, because the links have previously been posted.

1. Fitzpatrick filed a CRIMINAL complaint. You cannot file a criminal complaint until someone commits a crime. The crime did not occur until Obama took the oath of office. Therefore it could not have been brought any earlier. Although most likely it will never get prosecuted. Just as indictments against Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales were swept away.

2. There were many attempts to force Obama to produce a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship long before the election last November. Obama fought every effort with the highest priced lawyers he could find. WHY?

3. Obama also had all of his educational records sealed. WHY? They are being sought because it possibly shows he attended American universities under government aid programs for foreign students. The proof that he may not be eligible for the presidency is found in the fact that he refuses to produce anything necessary to show that he is eligible to be president. As the saying goes, by their fruits shall you know them.

4. Many civil cases were filed before the election to try to get Obama to produce a birth certificate, and the courts refused to hear any of the cases so far, although a few are still pending. The issue of Obama's citizenship has never been addressed.

5. The issue was put to the Supreme Court, and there is evidence of docket tampering by the clerks. Criminal complaints on this issue have been filed.

6. The issue has finally been placed before the Supreme Court and there is just now evidence that the justices may be seeing the issue for the first time.

7. I ask you, what makes you think Fitzpatrick was not active during the Bush years. Have you done any checking to see what he did during that time, or did you just jump to a conclusion? This sounds extremely cointelpro; attack the messenger to deflect attention away from the issue at hand.

8. Furthermore, just exactly what did you think Fitzgpatrick could do during the Bush years? There was an independent investigation into 911 ;) , There was a major civil action by many of the families of the victims of 911 which got swept under the rug. There were congressional hearings into the torture that was occurring. So exactly what was Fitzpatrick, a civilian, going to add to all of this?

9. So I still ask, why is Obama costing himself and the citizens thousands of dollars when he could put this entire issue to rest by producing a $10 birth certificate?

 

[PepperFritz]

The following web page seems to explain Obama's legitimate status quite clearly, and also provides a link to the Birth Certificate that was posted on the internet last year:

_http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

And this page seems to address the legitimacy of the posted Birth Certificate:

_http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

What does it matter, anyway? The PTB remain the same, with the same unchanging agenda, no matter who their front person is, and no matter where the heck he might or might not have been born.

 

[anart]

What does it matter, anyway? The PTB remain the same, with the same unchanging agenda, no matter who their front person is, and no matter where the heck he might or might not have been born.

That's pretty much it. For all we know, Obama's background is so 'foggy' because he's 'deeper' than he seems... think 'deep'... ;)

Or, perhaps he's just a community organizer from Chicago...

 

[bltay]

The following web page seems to explain Obama's legitimate status quite clearly, and also provides a link to the Birth Certificate that was posted on the internet last year:

_http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

And this page seems to address the legitimacy of the posted Birth Certificate:

_http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

What does it matter, anyway? The PTB remain the same, with the same unchanging agenda, no matter who their front person is, and no matter where the heck he might or might not have been born.

PepperFritz I agree that the PTB remain the same. This is all part of the drama, however I find it interesting. But many come talking about this issue with facts that they have failed to apply the 'think like a hammer' principle to. Why do we pay any attention to what the PTB are doing? Is it not to gain a greater understanding into the way they think and to help identify the nature of the players? Is not the purpose of this exercise to exchange info and see if we can possibly move toward a future more in line with a STO orientation, even though that is not 100% achievable in 3D?

If you knew who wrote Snopes, you would never use them as an authority for anything.

As for factcheck, you ended your search too quickly without doing your homework. Are you going to believe that someone says they have "seen" Obama's birth certificate, when he constantly refuses to release it to the public for proof that he is a citizen? The State of Hawaii has refused to let anyone see it, and Obama has repeatedly fought any efforts to allow anyone to see it. So why has this one person been able to see it?

Furthermore, this has been proven to be a fake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBgkDSw-wQ0.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz58SxMhP4Y&feature=related

These visuals help to see it.

Hawaii has a unique law that allows anyone to register a birth in the state, regardless of where it occurs, if the baby is less than one year old and the parents previously lived in Hawaii. That is what a Certificate of Live Birth is for. All the factcheck.com document (the fake one at that) shows is that Obama was born, not where he was born.

There are also other arguments against him being a citizen. He was born in Kenya, and his father was British, therefore, Obama was born a British Citizen. When his mother left his father, she married an Indonesian and they lived in Indonesia. Non Indonesian citizens could not attend school there, so Obama's father adopted him and he obtained Indonesian citizenship. But Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, so what ever citizenship he had at birth is actually irrelevant because he renounced it to become a Citizen of Indonesia.

In 1981 Obama admitted to traveling to Pakistan. At that time, U.S. Citizens were barred from entering Pakistan, so what passport did Obama use to gain admittance?

And since that time he has never tried to become a naturalized citizen, which altogether indicates Obama is not a U. S. Citizen.

So, once again, I ask the same question, why will Obama not walk into any of these civil actions and lay his birth certificate, or any proof of U. S. Citizenship on the table and say here it is? All U.S. Citizens have to show their birth certificates at some time in their lives for identification. When it comes to an issue which affects every Citizen in this country, why is this being resisted so hard?

 

[PepperFritz]

When it comes to an issue which affects every Citizen in this country, why is this being resisted so hard?

Sorry, I don't follow. How does the issue of Obama's birthplace and/or citizenship "affect every Citizen in this country"?

 

[bltay]

When it comes to an issue which affects every Citizen in this country, why is this being resisted so hard?

Sorry, I don't follow. How does the issue of Obama's birthplace and/or citizenship "affect every Citizen in this country"?

Are you aware that the U. S. Constitution requires the president to be a natural born Citizen?

Do Obama's decisions in the position of President of the United States not affect the Citizens of this country? If he is not eligible to be President, then every law he signs is invalid, every decision he makes is invalid, and every order he gives as commander in chief is invalid. Incidentally there are a few military personnel who are refusing to follow any orders they are given until Obama proves he is eligible to hold office as President.

The purpose of the citizenship requirement put into the Constitution by the founding fathers was to try to help assure that who ever is elected President will hold the interests of the United States above all. Now we know this has been usurped today by Israel, but at least that was the original intent of the Framers. Furthermore, it is still the law here, and if we start ignoring it, we may as well ignore all laws. And if we do ignore it, that opens the door for Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, and anyone else who might decide they want to be President of the U. S. to throw their hat into the ring. And if the vote is split up enough, who knows what might be elected. But can there even be a President if we ignore the organic law which creates the very position? Is there really a president if we ignore the law that creates his authority? What authority would he be acting under?

It is a requirement that helps perpetuate the best interest of the United States and that affects every Citizen.

Furthermore, if Obama is not a citizen, and he has taken an oath to uphold the constitution, then that lie negates his oath and he is not president. If he is allowed to be president as a foreign citizen, where do his loyalties lie? I think this is the most interesting question in this drama, because he has not made a decision yet which is in the best interest of this country.

Now I would not be surprised if nothing ever came of this issue, because of the present state of corruption in our government.

 

[spyraal]

Are you aware that the U. S. Constitution requires the president to be a natural born Citizen?

The above must be a rhetorical question i guess... ;) But really, does it matter? I mean, G.Bush was supposed to be a US citizen but it seems he stole two elections to become president. How legitimate is that? And all US presidents are financed as candidates by big corporations otherwise they do not stand a single chance. How is that compatible with a "democracy" or a valid constitution? And let's suppose that a verified foreign national, like for example a 100% Dutch person, did possess the will, knowledge, conscience and soul qualities to run a country like the US having truly the best interest of people in his heart. Would you oppose to such a person becoming president on the argument of "nationality"? A truly useful president would have to stand up against banks, corporations, secret agencies and the rest of the pathocratic elite, not against any other nation. This is why i think that nationality does not really matter. These are but false divisions IMO, and these false divisions are capitalized by the PTB to have us against each other while they reap wealth and power. It is soul qualities, a conscience and knowledge that matter more than a American birth certificate. The way i see it, the US constitution has overtly become a joke under the weight of the Bush legacy. So, regardless of whatever is the real nationality of Obama, if he is but the new puppet of the PTB, then his being a "true" American or not will not mitigate any of your future problems there, as well as their global impact...

Just some thoughts....
:)