Skip to comments.Obama eligibility hearing to be broadcast live
Posted on 01/25/2012 10:32:42 PM PST by Nachum
A political action committee which believes Barack Obama is not legally qualified for U.S. president plans a live broadcast of tomorrows hotly anticipated court hearing in Atlanta regarding Obamas eligibility.
The Article II Super PAC says it will provide uncensored, gavel-to-gavel video coverage of the event beginning at 9 a.m. Eastern at this online address.
Based in Simi Valley, Calif., the PAC says it decided to act out of a sense of frustration, since most national news outlets have been ignoring the constitutional mandate that presidents be a natural-born citizen, which the PAC maintains is a person who is a child of two U.S. citizen parents.
The PAC saw the need to do this last month, because of the often incomplete and biased coverage of this issue by mainstream news media and recently received permission from the court, said director Helen Tansey, who will personally manage on-site efforts.
After the office of the president of the United States was usurped by a dual-citizen candidate in 2008, the nation was awakened to the realization that the U.S. Constitution, in particular Article II and presidential eligibility, no longer matters to our elected representatives and the mainstream media, the PAC says on its website.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
If Zero gets bumped from the ballot, Atlanta’s liable to be burnt to the ground!!
That’s a lot of broadcast media to pay for, especially when the most likely outcome will be the judge pushing his decision back to a later time.
“ARTICLE II SUPER PAC WILL PROVIDE GAVEL TO GAVEL LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE FROM THE 3 BALLOT CHALLENGE HEARINGS ON JANUARY 26TH IN ATLANTA GEORGIA STARTING AT 9 AM ET
The live video stream will be located at this page and on the home-page of this website.”
They are the ones who have to make the real effort, like the men in Georgia did.
They have permission to film in the courtroom?
Something weird here ..... why did O’s attorney, instead of filing an amended motion to quash (a decent one this time & the judge probably would have granted it), write a crybaby letter to the SOS? All the previous predictions I’ve seen were that an amended motion to quash would be filed as a matter of course.
I foresee an automobile “accident” or other mishap for the film crew.
What online address and 9 a.m. CA time?
Ok thanks. I should have scrolled down first.
Bookmark for 9am est
Zero’s playing a dangerous game. If he loses by default at an administrative level, he might be barred from any kind of appeal...
Do you think the judge is sleeping in his own bed tonight?
Yeah, I read the Sonoran news story on the upcoming event and synopsis of the happenings. Good article.
“Citing Haynes v. Wells, Hatfield said the entire burden of proof is placed upon defendant to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office, and stated, Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell are not required, and should not be required, to disprove anything regarding [Defendant Obamas] eligibility to run for office “
Referring to Jablonskis argument in his motion to quash in Taitzs challenge, Hatfield said he seemed to somehow be contending that the fact defendant Obama currently occupies the presidency is, in itself, evidence of defendant Obamas constitutional eligibility to that office.
On the contrary, wrote Hatfield, citing Malone v. Minchew, “there is [no] presumption, at least not a conclusive presumption, that a person named or appointed to an office ... was eligible and qualified to hold the office. Such qualification or eligibility depends upon facts which, when challenged and drawn in question in a proper judicial proceeding, is a judicial question to be determined by the courts.”
As it should be.
If Obama does not qualify in just one state, I don’t think the media can ignore Obama’s lack of eligibility. I think Obama has a very little chance of winning the 15 electoral votes, if he does remain on the GA ballot.
Michael K. Jablonski
260 Brighton Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30309 Party: Democrat
Only if he/she is crazy or a fool. I wouldn’t be in the same area code of my house if I were him/her.
That’s what I was thinking. I wouldn’t be driving my own car to work in the morning, either.