Is this for real? Fed. Judge Carter sets trial date for Obama's eligibility for 01/26

[Mississippi Wind Chime]

I just got this. Is it for real?

Federal Judge Carter sets Trial Date for Obama's Eligibility!

The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010!

Many concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing in Federal Court in Santa Ana in the lawsuit against Barack Obama to determine his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief.. About 150 people showed up, almost all in support of the lawsuit to demand that Obama release his birth certificate and other records that he has hidden from the American people.

Judge David Carter refused to hear Obama's request for dismissal. He indicated there was almost no chance that this case would be dismissed. Obama is arguing this lawsuit was filed in the wrong court if you can believe that.. Obama would prefer a "kangaroo court" instead of a Federal court! Assuming Judge Carter denies Obama's motion for dismissal, he will likely then order expedited discovery which will force Obama to release his birth certificate in a timely manner (if he has one)..

The judge, WHO IS A FORMER U.S. MARINE, repeated several times that this is A VERY SERIOUS CASE which must be resolved quickly so that the troops know that their Commander in Chief is eligible to hold that position and issue lawful orders to our military in this time of war. He basically said OBAMA MUST PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY to the court! He said Americans deserve to know the truth about their President!

The two U.S. Attorneys representing Barack Obama tried everything they could to sway the judge that this case was frivolous, but Carter would have none of it and cut them off several times. Obama's attorneys left the courtroom after about the 90 minute hearing looking defeated and nervous.

Great day in America for the U.S. Constitution! The truth about Barack Obama's eligibility will be known fairly soon - Judge Carter practically guaranteed it!

Video from the press conference after the hearing coming soon. Congratulations to plaintiffs attorney Dr. Orly Taitz! She did a great job and won some huge victories. She was fearless!

[Dasku]

I just got this. Is it for real?

Federal Judge Carter sets Trial Date for Obama's Eligibility!

The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010!It would have been nice but ...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/carter.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/carter.asp)

[Jerome J. Junglebunny]

Not again:

http://niggermania.net/forum/showthread.php?5350-Court-date-Jan-26-2010-Obama

[lips]

I didn't do it this time. I wouldn't touich this with a ten foot poll. I got burned the last time........ APRIL FOOL!!!!!!!!

[Mississippi Wind Chime]

It would have been nice but ...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/carter.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/carter.asp)

Yeah, but check this out!

Snopes.com is pro-nigger, calling anything against Obama false when proven true?
I'm hearing that snopes.com is pro-nigger, and that they call anything that is against Obama "false" even when it's proven to be true. Does anybody else see a pro-nigger slant, where the facts are skewed in a certain dark direction?

Here's an interesting e-mail I received today. It gets more interesting as you read through it.


We've already figured this one out for ourselves, but now it's going around the Internet.
The truth about Snopes.com
For the past few years http://www.snopes.com/ has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com

Only recently did Wikipedia (which has it's own credibility problems with some, too) get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a California husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers.

It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website in 1995 - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity by people believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years many started asking questions ... who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticism's - is a result of Snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but giving their pick of the answers they found on those issues. Although they claim to research their topics heavily and provide references when possible, not all of their sources (especially personal interviews, phone calls, or e-mails) are fully verifiable.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com . In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democrat (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative.. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says with a grain of salt. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself, and then do your own investigating to look for more references. Plus, you can always Bing or Google (another leftist outfit!) a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have found this to be true also!

Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False.... Then they gave their Liberal slant....!!! I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths..

If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.
Truth or Fiction http://www.truthorfiction.com/ a better source for
verification, in my opinion.

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama.

There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things.

So you see, you cannot or should not trust Snopes.com.... if you want to be SURE something is the truth! I don't always even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore. What a skeptic I've become!

A few conservative speakers on Myspace told me about snopes.com . I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. Anyway just FYI, don't just go to Snopes.com anymore for fact checking ... check http://www.truthorfiction.com/ and make your friends aware of the slant at Snopes as well.

Most people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that sometimes they are a hoax themselves.

[Dasku]

factcheck.org also considers it a "bogus claim"
Q: Is federal judge David O. Carter starting a trial on Jan. 26 to determine whether Obama is qualified to be president?
A: No. This is yet another bogus claim circulated by persons who cling to a belief that Obama was not born in the U.S.A. The judge threw the case out of court back in October.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/no-trial-for-obama/

[hoosier]

snopes and factcheck, I hate them both.
Carter promised the date, but he did 180 on Orly.
buttcrack should've been removed before it ran for the race.

[Ante Nigrum]

Snopes and Factcheck are both in O'nigger's pocket. We used to discuss this on the last forum. It's all over the web--especially about Factcheck. Factcheck is an actually co-conspirator in the BC fraud.

We know Carter fell through because a few of us followed it from week to week through Orly's site and other blogs.

Thanks for posting all that about Snopes. People can come here, and this might be the first time they see it.

With anything on the internet, it's always check and double check and check again. If you can't put your hand on it, you can't be sure it's real, right? And we should know it's O'nigger's side that puts this crap out there to tangle us up. It makes us waste time and effort, builds false hope followed by big let-downs, and gives them something to point at while calling us ignorant rednecks.

Sometimes, I only get through the day by BELIEVING that ONE DAY, they are all going to pay for their lies and wicked ways.

[Dasku]

Snopes and Factcheck are both in O'nigger's pocket. We used to discuss this on the last forum. It's all over the web--especially about Factcheck. Factcheck is an actually co-conspirator in the BC fraud.

We know Carter fell through because a few of us followed it from week to week through Orly's site and other blogs.

Thanks for posting all that about Snopes. People can come here, and this might be the first time they see it.

With anything on the internet, it's always check and double check and check again. If you can't put your hand on it, you can't be sure it's real, right? And we should know it's O'nigger's side that puts this crap out there to tangle us up. It makes us waste time and effort, builds false hope followed by big let-downs, and gives them something to point at while calling us ignorant rednecks.

Sometimes, I only get through the day by BELIEVING that ONE DAY, they are all going to pay for their lies and wicked ways.But you're not saying that it IS true that the trial began on Jan 26th, I hope. That was the original question.

[Ante Nigrum]

But you're not saying that it IS true that the trial began on Jan 26th, I hope. That was the original question.

Carter at first scheduled it to go through, but a few weeks later, he mysteriously changed his mind and canceled the whole thing.

The cancellation came after Carter got a new clerk in his office. The clerk turned out to be an arab lawyer from another state. He gave up his high paid lawyer job in a firm EMPLOYED BY OBANGA to move to another state and become a judge's clerk.

Yeah, right.

I say Obanga sent him there to spy on and SIT on Judge Carter. As soon as this hiring happened, Carter dropped the case--even though Carter had previously said he felt it seriously needed to be heard.

Tell me the fix isn't in. Was Carter bought? Maybe. Threatened, more likely.