Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven
[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.
Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.
The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.
Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Excellent argument.
is Rubio qualified any more than Arnold Schwarzenegger?
So theoretically, our Founding Fathers were not concerned that a British noble might groom a son who is born in the US to be President, right? So a duke might do his royal duty, raise a son in the US [such as his second son], and then prepare him to lead our nation. And our Founding Fathers had no fear whatsoever of that happening?
Uups, not “do his royal duty”, but in his Majesty’s service ...
Your post brings up another question, Why, when the first”birth certificate” was an admitted forgery, did the issue disappear with the presentation of a second, photocopy of another obviously forged document, and no one has YET seen the original? I do not believe for a minute that there is something on the original BC that might be “embarrassing to the president” as it was said. What could be so embarrassing that it warrants risk of impeachment and/or charges of treason?I believe there is something on the original document(if it exists) that disqualifies Zero from holding office. And if there is no “original” document that should also disqualify him, and make him guilty of falsifying records, as he has claimed the second BC as his? Just asking...
I gave up last night. Some people simply refuse to understand despite a mountain of evidence against them.
How is it that yo have all the answers, but are new to this discussion.
You could have settled this whole debate years ago. Why did you hold out on us?
Hey everyone, k58 says we are wasting our time here, let’s just drop it.
| I especially like the motion by the plaintiff's attorney Mark Hatfield, who urges this judge to make a 'finding of fact' that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen! http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html Hatfield's Findings of Fact Submitted http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2841352/posts ^ | Feb. 1, 2012 | Mark Hatfield |
Only if she wasn’t a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of your birth.
Rubio was not a “natural born” citizen unless his parents had already become “naturalized” citizens before he was born. It will take a Constitutional Amendment to change that requirement.
Does a person have to be a natural born citizen to be VP? If not then in the event of the POTUS being removed from office wouldn’t the VP be skipped over and it go to the SOTH?
No person can serve as VP who is not qualified to be president. Words nearly verbatim from the Constitution.
I thought the judge was supposed to render his decision by Feb 1st?
You are the one who is not well researched.
If "natural born" doesn't mean anything different than "citizen", why is the term used? Bear in mind that the only other term used is "naturalized citizen". There is indeed some difference in these terms.
you throw around the word authority as if it means anything...Obama has authority...Ruth Bader Ginsberg, has authority.
WE THE PEOPLE....are the only real authority...and let the bottom feeding lawyers and all the self serving politicians learn that...the easy way or the hard way.
You are not correct. This issue is all about "divided loyalties".
You are not correct. This issue is all about "divided loyalties".
Inotice how these kind of threads has finally been allowed to stay in Breaking News, what took so long
I would have introduced Senate resolution 555 in its entirety. Remember that that resolution was the sense of the Senate that a natural born citizen had to have an American Citizen Father and an American Citizen Mother at the time of his birth. It was signed by every Senator present at that time - Democrat and Republican including the junior Senator from Illinois one Barack H. Obama. While the resolution applied to John McCain it reflected the Consitutional opinions of the entire Senate.
So, if Obama agreed to the resolutions verbiage (he did sign it after all instead of voting present) he knew well before the Democratic National Convention that he didn't meet the requirements of that resolution - see his own written and published words in his autobiography “Dreams of my Father.”
IMHO these two pieces of evidence, that were uncontested, would cause EXTREME heartburn for the Democrats at multiple levels during the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections.
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.