Dear Birthers, The President & Democratic Party Of Georgia Thank You

It seemed rather odd that the attorney representing the President didn’t include fairly standard language in a request to quash a subpoena asking the President to appear before an Administrative Law Judge tomorrow.  By failing to do so, the Democratic Party enjoyed the headlines over the weekend of “Judge orders President to appear to prove citizenship”.  Fundraising appeals were immediately released, and the GOP was customarily blamed.

Now, not surprisingly, the Democratic Party of Georgia has indicated that the President will not appear, nor will they continue to participate in this rube controlled circus.  After all, the Democratic Party can probably put one of Roy Barnes’ cows on the ballot if they so pleased.  The parties to this lawsuit have no standing to sue, and ultimately, the only people that CONSTITUTIONALLY vote for the president are the electors who Georgia sends to the electoral college.

Good job birthers, you remain useful idiots for the Democratic cause.

The Press Release/Victory Lap from the Democratic Party of Georgia follows:

Democratic Party of Georgia Chairman Mike Berlon releases the following statement on tomorrow’s administrative hearing to address President Obama’s inclusion on the Georgia Presidential primary ballot:

“Several lawsuits were recently filed against President Obama questioning whether he is an American citizen in an attempt to remove him from the Georgia primary ballot.  Despite the fact that these issues have been thoroughly litigated, a hearing has been scheduled in these cases for Thursday, January 26, 2012.  The Democratic Party of Georgia is not a party to any of these lawsuits.

“This afternoon we received a letter from counsel for the President directed to the Georgia Secretary of State asking him to intervene in these lawsuits and bring them to a halt, because it is well established that there is no issue here – a fact validated time and again by courts in this country.

“In the letter, counsel also indicated that they had no interest in continuing to appear or participate further in the litigation and have suspended their involvement.

“We respect the President’s position and urge the Secretary of State to bring this matter to a conclusion.  We also believe that each political party has the absolute legal right to determine who should appear on their primary and general election ballots according to their own rules without interference from outside parties.

“In light of these developments the Democratic Party of Georgia has no plans to continue to be involved in these baseless cases.  Furthermore the Democratic Party of Georgia will cooperate with the President and his campaign in any way requested to make sure that his name appears on the primary and general election ballots for 2012.”


    • Lo Mein says:

      No, it doesn’t work. Which is why Barack Obama is facing (a) contempt and (b) removal from the ballot.

      He’d face neither if he (or at least his lawyer) had just shown up, I’m betting.

  1. The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

    “After all, the Democratic Party can probably put one of Roy Barnes’ cows on the ballot if they so pleased.”

    Georgia Democrats might as well put one of Roy Barnes’ cows on the ballot because the result of the election would likely be the same as Obama and the Dems have about a snowball’s chance in hell of winning Georgia in November with Obama ON the ballot, which makes this debacle of supposedly trying to pull Obama’s name from the ballot in order to gain a strategic advantage in a state that he already has virtually no chance of winning anyways even all the more puzzling.

    • Toxic Avenger says:

      I wouldn’t act so confident. Obama had a high percentage of voters in 2008, and that was against a much stronger candidate than Spoiled Rich Kid, Elitist D-bag, and Frothy Mixture.

  2. bowersville says:

    Quite a bit depends on what happens today. I haven’t read or heard what Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s response will be. Will the Administrative proceedings go forward or will Secretary Kemp suspend them? The administrative judge has no power to hold the President in contempt for not showing nor his attorney, Michael Jablonski. In other readings it was reported that the only way to enforce the Administrative rulings that are already on the table is to send the proceedings to the Superior Court of Fulton County or for Kemp to make a decision as the Administrative Judge and his findings are only advisory. Is that so?

      • CNFPP says:

        There is Rick, and the law says, “upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State SHALL notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and SHALL advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and SHALL inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge SHALL report his or her findings to the Secretary of State. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b) (emphasis added).

        The SoS and the Judge had no choice. “Shall” does not allow room for the individual to use their own discretion. If Kemp or the ALJ had refused, they would have been in violation of the law.

        There is a good reason for not allowing any discretion. Technically, a corrupt SoS could prohibit challenges to candidates in their party while allowing any and all challenges for candidates of the opposition.

  3. ZazaPachulia says:

    This, too, is Karen Handel’s fault. Had she only kept her old job instead of losing to Mr. Good Old Boy himself, we wouldn’t be in this predicament. OR, if Karen had won, she probably would have checked Kemp on this before he fired off his idiotic response.

  4. SallyForth says:

    This is all so stupid. I do, however, think people at the Democratic Party might want to be a tad bit more respectful to the Secty of State, since that office is the one under which they operate in Georgia.

  5. Scott65 says:

    Ok…all you fiscal conservatives out there. Can we get an estimate of how much this “Orly Taitz Special” will cost the tax payers? Its not going anywhere, Obama will be on the ballot, and the whole state once again looks like a bunch of yahoos…led by an unhinged (the nicest thing I could think to say about her) woman named Orly Taitz who has been chased out of almost any court she steps foot in…except here of course. Then again…if you need a dentist that practices without a license…she’s the one for you

    • benevolus says:

      There doesn’t seem to be much sympathy for Orly around here. But now we wonder:
      – Can Brian Kemp navigate out of this mess without having an anchor tied to him forever?
      – Has Orly tilted the field in favor of Dems by inadvertently encouraging Dems to send their money elsewhere, like Ohio, PA, or Florida?

      • Harry says:

        Here’s another one: Can Obama provide creditable evidence that he is constitutionally qualified to be president of these United States?

          • Harry says:

            Are you really serious? The provided “evidence” is bogus. There are too many unanswered questions. Get back to me when you have answers; not by responding “already has” – that’s weak.

              • bowersville says:

                The provided “evidence” is bogus and this world renowned investigator has proved it. And as for the unanswered questions this relentless investigator is on the trail. He will look in every crevice, under every rock, behind every door and in every file. The case will be solved.

Comments are closed.