Bush v. Gore judge: Your evidence, Mr. Obama

WND ^ | May 31, 2012 | Bob Unruh

[LucyT]

Bush v. Gore judge: Your evidence, Mr. Obama? (FL Judge Lewis challenges POTUS NBC status!)

Taitz in the Indiana case may have scored here against Obama. Court subpoena.

Article, then graphics at # 54.

Thanks, Red Steel.

[hoosiermama]

Problem has always been there is really no legal precedent for dealing with the eligibility of the POTUS.
BO has known this from the git=go and has taken advantage of it.
So we will continue to try again and again to get the right defendant, plaintiff and premise in front of the right judge. Eventually the right combination will come together.

[philman_36]

How come WingNut Daily is the only one reporting on this?
Perhaps, instead, you should be asking why the MSM isn't reporting on this.

[Red Steel]

I had a nice chat w one of them over here the other day. A real moonbat’s moonbat. Upon reflection,

Here is the 'real moonbat's moonbats' blowing a gasket at "Birthers". The Head Fogblower himself off his medication and making stuff up among other things.

[edge919]

It’s hard to ignore that 27 or more Supreme Court justices agreed on the one and only legal precedent. There’s no strong basis for creating a different basis for defining NBC when those 27 justices saw no need to do this themselves over a 40 year period of time.

[thecodont]

Thanks for the ping.

[campaignPete R-CT]

"... included throwing out the electors for the vice president... Do you really want to have President Nancy Pelosi for any moment of time?"

The electors were valid. Even if the candidate is ineligible, people are voting for electors. The electors voted for Biden. No argument to throw that out. (Nobody voted for Obama in 2008 NOV. They voted for Obama electors.)

It still is mostly an impeachment case along with ballot access for this NOV.

[edge919]

Problem has always been there is really no legal precedent for dealing with the eligibility of the POTUS.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but it's a little awkwardly phrased. There is a legal precedent for defining presidential eligiblity. What we don't have is specifically defined process for enforcing Constitutional eligibility ... other than to keep ineligible candidates off of ballots at the state level. Courts have been involved in nullifying ineligible candidates and office holders before, but never at the presidential level. Congress is too partisan or too chicken to take matters properly into their hands, and courts obviously are just as hesitant. But there should be no reason for any state or court to hestitate about leaving a candidate off of a ballot if there's ANY doubt about that person's eligibility. If that candidate doesn't like it, he or she can sue for reinstatement on the ballot, which puts the burden of proof COMPLETELY on that candidate. If that were the case with Obama, he'd be gone yesterday because the Kenyan Coward™ cannot legally prove he is a natural-born citizen.

[Political Junkie Too]

Pardon my ignorance... What are Foggers? What site are you talking about?

-PJ

[Bshaw]

[...Joe Farah and Jerry Corsi for their work and dedication...]

I could not agree more. I would also add Canada Free Press, and even Donald Trump to the WND duo.

Think what you will of any one of them; their work, their credentials or their clout.

They have all spoken out on the eligibility issue without equivocation.

I laud them all!

[campaignPete R-CT]

Is there a state law in FLA which prevents ineligible people from being on the ballot?

If the law allows it, one would seem to be arguing that such a law violates the constitutional (which sounds silly). It might be unconstitutional for Obama to take office, but unconstitutional for FLA to put him on the ballot?

Kick him off the ballot and that forces Obambi to become the plaintiff.

[Bshaw]

[..(as Trump says) Yuuuuuge!”

Now that is funny!

[Spunky]

Why has part of the original case # been scratched out and a different one hand written below it? Usually if a change is made on legal papers it has to be initialed showing who made the change.

[Fantasywriter]

Thanks for the pings! Your link went to Sideshow Carney blathering about how John McCain distanced himself from ‘extremists’. [The answer to which is: John McCain lost.] Did you also have a link to Foggy going nuts? I wouldn’t mind imbibing on a little of that.

I have to admit, though, I feel mostly concern and a little pity for Foggy after seeing his recent photos. He doesn’t look remotely healthy to me. I hope he gets some treatment. He really looks like he could use it.

[Red Steel]

A bunch of dedicated OBots who troll the World Wide Web, and some of them run around the country to courtrooms to do what they can to defend Obama in his scores of eligibility cases. I'd say more than a few of them have been FR zotted trolls as examples are Jamese777 and LorenC. Their central home is Fogbow.com, but many of them run their own OBot websites like Barackryphal, RC Reality Check Radio Blog, Bad Fiction, dedicated to obfuscate and BS the public about Obama's Constitutional eligibility. I suspect Fogbow.com is actually funded by the Soros foundation network of organizations, which in-turn trickle down money to fund them. They have a dedicated FogBlow thread to their revered "The Boss," George Soros.

[Red Steel]

That link I provided was the link to Foggy losing it. Check the “May 29, 2012 4:16 PM” posting.

[OneWingedShark]

I think that if there was actually a decision on the matter, and I sincerely doubt there will be in my lifetime, that the SCOTUS would rule that the overriding power in the electoral process is the electoral college, and that if they decided after the election to turn around and make a six year old boy the president, it would be valid.

Hm, that'd be an interesting ruling from them. Especially since it would be a felony: because the Constitution does not allow the Supreme court to alter or amend it. Any attempt for them to do so is therefore equivalent to their declaration that the Constitution is no longer in effect, and therefore both advocates the overthrow of government AND provides aid and comfort to the enemies of the several States by invalidating [at least] one third of the federal government.

Note: Felonies are generally considered not to be "good behavior" as required by USSC Justices.

[Red Steel]

John McCain distanced himself from ‘extremists’. [The answer to which is: John McCain lost.]

McCain was such a bad Repub pres candidate that the Obama 2012 campaign are using McCain video clips from 2008 against Romney in a political ad.

[Art in Idaho]

Great analysis. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate?

Hey Congress and SCOTUS, Obama failed to qualify. We have no proof who his mother was. No proof who his father was. We do not have a long form birth certificate. He has presented fraudulent documents purporting to be short form copies of a birth certificate. So what is your next step? What are you going to do? If he didn't qualify, he was illegally sworn in. His Presidency is null and void. So now what?

Who is Obama? Does anyone really know? Does the CIA?

[Fantasywriter]

Honestly, the first time I followed your link I got a snippet of Jay Carney. [Yuck!] The second time I got the Foggy post...don’t ask me how it happened.

I see what you mean. He did get OTT nasty. What a mouth he has on him. He must think if he uses enough crude language people will think he’s tough. It just makes me feel sorry for him. I wish he were intelligent enough to express himself w’out such juvenile language.