Posted on 01/05/2013 7:34:59 PM PST by Smokeyblue
Florida Circuit Judge Kevin Carroll, who previously cited the fictitious judge in “Miracle on 34th Street” in a ruling, now says he’s done with arguments over Barack Obama’s eligibility.
Carroll released an order today refusing to hear a request for a hearing that is allowed under state law when there are doubts about a candidate’s eligibility. And let that be the last, the judge said.
“No petitions for clarification or further rehearing will be entertained by the court,” he said in his ruling that refused to respond to a request for the state-allowed hearing in a case brought by Michael Voeltz.
“The court … finds no factual or legal cause to recede from its prior ruling that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,” he wrote.
The attorney handling the case for Voeltz, Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, told WND if the judge doesn’t want to address the dispute, then he’ll take it to the appellate level, and that filing could occur as early as this weekend.
He noted that the judge had promised the plaintiffs time to respond to an Obama motion to dismiss the case but then dismissed it without allowing the time frame to expire.
The judge already had decided he would not hold an evidentiary hearing, which is allowed under state law in such a case. A hearing is supposed to be held when candidates’ qualifications are challenged, according a state law that allows Florida residents to challenge the eligibility of election candidates, Klayman said.
Carroll earlier had given the plaintiffs until Dec. 23 to respond to Obama’s motion to dismiss the case but then changed his mind and abruptly ordered the case dismissed several days before the deadline.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I suspect no document proving eligibility for any previous president has been filed anywhere, as there is no provision in federal or state law requiring such filing, or indeed providing a place to file it.
Youse guys had four years to get - one - of the 57 states to pass a law requiring defined evidence of eligibility to be filed before a candidate goes on the ballot.
Not one state did so. This seems to indicate a general absence of public support for your position.
I also strongly oppose inserting the judiciary into this issue. Excessive power of the judges is the greatest single threat to our Constitution, and making them a court of appeal with power to overturn elections is a really, really bad idea.
Also, do we really want Joe Biden for President?
If a candidate seeks the presidency, it is his responsibility to present valid documents to include a birth certificate which is not a forgery, a social security card which is not stolen, and a selective service card which is not forged. All his records have been found and kept hidden by Perkins Coie Law Firm by Obama’s lawyer Bauer. Pelosi had to certify he was eligible without any proof. She had to make two forms. One with “Constitutionl” on it and the other without. So far, every judge has been corrupted or threatened since none will move the cases along.
The Senate Judiciary under Hillary, Coburn, Obama, and others did a full investigation of McCain and found his documents were valid. They did not even check for Obama’s records re eligibility. In fact, on the resolution, Obama was allowed to add that others once thought ineligible were actually eligible (Which was a lie.)
I am astonished that Justice Clarence Thomas won’t recommend hearing the case.
Has that been used?
If so what was the outcome?
Or threatens them. This guy probably got the 3 am call.
Or threatens them. This guy probably got the 3 am call.
most recently, John McCain was required to provide all data proving eligibility... and the supreme court ruled he was.
as for who is supposed to check, that would be the state division of elections, as you are supposed to be eligible to assume office to even be on the ballot.
of course there is no penalty for not checking... so the supervisors of elections just fail to do their job, hoping all goes well.
of course, if the person that wins isn’t eligible... the supervisor would have helped perpetuate election fraud... which does have a penalty
therefore, we should probability go after the various supervisors of elections in the various states if they did not collect the required documentation before putting the names on the ballot.
Yes, all of this is real and it is all backed by Supreme Court decisions as you will see as you read it but you need to understand WHY it works so a judge can’t trick you when you are in court.
Remember this saying while growing up:
‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
So why didn’t they teach us anything about the law while growing up?
Start by reading this whole page to get a summerized view, I will post more detailed info afterwards.
http://www.landrights.com/perusal%20stuff.htm
For a more detailed explanation, start by reading this:
Hi Alfred, I was just reading your post on the difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable”. I found it quite interesting.
I was also reading an article about President Obama omitting “Creator” when quoting the Declaration (http://www.wnd.com/index.phpfa=PAGE.view&pageId=237349) when I noticed that he repeatedly uses “inalienable”. The omission of the one word and the incorrect usage of the other in numerous instances can only be intentional. He’s very consistent about it. I was curious about your thoughts on this.
Matt At the time, I responded briefly. However, here’s an expanded version of my reply:
In the context of American history, the terms “Creator” and “unalienable Rights” appear first and most famously in our “Declaration of Independence” of July 4th, A.D. 1776. There, in its second sentence, theDeclaration offers the single most radical statement of truth in at least 2,000 years of Western political thought:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Prior to our Declaration, the nations of the western world were governed by monarchies where only one man—the king—was deemed to be sovereign. The king was sovereign because he, and he alone, was deemed to have been directly endowed by the God of the Bible (the earthly king’s “Creator”) with the “divine right of kings”. That endowment of God-given rights did not attach as a result of an election or human appointment. That endowment attached as the result of a “coronation ceremony” that took place in the highest church within the nation.
finish the story here:
http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/god-given-unalienable-rights-individual-sovereignty/
Before you read this next part, ask yourself this question:
If being born on American soil makes you an American citizen, why do they need a statute to proclaim you as a US citizen?
Also remember that words have meaning, especially in law.
Fourteenth Amendment explained / Eric Williams
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23398430/060225-—Eric-Williams-Show-—Excerpt
By shear coincidence, “The Act of 1871’ incorporated the 10 square miles known as Washington DC into a PRIVATE CORPORATION that we call “The United States of America”.
Now before you decide this is all crap, read what the Supreme court has to say about ‘The Three United States’.
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/chapter4.pdf
If you have made it this far, I’m sure you have several more questions so I will leave you with this to read:
THE UCC CONNECTION
http://freedom-school.com/the-ucc-connection.html
If you want more, freepmail me.
The born-in-Kenya information discovered last year in his literary agency bio could ONLY have come from Obama and it should have been enough to sink him. Unfortunately the government-controlled media have such a vested interest in protecting this man it no longer mattered what was revealed. I'm afraid it's too late to save our corrupt government but perhaps the true story can be explored by future historians.
An email I recv’d today;
Please take a moment to digest this provocative article. It is far and away the most succinct and thoughtful explanation of how our nation is changing. The article appeared in The Israel National News, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews vote as Democrats. The Rabbi has some interesting comments in that regard.
Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is the spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey.
The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation an avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.
But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.
Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.
Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government.
Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese.
They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense.
In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.
It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism.
That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!” Truer words were never spoken.
Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.
Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws.
He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.
Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.
Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises.
It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups.
If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future.
The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.
For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.
A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess.
It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations..
The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.
The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.
If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone.
And, sad for the World, it is not coming back.
Not to fear the Speaker of the House has probably already assigned the investigation to his top henchmen. The Constitution can not be ignored, abused and tromped on. If only we had a Speaker and a Constitution.
How is that working out for us? Romney was your dream candidate according to this post. He had conviction on every social issue that were completely flexible.
Well said even if not very comforting, thanks.
Obviously Romney sucked in many ways, but accepting Obama's eligibility did not sink his candidacy.
I thought we had one...usn JAG, or jagofficer, navyjag, something like that...
No but promoting the idea that Obama was a nice man that was just in over his head, did.
We lost because no one wanted to define who and what the president is. Eligibility is part of that description.
We have placed an enemy of our Republic in charge and all we had to say was we need to cut taxes.
I shouted here that it was not about the economy and that would be a losing strategy and sure enough it was.
My description: he is a born and bred socialist and community activist who was picked by foreign powers who want to weaken America,
Yep!
I don’t think its a good idea to mix “sovereign citizen” ploys in with the ineligibility exposure effort.
“Sovereign citizen” ploys didn’t work back in 1992, and they won’t work 20 years later....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.