Oh MAN that's a date I can't wait for ! I think the first thing the new republican president should do, is rescind each and every executive order ol' Cap'n Crapbag Obama signed into existence. Can do that right after the swearing-in, and before his first White House-prepared dinner. And it don't matter who does it either, Romney, Gingrich or Paul.
AMEN. Hope we make it till then without totally being destroyed as a country
I wonder how long the newly-elected republican president will be allowed to blame the craphouse he inherited on Obama and the socialist demokrats ? Will he be able to at least take the oath of office before he's blamed for he cesspool the demokrats invented and left ?
Don't want to wish my life away, but it can't come fast enough....
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
The State of Georgia has summoned Obama to appear at an eligibility hearing to determine his ability to appear on the ballot in the state of Georgia. Obama is fighting it, despite the judge's insistence....
Waiting in the wings, are Massachussetts and Illinois with the same kinds of challenges. I wonder if he can lose by default ?
Quote:
SMACKDOWN: GEORGIA JUDGE DEMANDS OBAMA APPEAR IN COURT
UPDATE: This past week saw Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi refuse a demand from Barack Obama's attorneys to quash a subpoena for Obama's appearance at the launch of a series of administrative hearings on January 26, and insist instead on Obama's compliance. At the hearings, Georgia state residents are challenging Obama's name on the 2012 presidential ballot, as they may under state law.
Judge Malihi has ruled that Barack Obama is to appear in court this Thursday for hearings on grounds seeking to refute Obama's eligibility to run for president. It appears the Judge's order likely will be completely ignored by the Obama administration. What, if any judicial repercussions will then confront Barack Obama for violating a legally issued subpoena remain to be seen. The White House has indicated Obama will be campaigning in Las Vegas and Denver next Thursday, and apparently his administration believes it has no reason to fear sanctions by Judge Malihi.
Obama's attorneys presented last week their defense for these state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012, which argues that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates. "Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates," Obama's lawyer argued in their motion to quash the subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.
"The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant," the lawyer said.
Judge Michael M. Malihi disagreed, and ruled to uphold the subpoena.
"Defendant argues that 'if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States' to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend," Judge Malihi wrote in his ruling, which may be found here.
"Defendant's motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority," the judge continued. "Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is 'unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.'"
In fact, Obama's attorneys' argument is specious. It is states, usually through the office of Secretary of State, that officiate elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires "every candidate for federal" office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy "shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought."
Judge Malihi determined Georgia state law also grants the Secretary of State and any "elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate" in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate's qualifications. This is a breakthrough for "birthers," as the issue of "standing" to bring legal challenges to Obama's eligibility for office on Constitutional grounds has so far met insurmountable hurdles in prior cases elsewhere and in the federal courts.
Three different plaintiffs' groups are scheduled for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. Judge Malihi signed a subpoena for Obama's testimony regarding the case for her plaintiffs, and Michael Jablonski, Obama's attorney for the cases, argued that he should be exempted.
Attorney Taitz believes this is only the second time in U.S. history, with 40 years between scandals, that a sitting president has been ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking individuals – the last such episode being Watergate.
Official Ballot challenges have been filed against Barack Obama and the Democratic Parties of two new states – Massachusetts and Obama's very own Illinois.
This week, Retired ASAR LTC William F. Reade filed an official ballot challenge with election officials, contending that Barack Obama is ineligible to appear on the Massachusetts ballot. Reade's challenge is well researched and filled with numerous legal citations to back his case.
But perhaps most interesting are the similarities between LTC Reade's and Barack Obama's citizenship status. Like Obama, Reade was born in the United States. But, also like Obama whose father was a Kenyan citizen and therefore a British subject, Reade's father was also a British subject. As such, Reade correctly points out that he himself is not a "natural born citizen" as defined by the Supreme Court and therefore, like Barack Obama, Reade is also ineligible for the office of President.
More states are hearing the call to question Obama's eligibility to appear on our ballots. In Obama's home state of Illinois, three separate ballot challenges have been filed which question Obama's eligibility and seek to bar him from the ballot.....
i KNOW it's a partisan site....but the possibilities are endless !
Nice....I personally will crack open a bottle of Chivas Regal Royal Salute that I bought 20 years ago, and wash it down with an Arturo Fuentes Hemingway. If possible, and if I can get my hands on one, an Opus X. Because the White House's pending hemorrhoidectomy is an event to be celebrated !
365 Days and Counting ........
