Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: President Frauds court case
willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Tue 01/31/12 08:11 AM
'Barry, on Sunday informed CNN that he's OK with not being on the Georgia Ballot because that still leaves him with 56 States.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Tue 01/31/12 08:34 AM
'Barry, on Sunday informed CNN that he's OK with not being on the Georgia Ballot because that still leaves him with 56 States. Actually it leaves him with 58 more to go.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Tue 01/31/12 08:52 AM
'Barry, on Sunday informed CNN that he's OK with not being on the Georgia Ballot because that still leaves him with 56 States. Actually it leaves him with 58 more to go. Thank you, sir.

actionlynx Joined Wed 08/18/10 Posts: 5448	Tue 01/31/12 10:04 AM Edited by actionlynx on Tue 01/31/12 10:05 AM
You had a much larger segment of the population in the US and abroad that considered Bush a selected President and not actually properly elected. I can agree with this, but the electoral college system isn't going to change. There's a reason why it was set up that way, and it's quite similar to why we have a Senate as well as a House of Representatives. I don't find the doomsday scenarios you listed having happened. That's because Obama hasn't been retroactively declared ineligible yet. There's no denying that this is a horrible time for infighting within this country. We're mired in our worst economic situation since the Great Depression, and it's affecting the entire world, not just us. Again, you are talking about countries being ruled by the white elitist class in Europe and I actually believe they have far more contempt for the fact that he was elected than you think. That's your opinion. I can only take it as hearsay at minimum. Questions would have to be asked within these countries about why minorities have little or no representation within the hierarchy of these governments.. I'm not a demographics expert. I do know that the U.S. has a record of racial strife (not ethnic or religious) that is only topped by a few countries, South Africa being one of them. During the 2008 campaign, Europeans stood up and took notice, throwing support behind Obama. Opinion may have changed since then, but it still leaves plenty of room for a backlash against the U.S. if Obama should be declared ineligible. I don't believe he is ineligible and I believe this issue is a distraction from his abysmal economic record and the rest of his failed left wing policy decisions. I want it to stop, but not because I am worried what the Euro elite is going to think.. I agree on both points, but you also have to look at all angles. Right now there is a push towards isolationism which has been building for a couple decades. For much of our history, the U.S. was condemned for its isolationist policies. Now we have done a full swing the other way. To balance that swing, many believe we should do a full swing back to isolationism. I believe we should step back to a more moderate course, and that means stopping all the reactionism going on in our country, to focus on stabilizing our nation rather than continuing an "us vs. them" mentality. Extremes are never in our best interest, at home or abroad.

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Tue 01/31/12 10:18 AM
You had a much larger segment of the population in the US and abroad that considered Bush a selected President and not actually properly elected. I can agree with this, but the electoral college system isn't going to change. There's a reason why it was set up that way, and it's quite similar to why we have a Senate as well as a House of Representatives. I don't find the doomsday scenarios you listed having happened. That's because Obama hasn't been retroactively declared ineligible yet. There's no denying that this is a horrible time for infighting within this country. We're mired in our worst economic situation since the Great Depression, and it's affecting the entire world, not just us. Again, you are talking about countries being ruled by the white elitist class in Europe and I actually believe they have far more contempt for the fact that he was elected than you think. That's your opinion. I can only take it as hearsay at minimum. Questions would have to be asked within these countries about why minorities have little or no representation within the hierarchy of these governments.. I'm not a demographics expert. I do know that the U.S. has a record of racial strife (not ethnic or religious) that is only topped by a few countries, South Africa being one of them. During the 2008 campaign, Europeans stood up and took notice, throwing support behind Obama. Opinion may have changed since then, but it still leaves plenty of room for a backlash against the U.S. if Obama should be declared ineligible. I don't believe he is ineligible and I believe this issue is a distraction from his abysmal economic record and the rest of his failed left wing policy decisions. I want it to stop, but not because I am worried what the Euro elite is going to think.. I agree on both points, but you also have to look at all angles. Right now there is a push towards isolationism which has been building for a couple decades. For much of our history, the U.S. was condemned for its isolationist policies. Now we have done a full swing the other way. To balance that swing, many believe we should do a full swing back to isolationism. I believe we should step back to a more moderate course, and that means stopping all the reactionism going on in our country, to focus on stabilizing our nation rather than continuing an "us vs. them" mentality. Extremes are never in our best interest, at home or abroad. What form of isolationism do you speak of? Economic or militarily? I would agree that we can't have a comprehensive isolationist policy, but if you look at our situation at the moment, its hard to argue what we have been doing since the end of WW2 has really worked out in the long term. I don't think opening our markets to cheap foreign goods or agreeing to job killing free trade agreements has set the standard for what I would consider good economic policy. There is a direct correlation between when we moved from a trade surplus to a trade deficit and a stagnation of wages and loss of middle class manufacturing jobs. NAFTA dug the hole deeper and now we have new free trade agreements with countries that have populations that couldn't possibly afford to purchase our goods with any regularity. More flooding the markets with cheap goods.. This is not sustainable. It's reckless and there needs to be reconsideration of these kinds of failed policies.

actionlynx Joined Wed 08/18/10 Posts: 5448	Tue 01/31/12 11:08 AM Edited by actionlynx on Tue 01/31/12 11:09 AM
I'm speaking of both economic and military. I want to cut back on imports while increasing exports. But in order to increase exports, we need to maintain decent relations with foreign countries so the tariffs on our goods are kept low, making our products viable and competitive in foreign markets. Manufacturing left this country to go overseas, not just to line their pockets, but also to boost sales in foreign markets by increasing cost competitiveness. It wasn't the taxes that killed American manufacturing - it was the cost of goods and resources. The U.S. has used up much of its internal mineral resources, meaning that businesses had to import those resources. As a result, manufacturers began looking at the cost effectiveness of buying foreign parts rather than just buying the mineral resources. The more they looked into it, the more they saw it was cheaper to manufacture overseas then import it back into the U.S. So, to revive manufacturing within the U.S., we need to look at what viable resources we have within our borders, and which resources we need beneficial trade agreements for so we can import them while being competitive in the world markets. Furthermore, we need beneficial trade agreements that allow us to sell our manufactured goods abroad. I believe the economics and the military angles go hand-in-hand. Step back militarily a bit, and it will open the door for improving a number of trade relations that can benefit American manufacturing at home. We shouldn't be Team America: World Police. That's what the U.N. and The Hague were founded for. We should step forward to bolster the effectiveness of those entities, encouraging reform if necessary, so we don't have to take the hit for every intervention - be it humanitarian, diplomatic, or peace-keeping. A "war" on terrorism can only be truly effective in a collaborative effort. Further, strengthening and reforming the U.N. will aid in bolstering the diplomatic ties necessary to make manufacturing once again viable. Plus by stepping back militarily, we cut the expenses associated with such active involvement, a big chunk of which is fuel costs which in turn drive up our prices at the gas pump. There are countless ways that military involvement impacts our economy. I don't believe we should shrink our military or allow it to become outdated - the military not only provides our security, but also helps to create jobs and encourage improvement in technology which then trickles down to the public. We just need to pull back a bit on the global aspect to reduce costs and promote foreign relations. This is one point where I disagree with Ron Paul because I believe he wants to cut back further than I believe we should. Foreign policy is a crucial part of rebuilding manufacturing in this country. We can't ignore it. But we also have to realistically consider what forms of manufacturing are sustainable within the U.S. given our natural resources. Some parts and resources are going to be too expensive to import to sustain some forms of manufacturing. We have to find and build our niche markets, then go from there. Sustainability is the ultimate goal.

sweetestgirl11 Joined Fri 09/12/08 Posts: 30087	Tue 01/31/12 06:43 PM
he was no more a foreigner than my daughter is,,,Im born and raised here and she came here born through me,,,how can a government say she is not 'natural born',,,,,, its quite insulting and ridiculous The government isn't saying it. As far as citizenship is concerned being born to one American citizen even if abroad, the child is a citizen. That is crystal clear.. so explain, if he is a citizen and not foreign, nor alien, nor naturalized,,,what kind of citizenship is left,,,? natural born? It's basically a precedent they are going to have to argue and clarify.....because a law from the late 1800's states the definition in the eye of the Supreme Court being a natural born citizen as a child of two citizen parents. As this particular person was. Everyone else associated as a citizen, its confusing, but per the wording used for a natural born citizen. McCain was attested for being born on a military base out of the country. Based on this law i am not sure he would have been a Natural Born Citizen either. military bases are federal property and US jusrisdiction

Seakolony Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 11968	Tue 01/31/12 07:16 PM
he was no more a foreigner than my daughter is,,,Im born and raised here and she came here born through me,,,how can a government say she is not 'natural born',,,,,, its quite insulting and ridiculous The government isn't saying it. As far as citizenship is concerned being born to one American citizen even if abroad, the child is a citizen. That is crystal clear.. so explain, if he is a citizen and not foreign, nor alien, nor naturalized,,,what kind of citizenship is left,,,? natural born? It's basically a precedent they are going to have to argue and clarify.....because a law from the late 1800's states the definition in the eye of the Supreme Court being a natural born citizen as a child of two citizen parents. As this particular person was. Everyone else associated as a citizen, its confusing, but per the wording used for a natural born citizen. McCain was attested for being born on a military base out of the country. Based on this law i am not sure he would have been a Natural Born Citizen either. military bases are federal property and US jusrisdiction Yes, I know that, but there was some debate on whether McCain was born on a military base or in the Panama hospital even though born to two US citizens.....I already know that US military bases are US jurisdiction. It isn't what was being debated, but the written word of the law and the meaning of said laws.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Tue 01/31/12 07:20 PM
> TODAY > <http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/auth/ca/obama-eligibility-court-case-blow > -by-blow/> 'S OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE.BLOW BY BLOW > > > By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am > > Given the testimony from today's court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of > explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was > Obama. > > The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings. > > Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility > case were called to the Judge's chambers. This was indeed a very interesting > beginning to this long awaited and important case. > > The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and > whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if > found ineligible, Obama's name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in > Georgia. > > With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen > fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the > attorneys and the appearance of the judge. > > Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near > Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and > in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia. > > Over the last several weeks, Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, had > attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first > tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. > After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, > determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was > simply too busy with the duties of office to appear. > > After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, > in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place > Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and > neither he nor his client would participate. > > Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling > Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he > would do so at his and his clients peril. > > Game on. 5 minutes. 10 minutes. 15 minutes with the attorneys in the > judge's chambers. > > <http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/in-2.jpg> > Error! Filename not specified. > > 20 minutes > > It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to > the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge's chambers. > > Has Obama's attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is > he directly ignoring the court's subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the > law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or > our attorney be allowed such action or, non action? > > Certainly not. > > Court is called to order. Obama's birth certificate is entered into > evidence. > > Obama's father's place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence. > > Pages 214 and 215 from Obama's book, "Dreams from My Father" entered into > evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 > that his father's history is mentioned. It states that his father's passport > had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya. > > Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr. > > June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama's father's status > shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through > the Freedom of Information Act. > > Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing > Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. > The attorney points out the difference between "citizen" and "Natural Born > Citizen" using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion. > > It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition > or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court > rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule > the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion. > > The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at > the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As > Obama's father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, > constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President. > > Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken > accordingly. > > Carl Swinson takes the stand. Testimony is presented that the SOS has > agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will > be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson. > > 2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding > documents of challenge to Obama's appearance on the Georgia ballot and his > candidacy. > > Court records of Obama's mother and father entered into evidence. Official > certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence. > > RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence. DNC language does NOT > include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. > This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly > have known that Obama was not qualified. > > Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their > desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not > participate. > > Dreams From My Father entered. > > Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in. > > Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into > evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama's > father received through the Freedom of Information Act. > > This information states clearly that Obama's father was NEVER a U.S. > Citizen. > > At this point, the judge takes a recess. > > The judge returns. David Farrar takes the stand. Evidence showing > Obama's book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not > relevant by the judge. > > Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump. Enters into evidence a portion > of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama's mother > for her passport listing Obama's last name something other than Obama. > > State Licensed PI takes the stand. She was hired to look into Obama's > background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. > Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used > or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This > shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed > born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama. Same SS number > came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA. > > <http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/court-7.jpg> > Error! Filename not specified. > > Next witness takes the stand. This witness is an expert in information > technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama > provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, > indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more > than one original document. > > Linda Jordan takes the stand. Document entered regarding SS number assigned > to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as > suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies > ones citizenship. > > Next witness. Mr. Gogt. Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 > years. > > Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is > suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by > "unsharp mask" in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is > considered to be a fraud. States this is a product of "layering". Mr. > Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show > such layering. Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama > documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are > hand stamped. Obama's documents are all even, straight and exactly the same > indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by > computer. > > Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration > officer specializing in immigration fraud. Ran Obama's SS number through > database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state > of Connecticut. Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, > Obama was living in Hawaii. > > Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at > that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different > than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama. > > Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who > adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to > immigration records. Suggests all records from Social Security, > Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are > criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out. > > Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be > arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for > sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen. > > Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in > Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time. > > Taitz takes the stand herself. Testifies that records indicate Obama > records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship. > > Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments. Taitz states that > Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to > serve as President. > > And with that, the judge closes the hearing. > > What can we take away from this? It's interesting. Now, all of this has > finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records. > > One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered. WHO THE HELL > IS THIS GUY? > > Without his attorney present, Obama's identity, his Social Security number, > his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question. > > One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the > definition of Natural Born Citizen" provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be > eligible to serve as President. > > What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly > impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama > and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the > Georgia ballot. It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be > brought in other states as well. > > Obama is in it deep and the DNC has a lot of explaining to do unless > they start looking for a new candidate for 2012. LOL garbage, That is why the pres didn't attend and can't be made to. I sure hope they make them pay back the tax payer dollars they wasted on all this crap. They got 20,000 dollars out of taitz already and they need to get more.