Posted on 09/14/2009 1:33:00 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen
During a hearing in U.S. District Court Monday, an attorney for an Army officer fighting deployment to Iraq questioned Barack Obama’s legal right to serve as president, asserting he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.
Judge Clay Land, inquisitive throughout the 90-minute hearing, said he will issue a decision on Capt. Connie Rhodes’ request for a temporary restraining order by noon Wednesday.
Rhodes was represented by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer and a national figure in the “birther” movement that claims Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president.
California attorney Orly Taitz, the president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, stands on the steps of the Columbus federal courthouse Friday with what she claims is a copy of a birth certificate for President Barack Obama from Mombass, British Protectorate of Kenya.
Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington, told Land this case was about Rhodes, not Obama.
“There was a lack of any reference to Capt. Rhodes,” Ausprung said. “This case is about Capt. Rhodes and her deployment.”
Taitz kept going back to Obama’s birth certificate. Twice she called Obama a “usurper.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...
|
Everything you post seems to be wrong. You made the claim and now you can't back it up -- like everything else you post.
A case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one.
Opinions vary.
The first exhibit Obama posted at his 'campaign' website was a clear fraud, lacking a raised seal. When that was brought to the website's attention, someone took whatever was used to make the first exhibit and added a raised seal to that first fraud. There are telltale items about the first two that show they are of the same exhibit with a raised seal added to the first to make the second. Then, a third exhibit was made by supposedly allowing the friends of obama at Factcheck to handle 'the document used to issue exhibts one and two.' The problem for these liars is the item identifiers from exhibits one and two were not on exhibit three so it had to be at leat a second exhibit.
The question folks ought to ask themselves is 'why should anyone trust anything this liar-in-chief offers since we know he tried to use fraudulent exhibits first to try and claim eligibility.
All of this has been explained to NS before and he always comes back with 'so you say, but I don't agree' or some iteration of that 'no controlling legal authority' crap so intimately associated now to the despicable al goreghoul.
The problem is that the suspect has control over the access to files. We need a court to break that deadlock or public pressure.
Yup —
This post is to point out the lack of an acknowledgement on the part of NS and to indicate that he will continue arguing even when he is shown to be wrong on the facts. He will do and say anything to avoid calling for the fraud suspect to reveal his documents.
Indeed. Because it's much more productive if FR takes on a groupthink mentality where everyone sits around validating and re-enforcing each other's concurring opinions. We can all become "yes men" and argue over who agrees with each other the most. And when reality rears its ugly head, when Birther cases get thrown out of court, when Lucas Smith's BC is determined to be a complete forgery, we can act shocked and bewildered, totatally knocked off our feet because nobody saw it coming.
The people you call "trolls" I call "voices of reason" and when it comes to Birther cases, they've been right every time.
The issue is bigger than that. The goal is the truth. Finding out that document or others are false, is a setback, but the accused fraud has the power to release the records and we just need him to do that. The issue will not go aweay until the truth is revealed.
But it's always so funny when you all do it again. I never get tired of it.
Amen! The bottom line is that BHO is setting up roadblocks and preventing access to a host of extremely pertinent vital records and other documents.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/recollections-of-obamas-ex-roommate/
The NYT identified him as Sohale Siddiqi in this link.
In Obama’s book, he amazingly didn’t identify his good and long time friend by his real name.
He called him Sadik.
And Barry left Siddiqi off the guest list last week for his White House Ramadan blow out.
He did however invite his other Muslim roommates and Pakistan traveling companions- Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid.
Maybe it was payback for Siddiqi telling an interviewer that Barry finally quit drugs when he lived in NYC,
when Barry claimed he put his crack pipe down - back in Hawaii.
It’s hard to know whom to believe-Obama or a drug dealer....
Considered by most to be “guilty behavior.”
You’ll no doubt notice that the slug is proud of his deceit, not contradicting the post I made to you, UC, but actually affirming the assertion I made!
I will if you will.
Here's a few examples of what was done in Cal.
I've read the California election laws. Can you point to the one that details just what the Secretary of State is supposed to do to check candidates qualifications? Because when you look at Section 6901 it doesn't sound like they're supposed to do anything:
" Whenever a political party, in accordance with Section 7100, 7300, 7578, or 7843, submits to the Secretary of State its certified list of nominees for electors of President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State shall notify each candidate for elector of his or her nomination by the party. The Secretary of State shall cause the names of the candidates for President and Vice President of the several political parties to be placed upon the ballot for the ensuing general election."
But hey, maybe I'm making that up too. I'm sure you can set us straight and quote from the applicable section.
Obama, meanwhile, has refused to document his U.S. citizenship and, therefore, his eligibility to be president under the Constitution's requirement for a "natural born" citizen, his challengers say.
His supporters say he has. His detractors say he has not. What proves one side right and the other wrong? Can you identify the process?
It is my observation coupled with what you said on this thread that you are now juts having fun.
Very much so. Watching people post nonsense with such seriousness is most amusing.
On this issue you are just flat out wrong, as the examples indicate.
And as I said, if I am "flat out wrong" then you will have no problem pointing to the California law that shows it. Surely you can do that, can't you?
Class is over again.
Comedy Central, you mean.
What is disturbing is the Judge in Georgia, Clay-Land, as he reverses the issue to protect Obama. By telling Orly she has to prove he is not eligibile yet he ignores the fact that Obama has locked his history and even removed/destroyed documents which are needed to make that proof! The Cpt Rhodes case is a complete set up and Clay-Land is aiding the deceits!
You said they don't have the power, but they exercised it in those situations and IIRC correctly numerous in-state situations. The absence of court challenges or legislation to change their responsibility indicates that they have the power.
Also you have failed to connect the dots with their oath of office and the constitutional requirements. Your refusal to do so is not my problem. The examples merely support what I have indicated to you a dozen times.
I promised myself I would indicate your major error and leave, but now I have picked up the tar baby and it's all over my clothes. Didn't mean to interrupt your fun. Carry on. But I have again done what needs to be done. Now that you know the facts, I'm sure you will repeat the lie on other threads. The fact that you don't accept a simple answer is your problem.
The applicable statute would be nice. You give examples from 20 years and 40 years ago, and a vague reference to what 'some states' did in 2008. If the Secretary of State should have examined Obama's credentials, as you claim, then there is a law mandating that. That does not appear to be the case in California, not for the four parties that hold primaries. So please show me where I'm wrong and point out the law that said the California Secretary of State was required to estabilsh Obama's citizenship status before allowing him on the ballot. As you claim they should have done.
Also you have failed to connect the dots with their oath of office and the constitutional requirements. Your refusal to do so is not my problem. The examples merely support what I have indicated to you a dozen times.
Your problem is the lack of any dots to connect. Your claim is that the various Secretaries of State refuse to do their job. In order to connect your dots one has to have some sort of law that they violated. You are unable to do that. And you claim I am to blame for that.
I promised myself I would indicate your major error and leave, but now I have picked up the tar baby and it's all over my clothes.
Making unsupported claims and then leaving is your stock in trade. Others are forced to question your unsupported claims. That it what you find inconvenient.
The claim is not unsupported. It is supported by the actions of the Secretary. FACTS. You can keep your eyes closed all you want.
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.