The president of the USA is not a USA citizen at all. His birth certificate was filed in Honolulu his natural grandmother reported "Obama’s birth that took place in a Kenyan Hospital. Hospital – Unknown Kenya, Africa." it says on two websites which i cant post the proof is there. he was born as Berry Soetoro, then later changed his name not legally to Barack Hussein Obama. He lived in Kenya until his teen age years when his mother divorced his real father Lolo Soetoro, proof Al-Jazeera News
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Were you sleeping during the GA hearing? Birthers presented their "evidence". In Indiana last Friday, the commission said Taitz' evidence was "100% hearsay". At both hearings, neither Obama nor his attorney even showed up and the challengers still lost.
From 2003-2008, Democrat legislators made several attempts to remove the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement for the Presidency. They apparently were aware of the problems with his eligibility.
Notably, in hopes of getting Arnold Schwarzenegger into office, there was at least one Republican attempt to do the same.
Democrats are well aware Obama cannot meet the requirement, so they tried to eliminate it.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Obama wasn't even considered a potential candidate for the nomination prior to late 2004. In that time frame, more bills were proposed by Republicans, including two by Dana Rohrbacher, to change the NBC qualification. In 2008, Democrat Claire McCaskill introduced such a bill to make it easier for her friend, John McCain, who was facing Birther suits, to run. Again, you need to get your facts straight before embarrassing yourself again.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Spoken like a true Birther. Forget the facts, now we must have absolute knowledge of every conversation had by the higher-ups in the DNC prior to 2004. It was Obama's speech at the 2004 Convention that took him from upcoming member of the party to potential candidate. Had he bombed at his speech, he would have been shunted aside for someone with more promise, much like Bobby Jindal was by the GOP in 2009. Do you have proof otherwise? If not, shut up. As for...
@tgear77 (cont) McCain, he was never 'certified'. He was supported by a non-binding Senate Resolution aimed at shutting up the Birthers who were after him. Despite being born outside of the US and its Territories, the fact that both his parents were US citizens should have been enough to shut up the Birthers. But as we have learned over the past 4 years, the Birthers don't let little things like facts, truth and the law hinder their delusional rantings.
@tgear77 What drugs are you on? You didn't get a single thing right in that post?
Questions were raised by Congressmen about John McCain's eligibility so THE CRITERIA FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN were applied and he was confirmed, in Senate Resolution 511, as meeting them.
These are the same Criteria the Democrat fight to prevent from being applied to Obama.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Do you even bother to do research or do you just copy from Birther sites? Senate Resolution 511 is a non-binding resolution (which means it has no legal authority and is just reflecting the opinion of the Senate). Two of the co-sponsors of the Res. were Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. The resolution refers only to McCain, who at the time was being dragged into court by Birthers. It had nothing to do with McCain's confirmation, since he was already the ....
@tgear77 (cont) GOP nominee. The resolution says nothing about being born under US Jurisdiction to 2 citizen parents. What it does say is that 'Natural Born Citizen' was never defined, but in the eyes of the Senate, the Founders would not have placed limitations on those born to military personnel serving the country. Res. 511 does not define NBC nor does it make any attempt to clear a path for anyone other than those in McCain's situation. You are totally clueless.
Obama - a deceiver who clearly knows he does not meet the Constitutional requirements for Natural Born Citizen and who has paid lawyers for years to prevent any legal examination of his claimed eligibility for office.
As Americans sue in various courts to compel Obama to ALLOW his eligibility to be verified, Obama continues the fight to prevent it from happening.
Malihi refused to consider the evidence in this case and refused to rule against Obama for defying the subpoena.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Wow! You are wrong on everything. First, there is no Constitutional requirement that makes Obama ineligible. Second, Obama has not paid lawyers to prevent the examination of his personal records, the law does that. Obama has lawyers file motions against nuisance Birthers like Orly. Third, Obama was not subpoenaed by Malihi. The court issued a summons. There is a difference, moron. Even Malihi said he had no authority to compel Obama to appear.
President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for re-election, moves for an order quashing a subpoena which, if enforced, requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States for an administrative hearing in Fulton County, Georgia, starting on January 26 and continuing through the pendency of the hearing. Such a subpoena is, on its face, unreasonable...
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Wrong again. Jablonski, Obama's attorney, filed a motion to quash the attempts by Taitz and the other lawyers to issue subpoenas. Malihi never issued a subpoena for Obama to appear. In fact, he stated that he did not have the authority or jurisdiction to do so. All he issued was a summons. And you obviously don't know the difference between the two.
"In a surprising ruling Friday, a Georgia state administrative judge declined to quash a subpoena directing Obama to attend a hearing Thursday at the Fulton County courthouse ..."
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Yes, once again since you are so slow, the subpoena that Jablonski was trying to squash was one that Taitz wanted to issue. Malihi did not issue a subpoena to Obama. He issued a summons. Try and keep up.
Birthers - A mentally changed individual who followed the rants of Orly Taitz. A Dentist/Lawyer who could not convince any court of her actuations of BHO not being a NBC & committing SS fraud. Most attempts were dismissed due to the evidence having no merit and even lost a decision in Georgia where defendant BHO nor his attorney Michael Jablonski failed to show for court. Her followers would not accept any ruling by any court, stating that it was all a big conspiracy to take over the USA.
Make him spend money defending this instead of on campaign. He did the same thing in Illinois filing a lawsuit over ballot signatures for other candidates.
Sound like all the Gore fanatics who claim the "Evil BUSH" stole? the election in 2000! Yet The "savior OBAMA" won with the same 50-51% margin & I quote..."served as a beacon of change for all America, & won the hearts of all Americans". Historic! Amazing! Change!Yet...runs deficits higher than any President before , lied about lobbyists, banks, bailouts, defending the CONSTITUTION! If Obama showed & couldn't prove he is eligible, would all the "Obamatons" still feel the same???Election 2012
@MSJewelryAU Gore tried several different recount strategies to try to steal the 2000 election but couldn't come up with a win.
That's why George Soros is moving forward with the Secretary of State Project - so the Democrats will own the Secretaries of State and thus ensure their election cheating will succeed.
It's also why they fight against requirements for a positive ID for each voter.
From the Presidency on down, they are destroying the legitimacy of the American System.
"Judge Malihi begrudgingly agreed to allow testimony, however rushed the parties. He refused to allow attorney Taitz to properly present her opening statement, which was designed to lay proper explanation and foundation for the case, he rushed witnesses, it was abundantly clear at that point, that judge Malihi was under an outside pressure to rush the case."
hm.... and this is just a nonbinding Administrative court...
Judge Malihi has refused to uphold the very law he swore to. Clearly, Obama expected Malihi to do him some favors. Obama was confident the Judge would look the other way as he defied a legal subpoena to appear. Malihi refused to even consider the evidence of problems with Obama's claims to eligibility.
Once again, Obama has refused to demonstrate his eligibility and a Judge gave him a pass.
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
The Constitution still requires a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN for President and we can determine what that term means by other legislation crafted by the same Congress that ratified the Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790.
The first requirement is: Born to parents who are both US Citizens
Just like in McCain's certification:
"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens..."
@AmericaSpeakOut1 The Nat. Act of 1790 dealt only with those born outside the US and was rendered null and void by the NA of 1795 which in return was rendered void in 1803. You are trying to cite laws that haven't been valid in over 200 years. Then you cite Res. 511 which has no legal authority. You have no fucking clue as to what you are doing.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 So, do you believe that non white people cannot naturalize here? You cannot cherry pick part of the Act and ignore other parts. Why won't you answer my question? The NA 1790 was superseded multiple times. Try reading the 14th Amendment. Also US v Wong Kim Ark.
Don't tel me you are still arguing with this clown?
His ignorance is his greatest attribute.
He can not understand fact from fiction. He has decided he is the only authority and everyone else is wrong. Every Judge is wrong. Every Attorney is wrong. Only Birthers who have failed to win a case against an empty chair are right.
The sad thing is he believes the BS he says.
If I was that stupid and ignorant I would have to kill myself.
Actually, we must, for only one part of it is relevant to Obama's eligibility for the Presidency. That is whether or not he is a Natural Born Citizen.
The Constitutional requirement was NEVER AMENDED or REPEALED. The NA/1790 gives us information on what it means, as NA/1790 was crafted by the same Congress that ratified the Constitution.
Can you show that Congress meant something else, in their own words?
@AmericaSpeakOut1 more to the point, can you state exactly where in u.s. law and the constitution it says both parents need to be NBC for their child to have NBC staus?
direct challenge - show us or admit you´re wrong. no deflection or changing the subject, just show us.
there are 2 categories of citizenship, naturalzed for foreigners taking u.s. citizenship, and NBC for those born here. if there is another, show us exactly where, and what this secret category is called.
@erizo1602 >> more to the point, can you state exactly where in u.s. law and the constitution it says both parents need to be NBC for their child to have NBC staus?
Sorry, that was a slip of wording late at night.
US legislation written immediately after the Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790, states clearly that the first condition for NBC status is:
Both parents are Citizens
After that, there has been some debate about whether they can be born overseas, etc.
That's an interesting claim. The same Congress that ratified the Constitution even said that they can be born overseas. However, the primary requirement was clear - they must be born to Citizens.
Can you show any other place they defined Natural Born Citizen?
By the wording of the Constitution, it is separate and distinct from "citizen", no matter how that status was otherwise achieved. It makes sense when you understand the purpose.
@erizo1602 actually, it depends on where he was borne in the states, not where his parents were borne. also on whether he was born in another country then registered here after the fact.
@Funnypandalonies if he was born elsewhere and then registered in hawaii, it would say so on his BC. it doesn´t, and there has been no credible (nor logical) evidence to prove otherwise.
the only things pointing to a foreign have been presented by convicted forgers, pranksters and hucksters trying to make money out of the gullible elements of the birther movement.
none have stood up to even the most cursory scrutiny.
@erizo1602 actually, the problem is the certificate is not an official certificate. that's what they're questioning. honestly, personally, I don't care. I think they find some question based on interpretation. The wording of the constitution and what it means today. To be honest, his mother was american, that is admitted, his father not. so what. there are plenty of legal citizens of the usa that were born here, that qualify for the job. I think this is being knit picky.
@Funnypandalonies both the COLB and copy of the LFBC are signed and sealed by the issuing authority, that is, the hawaii DOH. they are fully admissable in any court of law in the u.s. and are accepted as unquestioned evidence of fact
to say they are `not official´ is ludicrous in the extreme. whay more official can they be than issued by the authority where the original is held?
the only people trying (and failing) to be knit picky are the birthers.
@erizo1602 and again I say, so what? Why does anyone care what the birthers have to say? The fact that obama ignores it only fuels the fire. His actions only shows he will lose out in the end by questioning authority. Judges do have more power over him. he only. he doesn't like it when his authority is questioned, and now his getting his ass handed back to him. I don't like him, he's green and he flies in the face of the constitution every day he's in office.
The problem is that Judges fear the consequences if they actually have to consider the evidence and rule against Obama. What will those millions of emotionally invested Obama supporters do to this nation if the LAW is upheld and Obama cannot be President?
The "Occupy" movement is a show of strength by the Left, a warning, to let those Judges know how many people they can turn loose to destroy this nation from the inside.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Oh yeah, the occupy movement is a vigilant group, while the birthers and tea-baggers are a peaceful, level-headed bunch of folks. Ri-i-i-ght.....
What will the handful of emotionally-unbalanced Obama-haters do when the law CONTINUES to be upheld and the birthtards' "complaints" keep getting dismissed?
@AmericaSpeakOut1 If the law is truly upheld, it's gonna be based on the evidence at hand. His actions don't help him, and he has to deal with the consiquences of being a lawenforcer in america. If he can't follow the rules, he doesn't belong in office. You can't claim to be a leader if you can't follow the laws that you took an oath to uphold.
@Funnypandalonies It is not about the birth certificate, it is about legally being a Natural Born Citizen, as McCain was certified to be (but not Obama).
The two conditions are:
1) Born to parents who are US Citizens (Obama cannot meet that requirement)
2) Born under US Jurisdiction (hopefully in Hawaii)
And that is why Obama pays lawyers and fights hard to prevent his eligibility from being reviewed and certified in a legal venue - because it won't be.
There is no "2 citizen parents" requirement. Did you watch Orly Taitz get smacked down this morning in Indiana?
Have you seen the various birthers sites? They're starting to eat each other and self destruct. If your "2 citizen parents" nonsense had any meat and potatoes to it, Obama would've been disqualified before he ran.
If Obama had not been successfully PREVENTING any of the court cases from moving forward to actually examine the issue, then in fact Obama might have been disqualified, as you say. He's been doing this for years now...
Barack Obama Seeks To Block Discovery in Citizenship Lawsuit
If expert testimony is needed to authenticate the evidence and Taitz didn't supply experts, then the Judge did the exact right thing.
"having the judge in your pocket"
Funny that prior to his ruling, Judge Malihi was being hailed as a true patriot and a hero, and after the ruling, birthers have called him everything in the book.
What happened to honoring the Constitution and the rule of law?
In fact, the Judge made it clear that he refused to give weight to the evidence.
He did Obama a huge favor, just as the plaintiffs suspected he would. That's why they insisted that the evidence at least be entered into the official public record.
It's a step in the right direction despite the Judge doing all he can to keep Obama away from actual scrutiny.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 the only evidence required to be eligable was NBC (LFBC copy certified and sealed by hawaii DOH - game over), over 35 (over that age) and resident for 14 years (was and is).
anything else brought up by oily was totally irrelevent.
your president has presented more personal information and been under more intense scrutiny than any other sitting president in u.s. history.
@erizo1602 "your president has presented more personal information "
No he hasn't. In fact, he's been paying his lawyers to PREVENT the information from being presented to a legal venue, ever since a Democrat attorney first tried to get him to ALLOW verification he is eligible for office...
Barack Obama Seeks To Block Discovery in Citizenship Lawsuit
@AmericaSpeakOut1 You are such an idiot. Malihi offered Taitz and her cronies a default judgement when Obama's attorney did not appear. They refused because they wanted to present their dog and pony show. So yes, now it is on the record. What is also on the record is that the judge ruled that it did not prove their case. That is called setting precedent. Birthers are too stupid to realize that they should have given up long ago.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 The only time the two parent rule comes into effect is when you are born outside the US or its Territories. Obama, by being born in Hawaii, is a natural born citizen. His parentage does not enter into the matter.
@tgear77 >> The only time the two parent rule comes into effect is when you are born outside the US or its Territories
Can you show where the Founders or the Congress made that clear?
We know why the two-parent rule was the common understanding at the time and was even spelled out in the 1790 Naturalization Act. It's to avoid foreign influences from one or both parents on the President.
But if you claim they meant something else by it, SHOW WHERE THEY SAID SO.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 LOL! No, it was not spelled out in NA 1790. That dealt with children born overseas to 2 citizen parents. And even that act was negated in 1795. Try citing something that is actually still on the books and not 2 centuries old. What is funny is that you keep bringing up Senate Res. 511 to make your point without realizing that it states that the Founders never defined NBC. You are arguing against yourself.
It's important to remember why that first Congress wished to ensure a President was born to two US Citizen parents. If one or both of the parents was a foreign subject/citizen, subject to foreign jurisdiction, they might impart in the child foreign loyalties.
Obama is the perfect demonstration, with his loyalties to folks such as the Marxist/Islamist thug Raila Odinga in Kenya. Obama traveled to Kenya in 2006 to campaign with the fellow, whose followers went on a murder spree when he lost.
The NA/1970 makes absolutely clear what was meant by Natural Born Citizen and was crafted just two years after the Constitution was ratified, by the same Congress. The Constitution does not define the term so we look to other contemporary legislation to find its meaning. We found it.
OTHER matters of naturalization ARE NOT THE QUESTION here.
Natural Born Citizen means born to parents who are Citizens.
Judge Malihi ruled that Obama was born in the United States - even though Obama and his lawyers failed to appear to present the evidence.
Malihi proclaimed that the evidence that WAS presented by the plaintiffs would not be given weight because he deemed those presenting it were not "experts".
The Judge did Obama some big favors here. It's the "Chicago Way".
@GeorgiaKev There are two conditions for the status of Natural Born Citizen clearly understood by the Congress that ratified the Constitution. The first is repeated in the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Born to parents who are US Citizens.
The purpose was to reduce the chance of that a person of mixed loyalties would become Command in Chief of our military and CEO of our nation.
Weird... we KNOW that the Congress that ratified the Constitution also produced the Naturalization Act of 1790 stating that a Natural Born Citizen (that's a way of BECOMING a Citizen, not a class of citizenship) made it clear:
Born to parents who are both US Citizens
Can you show ANY legislation by that Congress or explanation by the Founders showing that they meant something else when they made that distinction?
@AmericaSpeakOut1 One problem with your arguement....the 1790 Act (again, which was repealed just five years after it was enacted), only said that children born OUTSIDE of the U.S., they'd still be NBC's so long as their parents were. There is no mention of children who were born on U.S. soil, as Barack Obama was.
Right and that Act said that naturalization was limited to only "free white persons with good moral character".
Are you in agreement that African and Asian people cannot naturalize??
The NA1790 was superseded multiple times. The 14th Amendment and US v Wong Kim Ark make it clear that if you are born here, you're natural born, since there are only two types of citizenship.
@arrrogantlyignorant Who gives a hoot what it said about "naturalization"? It's irrelevant to this legal issue.
The question at hand is the definition of Natural Born Citizen as the signers of the Constitution understood it. What was their intention in making that distinction?
NOW WE KNOW.
Born to parents who are US Citizens.
The Constitution makes it clear - there is a DIFFERENT STANDARD to be applied to anyone seeking the Presidency.
@arrrogantlyignorant A Natural Born Citizen is the only type who can serve as President. Weird... that's not in the two categories you mentioned.
The Same Congress that ratified the Constitution clarified the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the 1790 Naturalization Act as being born to two Citizen parents.
If you can show where that Congress documented that it means something else, I'd be interested. Can you?
@AmericaSpeakOut1 The 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed in 1795. So anything that was in it became null and void. There does not appear to be any other legislation or Supreme Court ruling for that matter, which exclusively defines "natural born citizens" in ANY way.
@GeorgiaKev The 1790 Naturalization Act clarifies what was mean by Natural Born Citizen. This is very helpful, since we now know the common understanding at the time the Constitution was written.
We go to the source to understand what that Congress meant. Now we know.
So, we still have Obama blocking any attempt to legally verify that he is legally eligible, per the Constitution, to serve as President.
Obama clearly believes it is worth years of effort and attorneys' fees to prevent what should be a simple and direct evaluation of his credentials and a certification... as was done with John McCain.
Hatfield and Irion could have used the easy way out to victory by accepting the summary judgment on the spot. However, in doing so, the plaintiffs risked Jablonski telling Kemp that Obama could not be legally removed from the ballot because no evidence had been presented showing Obama ineligible.
Their concern was justified. The Judge still had the ability to make a summary Judgment - but declined to do so.
The Judge gave Obama a pass, just as they feared he would.
The Judge had full power to make a summary Judgment all along. The plaintiffs were concerned he would give Obama a pass, like other Judges before him, so they insisted on getting their testimony into evidence no matter what.
The Judge did as they feared - declined to take the usual action against the party that failed to appear under Subpoena.
@arrrogantlyignorant The Judge's obligation to issue a judgment against Obama for refusing to obey the subpoena is not nullified by the Judge listening to testimony from the plaintiffs. Obama's table remained empty in defiance of a legally issued subpoena.
This Judge, like others, did Obama a huge favor.
And Obama continues paying lawyers to "block discovery" when he should be presenting the evidence to establish his eligibility.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Obama doesn't have to pay to prevent his personal records from being released. Those are already protected under federal privacy laws which every citizen enjoys.
@GeorgiaKev >> Obama doesn't have to pay to prevent his personal records from being released.
But he is.
Obama is obligated to demonstrate his eligibility for the job and instead is paying lawyers to appeal to Judges to help prevent that. Blocking discovery, claims the plaintiff lacks "standing", etc.
Obama's lawyers have not been working for free these past 4 years.
Ultimately, all the evidence of problems in Obama's claim to eligibility are irrelevant.
What matters is that he refuses to demonstrate his eligibility. Obama is not certified as a Natural Born Citizen, like McCain was.
Unlike McCain, Obama was not born to parents who were both US Citizens. His Father, a British Subject, raises questions as to whether he is legally eligible.
So, we have yet another Judge who refused to rule against Obama when Obama defied a court subpoena, then refused to evaluate the evidence that much of Obama's past is a fraud (multiple Social Security numbers, etc.) and who finally gave Obama a pass.
To be on the State ballot, Obama is required to demonstrate his eligibility. Obama continues fighting to prevent that from happening.
Malhi evaluated the evidence. What proof is there that Obama used "multiple social security numbers"? Because Taitz said so? The same ssn appears on his tax returns that appears on his selecive service registration. What "multiple social security numbers"
Weird, he says he would not give it weight because he did not consider those presenting it to be "experts". When WILL you read the transcript of his ruling?
Obama didn't show up and even the Judge admitted that should result in a default ruling against him.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Yep, another judge ruled in favor of Obama because Obama is right and the birthtards are wrong. Let's see, that makes the birthtards, what 0 for 87 now? If my record was that bad I'd at least consider the possibility that maybe the opposition, at the very least, might have a point in their arguments.
@arrrogantlyignorant The Judge refused to consider the merits of the evidence and refused to demand Obama appear to present HIS evidence.
He used words indicating he ruled on merits while clearly stating he would not give weight to the plaintiff's evidence.
In this case, Obama apparently KNEW the Judge would give him a pass, hence his confidence in refusing to appear, which would ordinarily result in a ruling against him.
Right, that's why Judge Malihi offered the plaintiffs a default judgment against President Obama after he didn't show up in court. The plaintiffs stupidly declined the offer and presented their "case" and when the judge saw how ridiculous it was, he ruled against the plaintiffs despite the fact there had been no opposing attorneys at the hearing to refute their arguments.
@jeroel7 The State of Hawaii has already confirmed the birth certificate as authentic. According to Article IV Section 1 that's all that matters. You should read it.
and rohmney is a mexican heck whatever,,,,gosh ron paul looks so great without even trying,, haha ,,, then you have sandusky penn state and SANTORUM,,,,,wow ron paul no drama no lies just freedom
You cannot cherry pick parts of the NA 1790 and ignore other parts of it. Do you think that only "free white persons with good moral character" should be able to naturalize here?
@AmericaSpeakOut1 You don't have any evidence that he has paid ONE PENNY in legal fees. As far as "legal certification" is concerned, he has provided both his short form and long form birth certificates, both issued by the State of Hawaii AND certified as authentic by the said state. Under the CONSTITUTION, that is all that is needed, per Article IV, Sec. 1. State-certified documents MUST be honored in every jurisdiction within the United States of America.
@GeorgiaKev >> As far as "legal certification" is concerned, he has provided both his short form and long form birth certificates, both issued by the State of Hawaii AND certified as authentic by the said state.
Provided to whom? He's been fighting for years to prevent them, and the Citizen status of his Parents, from being legally confirmed in a legal venue.
Oh, he spread them around the Web to sway the "useful idiots", while "blocking discovery" from the courts. Clever fellow.
Really? Name ONE other President that provided not one but TWO certified birth certificates.
"Citizen status of his Parents"
Obama said on national tv during the campaign that his father was from Kenya. Its a well known fact that his mother was a natural born American. So is Barack Jr.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 They've been posted on the internet. What do you want him to do, order 300 million copies and mail them out to every citizen in the United States? Talk about a waste of taxpayer money. He's provided more proof of his birthplace than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT in history. All you're doing is spread rumors to discredit him in this election year.
@GeorgiaKev how about just have his latest released certificate examined by a handfull of unbiased experts?? oh,maybe just submitting a copy to a judge with no expertise in authenticating such documents is good enough for you,huh?
@jeroel7 Oh sure, and as soon as the judge brings in his "unbiased experts" to examine the certificate and they all say it's fine, the birthtards will start screaming that the "experts" were all bribed or threatened by the feds.....blah-blah-blah....
The point is this: The State of Hawaii issued both documents and certified their authenticity. That is all that is needed per the Constitution (Art IV, Sec. 1). State-certified documents MUST be honored in EVERY jurisdiction of the country.
@GeorgiaKev of course he has not paid a cent on legal fees,with over 70 cases challenging his eligibilty status,his defense lawyers really enjoy defending these challenges for free!!
@jeroel7 You have no idea (none, nada, ZIP) as to how much money Barack Obama has paid his attorneys to defend him in these frivolous lawsuits, but the ones who SHOULD be paying his legal fees are the birthtards who keep bringing forth these frivolous lawsuits and losing time and time again.
@GeorgiaKev Actually, NONE of the cases has gone in Obama's favor as a result of examination of Obama's eligibility to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Even in this case, the Judge clearly states that he refused to consider the evidence of problems with Obama's claim because he unilaterally deemed those presenting the evidence were not "experts".
He just helped Obama dodge legal verification, like others before him.
Judge Malihi didn't refuse to consider the evidence. None of the evidence was strong enough to prove Obama of any wrongdoing. The experts were not qualified as experts. Try dumping Taitz for starters.
Obama has provided twice as much proof of his citizenship than any other President.
Judge Malihi gave the birthers what they always whined about not getting.... to be heard on the "merits". Its not his fault that Taitz did not have them qualified as "expert" witnesses. The Judge did the exact right thing and he found the "evidence" do be nothing more than speculation at best.
@arrrogantlyignorant >> Judge Malihi gave the birthers what they always whined about not getting.... to be heard on the "merits"
No he didn't. He explicitly says he was not giving weight to the evidence of fraud in Obama because he deemed that those presenting it were not "experts".
And he declined to rule against Obama by default for Obama's refusal to appear.
He really bent the rules to give Obama a pass on this one!
"And he declined to rule against Obama by default for Obama's refusal to appear."
READ the transcripts and watch the videos. He offered a default in chambers prior to the hearing taking place. The birthers DEMANDED that their "merits" be heard.
Actually, they did not. The Judge clearly states he refused to give weight to the evidence they presented because he did not recognize those presenting it as "experts". I quoted his own words for you. Do you need that again to make it stick?
I read it and I agree with the Honorable Judge Malihi. They are most definitely not experts. Just because someone sold scanners for 15 years (Vogt), does not make him a digital forensic document expert.
Judge Malihi offered the birthers a default. They refused.
In one of Vogt's original news release - May 22, 2011, he wrote:
"I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs."
Seems to me a REAL expert would know which program was used.
Or in this case, that NO Adobe software was used in creating the pdf.
@arrrogantlyignorant If you fail to read the examination of the document, you will continue posting such idiocy.
It was interesting, seeing how different letters and numbers even in the same block of text apparently came from different scans of different documents. And that the page curved near the binding but the text did not appear to. Hm.
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. - Senate Resolution 511
Note the two conditions:
1) Born to parents who are both US Citizens
2) Born under US Jurisdiction
Okay, let's see Obama's certification... that is what the American People want.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 SR 511 was a NON-BINDING Senate Resolution and it's a good thing....because had it been "binding", then natural born citizens could only include people born on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.
There are two types of citizens: citizens by birth (aka--natural born citizens), and naturalized citizens. President Obama is the former, having been born in U.S. soil to an American mother. There is no "third category" of citizens.
@GeorgiaKev >> because had it been "binding", then natural born citizens could only include people born on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.
You are a compleat idiot.
It was confirmation of Natural Born Citizen status recognizing that McCain met the two conditions:
Born to American Citizens
Born under US Jurisdiction (that military base in Panama)
@AmericaSpeakOut1 You are taking a NON-BINDING Senate Resolution which was specific ONLY to John McCain's birth circumstances and have interpreted it as universal law. All the resolution basically said was "If it looks like one, smells like one, and feels like one, it probably IS one."
The resolution never said the ONLY way to be a natural born citizen was to have two citizen parents.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 If the resolution had somehow found he didn't meet the constitutional requirements, it would have immediately been challenged in court and subsequently overturned. John McCain clearly meets being a natural born citizen because both his mother and father were citizens. However, that is NOT the only way a person can be natural born citizen. An apple is definitely a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.
@GeorgiaKev >> John McCain clearly meets being a natural born citizen because both his mother and father were citizens.
So, SHOW US the contemporary writings, from the time of the Constitution, preferably by our Congress (like the Naturalization Act of 1790), that clarify what qualifies a person for that status.
The NA of 1790 helps us understand what was common knowledge back then, just two years after the Constitution was ratified.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 The 1790 law was repealed in 1795. Show me where in the Constitution natural born citizen is defined as having BOTH a biological citizen mother and a biological citizen father.
Comment removed
WyomingWonder 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The president of the USA is not a USA citizen at all. His birth certificate was filed in Honolulu his natural grandmother reported "Obama’s birth that took place in a Kenyan Hospital. Hospital – Unknown Kenya, Africa." it says on two websites which i cant post the proof is there. he was born as Berry Soetoro, then later changed his name not legally to Barack Hussein Obama. He lived in Kenya until his teen age years when his mother divorced his real father Lolo Soetoro, proof Al-Jazeera News
WyomingWonder 3 days ago
@WyomingWonder Wow! What drugs are you on, nutjob? You didn't get a single thing right in that post.
tgear77 1 day ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Were you sleeping during the GA hearing? Birthers presented their "evidence". In Indiana last Friday, the commission said Taitz' evidence was "100% hearsay". At both hearings, neither Obama nor his attorney even showed up and the challengers still lost.
arrrogantlyignorant 3 days ago
From 2003-2008, Democrat legislators made several attempts to remove the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement for the Presidency. They apparently were aware of the problems with his eligibility.
Notably, in hopes of getting Arnold Schwarzenegger into office, there was at least one Republican attempt to do the same.
Democrats are well aware Obama cannot meet the requirement, so they tried to eliminate it.
youtube*com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H3aCfR8rmrw#!
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"From 2003-2008, Democrat legislators made several attempts to remove the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement for the Presidency"
Non of the bills succeeded, so whats your point?
arrrogantlyignorant 3 days ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Obama wasn't even considered a potential candidate for the nomination prior to late 2004. In that time frame, more bills were proposed by Republicans, including two by Dana Rohrbacher, to change the NBC qualification. In 2008, Democrat Claire McCaskill introduced such a bill to make it easier for her friend, John McCain, who was facing Birther suits, to run. Again, you need to get your facts straight before embarrassing yourself again.
tgear77 3 days ago
@tgear77 >> Obama wasn't even considered a potential candidate for the nomination prior to late 2004.
Wow, that's a fancy claim. Do you actually have inside information as to when the DNC began considering moving Obama up that ladder? LOL!!
Yes, Republicans AND Democrats tried to change that Natural Born Citizen requirement to favor candidates who would have problems passing it.
Obama never did, though McCain was certified Born to American Citizens under US Jurisdiction.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 days ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Spoken like a true Birther. Forget the facts, now we must have absolute knowledge of every conversation had by the higher-ups in the DNC prior to 2004. It was Obama's speech at the 2004 Convention that took him from upcoming member of the party to potential candidate. Had he bombed at his speech, he would have been shunted aside for someone with more promise, much like Bobby Jindal was by the GOP in 2009. Do you have proof otherwise? If not, shut up. As for...
tgear77 1 day ago
@tgear77 (cont) McCain, he was never 'certified'. He was supported by a non-binding Senate Resolution aimed at shutting up the Birthers who were after him. Despite being born outside of the US and its Territories, the fact that both his parents were US citizens should have been enough to shut up the Birthers. But as we have learned over the past 4 years, the Birthers don't let little things like facts, truth and the law hinder their delusional rantings.
tgear77 1 day ago
@tgear77 What drugs are you on? You didn't get a single thing right in that post?
Questions were raised by Congressmen about John McCain's eligibility so THE CRITERIA FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN were applied and he was confirmed, in Senate Resolution 511, as meeting them.
These are the same Criteria the Democrat fight to prevent from being applied to Obama.
1) Born to US Citizens
2) Born under US Jurisdiction
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 day ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Do you even bother to do research or do you just copy from Birther sites? Senate Resolution 511 is a non-binding resolution (which means it has no legal authority and is just reflecting the opinion of the Senate). Two of the co-sponsors of the Res. were Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. The resolution refers only to McCain, who at the time was being dragged into court by Birthers. It had nothing to do with McCain's confirmation, since he was already the ....
tgear77 1 day ago
@tgear77 (cont) GOP nominee. The resolution says nothing about being born under US Jurisdiction to 2 citizen parents. What it does say is that 'Natural Born Citizen' was never defined, but in the eyes of the Senate, the Founders would not have placed limitations on those born to military personnel serving the country. Res. 511 does not define NBC nor does it make any attempt to clear a path for anyone other than those in McCain's situation. You are totally clueless.
tgear77 1 day ago
Obama - a deceiver who clearly knows he does not meet the Constitutional requirements for Natural Born Citizen and who has paid lawyers for years to prevent any legal examination of his claimed eligibility for office.
As Americans sue in various courts to compel Obama to ALLOW his eligibility to be verified, Obama continues the fight to prevent it from happening.
Malihi refused to consider the evidence in this case and refused to rule against Obama for defying the subpoena.
AmericaSpeakOut1 5 days ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Wow! You are wrong on everything. First, there is no Constitutional requirement that makes Obama ineligible. Second, Obama has not paid lawyers to prevent the examination of his personal records, the law does that. Obama has lawyers file motions against nuisance Birthers like Orly. Third, Obama was not subpoenaed by Malihi. The court issued a summons. There is a difference, moron. Even Malihi said he had no authority to compel Obama to appear.
tgear77 5 days ago
@tgear77 >> Obama was not subpoenaed by Malihi
Obama's lawyer's response, you idiot.
President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for re-election, moves for an order quashing a subpoena which, if enforced, requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States for an administrative hearing in Fulton County, Georgia, starting on January 26 and continuing through the pendency of the hearing. Such a subpoena is, on its face, unreasonable...
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 days ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Wrong again. Jablonski, Obama's attorney, filed a motion to quash the attempts by Taitz and the other lawyers to issue subpoenas. Malihi never issued a subpoena for Obama to appear. In fact, he stated that he did not have the authority or jurisdiction to do so. All he issued was a summons. And you obviously don't know the difference between the two.
tgear77 1 day ago
@tgear77 Wrong again.
"In a surprising ruling Friday, a Georgia state administrative judge declined to quash a subpoena directing Obama to attend a hearing Thursday at the Fulton County courthouse ..."
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 day ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Yes, once again since you are so slow, the subpoena that Jablonski was trying to squash was one that Taitz wanted to issue. Malihi did not issue a subpoena to Obama. He issued a summons. Try and keep up.
tgear77 1 day ago
Birthers - A mentally changed individual who followed the rants of Orly Taitz. A Dentist/Lawyer who could not convince any court of her actuations of BHO not being a NBC & committing SS fraud. Most attempts were dismissed due to the evidence having no merit and even lost a decision in Georgia where defendant BHO nor his attorney Michael Jablonski failed to show for court. Her followers would not accept any ruling by any court, stating that it was all a big conspiracy to take over the USA.
bulrydrdan 1 week ago
Make him spend money defending this instead of on campaign. He did the same thing in Illinois filing a lawsuit over ballot signatures for other candidates.
recon110 1 week ago
Sound like all the Gore fanatics who claim the "Evil BUSH" stole? the election in 2000! Yet The "savior OBAMA" won with the same 50-51% margin & I quote..."served as a beacon of change for all America, & won the hearts of all Americans". Historic! Amazing! Change!Yet...runs deficits higher than any President before , lied about lobbyists, banks, bailouts, defending the CONSTITUTION! If Obama showed & couldn't prove he is eligible, would all the "Obamatons" still feel the same???Election 2012
MSJewelryAU 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MSJewelryAU
"If Obama showed & couldn't prove he is eligible"
He already proved he is eligible. Try to keep up.
arrrogantlyignorant 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MSJewelryAU Gore tried several different recount strategies to try to steal the 2000 election but couldn't come up with a win.
That's why George Soros is moving forward with the Secretary of State Project - so the Democrats will own the Secretaries of State and thus ensure their election cheating will succeed.
It's also why they fight against requirements for a positive ID for each voter.
From the Presidency on down, they are destroying the legitimacy of the American System.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 week ago
YTRedActed 1 week ago
Comment removed
Funnypandalonies 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Judge Malihi begrudgingly agreed to allow testimony, however rushed the parties. He refused to allow attorney Taitz to properly present her opening statement, which was designed to lay proper explanation and foundation for the case, he rushed witnesses, it was abundantly clear at that point, that judge Malihi was under an outside pressure to rush the case."
hm.... and this is just a nonbinding Administrative court...
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Georgia statutes and precedents clearly state, THAT IT IS ENTIRELY UPON THE CANDIDATE TO PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY TO THE POSITION SOUGHT.
Malihi has defied State law by not requiring Obama to appear and demonstrate his eligibility.
Malihi defied the law by not issuing a summary ruling against Obama when Obama defied the Subpoena.
That's what happens when the Judge is "in your pocket"...
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Judge Malihi has refused to uphold the very law he swore to. Clearly, Obama expected Malihi to do him some favors. Obama was confident the Judge would look the other way as he defied a legal subpoena to appear. Malihi refused to even consider the evidence of problems with Obama's claims to eligibility.
Once again, Obama has refused to demonstrate his eligibility and a Judge gave him a pass.
That's the "Chicago Way".
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
Actually, the correct term is
NEVER AMENDED
The Constitution still requires a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN for President and we can determine what that term means by other legislation crafted by the same Congress that ratified the Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790.
The first requirement is: Born to parents who are both US Citizens
Just like in McCain's certification:
"Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens..."
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 The Nat. Act of 1790 dealt only with those born outside the US and was rendered null and void by the NA of 1795 which in return was rendered void in 1803. You are trying to cite laws that haven't been valid in over 200 years. Then you cite Res. 511 which has no legal authority. You have no fucking clue as to what you are doing.
tgear77 1 day ago
Blah blah blah blah... you are stupid and ignorant so follow through.
It takes a very "cooperative" Judge, one of many, to give Obama a pass when he so clearly violated a legally issues subpoena.
Once again, a Judge did not enforce the law even when he had clearly stated it was his duty.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"Once again, a Judge did not enforce the law "
Of course he did. It is you birthers that are trying to invent new laws and bend the existing ones to fit their agenda.
Judge Malihi is a true American patriot and a hero. God Bless him!
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 So, do you believe that non white people cannot naturalize here? You cannot cherry pick part of the Act and ignore other parts. Why won't you answer my question? The NA 1790 was superseded multiple times. Try reading the 14th Amendment. Also US v Wong Kim Ark.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant
Don't tel me you are still arguing with this clown?
His ignorance is his greatest attribute.
He can not understand fact from fiction. He has decided he is the only authority and everyone else is wrong. Every Judge is wrong. Every Attorney is wrong. Only Birthers who have failed to win a case against an empty chair are right.
The sad thing is he believes the BS he says.
If I was that stupid and ignorant I would have to kill myself.
YTRedActed 2 weeks ago
@YTRedActed
ROFL. Thanks bro.
I think its amazing that these birthers live in such denial and such delusion that they think Obama "slid in under the radar" and stole the country.
I'm sure people from other countries must look at birthers and think "wtf is wrong with those people? are all Americans THAT stupid??"
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@YTRedActed Thank you for summing up my feelings about the birthtards. Nice job!
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant >> You cannot cherry pick part of the Act
Actually, we must, for only one part of it is relevant to Obama's eligibility for the Presidency. That is whether or not he is a Natural Born Citizen.
The Constitutional requirement was NEVER AMENDED or REPEALED. The NA/1790 gives us information on what it means, as NA/1790 was crafted by the same Congress that ratified the Constitution.
Can you show that Congress meant something else, in their own words?
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 more to the point, can you state exactly where in u.s. law and the constitution it says both parents need to be NBC for their child to have NBC staus?
direct challenge - show us or admit you´re wrong. no deflection or changing the subject, just show us.
there are 2 categories of citizenship, naturalzed for foreigners taking u.s. citizenship, and NBC for those born here. if there is another, show us exactly where, and what this secret category is called.
erizo1602 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@erizo1602 >> more to the point, can you state exactly where in u.s. law and the constitution it says both parents need to be NBC for their child to have NBC staus?
Sorry, that was a slip of wording late at night.
US legislation written immediately after the Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790, states clearly that the first condition for NBC status is:
Both parents are Citizens
After that, there has been some debate about whether they can be born overseas, etc.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@erizo1602 >> and NBC for those born here
That's an interesting claim. The same Congress that ratified the Constitution even said that they can be born overseas. However, the primary requirement was clear - they must be born to Citizens.
Can you show any other place they defined Natural Born Citizen?
By the wording of the Constitution, it is separate and distinct from "citizen", no matter how that status was otherwise achieved. It makes sense when you understand the purpose.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@erizo1602 actually, it depends on where he was borne in the states, not where his parents were borne. also on whether he was born in another country then registered here after the fact.
Funnypandalonies 1 week ago
@Funnypandalonies if he was born elsewhere and then registered in hawaii, it would say so on his BC. it doesn´t, and there has been no credible (nor logical) evidence to prove otherwise.
the only things pointing to a foreign have been presented by convicted forgers, pranksters and hucksters trying to make money out of the gullible elements of the birther movement.
none have stood up to even the most cursory scrutiny.
erizo1602 1 week ago
@erizo1602 actually, the problem is the certificate is not an official certificate. that's what they're questioning. honestly, personally, I don't care. I think they find some question based on interpretation. The wording of the constitution and what it means today. To be honest, his mother was american, that is admitted, his father not. so what. there are plenty of legal citizens of the usa that were born here, that qualify for the job. I think this is being knit picky.
Funnypandalonies 1 week ago
@Funnypandalonies both the COLB and copy of the LFBC are signed and sealed by the issuing authority, that is, the hawaii DOH. they are fully admissable in any court of law in the u.s. and are accepted as unquestioned evidence of fact
to say they are `not official´ is ludicrous in the extreme. whay more official can they be than issued by the authority where the original is held?
the only people trying (and failing) to be knit picky are the birthers.
erizo1602 1 week ago
@erizo1602 and again I say, so what? Why does anyone care what the birthers have to say? The fact that obama ignores it only fuels the fire. His actions only shows he will lose out in the end by questioning authority. Judges do have more power over him. he only. he doesn't like it when his authority is questioned, and now his getting his ass handed back to him. I don't like him, he's green and he flies in the face of the constitution every day he's in office.
Funnypandalonies 1 week ago
@Funnypandalonies >> Judges do have more power over him.
The problem is that Judges fear the consequences if they actually have to consider the evidence and rule against Obama. What will those millions of emotionally invested Obama supporters do to this nation if the LAW is upheld and Obama cannot be President?
The "Occupy" movement is a show of strength by the Left, a warning, to let those Judges know how many people they can turn loose to destroy this nation from the inside.
AmericaSpeakOut1 5 days ago
Comment removed
GeorgiaKev 3 days ago
Comment removed
GeorgiaKev 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Oh yeah, the occupy movement is a vigilant group, while the birthers and tea-baggers are a peaceful, level-headed bunch of folks. Ri-i-i-ght.....
What will the handful of emotionally-unbalanced Obama-haters do when the law CONTINUES to be upheld and the birthtards' "complaints" keep getting dismissed?
GeorgiaKev 3 days ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 If the law is truly upheld, it's gonna be based on the evidence at hand. His actions don't help him, and he has to deal with the consiquences of being a lawenforcer in america. If he can't follow the rules, he doesn't belong in office. You can't claim to be a leader if you can't follow the laws that you took an oath to uphold.
Funnypandalonies 3 days ago
@erizo1602 but this crap about his birth certificate is old. I agree he doesn't belong in office, but not because of this.
Funnypandalonies 1 week ago
@Funnypandalonies It is not about the birth certificate, it is about legally being a Natural Born Citizen, as McCain was certified to be (but not Obama).
The two conditions are:
1) Born to parents who are US Citizens (Obama cannot meet that requirement)
2) Born under US Jurisdiction (hopefully in Hawaii)
And that is why Obama pays lawyers and fights hard to prevent his eligibility from being reviewed and certified in a legal venue - because it won't be.
AmericaSpeakOut1 5 days ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
There is no "2 citizen parents" requirement. Did you watch Orly Taitz get smacked down this morning in Indiana?
Have you seen the various birthers sites? They're starting to eat each other and self destruct. If your "2 citizen parents" nonsense had any meat and potatoes to it, Obama would've been disqualified before he ran.
Try to keep up here.
arrrogantlyignorant 5 days ago
@arrrogantlyignorant
If Obama had not been successfully PREVENTING any of the court cases from moving forward to actually examine the issue, then in fact Obama might have been disqualified, as you say. He's been doing this for years now...
Barack Obama Seeks To Block Discovery in Citizenship Lawsuit
tallahassee*injuryboard*com/miscellaneous/barack-obama-seeks-to-block-discovery-in-citizenship-lawsuit*aspx
He is desperate to prevent the issue from being legally examined.
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 days ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
The last two hearings, in GA and Indiana, neither Obama nor his attorney even showed up for the hearing and they still won.
"He is desperate to prevent the issue from being legally examined."
Only the birthers are desperate.
arrrogantlyignorant 3 days ago
@arrrogantlyignorant >> The last two hearings, in GA and Indiana, neither Obama nor his attorney even showed up for the hearing and they still won.
Yes, the Judge did them a favor by claiming the evidence was not presented by "experts" so he would not consider it.
Just to clarify, the Judge did NOT consider the evidence and said so. He also let Obama off the hook for defying a subpoena to appear.
In Chicago, that's called "having the judge in your pocket".
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"evidence was not presented by "experts""
If expert testimony is needed to authenticate the evidence and Taitz didn't supply experts, then the Judge did the exact right thing.
"having the judge in your pocket"
Funny that prior to his ruling, Judge Malihi was being hailed as a true patriot and a hero, and after the ruling, birthers have called him everything in the book.
What happened to honoring the Constitution and the rule of law?
arrrogantlyignorant 2 days ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"He also let Obama off the hook"
He offered a default judgement but birthers demanded that their merits be heard.
They got exactly what they asked for.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 days ago
@arrrogantlyignorant No they didn't.
In fact, the Judge made it clear that he refused to give weight to the evidence.
He did Obama a huge favor, just as the plaintiffs suspected he would. That's why they insisted that the evidence at least be entered into the official public record.
It's a step in the right direction despite the Judge doing all he can to keep Obama away from actual scrutiny.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 days ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 the only evidence required to be eligable was NBC (LFBC copy certified and sealed by hawaii DOH - game over), over 35 (over that age) and resident for 14 years (was and is).
anything else brought up by oily was totally irrelevent.
your president has presented more personal information and been under more intense scrutiny than any other sitting president in u.s. history.
what more do you want, an in-depth genetic study?
erizo1602 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@erizo1602 "your president has presented more personal information "
No he hasn't. In fact, he's been paying his lawyers to PREVENT the information from being presented to a legal venue, ever since a Democrat attorney first tried to get him to ALLOW verification he is eligible for office...
Barack Obama Seeks To Block Discovery in Citizenship Lawsuit
tallahassee*injuryboard*com/miscellaneous/barack-obama-seeks-to-block-discovery-in-citizenship-lawsuit*aspx
And he's still at it.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 day ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 You are such an idiot. Malihi offered Taitz and her cronies a default judgement when Obama's attorney did not appear. They refused because they wanted to present their dog and pony show. So yes, now it is on the record. What is also on the record is that the judge ruled that it did not prove their case. That is called setting precedent. Birthers are too stupid to realize that they should have given up long ago.
tgear77 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericaSpeakOut1 wrote - `Yes, the Judge did them a favor by claiming the evidence was not presented by "experts" so he would not consider it.´
quite rightly so.
the evidence was not presented by anyone with credentials that would make them an expert in the fields in which they were giving evidence.
that meant they were only giving their lay opinion, not expert opinion backed up by fact.
result - empty table wins
erizo1602 1 day ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 **SNORE**
GeorgiaKev 3 days ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 The only time the two parent rule comes into effect is when you are born outside the US or its Territories. Obama, by being born in Hawaii, is a natural born citizen. His parentage does not enter into the matter.
tgear77 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tgear77 >> The only time the two parent rule comes into effect is when you are born outside the US or its Territories
Can you show where the Founders or the Congress made that clear?
We know why the two-parent rule was the common understanding at the time and was even spelled out in the 1790 Naturalization Act. It's to avoid foreign influences from one or both parents on the President.
But if you claim they meant something else by it, SHOW WHERE THEY SAID SO.
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 days ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 LOL! No, it was not spelled out in NA 1790. That dealt with children born overseas to 2 citizen parents. And even that act was negated in 1795. Try citing something that is actually still on the books and not 2 centuries old. What is funny is that you keep bringing up Senate Res. 511 to make your point without realizing that it states that the Founders never defined NBC. You are arguing against yourself.
tgear77 1 day ago
It's important to remember why that first Congress wished to ensure a President was born to two US Citizen parents. If one or both of the parents was a foreign subject/citizen, subject to foreign jurisdiction, they might impart in the child foreign loyalties.
Obama is the perfect demonstration, with his loyalties to folks such as the Marxist/Islamist thug Raila Odinga in Kenya. Obama traveled to Kenya in 2006 to campaign with the fellow, whose followers went on a murder spree when he lost.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"wished to ensure a President was born to two US Citizen parents."
The Constitution doesn't say a damned thing about parents.
Again if you're standing on the NA/1790, that means you agree that non white people cannot naturaliize here?
Why won't you give a straight answer on that?
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant >> Again if you're standing on the NA/1790
The NA/1970 makes absolutely clear what was meant by Natural Born Citizen and was crafted just two years after the Constitution was ratified, by the same Congress. The Constitution does not define the term so we look to other contemporary legislation to find its meaning. We found it.
OTHER matters of naturalization ARE NOT THE QUESTION here.
Natural Born Citizen means born to parents who are Citizens.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
Judge Malihi ruled that Obama was born in the United States - even though Obama and his lawyers failed to appear to present the evidence.
Malihi proclaimed that the evidence that WAS presented by the plaintiffs would not be given weight because he deemed those presenting it were not "experts".
The Judge did Obama some big favors here. It's the "Chicago Way".
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"Judge Malihi ruled that Obama was born in the United States"
Obama didn't have to present any evidence. Hatfield and Irion did that for him!
They submitted the COLB as evidence and stipulated to its authenticity when they used it to prove that Obama Sr came from Kenya.
Vogt et al are not experts and the Honorable Judge Malihi agrees.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant You're being rather ignorant there.
The purpose in presenting the concocted multilayered version of the Birth Certificate was to show that it was not a scan of an original document.
I don't know why you mention the COLB. Did they present that as well?
The Judge REFUSED TO GIVE WEIGHT TO the evidence provided by the Plaintiffs. We've already covered that.
If you claim the Judge DID accept that evidence, you clearly did not read his own words on the matter.
Stop lying.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"The purpose in presenting the concocted multilayered version of the Birth Certificate was to show that it was not a scan of an original document."
No it wasn't. Hatfield and Irion submitted the COLB as evidence, and stipulated to its authenticity to prove Obama Sr came from Kenya.
The birthers killed their own argument. LOL
Try reading the transcript.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Why do you believe that Barack Obama is legally NOT a natural born citizen?
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@GeorgiaKev There are two conditions for the status of Natural Born Citizen clearly understood by the Congress that ratified the Constitution. The first is repeated in the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Born to parents who are US Citizens.
The purpose was to reduce the chance of that a person of mixed loyalties would become Command in Chief of our military and CEO of our nation.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"Born to parents who are US Citizens."
According to the 14th Amendment and US v Wong Kim Ark, parents dont matter if the kid is born here.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant
The 14th Amendment says nothing about Natural Born Citizen and Wong Kim Ark does not make Obama one.
Even the Naturalization Act of 1790, just two years after the Constitution, make it clear.
Born to parents who are both Citizens. That was written by the Congress that wrote the Constitution.
Can you show that the Founders meant something different by it?
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"The 14th Amendment says nothing about Natural Born Citizen and Wong Kim Ark does not make Obama one"
There are only two types citizenship. Since Obama is not a naturalized citizen, he is the other type -- natural born.
Are you saying that African American and Asian people cannot naturalize in the US? Thats what the NA 1790 says.....
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant You're getting off-track again.
The Constitution talks about the Rights and privileges of Citizens a lot, regardless of how they obtained their Citizenship.
However, for the Office of President, it makes a very special exception, holding that person to a higher standard.
We learn what Natural Born Citizen means by examining contemporary legislation BY THE SAME CONGRESS.
Born to Parents who are American Citizens.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"You're getting off-track again."
Wrong. You've been off track since the beginning of the discussion.
Again, there are only two types of citizenship.
1. Natural born.
2. Naturalized.
There is no third type of "super" citizen.
Another question you won't answer.
IF what you're saying is true (2 citizen parents), why is it that NOT ONE person running against Obama ever brought that up???
Where are they now? Why not?
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant
Weird... we KNOW that the Congress that ratified the Constitution also produced the Naturalization Act of 1790 stating that a Natural Born Citizen (that's a way of BECOMING a Citizen, not a class of citizenship) made it clear:
Born to parents who are both US Citizens
Can you show ANY legislation by that Congress or explanation by the Founders showing that they meant something else when they made that distinction?
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 One problem with your arguement....the 1790 Act (again, which was repealed just five years after it was enacted), only said that children born OUTSIDE of the U.S., they'd still be NBC's so long as their parents were. There is no mention of children who were born on U.S. soil, as Barack Obama was.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"produced the Naturalization Act of 1790"
Right and that Act said that naturalization was limited to only "free white persons with good moral character".
Are you in agreement that African and Asian people cannot naturalize??
The NA1790 was superseded multiple times. The 14th Amendment and US v Wong Kim Ark make it clear that if you are born here, you're natural born, since there are only two types of citizenship.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant Who gives a hoot what it said about "naturalization"? It's irrelevant to this legal issue.
The question at hand is the definition of Natural Born Citizen as the signers of the Constitution understood it. What was their intention in making that distinction?
NOW WE KNOW.
Born to parents who are US Citizens.
The Constitution makes it clear - there is a DIFFERENT STANDARD to be applied to anyone seeking the Presidency.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"Who gives a hoot what it said about "naturalization"?"
Um, perhaps you should READ the title of the Act YOU'RE citing.
"there is a DIFFERENT STANDARD to be applied to anyone seeking the Presidency"
Correct! It means that naturalized citizens are not eligible to serve as President/VP.
Try to keep up with the discussion.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant A Natural Born Citizen is the only type who can serve as President. Weird... that's not in the two categories you mentioned.
The Same Congress that ratified the Constitution clarified the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the 1790 Naturalization Act as being born to two Citizen parents.
If you can show where that Congress documented that it means something else, I'd be interested. Can you?
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"Weird... that's not in the two categories you mentioned."
I said: 1. Natural Born. 2. Naturalized.
"Natural Born Citizen in the 1790 Naturalization Act as being born to two Citizen parents"....
It specifically applied to those "born beyond sea" (overseas) so that they did not have to naturalize here.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 The 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed in 1795. So anything that was in it became null and void. There does not appear to be any other legislation or Supreme Court ruling for that matter, which exclusively defines "natural born citizens" in ANY way.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@GeorgiaKev The 1790 Naturalization Act clarifies what was mean by Natural Born Citizen. This is very helpful, since we now know the common understanding at the time the Constitution was written.
We go to the source to understand what that Congress meant. Now we know.
Born to parents who are US Citizens.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
So, we still have Obama blocking any attempt to legally verify that he is legally eligible, per the Constitution, to serve as President.
Obama clearly believes it is worth years of effort and attorneys' fees to prevent what should be a simple and direct evaluation of his credentials and a certification... as was done with John McCain.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"So, we still have Obama blocking any attempt to legally verify "
Bull. He didnt even show up at the hearing. Are you saying the empty table was "blocking any attempt to legally verify"???
Thats downright silly, even for you.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant >> Are you saying the empty table was "blocking any attempt to legally verify"?
Yes. That's a way of dodging questioning and demands he produce evidence of his eligibility. He's been doing this since...
Barack Obama Seeks To Block Discovery in Citizenship Lawsuit
tallahassee*injuryboard*com/miscellaneous/barack-obama-seeks-to-block-discovery-in-citizenship-lawsuit*aspx
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
Hatfield and Irion could have used the easy way out to victory by accepting the summary judgment on the spot. However, in doing so, the plaintiffs risked Jablonski telling Kemp that Obama could not be legally removed from the ballot because no evidence had been presented showing Obama ineligible.
Their concern was justified. The Judge still had the ability to make a summary Judgment - but declined to do so.
The Judge gave Obama a pass, just as they feared he would.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"but declined to do so."
It was the birthers that declined to do so. They wanted their "merits" heard.
Whats that old saying? Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant You got it wrong.
The Judge had full power to make a summary Judgment all along. The plaintiffs were concerned he would give Obama a pass, like other Judges before him, so they insisted on getting their testimony into evidence no matter what.
The Judge did as they feared - declined to take the usual action against the party that failed to appear under Subpoena.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"they insisted on getting their testimony into evidence no matter what."
Yep and when they did so, they waived the default, which they had in their hands.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant The Judge's obligation to issue a judgment against Obama for refusing to obey the subpoena is not nullified by the Judge listening to testimony from the plaintiffs. Obama's table remained empty in defiance of a legally issued subpoena.
This Judge, like others, did Obama a huge favor.
And Obama continues paying lawyers to "block discovery" when he should be presenting the evidence to establish his eligibility.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Obama doesn't have to pay to prevent his personal records from being released. Those are already protected under federal privacy laws which every citizen enjoys.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GeorgiaKev >> Obama doesn't have to pay to prevent his personal records from being released.
But he is.
Obama is obligated to demonstrate his eligibility for the job and instead is paying lawyers to appeal to Judges to help prevent that. Blocking discovery, claims the plaintiff lacks "standing", etc.
Obama's lawyers have not been working for free these past 4 years.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Unlike Obama, McCain was not born in this country that's why McCains parents mattered.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
Ultimately, all the evidence of problems in Obama's claim to eligibility are irrelevant.
What matters is that he refuses to demonstrate his eligibility. Obama is not certified as a Natural Born Citizen, like McCain was.
Unlike McCain, Obama was not born to parents who were both US Citizens. His Father, a British Subject, raises questions as to whether he is legally eligible.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
So, we have yet another Judge who refused to rule against Obama when Obama defied a court subpoena, then refused to evaluate the evidence that much of Obama's past is a fraud (multiple Social Security numbers, etc.) and who finally gave Obama a pass.
To be on the State ballot, Obama is required to demonstrate his eligibility. Obama continues fighting to prevent that from happening.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Malhi evaluated the evidence. What proof is there that Obama used "multiple social security numbers"? Because Taitz said so? The same ssn appears on his tax returns that appears on his selecive service registration. What "multiple social security numbers"
"Obama continues fighting"
Obama didn't even show up and he STILL won. LMAO
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant >> Malhi evaluated the evidence.
Weird, he says he would not give it weight because he did not consider those presenting it to be "experts". When WILL you read the transcript of his ruling?
Obama didn't show up and even the Judge admitted that should result in a default ruling against him.
But the Judge did Obama a favor.
That's the "Chicago way".
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Yep, another judge ruled in favor of Obama because Obama is right and the birthtards are wrong. Let's see, that makes the birthtards, what 0 for 87 now? If my record was that bad I'd at least consider the possibility that maybe the opposition, at the very least, might have a point in their arguments.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@GeorgiaKev Actually, NONE of the court cases have ruled based on Obama presenting evidence to demonstrate his eligibility.
In nearly all the cases, the plaintiff was denied "standing".
This is just another case where Obama's lawyers fought to squash scrutiny of Obama's eligibility and the Judge did Obama a favor.
Obama apparently knew the Judge would, hence his willingness to defy the subpoena to appear.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"In nearly all the cases, the plaintiff was denied "standing".
Not in Georgia.
"This is just another case where Obama's lawyers fought to squash scrutiny of Obama's eligibility...WAAAAH!!"
Malihi heard the plaintiffs' "evidence" and correctly dismissed it as baseless.
"Obama knew the Judge would rule in his favor...."
Of course he knew the judge would dismiss the case given that it was a frivolous complaint with no credible evidence.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
"neither Defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the
Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a
proceeding"
But the Judge did something extraordinary - gave Obama a pass on this one.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate"
The birthers rejected a default and demanded their "merits" be heard. They were heard and rejected.
Judge Malihi is a true American patriot and a hero for not letting birthers piss all over the Constitution.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant The Judge refused to consider the merits of the evidence and refused to demand Obama appear to present HIS evidence.
He used words indicating he ruled on merits while clearly stating he would not give weight to the plaintiff's evidence.
In this case, Obama apparently KNEW the Judge would give him a pass, hence his confidence in refusing to appear, which would ordinarily result in a ruling against him.
It's the "Chicago Way".
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
No, Malihi ruled after hearing the "merits"
Obama did not have to present any evidence. Hatfield and Irion did that for him.
They entered the COLB into evidence to prove that Obama Sr came from Africa.
They stipulated to its authenticity by doing so. Thats evidence that Malihi ruled on.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 "Obama KNEW the judge would give him a pass?"
Right, that's why Judge Malihi offered the plaintiffs a default judgment against President Obama after he didn't show up in court. The plaintiffs stupidly declined the offer and presented their "case" and when the judge saw how ridiculous it was, he ruled against the plaintiffs despite the fact there had been no opposing attorneys at the hearing to refute their arguments.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@jeroel7 The State of Hawaii has already confirmed the birth certificate as authentic. According to Article IV Section 1 that's all that matters. You should read it.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
and rohmney is a mexican heck whatever,,,,gosh ron paul looks so great without even trying,, haha ,,, then you have sandusky penn state and SANTORUM,,,,,wow ron paul no drama no lies just freedom
appregios 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"like the Naturalization Act of 1790"
Why is it that you keep evading the question?
You cannot cherry pick parts of the NA 1790 and ignore other parts of it. Do you think that only "free white persons with good moral character" should be able to naturalize here?
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
The day Obama's certification requirements are legally reviewed and he is either certified as eligible or not, the American People win.
So far, he has paid lawyers for YEARS to prevent legal certification of his eligibility. He is waging war against our Constitution.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"He is waging war against our Constitution"
Actually that is incorrect. Its birthers that are waging war against our Constitution by pretending it says things that it does not say.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Birthers 0 The Law 104
YTRedActed 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 You don't have any evidence that he has paid ONE PENNY in legal fees. As far as "legal certification" is concerned, he has provided both his short form and long form birth certificates, both issued by the State of Hawaii AND certified as authentic by the said state. Under the CONSTITUTION, that is all that is needed, per Article IV, Sec. 1. State-certified documents MUST be honored in every jurisdiction within the United States of America.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@GeorgiaKev >> As far as "legal certification" is concerned, he has provided both his short form and long form birth certificates, both issued by the State of Hawaii AND certified as authentic by the said state.
Provided to whom? He's been fighting for years to prevent them, and the Citizen status of his Parents, from being legally confirmed in a legal venue.
Oh, he spread them around the Web to sway the "useful idiots", while "blocking discovery" from the courts. Clever fellow.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"He's been fighting for years to prevent them"
Really? Name ONE other President that provided not one but TWO certified birth certificates.
"Citizen status of his Parents"
Obama said on national tv during the campaign that his father was from Kenya. Its a well known fact that his mother was a natural born American. So is Barack Jr.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 They've been posted on the internet. What do you want him to do, order 300 million copies and mail them out to every citizen in the United States? Talk about a waste of taxpayer money. He's provided more proof of his birthplace than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT in history. All you're doing is spread rumors to discredit him in this election year.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@GeorgiaKev how about just have his latest released certificate examined by a handfull of unbiased experts?? oh,maybe just submitting a copy to a judge with no expertise in authenticating such documents is good enough for you,huh?
jeroel7 2 weeks ago
@jeroel7 Oh sure, and as soon as the judge brings in his "unbiased experts" to examine the certificate and they all say it's fine, the birthtards will start screaming that the "experts" were all bribed or threatened by the feds.....blah-blah-blah....
The point is this: The State of Hawaii issued both documents and certified their authenticity. That is all that is needed per the Constitution (Art IV, Sec. 1). State-certified documents MUST be honored in EVERY jurisdiction of the country.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@GeorgiaKev of course he has not paid a cent on legal fees,with over 70 cases challenging his eligibilty status,his defense lawyers really enjoy defending these challenges for free!!
jeroel7 2 weeks ago
@jeroel7
More like 104.
And you do know that Obama's attorney's have only litigated 4 of these.
Why are Birthers ignorant?
YTRedActed 2 weeks ago
@jeroel7 You have no idea (none, nada, ZIP) as to how much money Barack Obama has paid his attorneys to defend him in these frivolous lawsuits, but the ones who SHOULD be paying his legal fees are the birthtards who keep bringing forth these frivolous lawsuits and losing time and time again.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@GeorgiaKev Actually, NONE of the cases has gone in Obama's favor as a result of examination of Obama's eligibility to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Even in this case, the Judge clearly states that he refused to consider the evidence of problems with Obama's claim because he unilaterally deemed those presenting the evidence were not "experts".
He just helped Obama dodge legal verification, like others before him.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Judge Malihi didn't refuse to consider the evidence. None of the evidence was strong enough to prove Obama of any wrongdoing. The experts were not qualified as experts. Try dumping Taitz for starters.
Obama has provided twice as much proof of his citizenship than any other President.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant >> Judge Malihi didn't refuse to consider the evidence
If you are too stupid to read the Judge's own words, I cannot help you.
"neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert
in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation"
...
"she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud"
That's why he refused to give weight to the evidence presented.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Judge Malihi gave the birthers what they always whined about not getting.... to be heard on the "merits". Its not his fault that Taitz did not have them qualified as "expert" witnesses. The Judge did the exact right thing and he found the "evidence" do be nothing more than speculation at best.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant >> Judge Malihi gave the birthers what they always whined about not getting.... to be heard on the "merits"
No he didn't. He explicitly says he was not giving weight to the evidence of fraud in Obama because he deemed that those presenting it were not "experts".
And he declined to rule against Obama by default for Obama's refusal to appear.
He really bent the rules to give Obama a pass on this one!
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"And he declined to rule against Obama by default for Obama's refusal to appear."
READ the transcripts and watch the videos. He offered a default in chambers prior to the hearing taking place. The birthers DEMANDED that their "merits" be heard.
Birthers got exactly what they asked for.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant >> Birthers got exactly what they asked for
Actually, they did not. The Judge clearly states he refused to give weight to the evidence they presented because he did not recognize those presenting it as "experts". I quoted his own words for you. Do you need that again to make it stick?
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"because he did not recognize those presenting it as "experts"."
Just because wnd called them "experts" doesn't mean they are experts.
Taitz and her "experts" were more of a cartoon show than anything else. THATS why the Judge didn't recognize them as eperts, because theyre clowns.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant >> THATS why the Judge didn't recognize them as eperts, because theyre clowns.
Now you're just name-calling. Have you graduated High School yet?
You clearly did NOT read the Judge's own words on this.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
I read it and I agree with the Honorable Judge Malihi. They are most definitely not experts. Just because someone sold scanners for 15 years (Vogt), does not make him a digital forensic document expert.
Judge Malihi offered the birthers a default. They refused.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant If you think Vogt's qualification is that he sold scanners for 15 years you are a compleat idiot.
Once again, read the actual qualifications as presented in his legal affidavit...
Douglas Vogt analysis - Obama birth certificate forgery final legal affidavit
scribd*com/doc/58721290/Obama-Birth-Certificate-Final-Affidavit-of-Douglas-Vogt-June-24-2011-Total-of-9-items-now-listed
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
In one of Vogt's original news release - May 22, 2011, he wrote:
"I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs."
Seems to me a REAL expert would know which program was used.
Or in this case, that NO Adobe software was used in creating the pdf.
Vogt is no expert.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@arrrogantlyignorant If you fail to read the examination of the document, you will continue posting such idiocy.
It was interesting, seeing how different letters and numbers even in the same block of text apparently came from different scans of different documents. And that the page curved near the binding but the text did not appear to. Hm.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. - Senate Resolution 511
Note the two conditions:
1) Born to parents who are both US Citizens
2) Born under US Jurisdiction
Okay, let's see Obama's certification... that is what the American People want.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericaSpeakOut1
The only reason that McCains parents were even mentioned is because he was not born in this country.
Obama was born in Hawaii, on US soill. so his parents don't matter. He is a natural born American.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 SR 511 was a NON-BINDING Senate Resolution and it's a good thing....because had it been "binding", then natural born citizens could only include people born on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.
There are two types of citizens: citizens by birth (aka--natural born citizens), and naturalized citizens. President Obama is the former, having been born in U.S. soil to an American mother. There is no "third category" of citizens.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@GeorgiaKev >> because had it been "binding", then natural born citizens could only include people born on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.
You are a compleat idiot.
It was confirmation of Natural Born Citizen status recognizing that McCain met the two conditions:
Born to American Citizens
Born under US Jurisdiction (that military base in Panama)
You got it completely backwards.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Obama was born on US soil which makes him a citizen at birth = natural born.
McCain was not born in this country. Thats why his parents became a factor.
Because Obama was born here, his parentage doesn't matter.
"You got it completely backwards."
No, that would be you that his it backwards.
arrrogantlyignorant 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 You are taking a NON-BINDING Senate Resolution which was specific ONLY to John McCain's birth circumstances and have interpreted it as universal law. All the resolution basically said was "If it looks like one, smells like one, and feels like one, it probably IS one."
The resolution never said the ONLY way to be a natural born citizen was to have two citizen parents.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@GeorgiaKev The resolution on McCain clearly stated the explicit conditions under which he qualified as a Natural Born Citizen.
1) Born to parents who are US Citizens (as repeated in the 1790 Naturalization Act)
2) Born under US Jurisdiction (A US Military Base)
You can bet if he was found to NOT meet the Constitutional requirements - it would have become "binding".
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 If the resolution had somehow found he didn't meet the constitutional requirements, it would have immediately been challenged in court and subsequently overturned. John McCain clearly meets being a natural born citizen because both his mother and father were citizens. However, that is NOT the only way a person can be natural born citizen. An apple is definitely a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GeorgiaKev >> John McCain clearly meets being a natural born citizen because both his mother and father were citizens.
So, SHOW US the contemporary writings, from the time of the Constitution, preferably by our Congress (like the Naturalization Act of 1790), that clarify what qualifies a person for that status.
The NA of 1790 helps us understand what was common knowledge back then, just two years after the Constitution was ratified.
Born to US Citizens.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 weeks ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 The 1790 law was repealed in 1795. Show me where in the Constitution natural born citizen is defined as having BOTH a biological citizen mother and a biological citizen father.
GeorgiaKev 2 weeks ago
@GeorgiaKev the law of nations 1758 vol 1 chapter 19 section 212
crispymidget 2 weeks ago