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: 2117
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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-137) not displayed.
.
.
.
#138. To: bluegrass (#135)
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.
It still doesn't explain you.
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.
Are you of the mind that anyone can waltz into anywhere and find out information on somsone?
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?
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™!
If someone's claiming to be president, I'd say we have a right to know who he is.
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.
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.
Feel free to dwell on me, while the rest of the world laughs at the DNA defective in the White House.
Purely a 20th century phenomonem. I could care less what he does in private or did 20 years ago.
I'm saying that the dollar is worth less (it buys less) now than it was in 1912. Do you disagree with that?
Not dwelling...compating.
It's not that cut and dried a proposition, mon frer. That said, according to what you have provided above, it does.
Tell me again why there are so many crooks, pedophiles and freaks in office?
Actually, what you've provided shows that it decreased. {Part of the problem is that you gold bugs don't allow for the fact that the value of gold becomes free flaoting as well when it is no longer tied to a currency and that speculation can lead to over-valuation.
Tell my why there are so many in any neighborhood.
Then provide info showing that the buying power of the dollar has increased since the imposition of the Federal Reserve. IOW, show me how the Fed has been beneficial to all of us. As you appear to defend its existence, surely you can do at least that.
Using CPI it exists on this page and was provided by you.
Earth to war: I've already stated that you're incorrect on that. Kindly update your database.
I told you wahy. It removed the Congress from the equation. At every monetary turn they either reacted too slowly, overreacted, or simply failed to act.
LOL! No wonder you think Obama's the man. You can't even discern when you've been screwed.
1.00 = 77 cents is a decrease in value correct?
And the Fed has been the model of restraining the money powers? How much LSD do you eat?
Oops...used either and gave three...that's death by verbosity where I come from... Kinda like ending a statement with a preposition...
It' an increase in buying power. Hello? Anyone home?
In most civilized societies, crooks and pedophiles don't end up being rewarded for their crimes. In my neighborhood, they end up dead, in jail or at least with an ass-kicking.
Have you been paying attention to how the Fed has actually starved the system of dollars? Has it escaped your attention that in this "crisis" that the value of the dollar has RISEN?
Nope. Do I need to explain to you what inflation is when it comes to purchasing power? It ERODES it.
I'd like to see a news story from your neighborhood regarding the routine lynchings or assaults of pedophiles. Start with the local priest.
Really? Your graph made my point, doof.
Inflation IS the erosion of purchasing power. That power is eroded by actual wealth being bled from us via the imposition of central banking. IOW, the Federal Reserve exists to rip us off via that erosion/inflation.
An increase in the money supply isn't a starvation of dollars.
Wha...huh?
If you needed $5.00 to complete a purchase and I gave you $2.00...I've increased your money supply have I not?
If you keep creating money out of thin air (fractional reserve banking), you're not starving the system of dollars. Explain the velocity of money in two words. I know you can do it.
Money gets "created" several different ways but mostly through the demand for dollars which can then "turn over" in the economy several times over - as the last chart above shows. I can create 10billion bushels of corn out of a fractional amount of seed but if the demnd is for 15billion bushels what happens? Why are assets used as leverage rather than collateral?
Comments (178 - 188) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou'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?
#139. To: Jethro Tull (#136)
No, I came from a normal white family.
#140. To: war (#134)
He did prove it.
#141. To: bluegrass (#140)
#142. To: war (#138)
#143. To: bluegrass (#135)
(Edited)
it decreased, overall, from 1800-1912. Am I correct?
#144. To: war (#141)
#145. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#143)
#146. To: bluegrass (#142)
#147. To: war (#139)
#148. To: bluegrass (#144)
If someone's claiming to be president, I'd say we have a right to know who he is.
#149. To: war (#146)
#150. To: Jethro Tull (#147)
Feel free to dwell on me
#151. To: bluegrass (#149)
I'm saying that the dollar is worth less (it buys less) now than it was in 1912. Do you disagree with that?
#152. To: war (#148)
I could care less what he does in private or did 20 years ago.
#153. To: bluegrass (#145)
My point is that it increased overall when it was a defined and measured unit.
#154. To: bluegrass (#152)
Tell me again why there are so many crooks, pedophiles and freaks in office?
#155. To: war (#151)
That said, according to what you have provided above, it does.
#156. To: bluegrass (#155)
Then provide info showing that the buying power of the dollar has increased since the imposition of the Federal Reserve.
#157. To: war (#153)
you gold bugs...
#158. To: bluegrass (#155)
IOW, show me how the Fed has been beneficial to all of us.
#159. To: war (#156)
#160. To: bluegrass (#159)
#161. To: war (#158)
At every monetary turn they either reacted too slowly, overreacted, or simply failed to act.
#162. To: All (#158)
#163. To: war (#160)
#164. To: war (#154)
Tell my why there are so many in any neighborhood.
#165. To: bluegrass (#161)
And the Fed has been the model of restraining the money powers?
#166. To: bluegrass (#163)
It' an increase in buying power.
#167. To: bluegrass (#164)
In my neighborhood, they end up dead, in jail or at least with an ass-kicking.
#168. To: war (#165)
Have you been paying attention to how the Fed has actually starved the system of dollars?
#169. To: bluegrass (#168)
#170. To: war (#166)
Do I need to explain to you what inflation is when it comes to purchasing power? It ERODES it.
#171. To: war (#169)
#172. To: bluegrass (#168)
#173. To: bluegrass (#171)
An increase in the money supply isn't a starvation of dollars.
#174. To: bluegrass (#171)
An increase in the money supply isn't a starvation of dollars.
#175. To: bluegrass (#170)
#176. To: war (#174)
If you needed $5.00 to complete a purchase and I gave you $2.00...I've increased your money supply have I not?
#177. To: bluegrass (#176)
If you keep creating money out of thin air (fractional reserve banking), you're not starving the system of dollars.
.
.
.