Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Laokin
The clips on youtube said "Removed by government request."

care to show us these links that state "removed by government request"??

Yeah sure, just let me get my time machine.

Do you not know how youtube works?

Anything that is removed by copywrite or government claim is removed from the index.



Again, I'm not trying to "sway" you in anyway. I don't agree with the birthers, I do however agree that there is enough evidence circumstantial and empirical to conduct an investigation.

That's all.

If I was doing an investigation, I'm sure the video would turn up.

(That's why there SHOULD be an investigation, regardless of the truth.)

Originally posted by Laokin
If I was doing an investigation, I'm sure the video would turn up.

I post evidence that shows his grandmother made no such claim as you said, and your evidence is.... nothing at all!

Here is what his grandmother said - he was born in Hawaii....

www.economist.com...

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Laokin
If I was doing an investigation, I'm sure the video would turn up.

I post evidence that shows his grandmother made no such claim as you said, and your evidence is.... nothing at all!

You didn't post any evidence. You posted an opinion piece from a blog called "salon" with no sources.

I can't exactly go back and stop the government from blocking access to the video.


And you miss the point. You're on like some personal crusade here. There is MISINFORMATION coming out of both sides.

A PROPER investigation would yield the evidence you wish I could supply you. Therefor, you should be in SUPPORT of an investigation. Not denouncing the need for one because YOU can only find opinion pieces that say it never happened.


Again, regardless if it's true or not, there is so much confusion about the issue where "Birthers" say something that's factually incorrect, and then the opposition says something factually incorrect in response.

I KNOW what I saw. I KNOW what I heard. You're wrong about the grandma video. It exists, it was just pulled from the internet very SOPA style by the whitehouse. (They've been doing this for years now. Read up on the draconian internet practices of our government.)

If you have two extremes, the truth is in the middle, commence investigation, or embrace ignorance.

This is a brilliant strategic maneuver... but very risky.

Let's be real, here: Whether Obama is or is not a "born citizen" is not a real issue. It's semantics. There are natural born citizens who would be even worse than Obama.

It's a ploy to deny him electoral votes, that may be taken up in other states, particularly if this ruling is perceived to apply by other states.

This -does- have the plausible potential to effectively remove Obama as a valid candidate (IE - he could be removed from the ballot in enough states to prevent him from being able to gain enough electoral votes for a win).

Which could make things interesting, heading into the election. If this were the case; the Democrats would have to levy another candidate before registration deadlines (presuming those haven't passed) - while we could see serious growth in third party candidate votes (the republicans may even send two candidates forward if posed with no real resistance by the Democrats).

It's not really an issue for me... I wouldn't vote for Obama even if he were the only candidate on the ballot (I'd write in the neighbor's dog, first). If his birth didn't render him ineligible to be President - his first (preferably only) term sure as hell did.

By that same token... I don't want to see this turn into a "victory goes to the republicans by default" (although that would put an absolutely insane amount of pressure on the Republican Caucus, particularly if this becomes a trend before they are decided).

You know... I don't buy into 2012 being the "end of the world" - but this year is certainly shaping up to look like one hell of a ride.

reply to post by Sharpenmycleats

Dear Sharpenmycleats,

Thanks for the answer, I understand it a little better now.

Yes, in a way, it's an attack on Obama. I may be naive, but I would like to think that if it were a Republican, then a liberal would bring the suit and the result would be the same.

The suit, as it stands, asks the Georgia courts to remove him from the primary ballot. I'm not sure whether that would also remove him from the general election ballot, I haven't looked. But it would be hugely bad publicity and would hurt him all around the country, I think.

Thankfully, Obama's birth records aren't a factor in this lawsuit. Nothing needs to be proved there, the attorney is saying that for this case they will assume Obama was born in Hawaii. They just want to show that, at least in Georgia, he's not eligible to run again. It wouldn't get him out of office prematurely.

So, I think I understand you, thanks for taking the time.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

Anyone claiming race and religion has nothing to do with anti-Obama - - - are in serious denial.

I find that comment highly offensive Annee.

I don't mean everyone - - and I don't mean those who actually study the issues and make their decisions based on their belief of how this country should be run.

But I stand firm - - - that many have an issue with both Obama's race and consider him Muslim.

I think it would be clear denial to claim otherwise.


EDIT: Responding to posts can lead one off topic. I'm getting back on target. Will not respond to any more posts along this line.

edit on 21-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

But you did type 'Anyone'. The comment also offended me. When I disagreed with Presidents before, I wasn't anti-Irish, Anti British, anti whatever, but now, I dislike a policy, I'm a racist. All the Presidents, at least to me, are American.
The racist thing is not working.

I feel that some people in the forum are getting their sporting emotions up, and are typing rebuttals based on feelings and flying thoughts, and are not looking at the issue with a calm mind.
This isn't a football game, this isn't "Us' against 'them'. No one is battling so you don't get your way, or your 'team' loses. It's a court date. That's all. No need to be so emotionally tied up.
I'm not concerned about the man's citizenship, I understand that people have ideas that perhaps he's not a citizen.
I would like, however, for Obama to appear in court out of respect to the justice system, even if the state is some people's joke of a hillbilly stereotype. Last I heard, Georgia is still part of the United States, no matter how many sitcom jokes are made about it. (There's a lot of Adult Swim coming out of Georgia, want to rethink that stereotype?)

I'm expecting you to be waspish in reply.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


I hope he can enforce it.

Originally posted by Laokin
You didn't post any evidence. You posted an opinion piece from a blog called "salon" with no sources.

I can't exactly go back and stop the government from blocking access to the video.

They didnt block it, and I have posted a audio clip where Obama's grandmother states he was born in hawaii.

There is MISINFORMATION coming out of both sides.

Wrong, all the misinformation is coming out of the birther side, as seen here.

You're wrong about the grandma video. It exists, it was just pulled from the internet very SOPA style by the whitehouse.

No, you are the one wrong about the video, as shown here.

reply to post by TheRedneck

It amazes me how these,insert affiliation here(birthers,teapartiers,klansman,johnberkers jimcrowers...ect) who want to bring the gubment to it's knees.

But when the law fits there agenda,they are ready to follow the law

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Laokin
You didn't post any evidence. You posted an opinion piece from a blog called "salon" with no sources.

I can't exactly go back and stop the government from blocking access to the video.

They didnt block it, and I have posted a audio clip where Obama's grandmother states he was born in hawaii.

There is MISINFORMATION coming out of both sides.

Wrong, all the misinformation is coming out of the birther side, as seen here.

You're wrong about the grandma video. It exists, it was just pulled from the internet very SOPA style by the whitehouse.

No, you are the one wrong about the video, as shown here.

edit on 22-1-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because it's totally implausible for a person to recant a statement and issue a new one? You also didn't post this audio recording in response to me, as it's absent in this thread.

Also, you haven't proved a single thing with a shred of ANY evidence. Show your proof that they didn't block it? Exactly. I can't show proof that they did, because of how removal requests work, you can't show they didn't, because of how removal requests work... therefor, there is no tangible proof one way or the other.

I saw it. You didn't. You can't prove I didn't see it, you can't prove it wasn't removed. I can't prove I did see it, I can't prove it WAS removed. Hence why an investigation should be warranted.

Also, Just because I can't provide the evidence you are looking for (because it was removed by the government) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is a fallacy on a grand scale.

The bottom line is, you are taking everything out of the administrations camp, hook line and sinker, and swearing everybody who has personally SEEN the video in question is making it up.

That's not evidence. That's ignorance.

With that said, I'm done with this thread.

/tiredofbeatingmyheadagainstabrickwall.


P.S.

The article you posted allegedly has Obama's grandmother on the line, however, she's speaking through a proxy in her native language. On top of this, the audio is nearly incomprehensible.

The video I saw WAS her, speaking in English, as frank as possible.

So again, no proof.

Here is the Kenyan Ambassador stating Obama was born in Kenya and they plan to build a monument at his birth place.

reply to post by charles1952

Dear Darkwing01,

Allow me to prove, yet again, that I am the most confused ATSer.

You seem to say three things, could you clarify them for me?

1) The case has no merit.
2) The controlling precedent isn't clear.
3) The Supreme Court will have no trouble with the ruling.
4) It's just a diversion.

Well, once you've said 2), 1) and 4) becomes impossible and 3) becomes unlikely.

You may want to go back in the thread a little to where sad_eyed_lady mentioned the Happersett case back on page 5.

In that case (1875) the Supreme Court made a fairly clear holding, that someone in Obama's situation is not a "natural-born citizen." The President has only two hopes that I can see. Either try to find something in the last 140 years that overrules it, which may be very tough, or get the Supreme Court to overturn themselves.

It doesn't seem to me to be a slam dunk for the President. But maybe you've spotted something that I've missed. Let me know what you've got.

With respect,
Charles1952

Precedent can always be overturned, nothing is cast in stone.

All I can give you is my feeling that pursuing this issue will make Obama into a a more sympathetic figure come election. From a purely political (not legal) point of view, it is a losing proposition and always have been. See what happened to Trump, it will happen to every other politician that tries in my opinion. And I think they know it. People don't warm to technocratic arguments like this very easily.

Just my feeling.

As a matter of law I don't know, it isn't a gamble I would take for myself, but I would be HIGHLY surprised to see a negative outcome on an issue like this from the Supreme Court. Remember these are human judges, it isn't simply a case of what the law does or does not say in any particular instance.

For the record I do think the latest birth certificate that was shown in connection with the Trump thing was fraudulent. I just don't think that in the larger analysis it is a battle worth fighting, or for that matter winning. Even if you do win legally the general public opinion will be significantly adversely affected to whatever individual or political groups pursued the matter.

Even if people hate everything about Obama, they will hate having their chosen "king" deposed over some technicality made up 150+ years ago more.

Again, just my opinion.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by charles1952

 

Dear Darkwing01,

Allow me to prove, yet again, that I am the most confused ATSer.

You seem to say three things, could you clarify them for me?

1) The case has no merit.
2) The controlling precedent isn't clear.
3) The Supreme Court will have no trouble with the ruling.
4) It's just a diversion.

Well, once you've said 2), 1) and 4) becomes impossible and 3) becomes unlikely.

You may want to go back in the thread a little to where sad_eyed_lady mentioned the Happersett case back on page 5.

In that case (1875) the Supreme Court made a fairly clear holding, that someone in Obama's situation is not a "natural-born citizen." The President has only two hopes that I can see. Either try to find something in the last 140 years that overrules it, which may be very tough, or get the Supreme Court to overturn themselves.

It doesn't seem to me to be a slam dunk for the President. But maybe you've spotted something that I've missed. Let me know what you've got.

With respect,
Charles1952

Precedent can always be overturned, nothing is cast in stone.

All I can give you is my feeling that pursuing this issue will make Obama into a a more sympathetic figure come election. From a purely political (not legal) point of view, it is a losing proposition and always have been. See what happened to Trump, it will happen to every other politician that tries in my opinion. And I think they know it. People don't warm to technocratic arguments like this very easily.

Just my feeling.

As a matter of law I don't know, it isn't a gamble I would take for myself, but I would be HIGHLY surprised to see a negative outcome on an issue like this from the Supreme Court. Remember these are human judges, it isn't simply a case of what the law does or does not say in any particular instance.

For the record I do think the latest birth certificate that was shown in connection with the Trump thing was fraudulent. I just don't think that in the larger analysis it is a battle worth fighting, or for that matter winning. Even if you do win legally the general public opinion will be significantly adversely affected to whatever individual or political groups pursued the matter.

Even if people hate everything about Obama, they will hate having their chosen "king" deposed over some technicality made up 150+ years ago more.

Again, just my opinion.

Nothing happened with Trump. Trump was never going to run. The whole Donald Trump drama that unfolded was a ruse, everyone who was following this knew he wasn't going to run from jump street. Trump's role was to vindicate Obama. A role he filled very delightfully too, I might add.

Also, precedent MAY be possible to overturn, but it's NOT likely. I'm unfamiliar with a single case of precedent being over ruled short of jury nullification.

Take that with a grain as I'm no law professional.

Yep, folks certainly ain't confident about Republican prospects come the general elections, so they continue with this dribble, hoping they could continue trying to remove him from office through other means, through proving that some complex 49 year old conspiracy concerning his place of birth really did occur.

Originally posted by TheCounselor
All the Presidents, at least to me, are American.
The racist thing is not working.

Out of the 44 presidents in our history, Obama is the only one to release a State verified birth certificate. The first was a short form in 2008, the second was the long form in 2011.

As for whether the racist thing isn't working, well that's your personal view. In my personal opinion people such as yourself continue to question Obama's eligibility based on only two reasons, either you do hold racist or bigotted beliefs (which you may be in denial of) and this is influencing your belief or you're very partisan to your cause and will support any issue that may discredit Obama.

I'm not concerned about the man's citizenship,

But you're here, on this thread, arguing the position that Obama should continue accounting himself to these questions. You're not concerned with this issue, but you're certainly allowing yourself to be concerned on 'behalf' of others. Somehow we should treat you differently because of this, right?

"I don't care for his citizenship"
"I'm not a birther, but"

If your position is that Obama hasn't sufficiently proven his eligibility to the presidency, just saying so would be far more simpler for you.

I understand that people have ideas that perhaps he's not a citizen.
I would like, however, for Obama to appear in court out of respect to the justice system,

Orly and her kind are making a mockery of the justice system. Obama has already released his birth certificate (even though he didn't have to) that has been State verified. He has done what he really didn't have to do in the first place. The fact he isn't responding to those to the far right, those whom dislike him for numerous reasons beyond this birth certificate matter, does not automatically equate is disrespecting the justice system.

We are a Republic, there are rules set in the constitution, in this incident, the eligibility of the president is left to congress, and then again confirmed by the electoral college. Hawaii, through their own rules, standards, have verified his birth there. It is unrealistic or naive to believe in this idea that everytime somebody questions the president, and goes to state court, the president must appear to defend himself and prove to the accuser otherwise. This is what your position allows for and this isn't how the judicial and constitutional system works here, this isn't what's specified in the constitution.

Originally posted by Laokin
The video I saw WAS her, speaking in English, as frank as possible.

Except she speaks very little english....

Sarah Onyango Obama Third wife of Obama's paternal grandfather, born 1922.[58] She is known for short as Sarah Obama and is sometimes referred to as Sarah Ogwel, Sarah Hussein Obama or Sarah Anyango Obama.[75] She lives in Nyang’oma Kogelo village, 30 miles west of western Kenya's main town, Kisumu, on the edge of Lake Victoria.[76][77] (She should not be confused with her stepdaughter of the same name, Sarah Obama, a daughter of Onyango's second wife, Akumu.)[78] Although she is not a blood relation, Barack Obama calls her "Granny Sarah".[75][79] Sarah, who speaks Luo and only a few words of English, communicates with President Obama through an interpreter.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Laokin
The video I saw WAS her, speaking in English, as frank as possible.

Except she speaks very little english....

Sarah Onyango Obama Third wife of Obama's paternal grandfather, born 1922.[58] She is known for short as Sarah Obama and is sometimes referred to as Sarah Ogwel, Sarah Hussein Obama or Sarah Anyango Obama.[75] She lives in Nyang’oma Kogelo village, 30 miles west of western Kenya's main town, Kisumu, on the edge of Lake Victoria.[76][77] (She should not be confused with her stepdaughter of the same name, Sarah Obama, a daughter of Onyango's second wife, Akumu.)[78] Although she is not a blood relation, Barack Obama calls her "Granny Sarah".[75][79] Sarah, who speaks Luo and only a few words of English, communicates with President Obama through an interpreter.

en.wikipedia.org...

Speaking very little english, and no english at all are two totally different things.

Obama's half brother and the Ambassador of Kenya both corroborate his grand mothers admissions.

I posted the interview with the Ambassador. Or shall we ignore this outright? (Rhetorical question. Because I know you will.)

The most likely explanation is he was born in kenya (which doesn't invalidate him since his mom was an American citizen.) But to avoid all the drama that comes around with the revelation he was born in Kenya, he forged his BC's.

If this is the case, an investigation would vindicate him in his qualifications, but would deem him a liar to the public which would ruin his potential to be re-elected. Giving him motive to continue the facade.

Hence the cover up. This is my personal opinion.

/doneforrealnow.

Originally posted by TheCounselor
But you did type 'Anyone'. The comment also offended me.

So you are going to claim that Obama's race and suspected Muslim religion has no factor at all in anti-Obama sentiment?

No way does my statement say any specific person (including you) thinks this.

But are you serious going to deny it is not a factor in anti-Obama sentiment?

I'm done with this now.

Originally posted by Laokin
Obama's half brother and the Ambassador of Kenya both corroborate his grand mothers admissions.

As his grandmother admitted Obama was born in Hawaii....

Why do people keep thinking this has anything at all to do with his birth certificate? It doesn't. It also doesn't have anything to do with where he was born. Neither of those are being questioned in this case. All of the attorneys are agreeing that, in this case, Obama was born in Hawaii. Why derail the thread?

It also, at least for me, has nothing to do with race. Obama has always been a mystery figure, his grades, his dissertations, his associates and friends, everything about his past is being hidden. I don't like that. I also don't like that in some of his decisions he seems to hold himself and his supporters above the law. Race doesn't enter into it for me.

Originally posted by charles1952
Why do people keep thinking this has anything at all to do with his birth certificate? It doesn't. It also doesn't have anything to do with where he was born. Neither of those are being questioned in this case. All of the attorneys are agreeing that, in this case, Obama was born in Hawaii. Why derail the thread?

It also, at least for me, has nothing to do with race. Obama has always been a mystery figure, his grades, his dissertations, his associates and friends, everything about his past is being hidden. I don't like that. I also don't like that in some of his decisions he seems to hold himself and his supporters above the law. Race doesn't enter into it for me.

Well if the court and attorneys are assuming he was born in Hawaii, there is no case to be had.

How could he be barred from the ballots then? Nobody is assuming he was born in Hawaii in this case. They are just not seeking impeachment, rather let him finish his term and exempt him from a followup seat.

Also, I agree race has nothing to do with this. It's pure coincidence that he happens to be black.

What started the birther movement? The admissions from his family and the ambassador of kenya that he was born in kenya. Combined with the official statement that the long form didn't exist at the time of the short forms deployment. And notice it took 4 years to post the long form. Why didn't he just present the long form from the beginning if he had it the entire time?

Short form was presented in '08, long form presented in '11. Explain this, if both existed the whole time.

Also, explain the official reasoning for posting the short form instead of the long form. The excuse they gave when presenting the short form when the long form was requested was because the long form was lost and no longer existed. *Which is entirely possible* But then explain the emergence of the long form 4 years later.

It's not the fact that he is black. This has no relevance to the situation at all. It's all the double speak that created this issue. This would of happened to any candidate that engaged in this level of double speak.

reply to post by Darkwing01


It might help to use the term "President" and not "King".

There is already a Marie Antoinette quality about the POTUS and FLOTUS that is raising ire in more groups than Republicans.
Using the term 'king' disposes your post. There would be no sympathy for a despot.
It surely wouldn't raise any sympathy in me to have this case go through. I would like to believe that people don't vote on sympathy, but on competence.

And, Annee, you didn't disappoint with the insectoid response.
For many people, his race, creed, color, tie, or dog doesn't figure into their liking or not liking decisions made by his Administration.
Look at my post. I said your comment offended me, then you go on with this dog and pony show about blacks and muslims and whatnot. BTW- I'm still offended. Your response had absolutely nothing to do with what I had posted.
Read my post again. I wrote about people going off the wing emotionally, and not thinking rationally, and you come at me with sarcastic quasi-questions, thus somewhat proving my point. I can't help but wonder how many keyboards you have gone through with the furious dramatic typing style you must use to get that effect.

There's no need to go on like a fifteen year old who can't get a ride to the mall. What people won't buy, can't be sold. The race card is old and ragged, and many times, untrue.

Yes, I seriously believe that when looking at the situation in a political fashion, and not like a soap opera fan, many, many people overlook the superficials of Obama. I'm sorry you can't, I feel bad for you that you can't see beyond skin color. There's a world of interesting real people out there of all kinds you are missing out on.
The case is not whether he's black, from what I understand, he straddles the fence in that regard. The case is about eligibility of running for a second term. All he needs to do is send a lawyer with his papers. I don't think that's too big of a deal. I have to show my papers all the time.

"No way does my statement say any specific person (including you) thinks this. " Your words.
Anyone. That would include me, and... anyone else who read it. It's inclusive in the word.