Mi?rcoles, 29 de febrero de 2012

18 Reasons Why Obama Is Unfit To Be Commander-in Chief

US President Barack Obama 7372 300x180 18 Reasons Why Obama Is Unfit to be Commander in Chief

For a number of years, it has been known that the guy called President Obama has little to no known qualifications with the exception of being a street hustler and community organizer. Frankly, the man is not qualified to be a Cub Scout leader and would have difficulty running a lemon aid stand even if he could make proper change.

Give it some serious thought, dear readers. What has he accomplished that benefited our country aside from economic world-wide chaos and rudderless foreign policy which makes the entire world a very scary place? As the worlds remaining superpower, he is doing all he can in his power to destroy our status in that area as well.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:45
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

WND EXCLUSIVE

Media finally paying attention to eligibility?

See which major networks plan on covering Cold Case Posse results

Published: 42 mins ago

PHOENIX, Ariz. – Poll after poll in recent months has revealed that Americans have a high level of concern over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, with one poll revealing fully half of the nation wants Congress to investigate the question.

But mostly reporters for the traditional media – networks, major newspapers, major news corporations and conglomerates – have giggled when talk turns to the serious question of just what – exactly – does the U.S. Constitution require of presidents.

But that’s changing, as media organizations from all political persuasions seek admittance to a news conference to be held by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz.

The event is tomorrow at 1 p.m. Mountain Standard Time in Phoenix, 3 p.m. Eastern, and will be live-streamed by WND.

The topic of discussion will be an investigation by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse into concerns about Obama’s eligibility, the first time an official law enforcement report has addressed many of the allegations about the presumptive 2012 Democratic nominee for president.

Those issues include his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution’s requirements, questions about his use of a Connecticut Social Security number, the image of his purported birth certificate from Hawaii and others.

In addition to the live-streaming, WND will make available to the public, the same day by email, the official report distributed to media by Arpaio’s investigators. Those interested in receiving the report can sign up for the free service.

Top national media organizations have indicated their plans to attend and bookings for radio and television reports are in the works. Expected are reporters from AP, Reuters, Univision, the Washington Times and NBC, CBS and ABC affiliates, as well statewide radio networks, among many others.

Because of the circumstances, the decision was made to hold the press conference at the sheriff’s training center, which is on the outskirts of Phoenix, rather than at a downtown office, according to reports.

It even has drawn the promise of protesters who object to the sheriff’s office review of allegations that Obama may be using – or attempt to use – a fraudulent document to have his name placed on the 2012 presidential election ballot in Arizona.

Without releasing any details, Arpaio has said the results “could be a shock.”

He constituted a special five-member law enforcement posse last year to investigate allegations brought by members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party that the Obama birth certificate released to the public by the White House on April 27 might be a forgery.

The posse is made up of three former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys with law enforcement experience. Members have been examining evidence since September concerning Obama’s eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which requires a president to be a natural-born citizen.

Among other issues, there also have been allegations of Obama’s use of a Social Security number that corresponds to a Connecticut address, even though the president apparently had no links there.

WND earlier reported a private investigation found that the Social Security number being used by Obama does not pass a check with E-Verify, the electronic system the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has created to verify whether or not someone is authorized to work legally in the country.

Arpaio’s investigation is the first official law enforcement look at the allegations surrounding Obama’s eligibility. Many of the private investigators who have examined it contend there are too many questionable circumstances to believe that everything regarding Obama is above-board.

Arpaio previously told WND that when he launched his Cold Case Posse it was with the possibility that he would clear Obama.

But he said it wasn’t an issue he could ignore, after 250 members of the tea party organization “came to me and asked their sheriff to investigate Obama and the birth certificate.”

SIGN UP NOW TO GET FREE COPY OF ARPAIO REPORT AS SOON AS IT IS DISTRIBUTED TO PRESS MARCH 1.

The WND TV live-streaming coverage of the news conference Thursday is possible through the support of the Western Center for Journalism.

The decisions in dozens of court cases over the last few years questioning Obama’s eligibility were typified by a recent decision in Georgia in which several individuals filed challenges to Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot and provided evidence to a hearing officer.

Even though Obama and his lawyer deliberately snubbed the case – the lawyer wrote the judge a letter in advance telling him Obama would not attend – the judge threw out the evidence presented by several attorneys and ruled in favor of Obama.

Similar ballot challenges are being filed in a long list of other states already.

The Arpaio investigators were given the case following a meeting held in the sheriff’s office Aug. 17, 2011, with tea party representatives from Surprise, Ariz., who presented a petition signed by more than 250 Maricopa County residents. The petitioners expressed concern that their voting rights could be irreparably compromised if Obama uses a forged birth certificate to be placed on the 2012 presidential ballot in Arizona or otherwise is found to be ineligible.

The tea party letter formally stated the following charge: “The Surprise Tea Party is concerned that no law enforcement agency or other duly constituted government agency has conducted an investigation into the Obama birth certificate to determine if it is in fact an authentic copy of 1961 birth records on file for Barack Obama at the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu, or whether it, or they are forgeries.”

The posse was constituted as a 501(c)3 organization, designed to cost the people of Maricopa County nothing, while enabling people from around the country to contribute to its mission.

Those wishing to send a tax-deductible contribution directly to the Cold Case Posse may do so by mailing a check or money order to: MCSO Cold Case Posse, P.O. Box 74374, Phoenix, AZ 85087.

WND has reported that dozens of experts with varying ranges of competency who have looked at the situation believe the birth documentation image released by Obama last year is not genuine.

A flying-banner and billboard campaign to let people know about the questions regarding eligibility that was started by WND CEO and Editor Joseph Farah also has raised the public’s awareness of the situation.

Farah wrote recently that the underlying question to be determined is whether the U.S. Constitution remains the law of the land, or whether it has become “an archaic old document that needs to be amended.”

“At its core, it’s really quite simple: Does Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution dealing with who can serve as president of the United States simply mean that any citizen age 35 or older is eligible? If so, why did the founders use a different term altogether – ‘natural born citizen’? What is a ‘natural born citizen’? Is it anyone born in the United States? If so, why have candidates born outside the United States been deemed eligible? Do we owe it to America’s future to go back in history to determine what that term actually means?

“Until now, as hard as it may be to believe, no official vetting of Obama’s credentials has been done – not by the 50 secretaries of state who oversee elections, not by the Federal Elections Commission that administers the nation’s elections laws, not by the Electoral College, not by any judge in America, not by Congress, not by anyone,” he continued.

Even before the results become public, Farah said he’s confident there will be a significant impact.

“I strongly believe it could be a game-changer,” he said.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:12
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse will be holding a press conference on March 1 to reveal the preliminary findings of its investugation into Obama's backgrounf and eligibility.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse will be holding a press conference on March 1 to reveal the preliminary findings of its investugation into Obama's backgrounf and eligibility.
Linda Bentley

Will Cold Case Posse clear Obama or confirm allegations?

‘When I have a press conference, I talk about something’

PHOENIX – Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio will be holding a long-awaited press conference at 1 p.m. on March 1 to reveal the preliminary findings of his Cold Case Posse’s investigation into President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, other documents and background information pertinent to his eligibility to be president.   

After being petitioned last year by approximately 250 citizens to look into what numerous experts claim is a fraudulently created birth certificate, Arpaio decided to have his Cold Case Posse to look into the allegations about Obama’s background, fraudulently created documents and use of a Connecticut-issued Social Security number, which resulted in a Social Security number mismatch notice when a Seattle woman ran Obama’s information through E-Verify.

While Arpaio has been tight-lipped about what will be revealed during Thursday’s press conference, last week he said the investigation was doing the president a favor with the intention of clearing his name.

Arpaio stated he takes his job and the allegations very seriously and said, “I don't have press conferences just to get my name on television” adding, “When I have a press conference, I talk about something.”

MCSO Cold Case Posse | February 28, 2012



Continue reading on Examiner.com Will Cold Case Posse clear Obama or confirm allegations? - Phoenix Crime | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-phoenix/will-cold-case-posse-clear-obama-or-confirm-allegations#ixzz1nnE2oekU


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:30
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Trashing Tricare

Obama to cut healthcare benefits for active duty and retired US military
AP Images

AP Images

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

“When they talked to us, they did mention the option of healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. So it’s in their mind,” said a congressional aide involved in the issue.

Military personnel from several of the armed services voiced their opposition to a means-tested tier system for Tricare, prompting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey to issue a statement Feb. 21.

Dempsey said the military is making tough choices in cutting defense spending. In addition to the $487 billion over 10 years, the Pentagon is facing automatic cuts that could push the total reductions to $1 trillion.

“I want those of you who serve and who have served to know that we’ve heard your concerns, in particular your concern about the tiered enrollment fee structure for Tricare in retirement,” Dempsey said. “You have our commitment that we will continue to review our health care system to make it as responsive, as affordable, and as equitable as possible.”

Under the new plan, the Pentagon would get the bulk of its savings by targeting under-65 and Medicare-eligible military retirees through a tiered increase in annual Tricare premiums that will be based on yearly retirement pay.

Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

The new plan hits active duty personnel by increasing co-payments for pharmaceuticals and eliminating incentives for using generic drugs.

The changes are worrying some in the Pentagon who fear it will severely impact efforts to recruit and maintain a high-quality all-volunteer military force. Such benefits have been a key tool for recruiting qualified people and keeping them in uniform.

“Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” said the congressional aide. “Would anybody accept their taxes being raised 345 percent in five years? Probably not.”

A second congressional aide said the administration’s approach to the cuts shows a double standard that hurts the military.

“We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity,” this aide said. “But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget.”

The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. “And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn’t seem fair,” the second aide said.

Spokesmen for the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not respond to requests for comment on the Tricare increases.

The massive increases beginning next year appear timed to avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year, critics of the plan say.

Additionally, the critics said leaving civilian workers’ benefits unchanged while hitting the military reflect the administration’s effort to court labor unions, as government unions are the only segment of organized labor that has increased in recent years.

As part of the increased healthcare costs, the Pentagon also will impose an annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, a new program that all military retirees automatically must join at age 65. Currently, to enroll in Tricare for Life, retirees pay the equivalent of a monthly Medicare premium.

Under the proposed Pentagon plan, retirees will be hit with an additional annual enrollment fee on top of the monthly premium.

Congressional aides said that despite unanimous support among the military chiefs for the current healthcare changes, some senior officials in the Pentagon are opposing the reforms, in particular the tiered system of healthcare.

“It doesn’t matter what the benefit is, whether it’s commissary, PX, or healthcare, or whatever … under the rationale that if you raise your hand and sign up to serve, you earn a base set of benefits, and it should have nothing to do with your rank when you served, and how much you’re making when you retire,” the first aide said.

Military service organizations are opposing the healthcare changes and say the Pentagon is “means-testing” benefits for service personnel as if they were a social program, and not something earned with 20 or more years of military service.

Retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley, of the Military Officers Association of America, said the Military Coalition, 32 military service and veterans groups with an estimated 5 million members, is fighting the proposed healthcare increases, specifically the use of mean-testing for cost increases.

“We think it’s absolutely wrong,” Beasley told the Free Beacon. “This is a breach of faith” for both the active duty and retiree communities.

Congressional hearings are set for next month.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars on Feb. 23 called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the healthcare increases.

“There is no military personnel issue more sacrosanct than pay and benefits,” said Richard L. DeNoyer, head of the 2 million-member VFW. “Any proposal that negatively impacts any quality of life program must be defeated, and that’s why the VFW is asking everyone to join the fight and send a united voice to Congress.”

Senior Air Force leaders are expected to be asked about the health care cost increases during a House Armed Services Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday.

Congress must pass all the proposed changes into law, as last year’s defense authorization bill preemptively limited how much the Pentagon could increase some Tricare fees, while other fees already were limited in law.

Tricare for Life, Tricare Prime, and Tricare Standard increases must be approved, as well as some of the pharmacy fee increases, congressional aides said.

Current law limits Tricare fee increases to cost of living increases in retirement pay.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:24
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 15 de febrero de 2012

Obama Media Begin the Faking of Obama Poll Numbers

http://gulagbound.com/26184/obama-media-begin-the-faking-of-obama-poll-numbers/

This is what we said would happen, at least a year ago.  This is what is happening now.  The polls are being used to convince the more uninformed amongst us that there is no real hope of regaining our country and we’d better get used to submitting to the dictator already in office.  Obama does not intend to leave–under any circumstances–so we may as well accept our enslavement as the good sheeple Obama plans to herd off the cliff.  Obama has told us via his actions over and over again that he will decimate our country and we can do nothing about it.

Note:  As there are now myriad Marxist-plants in the Republicans Party (we who have actually followed their shenanigans for years know who they are) the Marxist-Dems have pretty much all of the support they need to pass one unconstitutional bill after another.  And–if by some miracle these bills do not pass–they still have Obama who will unconstitutionally and therefore illegally issue an Executive Order for anything he wants.  As I’ve mentioned before, we’re already living under a dictatorship.

U.S. Trident II Missile

Today, it was announced that Obama plans to reduce our nuclear weapons to virtually nothing (an 80% reduction) and less than either China or Russia possesses.  The dictator-in-chief is bent upon making the USA a target for both nukes and takeover by hostile forces as soon as possible.  Our own corrupt Congress and US military leaders are currently silent…with only crickets being heard in the distance.  In this, silence=concurrence.

Earlier this year, with his canceling of the (already contracted) Keystone pipeline deal with Canada and virtually forcing Canada to sell their oil to China, and his shutting down one coal mine after another Obama has (in no uncertain terms) essentially told We-the-People “No more energy for you!  It’s time for your country to die and make way for my real purpose and ascendancy.  You have already learned that I can do anything I want to you and your country and no one will stop me.  I AM Obama!”

We know about all too many of the other horrors Obama has already leveled upon us including (but, not limited to) ObamaCare, open borders (in order to destroy our border States), placing our enemy the Muslim Brotherhood in very high level security positions within the US government, allowing Iran to become nuclear-weaponized (while he guts the USA of its nukes), removing virtually all of the money in the US Treasury for his own reasons and setting up one after another “green” companies as shells for his own personal and Democrats’ slush funds and money laundering operations.  Each day Obama remains in office he takes more away from us then gives it to himself and his friends.  Congress and the leftist courts are smiling with him as they, too, work to instill and install as many perversities as possible and help him shred what was left of the US Constitution.

We have already been informed that if Obama seizes another term in office, he will remove the entire Bill of Rights–with the Second Amendment as his first target.  Note:  He has already done away with the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause.  Telling the Catholic Church (which would include other Churches and Synagogues) that they must comply with the provision of contraceptives, abortions and sterilizations is in direct conflict with the First Amendment.  It is also illegal (which hasn’t stopped Obama from doing anything thus far), as the POTUS has no authority to make any decisions regarding the First Amendment–whatsoever–or any other Amendments in our Bill of Rights.  It is forbidden by our now-almost-defunct Constitution.  But, our elected officials seem to either stand in agreement with him or are cowering in silence at these escalating outrages.  I’m sure that–after its decades of following the Marxist-Democrat line of “social justice”–the Catholic Church was shocked by Obama.  They really didn’t think the Obama crocodile would try to eat them.  But, it did…and may still do so.

As I have said many… many times (even talk show hosts now openly agree with me and are repeating what I’ve written) ‘if no one stops Obama, it’s as if the law no longer exists’.  Sorry this cannot be more positive, folks.  But, we are allowing Obama to steal everything we have, destroy our God-given rights and become our slave master.  This is profoundly serious.  He truly must be stopped.

As the 2012 General Election looms closer the bogus poll numbers will increase.  BTW, the economy is not doing better.  It‘s actually doing worse.  Those numbers are also being manipulated by the Obama machine.  In order to even begin to report numbers that would help Obama, the ObamaGov and the major media had to drop all essentially important data.  The actual facts, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and reiterated by Tyler Durden, are:

…the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation.

The Obama government is continuing to fake employment numbers, as well as removing other detrimental to his ruling syndicate.

The major media belongs to the Obama syndicate.  I suspect they actually believe the crocodile won’t eat them either.  Apparently, they have short memories as to what happened to the press under the Perons, Stalin, Hitler and, most recently, Hugo Chavez.  But if we let it, we already know the crocodile is going eat us.

 

US weighing options for future cuts in nuclear weapons, including 80% reduction:
at washingtonpost.com

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month (January 2012):
at zerohedge.com


Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve’s op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news.

Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.

Sher can be reached at Sher_Zieve@yahoo.com.

Graphics added by Gulag Bound


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/15/obama-media-begin-the-faking-of-obama-poll-numbers/

Obama Media Begin the Faking of Obama Poll Numbers

HOW MANY AMERICANS CAN SEE WHAT OBAMA’S ENABLERS ARE DOING?

by Sher Zieve, ©2012

Has Obama been installed as a dictator with the cooperation of Republicans and Democrats in Congress?

(Feb. 15, 2012) — In order to sway the vast majority and growing number of Americans who have finally faced up to the fact that Obama is purposefully trying to destroy the United States of America, the Obama Media have begun their side of the Obama syndicate’s overall strategy of lying to us.  Polls now show 50% of voters would vote for Obama.  Intelligent people–even those few on the Left– know this is a lie.  But, it’s what all third-world countries have done since their inception.

This is what we said would happen, at least a year ago.  This is what is happening now.  The polls are being used to convince the more uninformed amongst us that there is no real hope of regaining our country and we’d better get used to submitting to the dictator already in office.  Obama does not intend to leave–under any circumstances–so we may as well accept our enslavement as the good sheeple Obama plans to herd off the cliff.  Obama has told us via his actions over and over again that he will decimate our country and we can do nothing about it.

Note:  As there are now myriad Marxist-plants in the Republicans Party (we who have actually followed their shenanigans for years know who they are) the Marxist-Dems have pretty much all of the support they need to pass one unconstitutional bill after another.  And–if by some miracle these bills do not pass–they still have Obama who will unconstitutionally and therefore illegally issue an Executive Order for anything he wants.  As I’ve mentioned before, we’re already living under a dictatorship.

Today, it was announced that Obama plans to reduce our nuclear weapons to virtually nothing (an 80% reduction) and less than either China or Russia possesses.  The dictator-in-chief is bent upon making the USA a target for both nukes and takeover by hostile forces as soon as possible.  Our own corrupt Congress and US military leaders are currently silent…with only crickets being heard in the distance.  In this, silence=concurrence.

Earlier this year, with his canceling of the (already contracted) Keystone pipeline deal with Canada and virtually forcing Canada to sell their oil to China, and his shutting down one coal mine after another, Obama has (in no uncertain terms) essentially told We-the-People “No more energy for you!  It’s time for your country to die and make way for my real purpose and ascendancy.  You have already learned that I can do anything I want to you and your country and no one will stop me.  I AM Obama!”

We know about all too many of the other horrors Obama has already leveled upon us including (but, not limited to) ObamaCare, open borders (in order to destroy our border States), placing our enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, in very high level security positions within the US government, allowing Iran to become nuclear-weaponized (while he guts the USA of its nukes), removing virtually all of the money in the US Treasury for his own reasons and setting up one after another “green” companies as shells for his own personal and Democrats’ slush funds and money laundering operations.  Each day Obama remains in office he takes more away from us then gives it to himself and his friends.  Congress and the leftist courts are smiling with him as they, too, work to instill and install as many perversities as possible and help him shred what was left of the US Constitution.

We have already been informed that if Obama seizes another term in office, he will remove the entire Bill of Rights–with the Second Amendment as his first target.  Note:  He has already done away with the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause.  Telling the Catholic Church (which would include other Churches and Synagogues) that they must comply with the provision of contraceptives, abortions and sterilizations is in direct conflict with the First Amendment.  It is also illegal (which hasn’t stopped Obama from doing anything thus far), as the POTUS has no authority to make any decisions regarding the First Amendment–whatsoever–or any other Amendments in our Bill of Rights.  It is forbidden by our now-almost-defunct Constitution.  But, our elected officials seem to either stand in agreement with him or are cowering in silence at these escalating outrages.  I’m sure that–after its decades of following the Marxist-Democrat line of “social justice”–the Catholic Church was shocked by Obama.  They really didn’t think the Obama crocodile would try to eat them.  But, it did…and may still do so.

As I have said many…many times (even talk show hosts now openly agree with me and are repeating what I’ve written) ‘if no one stops Obama, it’s as if the law no longer exists’.  Sorry this cannot be more positive, folks.  But, we are allowing Obama to steal everything we have, destroy our God-given rights and become our slave master.  This is profoundly serious.  He truly must be stopped.

As the 2012 General Election looms closer the bogus poll numbers will increase.  BTW, the economy is not doing better.  It‘s actually doing worse.  Those numbers are also being manipulated by the Obama machine.  In order to even begin to report numbers that would help Obama, the ObamaGov and the major media had to drop all essentially important data.  The actual facts, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and reiterated by Tyler Durden, are:  “…the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non-institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation.”  The Obama government is continuing to fake employment numbers, as well as removing other detrimental to his ruling syndicate.

The major media belongs to the Obama syndicate.  I suspect they actually believe the crocodile won’t eat them either.  Apparently, they have short memories as to what happened to the press under the Perons, Stalin, Hitler and, most recently, Hugo Chavez.  But, if we let it, we already know the crocodile is going eat us.


© 2012, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 14 de febrero de 2012

CNS News:

--------------------------------------------------

CNS NEWS PAGE IS DOWN DUE TO : Access to the webpage was denied
It is likely that the server hosting the webpage has been overloaded or encountered an error. In order to avoid causing too much traffic and making the situation worse, Google Chrome has temporarily stopped allowing requests to the server. 

If you think this behavior is undesirable, for example, you are debugging your own website, please visit the chrome://net-internals/#httpThrottling page, where you can find more information or disable the feature.
Error 139 (net::ERR_TEMPORARILY_THROTTLED): Requests to the server have been temporarily throttled.




Publicado por Corazon7 @ 23:25
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 09 de febrero de 2012

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_obama_ballot_challenges_a_crisis_of_confidence.html

February 9, 2012

The Obama Ballot Challenges: A Crisis of Confidence

By Monte Kuligowski

Just a few months ago, FOX News reported on polling data which suggested that "[i]f Americans could cast a 'confidence' vote in the style of European parliaments, President Barack Obama would not fare well. A 56-percent majority would give his administration a vote of 'no confidence.'"

Ample evidence abounds for Americans to have no confidence that the economic justice activist-turned-politician is working out for the good of the country.  Even at the most fundamental level, doubt remains as to whether the man occupying the White House is constitutionally eligible for the job.

There are two factors causing lingering doubts.  The first is based upon Obama's secrecy in refusing to release relevant records for inspection and authentication.  The second is that the Supreme Court needs to rule on the application of the Constitution's requirement, "natural born citizen," with respect to Barack Hussein Obama II.

Obama's bizarre secrecy

Numerous polls have confirmed that a significant number of Americans have doubts concerning the apparent birthplace of Obama.  CBS News reported on April 21, 2011 that only one in four Americans believe that Obama was born in the United States.

After abruptly "releasing" an elusive birth certificate on April 27, 2011 (previously pronounced to be non-existent) -- after more than three years of stonewalling -- doubts still remain.  Gallup reported that even after the infamous internet posting ceremony and sermon, those willing to say Obama was "definitely born in U.S." rose only nine percent, from 38 percent to 47 percent.

Recently, Public Policy Polling revealed that 51% of Republican primary voters have doubts over the venue of Obama's birth.

That's a sizable and entirely unnecessary problem.

Any doubt over presidential eligibility is unacceptable.  The American people shouldn't have to "believe" that Obama is constitutionally eligible. Trust is for gods; skepticism and verification is for politicians.

The recent development of the state ballot challenges represents the right of the people to remove the doubt.  Petitioners are demanding that evidence that meets the standard of courtroom admissibility, if it does exist, be produced to confirm Obama's eligibility.

If Obama is not willing to be completely transparent, then he should step down.  To the bewilderment of his sycophants, the cloud of skepticism hanging over Obama's head is commensurate to his unique background, not his skin color.  No one doubted the eligibility of Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton, or Herman Cain.

Doubt remains because, legally speaking, Obama hasn't "released" anything.  To meet a basic legal standard of evidentiary competence and admissibility, certified paper copies must be produced, and the original document in Hawaii must be made available for the states.

Rather than produce irrefutable evidence, Obama posted a "highly suspicious" image of a birth certificate on the internet.

Curiously (or maybe not so curiously), Obama refuses to produce certified copies and release the original for inspection and authentication.  As with the case of the Certification of Live Birth document that the Daily Kos somehow obtained and posted online in 2008, Obama originals are reportedly inspected by "credible people" behind closed doors at the discretion of Obama.

The first factor causing doubt could be resolved immediately by Obama, if he were to have a conversion to transparency -- or if he could be forced to produce.

The doubts caused by foreign parentage

The second factor will not be resolved until the High Court takes the question of whether Obama's legal status at birth made him a "natural born citizen."  Instead of hiring lawyers to summarily dismiss the early lawsuits (on technicalities) that claimed that Obama's non-U.S. citizen father makes him ineligible for the presidency, Obama should have welcomed a ruling by the Supreme Court.

A man with Obama's background who truly respected our Constitution would not have taken the oath of office without first having such doubts resolved one way or the other by the country's highest Court.

The Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett (1875) was cited in the recent Georgia ballot challenge hearing.  Many jurists agree that it provides the exclusive definition for the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause, which is a requirement for the presidency.

Unfortunately, Georgia's administrative law judge, Michael Malihi, missed the significance of Minor and removed not a shred of doubt concerning Obama.  The judge made reference to an inconsequential Indiana case, Ankeny v. Governor, in which the petitioners attempted to persuade the governor to determine Obama's eligibility.  In his decision, Malihi points to some misguided dicta from Ankeny and concludes that "a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth."

Judge Malihi avoided the substantive distinctions among a naturalized citizen, a native-born 14th-Amendment citizen, and the constitutional safeguard for the presidency: the requirement of natural born citizen status.

The Supreme Court in Minor was asked to decide whether the "privileges or immunities" of citizenship guarded by the 14th Amendment gave Virginia Minor the right to vote in spite of Missouri's male suffrage laws.

The Court ruled that Ms. Minor did not need the 14th Amendment for her citizenship (and that the right of citizenship never came with an automatic privilege of suffrage).  Minor's type of citizenship preceded the amendment passed (by Republicans over Democrat protest) to protect the former slaves.

The Court held that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen.  Though Missouri law denied her the vote, she could have become president.  She was born with a natural, undivided allegiance to the United States.

For legal thinkers of that day, citizenship was primarily about allegiance and protection.

The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. ... He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

The quote directly above is from Minor.  And Chief Justice Waite goes on to say:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, there is only one scenario which yields complete confidence.  No Supreme Court case declares anyone to be a natural born citizen whose allegiances were conflicting at birth.

"Some authorities go further," the Court notes, "and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."  Virginia Minor was born to U.S. citizen parents and had an unbroken chain of natural allegiance to the United States.  There were no doubts to solve.

To the class of Barack Obama, however, it is necessary "to solve these doubts" inasmuch as Obama holds the presidency and seeks another term.

In former times, there would have been doubts as to whether Obama would even be a citizen without a formal renouncing of foreign allegiance. But based on wayward interpretations of the 14th Amendment, if we believe Obama was Hawaii-born, we must conclude that he is at least a U.S. citizen -- regardless of his British/Kenyan allegiance at birth and his adoption in Islamic Indonesia.

But a 14th-Amendment citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen.  Contrary to 14th-Amendment jurisprudence, the requirement of sole allegiance to the United States from birth onward has never been stricken from the Constitution's eligibility clause.

The Constitution's presidential eligibility clause remains intact and unmolested by any controlling precedent.

An undisputed fact is that Obama was not born into the status of having a natural, undivided allegiance to the United States.

Unfortunately, concerning Obama and presidential eligibility, reasonable doubt does remain.  Doubts remain because of the unwarranted secrecy of Obama in guarding the ordinary records of his background.  And doubts will remain until the Supreme Court squares the Constitution's requirements with the facts of Obama's parentage and conflicting allegiances at birth.

Monte Kuligowski is a Virginia attorney.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_obama_ballot_challenges_a_crisis_of_confidence.html#ixzz1lvTBK7kt


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:22
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

Open Letter to the Honorable John G. Roberts  Jr.
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
Sir,                                                                                                                                           7 Feb. 2012
It has now been over three years since I last wrote you begging for the good of the Country the Court take on the Presidential Eligibility issue which continues to cause division and angry discourse among the Citizens. The opportunity has been before you multiple times and still you deny the American people a hearing on the Merits. Justice Thomas in a House subcommittee last year appears to have confirmed that the Court is intentionally “evading” this issue which indeed seems to be the case. If this is the case to what good end do you see this avoidance? I do not desire to cast aspersions but I am perplexed at the workings of the court seeming to hear and decide cases which, in the weight of importance, pale in comparison. I shake my head in disbelief. Rest assured I would not raise such questions as these and those I am about to if I had not heard Justice Thomas indicate you had taken a course of evasion.
I know as an experienced Physician an early diagnosis and treatment improves outcomes. Do you not think the same principle applies to the healing of our Nation? We are now headed rapidly into another general election with the question of the Framers intent relevant to Mr. Obama regarding the “Natural Born Citizen” clause hanging over us. To add significant weight to the situation we now have several Republican candidates for President being vetted with a parent born overseas.
We are divided on the issue and in need of resolution. I am now hearing  my fellow Citizens who support Mr. Obama begin to cry foul that those on the Right who challenge him on the eligibility issue “hunker down in silence” when it comes to the “Darlings of the Grand Ole Republican party”. Take for instance Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio who some have touted as excellent choices for Vice President or perhaps President in the future. I am convinced that NEITHER Mr. Rubio or Mr. Jindal meets the requirements under the definition of a Natural Born Citizen. I am NOT saying that either of them would NOT be a good President. This is NOT about political views as it is NOT with Mr. Obama. This is NOT about race as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum whose fathers are foreign born are also not immune. I am saying that the “cult of personality” or the partisan desire for power does not trump the rule of law for if it does we are NOT a Nation of laws but rather of men.
Those who accuse the Right of hypocrisy are absolutely justified to do so! They were right in 2008 when they questioned the eligibility of Senator John McCain only to have their concerns ignored and then “fixed” by Senate resolution 511 (interestingly supported by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama himself ) declaring McCain eligible. Is this how our system is intended to work? Issues of Constitutional import get “fixed” by Congressional Resolution? I think not. While Rome is burning it appears the system of “Good Ole Boy” and to not leave out the ladies “Good Ole Girl” cronyism has no problem reaching across the aisle when it comes to helping themselves. No wonder John McCain dared not broach the Obama eligibility issue as he was already beholding to Mr. Obama. No wonder the “Established Republicans” sit on their hands mute like guilty children paying penitence and do NOTHING but to ignore pleas from their own constituents to support the Constitution.  Shame on all of them; they are a National disgrace. How can they wonder why the public holds them in such low esteem? But I digress.
I am certain the court must be aware of the recent ballot challenge in Georgia in which the defendant Mr. Obama chose willfully to ignore the Court and not produce any documentation to support his claim that he is eligible to be on the ballot. It is obvious that the decision by Judge Malihi in favor of the defendant is fatally flawed as the defendant produced no documents, no sworn testimony and in fact the defendant produced absolutely nothing in defiance of a court order even though the burden of proof according to Georgia law resided with the defendant in the affirmative. This decision and Secretary of State Brian Kemps decision to uphold the ruling no doubt are going to appeal and there are other cases pending.  Does the court not think it wise to settle this issue urgently? Certainly the Court recognizes that the preservation of the integrity of the free election process we are approaching hangs in the balance. To this effect there are pressing questions that deserve immediate answers.
·         Is it your intent to continue “evading”, as Justice Thomas has implied, and deny application to hear this case leaving us divided with no clear answers going forward into the general election and beyond?
·          If you do plan to hear this before the general election exactly when do you intend to do so?
·         What if Mr. Obama indeed fails the eligibility test? Is it not reasoned the longer you wait the less chance the Democratic Party would have in fielding and vetting a qualified candidate? Would a delay into late spring or summer tip the balance and even decide the election for the Republicans? Can you imagine the outrage and rightful indignation of the Democrats should this occur? What about the Republican candidates? Permit me to suggest that it may be wise and prudent to settle this issue so that the Parties and the States can verify the Candidates on both sides meet the eligibility requirements without anymore delay.
·         Do you not consider this as an important issue?  Are you content to let the Constitution die a slow death by a thousand small cuts? Have you rendered yourselves irrelevant other than to determine the pace at which we dispose of it?
·         Do we still have a Constitutional Republic or is it an illusion? If it is lost do you not have a moral and ethical duty to inform the Soldiers who are  dying in an effort to defend it ?  The questions can go on and on ad infinitum.
In spite of the questions, I am not willing to accept that all we have fought for is gone. This for me is to think the unthinkable! So, perhaps the truth of why you are evading the issue is more straightforward. Might I be so bold as to state the obvious: your actions suggest that you are evading hearing this issue because you ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER and you are afraid of the social and political consequences of that decision. This has all the appearances that through the deliberate actions of some and the inaction of others, we have created in essence a colossal mess; a constitutional crisis of immense proportion that must be addressed before we have yet another botched election process.
I ask the court to forgive my lack of decorum if my letter is perceived as deficient for I am certain it is but I trust that you will accept that my intentions are honorable and I mean no disrespect to the Court; but I cannot hide my own frustration and fears and I wish to convey a sense of urgency and a desire to see that our Constitution is upheld. My argument to the Court is simple; the time to settle this case is NOW.  It goes without saying that any officers of the court that have a vested interest in this case should recluse  themselves; in particular those whose appointments would become null and void should Mr. Obama be proven to NOT be eligible and thus lack the legal authority to appoint them. The American People are watching. The World is watching. We the People deserve and demand answers.
This issue is not going away. A YouGov poll in January of 2012 shows a full 41% of Americans doubt the Obama birth narrative in spite of his releasing a “long form birth certificate”. What question before the court this very moment is more important than the determination the person holding the Office of President of the United States has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to hold that office? Certainly not Health Care for if Mr. Obama did not have the legal authority to sign it in the first place the law is VOID and your deliberations on the merits are worthless. In Minor V. Happersett did the court not determine the  citizenship status of Virginia Minor before moving forward and that she being born of parents who themselves are US citizens and being born in the United Sates was a “Natural Born Citizen”?  Given the myriad questions surrounding Mr. Obama and the doubts of the citizens Mr. Obama was even born here, should you not first establish as FACT that he has the authority to sign the Health Care Bill? What have you seen as tangible evidence that he does? A Birth Certificate on the Web or what he presented to the Georgia Court…absolutely NOTHING? Millions of people see the Emperor has no clothes; I trust you would not wish to put the court in such a humiliating position as the Emperor.
What I saw occur in Georgia this past few weeks is absolutely frightening and I myself am afraid. You must understand the concerns among the Citizens that we no longer have the rule of law are not completely unfounded. Who among us can willfully disregard a court order, not pay a penalty and then prevail in a Court of Law? If allowed to stand what precedent does this set? Is he really above the law? I saw Mr. Obama at the State of the Union address of 27 Jan. 2010 show a flagrant contempt for the Judiciary. What makes you so confident that he would even abide by your decision should you find him not eligible and willingly step down?  I have seen nothing to suggest he would. I hope I am wrong.
Our Constitution is precious. To me the words written on that parchment are more than just the ramblings of old men whose ideas have run their course. The words are a sacred promise, purchased with the precious blood and treasure of those who have come before, between the Government and the Citizens that we will NOT HAVE OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS INFRINGED UPON OR TAKEN FROM US EVER AGAIN. This promise, the covenant crafted from the laws of God and Nature requires for its survival an independent Judiciary, committed to the elucidation of truth, armed by the conviction of the human spirit humbled before our Creator, unafraid and undaunted to stand on the side of Justice regardless of the price.  If the Supreme Court “evades” our concerns who are we the citizens to look to for relief? The nature of man is corruptible and MUST be restrained by the rule of law. Our right to have a President that respects the law, does not hold himself above it , fulfills the Constitutional requirements to hold the office and who defends the Constitution it is implicit. As I did in January of 2009, I again plead with you to settle this issue of concern for the challenges we face as a Nation are many, the time is short and we must not fail.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dr. David Earl-Graef USAFR MC

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:23
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 06 de febrero de 2012

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/06-02-2012/120426-Georgia_Judge_Michael_Malihi-0/

Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

06.02.2012
 
Pages: 1 2 3
Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor. 46542.jpeg

Friday, February 3, 2012, for some kind of a bribe or because he was threatened, Georgia Judge Michael Malihi sold out his country and defecated on the constitution of The United States of America.

As an Administrative law judge in the State of Georgia, a case was presented to him to have Barack Obama removed from the ballot to run for President in the State of Georgia.

His actions have set precedence in American law that if a person is charged with a crime, the best defense, is to not show up for court. Law schools may now offer a course in "The Obama Defense".

Three separate legal teams presented evidence and witnesses to show that Obama is not eligible to run for President because he is not a natural born citizen. Obama produced no evidence, no witnesses and both he and his lawyer failed to show up for court in violation of a subpoena to do so.

Forget about what we think, whether he is, or is not a natural born citizen. Opinions don't count. Only evidence and witnesses count. But we're not dealing with rational minds in this case. We never have.

Judge Michael Malihi violated a basic rule of legal interpretation in his ruling. He violated our earliest Supreme Court ruling on how to interpret the Constitution. He ignored evidence. He ignored witnesses. He ignored earlier Supreme Court rulings establishing that the term "natural born citizen" means, one who is born in America to two American citizen parents.

The most telling sign that he was either bribed or threatened shows up in his own actions, of violating his own rulings, just four weeks apart, on the same case.

As attorney Leo Donofrio points out on his website:http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com     

"His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words "natural born Citizen". Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be "citizens". Malihi has added the words "natural born" into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi's own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held: "In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.' Because there is no other 'natural and reasonable construction' of the statutory language, this Court is 'not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.' "

In other words, he claimed one thing on January 3, 2012 and on February 3, 2012 he wrote the exact opposite. Why would any sane man do such a thing?

The question of Obama being eligible is a legal issue. It is also a political issue. Since America is not a "Nation of Laws" as the politicians hype. It is a Nation of Establishment. The Establishment, through their corrupted politicians make the rules and the rules change according to who they are for. And in politics, anywhere in the World, all through history, the three most effective tools are bribery, extortion and murder.

It is impossible to believe, that Judge Michael Malihi, himself, believed, he was following the constitution and legal precedent. He knows he's a crook. He knows he's a liar. He knows, that in his ancestral home country, that unlike America, he would have his head chopped off for what he did.

He ignored the Constitution and at least three US Supreme Court rulings, defining Natural born citizen as one who is born in America to two citizen parents. He ignored the Law of Nations, that the founders of this country used to draft our constitution. He ignored the countless letters, written back and forth by our founders, defining natural born citizen and their reasons for why they would only accept a natural born citizen as their President.

IT IS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT A SPINELESS, COWARDLY, TRAITOROUS, SATANIC SNAKE IN THE GRASS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY TELLING US HOW TO LIVE!

The lawyers asking to keep Obama off the ballot presented evidence and witnesses. Obama showed nothing. Didn't even come. Ignored a court order. And Judge Micahel Malihi ruled in the criminal's favor.

Imagine a boy comes to his father and says his brother hit him. He has no bruises and no witnesses. The father confronts the brother, who proves that he was in school at the time. Friends and teachers vouch for his attendence and show the father a picture of him in class. The father punishes him anyway and takes the lying brother out for ice cream and toy shopping.

Judge Michael Malihi cited cases that have absolutley nothing to do with the subject matter and he totally disregarded any evidence or witnesses.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo thoroughly trashes this corrupt judge's decision on his website:http://puzo1.blogspot.com

"But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to "consider[]" that Obama was born in the United States.

The judge "considered" that Obama was born in the United States. What does "considered" mean?

Pages: 1   2   3

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:58
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/02/georgia-judge-michael-malihi-is.html

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2012

Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

06.02.2012 19:03
Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor. 46542.jpeg
Friday, February 3, 2012, for some kind of a bribe or because he was threatened, Georgia Judge Michael Malihi sold out his country and defecated on the constitution of The United States of America.
As an Administrative law judge in the State of Georgia, a case was presented to him to have Barack Obama removed from the ballot to run for President in the State of Georgia.
His actions have set precedence in American law that if a person is charged with a crime, the best defense, is to not show up for court. Law schools may now offer a course in "The Obama Defense".
Three separate legal teams presented evidence and witnesses to show that Obama is not eligible to run for President because he is not a natural born citizen. Obama produced no evidence, no witnesses and both he and his lawyer failed to show up for court in violation of a subpoena to do so.
Forget about what we think, whether he is, or is not a natural born citizen. Opinions don't count. Only evidence and witnesses count. But we're not dealing with rational minds in this case. We never have.
Judge Michael Malihi violated a basic rule of legal interpretation in his ruling. He violated our earliest Supreme Court ruling on how to interpret the Constitution. He ignored evidence. He ignored witnesses. He ignored earlier Supreme Court rulings establishing that the term "natural born citizen" means, one who is born in America to two American citizen parents.
The most telling sign that he was either bribed or threatened shows up in his own actions, of violating his own rulings, just four weeks apart, on the same case.
As attorney Leo Donofrio points out on his website: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com     
"His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words "natural born Citizen". Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be "citizens". Malihi has added the words "natural born" into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi's own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held: "In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.' Because there is no other 'natural and reasonable construction' of the statutory language, this Court is 'not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.' "
In other words, he claimed one thing on January 3, 2012 and on February 3, 2012 he wrote the exact opposite. Why would any sane man do such a thing?
The question of Obama being eligible is a legal issue. It is also a political issue. Since America is not a "Nation of Laws" as the politicians hype. It is a Nation of Establishment. The Establishment, through their corrupted politicians make the rules and the rules change according to who they are for. And in politics, anywhere in the World, all through history, the three most effective tools are bribery, extortion and murder.
It is impossible to believe, that Judge Michael Malihi, himself, believed, he was following the constitution and legal precedent. He knows he's a crook. He knows he's a liar. He knows, that in his ancestral home country, that unlike America, he would have his head chopped off for what he did.
He ignored the Constitution and at least three US Supreme Court rulings, defining Natural born citizen as one who is born in America to two citizen parents. He ignored the Law of Nations, that the founders of this country used to draft our constitution. He ignored the countless letters, written back and forth by our founders, defining natural born citizen and their reasons for why they would only accept a natural born citizen as their President.
IT IS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT A SPINELESS, COWARDLY, TRAITOROUS, SATANIC SNAKE IN THE GRASS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY TELLING US HOW TO LIVE!
The lawyers asking to keep Obama off the ballot presented evidence and witnesses. Obama showed nothing. Didn't even come. Ignored a court order. And Judge Micahel Malihi ruled in the criminal's favor.
Imagine a boy comes to his father and says his brother hit him. He has no bruises and no witnesses. The father confronts the brother, who proves that he was in school at the time. Friends and teachers vouch for his attendence and show the father a picture of him in class. The father punishes him anyway and takes the lying brother out for ice cream and toy shopping.
Judge Michael Malihi cited cases that have absolutley nothing to do with the subject matter and he totally disregarded any evidence or witnesses.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo thoroughly trashes this corrupt judge's decision on his website: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
"But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to "consider[]" that Obama was born in the United States.
The judge "considered" that Obama was born in the United States. What does "considered" mean?
Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word "considered" is a cop out from actually addressing the issue.
Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama's place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs' documents introduced into evidence were "of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff's allegations."
Surely, the court did not use those "insufficient" documents as evidence of Obama's place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could).
The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone's place of birth.
Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none."
Mario Apuzzo continues with well documented legal facts: "Presidential eligibility is a national issue. Under our Constitution, like the States do not have power to naturalize citizens, they also do not have power to change, add, or diminish the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen."
The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) already has told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a "natural born Citizen."  In fact, there was absolutely no evidence before the court [Malihi] that Obama was born in Hawaii. And as we have seen, there was also absolutely no evidence before Judge Malihi showing the Obama was born in the United States.
The court never addressed the question of whether he was born in Hawaii. No evidence was presented to the court whether he was "born within the borders of the United States." The court never even examined that issue.
Hence, its statement that "persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents" does not prove that Obama was, in fact, born within the borders of the United States" and that he is therefore a "natural born Citizen."
I would like to interrupt at this point, but Mr. Apuzzo is on a roll,
"Judge Malihi has not made any findings of fact concerning the question of where Obama was born.
Obama the candidate wants to be President again. Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, Obama has the burden of proof to conclusively prove that he is a "natural born Citizen." As part of that burden, he has to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States.
Neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing to present any evidence on the issue.
Judge Malihi found the plaintiffs' documentary evidence to be insufficient for whatever purposes it could have been used. Nor did he find that that evidence, which includes a paper copy of the computer scan of Obama's alleged long form birth certificate, to be sufficient to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
We can see from the exact words used by Judge Malihi that Obama has failed to carry his burden to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States.
Judge Malihi said that he "considered" that Obama was born in the United States. We do not know what this means and it appears that Judge Malihi attempts to avoid the issue of whether he found that Obama was born in the United States.
Clearly, "considered" does not mean "found".
Since Obama failed to carry his burden of proof as to his place of birth and Judge Malihi's decision actually confirms that fact, the Georgia Secretary of State should reject Judge Malihi's decision and rule on his own that Obama not be placed on the primary ballot.
Finally, Judge Malihi incorrectly reads [the case of] Wong Kim Ark and gives controlling effect to that incorrect reading.
The time-honored American common law definition of the clause is a child born in the country to citizen parents.
There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited his father's British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948.
All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot."
Mr. Apuzzo's brief biography: Listed in Who's Who Among Students in American Universities and Colleges, 1978-1979. Graduated from: Wilkes University, B.A.; Temple University, J.D. Named: Outstanding Senior Scholar Athlete, Wilkes College, 1978-1979; Businessman of the Year, Italian American Police Society of New Jersey, 1996; Outstanding American of Italian Descent, Meritorious Achievement, Italian Tribune News, 1996. Pro-Bono Counsel for: National Police Defense Foundation, New Jersey, 1996-; Order Sons of Italy in America-New Jersey, 1994-.
Now I can intrude again.
Judge Michael Malihi issued his decision late in the day on a Friday. By doing this, he effectively isolates himself from any criticism, until Monday morning. Come Monday, I am sure that he will be hiding behind the skirts of his office staff.
He is not ignorant of what he has done. He turned his back on all that we cherish for a few bucks or because he is scared to death of whoever made him "an offer he can't refuse".
This weasel of a man betrayed his country, reneged on his oath of office, insulted the dignity of his profession, corrupted the legal system and by his conscious act of disloyalty to his associates, he has subjected them all to scorn and ridicule. If any of his co-workers have a conscience, they would hang their heads in shame and be embarrassed to frequent any of the businesses where they eat and shop.
Merchants in Atlanta should refuse to serve them. Businesses should refuse to sell them food, gasoline, clothes and should especially not sell them any tools of their trade such as pens, paper, computers or printers.
In his well thought out plans, setting his signature to that decision is nothing less than admitted treason.
Here is an interesting investigation into Judge Michael Malihi. NOTHING. Just like the man he broke his oath for, he is an invisible shadow. He has no history.http://intangiblesoul.wordpress.com
In the interest of public safety I would like to request of all who are aware of this stinking rotten judge's actions, to please refrain from mugging the low down lying cockroach, throwing rocks at this dog's house, slapping this treasonous corrupt scoundrel's children, spitting on this disgusting animal's wife, to just go directly to the whorse's mouth. Give him a call or stop in to see him, for a polite civilized discussion, on why he chose to turn his back on the country that provided the means for him to be in the position he is in.
I am sure that he would want to hear from the people who pay his salary, who put food in his family's stomachs and puts clothes on their backs. Naturally, he would want to thank you personally.
For conversing, socializing, bonding with his neighbors and undermining the American legal system, he lists his address as: 230 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 850, Atlanta, Georgia USA 30303 or feel free to call him. You pay for his office:            404-651-7595       or, people always love a good fax 404-818-3751
Why not? He faxed us good.
Mark S. McGrew can be reached at McGrewMX@aol.com. More of his articles, published on over 900 websites, in 28 countries, in 8 languages, are onwww.MarkSMcGrew.com . When reprinting this article, please include a link to the free press of www.english.pravda.ru And a special thanks to Pravda's English editor, Dmitry Sudakov

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:17
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 04 de febrero de 2012

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-rat-called-tandem/

A Rat Called Tandem.

[UPDATED: 2:12 PM - Cindy Simpson's top headline article at American Thinker is also a must read. Excellent analysis as usual.]

What happened in Georgia is what we refer to in poker as, “playing to a script”. It’s like something out of a Frank Capra movie. The citizens head to court to fix a Constitutional wrong, and the State court appearsto be tough on the feds, standing up to them bravely flexing their muscles in the name of their citizens. Nice script. But it’s so very transparent.

Everyone needs to read Mario Apuzzo’s in-depth exposure of the blatant flaws in Judge Malihi’s holding, wherein you will experience a brilliant researcher exposing a truly defective legal opinion.

I only have a little bit to add. My remarks will be brief, and focused upon Judge Malihi’s sad failure to address the issue of statutory construction, which I explained thoroughly in my last reportThe Dirty “little” Secret of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.

But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction isinadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:

“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States,365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902). 

The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198(1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.

Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:

“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ” (Emphasis added.)

Yeah, dude. Whatevah. Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just two weeks ago he said that was forbidden.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:11
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_wins_georgia_ballot_challenge.html

February 4, 2012

Obama Wins Georgia Ballot Challenge

By Cindy Simpson

President Obama's name should appear on Georgia's 2012 presidential ballot, in the official opinion of Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia's Office of State Administrative Hearings (OSAH), issued on February 3.  Judge Malihi's decision is the result of hearings held January 26 on three separate actions brought by several Georgia residents. Under Georgia law, Secretary of State Brian Kemp had referred the challenges, filed last November, to the OSAH for a recommendation. 

An earlier American Thinker article on the ballot challenges noted the absence of Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, from the hearings. Judge Malihi took note of the failure to participate in the opening page of his decision:

Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against the party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding...Nonetheless, despite the Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence.  The Court granted Plaintiff's request.

Based on the pre-hearing conference with the Judge, the plaintiffs expected an outcome of at least such a default judgment, and hoped that a ruling in their favor, based on the merits, was possible.

Two of the challenges, represented by attorney Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation and Georgia Rep. J. Mark Hatfield, did not focus on Obama's place of birth or the infamous birth certificate.  Rather, Irion and Hatfield contended that Obama, with his non-US citizen father, is not a "natural born" citizen according to the rule of statutory construction in the interpretation of the Constitution and existing Supreme Court precedent.  (Further explanation of those assertions is contained in a comprehensive amicus brief submitted to the court, prepared by attorney Leo Donofrio.) The third challenge, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, also addressed the validity of Obama's posted birth certificate and social security number.

Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, in his motion to dismiss the challenges, argued that the state had no authority to interfere in national elections. However, Judge Malihi, in his denial to Jablonski's motion noted that Georgia law specifically requires that "[e]very candidate...shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought" and that "[b]oth the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate."

Judge Malihi's denial to the motion to dismiss also emphasized the rule of statutory construction: 

Statutory provisions must be read as they are written...When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, "the first step...is to examine the plain statutory language."..."Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden." ... [T]his Court is not "authorized either to read into or read out that which would add to or change its meaning."

In his sweeping denial of the Plaintiff's challenges, however, Judge Malihi did not mention the principle, and instead relied on the 2009 case of Ankeny v Governor, stating that "[t]he Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth."

Interestingly, Judge Malihi footnoted that particular statement with the assertion:  "This Court recognizes that the Wong Kim Ark case was not deciding the meaning of 'natural born citizen' for the purposes of determining presidential qualifications; however, this Court finds the Indiana Court's analysis and reliance on these cases to be persuasive."

It must also be noted that the Indiana decision contains another similar and interesting footnote:  "We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a 'natural born Citizen' using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial."

In other words, Judge Malihi found more persuasive than the long-established principle of statutory construction, a State's Court of Appeals opinion and its unsupported contention that the Constitution's language "is immaterial."

In the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court determined that Ark, born to non-citizen Chinese parents permanently and legally domiciled in the U.S., was a citizen (though it did not describe him as a "natural born" citizen). In its actual historical context, however, Ark's situation was governed by a treaty in effect between the U.S. and China -- a treaty that originally recognized the transfer of allegiance of Chinese making their permanent homes in America, but, as later amended, also prevented Ark's parents from ever naturalizing as U.S. citizens.  In fact, as Donofrio explains, unlike other native-born children of alien parents of other nationalities, Ark was not born with the dual allegiance (i.e. dual citizenship) that many experts contend the 14th amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" language was meant to prevent.

And according to the principle of statutory construction, the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would not be superfluous to the preceding phrase in the amendment's citizenship clause: "born or naturalized in the United States."

It was Obama's dual citizenship, the result of his having a non-citizen father temporarily resident in the U.S., that the plaintiffs in the Georgia challenges asserted precluded his "natural born" eligibility. Obama may have been born in the country, but he was not born completely subject to its jurisdiction, or in the words of one of the framers of the 14th amendment, "not owing allegiance to anybody else."

As to the specific claims in Taitz's challenge, the Judge found that "the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff's allegations."

Both Irion and Hatfield had also asked the court to recommend a finding of contempt for Obama's failure to appear in the proceedings.  Judge Malihi did not agree, and in his decision merely wrote:  "By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski."

Georgia represents 16 electoral votes, which Obama lost in 2008 with 47%, so an Obama win in the state was not expected, even though now he is assured of having his name included on the ballot. However, the eligibility issue is still a major concern to many citizens, and "is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois," as reported by WND. 

The rest of the mainstream media, though, seemed to have gone on total blackout the last couple of weeks, neglecting to report on either the quite extraordinary subject matter of the Georgia hearings or the failure of Obama and his defense team to respectfully respond and appear in court. 

Whatever one's opinions on the constitutional definition of "natural born citizen," the arrogance exhibited by this president and his defense attorney to the judiciary of a state, and the abject lack of reporting by the major networks and mainstream media, should trouble every citizen in the nation.

More remarkably, such behavior, especially when viewed as part of a disturbing pattern throughout this administration, should be of grave concern to members of Congress.

And the fact that Judge Malihi took note of and relied upon on the established rule of statutory construction in his earlier order, but then made assertions contrary to that principle in his final decision, should not go unnoticed by those versed in constitutional law

Opponents of the controversial birthright citizenship practice should also take note, since Judge Malihi's opinion further entrenches the notion that every baby born on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship or domicile of its parents (presumably even an "anchor baby" or "birth tourist" baby) is a "natural born" citizen.  So would have been Anwar al-Awlaki.

I wonder if the founders of the Constitution, the framers of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court in the case of Wong Kim Ark, ever imagined that such an idea would be considered the rule of law.  The mainstream media calls those who dare to argue otherwise "crazy" and "racist" "birthers."

Obama may have won the Georgia ballot challenge,


but the rule of law and the Constitution suffered a


crippling blow. 




Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_wins_georgia_ballot_challenge.html#ixzz1lQXmti1m


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:26
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html

Friday, February 3, 2012

All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”


All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President 
                                                         Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”


                                                               By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                   February 3, 2012

Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html .  I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law. 

The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” 

But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none. 

The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.” 

The court says that Ankeny is persuasive. The court does not show us why Ankeny is persuasive other than to just provide some quotations from the decision. On the contrary, upon close analysis, we can see that Ankeny is far from persuasive on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The court’s decision can only be as sound as the Ankeny decision may be. But an analysis of that decision shows that it was incorrectly decided as to its definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” 
                                                                                               MORE                                        MORE                                                                                   


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:15
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 03 de febrero de 2012

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html

Friday, February 3, 2012

Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen


Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs:
Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen

We just spoke with plaintiff Kevin Powell and he reports Judge Malihi has ruled against the Plaintiffs and stated in his order that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore Obama is a natural born Citizen.

Updates and Judge Malihi's order will be provided shortly....

UPDATE: Judge Malihi's Order now posted below...... 

UPDATE: Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate

A state administrative law judge on Friday flatly rejected challenges seeking to keep President Barack Obama from being a candidate in next month's Georgia primary.

In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has maintained a Hawaiian birth certificate that is a computer-generated forgery, has a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is not a natural born citizen.

Last month, Malihi heard testimony and took evidence in a hearing boycotted by Obama's lawyer.

With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification documents, Malihi said he found the testimony presented by lawyers of the so-called "birther" movement and their evidence "to be of little, if any, probative value and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs' allegations."

A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation, Malihi wrote. "None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony," he wrote.

MORE HERE: http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/judge-obama-eligible-to-1330300.html

Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.

Please visit www.Article2LegalDefenseFund.com and consider making a secure donation to help cover legal costs associated with this GA ballot challenge.

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Farrar/Welden/Swensson/Powell v Obama - Judge Malihi Final Decision - Georgia Ballot Challenge - 2/3/2012 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama - Judge Malihi Final Decision - Georgia Ballot Challenge - 2/3/2012 Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:21
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 01 de febrero de 2012

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/cite-obama-with-contempt-lawyers-urge-judge/

WND EXCLUSIVE

CITE OBAMA WITH CONTEMPT, LAWYERS URGE

Refusal to follow subpoena 'no less than declaration of total dictatorial authority'

Published: 16 mins ago

A Georgia resident contending Barack Obama is ineligible for the state’s 2012 presidential election ballot is asking that a court cite him with contempt.

In a motion filed in the case pending before Georgia Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi, attorney Van Irion, representing David P. Weldon, urged the court not to overlook the fact that Obama had been subpoenaed for last week’s hearing. Obama’s attorney, he pointed out, acknowledged the subpoena by asking that it be quashed. But when the judge refused his request, he  but told a state elections official he would not participate.

“Plaintiff Weldon moves this court to refer an order for contempt to the Superior Court for confirmation that defendant Obama is in contempt of court,” the motions says. “Grounds for this motion are that defendant Obama willfully defied this court’s order to appear and testify during this court’s hearing of January 26.”

The motion explains that when Malihi refused to quash the subpoena, Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, “requested that the Secretary of State [Brian Kemp] halt the proceedings. … The letter ended with a statement that the defendant and his attorney would suspend all further participation in the proceedings of this court pending response.”

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

But after Kemp confirmed later that day that the hearing would continue and said that failing to participate “would be at the defendant’s peril,” Obama and his lawyer still refused to attend.

The letter from Obama’s lawyer to the state official, “coupled with the defendant’s willful refusal to comply with an order of this court, represent a direct threat to the rule of law,” the motion says. “The … actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers.”

Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is “unprecedented,” Irion writes. “While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch. … In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate. … When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.”

Obama’s action, he says, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”

Irion, representing Weldon, and several other attorneys argued before Malihi last week to have Obama’s name stricken from the Georgia state ballot.

The hearing was held on concerns raised by citizens of Georgia under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state’s ballot. It is the states that run elections in the U.S., and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections.

The 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.”

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, the judge determined.

Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

The controversy over Obama’s eligibility dates to before his election in 2008. Some contend he was not born in Hawaii and that the birth documentation the White House released in April is a forgery.

Others say it doesn’t matter where he was born, as his father never was a U.S. citizen.

The Constitution requires presidents to be “natural-born citizens,” and experts say that the Founders regarded it as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

Jablonski had asked Malihi to quash the subpoena, requested by Taitz. When the judge refused, Jablonski wrote to Kemp.

The attorney told Kemp that “serious problems” had developed in the hearings “pending before the Office of State Administration Hearings.”

Jablonski said, “At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements.”

He said the judge had “exercised no control” over the proceeding.

“It threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the state and your office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the president in his capacity as a candidate,” Jablonski wrote.

Kemp said the hearing, however, was in line with Georgia law, and he would be reviewing Malihi’s recommendations in the case.

He also had a warning about the cost of not showing up for a court hearing.

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. The argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

In an extensive proposal regarding what the judge’s determination should include, Irion wrote that because of Obama’s failure to meet the understood meaning of “natural born citizen,” and the fact he “presented no argument on the substance of the issue at hand,” he should be determined to be ineligible.

Irion’s proposal said Obama should have had the entire burden of proof in the case, because “the Supreme Court of Georgia has clearly established that it is the affirmative obligation of a candidate to establish his qualifications for office, and that the burden is not upon the challenger.”

His suggestions said while the Democratic Party of Georgia has a right to determine its membership, that right coexists with the state’s right to govern.

“The party is free to submit any name as their next presidential candidate. However, Georgia is not required to accept such submissions and waste taxpayer money on ballots where such candidates are clearly not qualified to hold the office sought.”

He also pointed out that voters do not have the authority to waive constitutional requirements.

“Constitutionally protected rights are held inviolate regardless of the majority’s desire to violate them. Without such protections, any law could be enacted simply because it becomes popular. …. Congress could legalize the killing of all Jews, for example, as was done in World War II Germany. Constitutional requirements are absolute, and must be followed regardless of how popular or unpopular such requirements may be.

“Defendant’s presumption that popular vote overrides the Constitution runs contrary to the Constitution.”

In Taitz’ proposal to the judge, she raised concerns about elections fraud, evidence of forgery in the birth certificate image, Social Security fraud and the use of multiple last names

“Plaintiffs assert that based on law and fact, Obama is not eligible to be on the ballot in the state of Georgia as a presidential candidate and such finding should be forwarded to the secretary of state of Georgia,” she wrote.

She said the contempt “exhibited by the defendant … is so egregious that it warrants forwarding of the evidence and findings … to the attorney general of Georgia for criminal prosecution.”

“It is common knowledge and described at length in defendant Obama’s memoirs, such as ‘Dreams from my Father,’ that Obama’s father was a foreigner. Obama senior was a foreign exchange student who resided in the U.S. for a couple of years while he got his education and he returned to his native Kenya. At the time of Obama’s birth, his father, who came from Mombasa, Zanzibar region of Kenya, was a British ‘protected person’. Obama automatically inherited his father’s British citizenship upon the British Nationality act of 1948. Upon the declaration of the independence of Kenya on December 11, 1963, Barack Obama automatically received his Kenyan citizenship on December 12, 1963.”


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:53
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BREAKING PROOF! OBAMA BORN IN KENYA - Long Form

BC A FRAUD?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:26
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/will-law-and-order-prevail/

Will Law and Order Prevail?

 ©Bridgette @WTPOTUS 2012

The Verdict is Still Out !

Today, Orly Taitz  released a  transcript of the  lawsuit,  Farrar v Obama, as well as 208 pages of cumulative evidence that were presented to  Judge Malihi in the hearing last Thursday, January 26, 2012.   Witness  affidavits and their supporting documentation are also included as evidence.   The hearing was video recorded and can be viewed.   All of this information is now on record.

It is also on record that Barack Obama did not appear in court nor did his attorney.    According to Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski,  and his client, Barack Hussein Obama, they didn’t want to.  In words written in their  Motion to Quash, the attorney for Obama, said plainly that Obama was elected in 2008 so he doesn’t have to prove his eligibility!   He had other things to do such as campaign fund-raising for the job of president.   By not appearing, he and his attorney chose to show contempt for Georgia’s election laws, Georgia’s judge, our judicial system, and our nation’s Rule of Law.    The person calling himself president of the United States believes he is above the law in this country, and his absence proved his belief beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Perhaps you will  remember that both former Presidents Nixon and Clinton were called to testify in court for different reasons, but they did show up.   This con man did not.

Suspicions about Obama are greater now that he poked his finger in the eyes of the nation.   The self anointed one  has finally exposed himself in court by his absence.  There can be no denial of the facts.  The man was not eligible to run for office, the Democratic Party filed false documents stating he was a natural born citizen, the media has covered for him, as have our elected senators and representatives.

The man of  multiple identities and multiple fake documents  usurped the office of our nation by not only presenting a forged birth certificate, but by taking the office knowing full well he was not a natural born citizen.  There is no mistake here.  Do you really think he was a constitutional lawyer who didn’t understand what Article II, Section 1 meant?

In 2003, Democrats in  Congress  unsuccessfully tried to change the presidential requirements at least 8 times within a time span of 22 months.   They were trying to change the natural born citizen requirement or eliminate it altogether.   Congressmen that heard those arguments are still “serving” the people, so they are fully aware of the definition and presidential requirements.  Do you think they didn’t know Obama  was ineligible?  Did they rely on the lies from the Congressional Records Office memos for their misinformation they used in their form letters to complaining constituents?

Obama refused to submit an authentic document for examination.  This should be easily provable by merely showing up with the same document that was waved at the press corp and put on the government website.    He didn’t because he couldn’t.   His cover was already blown.   His release of his birth document doesn’t match what the DOH said they had.   Fraud is indicated in just knowing that the real one was  partially hand-written.  The evidence proving his birth certificate presented to the people via a government website was a forgery was submitted to the judge.

Another attorney, Van Irion,  in another lawsuit, presented arguments proving Obama was not and is not eligible to serve as president because he is not a natural born citizen.   The Supreme Court ruling of Minor v Happersett was explained in historical context.  “The court should recognize that the term ‘citizen’ is not ‘natural born citizen,’ “  Irion explained.  “The Minor court’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ says ‘parents.’”   They then showed documents that Barack Obama’s father was an alien according to his immigration records and from passages in Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father.  This information was presented to the court on the same day in the same courtroom with the same judge.

Witnesses provided additional testimony and evidence:  Obama didn’t pass the government’s E-verify system; he lied to the Illinois State bar when applying for a law license when they asked if he was known by any other name;  he and Michelle have more than one social security number;  Obama uses a social security number assigned to a person born in 1890; the birth certificate online was a computer generated forgery;  and he used the fraudulent social security number on his tax forms.

If that isn’t enough to absorb, do read the evidence file that  includes documents from the investigators database showing the unusual name of Barack Obama and the addresses he has used.  There are not 3 or 4 addresses, there are pages of them listed all over the country.   What are the Obama’s up to anyway?  Whatever it is,  it isn’t legal.

Evidence points to multiple acts of fraud and deceit, questions over his legal name, identity theft, social security theft,  and  multiple citizenships.    This is incredible, isn’t it?  This is the man who is sitting in the People’s House under worse than false pretenses.   Yet Congress has done nothing.  The people yell and scream.  The media are silent.  The people send thousands of letters to Congress, to the FBI, to sheriff’s, they plead, they demand.  Nothing.

Well now,  perhaps there is a real judge that believes in the Constitution and lives by it.   Even better, there will be a judgment that can prevent this con man from being on their states presidential ballot.    Better than that, perhaps this information will give others the courage to stand up for our country,  and put those that perpetrated this fraud in the place they belong.  Jail.

Following is  Orly’s  summarized list of evidence that was presented to the judge and that is now in the record. The documents submitted are available for you to peruse here.    If you have followed this Obama drama for the last three years, you will recognize many of the exhibits presented as evidence.

1. Affidavit and testimony of Chris Strunk in regards to Obama’s use of the name Soebarkah.

2. Affidavit and testimony by Linda Jordan that the Social Security number 042-68-4425 used by Obama does not pass the governments E-verify.

3. Affidavit and testimony by licensed detective Susan Daniels,showing that the SSN used by Obama was issued to another individual, who was born in 1890 and who resided in CT in 1977.

4. Affidavit and testimony by Felicito Papa, Information Technology expert, who showed that Obama’s alleged birth certificate on-line, is a computer generated forgery.  He also showed evidence that on Obama’s tax returns in 2009 he used the same SSN 042-68-4425, which was never assigned to him.

5. Affidavit and testimony by scanning and typesetting expert,Douglas Vogt, that Obama’s alleged birth certificate     on-line is a computer generated forgery and not a scan of a single document.

6. Affidavit and testimony of retired deportation officer, John Sampson, testifying to evidence of fraud in Obama’s birth certificate and social security number, as well as evidence that Obama possibly immigrated to US together with his stepfather Lolo Soetoro.   Mr. Sampson testified, that in cases like this he would seek a warrant for an arrest and deportation.

7.  My [Orly's] own testimony, that I downloaded Obama’s law license application from on-line records, which showed him committing perjury and fraud and hiding his prior last names Soetoro and Soebarkah.  I testified, that after I complained to IL bar, Obama changed his record from inactive to not eligible to practice law. I presented it to the judge to show a modus operandi. When I filed a complaint with the Illinois bar, Obama chose to forfeit his law license based on an expensive Harvard degree in order to hide his identity.

Now, when I served Obama with a subpoena to appear in court and provide certified copies of his long form birth certificate, redacted application for the Social Security card, immigration and naturalization records, Obama chose not to appear in court.  He forfeited the whole state of GA with millions of votes, 17 electoral votes and possibly 4 more years of presidency, if other states  follow GA.   He did it to hide his identity under the last names Soetoro and Soebarkah and hide evidence of Social Security fraud and forgery.

#######

The evidence is no longer suppressed.  Send the details out to your friends.  Let them read the witnesses testimonies.  If there is any decency left in the media journalists, they will start reporting.  Okay, okay, so we won’t count on it!  But the voters out number those media jokers…remember that!

We are now waiting for the judge’s decision and that of  Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp.    The nation’s fate is squarely on their shoulders.    May they be protected from the Obama thugs and their known tactics of fear,  intimidation and threats.   May God guide them in their decisions.

May this be the Calm Before the Storm!

UPDATE #1 

H/T Charlene

Below are URL’s to the 8 Attempts by the Democrats to change the Constitutional requirement of NBC for President.

Pastor Carl Gallups
LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE
http://thepatriotsnews.com/indx.php/content/163

LIVE LINKS TO EACH HJR and SENATE RESOLUTION
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res59:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res67:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S2128:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res104:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.RES.2:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res15:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res42:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S2678:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.RES.511:


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:56
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/green-light-to-see-obamas-hawaii-files/

WND EXCLUSIVE

'GREEN LIGHT' TO SEE OBAMA'S HAWAII FILES

'When somebody submits a copy … the other party has a right to examine the original'

Published: 16 hours ago

An attorney who presented evidence to a Georgia judge last week on Barack Obama’s eligibility for the state’s 2012 presidential ballot believes she now has a right to demand to see his original Hawaii documents.

Obama last April released what he said was a copy of his original Hawaii birth documentation, but a number of imaging, document and computer experts contend it is a fraud.

The original birth documentation could undermine Obama’s claim to be a “natural-born citizen,” as the Constitution requires. Many of his critics, however, say the birth documentation doesn’t matter, because Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen. The Founders likely understood “natural-born citizen” to mean the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

Now California attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought a number of major legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility in various courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court, has told WND that when Obama and his lawyer wrote a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp last week refusing to attend the hearing on Obama’s eligibility status, they included a copy of the image that the White House released last April.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

They also sent a copy to the court of Judge Michael Malihi, the hearing officer, whose ruling is expected to be made available in the next few days.

That act, Taitz explained, effectively gave the court a copy of the White House documentation, and under ordinary rules of evidence the opposing side is supposed to have access to the original to verify the authenticity of the purported copy.

“They submitted a copy and said this is a copy of the original birth certificate. Now the other party has a right to examine the original,” she said.

Her next step was to ask Malihi for a letter to the courts in Hawaii seeking a subpoena for the records. When the judge responded that the issue probably was outside his jurisdiction as an administrative law judge, she received permission to take her request to the Fulton County Superior Court.

An email Taitz posted online showed the court in Georgia carried permission from Malihi to “feel free to petition the Superior Court, if you so choose.”

The birth-certificate issue has plagued Obama since before the 2008 election. When concerns arose about his eligibility, his campaign posted online an image of an abbreviated birth record called a “Certification of Live Birth.”

At the time, his campaign stated that it was the only document available from the state of Hawaii documenting births, even though other people were able to obtain a long-form document.

It was when the first hardcover edition of Where’s the Birth Certificate?” by Jerome Corsi was about to be released that Obama dispatched one of his private attorneys to Hawaii to fetch another document image, this time a long-form “Certificate of Live Birth.”

Many experts then concluded it likely was a computer-generated document and not a copy of an original 1961 document.

Taitz told WND that her request to the Superior Court will be to ask the Hawaii court system to issue a subpoena for the original documentation so she can examine it and compare it to the White House representation.

“I have a green light to proceed,” she said.

The image of the latest release from the White House:

She explained that the image was sent to Kemp and the judge at the time the attorney for Obama, Michael Jablonski, told Kemp he should simply cancel the hearing, because the president would not participate.

Jablonski told Kemp that “serious problems” had developed in the hearings “pending before the Office of State Administration Hearings.”

He said, “At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements.”

Jablonski said the judge – who previously rejected Obama’s demand to quash a subpoena for him to appear and bring with him his birth records documenting his status as a “natural-born citizen” – has “exercised no control” over the proceeding.

“It threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the state and your office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the president in his capacity as a candidate,” Jablonski wrote.

In a response posted online, Kemp told Jablonski the case referral and hearing was “in keeping with Georgia law.”

“As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.”

He continued, “I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.”

He also had a warning about the costs of not showing up for a court hearing.

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

But Jablonski said, “We will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.”

The hearing was held on concerns raised by citizens of Georgia under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state’s ballot. It is the states that run elections in the U.S., and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections.

The 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.”

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, the judge determined.

Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation;and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:32
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar