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

page: 52
122
<< 49  50  51    53  54 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
News from Pravda dated 1/30/12

Pravda Story Link Here


Like a dead chicken being plucked, Obama has lost his power and his support. Six months or so ago, French President Sarkozy called Obama, "Insane". Other world leaders have publicly called him incompetent and other derogatory names.


Oh, boy... As much as the Rooskies hated Big Ron, at least they respected and feared him.


Since then, major news in America has been slowly, quietly, as if testing the waters, pointing out Obama's faults and crimes. Little by little they are feeding America, and the World, the truth about the man they fought so hard to cover up for these past four years. Feather by feather, the chicken known as Obama, is being plucked. The most hated psychopath on Earth and his administration are going to be thoroughly plucked, gutted, tossed in an oven, cooked and devoured. And like any dead carcass with no use, Obama and his faithful supporters will be thrown onto a garbage heap until they rot to nothing.



Like all stupid people, he thinks everyone else is stupider than he is. There is, however, one thing he has done well. Every facet of American life and business has gone down considerably, except for foreclosures, unemployment, bankruptcies and business closures.



Pamela Barnett was a plaintiff in a case brought by Orly Taiz demanding proof that Obama was eligible to be President. That court arrogantly and illegally refused to hear their complaint. Pamela Barnett's character reflects that of most Americans: When you treat her like a dog, she'll jump up and bite you. So she formed an organization to teach and help people how to have Obama taken off of all 50 State ballots. And it is working very well. Her site is here: obamaballotchallenge.com...

And it is working. Obama has been denied to be on the primary ballot in Alabama until he proves he is eligible. Georgia has a ruling pending in 3 weeks to keep Obama off the ballot until he can prove he is eligible.



The amazingly tenacious, Carl Swensson, fighting to get Obama out of the office of the President, by knocking on every official's door he could find for four years, finally found two government employees who were not traitors and took their Oath of Office seriously: The Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp and Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia Office of Administrative Hearings. Meet Carl Swensson at this site: www.RiseUpForAmerica.com


Hey, the Rooskies understand our constitution better than some of the posters here...

Only a Natural Born Citizen can be President. There are at least three US Supreme Court cases defining Natural Born Citizen. The Us Constitution refers to "The Law of Nations", which defines Natural Born Citizen. There are dozens of letters of correspondence from the signers of the Declaration of Independence and creators of the US Constitution defining Natural Born Citizen. The United States Congress, in the past nine years has made eight unsuccessful attempts to change the wording of the US Constitution to say that foreign born or children of foreign born parents can be the President of the United States of America. These elected employees have repeatedly proven that they know damn well what a Natural Born Citizen is. The record is clearly established, through



over 250 years of acknowledged definition that Natural Born Citizen is a person born on American soil, to PARENTS plural. For liberals and democrats and other traitors, that means that in order for a person to be our President, the stork has to deliver him inside America and both his mommy and daddy must be citizens of the United States of America.



So, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, California, Hawaii and Arizona have either lawsuits filed or ballot challenges filed to keep Obama off the ballot until he can prove he is eligible to run for election. Activities are going on in 26 other states, with the same goal in mind, to keep Obama off the ballot, unless he can prove he is eligible to run. This is further proof that it is the states that control the federal government and not the other way around. The federal government is a group of full time employees managing certain pertinent affairs concerning the states. These permanent employees are managed by part-time employees called politicians, which are periodically elected by the People. They are all expendable. It is these temporary employees who we accuse of committing treason and other High Crimes against the citizens of America as well as other Nations of the World..


There are 2 more pages... Pravda is a fun paper. It was the official paper of the communist party years ago. Now it is kind of like the "World Net Daily". Although, they make some valid points there.

I thought everybody loved him??

When Obama and his associates are removed from American society, as We the People want to, We are ready to and We will gladly, extend our friendship to the many nations in this home we call Earth.


Even knows the tag line...

And to the people who voted for Obama, because he was going to steal our money and our creations and fraudulently turn them over to you: "How's that Hope and Change working out for you?"


You guys going to flame the Rooskies or what?

edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: add quote
edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: add quote
edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: add quote
edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err
edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawika
News from Pravda dated 1/30/12

Pravda Story Link Here


Like a dead chicken being plucked, Obama has lost his power and his support. Six months or so ago, French President Sarkozy called Obama, "Insane". Other world leaders have publicly called him incompetent and other derogatory names.


Oh, boy... As much as the Rooskies hated Big Ron, at least they respected and feared him.


There are 2 more pages... Pravda is a fun paper. It was the official paper of the communist party years ago. Now it is kind of like the "World Net Daily". Although, they make some valid points there.


This is some American blogger's opinion -- Mark S. McGrew. He's obviously a birther - I don't take anything he says seriously.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Hmmm, good eye.

It reads like a Russian wrote it.

Must have been heavily edited.

He writes just like my Russian friends talk. Intentional maybe, for the Russian audience.

edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err
edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 


No, it's just a birther writing false crap. And you're just parroting it.

Dd you go read that link I posted, which explains in deatil how the case you cited actually disproves your theory?

Cause you should.

Except it's clear now; you know the birthers are liars, I know you've seen the lies, you don't care. You'll just keep spreading dishonest info around to try and beat up Obama.

I remember when GW was in power; if any "liberal" had questioned him like this all the right-wingers woulda been calling them a traitor, etc. 'm starting to think that that word might suit you as well. You are deliberately spreading lies about the President. Deliberately. You're like the Orly of ATS.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


I did read the story at your link.

Because I understand the intention of the founders, I am unconvinced. No presidents with conflicting allegiance to a foreign power would be acceptable. But hey, I am not the judge...

And, yea, it is not a serious news story.

But no one else brought anything to discuss.

You don't like it, why don't you go and get us some news to discuss.

Kill the messenger, typical

edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err
edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 


If you read it then you understand that your supposed insight into the founders is not only not backed up by the case you posted (though that doesn't bother you obviously), but also your belief isn't actually what the US legal system has ever interpreted the constitution to mean.

In other words, you're wrong. Specifically, youre wrong when you claim there's any legal basis for questioning Obama based on his fathers nationality.

On top of all of that, it's also a logical rabbit hole. Let's say a presidential candidates dad WAS American, but the kid was raised by the grandparents who were not... That's ok in your warped belief system. Because you know, the founding fathers thought as long as your direct DNA was from two people born in America.. Grand.


The actual truth, while unpleasant for you, makes much more sense, and us backed up by all the US case law and is not fabricated by serial liars: if you were born in the US, you can grow up to be President. Natural Born Citizens are created when born, not by where their parents were born

The only place this silliness you preach is entertained is in birther circles, not in the courts, not in law schools, not in legal journals, only by birthers.

The sooner you realise that, the better for you. You're being lied to and manipulated by these assholes and you only believe it because it fits your world view. There is NO EVIDENCE that backs up your belief. This is not one of those opinion things either.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


I did read the story at your link.

Because I understand the intention of the founders, I am unconvinced. No presidents with conflicting allegiance to a foreign power would be acceptable. But hey, I am not the judge...


edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err
edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err


You see, this is another false birther claim. You do not have an allegiance to a country just because one of your parents was born there. Why would you think Obama has an allegiance to a foreign power? I could see if he spent his whole life in Kenya, publicly announced his allegiance to Kenya and was politically active there, then came back here just in time to run for President - that might be a little suspicious. But this is clearly not the case. He was born in America, he was estranged from his father his whole life, he spent by far the majority of his life in America, his mother was an American, the grandparents he is closest to (and who helped raise him) were Americans, and so on and so on... How is he showing his allegiance to his father's country? That's like saying I have conflicting allegiance to Wales/Britain because all my ancestors are from there - even though I've never even been there.

Obama has NEVER shown allegiance to any other country but America - he was born here - he is a natural born citizen. Instead of making this stuff up to try and get rid of him, I wish people would just use their vote to voice their opinion based on his platform and performance, and let the votes be counted. That's the fair and square way. If you don't think he's a good president, then don't vote for him. If he gets the majority of the vote, then live with it. That's what I had to do when Bush won - twice. I could have joined the fringe bandwagon that said Bush was really an evil reptilian shape shifter who orchestrated 9/11 and needed to be killed with a silver bullet and a crucifix, but that would have been silly. Just like this birther stuff is silly.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Just because he likes getting his coc aine from here DOES NOT constitute allegance. His allegiance is questionable since he is from ANOTHER COUNTRY, a fact stated not only by his wife, but his African family members. His aunt, who was also a midwife, stated he WAS BORN IN KENYA.

This is just a plan to get somebody else more sinister in office down the road that may not be from here.

Mark my words.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchPlayer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Just because he likes getting his coc aine from here DOES NOT constitute allegance. His allegiance is questionable since he is from ANOTHER COUNTRY, a fact stated not only by his wife, but his African family members. His aunt, who was also a midwife, stated he WAS BORN IN KENYA.


Oh dear - no she didn't - and she wasn't his aunt either!!

You really, REALLY need to stop listening to the lies!!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchPlayer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Just because he likes getting his coc aine from here DOES NOT constitute allegance. His allegiance is questionable since he is from ANOTHER COUNTRY, a fact stated not only by his wife, but his African family members. His aunt, who was also a midwife, stated he WAS BORN IN KENYA.

This is just a plan to get somebody else more sinister in office down the road that may not be from here.

Mark my words.


Riiiiiight. Hmmmm, maybe there is something to that story about Bush being a reptilian shape-shifter from the planet Moltar........



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
From Wikipedia: Natural Born U.S. Citizen

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.


Also this.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by smarterthanyou
 


More paranoid ravings.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by smarterthanyou
Also this.


The opinion of a "expert" who has never seen the original document....



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


And an opinion that requires the state of Hawaii's government to be colluding with the Federal Government in a massive conspiracy so that...? Hawaii can sneak a Muslim in as President?

The whole thing would be laughable if it wasn't for the number of people falling for the obvious lies and the worrying question:

Why are the birthers lying to try and destroy Obama? If they know he's legit (and they do, or else they wouldn't need to endlessly lie) why are they trying to generate a false issue to destroy a US President? It's a REAL conspiracy, but no one in the conspiracy world wants to look at it... funny.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Why are the birthers lying to try and destroy Obama? If they know he's legit (and they do, or else they wouldn't need to endlessly lie) why are they trying to generate a false issue to destroy a US President? It's a REAL conspiracy, but no one in the conspiracy world wants to look at it... funny.


I think some of the birthers are thinly veiled members of the KKK. Others are just haters who love to have an excuse to hate SOMEBODY/ANYBODY, so they've jumped on the birther bandwagon. And, there's probably of few gullibles who just love a conspiracy, no matter how outrageous and false it obviously is.

And don't forget about the Republican party, who seems determined to take Obama out any way they can. I believe many of these fake emails were probably originated by official members of the party anonymously.
edit on 1-2-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I see no one has brought any fresh news today, so I will find some for us...

Illinois...no way!
way!

Source at unreliable birther site here


Feb. 2 hearing on whether Illinois State Board of Elections will allow Barack Obama on the Illinois Presidential ballot even though he is NOT a NATURAL Born Citizen according to Supreme Court precedent Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Hearings are open to the public. Please attend to support the objectors if you can.


Another summary of what happened at the hearing here

Who's your daddy?

Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.



Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.



Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.



RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.


Oh no...who could have made such an error?


DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.



This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.



Next witness.

Mr. Vogt.

Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

Mr. Vogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.

States this is a product of layering.

Mr. Vogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.



Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped but layered into the document by computer.


Lots more there to read.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
This looks like one from brand X, just to be fair...

Plaintiffs' briefs due today in Obama’s Georgia ballot eligibility case

Denier Story Link Here


Attorneys representing eight plaintiffs seeking to remove President Barack Obama's name from Georgia's Super Tuesday Democratic Primary ballot on March 6 have until close of business today to file their briefs in the case heard before deputy administrative law judge Michael Malihi last week in Atlanta.
Judge Malihi had originally set the deadline for briefs on February 6, 2012, a month out from the election. Judge Malihi will then file his brief containing Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law with Brian Kemp, Georgia's Secretary of State.
Georgia law requires the Secretary of State to resolve issues regarding election disputes.
A month out from the election, Kemp will have to issue an opinion quickly in order for the Democratic ballots and voting machines to be ready for the primary vote.
Several bloggers who appear to be supportive of plaintiffs' cause have blogged that during the 32-minute pre-hearing conference held before last week's hearing Judge Malihi considered whether he should enter a default judgment in the case due to the absence of President Obama and counsel to the President Michael Jablonski. The America's Conservative News, January 31, 2012, reports that the lawyers representing the plaintiffs "...confirmed that (Judge) Malihi had simply considered granting them a default victory..."



Other bloggers suggest it is a foregone conclusion their side will win by default and that Judge Malihi only heard evidence to give the public a show.
Their logic defies legal procedure.
First, a default judgment is appropriate where a defendant fails to file an answer to the essential allegations in the complaint. Once the appropriate answer has been made defendant can elect "at his peril" to skip the hearing.
From the record it would appear that counsel for the President properly joined the issue and rebutted plaintiffs' contentions that the president is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America. Thus it is incumbent upon plaintiffs to prove their case with credible evidence.
Secondly, by skipping the hearing the defendant's position is not placed at risk of peril if plaintiffs fail to carry their burden of proof by testimony and documentary evidence probative to the issues in the case.
Last week's hearing produced fast and loose talk couple with documents of dubious origins to support plaintiffs' contention that President Obama should be barred from the Georgia ballot in March and vicariously on the November General Election ballot as well.


edit on 1-2-2012 by kawika because: add quote



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 


Kinda hard to take this seriously when they misspell and misuse words so frequently.

Hmmm...



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 





bleacherreport.com...


You thought wrong. There was no "court". It is an Administrative Hearing and a function of the State's Executive Branch. Nothing to do with a court in any way, except that a Judge is the presiding officer, 'independent' of the executive branch.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 




I see no one has brought any fresh news today, so I will find some for us...


Just to make sure you understand what happened in Illinois here is a link to the findings as posted on Scribd:
Illinois Elections Commission Freeman v Obama and Jackson v Obama agenda and recommendations. The full document contains the findings for objections to lots of candidates in other offices, the Scribd document extracts only that part that relates to objections against Obama.

So, these are two objections to Obama's ballot access to the Illinois Primary. The Obama 'camp' (it is unclear to me whether this is the Illinois Democratic Party or the Obama Campaign) moved that the objections be dismissed. The motion to dismiss included a certified birth certificate. Freeman did not respond to the motion to dismiss.

The money shot in Freeman v Obama:



... A copy of the Candidate’s birth certificate is attached to the Candidate’s Motion to Strike and Dismiss the Objector’s Petition. The Hearing officer finds that the birth certificate clearly establishes the Candidate’s eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen.


Jackson did respond to the motion to dismiss, and made it clear on what grounds he objected: Minor v Happersett controls, Wong Kim Ark does not, Ankeny doesn't apply in Illinois (Ankeny is an Illinois Supreme Court that explicitly found that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen). Normal Vattel Birther misconstruction.

The money shot in Jackson v Obama:



... the petition is based on an incorrect legal interpretation of what constitutes a "Natural Born Citizen".

... A copy of the Candidate’s birth certificate is attached to the Candidate’s Motion to Strike and Dismiss the Objector’s Petition. The Hearing officer finds that the birth certificate clearly establishes the Candidate’s eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen.


At least the Jackson complaint and response seems to have been written by an actual lawyer, and is to the point.

edit on 2/2/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



new topics
top topics
 
122
<< 49  50  51    53  54 >>

log in

join