Obama ignored GA eligibility hearing

[Guest]

Failure to appear after being served a subpeona, has caused the judge to give preliminary ruling that Obama will not be eligible to be on the ballot in Georgia. What a peach of a story!
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cwcd5bC07E&feature=related"/url]

[Guest]

Failure to appear after being served a subpeona, has caused the judge to give preliminary ruling that Obama will not be eligible to be on the ballot in Georgia. What a peach of a story!
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cwcd5bC07E&feature=related"/url]

Activist judge!!!!

[Guest]

Failure to appear after being served a subpeona, has caused the judge to give preliminary ruling that Obama will not be eligible to be on the ballot in Georgia. What a peach of a story!
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cwcd5bC07E&feature=related"/url]




LOL - don't you ever get tired of posting nonsense?

[Guest]

Failure to appear after being served a subpeona, has caused the judge to give preliminary ruling that Obama will not be eligible to be on the ballot in Georgia. What a peach of a story!
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cwcd5bC07E&feature=related"/url]

Total drivel. :ohdear:

[Guest]

I wonder how the process of serving said subpoena went.

[Guest]

All Hail the Naked King.

[Guest]

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. :ohdear:

[Guest]

Interesting - trying to find some facts on this case, it's hard to get past all the hits from blogs.

So what did I find out? Well, Orly Taitz (who some describe as "Birther Queen") is one of the complainants. She said that the hearing would "be 100 times bigger than Watergate."

Ok, maybe a bit of exaggeration there.. But I found an interesting piece of information on Taitz:

Taitz had earlier received a $20,000 fine for a frivolous suit in Georgia. In that suit, she represented two soldiers who were seeking to avoid deployment over their belief that Obama wasn't eligible to be president.


So what happens now? Well, here's one piece of info I found:


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution spoke with attorney Melvin Goldstein, who is not involved with the case, to get some insight on what might happen if the administration simply turned a blind eye to the court order. While unprecedented, he said Malihi could possibly refer the matter to a Fulton County Superior Court judge, who could then decide whether to enforce the subpoena. If necessary, Goldstein suggested, the judge could hold the president in contempt


One thing I haven't found is whether or not any OTHER candidate has been requested to furnish their birth certificates.

[Guest]

Go to HugeDomains.com - NationalPatriot.com is for Sale (National Patriot) (http://www.nationalpatriot.com) and read all about it. Very interesting.

[Guest]

Sorry about above IP address. You need to go directly to nationalpatriot.com

[Guest]

Failure to appear after being served a subpeona, has caused the judge to give preliminary ruling that Obama will not be eligible to be on the ballot in Georgia. What a peach of a story!
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cwcd5bC07E&feature=related"/url]

Can't be true how can they subponea a non-citizen:a040:

[Guest]

its really just sad. I can't take this garbage anymore.

[Guest]

Sorry about above IP address. You need to go directly to nationalpatriot.com

This is the site you're talking about

thenationalpatriot.com (http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/)

[Guest]

Richie-thanks for correcting this. Very interesting reading.

[Guest]

Katz and Richie - Then by this same logic, Tea Party darling Marco Rubio would not be eligible to be a VP candidate. His parents came to the USA in the mid-1950's during the Batista era and did not become US citizens until 1975. Marco was born in 1971.

What do you say about that?

[Guest]

buggyone, you are correct, Rubio is not eligible for either the office of President or VP. Now if his parents were citizens before his birth in 1971, then he would qualify.

Sometime or another we have to start following the constitution and the law.

As for the court case, the state can keep a candidates name off the ballot if the candidate does not show proof of citizenship and eligblity to hold the office of President. Each states elections laws are different and the states control the ballot not the federal government.

[Guest]

buggyone, you are correct, Rubio is not eligible for either the office of President or VP. Now if his parents were citizens before his birth in 1971, then he would qualify.

Sometime or another we have to start following the constitution and the law.

As for the court case, the state can keep a candidates name off the ballot if the candidate does not show proof of citizenship and eligblity to hold the office of President. Each states elections laws are different and the states control the ballot not the federal government.

Actually, Obama did have 1 parent who was a citizen at the time of his birth.

[Guest]

It takes both parents to be citizens at the time of the child birth for the child to be considered "natural born citizen." Read the articles listed, guess that this will have to go to the SCOTUS for final determination. Either the United States starts following the Constitution or we just tear it up and do whatever.

[Guest]

Let me see if I understand the crux of the matter.

The thought is that "natural born" means both parents have to be citizens?

I apologize in advance, but you (Fogmo) had those links in another thread. Can you point me to which thread it was or repost the links? I admit I didn't read them when I saw them fly by.

[Guest]

I looked at the National Patriot - several of the entries and they keep referencing this alternative definition of "Natural Born" yet I can't yet find ANY links supporting that. The people that they mention in some of their posts have already had cases thrown out for being frivolous.

This is a blog - nothing more (so far).

Wikipedia has the following about the term "natural born":


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.[1]

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.


So far, I'll take the Congressional Research Service over a self-admitted right-wing blog.

[Guest]

DPlong and others - This tripe about both parents having to be citizens of the USA before a child born to them on US soil being a natural born citizen is nothing more than tripe derived from "birthers" who are racists. Yes, I said racists.

Two candidates, Obama and Rubio, both good men who were born in the USA both have the right to be President. Just because they do not fit the lilly white of Presidents in the past, don't try to exclude them based upon some crackpot's definition of what "natural born" means.

Remember what the witches told Macbeth. He could not be killed by a person born of a woman. He felt invincible but found out that Macduff was not born of a woman but rather taken by C-Section. Macbeth found out at that moment he was not invincible. Can this same arguement be used by "birthers" as someone not being a "natural born citizen?"

[Guest]

DPlong and others - This tripe about both parents having to be citizens of the USA before a child born to them on US soil being a natural born citizen is nothing more than tripe derived from "birthers" who are racists. Yes, I said racists.

Two candidates, Obama and Rubio, both good men who were born in the USA both have the right to be President. Just because they do not fit the lilly white of Presidents in the past, don't try to exclude them based upon some crackpot's definition of what "natural born" means.

Remember what the witches told Macbeth. He could not be killed by a person born of a woman. He felt invincible but found out that Macduff was not born of a woman but rather taken by C-Section. Macbeth found out at that moment he was not invincible. Can this same arguement be used by "birthers" as someone not being a "natural born citizen?"

:bigbow:

[Guest]

DPlong and others - This tripe about both parents having to be citizens of the USA before a child born to them on US soil being a natural born citizen is nothing more than tripe derived from "birthers" who are racists. Yes, I said racists.

Two candidates, Obama and Rubio, both good men who were born in the USA both have the right to be President. Just because they do not fit the lilly white of Presidents in the past, don't try to exclude them based upon some crackpot's definition of what "natural born" means.

Remember what the witches told Macbeth. He could not be killed by a person born of a woman. He felt invincible but found out that Macduff was not born of a woman but rather taken by C-Section. Macbeth found out at that moment he was not invincible. Can this same arguement be used by "birthers" as someone not being a "natural born citizen?"

If you can't make an argument on the substance of the issue, it doesn't help you to call the other a derogatory name like you did with your cavalier use of the word racist. It demeans your argument.

Macbeth?....you're going to argue the Constitution with Macbeth?

There are plenty of scholarly arguments to be made to support your viewpoint without resorting to the playground mentality of accusing your opponent of an unsupportable and unprovable claim of racism.

At the very least, it doesn't bolster your view. It actually has the opposite effect.

[Guest]

You know it's not the fact of natural born or not it's just that obama has this country so messed up or should i say hasnt done anything in 3 years to improve it that people just want him out before he can really screw it up and are grabing at anything to try and eliminate him from any more harm to this country.

[Guest]

Richie, I know you are not one of those who believes that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA.

To the others - he is President until at least January 20, 2013 - and most likely until January 20, 2017. Live with it. The majority of American voters put him into office (somewhere around 55%) and they will most likely keep him there.

[Guest]

It may sound simplistic, but my understanding of "natural-born" citizen is that a natural-born one is one who was born on U.S. soil--NOT a naturalized citizen who came to the U.S. as an immigrant and became a citizen through the legal immigration process.

Under that understanding, Rubio would be natural-born because he was born here. If Obama was really born in Hawaii and not Kenya, he would be natural-born.......unless he truly had become a citizen of Indonesia as a child named Barry Soetero as school records show. Even then, it would be a question of whether U.S. citizenship had to be given up if he'd become an Indonesian citizen.
Was young Obama Indonesian citizen? (http://www.wnd.com/2008/08/72656/)

Also, parental citizenship really has nothing to do with a child born here being an automatic citizen. For example, Mexican illegal alien parent(s)'s children born here in the USA are "natural-born" citizens.

[Guest]

ilovtv: That was my point. I interpreted "natural born" as to mean "born in the U.S." and I'm curious as to what sort of legal interpretation these other people are trying to use.

Some may be quick to haul out a charge of 'racism' - but when you start running out of other reasons regarding people's motivations, I can see where one MIGHT start thinking that.

[Guest]

ilovtv: That was my point. I interpreted "natural born" as to mean "born in the U.S." and I'm curious as to what sort of legal interpretation these other people are trying to use.

Some may be quick to haul out a charge of 'racism' - but when you start running out of other reasons regarding people's motivations, I can see where one MIGHT start thinking that.

Even "born in the U.S." might not be a sufficient enough definition. If you are born to U.S. citizens abroad you are considered by some interpreters of the term a "natural born American". So, some believe since his mother was indeed an American born citizen, Obama should be seen as a "natural born American" even if the reality really was that he was born in a foreign land and not Hawaii.

The original reason for this restriction was to prevent learned foreign diplomats from seeking leadership of our then fledgling nation.

It would be nice if the Supreme Court would take up this question and rule on what the Constitutional phrase is actually saying in a strictly legal way.

Of course, then we would just be endlessly arguing whether the ruling was correct or flawed.

[Guest]

DPlong and others - This tripe about both parents having to be citizens of the USA before a child born to them on US soil being a natural born citizen is nothing more than tripe derived from "birthers" who are racists. Yes, I said racists.

Two candidates, Obama and Rubio, both good men who were born in the USA both have the right to be President. Just because they do not fit the lilly white of Presidents in the past, don't try to exclude them based upon some crackpot's definition of what "natural born" means.

Remember what the witches told Macbeth. He could not be killed by a person born of a woman. He felt invincible but found out that Macduff was not born of a woman but rather taken by C-Section. Macbeth found out at that moment he was not invincible. Can this same arguement be used by "birthers" as someone not being a "natural born citizen?"

buggyone: It is possible that people do not believe Obama was born in this country because of all the blocking he has done on securing his records and the millions he has paid in legal fees blocking lawsuits requesting said information.. And it is possible that people don't like him only because he is a terrible president. For instance, his political/economic strategy called for stimulus that ran up spending that exploded the deficit to 3.6 trillion from 2.98 trillion or 20%. The government spending burden is now 24% of GDP further on Obama watch the national debt, debt the public has to payback climbed to 702.5% from40.3%. He is now calling for higer taxes and has declared class warfare to detract fro his economic record. Obama is decimating our military, our foreign policy and our energy policy becaue he is an idealogue. Quite frankly I could go on but then I would only depress myself more. but i can say one good thing about him that you would be especially proude. He is a good human resources guy because he is locating engineering jobs for voters so that are not replaced by foreigners with fast track visa's

What is really interesting, and believeable, but most people won't admit it, is that the liberal press and many Americans are giving him a pass because he is black....and that's just plain wrong for all of us because its just not objective and this sort of thinking just doesn't belong in our world today. I opine you decide.

[Guest]

For instance, his political/economic strategy called for stimulus that ran up spending that exploded the deficit to 3.6 trillion from 2.98 trillion or 20%.

Huh? The *deficit* peaked at $1.6T last year and is projected to finish out this fiscal year at $1.1T. You can't be confusing that with the *debt* because that's over $14T.

So what are you talking about? (FYI - I got the numbers from the Office of management and Budget)

[Guest]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/media_blackout_in_obama_georgia_ballot_eligibility _case.html

[Guest]

Articles: Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/media_blackout_in_obama_georgia_ballot_eligibility _case.html)

We have a President who feels himself above the law and who declares himself immune from the power of the judiciary.

The lame-stream media just shrugs and walks away. (Does the media genuflect or simply bow when in the presence of "The One"?)

Even Nixon, as pointed out in this report, fought the judiciary but didn't hold it in contempt, as this President has done.

This is an impeachable offense.

[Guest]

Wow, that is really something shocking! A Georgia court wants the President of the USA to testify and he doesn't show up! Gosh-a-rootie, Georgia might secede from the Union again over this'n goldurn insult to it's dignity by an uppity Yankee impersonator to the Presidency.

Seriously, though, Richie and Katz, if the issue on the table is that Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen, where does that leave Marco Rubio if he should want to run for Pres. or VP?

[Guest]

Wow, that is really something shocking! A Georgia court wants the President of the USA to testify and he doesn't show up! Gosh-a-rootie, Georgia might secede from the Union again over this'n goldurn insult to it's dignity by an uppity Yankee impersonator to the Presidency.

Seriously, though, Richie and Katz, if the issue on the table is that Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen, where does that leave Marco Rubio if he should want to run for Pres. or VP?

THE ISSUE IS the President has ignored and shown contempt of court in refusing to address a legally issued subpoena which compels a response BY LAW.

The President by virtue of his office is not granted immunity from such a writ.

STICK WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND AND STOP DEFLECTING.

[Guest]

THE ISSUE IS the President has ignored and shown contempt of court in refusing to address a legally issued subpoena which compels a response BY L
The President by virtue of his office is not granted immunity from such a writ.

STICK WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND AND STOP DEFLECTING.

Even you surely must know that legal proceeding is absurd and laughable. :ohdear:

[Guest]

The President's legal team has shown contempt to a person who has had apparently numerous cases thrown out of court for filing "frivolous lawsuits".

I'm surprised you're not complaining about this being a waste of taxpayer money by the complainant.

[Guest]

The South will rise again against them dadburn Yankee impersonaters and them lawyer fellers. We'uns in Georgia know whut is right - and far right, too.

[Guest]

Even you surely must know that legal proceeding is absurd and laughable. :ohdear:

The President's legal team has shown contempt to a person who has had apparently numerous cases thrown out of court for filing "frivolous lawsuits".

I'm surprised you're not complaining about this being a waste of taxpayer money by the complainant.

The South will rise again against them dadburn Yankee impersonaters and them lawyer fellers. We'uns in Georgia know whut is right - and far right, too.

Regardless of how you feel about the lawsuit or the subpoena, it is a writ that the President has to address by the power of the law. THE LAW!!!

So you're all admitting and accepting of the fact that the President has now elevated himself to one who is not bound by our nation's laws?

(DJ, after you admit that I am right about the crux of this issue we can discuss what constitutes wasted tax money.)

For 3 people who have shown some intelligence in the past, do you really want to take that position?

This is a precedent that Richard Nixon and William Jefferson Clinton would have loved to use.

[Guest]

The President's legal team has shown contempt to a person who has had apparently numerous cases thrown out of court for filing "frivolous lawsuits"......

That's what his "legal team" is for....to attend the proceedings and represent him if he's not going.

It's not the job of the defendant nor his lawyers to decide whether it is a valid or "frivolous" charge and proceeding.

This behavior of not even sending a rookie lawyer to attend or address the court reeks of disrespect and disdain for the court.

Disrespect and disdain for ANYONE coming from a President shows how he regards those who hired and pay him.

[Guest]

That's what his "legal team" is for....to attend the proceedings and represent him if he's not going.

It's not the job of the defendant nor his lawyers to decide whether it is a valid or "frivolous" charge and proceeding.

This behavior of not even sending a rookie lawyer to attend or address the court reeks of disrespect and disdain for the court.

Disrespect and disdain for ANYONE coming from a President shows how he regards those who hired and pay him.

yes, yes, yes, yes........

[Guest]

Richie: One thing I'd ask before all this - and I can't seem to quickly find an unbiased article summarizing things...

How was the subpeona served? Who actually received it?

I find it hard to believe that Obama himself would have know about this - President of the United States tend to be busy men.

But as one other pointed out - that's what legal teams are for - to do all the low-level stuff that comes with the territory of being President.

To use a thin analogy - I can serve my deadbeat tenants by placing the notices on the door - but they can still claim they never saw it. That's why one tends to use the local County Sheriff's office to do that sort of thing - to show proof of the attempt at least.

So who knew about he subpoena and (evidently) ignored it? Who served it and how? That might explain a lot and put egg on SOMEONE's face (probably the President's legal team or other advisors)

[Guest]

Let me think about this. Do I want the President chasing around the country responding to every crackpot lawsuit that's filed against him, or do I want him in the war room trying to figure out this threat by Israel to bomb Iran? Can't decide.

[Guest]

Oily Taitz is called the queen bee of the birthers. She was fined $20,000 for frivelous lawsuits. She is a nutjob to say the least.

The hearing went on without President Obama. No problem. What will the judge decide? Makes no difference as the Georgia Secretary of State (Kemp) will make the final decision.

At any rate, the final decision is Kemp's. Regardless of what Malihi recommends, Kemp does not want to become the Republican secretary of state who ruled Barack Obama off the ballot in Georgia. Becoming a birther hero would not begin to compensate for the lasting infamy such a step would bring him, especially because such a ruling would be challenged in state or federal court and almost immediately overturned on any number of reasons. Kemp would then look like a fool and put an end to any further political ambitions he might have. I doubt that’s the course he will choose to take.

President Obama has better things to do than deal with Oily Taitz and her ilk.

[Guest]

Oily Taitz is called the queen bee of the birthers. She was fined $20,000 for frivelous lawsuits. She is a nutjob to say the least.

The hearing went on without President Obama. No problem. What will the judge decide? Makes no difference as the Georgia Secretary of State (Kemp) will make the final decision.

At any rate, the final decision is Kemp's. Regardless of what Malihi recommends, Kemp does not want to become the Republican secretary of state who ruled Barack Obama off the ballot in Georgia. Becoming a birther hero would not begin to compensate for the lasting infamy such a step would bring him, especially because such a ruling would be challenged in state or federal court and almost immediately overturned on any number of reasons. Kemp would then look like a fool and put an end to any further political ambitions he might have. I doubt that’s the course he will choose to take.

President Obama has better things to do than deal with Oily Taitz and her ilk.

Again, that is what his team of lawyers is paid to do. Nobody is above the law. If a president were allowed to be above the law, then we'd be under a dictatorship.

But then, dictatorship is what many on the left want in the first place.

[Guest]

ilovetv - my only reply can be :ohdear:

Hit them long, straight, and not too often.

[Guest]

If President Obama responds to one nutcase subpoena in GA, then next week there will be ten wacko lawsuits in AL, followed by 25 in MS. His legal team has to draw a line somewhere.

[Guest]

Richie: One thing I'd ask before all this - and I can't seem to quickly find an unbiased article summarizing things...

How was the subpeona served? Who actually received it?

I find it hard to believe that Obama himself would have know about this - President of the United States tend to be busy men.

But as one other pointed out - that's what legal teams are for - to do all the low-level stuff that comes with the territory of being President.

To use a thin analogy - I can serve my deadbeat tenants by placing the notices on the door - but they can still claim they never saw it. That's why one tends to use the local County Sheriff's office to do that sort of thing - to show proof of the attempt at least.

So who knew about he subpoena and (evidently) ignored it? Who served it and how? That might explain a lot and put egg on SOMEONE's face (probably the President's legal team or other advisors)

Let me think about this. Do I want the President chasing around the country responding to every crackpot lawsuit that's filed against him, or do I want him in the war room trying to figure out this threat by Israel to bomb Iran? Can't decide.

Oily Taitz is called the queen bee of the birthers. She was fined $20,000 for frivelous lawsuits. She is a nutjob to say the least.

The hearing went on without President Obama. No problem. What will the judge decide? Makes no difference as the Georgia Secretary of State (Kemp) will make the final decision.

At any rate, the final decision is Kemp's. Regardless of what Malihi recommends, Kemp does not want to become the Republican secretary of state who ruled Barack Obama off the ballot in Georgia. Becoming a birther hero would not begin to compensate for the lasting infamy such a step would bring him, especially because such a ruling would be challenged in state or federal court and almost immediately overturned on any number of reasons. Kemp would then look like a fool and put an end to any further political ambitions he might have. I doubt that’s the course he will choose to take.

President Obama has better things to do than deal with Oily Taitz and her ilk.

"Twistin', twistin', twistin' the night away; twistin', twistin' the night away.

I love when all you libs squirm. The President ignores the law and you defend the indefensible. ha, ha, ha, ha, ha..............

[Guest]

"The American People Are Rising Up. Citizens In Six States Are Now DEMANDING That Barack Obama’s Name Be Stripped From The Ballot Unless He Can Prove That He Is Eligible To Hold The Office He Usurped In 2008!

WND recently reported that while Judge Malihi in Georgia “could decide as early as this week whether voters in the state convinced him Barack Obama’s name should be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot… win, lose or draw, the fight isn’t going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation… in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.”
Obama ballot issue « The Radio Patriot (http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/obama-ballot-issue/)



:a040::a040: Well, what do ya'll know, this isn't just lil Georgia having issues over an uppity Yankee impersonator? It's all over the place! NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, & WEST!

[Guest]

KatzPajamas better worry more about Israel bombing Iran. Not clicking on your right wing nut-case web-site. Don't want to infect my computer.

[Guest]

Guess what? The Atlanta judge threw the case out today according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

[Guest]

An interesting article discussing Presidents and Subpoenas at Presidents and Subpoenas: Information from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/presidents-and-subpoenas)

How many documents are needed, do you think, to prove that you really are naturally born?

[Guest]

Guess what? The Atlanta judge threw the case out today according to the Atlanta Journal.

Well, it still has to go to the Georgia Secretary of State for final determination, but I guess the fix is in.

How is the NWO to proceed if the Emperor is deposed?

[Guest]

Richie - was this your attitude when left-wing protestors were filing claims to have George Bush impeached and tried as a war criminal? As I recall, those lawsuits were pretty much ignored as well.

[Guest]

KatzPajamas better worry more about Israel bombing Iran. Not clicking on your right wing nut-case web-site. Don't want to infect my computer.

It is IRAN who has THREATENED to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

Are you ignoring this on purpose, or just a regular anti-Semite??

[Guest]

Well, it still has to go to the Georgia Secretary of State for final determination, but I guess the fix is in.

How is the NWO to proceed if the Emperor is deposed?

Total BS!! :ohdear:

[Guest]

It is IRAN who has THREATENED to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

Are you ignoring this on purpose, or just a regular anti-Semite??

Just saying there are more important issues going on right now to worry about.

[Guest]

Richie - was this your attitude when left-wing protestors were filing claims to have George Bush impeached and tried as a war criminal? As I recall, those lawsuits were pretty much ignored as well.

You thought wrong. President Bush never was presented, and so never refused a legally presented subpoena. Only "The One", who you are inexplicably defending, has had the contempt for our laws applying to him to do that.

This is unbelievable. All you guys spinning is making me a bit nauseous.

[Guest]

Total BS!! :ohdear:

You are tragically misinformed if you thin I have written anything but the truth of the matter.

[Guest]

Just saying there are more important issues going on right now to worry about.

The President of our country showing contempt for our system of laws is of utmost importance to any thinking American.

[Guest]

The President of our country showing contempt for our system of laws is of utmost importance to any thinking American.

Key word here = "thinking"

[Guest]

The President of our country showing contempt for our system of laws is of utmost importance to any thinking American.

Evidently the judge hearing the case disagrees with you since he threw the case out as being frivolous. As I've stated before, the President cannot be required to appear everytime he is confronted with some nut case lawsuit. If he did, you would be criticizing him for wasting taxpayers money by flying around on AirForceOne.

[Guest]

Just saying there are more important issues going on right now to worry about.


I would be curious as to what might be more important than the Israeli/Iran situation ?? PLEASE explain

[Guest]

Bucco, it appears that janmcn agrees with you that Pres. Obama is too concerned with world issues than to waste time and taxpayer money answering frivelous lawsuits by nut jobs like Oily Taitz.

RichieLion and Katz disagree and would like the President to personally appear at all of these nut job hearings - even though it is a waste of time and money.

Conservatives have to learn.

[Guest]

I would be curious as to what might be more important than the Israeli/Iran situation ?? PLEASE explain

I was saying that the Iraeli/Iran situation is more important than all the frivolous lawsuits that are being thrown at President Obama.

[Guest]

Huh? The *deficit* peaked at $1.6T last year and is projected to finish out this fiscal year at $1.1T. You can't be confusing that with the *debt* because that's over $14T.

So what are you talking about? (FYI - I got the numbers from the Office of management and Budget)

Your right I meant debt and the amount depends on what period you are examining. My stats are from WSJ. could have missed something

It doesn't change the fact that this guy will spend us in the ground

[Guest]

Bucco, it appears that janmcn agrees with you that Pres. Obama is too concerned with world issues than to waste time and taxpayer money answering frivelous lawsuits by nut jobs like Oily Taitz.

RichieLion and Katz disagree and would like the President to personally appear at all of these nut job hearings - even though it is a waste of time and money.

Conservatives have to learn.

Let's see what happens if any other American ignores a subpoena because he felt it frivolous..

Is the President above the law in your view? Are you seriously making that argument?

[Guest]

THE ISSUE IS the President has ignored and shown contempt of court in refusing to address a legally issued subpoena which compels a response BY LAW.

The President by virtue of his office is not granted immunity from such a writ.

STICK WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND AND STOP DEFLECTING.When one shows this kind of contempt for our legal system and one takes more than enough time to setup the logistics of producing an alleged fraudulent birth certificate, creditability becomes a major serious issue that the left would prefer to sweep under the carpet if they could.

I just read an article called "Defining Natural-Born Citizen (http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/)" where the author PA Madison extensively wrote on the subject in question here. IMHO, if what has been indicated is accurate - and I have no reason to believe that it's not - then I would have no doubt what-so-ever that the president is not a natural born citizen. It explains that a newly born child is a naturally born citizen if the child's father's (not mother's with rare exception) allegiance is exclusively to the US. That means US citizenship, and my understanding is that the president's father was not a citizen at the time of Obama's birth. Don't just take my word for this. Read it for yourself and decide for yourself by clicking the link I provided above!

Therefore, what's happening in Georgia should happen and should happen in any state that has any evidence that would indicate that the biggest hoax in the history of America just might have been pulled on all of us, including his supporters! Let's find the truth and let the chips fall where they might!

[Guest]

Okay, conservatives lost another battle here. The judge in Georgia ruled that President Obama can be on the Georgia ballot because he is a natural born citizen of the USA. Was there any doubt? No, there wasn't.

Get on with your golf games, Yeungling drinking, and other important stuff now that has been settled.

[Guest]

Activist judge!!!!

Looks like you were right after all cologal! :bigbow:

Okay, conservatives lost another battle here. The judge in Georgia ruled that President Obama can be on the Georgia ballot because he is a natural born citizen of the USA. Was there any doubt? No, there wasn't.

Get on with your golf games, Yeungling drinking, and other important stuff now that has been settled.

[Guest]

I received a ticket for passing a stopped school bus. School bus drivers have the authority to report you to the police, no questions asked. I and all of my passengers know that I did not pass a stopped school bus, but the bus driver claims I passed it, plus claimed there was a child in the road also. Guess what- I had to take time off work, interrupting my busy schedule, to appear in court (not an offense like speeding, where one can just go online and pay the fine) for a ridiculous and totally fabircated accusation. Maybe I should have just blown it off, since the claim was false?


Side note-Later I learned that in our small rural community, there were problems with cars passing buses. Several other people were used to be made examples of...

[Guest]

When one shows this kind of contempt for our legal system and one takes more than enough time to setup the logistics of producing an alleged fraudulent birth certificate, creditability becomes a major serious issue that the left would prefer to sweep under the carpet if they could.

I just read an article called "Defining Natural-Born Citizen (http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/)" where the author PA Madison extensively wrote on the subject in question here. IMHO, if what has been indicated is accurate - and I have no reason to believe that it's not - then I would have no doubt what-so-ever that the president is not a natural born citizen. It explains that a newly born child is a naturally born citizen if the child's father's (not mother's with rare exception) allegiance is exclusively to the US. That means US citizenship, and my understanding is that the president's father was not a citizen at the time of Obama's birth. Don't just take my word for this. Read it for yourself and decide for yourself by clicking the link I provided above!

Therefore, what's happening in Georgia should happen and should happen in any state that has any evidence that would indicate that the biggest hoax in the history of America just might have been pulled on all of us, including his supporters! Let's find the truth and let the chips fall where they might!

This is an interesting commentary and senate transcript cited in a reader review of the article linked by skyguy79:

"I hear so many people say that “the term natural Born citizen is not defined in the constitution, so we can define it how we wish”, or “that is what it meant then, but not now”.

The fact is that the term means the same now as it did then, and is every bit as precient as it was in 1788. There has been no Amendment to change it. There are volumes written about it’s meaning if one wants to extend a little intellectual effort.

The term was even discussed recently by the senators during the writing of Resolution 511:
EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008: (Resolution 511)
***
Chairman Leahy: We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement.

You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind, I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

Secretary Chertoff: My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Chairman Leahy: That is mine, too. Thank you.


They all heard it, talked about it and debated it. If Leahy thinks that a NBC is the product of Citizen parents, how could he support Obama? How could ANY OF THEM. They are all in violation of Article 6......"

[Guest]

Okay, conservatives lost another battle here. The judge in Georgia ruled that President Obama can be on the Georgia ballot because he is a natural born citizen of the USA. Was there any doubt? No, there wasn't.

Get on with your golf games, Yeungling drinking, and other important stuff now that has been settled.

buggyone...yea and they let Casey Anthony off too...justice and truth always prevail

[Guest]

This is an interesting commentary and senate transcript cited in a reader review of the article linked by skyguy79:

"I hear so many people say that “the term natural Born citizen is not defined in the constitution, so we can define it how we wish”, or “that is what it meant then, but not now”.

The fact is that the term means the same now as it did then, and is every bit as precient as it was in 1788. There has been no Amendment to change it. There are volumes written about it’s meaning if one wants to extend a little intellectual effort.

The term was even discussed recently by the senators during the writing of Resolution 511:
EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008: (Resolution 511)
***
Chairman Leahy: We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement.

You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind, I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

Secretary Chertoff: My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Chairman Leahy: That is mine, too. Thank you.


They all heard it, talked about it and debated it. If Leahy thinks that a NBC is the product of Citizen parents, how could he support Obama? How could ANY OF THEM. They are all in violation of Article 6......"




:bigbow: :bigbow:

[Guest]

Okay, conservatives lost another battle here. The judge in Georgia ruled that President Obama can be on the Georgia ballot because he is a natural born citizen of the USA. Was there any doubt? No, there wasn't.

Get on with your golf games, Yeungling drinking, and other important stuff now that has been settled.

You won't address the ignoring of a presented writ; a legally binding subpoena that the President ignored.

Of course you can't, or rather you won't. It's really telling about you, and Dale and the other fawning masses that you ignore this.

Oh!!, and the Secretary of State of Georgia still has to accept this partisan judge's ruling. We know the fix is in, but how deep?

It's not quite over yet.

[Guest]

Katz,
Sorry to hear about your brush with the law. Wasn't there an opportunity to contest the ticket? You would have had your witnesses vs the bus driver and the outcome would be up to a judge.

[Guest]

You won't address the ignoring of a presented writ; a legally binding subpoena that the President ignored.

Of course you can't, or rather you won't. It's really telling about you, and Dale and the other fawning masses that you ignore this.

Oh!!, and the Secretary of State of Georgia still has to accept this partisan judge's ruling. We know the fix is in, but how deep?

It's not quite over yet.

Unless you work for the Department of Justice and have access to the subpoena, your credibility on this issue is suspect.

[Guest]

Katz,
Sorry to hear about your brush with the law. Wasn't there an opportunity to contest the ticket? You would have had your witnesses vs the bus driver and the outcome would be up to a judge.

That is exactly what I did...However, my point is, I had no right to just not show up just because I thought the ticket's claim was bogus.

[Guest]

Unless you work for the Department of Justice and have access to the subpoena, your credibility on this issue is suspect.

Oh enlighten me then, won't you? Under what circumstances are you permitted by law to ignore a legally issued subpoena?

Are there circumstances when you can just throw it in the trash?

[Guest]

I would have to read the subpoena to answer your question. I'm just guessing that expert legal minds have done just that.

[Guest]

Oh enlighten me then, won't you? Under what circumstances are you permitted by law to ignore a legally issued subpoena?

Are there circumstances when you can just throw it in the trash?

And, Richie, as much as you've claimed I'm "spinning" it, I still haven't seen an answer to MY question.

That is - WHO got served? It's not like some GA sheriff walked up to the door of the White House and served the President.

I'm guessing that it HAD to be some member of a legal team - and THAT person (or persons) could be in a lot of trouble.

If it was legally served to the President's representative then THEY are on the hook. Any first year law student would probably say that the legal team was responsible for notifying the President and consulting him.

It may very well be that they didn't take it as serious as it should have been. If so, there would be more charges coming out of this.

[Guest]

And, Richie, as much as you've claimed I'm "spinning" it, I still haven't seen an answer to MY question.

That is - WHO got served? It's not like some GA sheriff walked up to the door of the White House and served the President.

I'm guessing that it HAD to be some member of a legal team - and THAT person (or persons) could be in a lot of trouble.

If it was legally served to the President's representative then THEY are on the hook. Any first year law student would probably say that the legal team was responsible for notifying the President and consulting him.

It may very well be that they didn't take it as serious as it should have been. If so, there would be more charges coming out of this.Your question seems retorical to me, or at least a very hard one to find an answer for. If I'm wrong and/or if Richie doesn't give you an answer, please do provide us with the answer for him.

As for the president's representative, they could be on the hook as you indicated. But where does the buck stop? Is the President not the chief executive, responsible for everything that happens in the White House adminiatration just as the president of most any corporation or any past president of the US? If not then we're in more trouble in this country than any of us previously thought!

[Guest]

Sorry about above IP address. You need to go directly to nationalpatriot.com

Try this for more background:

thenationalpatriot.com » Blog Archive » OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW (http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138)

Of course this will all blow over when it is discovered that the American born Malcolm X is Obama's real father. :duck:

All the ingredients for a delicious "swift boat" October surprise. Timing is everything. :shrug:

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." -- Will Rogers

[Guest]

Oh enlighten me then, won't you? Under what circumstances are you permitted by law to ignore a legally issued subpoena?

Are there circumstances when you can just throw it in the trash?

So why wasn't President Obama held in contempt of court by the Atlanta judge for ignoring a legally issued subpoena?

[Guest]

Oh enlighten me then, won't you? Under what circumstances are you permitted by law to ignore a legally issued subpoena?

Are there circumstances when you can just throw it in the trash?

When the judge is a Georgia Red Neck with obvious racist intentions.

[Guest]

I'm through addressing all the asinine responses to the issuing of, and presidential contempt for this legally issued subpoena. As if the Georgia courts don't know how to present a subpoena. What idiocy. The Kool-Aid is just too strong and the lap dogs too busy humping the presidential leg for this to be debated with any intelligence.

[Guest]

So why no contempt of court charges against President Obama is a serious question which deserves a serious answer?

[Guest]

The whole thing is ridiculous. I find it insulting for any judge from any state to serve a sitting president. Everyone on here knows how strong I have been for Romney, but to do this silly childish bunk to a sitting US President is just plain foolish. Whats next, stop his limo for speeding on the way from the white house going to the capital building. I want an end to this silliness right now. You make us Republicans look like uneducated children.

[Guest]

The whole thing is ridiculous. I find it insulting for any judge from any state to serve a sitting president. Everyone on here knows how strong I have been for Romney, but to do this silly childish bunk to a sitting US President is just plain foolish. Whats next, stop his limo for speeding on the way from the white house going to the capital building. I want an end to this silliness right now. You make us Republicans look like uneducated children.Sitting presidents shouldn't be held accountable for their actions? Really! I guess that means that Nixon should have been held responsible for his Watergate coverups. I guess that means that Clinton should not have been held responsible for disgracing the White House with his little cigars. Where would you draw the line if not in the case of suspected fraud upon the American people. Would it be if a sitting Republican ordered that SanFranscisco be nuked because it's strongly left wing? Would it be if a sitting Democrat ordered The Villages leveled because it's strongly right wing? And YOU want to end this so called silliness RIGHT NOW!!! YOU? And by what authority would that be!!! Are you the owner of this site? :ohdear:

[Guest]

Sitting presidents shouldn't be held accountable for their actions? Really! I guess that means that Nixon should have been held responsible for his Watergate coverups. I guess that means that Clinton should not have been held responsible for disgracing the White House with his little cigars. Where would you draw the line if not in the case of suspected fraud upon the American people. Would it be if a sitting Republican ordered that SanFranscisco be nuked because it's strongly left wing? Would it be if a sitting Democrat ordered The Villages leveled because it's strongly right wing? And YOU want to end this so called silliness RIGHT NOW!!! YOU? And by what authority would that be!!! Are you the owner of this site? :ohdear:

The Kool-Aid is really strong Sky. I can't believe the idiocy.

If this was GW they'd be screaming for impeachment and frothing at the mouth. This is one of the most incredible things I've seen on this forum.

[Guest]

The Kool-Aid is really strong Sky. I can't believe the idiocy.

If this was GW they'd be screaming for impeachment and frothing at the mouth. This is one of the most incredible things I've seen on this forum.Ain't that the truth. This kind of double standard and behavior has been happening long before Obama stole the DNC nomination out from Hillary. You'd think we'd be use to it by now! :ohdear:

[Guest]

Amazing that so many are turning out to be "birthers", isn't it?

Put this one behind you and march onward to find another blip.

Rant and rave all you want but the situation is resolved.

Go forth and spread your rath elsewhere to those who see you as their champions.

[Guest]

Amazing that so many are turning out to be "birthers", isn't it?

Put this one behind you and march onward to find another blip.

Rant and rave all you want but the situation is resolved.

Go forth and spread your rath elsewhere to those who see you as their champions.

This post is an embarrassment. You've usually posted with much more intelligence.

Let's say you are served with a subpoena because it is thought you know something about someone else's alleged crime. But in actuality you know nothing about this supposed crime, and you barely know the person in question.

Can you just ignore the subpoena? I don't give a rat's patootie what the person is accused of, or what involvement you might have in the matter. We're just discussing the subpoena.

Why are you acting like such a dunce about this? Seriously, I'm just saying this as a friend.

[Guest]

LOL You guys are so funny yet have no sense of humor. :clap2:

[Guest]

Your question seems retorical to me, or at least a very hard one to find an answer for. If I'm wrong and/or if Richie doesn't give you an answer, please do provide us with the answer for him.

As for the president's representative, they could be on the hook as you indicated. But where does the buck stop? Is the President not the chief executive, responsible for everything that happens in the White House adminiatration just as the president of most any corporation or any past president of the US? If not then we're in more trouble in this country than any of us previously thought!

Oh really? Then why wasn't Bush tried for war crimes or held responsible for Abu Grahib? Why wasn't LBJ tried for the same thing? Why wasn't Reagan tried for the Iran-Contra deal - no, Ollie North took the fall for that.

If the President PERSONALLY made a decision to ignore the subpoena, then you 've got the goods on him.

The reason I haven't "answered" Rickie's question is because I don't have all the facts. Or, more precisely, I don't have ENOUGH of the facts to the point that I'd feel comfortable making a leap.

So far, what I've seen is that the President's legal team seems to have dropped a ball - though I can't find any evidence of 'the other side' jumping all over it. It screams to me that there's more to this than meets the eye - but in which partisan direction, I have no idea.

[Guest]

Richie, I wish we could discuss this in person but I will be at a concert at Savannah Center instead of the watering hole this week. Thanks for the kind words, I do appreciate them.

[Guest]

This post is an embarrassment. You've usually posted with much more intelligence.

Let's say you are served with a subpoena because it is thought you know something about someone else's alleged crime. But in actuality you know nothing about this supposed crime, and you barely know the person in question.

Can you just ignore the subpoena? I don't give a rat's patootie what the person is accused of, or what involvement you might have in the matter. We're just discussing the subpoena.

Why are you acting like such a dunce about this? Seriously, I'm just saying this as a friend.

I'm just guessing that the judge in Atlanta knows more about the law than RichieLion. I could be wrong. Why then did he, the judge, not hold the president in contempt of court and swear out a warrant for his immediate arrest?

[Guest]

Oh really? Then why wasn't Bush tried for war crimes or held responsible for Abu Grahib? Why wasn't LBJ tried for the same thing? Why wasn't Reagan tried for the Iran-Contra deal - no, Ollie North took the fall for that.

If the President PERSONALLY made a decision to ignore the subpoena, then you 've got the goods on him.

The reason I haven't "answered" Rickie's question is because I don't have all the facts. Or, more precisely, I don't have ENOUGH of the facts to the point that I'd feel comfortable making a leap.

So far, what I've seen is that the President's legal team seems to have dropped a ball - though I can't find any evidence of 'the other side' jumping all over it. It screams to me that there's more to this than meets the eye - but in which partisan direction, I have no idea.Wow! Another opportunity to bash Bush for doing what Congress authorized him to do in the first place! That's another issue you've raised that I'm not going to get dragged into and besides, it's moot as to the subject at hand.

The key word here of this thread is "subpoena!" However you may have me here. I wasn't aware that Bush, LBJ and Regan were served subpoenas if in fact they were like Obama was! But then again that doesn't surprise me since most of that was before I became interested in politics through seeing first hand the shameless excessive dishonesty of left wing politicans (not that there aren't right wing dishonesty too, to a lesser degree at least) and through the dangers of the Progressive efforts of more than a century to undermine the American government and later the Democratic Party and US economy to cause the collapse of our government so they can then move in and form their vision of a socialistic government. I will digress from this because discussions of do no good and only serve to P*** me off!

BTW, it wasn't Rickie's question that you didn't answer, it was your own. I quote from your post "So why wasn't President Obama held in contempt of court by the Atlanta judge for ignoring a legally issued subpoena?" The reason I asked you to answer it if Richie didn't was to point out to you that the question was retorical and couldn't be answered by you or Richie. Neither of you are a prosecuting investigator nor a member of congress. By providing the excuse you did for not answering it confirmed that you didn't get why I asked, or you knew it was retorical before you asked it in the first place!

Despite all ths I do hope you have an enjoyable day today and ever day except for next November 6th and 7th of course! :1rotfl:

[Guest]

Calm down everyone. The Judge and everything around this so called legal action is a joke. Don't get so wrapped up in this. The judge is from Georgia and Obama is part black. Can't you see the connection. I assure you the justice department will look into the judges action and reason for doing so. Let the authorities sort it out and fire the idiot judge in Georgia.

[Guest]

1. a group of birthers led by Orly Taitz files suit to keep Pres. off GA primary ballot.
2.attorny for Dem. party in Georgia files a motion to quash the suit.
3.GA official says no,he wants a hearing.
4.Orly downloads the GA subpeona form and issues"subpeonas" to everyone on earth including the state of Hawaii where she travelled made a total fool of herself and was asked to get out.
5.the residents of birthistan have latched onto Orly "subpeonas" and are rejoicing that the Pres. of the USA will be hauled into court and admit he wasborn in Kenya,the son of Saul Alinsky and so on.
6.so why is the Pres not going to Atlanta? simple,there is no subpoena.
7.keep believing in Orly

[Guest]

5.the residents of birthistan have latched onto Orly "subpeonas" and are rejoicing that the Pres. of the USA will be hauled into court and admit he wasborn in Kenya,the son of Saul Alinsky and so on.Son of Saul Alinsky? Na! But I've heard that it will soon be proved that Obama is the son of Louis Farrakhan, an American citizen, and the whole birther issue will become history for once and for all! :evil6:

[Guest]

1. a group of birthers led by Orly Taitz files suit to keep Pres. off GA primary ballot.
2.attorny for Dem. party in Georgia files a motion to quash the suit.
3.GA official says no,he wants a hearing.
4.Orly downloads the GA subpeona form and issues"subpeonas" to everyone on earth including the state of Hawaii where she travelled made a total fool of herself and was asked to get out.
5.the residents of birthistan have latched onto Orly "subpeonas" and are rejoicing that the Pres. of the USA will be hauled into court and admit he wasborn in Kenya,the son of Saul Alinsky and so on.
6.so why is the Pres not going to Atlanta? simple,there is no subpoena.
7.keep believing in Orly

Now, this is a proper post for this silly thread. It is silly funny, so follow-on posts should also be silly funny.

[Guest]

Republicans can't beat President Obama on a level playing field with their loser candidates, so they first try to suppress the vote with their voter ID laws, then they try to keep him off the ballot with their phoney lawsuits. Neither tactic will work.

[Guest]

Republicans can't beat President Obama on a level playing field with their loser candidates, so they first try to suppress the vote with their voter ID laws, then they try to keep him off the ballot with their phoney lawsuits. Neither tactic will work.If Republicans can't beat Obama, it's because of the 8-10 point bump they enjoy from the liberal media, and that's without even considering the indoctrination in our educational system or the voter fraud which is rampant! If you took just the media out of the equation, Liberals would never ever win and that would be disastrous to a true and honest two party system! I'm sure though that you Democrats are tickled pink that these destructive elements benefiting the left exist!

Also Voter ID laws do not suppress votes except for the fraudulent ones! Why the left wingers are afraid of voter laws is because it makes winning elections more difficult for them!

I've only been on this political forum for a few days, and already the usual Democratic BS is getting annoying. No wonder posters here are mostly Democrats although they are a minority in TV.

[Guest]

If Republicans can't beat Obama, it's because of the 8-10 point bump they enjoy from the liberal media, and that's without even considering the indoctrination in our educational system or the voter fraud which is rampant! If you took just the media out of the equation, Liberals would never ever win and that would be disastrous to a true and honest two party system! I'm sure though that you Democrats are tickled pink that these destructive elements benefiting the left exist!

Also Voter ID laws do not suppress votes except for the fraudulent ones! Why the left wingers are afraid of voter laws is because it makes winning elections more difficult for them!

I've only been on this political forum for a few days, and already the usual Democratic BS is getting annoying. No wonder posters here are mostly Democrats although they are a minority in TV.


and now there are all these stories about poor old people who will be disenfranchised because they don't have a picture ID!!! Why do the rest of us need a picture ID for anything and everything? I've have never been able to cast a vote without one!

[Guest]

If Republicans can't beat Obama, it's because of the 8-10 point bump they enjoy from the liberal media, and that's without even considering the indoctrination in our educational system or the voter fraud which is rampant! If you took just the media out of the equation, Liberals would never ever win and that would be disastrous to a true and honest two party system! I'm sure though that you Democrats are tickled pink that these destructive elements benefiting the left exist!

Also Voter ID laws do not suppress votes except for the fraudulent ones! Why the left wingers are afraid of voter laws is because it makes winning elections more difficult for them!

I've only been on this political forum for a few days, and already the usual Democratic BS is getting annoying. No wonder posters here are mostly Democrats although they are a minority in TV.

I have to take exception to two comments in your above post; first "voter fraud which is rampant". The Bush administration conducted a five year study and found no voter fraud.

Second "Voter ID laws do not suppress votes except for the fraudulent ones".
Personally, I am all in favor of voter ID as long as these ID's are made available to all voters free of charge. Recently it cost me $23.00 to get the documents (birth certificate/marriage license) just to renew my Florida driver's license. This is a lot of money to some people and without the use of a computer, it would be a daunting task to get said documents.

[Guest]

Wait a minute...

*TAITZ* served the subpoena?

Can a citizen DO that in GA? A subpoena has to be served by, at the very least, a sheriff here in NH.

[Guest]

and now there are all these stories about poor old people who will be disenfranchised because they don't have a picture ID!!! Why do the rest of us need a picture ID for anything and everything? I've have never been able to cast a vote without one!

It's what photo voter ID that is accepted that is the problem. Texas, for example, will not accept a student's college photo ID but they will accept a gun license photo ID.

I totally agree with the need for a photo ID to vote, but each state must contact every voter to make sure that voter has the proper ID, and, if not, must provide one free of charge. To do otherwise would reinstate the poll tax.

[Guest]

and now there are all these stories about poor old people who will be disenfranchised because they don't have a picture ID!!! Why do the rest of us need a picture ID for anything and everything? I've have never been able to cast a vote without one!I'm sorry but that disenfranchised excuse is just that.. an excuse! If someone is disenfranchised it's because they want to be disenfranchised. I dealt for years as an authority in the issuance of driver's licenses and photo ID's which was mostly managed by Democrats and liberal thinking people... and if someone what's an ID, they can get an ID. There are options for them from assistance from churches or social organization to proof of indegency from a court and other methods in between. As for your last sentence... thank God for that!

[Guest]

I have to take exception to two comments in your above post; first "voter fraud which is rampant". The Bush administration conducted a five year study and found no voter fraud.

Second "Voter ID laws do not suppress votes except for the fraudulent ones".
Personally, I am all in favor of voter ID as long as these ID's are made available to all voters free of charge. Recently it cost me $23.00 to get the documents (birth certificate/marriage license) just to renew my Florida driver's license. This is a lot of money to some people and without the use of a computer, it would be a daunting task to get said documents.You can take exception if you want, but that doesn't come near convincing me that the fraud exists and more so on the left than on the right. I'm not gong into everything that has convinced me of this, but ask... How do so many deceased people vote? A whole lot of them do somehow. How do a whole lot of missing votes suddenly appear days after Republicans appear to be the winner of an election and that winds up turning the election around. Don't tell me it hasn't happened. It happened in one case when that Donkey Kong comedian Franken lost an election by 571 votes to Coleman in Minnesota only to be turned over well after the contest was decided when enough voted showed up in a recount to reverse the results. These few examples are most likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, so don't tell me that fraud isn't rampant, I'm not that gullible!

Getting a drivers license is expensive now a days. I've seen the prices rise over the years in the documents we issued in NY. I've also recently switch my drivers license from NY to FL when we moved down. However, people don't need pay for a drivers license to have ID for voting. States have been issuing photo ID card for years now and they're pretty inexpensive. As I said in my previous post, there are ways for the poor and elderly to get assistance if they're indigent or disabled. I'm disabled and have mobility problems and in my vast experience in that area I don't even come close to finding getting an ID a problem. If someone can't get an ID it's because they don't want to get and ID or they'r too lazy or don't want to bother being inconvenienced to take the steps the rest of us have to or had to. Even the poorest can get the money if that's the problem or even can get it waived under certain circumstances. And if someone can get to stores to shop, the bars to drink or party or the polls to vote, then they can get to wherever they need to get their ID. IMHO and with RARE exception, the disenfranchised myth is just a creation of liberals and progressives minds in our country, created for political reasons!

[Guest]

Skyguy...please let me tell you how happy I am to see you here in Political.


:welcome:Welcome!:welcome:

[Guest]

Richie, I wish we could discuss this in person but I will be at a concert at Savannah Center instead of the watering hole this week. Thanks for the kind words, I do appreciate them.

I'll see you when I see you. The family always comes first for me as well.

I'm sorry my frustration at not getting you to understand what my point was caused me to me "impolite". I took my disgust with others out on you and I'm sorry about that.

There's so much presidential butt kissing in this thread that I want to vomit. Even I didn't think the obsession with Obama was so strong that people would throw their sense of right and wrong out the window in support of all things Obama.

[Guest]

Do folks need an ID to collect food stamps? (or whatever they call them now).

[Guest]

I'm just guessing that the judge in Atlanta knows more about the law than RichieLion. I could be wrong. Why then did he, the judge, not hold the president in contempt of court and swear out a warrant for his immediate arrest?

The Judge would most likely issue a show cause summons first. The capias would follow. It would be worthless unless POTUS were extradited to Georgia on a Governor's Warrant or arrested in Georgia on, lets say, a traffic stop. Also, the Judge wouldn't be "swearing out" anything. He would simply issue.

[Guest]

You can take exception if you want, but that doesn't come near convincing me that the fraud exists and more so on the left than on the right. I'm not gong into everything that has convinced me of this, but ask... How do so many deceased people vote? A whole lot of them do somehow. How do a whole lot of missing votes suddenly appear days after Republicans appear to be the winner of an election and that winds up turning the election around. Don't tell me it hasn't happened. It happened in one case when that Donkey Kong comedian Franken lost an election by 571 votes to Coleman in Minnesota only to be turned over well after the contest was decided when enough voted showed up in a recount to reverse the results. These few examples are most likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, so don't tell me that fraud isn't rampant, I'm not that gullible!

Getting a drivers license is expensive now a days. I've seen the prices rise over the years in the documents we issued in NY. I've also recently switch my drivers license from NY to FL when we moved down. However, people don't need pay for a drivers license to have ID for voting. States have been issuing photo ID card for years now and they're pretty inexpensive. As I said in my previous post, there are ways for the poor and elderly to get assistance if they're indigent or disabled. I'm disabled and have mobility problems and in my vast experience in that area I don't even come close to finding getting an ID a problem. If someone can't get an ID it's because they don't want to get and ID or they'r too lazy or don't want to bother being inconvenienced to take the steps the rest of us have to or had to. Even the poorest can get the money if that's the problem or even can get it waived under certain circumstances. And if someone can get to stores to shop, the bars to drink or party or the polls to vote, then they can get to wherever they need to get their ID. IMHO and with RARE exception, the disenfranchised myth is just a creation of liberals and progressives minds in our country, created for political reasons!

You say you have a disability, but you have a driver's license? That's probably a big help to you getting around. I don't understand your remark about the poll tax. Are you for it or against it?
One more thing: name calling is not allowed on this site. Respect must be shown, no matter how much we disagree on issues.

[Guest]

The Judge would most likely issue a show cause summons first. The capias would follow. It would be worthless unless POTUS were extradited to Georgia on a Governor's Warrant or arrested in Georgia on, lets say, a traffic stop. Also, the Judge wouldn't be "swearing out" anything. He would simply issue.

Thank you for addressing Jan's question with some facts. (not that she'll accept them, believe me)

[Guest]

skyguy welcome but perhaps some facts to back up some of your claims.

[Guest]

and by the way my Taitz post was not meant to be silly,it is what happened.

[Guest]

You say you have a disability, but you have a driver's license? That's probably a big help to you getting around. I don't understand your remark about the poll tax. Are you for it or against it?
One more thing: name calling (?) is not allowed on this site. Respect must be shown, no matter how much we disagree on issues.
You're surprised that disabled people have drivers licenses? WOW! Questioning me the way you did sounds quite disrespectful to me and all handicapped as far as I'm concerned! :ohdear:

And who said anything about a "poll tax?" If you weren't making it up, please show me where I allegedly did!

Please specify where I allegedly said anything disrespectful that was personally directed to you or to any other TOTV'er on this forum because I'm not aware of my doing so and don't think I did. If I did I'd find it more creditable if it were pointed out by a neutral party. If it's proved to me that I did disrespect you, I will apologize even though I wouldn't realize that I had. If it's not proven I'll expect an apology from you or prepare myself for a racist accusation to come next if you don't apologize! I might even file a complaint with Admin because I fully resent being falsely accused of something I didn't do, especially when it appears to be done to belittle me, intimidate me or marginalize me! Don't fail to take me seriously! :mad:

[Guest]

The Judge would most likely issue a show cause summons first. The capias would follow. It would be worthless unless POTUS were extradited to Georgia on a Governor's Warrant or arrested in Georgia on, lets say, a traffic stop. Also, the Judge wouldn't be "swearing out" anything. He would simply issue.

The expert has spoken. Now we just have to wait to hear on the news that President Obama has been extradited to Georgia to see if he's guilty of the charges RichieLion alleges.

[Guest]

You're surprised that disabled people have drivers licenses? WOW! Questioning me the way you did sounds quite disrespectful to me and all handicapped as far as I'm concerned! :ohdear:

And who said anything about a "poll tax?" If you weren't making it up, please show me where I allegedly did!

Please specify where I allegedly said anything disrespectful that was personally directed to you or to any other TOTV'er on this forum because I'm not aware of my doing so and don't think I did. If I did I'd find it more creditable if it were pointed out by a neutral party. If it's proved to me that I did disrespect you, I will apologize even though I wouldn't realize that I had. If it's not proven I'll expect an apology from you or prepare myself for a racist accusation to come next if you don't apologize! I might even file a complaint with Admin because I fully resent being falsely accused of something I didn't do, especially when it appears to be done to belittle me, intimidate me or marginalize me! Don't fail to take me seriously! :mad:

I was referring to a name, which I won't repeat, that you called a sitting US Senator.

After I went back and read the post, I think I was confused by a reply you gave. Post #107 I said "To do otherwise would reinstate the poll tax". In post #108 you said "As for your last sentence...thank God for that". I realize now you were referring to a statement made by another poster and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[Guest]

I was referring to a name, which I won't repeat, that you called a sitting US Senator.

After I went back and read the post, I think I was confused by a reply you gave. Post #107 I said "To do otherwise would reinstate the poll tax". In post #108 you said "As for your last sentence...thank God for that". I realize now you were referring to a statement made by another poster and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

This criticism coming from someone who called the Governor a criminal and falsely accused him of a number of things. Who, in addition has made fun of ANY republican mentioned.

Wow...how do you expect anyone to take anything you say with any credence

Come on here and talk about issues...stop with the constant and continuing character assassination of anyone who says anything negative about your wonderful heroes. Dispute the facts..give your opinion, but it does not justify your NON VALIDATED comments that you make.

[Guest]

skyguy welcome but perhaps some facts to back up some of your claims.Thanks for the welcome, but I think my participation of this forum is going to wind up being short lived based on the tactics I've been subjected to in my short time here.

As for backing with facts, I don't generally do backing up facts as I am merely a pundit, like everyone else on here, voicing my opinions based on my past experiences and learnings over many years, and I'm also not a news journalist that should back their comments... but frequently don't on on most TV/Cable outlets and news publications. Even if they did, I would frequently not trust them or their proof as being creditable or unbiased, and... I don't necessarily trust the sources of those who do back what they say on blogs or forums with so called facts.

I don't have the time, interest or financial resources to do the kind of research needed to back up years of learning. So anyone not liking that I won't will not change that I don't! If they want to believe me fine, if they don't want to believe me they can feel free not to. I really don't care if I'm believed or not since any belief or lack of it would most likely be based on politics and ideology bias anyway!

[Guest]

It's what photo voter ID that is accepted that is the problem. Texas, for example, will not accept a student's college photo ID but they will accept a gun license photo ID.

I totally agree with the need for a photo ID to vote, but each state must contact every voter to make sure that voter has the proper ID, and, if not, must provide one free of charge. To do otherwise would reinstate the poll tax.Student ID's are definitely not proper identification. Purchasing of fraudulent ID's are rampant and I even had bar owners bring boxes full of confiscated fraudlent ID's to me. Even my son had one he bought for $50 back in the 90's when he was in college so he could hit the bars at night with his friends! I took it away from him and I think I still have it around somewhere!

Regarding contacting voters to make sure they have the proper ID, I registered to vote in December and I was giiven clear notification of the ID requirements. It also happens in NY where I came from and was involved in Motor Voter as part of my job duties. I doubt there are many if any states that don't do similarily!

[Guest]

skyguy79-It has been pure pleasure reading your posts on this thread!Thanks
:bigbow:

[Guest]

The expert has spoken. Now we just have to wait to hear on the news that President Obama has been extradited to Georgia to see if he's guilty of the charges RichieLion alleges.

Hahaha, if they get caught up in a Georgia speed trap he may be hauled up to a night court situation if they still do that there. His chances of being pulled over expand on 301 if Waldo Willie is working. LOL

[Guest]

Hahaha, if they get caught up in a Georgia speed trap he may be hauled up to a night court situation if they still do that there. His chances of being pulled over expand on 301 if Waldo Willie is working. LOLAin't gonna happen... he'll be hiding behind a plethora of his secret service guards!

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ25azLW123XFvegCqxcdx5kFsSP3Gwe OiZ6H-NM4u3mI_041-FT95CNDM

[Guest]

Ain't gonna happen... he'll be hiding behind a plethora of his secret service guards!

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ25azLW123XFvegCqxcdx5kFsSP3Gwe OiZ6H-NM4u3mI_041-FT95CNDM

No chit

[Guest]

Does Skyguy think that Secret Service guards are a new thing for presidents or that they protect too closely?

Remember that the families of the President also have their own Secret Service agents, too. They only look after the safety of their charges - not protect them from breaking laws. Prime example are the Bush twin girls. They got drunk at bars in Washington more than once when they were underage and their Secret Service agents did not stop them from breaking the law but only protected their safety.

[Guest]

Does Skyguy think that Secret Service guards are a new thing for presidents or that they protect too closely?

Remember that the families of the President also have their own Secret Service agents, too. They only look after the safety of their charges - not protect them from breaking laws. Prime example are the Bush twin girls. They got drunk at bars in Washington more than once when they were underage and their Secret Service agents did not stop them from breaking the law but only protected their safety.No, Skyguy does not think that Secret Service guards are a new thing for presidents or that they protect too closely. You either totally miss the point of Skyguys post or you're spinning and adding elements to make more of it than Skyguy wrote or intended. Skyguy already knows everything you stated and knew it decades ago! Nice try! :laugh:

[Guest]

Skyguy...please don't ever leave Political!:pray:

[Guest]

Well, I guess I totally missed your point of the posting. I have no idea of what you meant.

[Guest]

skyguy79-It has been pure pleasure reading your posts on this thread!Thanks
:bigbow:

I agree, and I have been a huge fan of your posts, and am glad you decided to add your cogent thoughts to the political section of this forum. Through PM's I've known a bit of your thinking on the political scene and I am thrilled that you decided to share them in much more detail with the masses.

Whether you decide to continue posting in political or not, I want you to know I appreciate your input.

[Guest]

skyguy79-It has been pure pleasure reading your posts on this thread!Thanks
:bigbow:I agree, and I have been a huge fan of your posts, and am glad you decided to add your cogent thoughts to the political section of this forum. Through PM's I've known a bit of your thinking on the political scene and I am thrilled that you decided to share them in much more detail with the masses.

Whether you decide to continue posting in political or not, I want you to know I appreciate your input.Thanks Richie! I've been a fan of your posts too even if I don't always agrre with you. But then again no two people always agree with each other, unless of course you consider the US Senate where it has frequently happened with a majority of senators over the last several years!