Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > Elections, Politics, and Partisanship

Elections, Politics, and Partisanship Topics relating to politics, elections, or party affiliations of interests to SOS associates

Immigration Pushed To The Forefront Again.... Thanks! To Everyone Who Has Propelled This Issue To Its' Rightful Position. Years Of Hard Work Are Paying Off.....Keep Up The Good Work!......
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-27-2012, 04:56 AM
wetibbe wetibbe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 801
Default Obama headed for big trouble.

Eligibility Hearing In Georgia


Results Of Obama’s Eligibility Hearing In Georgia

January 26, 2012 By Daniel Noe 54 Comments

Watch the entire proceeding on video here: Video Of Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exc...ility-hearing/

Today’s proceedings generally were about the Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution, and more specifically about Obama’s eligibility to be on Georgia’s 2012 Presidential Election state ballot. Three separate challenges were made to said eligibility, including one by “birther” rock star Orly Taitz. It is safe to say that history was made today.

Big shocker: Obama did not even show up today. Guess he was too busy campaigning in Nevada and Colorado for his re-election bid. Heck, he didn’t even bother to send his attorney Mr. Michael Jablonski to deliver the necessary documents to the courthouse. But apparently, a lot of concerned Americans did show up, as the Atlanta courthouse was crowded.





To recap what has happened with this case during the past few weeks, Mr. Jablonski has tried very hard to stop this case one way or another. First he attempted to have the case dismissed, then he said it simply was not relevant to the president, then he argued that as the law stands the states do not actually have the power to determine who appears on their individual ballots (yeah, and the Pope is a Muslim), and finally said that his client was simply too preoccupied with his responsibilities as President to give a damn about the case. In short, he found himself continually having to change the story of his client.

However, the Georgia court rejected every one and all of these excuses. Just yesterday, Mr. Jablonski sent out a letter to the secretary of state in which he declared that the case was simply not to be heard and that he and his client would effectively boycott these proceedings. Hours later, Mr. Brian Kemp, Secretary of the Great State of Georgia, responded by saying that Obama and Jablonski were free to not show up at court but would nevertheless be doing so at their own peril.

Of course, Mr. Kemp is wrong since Obama is the president, right? Shouldn’t he be above the law? I mean, it is pretty likely that someone like you or I would get away with behaving like them if we were subpoenaed to appear in court, right?

Court was in session at 9 am sharp; proceedings began with the judge meeting privately with all attorneys associated with the case (you know, at least those who showed up) for more than twenty minutes. According to various sources, he told them that since Obama was not present that he would be issuing a default judgment in their favor; he also initially wanted to end the case right then and there. However, the attorneys insisted on holding speedy hearings in which witnesses could testify and evidence would be entered into the court’s records. The judge honored their request.

Much of the evidence presented in court today was obtained with the help of several Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Among evidence entered into the court’s records: Obama’s digital “birth certificate” placed on the whitehouse.gov website, his father’s place of birth (Kenya), a few pages from Obama’s memoir “Dreams From My Father” in which he mentions that his father’s passport had been revoked (and subsequently could not leave Kenya”, and Immigration Services documents about Obama Sr.

Van Irion, one of the attorneys went into more detail about the Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution, citing the decision reached in the 1875 US Supreme Court Minor vs. Happersett. Using visual aids and copies of the Court’s decision, Mr. Irion distinguishes the term “citizen” from “natural born citizen.” It is explained that the 14th Amendment does not change the meaning of a natural born citizen, and that any and all lower court verdicts do not conflict with that specific Supreme Court ruling.

What one should take away from this specific testimony, if not the proceedings in general, is that a natural born citizen has two parents who also citizens of the United States at the time of said citizen’s birth. As Obama Sr. was clearly NOT an American citizen, the case can clearly be made that our president, constitutionally speaking, is not eligible to serve as our president.

Among those who testified was a former law enforcement officer, a state-licensed PI, and an IT/PhotoShop expert. They have concluded that Obama has likely engaged in social security fraud, that his father is NOT an American citizen, and that the official birth certificate released by the Obama Administration in April is fake, beyond a reasonable doubt.

All evidence and testimony has been officially entered into court records. This leaves the door open for similar cases pending or future cases to be brought in other states as well. Also, any appeal (if one is even possible in this case) would have to be based on evidence presented by the lawyers in each case. Plaintiff Carl Swenson said in an e-mail to supporters that both “Van Irion (another plaintiff) and my lawyer Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in these two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with ‘Birther’ Orly Taitz.”

What everyone is awaiting now from the judge is an official publishing of today’s ruling, again a default judgment for the plaintiffs. Swenson says “we won” and that it is now “time for the rest of the States to take my lead and duplicate this effort.”

One question every American should be asking themselves now that these eligbility proceedings in Georgia are over is simply: “who the hell is this guy?”

Although obvious, it is important to note that not even the slightest mention of these proceedings will be heard in the mainstream liberal media. And this is for good reason; they obviously want to protect their guy Obama. When his administration’s lackeys vocally attacked Fox News in 2009, viewership of Fox News did not go down; it skyrocketed. Likewise, if the media tries to attack Orly Taitz, these witnesses, or anyone else associated with these proceedings, the so-called “birther” movement will only get stronger.

In short, the “birthers,” who have been ridiculed if not ignored by the media and much of the American public for the past three years, have officially been vindicated today.



A blow by blow of the entire court proceeding was made by Craig Andersen of the The National Patriot. His article is found below. We will be updating this page with a synopsis of what today’s proceedings mean for the entire Obama eligibility movement and what results we might see. In the meantime, read the following blow by blow account:


Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

Last edited by wetibbe; 01-27-2012 at 05:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-28-2012, 01:09 AM
DerailAmnesty.com DerailAmnesty.com is offline
"SZinWestLA"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wetibbe View Post
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
Here's reality: Barack Obama will be on the ballot in Georgia in November, as he will be in 49 other states. Further, nothing that Mark Hatfield, Alex Jones, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, Orly Taitz, Chelene Nightingale, or some other like character has to say on this subject, is going to change that.
__________________

Last edited by DerailAmnesty.com; 01-28-2012 at 01:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-28-2012, 07:10 AM
Don Don is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 649
Default

I initially thought the Birther issue was a pointless distraction, but upon reading and fact checking Obongo's books and other aspects of his life, it's obvious that there's more to this cut-out, manufactured person than meets the eye.

Unfortunately, I don't think much will come of any of his fraudulent background until many years down the road...assuming we still have free speech many years from now!

By then, the country will be so overrun by babbling illegal aliens that there will not be a sufficiently literate population to read the books that will expose the magnitude of the fraud that has been perpetrated on us by this bunco artist and his shadowy supporters.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-28-2012, 09:13 AM
DerailAmnesty.com DerailAmnesty.com is offline
"SZinWestLA"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,003
Default

I agree w/ a lot of what you wrote. I think there's a chunk of information regarding the president that has been intentionally kept out of the public eye, much like the extent of FDR's physical infirmity and Kennedy's infidelities were unknown to most Americans. It's just that this not being a natural born citizen nonsense isn't it.

Given the amount of money that has been spent keeping his academic records from public view, it's likely (and this constitutes my opinion only) he's been the beneficiary of Affirmative Action practices (as he made reference to, while in law school). He might have earned subpar grades at his undergraduate schools that would not normally merit admission to Harvard Law School, or he might have an academic record in law school that was inferior to any number of other Harvard Law students who were considered for the Law Review Editor position.

Who knows? Maybe his LSAT score (law school admission test) was a few points below what white students needed to be accepted at Harvard. Or, perhaps, he got some favorable treatment in spite of a pedestrian SAT result when he applied to Occidental, because he's black.

If any of these are true, they would constitute something an aspiring U.S. presidential candidate of color would want to hide. Middle American white folks (and Asians, too) mostly don't like Affirmative Action. They think of it as unfair and "reverse discrimination." Had such an issue played out in the media during the the general election, he could have lost lots of the 40%+ plus of white votes he received and were absolutely critical to winning office.

Also, it's possible he might have listed himself as a Muslim on one or more of his college applications for the purpose of favorable consideration in admissions (Again, Affirmative Action/Diversity stuff that is gold in the contemporary higher education scheme of things). He might have been listed as a Muslim on his school records when he was living with his adoptive father in Malaysia. It would be a natural thing to take advantage of when traversing the idiotic, PC saturated world of college admissions that existed in the 80's and early 90's. I don't think the guy's a Muslim but he could have it on his records somewhere from his childhood and simply decided to put it to good use as a young adult.

Hell, I'd have done the same thing. If I thought I could gain admission to Columbia and Harvard by listing myself as one of our Islamic friends, I'd have done it in a heartbeat.
__________________

Last edited by DerailAmnesty.com; 01-28-2012 at 09:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-29-2012, 02:58 AM
wetibbe wetibbe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 801
Default Contempt.

Lower The Boom On Barack?


Eligibility Judge About To Lower The Boom On Barack?

January 28, 2012 By Doug Book 25 Comments

At the beginning of yesterday’s hearing to determine the legal and Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama for placement on the State of Georgia ballot in November, Judge Michael Malihi was said to have read “the last paragraph of [Obama] Attorney Michael Jablonski’s letter” to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. And in the barely 2 hour proceedings which reviewed 3 lawsuits demanding Obama not appear on that ballot, this might have been the most significant “statement” made by the otherwise reserved Malihi.

Like Obama, Jablonski was a no-show in the Georgia courtroom, leaving Obama represented by no counsel at the proceeding.

And although the judge adjourned the hearing with no decision, no ruling, in fact nothing more than a “thank you” to the participants, the last paragraph of Jablonski’s letter states “We await your taking the requested action and as we do, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26th.”

Well Obama had been subpoenaed to appear in that courtroom. The subpoena had been specifically and without reservation upheld by Judge Malihi just 6 days earlier. So Obama was in obvious violation of the court’s order.

So maybe, just maybe Judge Malihi read the final words of Jablonski’s hyper arrogant, “we don’t believe your little state or your silly hearing are worth our time” letter for the purpose of reading into the record the fact that it was indeed the decision of Obama and his attorney to NOT attend and to NOT honor legal subpoenas.

And if that is the case, it means Malihi is clearing the decks for either a default judgment against the president, or the implementation of a legal remedy of some sort for Obama’s self-important refusal to appear or even respond to the proceeding with counsel.

Naturally it would take an attorney to decipher any “legal” significance in Malihi’s actions, but through his past rulings the judge has made it abundantly clear that he will follow the laws of the state of Georgia to the letter and accept no grandstanding or phony arguments from either side, not even from a president.

And it is against the law to ignore a subpoena, perhaps all the more so when the judge himself refused to allow Obama’s earlier request that the subpoena be quashed.

It might be significant that Georgia Secretary of State Kemp backed Malihi to the hilt in his response to Michael Jablonski’s letter, telling the lawyer “…If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

In short, though you and your client clearly don’t think much of our state or its laws, we will conduct the business of both just as though you were mere mortals rather than privileged characters.

When will Judge Malihi issue a ruling and what weight of law will it carry? Attorneys for both sides have until February 5th to present additional evidence for their claims. Soon after that we will know how determined the State of Georgia is in seeing to it their laws are obeyed…even by a president.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-03-2012, 08:42 AM
Patriotic Army Mom Patriotic Army Mom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 829
Default

I read all this stuff and it becomes obvious that my teenage girls and all of the other kids could care less about doing what's right. There is so much going on now and falling apart, that I'd better hurry and write a book so that it can be read in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-03-2012, 05:48 PM
DerailAmnesty.com DerailAmnesty.com is offline
"SZinWestLA"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,003
Default

Me and this guy are on the same page. We've pretty much arrived at the same conclusion(s).

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...president.html
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:25 PM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,047
Default

Now the question is:
Will This epiphany trump incumbency?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-04-2012, 04:44 AM
wetibbe wetibbe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 801
Default Now you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com View Post
Me and this guy are on the same page. We've pretty much arrived at the same conclusion(s).

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...president.html

Know why I stopped bashing Obama a long time ago. Two reasons. One is private and the other is people such as the author of the article.

I'll take one exception that agitates me. The author called Obama black. I like to think of myself as an honest person fundamentally fair and objective. The almost universal practice of referring to Obama is incorrect and disingenuous. He is not "BLACK" which apparently refers to his color, linked to his ethnic affiliation, or the belonging to a certain category of humans, for the most part originating in Africa. He is effectively a Homo Sapiens. Biologically he is a "mixed breed" white mother, black father. Properly he is a mulatto or mestizo, or if you will, to use his own term - a mutt. If he recognizes his genealogy then why do writers have so much trouble being technically accurate.

Back in earlier history the Spanish Conquistadors *( 17Th - 18Th century ) had some 18 categories of mixed breed's in Mexico. Mixes of African Mexican, Asian Mexican, Indigenous Mexican Indian, European Mexican and so on.

The Conquistadors/occupiers of Mexico referred to themselves as either Ibericos or Creoles. Ibericos were Spaniards born on the Iberian Peninsula which is Spain. Creoles were Spaniards born in Mexico.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-04-2012, 05:56 AM
DerailAmnesty.com DerailAmnesty.com is offline
"SZinWestLA"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wetibbe View Post
Know why I stopped bashing Obama a long time ago. Two reasons. One is private and the other is people such as the author of the article.

I'll take one exception that agitates me. The author called Obama black. I like to think of myself as an honest person fundamentally fair and objective

The author called Obama black? Obama is black. Further, he's hardly a lone voice in the wind referring to the president as an African-American. Almost everyone does. He's not called the first "mixed-origin" president. He's contemporarily perceived as the nation's first "black" chief executive. And this perception is not limited to folks on the political right or in the middle. People on the left are the first to take note of it. When Michael Moore and others complain about Jan Brewer pointing fingers, or Obama's low approval numbers among middle-class voters, they're not complaining that "many Americans" are having "a problem" with "a mixed-race president." They commonly speak about many "whites" disapproving of a "black man" leading the nation.

Further, this author's observations are spot on (and I've been saying the same thing for a couple years now). Wrap Obama up in white skin and he never even wins the Democratic Primary in 2008. This guy being whisked into office, with his credentials and baggage, was a U.S. national election phenomenon w/o precedent. It was really the crest or high water mark of the political correctness wave/fever that has gripped this country and held sway for the past 20 years.

It's not that I think the guy's brain dead or entirely w/o merit. It's just that he's not presidential material in the same fashion as Sonia Sotomayor has no business being on the U.S. Supreme Court. Rightly or wrongly, middle-class Americans largely hold members of unsuccessful minority groups to a lower standard in this country. Further, a whole bunch of us are desperate to see them succeed. We commonly take many of the most promising ones and hand them positions/rewards that they wouldn't have obtained had they been Asian or white. In the name of diversity our best colleges aggressively seek out Latinos and blacks to attend classes on their campuses. Our newspapers and media celebrate occasions when a person of color attains a CEO or political office position that has been previously occupied by members of the majority group. These things are part and parcel of our contemporary national culture.

When this author says that Affirmative Action is a whole lot about making white liberals feel good about themselves, he is spot on. Obama accomplished very little in the real world prior to obtaining the presidency. His career has been entirely unremarkable in Academia, Law, and as a Legislator. Hell, he's not even credited w/ having accomplished much as a "community organizer." Further, his political orientation/ideology is well outside the American mainstream. He's very far left. Candidates far away from the political center (in either direction) rarely obtain the presidency.

Here's reality: If Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, or any other white Democrat you can name, had been associated with Bill Ayres, they would never have obtained the nomination. Further, none of them would have been allowed to hide their academic transcripts while campaigning as the Democrat presidential nominee. We simply don't hold blacks and Hispanics to the same standards as we do other Americans. For whatever reason, it's true, and w/o this Affirmative Action mindset, Barack Obama never makes it as far as the U.S. Senate, let alone 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
__________________

Last edited by DerailAmnesty.com; 02-04-2012 at 06:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState 2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved