|
Post by KeithDB on Apr 28, 2013 19:53:11 GMT -5
Hprinze, the judge's words are right in front of your face. Pretending they aren't there won't make them go away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2013 0:42:16 GMT -5
Underzog: Hprinze..... Doesn't it strike you a little strange that we have a soi-disant Conservative who appears to blindside Conservatives at every opportunity?Why is telling you the truth blindsiding you? I know many conservatives who oppose the birther movement (and some of them are in my Facebook group). Why? Probably because they recognize this non-issue harms their cause. Birthers tend to make conservatives look like lunatic conspiracy theorists. You may have noticed this, but Romney lost the last election, despite the efforts of birthers. In the face of a valid election, birthers were screaming full voice that Obama was not a natural born citizen and issued ballot challenges in almost every state. Guess what? It didn't help. Hprinze: NO JUDGE AND NO COURT HAS RULED THAT OBAMA IS OR IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ELIGIBLE TO OCCUPY THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT.Well, Keith has quoted the opinion of Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia Administrative Court. And he did indeed rule that Obama is a natural born citizen eligible to occupy the office of President. His ruling is right here: docs.google.com/file/d/0B_KEK8-LWmzhNWQ4MmI2ZGUtZDMwYi00ZGU4LTkxZTUtZjNkNjNhOGY2YWQ4/edit?hl=en_USAnd the portion that Keith quotes is at the end of page 10, last page of the ruling. He did rule that Obama is a natural born citizen. He said, " President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen." The reference to Ankeny refers to Ankeny and Kruse v. The Governor of the State of Indiana at the appellate court. Judge Malihi determined that " President Obama is eligible as a candidate for the Presidential primary." Interesting to note about that case. When Orly Taitz attempted to subpoena the President, the President's attorney Jablonsky objected, however Malihi overruled the objection. Jablonsky and Obama were nonetheless a no-show. Accordingly, Judge Malihi offered the birther attorneys (Orly Taitz, Van Irion and Mark Hatfield) a default judgment. However, the attorneys requested that the judge instead decide the case on the merits. So, he did. He found their expert testimony to be unpersuasive, and he found the arguments presented by the Indiana Court of Appeals to be persuasive, and ruled accordingly. In other words, the attorneys for the birthers lost to an empty table.
|
|
|
Post by underzog on Apr 29, 2013 4:59:57 GMT -5
Telling the truth? With global warming, E.T. Molecules, and Income taxes? He is a lawyer arguing for a client with George Soros paying his retainer.
|
|
|
Post by KeithDB on Apr 29, 2013 5:58:00 GMT -5
If respecting Birthism is a litmus test for conservatism then there are very few conservatives. Here's what some conservatives have had to say about the matter.
"Dumbest thing I've ever heard." --Glenn Beck.
"It's just a few cranks out there." --Ann Coulter.
"The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That's good enough for me," --Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner.
"That theory has been around for a while. The Factor investigated, found out it's bogus . . . Again, we found out that President Obama was born in Hawaii. We were sent the documents. And what are you gonna do?" --Bill O'Reilly.
""The Factor" has proven that Barack Obama was indeed born in America . . . The birther deal is just madness." --Bill O'Reilly
"The Birther idiots are the only ones the media continues to show." --Glenn Beck.
"the "birther" movement was hatched in the station wagon of MSNBC's favorite left-wing fantasist, Larry Johnson," --Ann Coulter
"Barack Obama's the 44th president of the United States. His election was certified. I believe he was born in Hawaii." --Conservative Republican (who challenged John McCain) J.D. Hayworth who previously made pro-Birther statements. He explained "I made certain statements on the air to -- to provoke conversation. That's what happens in broadcasting."
"Within our party, weve got to be very careful about allowing these people who are the birthers and the 9/11-deniers to get too high a profile and say too much without setting the record straight . . . We need the leaders of our party to say, Look, stop falling into the trap of the White House and focus on the real issues." --Karl Rove
"I don't, and those are distractions" --Sarah Palin in response to the question "Do you question his faith and citizenship?"
Also posted on Palin's behalf on her Tweet page about the Birther issue: "'It's distracting. It gets annoying."
Well, then that should settle it . . . Thats what should settle it. I take the president at his word and I think again I would have no problem and apparently the president wouldnt either. Introduce that, were done. Move on." --Michelle Bachmann commenting of the President's long form birth certificate.
"You can't believe everything you read on the Internet. Obama has produced his birth certificate. There were announcements that ran in two contemporaneous Hawaiian newspapers at the time. The head of the Hawaiian medical records has announced, 'I have seen the long form you all want.' I don't know why the long form is considered more credible than the short form. They're both from the same office. The State Department accepts the short form or as we call it, the birth certificate . . . No conservative who talks on TV, or has a column or has a magazine, has mentioned the birth certificate issue because we have looked at it and have discounted it. Now people people who want to get people to their website or to their listeners to their radio show will keep ginning people up about this but . . . as I say, this came out of the Hilary Clinton campaign. --Ann Coulter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2013 7:43:11 GMT -5
I could add another one from Ann Coulter. When visiting the BirtherReport.com website, I discovered that, according to them, she said the birther movement is "very popular." Which only proves my contention: Birthers are Liars. She said no such thing. She said, "I'd like to dispute you on a different point, and that's the idea which is very popular, that the birther conspiracy is a racist conspiracy theory." Notice, she did not call the birther movement "very popular." She called the idea that the birther movement is a racist movement "very popular." (And I disagree with her, by the way. Racism is absolutely rampant in the birther movement. But, contrary to her calling the birther movement "very popular," Coulter goes on to say, "It's a conspiracy theory; I think it's false, Sean [Hannity] thinks it's false. There's no one -- Human Events and American Spectator and Fox News all think it's false." She then goes on to say that "It has nothing to do with Obama being black." And I disagree. It has everything to do with Obama being black. Here's the link, together with the dishonest lead in that Ann Coulter called the birther movement "very popular." obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.no/2012/09/ann-coulter-very-popular-birther-issue-has-nothing-to-do-with-race.htmlNow, let's find out who continues to push this lie that Ann Coulter called the birther movement "very popular."
|
|
|
Post by underzog on Apr 29, 2013 21:56:30 GMT -5
I also think there might be something to this...birther issue. The concern and worry showed by the other side is quite extreme -- especially for a guy who was re elected. This birther issue is more than just {I]gaslighting[/I] tricks from the Obama types. It almost strikes me as angry cognitive dissonance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2013 2:00:20 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, I find birtherism especially disgusting because it's the only conspiracy theory that has sought to disinform people about the laws that govern us all. And that this disinformation could ultimately prove harmful.
Birtherism, as we have seen in this thread, seeks to disinform people about the very laws that govern citizenship. They claim that there is some other category of citizenship that acquires their citizenship at birth, but isn't natural born. And that a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents and birth in the U.S.
There is no such third category. You are natural born or naturalized. If you acquire your citizenship at birth, you're natural born, and that's all there is to it.
As for the why this is dangerous for the American people, it disarms people of the knowledge of the more serious consequences this has. A woman who's eight and a half months pregnant and a citizen of Mexico can cross the border, give birth and that child is now eligible to be President of the United States upon attaining the age of 35 and provided he lives in the U.S. for at least 14 years.
The birth tourism industry is another problem and I'd like to see it shut down.
A pregnant woman living in some other country can come to the U.S. on vacation, give birth while merely visiting the U.S. -- in fact, the birth tourism industry has facilities created for just those types of people -- and that child will also be eligible to the Presidency, provided the other two standards are met.
Moreover, there are other perks that this child can obtain, such as green cards for the entire family.
This is something I think most of us would like to see shut down.
But because of birthers' short-term goal of removing a President they hate, they are attempting to disarm the public of the facts.
Birthers would claim, "Oh, these aren't really natural born citizens."
Oh, yes they are.
|
|
|
Post by hprinze on Apr 30, 2013 3:50:20 GMT -5
No court has ruled that Obama is or is not a natural born U.S. citizen eligible to occupy the position of president
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2013 5:07:56 GMT -5
No court has ruled that Obama is or is not a natural born U.S. citizen eligible to occupy the position of president Really? Then kindly explain what Judge Malihi meant when he said, "President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen... President Obama is eligible as a candidate for the Presidential primary."
|
|
|
Post by underzog on Apr 30, 2013 14:25:33 GMT -5
The appellate courts can get away with the nonsense featured in one of Keith db's links because the mistakes or lies of that appellate court will probably not be overturned by the Supreme court because the Supreme Court usually denies certiorari (cert denied). The Supreme Court can only hear a few cases a year and has to deny the rest of them. Some of them they deny on political grounds.
In the interests of fairness, I activated Keith's links; one, with the reportage or general lack of it in the Gosnell trial (except Fox News) and the other linked I activated was an appeals court mention of that case that appears to be Keith and Patrick's favorite. Both times the links were used deceptively by Keithdb except in the second link I clicked on the deception can only be understood if one understands something of how this game of law is played in the courts.
|
|
|
Post by KeithDB on Apr 30, 2013 14:33:56 GMT -5
If by "a few" what you really mean is about 100, then you are right because that's about the number cases the court accepts cert on each year.
But do tell me the specific alleged "deception" you claim. I am responding here to a repeated claim that "no court has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen." That assertion is absolutely repudiated if even a single court has done so. Obviously, at least one court has, though the person making the claim simply keeps spamming the same assertion without any support.
Put another way, he is simply repeating a flat out proven lie.
|
|
|
Post by underzog on Apr 30, 2013 19:02:22 GMT -5
{I]Flat out lie[/I]? You chaps lie naturally to defend some seedy clients (not that one would disapprove of the system, however). I also remember you referencing that same appeals case in the tnt2 board to try to create some validity for that Wong Ark Kim case as regards natural born citizenship (it hasn't any). I realized what you were trying to do then are you are repeating it here. You're better able to get away with deceptions than your lib/commie buddies because most people here aren't skilled in court procedures as you are. In this matter, I thought I should come to Prinze's aid and again explain how the game of law is played in America. As Peter Schiff's father and political prisoner, Irwin Schiff states the matter: "Citizens who read Supreme Court decisions and act accordingly, may find out later that appellate courts do not follow these decisions and so they get convicted. When they later appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court declines to hear the case!" "The game that is being played in our federal courts is as follows: The Supreme Court makes decisions which only bend the Constitution a little out of shape in favor of the federal government. It is these decisions, of course, that get reported in the press. If a Supreme Court decision is really bad, it could get a lot of unfavorable publicity. However, if, after the Supreme Court makes its decision, the appellate courts interpret and apply the decision in a totally off the wall manner*, who knows about it? And, as time passes, the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeals involving appellate courts' perversions of its earlier decisions, then upon what is our law based? The Constitution? Hardly. Lawis not based on what the Constitution says, or even on what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says, but is based on what the appellate courts say the Supreme Court said the Constitution says. In many cases, any similarity between that and what the Constitution really says is purely coincidental!"1 *emphases added by me 1. How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes by Irwin Schiffpp 149 - 150
|
|
|
Post by KeithDB on Apr 30, 2013 19:57:45 GMT -5
Yes, flat out lie and you presented no argument that I am wrong. If you have evidence or something other than ad hominum attacks to support what you say, feel free to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2013 21:41:03 GMT -5
Assuming what you say is true about the Supreme Court rulings (and I notice that your source gives no examples of this, at least not in the excerpt you provided), how do you know that this is what's happening in the case of natural born citizenship?
Wong Kim Ark seems perfectly clear to me. They said that children born in England, even to aliens, were considered natural born, and that the U.S. has always observed "the same rule."
What else could it mean?
This whole attitude that keeps repeating proven lies in spite of the facts being laid right in front of you smacks of that stupid poster Lee5515, and her obsessive hatred of the President. Every prediction she made failed and her interpretations of the law were proven false.
For me, the biggest failure that Lee had, in a posting history full of them, was when she claimed that she would stop if Obama would release the long form. Not only did she fail to do this, but she made up an obvious lie. She claimed that she needed to see the long form only to prove that Obama's father was never a citizen, so now they know that Obama isn't eligible.
For one, the citizenship of the parents doesn't matter to a child born in the U.S. For another, and more importantly, the long form doesn't prove that Obama's father was never a citizen. It says Obama's father was born in Kenya, but so what? People born in Kenya can become citizens of the U.S. They can even be born citizens of the U.S. It says nothing about Obama's father's citizenship, whether he remained a citizen of Kenya or whether he acquired citizenship somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by underzog on May 1, 2013 22:05:55 GMT -5
Judge Roy Moore making eligibility backers desperate (excerpts from the link) >>>>>>>>>>>>The Democratic Party has jumped into a Barack Obama eligibility case before Judge Roy Moore’s Alabama Supreme Court, filing an uninvited brief that even quotes late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel in an effort to see the case dismissed. ******************************************** Speculation abounds online that Alabama Democrats have jumped into the case out of concern Moore may not be so quick as other judges to dismiss challenges to Obama’s eligibility In a brief of amicus curiae filed last week, the Alabama Democratic Party insists the court is required to dismiss the case. “Stated simply,” the brief reads, “there is absolutely nothing any Alabama court can do to change the reality of President Obama’s election to a second term in office. … No Alabama court has the authority to delve into the legality, conduct or results of that election.” The brief is filled with condemning language, calling the McInnish-Goode case a “baseless attack,” Obama the “object of [their] scorn” and their intent “a jaundiced and jaded political agenda.” Futhermore, the Democratic Party insists, “In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.” The document scoffs at “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel – not widely recognized as a constitutional expert – to make its case:* “These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.” Yet at least two of the judges sitting on Alabama’s Supreme Court have considered that where all the “birthers” have seen smoke, there may be a fire. In a 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he’d seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (end of excerpt) *emphasis added
|
|