It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge Has [not] Ruled, Obama [not] Off Of Ballot In Georgia! (erroneous news report)

page: 39
122
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by assspeaker
 


Awwww I hope you gave Prez Bush the EXACT same respect you are demanding for Obama. It's only fair right?




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


If Obama runs for election again, and wins the election without the entire voting population of a complete state, I'm going to laugh.

Only a failure of a president would make it despite one ball-and-chain of a state. Personally, though, I think he's had his chance, and failed to do anything with it. He's lost his opportunity. Time to step down and let someone competent have a swing at returning our nation from the hellish pit it's fallen into.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Yes because the President should just spend all his time zooming around the country responding to eery podunk, nuisance lawsuit that any crackpot can file with him named. Sure. That makes perfect sense. Then they'd all be complaining about how many boondoggles he takes on the taxpayers' dime.

edit on 1/27/2012 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


If this was a frivolous lawsuit as so many people here are demanding, then why is the Secretary of State from Georgia and a Deputy Chief Justice allowing the case to be heard?

Does anyone actually take into consideration that this type of case could be a career destroyer?






edit on 27-1-2012 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


Well, the name Soetoro comes to mind...



Oh yah and foreign student on the bottom in very bold letters. Where'd ya find that? or is it photoshop?

)

edit on 27-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


You should actually go read the article which debunks this thread. He heard the case because he legally had to. That's what the judge himself said.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by HollowMan
 



Originally posted by HollowMan
As a Georgia native I find this completely ridiculous, as it shows one more step toward small town governments trying to rise above the law. I can attest by living here that regardless of how outlandish it sounds this indeed is probably (unfortunately) due to a personal race related issue with said judge.


This isn't small town governments we are talking about here, it is state authority, more specifically it's the state of Georgia. "Trying to rise above the law" you say? Do states not have the right to enforce their own laws as governed by their own state Constitutions? You are suggesting that all states are subservient to Federal laws and in this case allow the President to appear on the ballot without question simply because of his position. That would mean throwing out the rule of law. I have nothing to say about the ruling, as none has been handed down yet, but some of the comments that have been posted has been truly idiotic.



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Do you know what this means and where it was written? This negates you entire argument about "small towns (actually states) trying to rise above the law. Just for your reference this is the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The whole idea behind this was to prevent the Federal government from obtaining to much power and control, leaving most legal matters up to the states or to the individual.

Your your other baseless argument about the judge "probably (unfortunately)" being a racist is completely unfounded and it is unfortunate you would even suggest this without some sort of actual proof. And "probably (unfortunately)" is not, that is actually just slander.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by bphi1908
 


That is absolutely NOT what the 10th amendment is about. It's about saying that if the constitution doesn't explicitly state something then states can decide for themselves. But it's also seen to be redundant by most legal scholars:

From WIKI (which gets it right):

An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.....

But this does NOT mean, as you claim:



The whole idea behind this was to prevent the Federal government from obtaining to much power and control, leaving most legal matters up to the states or to the individual.


The Federal government's power was already limited by the constitution. The 10th amendment doesn't in any way change the relationship or limit the power given the Federal government by the constitution. Though the point you've attempted to make is parroted by those of the right that wish the states could ignore the Federal government...



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Why is this nowhere in the mainstream media? Its not legit?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
QFT


Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl


There really IS a question about what the framers of the Constitution intended when they specified that a president must be a "natural born citizen".


OK let's start with "the framers of the Constitution"...

Riddle me this...How many of them were born on "British Soil"?

Were George Washingtons parents born on "British Soil"? Was George Washington himself born on British Soil?

Hint: America was not founded until 1776.

I know...I know....not fair right? But birthers are the ones that are obsessed with inflating out of context minutia in legal rulings, we should at least acknowledge that George Washington himself would not qualify by today's ever so intransient new definition of "Natural Born".

OK...How about these Presidents...

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.
Presidents with one immigrant parent are
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England,
James Buchanan (1857-1861)
and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers,
and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.

All born with Dual citizenship BTW...

If we want to consider modern examples....

Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico...and his parents had been in Mexico since they were kids....the citizenship laws at the time that extended citizenship to offspring abroad required that the parents have been in the USA sometime 5 years prior to giving birth abroad.

So Romney's dad did not have American Citizenship when he crossed the border back into the USA in 1908...and he never applied for naturalization. It became an issue when Romney's dad ran for President in 1968 with his GOP competitor for the nomination asking for a special council to investigate George Romney's eligability. George Romney dropped out two months later, so the issue was dropped. Mitt Romney is an Anchor Baby.

How about Rick Santorum...Both his parents were born in Italy...Rick has refused to release their naturalization records showing they came here legally. Those records should be available on Ancestry.com, but they aint there.

John McCain....It wasn't a US military base he was born on and it wasn't US Soil at the time, that came a year later with legislation...and even then, looking at the maps for the time, the specific hospital he was born at was just outside the Panama Canal zone at the time.

See....we can do this ALL DAY LONG....

But the truth remains...born on US soil? NATURAL BORN CITIZEN....the rest is veiled racism and/or idealogical fever hate masking as legitimate concern.

In the early and mid part of the last century there were a ton of "scientists" and "doctors" who mocked up research to show that African Americans were less than whites. It provided cover for racists. This whole birther argument is just a modern rendition of those tactics and it is offensive not just to liberals or African Americans...but to humanity. It is a lot of hot air aimed at convincing people that the black man in office is "not like us"...Nothing more...


edit on 27-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Yes because the President should just spend all his time zooming around the country responding to eery podunk, nuisance lawsuit that any crackpot can file with him named. Sure. That makes perfect sense. Then they'd all be complaining about how many boondoggles he takes on the taxpayers' dime.

edit on 1/27/2012 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


If this was a frivolous lawsuit as so many people here are demanding, then why is the Secretary of State from Georgia and a Deputy Chief Justice allowing the case to be heard?

Does anyone actually take into consideration that this type of case could be a career destroyer?



edit on 27-1-2012 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)


It was frivolous the 20 or so other times this type of lawsuit was submitted - and this one is no different - except that this is the first judge to actually try to force Obama to appear - which is why it has gotten a little more attention. This Orly person (I never can remember her last name) as been desperately trying to get Obama to show up at any of her hearings as this would get her major publicity. I suspect the judge also wants some attention, as Obama's appearance really isn't necessary, and the judge knows that. The fact that this judge is doing this when he knows full well he can't have Obama arrested legally tells me he is either nuts or a publicity hound. Either way, it's wacked out to me.

This lawsuit will be just as unsuccessful as the others - mark my words. Even if the SoS is dumb enough to actually take Obama's name off the ballot (which I think is unlikely), it won't take Obama out of the national election.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
Well let's see, for starters your thread title is a BALED FACED LIE. What's even funnier is the number of Obama hating birthers who were so anxious to post in agreement with your lie that they chose to totally ignore the MOD. EDIT inserted at the bottom of the original OP. I guess that just goes to show how easy it is to propagate lies in a crowd of haters.

Therefore, I'm asking that every poster following me in this thread, please copy & paste the following MOD. EDIT that was added to the OPs original post, but completely ignored by the vast majority of Obama hating birthers who have chosen to reply. Let's see if we can't use their own method of repeating the message until it's accepted.

www.ajc.com...

After hearing evidence with neither President Barack Obama nor his lawyers in attendance, a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November.


And there you have it.


Seeing how I haven't had any takers yet, I'm reposting this myself and I'll even add this little trailer; IT'S A BALD FACED LIE! IT'S A BALD FACED LIE! IT'S A BALD FACED LIE!

I think it's high time for a "LIAR'S FORUM," what say you MODS?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by capone1
 


good question but my bet is completely non-conspiracy related, shocking I know, no ruling has been handed down. No ruling...nothing to report, no story.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


That is a stretch. And how can you tell someone to do their research when you just click on one site and copy what someone who may or may not know what they are talking about says? It is utter nonsense and if you honestly think Obama has done far worse than some other presidents then you my friend are in fact of the paranoid and maybe schizophrenic. You live within the delusion that you accuse others of living in.

On a side note:
I came here in hopes of hearing from some enlightened individuals who think outside of the norm.
I also expected to find some crazy conspiracy theorists who find a conspiracy in everything. (Found a lot)
For those of you who are educated and truly think coherently. I thank you.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Wondering why the Mods have not changed the thread title since it is completely misleading and spreading ignorance.

I have no doubt that Obama will be on the GA ballot come November.

Also I would like to add that my long ago prediction continues to hold true. There is no level of evidence or argument sound enough to ever convince the Birther movement of Obamas legitimacy as President.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by D7777

Originally posted by SheopleNation
Poor little groomed for the job, hand picked puppet Obama. Even his bankster master Geithner isn't sticking around for a 2nd term that will never come. Timothy is most likely off with a promotion to The World Bank. ~SheopleNation


Who exactly hand picked Obama and made him a puppet?
I been trying to figure it out. I do have some ideas but I am not completely sure yet.


Well, for starters, It is a fact that Soros financed his presidential campaign. Ayers gave him a special party for him in his very own house when he ran for Senate. Axelrod primed him for the job. Pelosi gave him validation as a nominee. He is a member of CFR. His friends are DSA. The CPUSA endorsed him.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


[rolls eyes]

Soros didn't finance his campaign. Someone's been watching too much Glenn Beck.

Ayers gave him a party? Are you so delusional that you think that means something sinister? Do you have ANY idea how many house-based fund-raisers each candidate does? Hundreds? At least.
edit on 27-1-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
This thread has shown me a lot about people and the mods here. This report came directly from one of the plaintiffs that was IN THE JUDGES CHAMBER PRIOR TO THE HEARING. That person reported this story himself as per my link. Some of you however, including the mods here, seem to believe that it is possible for you and your lawyers to be a no show in court and still win the case. The judge already made his decision it just has to be published. WHY did he already make his decision? How can I verify that he made a decision. LOGIC. Obama and lawyers were a no show they AUTOMATICALLY LOOSE THE CASE. It's called a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT against Obama. The Judge doesnt have a choice. You dont show for court YOU LOOSE. Only the publishing ofd the decision is left. Calling me a liar WILL NOT CHANGE THE FACTS AND THE MODS SHOULD HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE AND THE CLASS TO STOP VINDICTIVE ATTACKS FROM PEOPLE THAT ALREADY KNOW THEY ARE WRONG. The judge doesnt have a CHOICE. Obama looses. PERIOD.

To the MODS. Placing my post in the category that you have is WRONG. Anyone with intelligence can see that I have not only backed up my story with the original writings of one of the plaintiffs himself but that logic dictates and LAW states that if you dont show up for court you loose. The MODS here have chosen to IGNORE the truth and EMBRACE IGNORANCE. The law is the law. It cannot be changed just for Obama. Obama has lost the case.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


And when you're wrong, what will you say then?

Via WIKI:




Relief from default A defaulted defendant may move the court from relief from his default,[11] but usually must do so promptly[12] and must provide "good cause"[13] for his failure to answer the complaint in time.[14] Often, part of the procedure for relief from default involves the defendant filing an answer to the complaint.[15] The defendant relieved from default may also be required to pay any extra costs and fees incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the delay in the defendant's filing his answer.[16]


From the AJC article:




Late Wednesday, Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, wrote Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here -- a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country," Jablonski wrote. Jablonski also served notice he would boycott the hearing.


Still so sure you're right?
edit on 27-1-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


It's not possible to be wrong in this case. Obama and his lawyers were ordered to appear in court. Obama himself actually didnt have to show but the lawyers DID HAVE TO SHOW. Nobody showed. The LAW only allows for one verdict in case of a no show. It's called a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT OF GUILT. There is NO OTHER RECOURSE IN THE LAW. NONE You find some other recourse of law when the defendant and his lawyers refuse to show for court you let me know. Untill then you are fighting a lossing battle.

WHATS WORSE THE MODS KNOW IT AND THEY CHOOSE TO EMBRACE IGNORANCE.
edit on 27-1-2012 by candcantiques because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


So, does that make Obama a puppet or a politician?
The line blurs right there doesn't it?

I think you may have left off a few more puppeteers.
Would it be a stretch to say the Republican party controls some strings too?
Just a thought I been kicking around lately.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
122
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join