Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
- Thread starter Joe Contrarian
- Start date
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Keep your hopes on WND er I mean Sheriff Joe's report!!I am sure it has something new in it!!:LMAO
Of course they are.After 96 straight losses they have to be nervous as Hell using birfer logic!!:LMAO:LMAO
Keep your hopes on WND er I mean Sheriff Joe's report!!I am sure it has something new in it!!:LMAO
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Strange and frighting all in one with your obsession about scrotum's and cock.
Boy you do need to find some cock so you quit talking about it all the time on here.What a homo!
Strange and frighting all in one with your obsession about scrotum's and cock.
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
This is just what the birfers need!!You would think after 96 straight defeats they would learn something but we are talking about birfers!!Sad!!
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Yeah it is real clear who uses facts and who uses opinions to lose 96 straight cases!:shoot:
Look they even use this!!http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwac.html
Yeah it is real clear who uses facts and who uses opinions to lose 96 straight cases!:shoot:
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
That is the annals of Congress Joe.As much as you have been talking about cock and scrotum's I did not want you to get excited about the wrong thing and all.:thumbsup
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
<header class="story-header" style="margin-top: 12px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 7px; padding-bottom: 24px; padding-left: 12px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Tiimes, 'New Times Roman', serif; line-height: 19px; "><hgroup style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; ">OBAMA ARGUES AGAINST APPEARING AT ELIGIBILITY HEARING
'Electors, Congress, not Georgia, hold responsibility for qualifications of candidates'
<time datetime="2012-01-20T01:30:41+00:00" pubdate="" class="updated" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(130, 178, 220); ">http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-argues-against-appearing-at-eligibility-hearing/
</time></hgroup><fig class="author-img" style="max-width: 70px; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 5px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; max-height: 80px; height: 90px; ">
</fig>by BOB UNRUH Email | Archive Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.
</header>
Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month ? simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
?Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,? Obama?s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.
?The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,? the lawyer said.
Hearings have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama?s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires ?every candidate for federal? office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy ?shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.?
State law also grants the secretary of state and any ?elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate? in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate?s qualifications, the judge determined.
Three different plaintiffs? groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama?s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama?s attorney for these cases, argued that he should be exempted.
Jablonski earlier had argued that state eligibility requirements didn?t apply to Obama, but the judge said that isn?t how he reads state law.
?Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not
controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ?first step ? is to examine the plain statutory language,? the judge wrote. ?Section 21-2-1(a) states that ?every candidate for federal and state office? must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.?
In Obama?s attempt to be excused from providing testimony and evidence such as his original birth certificate, he argues that such testimony would ?interrupt duties? as president.
He also argues that the documents and testimony ?is, on its face, unreasonable.? And further, the documents and testimony already have been made public, he argued.
?The president made the documents available to the general public by placing it on his website. Although the document has been generally available for years, the president took the extraordinary step of acquiring a copy of the record of birth, informally known as the ?long form,? making it available to anyone who cares to check the website,? the filing argues.
And the state should mind its own business anyway, he argued.
?The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. ? Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,? the filing explains.
Taitz?s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she?s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.
?What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,? said one.
Wrote another, ?The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. ? This is complete utter nonsense!?
In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama?s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election, and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn?t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his ?standing? to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.
[TABLE="width: 0, align: right"]
<tbody>
</tbody>[/TABLE]
Those bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.
Irion said not many court observers believed Obama actually would comply with the subpoena for a number of reasons. He said for his clients? arguments the testimony wouldn?t even be an issue.
His argument is that the Founders clearly considered a ?natural born citizen,? as the Constitution requires of a president, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama
is disqualified under any circumstances.
Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that a multitude of experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama?s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It is that concern that also has prompted Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Their investigation report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.
The Georgia hearing will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama?s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus explains that the use of ?natural born citizen,? does, in fact, require parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision
The hearing is set at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.
Malihi?s ruling said: ?The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.?
There are similar challenges to Obama?s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states as well.
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation?s archives that addresses the definition of ?natural-born citizen,? a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
?The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.?
What the White House in April released was an image of a ?Certificate of Live Birth? from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama?s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama?s father?s nationality.
The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:
[TABLE="width: 0, align: center"]
<tbody>
</tbody>[/TABLE]
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
??Natural born citizen? in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,? he said. ?Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.?
If you ?go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require ? that?s precisely what a natural born citizen is ?. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,? he said.
?Now what we?ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama?s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn?t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.?
<header class="story-header" style="margin-top: 12px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 7px; padding-bottom: 24px; padding-left: 12px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Tiimes, 'New Times Roman', serif; line-height: 19px; "><hgroup style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; ">OBAMA ARGUES AGAINST APPEARING AT ELIGIBILITY HEARING
'Electors, Congress, not Georgia, hold responsibility for qualifications of candidates'
<time datetime="2012-01-20T01:30:41+00:00" pubdate="" class="updated" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(130, 178, 220); ">http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-argues-against-appearing-at-eligibility-hearing/
</time></hgroup><fig class="author-img" style="max-width: 70px; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 5px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; max-height: 80px; height: 90px; ">
</fig>by BOB UNRUH Email | Archive Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.</header>
Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month ? simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
?Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,? Obama?s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.
?The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,? the lawyer said.
Hearings have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama?s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires ?every candidate for federal? office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy ?shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.?
State law also grants the secretary of state and any ?elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate? in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate?s qualifications, the judge determined.
Three different plaintiffs? groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama?s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama?s attorney for these cases, argued that he should be exempted.
Jablonski earlier had argued that state eligibility requirements didn?t apply to Obama, but the judge said that isn?t how he reads state law.
?Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not
controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ?first step ? is to examine the plain statutory language,? the judge wrote. ?Section 21-2-1(a) states that ?every candidate for federal and state office? must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.?
In Obama?s attempt to be excused from providing testimony and evidence such as his original birth certificate, he argues that such testimony would ?interrupt duties? as president.
He also argues that the documents and testimony ?is, on its face, unreasonable.? And further, the documents and testimony already have been made public, he argued.
?The president made the documents available to the general public by placing it on his website. Although the document has been generally available for years, the president took the extraordinary step of acquiring a copy of the record of birth, informally known as the ?long form,? making it available to anyone who cares to check the website,? the filing argues.
And the state should mind its own business anyway, he argued.
?The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. ? Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,? the filing explains.
Taitz?s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she?s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.
?What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,? said one.
Wrote another, ?The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. ? This is complete utter nonsense!?
In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama?s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election, and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn?t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his ?standing? to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.
[TABLE="width: 0, align: right"]
<tbody>
Barack Obama
</tbody>[/TABLE]
Those bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.
Irion said not many court observers believed Obama actually would comply with the subpoena for a number of reasons. He said for his clients? arguments the testimony wouldn?t even be an issue.
His argument is that the Founders clearly considered a ?natural born citizen,? as the Constitution requires of a president, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama
is disqualified under any circumstances.
Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that a multitude of experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama?s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It is that concern that also has prompted Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Their investigation report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.
The Georgia hearing will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama?s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus explains that the use of ?natural born citizen,? does, in fact, require parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision
The hearing is set at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.
Malihi?s ruling said: ?The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.?
There are similar challenges to Obama?s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states as well.
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation?s archives that addresses the definition of ?natural-born citizen,? a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
?The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.?
What the White House in April released was an image of a ?Certificate of Live Birth? from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama?s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama?s father?s nationality.
The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:
[TABLE="width: 0, align: center"]
<tbody>
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
</tbody>[/TABLE]
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
??Natural born citizen? in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,? he said. ?Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.?
If you ?go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require ? that?s precisely what a natural born citizen is ?. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,? he said.
?Now what we?ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama?s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn?t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.?
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
:cocksuck:
:cocksuck:Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Team Kenyan's legal argument: He got elected, therefore he's eligible! ::LMAO::
Translation: On a wing and a prayer!
Good luck with that Obot underwear bloggers!
:finger007-1
Team Kenyan's legal argument: He got elected, therefore he's eligible! ::LMAO::
Translation: On a wing and a prayer!
Good luck with that Obot underwear bloggers!
:finger007-1
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
And you still cannot debunk or prove anything wrong that he has said!!All you have is trying to smear him and everyone can see who knows what they are talking about and the guy who is using proof and backing his claims with facts is making you retards look dumb as Hell.Keep trying Joe and send in some money to Orly and WND.After 96 tries and 96 losses we know just how close you are getting.:shoot:
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
And yet after 96 tries to prove your claims you have failed yet again.This is like a broken record but I know.....you got him now and just wait until Sheriff Joe or the state of Georgia get's done with him right??:LMAO:LMAOTeam Kenyan's legal argument: He got elected, therefore he's eligible! ::LMAO::
Translation: On a wing and a prayer!
Good luck with that Obot underwear bloggers!
:finger007-1
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Where do they come up with this shit at?Retards are us??This is the same old shit that has been laughed out of court 96 times but these idiots think that by polishing the turd it will come out looking like steak now??You cannot make this shit up!!I know WND NEEDS TO SCAM PEOPLE FOR MONEY BUT WHAT KIND OF IDIOT BELIEVES THIS SHIT??I f what they are saying is true then just maybe you would think that they would not have lost 96 cases but let's continue to let them believe that this is going somewhere!!:LMAO
<header class="story-header" style="margin-top: 12px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 7px; padding-bottom: 24px; padding-left: 12px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Tiimes, 'New Times Roman', serif; line-height: 19px; "><hgroup style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; ">OBAMA ARGUES AGAINST APPEARING AT ELIGIBILITY HEARING
'Electors, Congress, not Georgia, hold responsibility for qualifications of candidates'
<time datetime="2012-01-20T01:30:41+00:00" pubdate="" class="updated" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(130, 178, 220); ">http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-argues-against-appearing-at-eligibility-hearing/
</time></hgroup><fig class="author-img" style="max-width: 70px; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 5px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; max-height: 80px; height: 90px; ">
Where do they come up with this shit at?Retards are us??This is the same old shit that has been laughed out of court 96 times but these idiots think that by polishing the turd it will come out looking like steak now??You cannot make this shit up!!I know WND NEEDS TO SCAM PEOPLE FOR MONEY BUT WHAT KIND OF IDIOT BELIEVES THIS SHIT??I f what they are saying is true then just maybe you would think that they would not have lost 96 cases but let's continue to let them believe that this is going somewhere!!:LMAO
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
This Team Kenyan legal strategy is ironclad proof that the emperor is wearing no clothes. It is rock solid evidence everything birthers have been saying for years is true.
The Kenyan can't defend himself -- can't show up in court with basic ID like "Dr. Conspiracy" advised :LMAO -- because the fraud doesn't have ANY valid legal documents that pass the smell test.
This little shell game you frauds been playing for YEARS cannot go on forever.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
This Team Kenyan legal strategy is ironclad proof that the emperor is wearing no clothes. It is rock solid evidence everything birthers have been saying for years is true.
The Kenyan can't defend himself -- can't show up in court with basic ID like "Dr. Conspiracy" advised :LMAO -- because the fraud doesn't have ANY valid legal documents that pass the smell test.
This little shell game you frauds been playing for YEARS cannot go on forever.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Oh and Joe what are we going to do with the state of Hawaii??They have said the birth certificate is real so quit ducking this question since I have asked you many times.What are we going to do about them??:LMAO
Oh and Joe what are we going to do with the state of Hawaii??They have said the birth certificate is real so quit ducking this question since I have asked you many times.What are we going to do about them??:LMAO
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
What rock solid evidence is this??You have not presented one single facts or proved shit in over 3 years and 96 court cases so what has changed??Oh yes a different OPINION with still no facts or proof!!!:LMAOKeep moving them goalposts thinking no one has noticed for the thousandth time.:thumbsup
Again the state of Hawaii say's hi stupid!
What rock solid evidence is this??You have not presented one single facts or proved shit in over 3 years and 96 court cases so what has changed??Oh yes a different OPINION with still no facts or proof!!!:LMAOKeep moving them goalposts thinking no one has noticed for the thousandth time.:thumbsup
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Oh let's not forget the law firm that vetted him and hired him too.Hell according to birfer the state of Illinois just turned a blind eye and never vetted him either!!:houra
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
"My advice to Mr. Jablonski is to bring a birth certificate with him and maybe some documents to show Obama?s residence for the past 14 years. That way Obama looks just everybody else who sometimes has to show documentation."
-- Dr. Conspiracy
:3dmdr:
"My advice to Mr. Jablonski is to bring a birth certificate with him and maybe some documents to show Obama?s residence for the past 14 years. That way Obama looks just everybody else who sometimes has to show documentation."
-- Dr. Conspiracy
:3dmdr:
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
The joke is on you but yes....keep laughing since you have no clue about this satire!!:thumbsup
The irony!!Does everything go over your head??:LMAO:LMAO"My advice to Mr. Jablonski is to bring a birth certificate with him and maybe some documents to show Obama’s residence for the past 14 years. That way Obama looks just everybody else who sometimes has to show documentation."
-- Dr. Conspiracy
:3dmdr:
The joke is on you but yes....keep laughing since you have no clue about this satire!!:thumbsup
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
:cocksuck:
:cocksuck:
Going back for sloppy seconds are we?
:cocksuck:
:cocksuck:Going back for sloppy seconds are we?
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Satire huh? ::LMAO::
Is THIS "satire" too?
This clown IS a bad joke!
THAT'S RIGHT, I SAID IT! A VERY BAD JOKE!
Psst Doc, will NEVER HAPPEN!
Do you know why?
You have three guesses, and the first two don't count.
op:
Satire huh? ::LMAO::
Is THIS "satire" too?
"A birth certificate submitted to the court and positive determination of eligibility in Georgia would, in this writer’s opinion, take the wind out of the sails of a bill in Arizona."
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/new-birther-bill-in-arizona/
This clown IS a bad joke!
THAT'S RIGHT, I SAID IT! A VERY BAD JOKE!
Psst Doc, will NEVER HAPPEN!
Do you know why?
You have three guesses, and the first two don't count.
op:Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
How much money do you want to put on it???Calling somebody a joke when you cannot prove anything he say's is wrong or present one single fact to debunk anything he say's is comical!!:LMAO:LMAOYes Joe he OWNS YOU!!!And there is not shit you can do about it except to keep on trying to discredit him with smears since you cannot debate the facts with anybody.Prove him wrong on something....you have had many chances but are still batting ZERO!:LMAOSatire huh? ::LMAO::
Is THIS "satire" too?
This clown IS a bad joke!
THAT'S RIGHT, I SAID IT! A VERY BAD JOKE!
Psst Doc, will NEVER HAPPEN!
Do you know why?
You have three guesses, and the first two don't count.
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Georgia Representative and Attorney Mark Hatfield Files Notice to Produce Against Obama
Georgia Representative and Attorney Mark Hatfield Files Notice to Produce Against Obama
OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-representative-and-attorney.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(88, 140, 184); outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; "><abbr class="published" title="2012-01-19T18:56:00-08:00" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; ">6:56 PM
</abbr>
Attorney Mark Hatfield on behalf of Carl Swensson and Kevin Powell filed a notice to produce records against Obama in the Georgia Ballot Challenge. Attorney Hatfield also filed a motion for determination of placement of burden of proof in the challenge. Also Judge Malihi issued an order today related to the motion for determination which is linked below. All 3 new filings linked below.
Excerpt from the Notice to Produce:
Pursuant to OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.19, Defendant Barack Obama is hereby notified to be and appear before the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, the Honorable Michael M. Malihi presiding, at the Fulton County Justice Center Building, 161 Pryor Street, Courtroom G-40, Atalanta, Georgia on January 26, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., and to bring with him into said Court the following items to be used as evidence by the Plaintiffs in the above-styled case.
Defendant will note that the preceding items are requested hereby, whether they pertain to Defendant under his name Barack Obama or any other name, including but not limited to Barack Hussein Obama II; Barry Soetoro; Barry Soebarkah; Barry Obama, or the like.
READ BOTH NEW FILINGS AND JUDGE MALIHI'S ORDER HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html
Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.
Please visit www.Article2LegalDefenseFund.com and consider making a secure donation to help cover legal costs associated with the GA ballot challenge.
</abbr>
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-representative-and-attorney.html
Attorney and Georgia State Representative Mark Hatfield
Files Notice to Produce Against Obama in Georgia Ballot Challenge
Attorney and Georgia State Representative Mark Hatfield
Files Notice to Produce Against Obama in Georgia Ballot Challenge
Attorney Mark Hatfield on behalf of Carl Swensson and Kevin Powell filed a notice to produce records against Obama in the Georgia Ballot Challenge. Attorney Hatfield also filed a motion for determination of placement of burden of proof in the challenge. Also Judge Malihi issued an order today related to the motion for determination which is linked below. All 3 new filings linked below.
Excerpt from the Notice to Produce:
Pursuant to OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.19, Defendant Barack Obama is hereby notified to be and appear before the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, the Honorable Michael M. Malihi presiding, at the Fulton County Justice Center Building, 161 Pryor Street, Courtroom G-40, Atalanta, Georgia on January 26, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., and to bring with him into said Court the following items to be used as evidence by the Plaintiffs in the above-styled case.
See the long list of items(A - I) in the Notice to Produce here.
Defendant will note that the preceding items are requested hereby, whether they pertain to Defendant under his name Barack Obama or any other name, including but not limited to Barack Hussein Obama II; Barry Soetoro; Barry Soebarkah; Barry Obama, or the like.
Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.
Please visit www.Article2LegalDefenseFund.com and consider making a secure donation to help cover legal costs associated with the GA ballot challenge.
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
You have been slapped around so much in your own thread let's just call it sloppy millionths .:cocksuck:
Going back for sloppy seconds are we?
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
"My advice to Mr. Jablonski is to bring a birth certificate with him and maybe some documents to show Obama’s residence for the past 14 years. That way Obama looks just everybody else who sometimes has to show documentation."
"A birth certificate submitted to the court and positive determination of eligibility in Georgia would, in this writer’s opinion, take the wind out of the sails of a bill in Arizona."
:3dgros13:
"My advice to Mr. Jablonski is to bring a birth certificate with him and maybe some documents to show Obama’s residence for the past 14 years. That way Obama looks just everybody else who sometimes has to show documentation."
"A birth certificate submitted to the court and positive determination of eligibility in Georgia would, in this writer’s opinion, take the wind out of the sails of a bill in Arizona."
:3dgros13:
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
[h=3]QUOTE OF THE DAY[/h]To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Court’s 1874 decision in that case.
-- Associate Professor Joesph Hylton
-- Marquette University Law School
And yet the birfers still try to!!:LMAO:LMAOYou cannot make this shit up!!
:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
[h=3]QUOTE OF THE DAY[/h]To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Court’s 1874 decision in that case.
-- Associate Professor Joesph Hylton
-- Marquette University Law School
And yet the birfers still try to!!:LMAO:LMAOYou cannot make this shit up!!
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
And this is wrong how???How much money do you want to put on it???"My advice to Mr. Jablonski is to bring a birth certificate with him and maybe some documents to show Obama’s residence for the past 14 years. That way Obama looks just everybody else who sometimes has to show documentation."
"A birth certificate submitted to the court and positive determination of eligibility in Georgia would, in this writer’s opinion, take the wind out of the sails of a bill in Arizona."
:3dgros13:
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Oh no it is forgery and the state of Hawaii is just not going to say anything about the forgery!!:LMAO:LMAO:LMAOBirfers......:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
And let me guess the state of Hawaii is lying ???:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO"."
"A birth certificate submitted to the court and positive determination of eligibility in Georgia would, in this writer’s opinion, take the wind out of the sails of a bill in Arizona."
:3dgros13:
Oh no it is forgery and the state of Hawaii is just not going to say anything about the forgery!!:LMAO:LMAO:LMAOBirfers......:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Georgia Representative and Attorney Mark Hatfield Files Notice to Produce Against Obama
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-representative-and-attorney.htmlDear Team Kenyan,
Show up in court with some valid ID, or prepare to be exposed for the FRAUD everyone knows you are!
Sincerely,
The good people of Georgia!
:finger007-1
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-representative-and-attorney.htmlhttp://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-representative-and-attorney.htmlhttp://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-representative-and-attorney.html
Georgia Representative and Attorney Mark Hatfield Files Notice to Produce Against Obama
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-representative-and-attorney.htmlDear Team Kenyan,
Show up in court with some valid ID, or prepare to be exposed for the FRAUD everyone knows you are!
Sincerely,
The good people of Georgia!
:finger007-1
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-representative-and-attorney.htmlhttp://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-representative-and-attorney.htmlhttp://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-representative-and-attorney.html
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
The birfers are still barking up the tree with their stupid shit on this.WND.....:LMAO
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
:cocksuck:
:cocksuck:
:cocksuck:
:cocksuck:Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
I love the birfer logic!!
I am sure the birfers have someone there from Hawaii just waiting to prove that the birth certificate is a forgery right??:LMAOI mean WND say's so that means it is then and the state has just been keeping quiet about this whole forgery /fraud thing because....??:LMAO
I love the birfer logic!!
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
In June 2008, President Obama released his Certification of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “short form” birth certificate.
Both documents are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawai’i, and both provide the same fundamental information: President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai’i at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.
:houra
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
You cannot make this shit up....only in birfer la la land!!
According to birfer this will not work!!!The state that issued it is wrong!!:LMAOThey do not know what they are talking about but the birfers who have lost 96 straight cases do!!:LMAO
You cannot make this shit up....only in birfer la la land!!
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
?338-17.7. The law says:
Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.”
But he was adopted claims the birfers!!Really he was!!
:LMAO:LMAOBut he was adopted claims the birfers!!Really he was!!
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Posting something on the internet = proof.
Obot underwear blogger logic at it's finest.
Posting something on the internet = proof.
Obot underwear blogger logic at it's finest.
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18. (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.
But they was forged claims the birfers.
:LMAOHawaii is just going to take this fraud and not say anything in birfer la la land.But they was forged claims the birfers.
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAOThose are straight from the state of Hawaii's website and are THEIR LAWS!!Retarded birfer is not smart enough to realize we deal with facts and laws!!!
You idiots never do and that is why you have lost 96 straight cases ...fucking idiot!!
Posting something on the internet = proof
Obot underwear blogger logic at it's finest.
:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAOThose are straight from the state of Hawaii's website and are THEIR LAWS!!Retarded birfer is not smart enough to realize we deal with facts and laws!!!
You idiots never do and that is why you have lost 96 straight cases ...fucking idiot!!
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
I have already proven your underwear blogger tards don't deal with facts 20 pages ago, and no amount of smileys, lying, dodging and smearing birthers can change that.
This isn't the White House press room. I dare the Kenyan to show up in a court of law with those amateur forgeries he posted on the internet. He does that and he'll end up next to Tony Resco and Rod Blagojevich -- where he belongs.
Memo to Jakarda Boy:
PROVE YOUR ELIGIBILITY IN A COURT OF LAW -- OR PREPARE FOR THE CRIMINAL TRIAL OF THE CENTURY!
Sincerely,
The American People
I have already proven your underwear blogger tards don't deal with facts 20 pages ago, and no amount of smileys, lying, dodging and smearing birthers can change that.
This isn't the White House press room. I dare the Kenyan to show up in a court of law with those amateur forgeries he posted on the internet. He does that and he'll end up next to Tony Resco and Rod Blagojevich -- where he belongs.
Memo to Jakarda Boy:
PROVE YOUR ELIGIBILITY IN A COURT OF LAW -- OR PREPARE FOR THE CRIMINAL TRIAL OF THE CENTURY!
Sincerely,
The American People