Orly Taitz Gets Joy Behar Very Nervous About the Obama Eligibility Case (Video)

You Tube ^ | 10/14/2009 | Joy Behar Interviews Orly Taitz

[kellynla]

Orly Taitz gets Joy Behar very nervous about the Obama Eligibility case.

[trumandogz]

Perhaps, Orley confused the word “days” with the word “years” and meant to say that she would have Obama out of office in “30 years.”

[humblegunner]

Go with the direct deposit option.
You get an email notification that you can check against your post count.

[IntolerantOfTreason]

So, in the nicest possible way ...

When you spend time deliberately disrupting threads about Obama’s eligibility, you’re helping the conservative cause HOW exactly? Because that’s what FR is about; it’s not a playpen for trolls, and if you are working against conservative causes, I wouldn’t be surprised if the mods take an interest.

Seriously, think it through.

[Labyrinthos]

They held hearings on McCain’s eligibility, for hell’s sake. The answer to why is obvious. Because the lefties are lying and hiding something (their usual schtick).

They held the "hearings" prior to the elction, which, as I explained in great detail yesterday, is the general procedure under the election laws in just about every state for contesting the qualifications of candidates to appear on the ballot. IIRC, the RAT's commenced an action in the State of Texas to contest McLame's qualifications to appear on the ballot in that state and they lost. If McLame and his shills at the GOP has any balls, they would have challenged 0bama's qualifications BEFORE THE ELECTION. Having failed to do so, the time to commence an action to contest a candidtate's qualifications has expired. In addition, once the election is complete and certified the controversey is no-longer justiciable, and the only remedy is political (i.e., impeachment) until the next election cycle.

Rather than wasting our time on the post-election birther lawsuits and a lawyer name Orily who, in my opinion, does not have a clue, we ought to be focusing upon legal challenges to 0bama's qualifications as his name is placed on the ballot in each state PRIOR to the 2012 election. In addition, we ought to be lobbying the legislature in a few key Red states to change the state's election law to expressly require a candidate for POTUS to provide a copy of the original (or a certified copy) of the his or her birth certificate as a precondition to placing their name on the ballot.

[stockpirate]

So your postition is it really doesn’t matter where he was born,, we should just move on and look towards the next election cycle.

[humblegunner]

I love it.

Aug 27, 2009 schooling Aug 19, 1998 on what FR is about.

Brilliant.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Your polite and reasoned response is good for FR - thank you and it is what it's all about. Avoiding the subject of your post and basing "arguments" dependent on who came over on the Mayflower or other such chronological nonsense, not so much.

Thanks for getting it.

[trumandogz]

So, let me get this straight.

According to you, anyone who does not believe the multitude of birther theories is not a Conservative?

[danamco]

Sorry, meant to say: “Show us that you ...have.. balls, meaning competence and expertise”!!!

[Lundy_s Lane II]

There were actions questioning Obama’s eligibility before the election. Berg tried to point out the issues and the constitutional crisis if someone who was ineligible was actually elected.

Donofrio and others tried to get SCOTUS to review the issue before the inauguration.

But there is Quo Warrento writs to file for someone who is in office and is ineligible.

But it is not clear that a civil case can not be brought by candidates for the President that the winner was not eligible to run. That can not throw him out. But can serve to force discovery that upon getting proof would be brought in a Quo Warrento action.

If it is proven that Obama is ineligible by not being a Natural Born Citizen then he is not a legitimate President and can be removed.

But I certainly applaud all actions to make it very clear that proof of being a Natural born citizen is required for anyone to run for President or Vice President in the future.

[IntolerantOfTreason]

Not quite - some birther theories assert (based on very strong suspicion) that he is definitely not an NBC. Believe that or not.

However, if you believe in general that a president should not have to be eligible according to the constitution, then no, you’re not a conservative.

[Neets]

But please enjoy the day with your family while young soldiers stand between you and another 911 asking only that they have assurance that the man who has ordered them to put their lives at risk with his new ROEs is actually their CiC.

Seriously, you have no idea how off you are in your assessment of me. Keep grasping at straws though. Someday you might get it right.

[XenaLee]

With all “due” respect....

this country won’t last until the 2012 election. At least, not at the current speed at which the country is being dismantled, destroyed and decimated.

And again, why the double standard in release of records? Why did Zero seal his records? What is Zero hiding? Other than his intentional and deliberate BLATANT destruction of the USA, what ELSE is Zero up to?

If I, as a citizen of the United States, do not have standing or a right to know the answers to any of those questions, then this country is doomed and the constitution IS just a worthless piece of paper.

I don’t happen to believe that.

So no. I disagree with you and I’m ready to do whatever is necessary and whatever possible to remedy this intolerable situation we’re now in.

And I’m not alone.

[El Gato]

I think this case is currently waiting for a ruling on a motion to dismiss, so it's a little premature to be talking dates for a jury trial just yet.

The one thing Judge Carter did order last week was to make the dates final. Including the dates for a motion for summary judgment and the trial date.

If the Motion to dismiss is not granted, I'd think the case will be settled by summary judgment after discovery.

[trumandogz]

Not quite - some birther theories assert (based on very strong suspicion) that he is definitely not an NBC. Believe that or not.

Suspicion must be based on evidence and there is no evidence that Momma Obama jetted off the Kenya to give birth to Baby Barack and then smuggled her new born into the United States just in time to have a birth announcement placed in two newspapers.

[XenaLee]

Whew! Thank God! LOL!

[Labyrinthos]

There were actions questioning Obama’s eligibility before the election. Berg tried to point out the issues and the constitutional crisis if someone who was ineligible was actually elected.

You are missing my point. Under the election laws of most states, these types of challenges must be made at the time the candidates name is placed on the ballot. For example, IIRC in my state, legal action to contest a candidate's qualifications must be made within ten days after the name is placed on the ballot, and the challenge must come from a person who has a real and personal stake in the outcome of the dispute that is distinct from the interests of the general public. The time to contest the candidate's qualifications is very short because elections are expensive, and therefore, these types of disputes need to be resolved long before the ballots are printed and votes are cast.

Donofrio and others tried to get SCOTUS to review the issue before the inauguration.

The time to go to court is at the time when the candidates name is placed upon the ballot in the particular state, not after the election is held and the people have spoken.

But there is Quo Warrento writs to file for someone who is in office and is ineligible.

This particular writ has been oversimplified by people who have no clue as to their modern existence and purpose. In many states, including mine, the writ has been abolished, and the proper procedure is not to challenge the candidate directly, but to challenge the election commmissioner's decision to allow the unqualified candidate's name to appear on the ballot.

[steve-b]

you're helping the conservative cause HOW exactly?

Let's start with a few analogous situations:

Al Sharpton utters all sorts of insane yammering in the name of "liberalism". If people don't see or hear other liberals reject this insanity, what do they conclude?

Al-Qaeda utters all sorts of insane yammering in the name of "Islam". If people don't see or hear other Muslims reject this insanity, what do they conclude?

Now, then...

Birthers utter all sorts of insane yammering in the name of "conservatism". If people don't see or hear other conservatives reject this insanity, what do they conclude?

[XenaLee]

"Suspicion must be based on evidence and there is no evidence that Momma Obama jetted off the Kenya to give birth to Baby Barack and then smuggled her new born into the United States just in time to have a birth announcement placed in two newspapers."

Uh....huh?

Do you even know the definition of the word suspicion? Are you aware that people are arrested and prosecuted every day, not just in America, but in the world...(and even as we speak) based ONLY upon that one little word......suspicion???

Sheesh....you guys are too easy Suspicion: 1 a : the act or an instance of suspecting something wrong without proof or on slight evidence : mistrust b : a state of mental uneasiness and uncertainty.

Add to that the ...er....ah....suspicion that mommie was a commie and also possibly a covert/undercover spy for the commies and you've got a recipe for her knowing exactly how to sneak around, in and out of countries, and get what she wanted re: a phony birth certificate.