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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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" 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!

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.

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

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...

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......"

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

:bigbow: :bigbow:

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.

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.