OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST
I thought it deserved its own posting.
For more details see the referenced thread above.
Is this 100% reliable true information?
Thanks, justlurking.
That judge had better have some protection. God bless him.
I’ll believe it when all is said and done...it’s not..and it just doesn’t strike me this is going anywhere except as a record...certainly will not keep Obam from running...he’s like the TEflon King Clinton....no matter how it plays out his base and followers wil think he still smells like a rose.
Filed under:
“News You Won’t Be Seeing On NBC/MSNBC/CNN/ABC/CBS/NPR”
Unless I'm mistaken, this was to keep Obama off of the primary ballot, not the general election ballot. If this is correct (and I won't believe it until I see it confirmed from reliable sources), the default judgement may not have any impact on that, depending on what the judgement actually says.
If there was no acceptable basis for the case, the judge could have easily dismissed the suit.
Alright TEXAS, OKLAHOMA and AZ.
Don’t just stand there — join GA.
No it doesn't. it just means that Obama's name won't be on the ballot.
In November, we will vote for electors, party electors. In essence, we will choose which political party will be allowed to cast an electoral ballot in Congress. You and I vote for electors. The candidate's name appears on our ballots as a convenience to the political party. But you and I do not vote directly for the candidate, we vote for a party elector. Read the ballot carefully, you'll see.
The absence of the candidate's name does not prevent the elector from voting for Obama.
Obama wasn’t going to get any electors from Georgia, anyway.
What will be interesting is if we can get some swing states to follow suit.
What’s 0bama afraid of—hmmm?
Forgo getting on a ballot just to not show his BC.
He’ll make up those votes somehow. He’s not worried. ACORN to the rescue.
This is actually HORRIBLE news!
Under the Georgia statute, it is the candidates responsability to show that they are eligible. And it’s the judges job to determine if the candidate has done so. So, since the judge is entering a default judgement, all he needs to say in his ruling is - “the candidate did not appear to show he is eligible for the office he is running for, therefore it is the courts opinion that he not be placed on the ballot”.
This means that the evidence presented at the hearing was for show only! The judge is not going to rule on Minor v Happersett being precedent on the definition of ‘natural born citizen’.
The SOS may, or may not put Obama on the ballot, but there will be nothing coming from this hearing that will be usefull in removing Obama from any other state ballot.
The MSM has again proven their incompetence by failing to report on an extremely significant court case today. It’s all over the internet but not a peep from the major news networks.
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW
By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138
Bravo Georgia ! ! !
May this truly happen....how many state would follow....
Ping for later read ............................ FRegards
The judge is an administrative law judge and apparently he issues not a ruling in this type of case, but a "recommendation" and then, the final decision as to whether Obama's name appears on the ballot rests with the Secretary of State.
The judge does not issue any true ruling that is binding on anybody and it's the Secretary of State who is subject to the political pressure involved regardless of what the judge does recommend.
Further, the failure to appear does not automatically result in a default judgement, the judge can still rule on "the facts" as he sees them, not necessarily default to ruling in the plaintiff's favor because the defendant failed to appear.
I am suspecting this one also will be swept aside without a true ruling on the merits of the case. But I hope I'm wrong