[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor

If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Judge assails cases doubting Obama's citizenship
Source: AP
URL Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap ... EnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD96O5TV03
Published: Mar 6, 2009
Author: NEDRA PICKLER
Post Date: 2009-03-08 00:33:51 by bluegrass
Ping List: *Tracking Comrade Obama*     Subscribe to *Tracking Comrade Obama*
Keywords: None
Views: 1635
Comments: 188

Judge assails cases doubting Obama's citizenship

By NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday threw out a lawsuit questioning President Barack Obama's citizenship, lambasting the case as a waste of the court's time and suggesting the plaintiff's attorney may have to compensate the president's lawyer.

In an argument popular on the Internet and taken seriously practically nowhere else, Obama's critics argue he is ineligible to be president because he is not a "natural-born citizen" as the Constitution requires.

In response last summer, Obama's campaign posted his Hawaiian birth certificate on its Web site. But the lawsuit argues it is a fake and that Obama was actually born in his father's homeland of Kenya, even though Hawaiian officials have said the document is authentic.

"This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do," U.S. District Judge James Robertson said in his written opinion.

The lawsuit didn't even use Obama's legal name but called him "Barry Soetoro," the name he went by while attending elementary school in Indonesia. It's one of many that has been filed claiming Obama is ineligible to serve as president.

Robertson ordered plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out. Subscribe to *Tracking Comrade Obama*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-106) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#107. To: bluegrass (#99)

Your schoolgirl crush on the Dems blinds you to the fact that they're the same sluts as those ugly Republican girls on the other side of the cafeteria.

I haven't voted major party in a national election since 1994.

That said, of the two parties I would most certainly cheer the loudest and am currently cheering the loudest for the demise of the GOP.

war  posted on  2009-03-10   10:30:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: war (#104)

Fwderal Reserve Notes ARE legal tender.

The Federal Reserve is in no way "legal. It's an imposition by a dominant minority upon the rest of us.

There's nothing legal about force and fraud.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   10:31:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: bluegrass (#106)

You defend Obama himself.

You debase any prescient argument that you may have by focusing on Moonbat issues. You come to me with the bullshit that Obama isn't eligible for reasons that defy reality it tells me that you have 0 interest in truth. So, YOU only have yourself to blame for the pounding on this issue that you have suffered.

war  posted on  2009-03-10   10:32:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: war (#105)

LOL! You'll never see me defend anything that creeps around in DC. That's all I've seen you do on this board.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   10:32:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: bluegrass (#108)

The Federal Reserve is in no way "legal",

Sorry...another Moonbat issue. Of course it is legal. The congress is clearly empowered to create agencies and it is under no constraint from making them semi-private or quasi independent.

war  posted on  2009-03-10   10:35:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: war (#109)

In my experience, whenever a defender of a current political star starts using 'moonbat', 'stupid' and other brilliant and original epithets as a method of defense of his/her love interest, it's a good indicator that the ship is already sinking.

IIRC, moonbat and stupid were the favorite redoubts of Bush's warriors on Free Republic. In the end, their little castle was over run also.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   10:37:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: war (#111)

Amazing. Defending Obama and the Federal Reserve in the same thread.

You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   10:38:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: bluegrass (#113)

Of course any logical counter-argument would be too much to expect.

war  posted on  2009-03-10   10:39:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: war (#114)

Logic doesn't work with those that have a hardon for a politican. It's like using logic on an adolescent that's in love with a starlet.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   10:42:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: bluegrass (#112)

In my experience, whenever a defender of a current political star starts using 'moonbat', 'stupid' and other brilliant and original epithets as a method of defense of his/her love interest, it's a good indicator that the ship is already sinking.

A Moonbat issue is one created of whole cloth with no basis in reality yet still has rabid followers and defenders. The BC issue is one such example. "We brung down the twin towers" is another. The Clinton Death list yet another. Any of those sound familiar to you?

moonbat and stupid were the favorite redoubts of Bush's warriors on Free Republic

Pot calling the kettle black.

war  posted on  2009-03-10   10:42:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: bluegrass (#115)

Logic doesn't work

Logic is only as good as the person using it...

war  posted on  2009-03-10   10:43:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: war (#116)

What other Federal atrocities do you support? Just get it out into the open.

Pot calling the kettle black.

I'll give you $100 if you can find where I've initiated ad hominem against you. You won't find it, kettle. My pot is shiny clean.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   10:48:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: war (#117)

Logic is only as good as the person using it...

As your love for Obama is irrational, logic is pointless with you. Why should I bother anymore? It's like arguing with a Bushbot.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   10:50:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: bluegrass (#118)

I'll give you $100 if you can find where I've initiated ad hominem against you. You won't find it, kettle. My pot is shiny clean.

I was rfwerring to FR not you. You've been measured in your responses and I do apprecaite it. You're insane, of course, but I like you [wink].

war  posted on  2009-03-10   10:53:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: bluegrass (#119)

As your love for Obama

What have we discuseed about Obama other than citizenship issues?

war  posted on  2009-03-10   10:54:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: bluegrass (#118)

What other Federal atrocities do you support?

Dude...Congress is given the powet to regulate the value of money. When Congress, itself, did so, it was an abject failure.

war  posted on  2009-03-10   10:55:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: war (#120)

You've been measured in your responses...You're insane...

How deep does your cognitive dissonance go?

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   10:57:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#124. To: bluegrass (#123)

How deep does your cognitive dissonance go?

Flaccid?

war  posted on  2009-03-10   10:59:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#125. To: war (#121)

What have we discuseed about Obama other than citizenship issues?

That's more than enough. His claim to power rests on it. The only people that I see backing his claim are those with their snouts in the Federal trough and those that have been conditioned to react to the (R)-(D) dichotomy.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   10:59:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: war (#122)

Congress is given the powet to regulate the value of money. When Congress, itself, did so, it was an abject failure.

You have it backwards. Until the imposition of the Fed, the buying power of the dollar had increased overall. Since the imposition of the Fed, the dollar has lost almost all of its buying power.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   11:01:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: bluegrass (#125)

You raise his citizenship as an issue and you don't expect even a modicum of investigation into whether or not your claims are valid. But then you turn around and assail people who willingly accept what they are told without looking into it.

Got it...thanks...

war  posted on  2009-03-10   11:02:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#128. To: war (#127)

You raise his citizenship as an issue and you don't expect even a modicum of investigation into whether or not your claims are valid.

More proof of cognitive dissonance. Obama hasn't proved his claims as he's actively hiding information about much of his past.

His actions are what give validity to the claims.

But then you turn around and assail people...

You might want rethink that statement. Who engages in ad hominem here when Obama's eligibility is raised - me or you?

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   11:09:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: bluegrass (#126)

You have it backwards. Until the imposition of the Fed, the buying power of the dollar had increased overall. Since the imposition of the Fed, the dollar has lost almost all of its buying power.

Well that's just bullshit.

The US saw several bouts of inflation, deflation and recession prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Hell, they couldn't even keep the ratio of gold to silver constant because of fluctuations in the supply of both. That fluctuation is a reason the the Fr was created. Congress had to micromanage the minting of coin.

If you believe gold to be the Mecca of sound "dollar" valuation, I'd suggest that you consider the economic collapse of 16th century Spain and the role of gold in it as well as theb general trend of inflation in 16the century Europe. That trend was beginning to appear in the US in the latter part of the 19th century.

war  posted on  2009-03-10   11:14:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: bluegrass (#128)

Obama hasn't proved his claims

WHAT claims?

war  posted on  2009-03-10   11:21:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#131. To: war (#129)

I said, "overall". Do your own calculations:

measuringworth.com

"In 1912, $1.00 from 1800 is worth:

$0.77 using the Consumer Price Index"

"In 2007, $1.00 from 1912 is worth:

$22.06 using the Consumer Price Index"

From 1800 to 1912, the overall buying power of the dollar increased. From 1912 until today, it's been steamrolled.

The US saw several bouts of inflation, deflation and recession prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Hell, they couldn't even keep the ratio of gold to silver constant because of fluctuations in the supply of both.

By and large, they were market manipulations by large money concerns. Back in the day, it was an old trick of bankers to move large supplies of gold/silver into an area (which decreased the relative value of it) and then use their larger supply of metal to draw seemingly cheaper gold/silver to themselves with paper receipts. It's an old scam.

If you believe gold to be the Mecca of sound "dollar" valuation...

You make a lot of assumptions, don't you? I've never advocated for a purely gold-based standard.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   11:27:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: war (#130)

WHAT claims?

His claim that he qualifies for the presidency. Had he proven it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   11:28:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: bluegrass (#131)

From 1800 to 1912, the overall buying power of the dollar increased. From 1912 until today, it's been steamrolled.

Check your chart or you are reading it backwards...

war  posted on  2009-03-10   11:33:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#134. To: bluegrass (#132)

He did prove it. We are having this discuission because of your acceptance deficit.

war  posted on  2009-03-10   11:34:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#135. To: christine, HOUNDDAWG, scrapper2, DeaconBenjamin, Cynicom, Prefrontal Vortex (#133)

Check your chart or you are reading it backwards...

To be clear:

You're claiming that the buying power of the dollar has increased, overall, since 1912 and that it decreased, overall, from 1800-1912. Am I correct?

I'll give you some time to do your own research and then come back and say it again.

Pardon the flags, but I just want some witnesses to this extraordinary claim.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   11:39:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#136. To: war (#92)

Similar to your story, I'm sure...

No, I came from a normal white family. Os daddy became a rolling stone like 70% of all dark males and mama Stanley was simply a whore who liked the tar roll.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2009-03-10   11:39:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#137. To: war (#135)

Flagging you also.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   11:40:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#138. To: bluegrass (#135)

You're claiming that the buying power of the dollar has increased, overall, since 1912 and that it decreased, overall, from 1800-1912. Am I correct?

I didn;t claim anything...you just showed that it did...or am I reading the chart wrong...?

Let's start here:

1.00 in 1800 was worth $0.77 in 1912 which means that it LOST 23% of its purchasing power.

war  posted on  2009-03-10   11:44:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: Jethro Tull (#136)

No, I came from a normal white family.

It still doesn't explain you.

war  posted on  2009-03-10   11:45:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: war (#134)

He did prove it.

What he's proven is that he can lock down his personal info, his papers from college and the like. I don't trust secretive "public" officials.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   11:45:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: bluegrass (#140)

Are you of the mind that anyone can waltz into anywhere and find out information on somsone?

war  posted on  2009-03-10   11:48:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#142. To: war (#138)

It means that a dollar bought more in 1912 than it did in 1800. What cost $1 in 1800 only cost 77 cents in 1912. That's an increase in buying power.

What cost $1 in 1912 now costs $20+. That's a decrease in buying power.

If you have a hard time with this basic, material, provable reality, maybe some larger and more complex questions might escape you.

Then again, I'm just stupid and insane, right?

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   11:48:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: bluegrass (#135) (Edited)

it decreased, overall, from 1800-1912. Am I correct?

0.77 means it increaed using the CPI.

The value did fluctuate a lot. An 1816 dollar was worth $0.66 in 1912. An 1833 dollar was worth $1.15 in 1912. An 1837 dollar was worth $1.01 in 1912. It would be better to fit a regression line, for data before the fed was created.

... now with Solium™!

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2009-03-10   11:49:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#144. To: war (#141)

If someone's claiming to be president, I'd say we have a right to know who he is.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   11:49:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#143)

My point is that it increased overall when it was a defined and measured unit.

It would be better to fit a regression line, for data before the fed was created.

Point taken. Thanks.

Eff the Bankers

bluegrass  posted on  2009-03-10   11:51:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: bluegrass (#142)

From your link:

In 1912, $1.00 from 1800 is worth:

$0.77 using the Consumer Price Index

It does not say $1.00 WORTH OF GOODS. It says $1.00 is worth $0.77.

You're reading the calculator incorrectly.

war  posted on  2009-03-10   11:54:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: war (#139)

Feel free to dwell on me, while the rest of the world laughs at the DNA defective in the White House.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2009-03-10   11:55:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (148 - 188) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]