Posted on 03/16/2014 8:21:40 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
There you go, confusing the discussion with actual facts. Bold face, unsupported assertions are so much more appealing, don’t you agree? Muddying the waters will court opinions is not fair, in my view.
If Tennessee Nana says that it is so, then it must be. Argument over. That’s why these birther threads have gone no where in the past eight years, people won’t just get on board the looney train. They insist on evidence. It’s damn frustrating.
tell me again Barry Obama’s visa records are available from foia because his fathers (supposed) records were...lol
I’m just guessing here but perhaps its because American citizens don’t have U.S. State Department Visa records? So a Freedom of Information Act request would yield nothing. Barry’s father, on the other hand was in the U.S. from Kenya on student Visas, hence records that are available via FOIA.
one is dead the other alive
Yes, I’ve noticed that. Also, one was from Kogelo, Kenya and needed visas to enter the U.S. and the other is from Honolulu, Hawaii and doesn’t need visas, just a passport.
If it comes to a choice between the Indiana Supreme Court, and Nana, the smart money would go with Nana.
How about the Alaska Supreme Court then? They ruled unanimously last week (four Republicans and one Democrat) in Lamb v. Obama: “Mr. Lamb clearly lacks interest-injury standing to sue because he cannot establish any injury in fact, nor can he show a genuine controversy. Mr. Lamb claims that his failure to vote was his injury. However, the Supreme Court has ‘consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government - claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large’ - does not present a controversy.
Mr. Lamb’s complaint alleges nothing more than non-justiciable abstract and theoretical claim.
The court is under no obligation to accept as true Mr. Lamb’s complaint that is full of legal conclusions and bald assertions cloaked as facts. Bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded every favorable inference.
Moreover, Mr. Lamb has failed to plead any facts that fit within any cognizable legal theory. Mr. Lamb’s complaint gives his version of the history of Mr. Obama’s life and presidency; however he neither states nor provides allegations sufficient for any recognized cause of action. Even if the complaint and summons were properly served, Mr. Lamb had standing, and this court had jurisdiction, Mr. Lamb pleads no claim entitled to relief.”
http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/webdocs/opinions/ops/sm-1485.pdf
In all of these proceedings, Team Obama has had the advantage of being the Defendant. The chance for a state official to make Team Obama the Plaintiff in an action seeking relief for .... O say, removing him from a state ballot ... has long past.
Factor in the SCOTUS, which has assiduously ducked the issue, and we are left where you realistically surmise that we are. But Nana is right. The guy is ineligible. The fact that there is no venue wherein this can be proven isn't that dear lady's fault.
We have lived through an anti-constitutional coup. Happens in every country. Just our turn.
I might buy your opinion except for the fact that in about 90% of the more than 200 Obama eligibility lawsuits that have been filed, there was no defense at all presented by Obama. Such was the case in Lamb v. Obama in Alaska. There was only a plaintiff’s brief for the Court.
Why would Obama ever allege that he had been damaged by being declared eligible as a natural born citizen? You cannot force someone to become a plaintiff. When a party offers no defense, they are leaving it up to the court to rule, solely on the position of the plaintiff.
Obama eligibility lawsuits have failed primarily due to one simple fact: the four persons who did have standing to file suit decided not to sue or even to support any eligibility lawsuit by filing an amicus brief. The persons with standing are John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the only other persons who received electoral votes and who had a chance to hold the office if Obama is ineligible. It is also conceivable that a judge might have granted standing to the Republican Party on behalf of its candidates but the Republican National Committee has never challenged Obama’s eligibility either.
Hillary Clinton would also have had standing, before the 2008 Convention.
. This was later resolved when his actual registration form was revealed to carry a postmark of July 29,1980. The later September date corresponds to the date of data entry into the Selective Service System’s information system.
But the form was signed and the date put down was July 30, 1980.
(!)
I.e. the signature date was AFTER the postmark date!
ROFLMAO your evidence is as valid as obies fake birth certificates.
As they say on “The Family Feud,” “GOOD ANSWER!” “GOOD ANSWER!”
He’s an OBOT - what do you expect?
I’m an “Obot” just like Sarah Palin is an “Obot:”
Interviewer’s Question: “Do you question his [Obama’s] faith and citizenship?”
Governor Palin: “I don’t, and those are distractions. What we’re concerned about is the economy. And we’re concerned about the policies coming out of his administration and what he believes in terms of big government or private sector. So, no, the faith, the birth certificate, others can engage in that kind of conversation. It’s distracting. It gets annoying and let’s just stick with what really matters.”
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y15Q9MEr3ws
did you get an Obamacare exemption too
No, I didn’t need an exemption. My employer is generous enough to provide full coverage for all of my healthcare needs as a fringe benefit.
But thanks for asking!
BS
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.