OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

Article II SUPERPAC ^ | 01/26/2012 | Article II SUPERPAC

[RaceBannon]

Article II SUPERPAC streaming live video and audio at this link

[DiogenesLamp]

It's dead in the sense that birthers have lost every intellectual argument and there's no possible way it will change the outcome of the election.

What planet have you been on? It is the Obots who have lost every intellectual argument. A person must be some sort of idiot to believe that our nation ever intended for "Anchor Babies" to be eligible for the Presidency. (Or even citizenship for that matter.)

[cvq3842]

I would agree with you if one can be a natural born citizen even if not born of two citizen parents. If two citizen parents are required, then Obama has a problem no matter where he was born.

I personally believe, based on nothing but gut instinct and some circumstantial evidence, that the fact being hidden is that Obama Sr. is not Obama’s biological father.

Wouldn't it be amazing if that explains at least part of the mystery around Obama’s records? By trying to explain away some embarrassing episode in his mother's past, Obama rendered himself open to a challenge of ineligibility for office? And if there were a different father, and this ends up being disclosed, this would damage Obama’s credibility to say the least.

Whatever. I realize this is all speculation piled upon speculation. And the media would go into overdrive to spin ANYTHING Obama did or did not do. After the Clinton years, making Obama look like the victim in all this would be easy for them.

What will happen? Time will tell.

[SeaHawkFan]

In this case, the plaintiffs made a prima facial case and in doing so, the burden shifted to the defense as to why the court should not rule in favor of the plaintiffs in absence of a meritorious defense. Since no defense on the merits was presented, the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment in their favor.

To keep it simple, the only defense to a default judgment is excusable neglect and AND a meritorious defense. Even if there was a meritorious defense, it would be possible to establish excusable neglect.

This is why I believe the defense attorneys didn't show up. It would not have done Any good and they avoided any possibility of lying to the judge.

[presently no screen name]

This distraction should have ended years ago.

Are you distracted? You still have time to spew your garbage on these threads. Seems more like you are FOCUSED on this, than distracted by it. See how that works!

If birthers are still going to go out there and make fools of themselves

You are here, so you're a fool. Or just a fool by saying others are fools. LOL! How is your gas bag tactic logic to make some sense of that?

You keep ignoring questions I ask. Stay focused, you are all over the place. Why do you not address this as a Constitutional issue? And are you a citizen with allegiance to America?

And did you learn anything in my class room?

Now if you don't address my questions this time - I will know you are COMMANDED only to post talking points and you are not a free agent. If you want to escape - just type HELP!!

[SeaHawkFan]

Make that pea facia

[null and void]

Plaintiffs just got evidence submitted Obama was native born and its been accepted by the Court as undisputed fact.

Yep.

Proof that he is native born and proof he is NOT natural born.

In America, he can be anything he wants, except president!

[butterdezillion]

What he posted online can’t be proof positive of anything - unless it’s actually at least accurate, and since it’s not genuine we have no way of knowing whether it’s accurate or not.

That’s the concern that Sven has. The attorneys weren’t using an “even if” argument: EVEN IF Obama’s documentation was accurate, he wouldn’t be NBC. It seems to me they were saying that his alleged documentation IS accurate, and that’s the reason for Sven’s concern.

If they presented Obama’s claims as simply being Obama’s claims, then wouldn’t it be the job of the judge to establish the facts of the case before actually deciding the matters of law? I’ve read a case where the judge said that they can’t argue cases on an “even if” basis. The case has to be decided on the basis of findings of facts.

What am I misunderstanding here? Were they arging that “even if” Obama’s BC’s are accurate he wouldn’t be eligible, or were they arguing that SINCE Obama’s BC’s are accurate he’s not eligible?

It’s an important distinction, I think. And it’s why some of us were saying that without a genuine birth certificate the NBC argument couldn’t even be made because there is no evidence that Obama’s father WAS Obama Sr.

[GregNH]

I made that argument back before the joint session of congress hoping.....but we know what happened. Anyway I believe, and there precedent for removing an elected official for ineligibility, that this is the correct procedure.

[rolling_stone]

The Georgia ballot challenger Plaintiffs just got evidence submitted Obama was native born and its been accepted by the Court as undisputed fact.

Take a chill pill, tell me what did the plaintiffs submit? An uncertified copy of a short form BC and a printout of a pdf Long form BC? What makes you think they were accepted as undisputed fact? Sheesh pull the ripcord before you hit the ground. You are running around like Orly jumping to conclusions.

[butterdezillion]

Yes, and it will be interesting to see how the Fogbow folks explain why Obama didn’t just present his legally-certified, prima facie BC so it would have to be given full faith and credit.

[Mr. K]

because you are an ass and I choose not to respond to you any more

and smarmy on top of all of that

[Suz in AZ]

Is there anyone running a dem write-in campaign? They would be sure to win now.

[little jeremiah]

That is VERY good news. Once the ball is flipped into the Obama court, it places the burden of proof (of eligibility) on him.

---

That is exactly what Kenny Bunk was saying yesterday.

[null and void]

Hmmm? I thought the court accepted Obama’s web [of lies] document as if it was fact for the purposes of this case?

Not being a lawyer, I thought that one could “stipulate” facts are accurate for the purposes of continuing an argument to its logical conclusion.

[SvenMagnussen]

The BC was challenged AFTER it had been enter by Plaintiffs and accepted as undisputed fact in an earlier case. Its fantasy to think the Judge will accept the COLB and Long form BC in one case as undisputed fact and then sustain testimony the evidence entered earlier as undisputed fact is fraudulent.

Non-jury civil trail Judges are allowed to hear testimony from irrelevant witnesses because it is assumed they won’t be prejudiced by hearsay. In other words, the Judge carefully listens to impassioned and concerned witnesses and then ignores them because their testimony is irrelevant hearsay.

[null and void]

Where has SCOTUS ever issued a ruling on the definition of Natural-born citizenship? That’s right! It doesn’t exist.

And therein lies the problem.

NBC was last legally defined in 1790, but the law defining it was overturned in 1795.

The INS has some rulings distinguishing between NBC and native born, and that's about it.

Time to fix that omission, isn't it?

[Tennessee Nana]

Thats what I said

it didnt change anything for him

I wasnt an American citizen WHEN he was born

(but his father was)

because he didnt have both parents American citizens

hes still native born and not natural born...

he can never be POTUS

however his younger sister can

President Nanas Girl

:)

[Mr. K]

Then why does he make such smarmy comments?

The first contact I ever had with him was when he suggested I was lying or making things up

I am 100% in favor of disagreeing with someone and ESPECIALLY grateful when I am wrong and some corrects me before I make a fool of myself (any more than normal), but when you do you say “I disagree and here is why...”

Not “you are either stupid, uniformed, or a weasel and here is why... “

[Kleon]

>Are you distracted? You still have time to spew your garbage on these threads.

I’ve only posted in a few threads in the past month or so, because, as I said, it’s basically a dead issue. There’s very little worth discussing any more. I’ve spent more time volunteering for candidates I think can beat Obama, like Bachmann.

[butterdezillion]

The BC was challenged in Orly’s case. But it wasn’t challenged in the other 2 cases. In those 2 cases the attorneys actually (I think, though I missed this part so I’m still trying to find out what actually happened) argued that the 2 forged BC’s were accurate. So unless the attorneys were arguing that Obama is ineligible EVEN IF the posted COLB and BC are accurate, the actual accuracy of them would be uncontested in those 2 cases.

Of course, they are hotly contested in Orly’s case, but that wouldn’t have to be mentioned in a future case - only that there was a case where those (forged) documents were accepted as prima facie evidence.

I don’t know how the courts work, and I think a person can contest stuff that’s submitted for judicial notice also, but I do wonder if accepting those 2 forgeries as valid makes bigger problems later on.

I also don’t know what a summary judgment means in this case. Was the suit to determine that Obama could not be placed on the ballot because he’s not NBC, or was it just a suit to keep Obama off the ballot? IOW, if the judge rules against Obama does that mean he is actually ruling on Obama’s eligibility, or is he just ruling on whether Obama should be placed on the ballot - for instance, because he has not adequately proven whether he is or isn’t NBC?

This result doesn’t end up deciding NBC. Or does it?