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

Originally posted by filosophia


if your boss finds out you lied on your resume, he doesnt recommend you not get a promotion, he fires you!

The point on this case is the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen." He never lied about his father not being a US citizen. Seems they are trying to sneek some of the birther stuff in through the back door now, but that has already been ruled on and isn't relevant to the current case/lawsuit. His mother was a US citizen, he was born in the US (the plantiffs originally said they would agree with this for the puposes of this case) but the planitiffs contend that because his father was not a citizen that disqualifies him from being natural born.... making him ineligible to be POTUS.

Anyway, that's what this is supposed to be about... it will have no effect on the 2012 election (imo) but a clarification wrt the the language in the constitution is likely at some later date.

My .02

AJC says it's up in the air

www.ajc.com...

reply to post by Wildbob77


Believe what you will. I believe the story to be true. I trust "give us liberty" . Also there is no mention of any of the other reporters being inside the Judges chambers is there? The story at "Give Us Liberty" comes to us from those that were INSIDE THE JUDGES CHAMBERS. Sorry I forgot those that choose not to believe the story never read the story.

reply to post by candcantiques




www.sodahead.com...

In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College … Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship..

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. … Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008.
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this the better.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter…



These are serious Questions that need to be answered before any State considers Barack Obama eligible to be put on a Presidential Ballot in 2012 .

reply to post by Wildbob77

"It states that "Georgia Administrative Hearings Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi gave no indication when he will rule or whether he will sanction President Obama and his attorneys, all of whom refused to attend the hearing."

No indication in public.

Story was from one of the lawyers that was in on the pre-meeting in chambers.

Hold me back, hold me back,, sarcastic comment coming on, must...... stay ......on....... topic....

reply to post by candcantiques


Why isn't this being reported anywhere else?

This is huge news if it's true. But, it doesn't matter what what we are choosing to believe, what matters is the truth.

I'm waiting for independent verification before will buy into this.

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by Rren

 

I sure wish at least some people would go to the link that I provided and read the TITLE of the article that states

JUDGE WILL ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST OBAMA...

It's not really hard to go to the link I provided and actually read the entire article.

Look, I did read it, and another source before I posted (I have since read a few more). Here's your title: "Judge Has Ruled Secretary Of State Agress Obama Off Of Ballot In Georgia!!!!!! " The facts: There was no ruling. Obama is still on the ballot. All of the commentary in your opening post is equally inaccurate. I realize, by the many exclamation points and comments, that you really wanted this to be true... but it isn't. Sorry.

So, How come Obama is not being held in contempt of court for not appearing before the judge? All the judges ruling were denied. So, he was suppose to show up. Wouldn't he be issuing a bench warrant by now? I mean, that's what would happen to us if we didn't appear before a judge. Correct?

A Georgia judge heard evidence Thursday from local “birthers” but did not rule on whether President Barack Obama can be on the state ballot in November.

www.newsmax.com...

reply to post by candcantiques

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

What you dont get and actually refuse to even try to understand is if a person born in this country is a citizen of both China and the USA they ARE NOT ELIGABLE TO BE THE LEADER OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Can you site the citizenship law that backs up this assertion?

Pssst - I already know the answer. The US does not care about dual citizenship.

U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another.

Source

anyone else thing they are calling those judges and saying Look, his mom was CIA and he was too early in his career - but we can't tell the public.

Cause that's what I think....

reply to post by Rren


WOW Not sure about some. The story is directly from one of the people bringing this lawsuit against Obama that was IN THE JUDGES CHAMBERS when he stated that he will enter A DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AGAINST OBAMA. Is that so hard to understand? So the judge hasn't written it yet but the judge has already told those that were in his CHAMBERS that he is going to. Are all of the reporters that you are reading IN THE JUDGES CHAMBERS? I am not sure exactly what part you dont understand.

reply to post by candcantiques


Here is another source saying that there was no ruling yet. He can say that the judge will rule one way or another all day, but at the end of the day, he does not know what the judge will rule. Some one saying that some one said that the judge said he wont be on the ballet is flimsy at best.

I also find it hard to believe that a judge would say that he is going to rule one way or another, before he heard and has had time to weigh all the evidence.

The judge will rule when he rules and anything else about what hey MAY rule, is speculation.

www.newsmax.com...

Again, I hope it is right, I really don't want Obama to be re-elected. But at this point, there is only speculation about how he may rule. Speculation and hearsay.

I am not going to trust speculation of what the judge may rule. Period. When the judge makes his ruling, then I will go from there.

Should the judge rule against Obama on this one, I will give you a nice E-high five.

Peace and love.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I'm too busy to look it up, but there is a law stating the President cannot hold allegiance toward any other country. It has been posted in other threads. I think there are even a few famous quotes from years gone by stating something similar.

Those old birther threads are so full of venom, I hate to even go looking, but maybe someone could search and pull it up.

I knew that myfox link was a lie.

Ruling Feb 5th was if there was a two side trial, and they didnt retract.

Bad fox...

reply to post by getreadyalready


He lost his Kenyan citizenship at 18 (or 21, I forget). I did all the research on the Kenyan Constitution and their citizenship law. He is no longer a dual citizen and has no allegiances to any other country.

What if his father was dead when he was born? What if his father had no citizenship? Would he be a natural-born citizen? Yes. Having been born to a citizen on US soil...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You asked for it so here it comes.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Thats the Constitution of the United States there. Now for the definition of "natural born citizen"

John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:

The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth--natural born citizens.[11]

He reiterated his statement in 1866:


Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him

An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (original French title: Le Droit du gens), stating that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens," was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[17] as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

It is WIDELY known among hitory scholars that the founding fathers relied heavily on "The Law of Nations" when drafting the Constitution.

Did you catch that?
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS (2) NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVERIGNTY, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.

At birth Obama was a citizen of 2 countries. NOT ONE TWO. He is NOT NATURAL BORN

reply to post by candcantiques


That is one Congressman's (Bingham) interpretation. Not law, not US code, not the Supreme Court.

reply to post by nwdogg1982

but because the Constitution needs an amendment that clearly defines the term "natural-born citizen."

The constitution is not a dictionary.

This meaning of this phrase was common knowledge to those who wrote the constitution.

The books they learnt it from are still around. We are just not as well read.

No need to change it.