I do not know how far this will go... but someone on ET once predicted that the b.c. stuff was just a diversion for the real issue of NBC. You would expect Obama will proof of his birth place... so the real question will be will this NBC issue get appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court? And what will they decide?
Rhodes v. Macdonald In September 2009, Taitz, filed Rhodes v. MacDonald (Colonel Thomas MacDonald - Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, Georgia) on behalf of Captain Connie Rhodes, a U.S. Army physician, sought a restraining order to stop Rhodes' forthcoming deployment to Iraq. In the request for a restraining order, Taitz argued the order was illegal since Obama was illegally serving as President. On September 16, federal judge Clay D. Land (the same judge who heard Cook v. Good) rejected the motion and denounced it as frivolous.[50] Within hours of Land's decision, Taitz told the news site Talking Points Memo that she felt Land's refusal to hear her case was an act of treason.[51] Two days later, she filed a motion to stay Rhodes' deployment pending rehearing of the dismissal order. She repeated her treason allegations against Land and made several other intemperate statements, including claims that Land was aiding and abetting purported aspirations of "dictatorship" by Obama.[52] Land rejected the motion as frivolous and ordered her to show cause why she should not be fined $10,000 for abuse of judicial process.[53] Upon learning of Land's ruling, Taitz said she would appeal the sanction, declaring that Judge Land was "scared to go against the regime" of the "oppressive" Obama administration, and that the sanction was an attempt to "intimidate" her.[57] On March 15, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sanctions against Taitz.[58] On August 9, 2011, the federal government filed an abstract of judgment, a document placing a lien in the amount of $20,000 plus interest on all her real property,[59] prompting Taitz to say, "I will pay the money, and I will continue fighting."[60] On January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case. Hollister v. Soetoro On March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama (referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school). The suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs" and their local counsel, John Hemenway, "a foot soldier in their crusade." He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama's attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint "for an improper purpose such as to harass".[35] The district court ultimately reprimanded Hemenway for his actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case and Hemenway's reprimand.[21] On January 18, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case. Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court administering the oath of office to The President of the United States Barack Obama
The process for hearing a complaint is in motion. So the law is being applied, irrespective of how you've confused yourself into believing it isn't being applied 'yet', Jem o loon. 'IT' is being taken to court? You mean yet another pointless and groundless attempt without merit or standing you know as 'IT' is being taken to court, so you and other birther loons who cannot make any rational argument for 'IT' can just waffle around 'IT' like any other bunch of conspiracy loons.
Those comments have more of an implication about the lack of intelligence in birthers such as yourself and Jem o loon. Picking out words used by Morse, a WA lawyer, in a case he is defending racial segregation, have no implication other than they show the dumb ignorance of those who used them at the time and who would rely on them now. Real and proper implication comes from comments made by people like James Madison, who as the father of the Constitution said... "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United Statesâ James Madison, May 22nd, 1789."
You are a total moron. How many times do i have to tell this to you loons. Prior to this Georgia Case... all previous cases were dismissed on procedural grounds. No law was applied to the facts, no facts about eligibility were heard.
Eligibility is simple and easy to prove... yet he's not done so. So why is it that Odumbo loons accept his his word for it without proof? Who else would be allowed to get away with such deception?? (Beyond... this is not even addressing the issue of his alleged to have possibly given up his US citizenship to accept financial support for schooling in Indonesia.. THUS MAKING HIM INELIGIBLE TO BECOME POTUS REGARDLESS OF WHERE HE WAS BORN!)
If the arguments put forth by some legal scholars nearly two centuries ago are valid, Obama does not meet the standard of a Natural Born Citizen. I honestly believe this challenge in Georgia should move up to the Supreme Court quickly and this matter resolved before next year's election. I am concerned that even if SCOTUS accepts the case, and they may not at this time, that the potential damage this would do to America by invalidating 3+ years of Presidential decisions would cause the court to make a decision not based on the constitution and any precedent but on fear of the damage and confusion that a decision against Obama would create.