El Usurpador , The Usurper

The Obama Ballot Challenges: A Crisis of Confidence

Corazon7 — 2012-02-09T17:22:09+01:00

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

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 14^th-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 14^th 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 14^th 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 14^th 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 14^th-Amendment citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen. Contrary to 14^th-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.

Email Friend | Print Article | 18 Comments | Share

Open Letter to the Honorable John G. Roberts Jr.

Corazon7 — 2012-02-09T12:23:59+01:00

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

Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

Corazon7 — 2012-02-06T14:58:08+01:00

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

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.

Share

Print version
Font Size
Send to friend

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

Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

Corazon7 — 2012-02-06T12:17:35+01:00

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2012

Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

06.02.2012 19:03

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".

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

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?

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

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

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

What happened in Georgia is what we refer to in poker as, “playing to a script”.

Corazon7 — 2012-02-04T22:11:12+01:00

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 report, The 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.

Obama may have won the Georgia ballot challenge, but the rule of law and the Constitution suffered

Corazon7 — 2012-02-04T10:26:45+01:00

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 14^th 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 14^th 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 14^th 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.

Email Friend | Print Article | 10 Comments | Share

All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President

Corazon7 — 2012-02-04T10:15:54+01:00

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

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

Corazon7 — 2012-02-03T19:21:15+01:00

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

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

Corazon7 — 2012-02-01T21:53:38+01:00

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

by BOB UNRUHEmail | Archive

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.More ↓

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.”

Doug Vogt's Mega Neutron Bomb On Obama's Eligibility

Corazon7 — 2012-02-01T17:26:27+01:00

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

BREAKING PROOF! OBAMA BORN IN KENYA - Long Form

BC A FRAUD?

Will Law and Order Prevail?

Corazon7 — 2012-02-01T15:56:28+01:00

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

Will Law and Order Prevail?

Posted on January 31, 2012 by Bridgette | 67 Comments

©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

'GREEN LIGHT' TO SEE OBAMA'S HAWAII FILES

Corazon7 — 2012-02-01T15:32:31+01:00

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

by BOB UNRUHEmail | Archive

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.

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.

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

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.”

Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case

Corazon7 — 2012-01-30T12:04:21+01:00

http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/2012/01/media-blackout-in-obama-georgia-ballot.html

Monday, January 30, 2012

Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case

PLEASE take the time to view this very important video and send it to everyone you know!

Hat tip for video:

Cry and Howl states:

"This pretty much confirms the fraud perpetrated by the Congress and the Supreme Court."

As concerned U.S. Citizen Patriots await the decision from Judge Malihi of the Georgia hearing on whether or not Barack Hussein Obama's name can legally appear on the Georgia ballot for the 2012 election, WorldNetDaily has been sharing written articles about Obama's ineligibility ever since the 2008 election.

Haven't we all been hearing that this issue needed to be solved before the vote occurred in 2008? Well, now we have a second chance to make sure that an ineligible candidate for POTUS does not get on the ballot(s) in either Georgia or any other state.

Canada Free Press reminds us:

Though Hillary Clinton rarely gets the credit anymore for it, she was the ‘mother’ of the ‘birther’ movement. While many people know the “birther” movement as one challenging President Obama’s birth certificate and birth place, there is another aspect of it that often gets overlooked. This aspect is that of him meeting the ‘natural born’ clause of the Constitutional requirement to be president.

When John McCain’s eligibility was challenged during the 2008 campaigns, Congress, including Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, declared he was “natural born” and eligible due to him being born of two American citizen parents. Barack Obama, himself, by his own admission, does not meet this criteria because his father was a British subject. This is backed up by the birth certificate he produced April 27, 2011."

The interest in this case is skyrocketing across the blogosphere. Everyone is waiting anxiously for the judge's decision. Since this was the ONLY case to be adjuticated (all other cases were dismissed due to lack of standing) the good news is that the state of Georgia REQUIRES candidates to be completely vetted before any individual who wants to run for the position POTUS gets on the ballot. This is a new election, new day, and new requirement that is separate from what had happened in 2008. Obama is like any other person who is requesting to get on the ballot in that state, as well as all others.

The fact that the plaintiffs did not just accept a default judgment, but wanted to present some of the most crucial the evidence against Obama that they have accumulated over the past four years, brings in another important fact for the judge to consider.

Note these comments from the over 300 over at the WorldNetDaily site:

1badland66 1 comment
Obama thumbs his nose at all of our laws. He selectively enforces only those laws that he agrees with. His justice department is just as bad and with fast and furious nipping at their heels it is only a matter of time before Obama and Holder get caughtith their hand in the cookie jar. Maybe we can end all of this when we rid this country of him in 2012. What a blessing that would be for this nation.
A Like Reply 16 hours ago 3 Likes

*******

BKOfama 2 comments
"Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America," Rep. Allen West (R-FL) said at the Palm Beach County Republican Party Lincoln Day dinner. West represents the district in the U.S. Congress. show more show less
A Like Reply 16 hours ago 6 Likes

Way to go Rep. West! Woo Hoo!!!
*******

The Resolute Voice, Commentator and Advocate 6 comments

To say that someone using a fraudulent Social Security number can continue to do so as long as the Social Security Administration won't clarify the situation is also ridiculous. Try doing it and see what happens. II believe it's called identiy theft, a felony. But then, I guess Mr. Obama is above the rule of law?
Reply 17 hours ago 10 Likes

*******

Adam Moreira 2 comments

There is a statute of limitations on it even if fraudulent.
Reply 16 hours ago in reply to The Resolute Voice 0 Like

*******

Thelonglegmackdaddy 1 comment Birthers claim that a use of fraudulent SS Number from Obama is on going. The Statute of limitation only begins to toll after the crime is discovered by law enforcement so the Statute of Limitations is not a relevant issue in this instance.
13 hours ago in reply to Adam Moreira 2 Likes

*******

Thelonglegmackdaddy 3 comments The reason that the Social Security Administration is not paying this any attention is because Obama is using the same SS number that they gave him and therefore there is nothing to investigate.

Reply 16 hours ago in reply to The Resolute Voice 3 Likes

Cashman57 1 comment LOL!!
keep spreading it on thick. The SS administration did not give that number to 0bama, his granny did. That number is not registered in the name of 0bama, anywhere. If he had legally obtained the number that would be one thing, but, that number was issued to someone else. 0bama did not refute that and his absence at the hearing where that evidence was admitted and sworn testimony was heard proves that he does not have a right to that number. He consented to the election laws in GA. by asking to be on their primary. He acknowledged the subpoena with his attorney responding to both the judge and Sec. of State Kemp. By refusing to refute the sworn testimony he has agreed that he is not eligible for the office and is not legally using a SS#.

I'll bet you are your fellow truth haters are sick over his confession. You probably even believed he was telling the truth, but, when the truth came out in GA. he had nothing to say, no defense, basically admitting to every word of the sworn testimony.
A Like 16 hours ago in reply to Thelonglegmackdaddy 5 Likes

*******

poetopoet 1 comment
Collapse Expand If and when any U. S. Federal or State Court ignores and abandons the tenants of the law, meaning “We the People”, the tenants are its citizens who have the right to enforce that right by that law, called the right of suffrage (to vote), that is mandatory, given by the supreme law of the land, The U. S. Constitution, entrusted to each state individually.

Nothing supersedes the U. S. Constitution and nothing will. We the People have put our trust into our elected officials to protect and enforce those rights, to the point where “We the People” cannot even trust ourselves from ourselves or them. Today, with the onslaught and erosion of our personnel freedoms divided by party lines and affiliations. Now each state’s Electoral College will cast their deciding votes, upon each states vetted candidate and voters choice, not the veiled coronation by the mass media or the corrupt DNC or the GOP, whether popular or not. For “We the People” have abandoned and abdicated that right, by letting an illegitimate foreign child to rule the U.S., who is succinctly forbidden to, by documented law, the U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 1(5).

Unfortunately, no one, absolutely no one except a lone Georgia Administrative Judge will defend “We the People”, please God love him and protect him, before anarchy begins.

*******

Amen to that!

*******
Also see:

Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case

posted by null at American Thinker - 8 hours ago

Last week a sitting president ignored a subpoena to a historic court hearing that discussed his eligibility to run for a second term. Isn't there a headline in there somewhere?

*******

Important video to view here:

The Mad Jewess With Breaking News By Donna Spellbound

Illegal Obama “Propped Up” By Congress And The Supreme Court …

2 minutes ago

Hat tips to all links.

Will court allow Obama to be above the law?

Corazon7 — 2012-01-29T09:16:47+01:00

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/will-court-allow-obama-to-be-above-the-law-message-from-van-irion-a-georgia-ballot-challenge-hearing-attorney

Will court allow Obama to be above the law?: Message from Van Irion- A Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing Attorney

Posted by By GeorgeM at 29 January, at 09 : 19 AMPrint

“Our President openly showed that he believes he is completely above the law. I wonder if the court even noticed its own death certificate. We will see in a few days.”

Fellow Constitutionalists,

One of my earliest childhood memories is of my parents talking about Nixon and the Watergate scandal. I remember the newspaper headline: “Nixon Resigns!” President Nixon’s fight against court subpoenas made international news. Yesterday President Obama completely ignored a court subpoena, and the world shrugged.

Obama’s behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than Nixon’s. Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorney’s show up in court and follow procedure. Nixon’s fight in the courts followed existing law. Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it. Obama, on the other hand, essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn’t petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing. Instead he showed complete contempt for the entire judicial branch and for the rule of law. Rather than respecting the legal process Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely.

The rule of law, and our three-branch system of government, now hang in the balance. If the Georgia court issues a ruling on the merits and an order finding Obama in contempt of court, and if that contempt order actually results in real punishment of some kind, then we will still have a Constitutional Republic. If this doesn’t happen, then Obama will have been rewarded for showing complete contempt for the judicial branch.

Understand that the goal of the Georgia ballot challenge was to have a court rule on the merits of the Constitutional question: Does the term “natural born citizen” in Article II of the Constitution, require a Presidential candidate to have two parents that were U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born? Obama wants to avoid having a court rule on this question. That is why he didn’t show up and ordered his attorneys to not show up. He was hoping that the Georgia court would enter a default judgment rather than rule on the merits. If the court enters a default judgment, Obama will have succeeded in avoiding the Constitutional eligibility question. He will then appeal the default judgment, get the appellate court to suspend the default judgment pending appeal, and then delay the appeal until after the primary. This is undoubtedly Obama’s plan.

If the Georgia Court rules that Supreme Court precedent must be followed and therefore Obama simply does not meet the minimum Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President, then we will at least have succeeded in finding one court in the nation willing to do its job. If that court finds Obama in contempt of court, then we still have three viable branches of government. The Georgia court has the authority to do both of these things. The world should be holding its breath.

Unfortunately the world is apparently unaware that a great Republic is on life support. The Roman Empire died a slow death. It’s death was so gradual that few people living at that time probably noticed the individual events that marked the death throes of that great empire. Apparently the same is true of America. Yesterday marked a stunning turn of events in the constant power struggle between the three branches of our government. Our President openly showed that he believes he is completely above the law. I wonder if the court even noticed its own death certificate. We will see in a few days.

I will certainly try to explain this to the court in our proposed findings of fact and law that the court requested we file before February 5^th.

All of your encouragement and prayers have been greatly appreciated. They are needed even more over the next few weeks. This battle is FAR from over. And it has taken on importance beyond what we predicted (which is truly astounding). Please tell everyone you know about Obama’s contempt of the judicial branch. Please explain to them what it really means. Even those that agree with Obama politically and disagree with our ballot challenge should be shocked, appalled, and scared of Obama’s contempt for the judicial system.

In Liberty,

Van Irion

Co-Founder, Lead Counsel

LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION

9040 Executive Park Drive, Suite 200

Knoxville, TN 37923

Phone/Fax: 423-208-9953

www.libertylegalfoundation.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Only a natural born citizen can legally be President of the USA. ”Obama” is not either. See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Subscribe free to ObamaBallotChallenge.com. Please forward. We’re also on Facebook

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

Corazon7 — 2012-01-27T08:49:22+01:00

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/georgia_ballot_challenge_obama_walks_on_by.html

January 27, 2012

Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

By Cindy Simpson and Alan P. Halbert

Two AT writers attended yesterday's hearing in Georgia over President Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot. Cindy Simpson writes:

President Obama has a habit of turning his back and walking away from those with whom he disagrees, as recently discovered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Professor John Lott, in an interview with Teri O'Brien, recalled similar experiences with Obama while at the University of Chicago.

Ms. O'Brien commented to Professor Lott: "Gods don't debate. They just issue decrees."

And apparently they also tend to place themselves above the law.

On January 26, I was in Atlanta to observe the hearings on the challenges to Obama's eligibility to appear on Georgia's 2012 ballot. In two previous American Thinker blog posts, "The Birthers Went Down to Georgia" and "Georgia on Obama's Mind," I described the content and history of the cases.

The courtroom was crowded to maximum capacity; however, the table for the defense was notably vacant. The defendant, Obama himself, was also not in attendance, even though the judge last week refused to quash the subpoena requesting his presence. Judge Michael Malihi, in his denial, stated:

...Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority...evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary..."

Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned of his absence in a defiant and last-minute move on the afternoon of January 25, via a letter he sent to Georgia's Secretary of State Brian Kemp. He requested that Kemp "bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued." Jablonski's letter concluded: "We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26."

A few hours later, the blogosphere lit up with the news that Secretary Kemp had responded with a letter stating that the hearings would continue on the 26^th as scheduled, and concluded with the warning: "...if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

And the hearings did proceed, although approximately 20 minutes late, after Judge Malihi requested a pre-hearing conference with all of the attorneys in his chambers.

Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation presented his case first, followed by J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz. Irion's argument focused on the definition of "natural born" citizen in the holding of Minor v Happersett and the principle of "statutory construction" in the interpretation of the 14^th amendment. Hatfield added the fact that the Interpretations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognize the delineation between "natural born" and "native-born" citizenship.

Orly Taitz also ably presented her evidence regarding the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number, even though she was rushed by the judge on several occasions, shortening her planned two-hour presentation by half.

After only two hours for three hearings that most spectators had expected to take several, Judge Malihi asked the attorneys to file briefs by February 5 and dismissed the courtroom. No date has been set for his decision.

Rumors began flying around the blogosphere almost immediately -- primarily one that the judge had informed the attorneys, in the pre-hearing conference, that he intended to enter a default judgment against Obama. If true, that would essentially mean that yet another action against Obama's eligibility has resulted in no decision on the merits.

Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH for the court's opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama's name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.

Regardless of the outcome in Georgia, it appears that Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state. According to Irion, Obama has also "decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated...that he is not subject to their authority. This is the true story from today, yet almost no one will report it."

Obama has deliberately turned his back, and walked on by.

And most of the media has followed along right behind him.

Alan P. Halbert also attended the hearing and writes:

Obama Declares he is Above Georgia's Election Laws

Several back-to-back hearings were held on Thursday the 26^th of January 2012 on the status of whether President Obama is Constitutionally eligible under Article II Sec 1 requirements as a "Natural Born Citizen" and appear on the Georgia primary presidential ballot. This came about by several Citizens filing challenges to Obama being placed on primary ballot with the Georgia Secretary of State Mr. Brian P. Kemp in accordance with Georgia election law. Obama had been given an Order to appear along with the production of documents by the presiding Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear the matter, the Honorable Michael Malihi. Obama and his Attorney chose not to comply with the Court's Order, provide the documents, present a defense or attend the hearing. Obama's attorney Mr. Jablonski chose instead to send a letter to Mr. Kemp requesting that the hearing be dismissed, as they claimed the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that they would not attend if it was held as scheduled. Mr. Kemp responded with his regrets that they decided to forgo the Hearing and warned them "they did so at their own peril" if they failed to offer evidence disputing the allegation of the Citizens complaints.

The election of a President is done through the compilation and aggregation of the individual State Election returns which have the responsibility under the Constitution to conduct Elections. It most assuredly is a Citizen's Right to inquire into the Constitutional qualification of any Candidate to hold any elected office in Georgia whether it is a State or Federal Office which includes the office of President. This is also the case with the other forty nine States as well which have similar Statutes.

The evidence that was presented was varied and ran the gamut of the factual legal arguments to evidence of a personal nature attributed personally to Obama. Mr. Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation presented the facts of Minor V. Happersett and portrayed it front and center as to the definition of a "Natural Born Citizen" and as definitive from a unanimous ruling by SCOTUS in 1875 -- the legal heart of the matter. An Amicus Brief was filed in the case by Leo Donofrio Esq. and would be considered an authoritative discussion of the natural born citizen issue and its common law lineage. Each attorney (three in all) in due course presented their cases then rested as the next one presented the case; it appeared well coordinated among all attorneys.

Most all of the testimony was given by expert witnesses, except for the foundation testimony of the citizens that brought the actions; document experts on the authenticity of Obama's Birth Certificate, the Social Security number he uses (used on tax returns) and his and his mother's passport records. A private investigator testified that his Social Security Number (SSN) was originally issued to a deceased individual born in 1890, and was issued from Connecticut a State he is never been known to inhabit.

Orly Taitz, the last attorney to present her case, has been the subject of considerable criticism of her character by various persons during her four year ordeal stretching back to 2008 when she started down this road with Obama. She drew considerable ire and vitriol from Mr. Jablonski, in his letter to Mr. Kemp requesting the dismissal of the hearing. Her case was developed with credible skill however lacked the polish of an experienced litigator. Though appeared solid in evidentiary value and her presentation of the facts were damning. It was probably for the personal nature of her inquiry of Obama and his credentials which drew such criticism from others along the way and Obama's attorney in particular.

She presented through direct testimony the opinions of several document experts that declared the Birth Certificate presented by Obama last April as having the hallmarks of an assembled or false document, as it was layered similar to what would be produced with modern computer software, and not a simple copy of an official record from 1961. He also discussed anomalies of certain character spacing which would not have been present or possible with the typewriters of the 1960's. This layering issue was further verified by another expert witness for document scanning technology and his conclusion was that his long form birth certificate appeared to be falsified as well by certain abnormal patterns appearing in his Birth Certificate.

The compilation of this information was then verified by another expert witness, a retired Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigator. He testified that the anomalies seen on Obama's records, Social Security Number and birth certificate which had different Registrars for similar certificates that were issued within days of one another was difficult to explain. The out of Sequence birth certificate issuance numbers which were lower than Obama's, though issued several days after his birth, was difficult to explain as these numbers are issued sequentially. There were issues with the official embossed seal that were not accurate for similar records issued during this time period in Hawaii, his birthplace. He testified that these anomalies rose to the level that would require further investigation, possible arrest and prosecution for documents that had the cumulative defects that Obama's exhibited in similar investigation of false documents.

However, what I find most baffling was the decision of Obama and his Attorney choosing to be absent from the proceedings. However, Judge Malihi conducted the hearing in a manner of decorum and was an honest presentation of the facts. Though was hard to guard against the bias of the parties without Obama and his Council being present.

Many people who are unfamiliar with the Legal System do not know that the hearing or trial level is known as the "trier of the facts". Only matters of Law can be appealed, not the facts that are developed, presented or testified to in any hearing or trial. Only when there is overwhelming evidence of malfeasance, gross perjury or the denial of the admissibility of probative evidence is a new trial or hearing ordered when a mistake of law has been found on appeal. As a practical matter appellate courts rarely order such remedy, when ordered it is believed that the defendant did not have his constitutional right to face his accusers at the trier of the facts level!

Since Obama and his attorney chose not to be present a defense and dispute the evidence that was presented, this can be taken as an admission that all of the evidence admitted were indeed facts and may not be disputed at a later time on appeal! The irony of this course is that Obama is declaring that the court has no Jurisdiction in this matter and will appeal as a matter of law though these damning facts may very well stand! It also gives the impression that he considers himself above the law -- Georgia's. We have a plethora of data points on the sequestering of all of Obama's records and bona fides which he has spent millions of dollars to keep out the public's hands for the last four years. After this hearing we may eventually know why.

________________________________________________________________________

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday's hearing in GA.

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425

p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama's alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns

p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama

p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama's passport records under FOIA

p11. Barack Obama's Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia....

Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Constitutional expert says arguments over Barack Sr. strong

Corazon7 — 2012-01-26T23:51:43+01:00

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/constitutional-expert-says-arguments-over-barack-sr-strong/

CERTIFIGATE

Constitutional expert says

arguments over Barack Sr.

strong

'That alone is evidence he

was not born to two American

citizen parents'

Published: 2 hours ago

by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive

A recognized expert on the U.S. Constitution says the arguments put forward in a hearing today in Georgia challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president because his father never was a U.S. citizen are strong.

“That is much stronger than the question of where he was born,” Titus told WND today after the hearing. “That alone is evidence … They don’t need anything additional.”

The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

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 bringing the complaints 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.

Malihi’s determination is expected later.

As an authority on the U.S. Constitution, Titus’ credentials are top of the line.

Now of counsel to the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C., he previously taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Va. Prior to his academic career, he served as a trial attorney and a special assistant United States attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Mo. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

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?”

His degrees are from Harvard and the University of Oregon.

He told WND that the case today set a precedent because all of the dozens of cases that have gone through the system before were dismissed before any evidence was introduced. That is, the judges mostly found that there was a lack of “standing” or some other technicality on which they could meet Obama’s attorneys’ demands and dismiss the cases.

The case before the Georgia court, saying Obama simply isn’t a “natural born citizen” as the Constitution requires for presidents because his father never was an American, “is new.”

“Those [other] cases were initiated about Obama’s ineligibility based upon essentially that he was not born in Hawai. But now there’s a different standard being urged upon the court, not about where, but to whom,” he said.

He said “natural born citizen” in the Constitution simply means the son or daughter of American citizens.

“This is correct. There are lots of terms of the Constitution that are not defined in the instrument. This is one of them,” he said. But he said the 1875 Minor vs. Happersett case in the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the “natural born citizen” designation is reserved for “a citizen that’s defined by common law, and that requires that the person be born to a mother and father of the citizenship that the son or daughter will have.”

The merits of the arguments over the father’s citizenship, documented as Kenyan in Barack Obama’s own writings, are “much stronger than the question of where he was born.”

On the document released by the White House itself, which Obama attested to as being valid, his father was “African.”

Titus noted that’s perceived as a nationality, not a racial statement, but “that alone is evidence he was not born to two American citizen parents.”

“I don’t think there’s any need to submit any other evidence,” he suggested.

He earlier made a video explaining the issue of “natural born citizen” as it’s’ used in the Constitution:

“‘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…”

“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.”

There have been allegations since long before Obama’s election in 2008 that he is not a “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the Constitution on no other official.

Obama’s critics believe that at the time the Constitution was written, the founders agree with Titus, and understood “natural-born citizen” to mean the offspring of two citizens.

Obama has claimed he was born in Hawaii, but birth documentation he’s released has been judged by a number of document, imaging and graphics experts to be fake.

Others believe he would fail to qualify no matter his place of birth, because his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Obama Jr.’s birth. They allege the founders precluded dual citizens by specifically demanding a “natural-born citizen.”

OBAMA ACCUSED OF DISRESPECTING COURT, STATE, AMERICANS

Corazon7 — 2012-01-26T23:41:05+01:00

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-accused-of-disrespecting-court-state-americans/

OBAMA ACCUSED OF DISRESPECTING COURT, STATE, AMERICANS

'My belief is if Supreme Court held he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling'

Published: 1 hour ago

By Dave Tombers

One of the attorneys who fought a court case over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court says he fears that even if the U.S. Supreme Court declared Obama unqualified, he’d simply ignore the ruling and continue issuing orders.

But those who observed a court hearing today in Atlanta say it could be the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign, because of the doubt that could surge like a tidal wave across the nation.

The comments came today from Leo Donofrio, who led the pack in filing lawsuits over Obama’s 2008 election and his subsequent occupancy of the White House.

He was commenting on today’s hearing before a Georgia administrative law judge on complaints raised by several state residents that Obama is not eligible to run for the office in 2012. That hearing went on after Obama and his lawyer decided to snub the court system and refuse to participate.

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?”

A decision from the judge, Michael Malihi, is expected soon.

The Georgia residents delivered sworn testimony to a court that, among other things, Obama is forever disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state because his father never was a U.S. citizen. Because the Constitution’s requirement presidents be a “natural born citizen,” which is the offspring of two citizen parents, he is prevented from qualifying, they say.

The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated, while his supporters say he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.

In Georgia, the 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.”

Citizens bringing the complaints 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.

Donofrio’s case – like all the others that have reached the Supreme Court – simply was refused recognition.

“That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” Donofrio said. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.”

He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.”

“If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned.

“My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said.

The White House today was absolutely silent about the issue. The Georgia case is far different from the lawsuits over the 2008 election, in which judges virtually unanimously ruled that they could not make a decision that would remove a sitting president, no matter the circumstances.

This hearing was about concerns being raised, as allowed by Georgia state law, that Obama is not eligible for the office of president and therefore should not be allowed on the 2012 election ballot.

“If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation.

His organization pursued several of the lawsuits over Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices simply decided they wouldn’t be bothered with such issues as the constitutional eligibility of a president.

“He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said.

Kreep’s cases have outlined out there is precedent in the U.S. for the removal of a sitting chief executive because of an issue over ineligibility.

Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned Secretary of State Brian Kemp yesterday that he needed to simply call off the hearing, and he and Obama would not participate.

Not only did Obama not participate, there also was no comment.

On a day when Obama was campaigning in Arizona and Colorado, he released formal statements about the retirement of Congressman Brad Miller, and the retirement of Gov. Bev Perdue.

But WND calls to the White House brought only the instructions to e-mail a question to the media affairs department. WND did but got no response. WND also contacted Obama’s campaign headquarters, to receive instructions to email a question. WND did again, but again got no response.

Jablonski, the Atlanta attorney representing Obama, also declined to return WND messages left at his office today.

Mario Apuzzo, who also shepherded a case to the Supremes, said Obama, by not showing, “actually failed to meet his burden of proof, to show that he is eligible and should be placed on the ballot.”

“For him to just ignore due process here is really telling a lot,” he said, noting, “This decision will have a ripple effect.”

“He’s not above the law. That’s a very important thing here. He’s a private person running for office, so he had no business not showing up. So the court can enter the judgment, and then the secretary of state does what he wants with it. And this will have a ripple effect for other secretaries of state, for other states, for the public. Also for any case that could be pending in the Supreme Court, where the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility is implicated,” he said.

“It’s a really important milestone that has been reached.”

Apuzzo warned that an administrative law judge certainly wields authority in such cases.

“We had a legitimate hearing in a legitimate court where this private person, Barack Obama, was asked to come there and satisfy the basic Georgia election law ballot procedure, and he doesn’t show up. Nor does he send an attorney. We don’t see this on television yet, but I can’t imagine this not being major news. It boggles the mind that a sitting president who is running for re-election doesn’t show up at a state’s legitimately constituted proceeding to make sure that he is indeed eligible to be on the ballot,” he said.

Charles Kerchner, on whose behalf one of those cases went to the Supremes, said, “Obama thinks he is a king and thus not subject to the election laws of Georgia and the United States Constitution. He will soon learn otherwise.”

He continued, “As the Georgia secretary of state said in warning Obama and his attorney if they did not show.up for the court hearing today … if they do that, they will do so at their own peril.”

Kreep, who has fought battles in both state and federal courts over the issue, said a ruling that would remove Obama’s name from the Georgia ballot would be a “tremendous victory for … America.”

“If the judge issues a default and rules that Barack Obama will not be on the Georgia ballot, and if the secretary of state upholds that, then Mr. Obama, having told the court to essentially stick it in their ear, he wasn’t going to participate, wasn’t going to recognize their power – he’s going to have a tough time convincing some other court to overturn the ruling, because he waived his right to object to it by not appearing,” he explained.

“That’s a big deal to judges. A judge may or may not agree with another judge’s ruling, but when one party waives their ability to object, judges are very reluctant to get involved, because the party has basically said, ‘We don’t care what you do, we’re not going to abide by it.’ Judges don’t like that. They don’t like to be blown off,” he said.

He said the election outcome also could be decided because of not being on a ballot in even one state. And he said there’s more to come.

“I can tell you from my own personal knowledge that there are challenges going on in other states. Van Irion has one in Arizona and one in Tennessee. We have one in Illinois that is has gone under the radar. We’re going to be filing similar challenges around the country. We’ll be filing one within a week and another right around the end of the month,” he said.

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW

Corazon7 — 2012-01-26T14:08:48+01:00

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW

By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.

Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.

After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.

Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.

Game on.

5 minutes.

10 minutes.

15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.

20 minutes.

It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.

Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?

Certainly not.

Court is called to order.

Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

June 27^th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.

Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14^th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.

Carl Swinson takes the stand.

Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.

2^nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.

Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.

RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.

DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.

Dreams From My Father entered.

Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.

Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.

This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.

At this point, the judge takes a recess.

The judge returns.

David Farrar takes the stand.

Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.

Orly Taitz calls 2^nd witness. Mr. Strump.

Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.

Next witness takes the stand.

This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.

Linda Jordan takes the stand.

Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

Next witness.

Mr. Gogt.

Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.

States this is a product of layering.

Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.

Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.

Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.

Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided in MA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.

Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.

Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.

Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.

Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.

Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.

Taitz takes the stand herself.

Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.

Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.

Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.

And with that, the judge closes the hearing.

What can we take away from this?

It’s interesting.

Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.

One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.

WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?

Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.

One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.

What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.

It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.

Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.

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

Obama Put in His Place- Eligibility Hearing is ON for Thursday in Atlanta!

Corazon7 — 2012-01-25T20:52:03+01:00

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-put-in-his-place-eligibility-hearing-is-on-for-thursday

Obama Put in His Place- Eligibility Hearing is ON for Thursday in Atlanta!

Posted by By GeorgeM at 26 January, at 01 : 51 AM

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp decisively put down Obama’s sleazy attempts to suppress the hearings. The hearings are ON!

OBAMA LAWYER IS ASKING THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF GA TO TAKE THE TRIAL AWAY

Corazon7 — 2012-01-25T17:42:48+01:00

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

OBAMA AND HIS ATTORNEY ARE ACTING LIKE FRIGHTENED 5 YEAR OLDS. IN HIS LETTER HE IGNORES THE OTHER 2 ATTORNEYS, BUT IS PRETTY MUCH SAYING ‘I AM AFRAID OF ORLY”.

Posted on | January 25, 2012 | No Comments

SEE THE LETTER ATTACHED. WHAT OBAMA IS ASKING NOW, IS TOTALLY INSANE. HE IS ASKING THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF GA TO TAKE THE TRIAL AWAY FROM THE JUDGE ON THE EVE OF THE TRIAL. HE IS MOSTLY CRYING ON THE SHOULDER OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF GA AND SAYING THAT ORLY IS BAD, BECAUSE SHE ISSUED ALL OF THOSE SUBPOENAS. SO AFTER THE JUDGE TOLD OBAMA, THAT THE SUBPOENA, THAT I ISSUED WAS PERFECTLY VALID AND HE HAD TO APPEAR IN COURT TOMORROW AND BRING WITH HIM ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS, THAT I DEMANDED, OBAMA DECIDED TO GO BEHIND THE BACK OF THE JUDGE AND SEND THE SAME COMPLAINT ABOUT ME TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND HE IS ASKING THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO TAKE THE TRIAL AWAY FROM THE JUDGE.

DOES THIS LOOK LIKE A BEHAVIOR OF AN INNOCENT PERSON? AN INNOCENT PERSON WOULD HAVE COME TO COURT AND SHOWED ALL THE VALID DOCUMENTS WITH THE EMBOSSED SEALS, WHICH ARE VERIFIABLE. INSTEAD HE IS ACTING LIKE A 5 YEAR OLD BRAT, SAYING “I AM AFRAID OF ORLY, I WANT THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF GA TO ACT LIKE MY MOMMY AND PROTECT ME FROM ORLY.” SOME LEADER OF A FREE WORLD…

MICHAEL JABLONSKI

ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

260 BRIGHTON ROAD, NE

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309

404.290.2977

815.846.0719 (fax)

michael.jablonski@comcast.net

___________________________

January 25, 2012

Hon. Brian P. Kemp

Georgia Secretary of State

214 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

via email to Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq.

(vrusso@sos.ga.gov)

Re: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Secretary Kemp:

This is to advise you of serious problems that have developed in the conduct of the hearings pending before the Office of State Administrative Hearings. 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. As you know, such allegations have been the subject of numerous judicial proceedings around the country, all of which have concluded that they were baseless and, in some instances – including in the State of Georgia - that those bringing the challenges have engaged in sanctionable abuse of our legal process.

Nonetheless, the Administrative Law Judge has exercised no control whatsoever over this proceeding, and 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. Only last week, he denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena he approved on the request of plaintiff’s counsel for the personal appearance of the President at the hearing, now scheduled for January 26.

For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.

It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here—a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The State of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the President made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website. “Under the United States Constitution, a public record of a state is required to be given ‘full faith and credit’ by all other states in the country. Even if a state were to require its election officials for the first time ever to receive a ‘birth certificate’ as a requirement for a federal candidate’s ballot placement, a document certified by another state, such as a ‘short form’ birth certificate, or the certified long form, would be required to be accepted by all states under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the United States Constitution.” Maskell, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement,” Congressional Research Service (November 14, 2011), p.41.

Nonetheless, the ALJ has decided, for whatever reason, to lend assistance through his office—and by extension, yours—to the political and legally groundless tactics of the plaintiffs. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs has downloaded form subpoenas which she tried to serve around the country. Plaintiff’s attorney sent subpoenas seeking to force attendance by an office machine salesman in Seattle; seeking to force the United States Attorney to bring an unnamed “Custodian of Records Department of Homeland Security” to attend the hearing with immunization records; and asking the same U.S. Attorney to bring the same records allegedly possessed by “Custodian of Records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.” She served subpoenas attempting to compel the production of documents and the attendance of Susan Daniels and John Daniels, both apparently out of state witnesses, regarding Social Security records. She is seeking to compel the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii to bring to Atlanta the “original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II, issued 08.08.1961 by Dr. David Sinclair…,” even though Hawaii courts had dismissed with prejudice the last attempt to force release of confidential records on November 9, 2011. Taitz v. Fuddy, CA No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN.

In Rhodes v. McDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1365 (USDC MD GA, 2009), Judge Clay Land wrote this of plaintiff’s attorney:

When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law….

As a national leader in the so-called ‘birther movement,’ Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to use litigation to provide the ‘legal foundation’ for her political agenda. She seeks to use the Court’s power to compel discovery in her efforts force the President to produce a ‘birth certificate’ that is satisfactory to herself and her followers.” 670 F. Supp. 2d at 1366.

All issues were presented to your hearing officer—the clear-cut decision to be on the merits, and the flagrantly unethical and unprofessional conduct of counsel—and he has allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to run amok. He has not even addressed these issues—choosing to ignore them. Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office—that it address constitutional issues—is by law not within its authority. See, for example, Flint River Mills v. Henry, 234 Ga. 385, 216 S.E.2d 895 (1975); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.22(3).

The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being improvidently issued. A referring agency may withdraw the request at any time. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.17(1). Indeed, regardless of the collapse of proceedings before the ALJ, the original hearing request was defective as a matter of law. Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S (Superior Court Fulton County, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. S09D0284 (Ga. Supreme Court),reconsideration denied, No. S09A1373. (“The Secretary of State of Georgia is not given any authority that is discretionary nor any that is mandatory to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President by a political party because she believes that the candidate might not be qualified.&rdquo Similarly, no law gives the Secretary of State authority to determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Your duty is determined by the statutory requirement that the Executive Committee of a political party name presidential preference primary candidates. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193. Consequently, the attempt to hold hearings on qualifications which you may not enforce is ultra vires.

We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.

Very truly yours,

MICHAEL JABLONSKI

Georgia State Bar Number 385850

Attorney for President Barack Obama

cc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal (kbeal@osah.ga.gov))

Van Irion, Esq. (van@libertylegalfoundation.org)

Orly Taitz, Esq. (orly.taitz@gmail.com)

Mark Hatfield, Esq. (mhatfield@wayxcable.com)

Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq. (vrusso@sos.ga.gov)

Stefan Ritter, Esq. (sritter@law.ga.gov)

Ann Brumbaugh, Esq. (abrumbaugh@law.ga.gov)

Darcy Coty, Esq. (darcy.coty@usdoj.gov)

Andrew B. Flake, Esq. (andrew.flake@agg.com)

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

Put Up or Stand Down, Mr. Obama

Corazon7 — 2012-01-23T19:09:05+01:00

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/put-up-or-stand-down-mr-obama/

Put Up or Stand Down, Mr. Obama

Letter to the Editor reprinted with permission

January 23, 2012

Dear Editor,

The nation appears to be catching on to the fact that they were duped by the Democrat National Convention (DNC), through dissembling and deceit, nominating a candidate that was not eligible to be on the 2008 presidential ballot. The forces that worked to keep the fraud concealed are now using the entire power of all branches of the federal government to keep a never-vetted and unqualified putative president in office by whatever means necessary.

There are 9 types of citizen in the United States. “U.S. Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” do not equate yet liberal propagandists “dumb-downed” Americans through the decades to believe both types of citizenships are the same. It has been a deliberate plan to marginalize and/or silence the Article II, Section 2.5 Constitutionalists by calling them “birthers” and “racists.” The majority of Americans believe one only needs to be born in the United States to run for president. This misconception is the handiwork of anti-American entities who have worked diligently to shred the Constitution and usher in a different form of government.

All eyes and ears will be focused on an Atlanta courtroom on January 26, 2012 to see if Barack Hussein Obama will appear as a private citizen and prove his eligibility to be on the state ballot as compelled by subpoenas issued by Administrative Judge Michael Malihi. Obama’s counsel in Atlanta, Michael Jablonski, filed a Motion to Dismiss attorney Orly Taitz’s challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be on the GA ballot and for the first time in three years a judge denied an Obama request/motion in a court of law and the case moved forward. Then Obama’s counsel filed a request to quash the subpoena compelling Obama to attend the hearing complaining that [His] duties as president of the United States would be interrupted and that the subpoena was, “on its face, unreasonable.” Ironically, the motion was filed the day after Obama sang a solo at a fundraiser at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem. Again, request DENIED.

Contrary to popular opinion Obama’s eligibility to be president has never been heard on merit in a court of law. Until now all lawsuits filed against Obama had been dismissed for “no standing” or “wrong jurisdiction.” The decisions came from federal judges under the auspices of Eric Holder’s Justice department and Elena Kagan, Obama’s pre-election counsel and now, of course, sitting Supreme Court Justice.

There are many of us ‘birthers’ living in fear because we never fell for what we knew was brainwashing and propaganda being fed to the American people for generations. But we ‘birthers’ never forgot the words of a letter dated 25 July 1787 from John Jay to General George Washington as the Constitution was being drafted: “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

On January 26th, 2012, will Obama again defy the will of the American people and maintain his status quo of living above the law or will we, the Article II Constitutionalists, have our day in court? Judge Malihi will consider the Supreme Court ruling in Minor vs. Happersett establishing the definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ as born in the United States of parents who are themselves United States citizens. The ruling is binding precedent as to the Constitutional definition of a natural born Citizen. Constitutional attorney, Mario Apuzzo at puzo1.blogspot.com in my opinion has the most consistent and well-documented papers on the eligibility issue where I suggest is the place to go to for back up.

Obama is also compelled to produce his historic documents including but not limited to his birth certificate, adoption papers and Indonesian school records. Should he not comply with the subpoena to appear or present his papers he will lose anyway because his name will not be put on the GA State ballot and the plaintiffs in the three cases to be heard will submit evidence of Obama’s deception and fraud not the least of which is lying on his application to the Illinois Bar. In the space asking for other names used by the applicant Obama entered “none.” Add to this his use of a CT social security number that was never issued to him and fails the E-Verify check. Intriguingly, the social security number is shared by a Harrison J. Bounell from CT, long since deceased but at one time a roomer/tenant in a home owned by the Robinson family. Now that’s just too speculative, too coincidental to be Michelle Robinson Obama’s CT relatives.

But then there’s the selective service record that ties to the social security number but is so fraught with anomalies that taken with the recent problems of a suspicious “Frankenstein” document posted on the WhiteHouse.gov website on April 27, 2011, the whole business reeks of ineptitude or is it deliberate subversive activity.

I for one will be all eyes and ears on Jan. 26. A decision one way or another will help me in my plan to form a coalition of Oklahoma Ballot Challengers to take our case to the Oklahoma House of Representatives. We have been rebuffed by gatekeeper, “Fran” on the election board [who says we have to be a presidential candidate from Oklahoma to file a complaint] and by the Attorney General’s office who will only take cases from the FBI and the FBI that says, “Its beensettled” and by our own Sen. Tom Coburn who says “Its a non-issue” to Sen. James Inhofe who says “Its a non issue” but co-sponsored a bill to change the definition of natural born Citizen to mean born anywhere as long as one parent is a citizen. Thank God and the wisdom of our founding fathers the bill failed as did the other eight or so attempts in congress between 2004-2008 during Obama’s rise to political power.

Respectfully submitted,

Miki Booth
Former Congressional Candidate D2-OK

http://www.mikibooth.com

Attorney Leo Donofrio Files Amicus Brief In Georgia Obama Ballot Access Challenge Cases

Corazon7 — 2012-01-23T17:21:29+01:00

Monday, January 23, 2012

Attorney Leo Donofrio Files Amicus Brief In Georgia Obama Ballot Access Challenge Cases

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/attorney-leo-donfrio-files-amicus-brief.html

AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases

Attorney Leo Donofrio

This morning, I filed an AMICUS BRIEF in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases. The brief complies with all Rules and procedures of the Administrative Court. The brief is 54 pages, and the appendix is 155 pages. The Rules of Court require attachment to the brief of all legal authorities, other than those issued by the federal government, or the State of Georgia. There’s some very esoteric law attached thereto.

I seriously urge everyone to familiarize themselves with Lord Coke’s Report from Calvin’s Case, as well as Chancellor Ellesmere’s argument, also in Calvin’s Case, for this is the true common law genesis of jus soli subjection, which happens to be a uniquely Christian tenet of law that has been completely misunderstood in this country for too long now. Calvin’s Case is universally recognized as the common law precedent relating to jus soli, but it is so much more fascinating than you can imagine. And it will forever revolutionize understanding of the words “natural-born”.

This book contains all of the relevant arguments and reports. But the original text of Lord Coke’s Report is the proper starting point. (This document is also in the appendix to my brief.) And here’s another source with slightly modernized English and extras.

You may download the AMICUS BRIEF here.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases

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

Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama, Amicus Brief From Attorney Donofrio, Georgia Ballot Challenge - 1/23...

For live video coverage from the hearings

Corazon7 — 2012-01-23T16:35:41+01:00

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/article-ii-super-pac-will-provide-gavel-

to-gavel-live-video-coverage-from-the-3-ballot-challenge-hearings

-on-january-26th-in-atlanta-georgia-starting-at-9-am-et

ARTICLE II SUPER PAC WILL PROVIDE GAVEL TO GAVEL LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE FROM THE 3 BALLOT CHALLENGE HEARINGS ON JANUARY 26TH IN ATLANTA GEORGIA STARTING AT 9 AM ET

Posted by By GeorgeM at 22 January, at 02 : 19 AMPrint

PRESS RELEASE – JANUARY 21^st, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: ARTICLE II SUPER PAC TO BROADCAST JANUARY 26^TH, 2012 OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARINGS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA – LIVE!

Article II Political Action Committee (http://art2superpac.com) will be on site with uncut, uncensored, complete, live streamed gavel-to-gavel video coverage of the first ever “Obama” Constitutional Presidential eligibility hearings. “The PAC saw the need to do this last month, because of the often incomplete and biased coverage of this issue by MainStream news media and recently received permission from the court,” said Director Helen Tansey, who will personally manage on-site efforts.

The PAC describes this upcoming event as “The hearing of the century, for the (alleged) political crime of the century,” referring to the breathtaking implications of an illegal “President” in the White House or on the presidential ballot.

, go to http://www.Art2SuperPAC.com.

These proceedings could lead to the removal of the incumbent from the Georgia ballot, which would raise questions nationwide. This would be the first time that these issues and related evidence are deliberated in open court. Numerous ballot challenges have been filed in dozens of states, contesting “Obama’s” questionable eligibility, based upon natural born citizenship requirements, in Article II of the U.S. Constitution and laws in multiple states. Georgia will be one of the first states heard. This is due to the timing of challenge filings and its unique state administrative court set up to handle such matters, in a jurisdiction potentially receptive to such cases.

Three cases are being heard on one momentous day, in this order: Plaintiffs David Welden (represented by Van Irion); Carl Swensson and Kevin Powell (represented by Mark Hatfield); David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, Laurie Roth (represented by Dr. Orly Taitz).

CONTACT: Helen Tansey, 804-560-1004, director@art2superpac.com

“TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND SUPPORT”

Corazon7 — 2012-01-23T16:32:54+01:00

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/23/is-it-ignorance-or-betrayal/

Is it Ignorance or Betrayal?

“TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND SUPPORT”

by Neil Turner

Members of Congress must swear an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. But do they?

(Jan. 23, 2012) — We all know how to read a simple 10 page document like the Constitution (~6,000 words: including the Declaration, 7 Articles, and 27 Amendments), and understand the plain English in which it is written; and we all know that everyone elected to Office and/or who enters the Military and/or becomes appointed to be a public servant – swears an oath to preserve, protect, and support that Constitution – in its entirety and without reservation.

Are we to believe that the brilliant wordsmith and #1 talk-show host in America, Rush Limbaugh, can’t tell the difference between the words ‘a natural born Citizen’ and ‘a citizen’?

Are we to believe that Chief Justice John Roberts couldn’t tell the difference between his oath to preserve and defend the Constitution and the swearing-in of a non-natural born Citizen on 20 January, 2009?

Are we to believe that the duly-elected natural born Citizen 43^rd President George W. Bush did not know that he was surrendering the reins of our Constitutional Republic to a known non-natural born Citizen usurper on 20 January, 2009 – without uttering a word or sounding the alarm?

Are we to believe that the entire 112^th Congress, when reading the Constitution aloud in January 2011, hearing the shouts of patriot Theresa Cao saying: ‘Except Obama! Except Obama! Help us Jesus’, after they heard the words ‘No Person, except a natural born Citizen, … shall be eligible to the Office of President;’ – are we to believe that it was an unlawful disruption of their dutiful work instead of a sounding of the alarm of their Treason?

And finally, are we to believe that the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission really believed that their only job was to ascertain that a presidential candidate’s application form was filled out correctly and their $1,000 check was ‘good’, and that their refusal to allow Sal Mohammed in 2007, and Abdul Hassan in 2011 to be on the ballot because they admitted they were non-natural born Citizens, while Obama perjured himself on his application swearing that he was a natural born Citizen – are we to believe that they did not know they were betraying their constituents and committing Treason?

Are they all just IGNORANT or BETRAYERS?

The answer to all the foregoing questions – obvious to even a 5^th Grader – would be a resounding BETRAYERS ALL!

And the proper term for those who would betray the people, their country, and their Constitution – obvious to even a 5^th Grader – would be TRAITORS ALL!

So now that we all are aware that we are faced with BETRAYAL and TREASON in our Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches and our Media, and since Betrayal and Treason cannot be allowed to stand if our Constitutional Republic is to survive, the real question is: What are YOU going to do about it – NOW – while you still can?

If you find yourself to be IGNORANT, then educate yourself and get on board the effort to Restore Our Constitution. Here’s what YOU can do:

A simple act by We The People, repeated over and over again – before the elections of 2012: CHALLENGE THE POSTING OF ANY SUSPECTED NON-NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’s NAME ON ANY BALLOTS IN 2012. Details and instructions can be found for your State atwww.ObamaBallotChallenge.com.

And if you are among the BETRAYERS/TRAITORS – then educate yourself to the inevitable, and get on board the next train, plane, or ship out of our Constitutional Republic, or face a BETRAYER/TRAITOR’s ultimate punishment. The choice is yours.

NOTE: If supporting the Constitution – to include Article II and its requirement that the President be only a natural born Citizen – gets you labeled with the pejorative term ‘BIRTHER’, then the user of that term must obviously be against the Constitution (and their oath to support and defend it), and are therefore labeling themselves as BETRAYERS.

So when anyone says: ‘You must be a Birther’, you can respond with: ‘You must be a Betrayer’. If the label fits, then say it, and let those who would commit betrayal and treason wear it.

In Liberty and In Truth.

Neil B. Turner
Citizens for the Constitution

NBTurner@Earthlink.net

P.S As of this writing, a Georgia judge has agreed to hear the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s in-eligibility on its merits on 26 January 2012 in response to such ballot challenges and lawsuits there. Stay tuned – for more acts of BETRAYAL and/or acts of PATRIOTISM. The truth will eventually come out, and it will be very ugly indeed.

Click here for gavel-to-gavel coverage of this hearing starting at 9:00 am EST on July 26, 2012.

© 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.

Where Are the Republicans?

Corazon7 — 2012-01-23T13:41:04+01:00

http://gilmer.fetchyournews.com/archives/1896-Short-Takes.html

Short Takes

Posted by

Staff Writer

in Opinion

Monday, January 23, 2012

Comments (0)

Where Are the Republicans?

Today, Obama (peace be upon him) decided not to import Canadian Oil into the United States. We are not surprised. We knew he was going to do that. We saw it coming because he is exactly what he said he was, an ignorant Marxist, Communist whose singular agenda is devoted to the sole object of destroying the America of entrepreneurial capitalism that has been the beacon to oppressed peoples everywhere. The MSM Commentariat, failed to vet him, refused to vet him, indeed they supported him, this inconsequential nobody, this community organizer, this thug Chicago machine politician, this associate of terrorists, this depraved knave, to become the President of our United States or America.

Where are our conservative Republican US Senators? Why are they not calling out for the impeachment of this impostor. The grounds for impeachment are plentiful, yet they sit silent, talking platitudes and nonsense all the while only worried about their careers. They are not there for careers, they are supposed to be there to represent us, the American taxpayers who put them there. Indeed, most even voted to establish the odious apparatus of our imprisonment and justify their votes as excuses for the need of supporting our troops, while the usurper cuts our military to the bones, runs us further into debt and emasculates our strength in the world, militarily, financially and morally.

Where are our Conservative Republican Congressmen whose job it is to appropriate (or not) money to run the government? Why cannot our speaker of the house say “No!” and stop playing around with these dangerous people? America has now reached the mid point of its economic destruction, where spending is now in excess of income and yet, the impostor asks for more. He wants another rise in the debt ceiling. When will it end? When will the GOP leadership tell Harry Reid and Obama, no more?

I see a revolution coming. If one starts, it should start in the Congress, right now, immediately, without further delay. Now is the time for our Republican congress to act. It is now time for congressional civil disobedience; it is time to defund and disobey. It is time to remove Obama’s (peace be upon him) legitimacy. He has squandered his moral legitimacy with his criminal association with unions, plundering the treasury, with his funding of insolvent ‘green’ industries and his ignoring the US Constitution. In a word, he has to be de-legitimized because Americans, especially those who took an obligation to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, have no obligation at all to support a fascist dictator such as Obama (peace be upon him) has become. This includes Federal, state and local law enforcement officers, congressmen and senators as well as the military.

But, beware. To resort to violence is to play into the usurpers hands. The action forward is for Americans to nullify, disobey and ignore illegal and unconstitutional rules. They cannot be laws if they do not meet the constitutional standards and should not therefore, be obeyed. Jury’s do not have to convict those Americans brought before them under Obama’s (peace be upon him) fascist legal system. The rule is: acquit, acquit, acquit. Prosecutors and judges would finally get the idea that they are wasting their time and money. We need to learn to say No! No funding of fascism, no obeying fascism and no to the myriad of government bureaucrats telling us how to live, where to live, what to eat, what light bulbs to use or what land to plow for our own sustenance.

America is ripe for a revolution. But, it should be one of civil disobedience. Oh, not the “occupy Wall Street” anarchist type but a TEA Party type, one that is civil, clean, lawful, non-threatening, but totally disobedient to unconstitutional edicts from the anointed one.

Until we know who he really is, what his hidden past reveals, his educational attainments, the legitimacy of his citizenship, not until then can Americans any longer trust in any one who says: “I’m from the government, and I want to help! Remember, Freedom is the goal, the Constitution is the way.

Which Laws Could Have Been Broken? 7 Share 0 digg MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, CONSPIRACY, MIS

Corazon7 — 2012-01-23T10:06:50+01:00

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/23/which-laws-could-have-been-broken/

Which Laws Could Have Been Broken?

MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, CONSPIRACY, MISPRISION OF FELONY?

by Sharon Rondeau

Can the U.S. Department of Justice fail to prosecute federal law-breakers?

(Jan. 23, 2012) — Numerous graphics, typesetting, Adobe® andscanning professionals have claimed that the long-form birth certificate image bearing the alleged details of Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth presented to the public on April 27, 2012 is aforgery. If that is the case, which federal statutes have been violated, if any, by placing the image on federal government property?How many people might have participated in the crime, and what might the penalties be?

If the Hawaii Department of Health has been obfuscating the fact that they have no birth certificate bearing Obama’s name, or that what they have is falsified, of which crime(s) are they guilty?

If people within the Democrat National Committee or Democrat Party knew that identity theft had been committed and a “synthetic identity” presented to the American people as a ruse to win a presidential election, are they guilty of conspiracy?

If Obama ran for president under a false identity with a fabricated life story, was he ever really thePresident?

If misuse of government property, including computer servers, personnel, and occupation of the White House under false pretenses has occurred, what might the consequences be?

18 USC 371 states:

Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

If a person is aware that a crime has been committed and fails to report it to the authorities, he or she could be found guilty of Misprision of Felony and spend up to three years in jail:

Sec. 4. Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

On Friday, January 20, 2012, Judge Michael Malihi denied Obama attorney Michael Jablonski’s Motion to Quash several subpoenas issued by Atty. Orly Taitz requesting original or certified documentation of his social security number application, birth record, and any aliases he might have used during his life. The judge stated that a legitimate reason might exist as to why Obama cannot attend, but that his counsel failed to supply it.

The administrative court hearing in Atlanta, GA is scheduled to hear three ballot challenges filed underOCGA 21-2-5, which allows a registered voter to challenge the qualifications of any candidate for state or federal office. Obama is being asked to prove his constitutional eligibility and placement on the presidential ballot for November.

The mainstream press has been interviewing Atty. Taitz about the upcoming hearing. Taitz has statedthat federal officials, including judges, have participated in a “cover up.”

Lynn Sweet of The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Obama does not plan to attend, but instead will be holding “events” in the Western part of the country. The report does not say “campaign events.” The official White House presidential calendar shows an empty schedule for Obama from January 22 and forward but features the planned State of the Union address for January 24. The Vice President’s calendar is empty. UPI shows the January 23, 2012 presidential schedule as a meeting with the vice president and hosting of the Boston Bruins.

Update, 9:48 a.m ET: The White House presidential schedule now reflects the UPI posting noted above, but no schedule is posted for the remainder of this week. Obama’s previous weeks in office have shown full daily and weekly schedules.

Is Obama doing his job this week? How busy is he? Why is the White House showing no schedule for either Obama or Biden? Is Obama really running for re-election, or just going through the motions?

Rather than attend the hearing in Georgia, could Obama simply supply the information requested in the subpoenas issued by Taitz? In his book, he said he found his “birth certificate” with his vaccination forms and other personal papers. If that is the case, what does the state of Hawaii have on file, and why do they refuse to reveal it?

Was Obama’s letter to Hawaii Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy a ruse?

Should Obama fail to attend the hearing or provide the requested documents to the Georgia court, is he guilty of contempt of court?

18 USC, Sect. 401 states:

Sec. 401. Power of court

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

For an event of potentially great magnitude, why would anyone encourage American citizens concerned about a candidate’s eligibility to stay home? Could the judge have Obama jailed if he does not comply with the subpoena?

Did anyone in the Obama regime learn of crimes after they were committed and fail to report them? 18 USC, Section 3 states:

Sec. 3. Accessory after the fact

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

Should Mercedes-Benz have Appologized for Che Guevara Ad Flap?

Corazon7 — 2012-01-22T10:10:32+01:00

Ernesto Che Guevara ordered the killing of my father in law at the firing squad on 02/08/1959.

See

http://cheasesino.com

http://www.cheasesino.com

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

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44076

The tortures of U.S. POWs by Castro's agents were "the worst sieges of torture any American withstood in Hanoi."

By Humberto Fontova Saturday, January 21, 2012

Should Mercedes-Benz have Appologized for Che Guevara Ad Flap?

Why did only Americans of Cuban heritage get miffed at Mercedes Benz for their Che promotional flap. From USA Today to Forbes and from the Miami Herald to The Blaze, it was the same story “Cuban-Americans angered.” Then “Mercedes apologizes toCuban-Americans.”

“The U.S. is the great enemy of mankind!”In fact, Che Guevara’s hate-obsession was the U.S. He murdered Cubans because of their supposed affiliation with the U.S. (“U.S.—Backed” Batista, the CIA, etc.) As a public service to Americans of other ethnic heritages, here are some reasons, in the form of Che Guevara’s ravings, why Mercedes Benz (among many, many others) should also apologize to you:

“The U.S. is ‘a carnivorous animal feeding on the helpless!”

“Against those hyenas there is no option but extermination!”

“We will bring the war to the imperialist enemies’ (Americans) very home, to his places of work and recreation. The imperialist enemy (Americans)must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him!

“We must keep our hatred (against the U.S.) alive and fan it to paroxysm!”

“The U.S. is the perpetrator of exploitation and oppression against all the peoples of the world!”

“If the nuclear missiles had remained (in Cuba) we would have fired them against the heart of the U.S. including New York City.The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.”

“What!” Khrushchev gasped on Oct. 28, 1962 upon a message from Cuba, as recalled by his son Sergei. “Is he (Fidel Castro) proposing that we start a nuclear war?! That we launch missiles from Cuba?! But that is insane! Remove them (our missiles) as soon as possible! Before it’s too late. Before something terrible happens. (Please note that Nikita Khrushchev’s own son, an eye witness to the near calamity, presents a radically different version of the “solution” to the Cuban Missile Crisis than do Kennedy court scribes and publicists, most recently in the form of Chris Matthews.)And here’s the probable reason—despite Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s genocidal lust—why many tens of thousands of Americans are alive today:

According to the Cuba Archive, the regime co-founded by Che Guevara—with firing squads, forced-labor camps, torture and drownings at sea—has caused an estimated 102,000 deaths, mostly Cuban of course. But whenever they could get their hands on an American “hyena” they really indulged. To wit:

When during the summer of 1960 Castro and Che’s gunmen stormed into almost 6000 U.S. owned businesses and stole them at Soviet gunpoint, a few owners resisted. One of these was Howard Anderson who owned a filling stations and Jeep dealership (not a casino or brothel, which were relatively rare in pre-Castro Cuba, by the way.) I’ll quote from Anderson v. Republic of Cuba, No. 01-28628 (Miami-Dade Circuit Court, April 13, 2003). “In one final session of torture, Castro’s agents drained Howard Anderson’s body of blood before sending him to his death at the firing squad.”

Castro and Che’s blood-lust against Americans was such that they sent their torturers thousands of miles to get their hands on (defenseless) ones. According to the bookHonor Bound the tortures of U.S. POWs by Castro’s agents were “the worst sieges of torture any American withstood in Hanoi.”

Testimony during Congressional hearings titled, “The Cuban Torture Program; Torture of American Prisoners by Cuban Agents” held on November 1999 provide some of the harrowing details.

For their experiment in torture the Castroites chose twenty American POWs. One died: Lieutenant Colonel Earl Cobeil, an Air Force F-105 pilot. His death came slowly, in agonizing stages, under torture. Upon learning his Castroite Cuban affiliation, the American POWs nicknamed Cobeil’s Cuban torturer, “Fidel.”

“The difference between the Vietnamese and “Fidel(the nickname for the Castroite torturer) was that once the Vietnamese got what they wanted they let up, at least for a while,” testified fellow POW Captain Ray Vohden USN. “Not so with the Cubans. Earl Cobeil had resisted ‘Fidel’ to the maximum. I heard the thud of the belt falling on Cobeil’s body again and again, as Fidel screamed “you son of a beech! I will show you! Kneel down!—KNEEL DOWN!” The Cubans unmercifully beat a mentally defenseless, sick American naval pilot to death.”

“Earl Cobeil was a complete physical disaster when we saw him,” testified another fellow POW, Col. Jack Bomar. “He had been tortured for days and days and days. His hands were almost severed from the manacles. He had bamboo in his shins. All kinds of welts up and down all over; his face was bloody. Then ‘Fidel’ began to beat him with a fan belt.”

In fact I’m amazed that Mercedes-Benz bothered to apologize. “What’s the big deal?” their Chairman Dieter Zetsche had every reason to reply. “Why pick on us? Doesn’t half of Hollywood hail Che Guevara and Fidel Castro? Didn’t one of America’s most celebrated leading men, Robert Redford, produce a movie in Che Guevara’s honor in collaboration with the Stalinist regime Guevara co-founded? And didn’t this movie get a whooping, hollering standing ovation at the Sundance Film Festival and the Academy awards?

“And didn’t Academy Award- winner Stephen Soderbergh recently one-up Redford with a four-hour hagiography on Che, also co-produced with the Stalinist regime Che co-founded?

“And after his speech at the UN where Che Guevara raved some of the insults cited above wasn’t he the guest of honor at ‘Bobo’ Rockefeller’s Manhattan suite, where cocktail guests from Norman Mailer to Eugene McCarthy lined up for his autograph?”

“Did any of them apologize?

“And wasn’t Che Guevara’s partner in mass-murder, terrorism and nuclear-war-lust hailed as “The Toast of Manhattan!” and “The Hottest Ticket in Manhattan!” by Time and Newsweek owing to the social swirl that engulfed Fidel Castro on his 1995 visit to Manhattan which involved everyone from Robert McNamara to Mort Zuckerman to Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings, Tina Brown, Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer feting him and lining up for his autograph and photo-ops?

“And doesn’t Charles Rangel Bear-hug Fidel Castro on the racist mass-murderer’s every visit to Harlem?

“Did any of them apologize?

“And doesn’t a former U.S. President now known as the Democratic Party’s “Elder Statesman” (Jimmy Carter) regard the Stalinist who issued Che Guevara’s every order for mass-murder and torture (Fidel Castro) as “an old friend” who “has brought great healthcare to his people?”

“And doesn’t a former Democratic Presidential candidate now known as “The Conscience of the Democratic Party” (George Mc Govern) also compliment Fidel Castro as “a man I consider a friend?”

“And weren’t posters of Che Guevara plastered on some campaign offices of the man who was overwhelmingly elected as your current President (Barack Obama)?

“And didn’t this president invite, as guests of honor to your White house, notorious Che Guevara Groupie Jay-Z?

“And didn’t the Time -Warner corporation (Time Magazine) magazine hail Che Guevara a “Hero and Icon of the Century,” alongside Mother Theresa? And this in a long and detailed article. This was no “gaffe,” no momentary screw-up like ours. Time’s reporter knew full well what he was doing.

“Did any of them apologize? So again, what’s the big deal with our little gaffe? And at least we apologized.”

Indeed, Herr Zetsche. All the items above are fully documented here.

Humberto Fontova
Most recent columns

Humberto Fontova is the author of four books including “Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him.” Visithfontova.com. Humberto can be reached atletters@canadafreepress.com

Republican Leaders’ Fear and Corruption Will Re-Elect Obama

Corazon7 — 2012-01-21T22:25:33+01:00

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/21/republican-leaders-fear-and-corruption-will-re-elect-obama/

Republican Leaders’ Fear and Corruption Will Re-Elect Obama

TRUTH IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE 2012 STRATEGY

The invasion of Normandy, France was part of Operation Overlord begun on June 6, 1944, now known as "D-Day"

(Jan. 21, 2012) — Unless stopped now, Obama will win re-election and the Republicans are well on their way to helping him do that.

If the current Republican Party leadership had planned the D-Day invasion, the troops would have attacked the Normandy beaches in rowboats armed with B-B guns.

Rather than apply a political full-court press against Obama, Republicans have chosen to stay in the locker room.

Hiding the truth transfers all the initiative to the Obama campaign.

The Big Lie and Big Stall strategy will not only lead to a Republican defeat, it will lead to the destruction of the country.

The reason for their choice is simple – the Republican leadership is complicit in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

Barack Hussein Obama is a Constitutionally illegal President. He has committed felonies by forging his birth documents and his Selective Service registration. He uses a Social Security Number not issued to him.

Starting in 2008 and continuing today, Obama and the mainstream media have successfully intimidated the cowardly Republicans by threatening to call them names like “racist” or “birther.”

None of those issues will be raised in the Republican 2012 campaign because they have now joined the Democrats and the mainstream media in a cover-up of the truth.

That truth, if ever made public, would shake the foundations of the two-party system and expose the endemic corruption in Washington, D.C.

To protect their wealth and privileged status, both the Republican and the Democrat leadership have a vested interest in maintaining the Big Lie.

An Obama victory will permit the Democrats to bury the Big Lie forever and permanently transform the United States into a de facto totalitarian state.

The Republican long-term political strategy, like its 2012 campaign strategy, is far less ambitious. They only wish to maintain the corrupt status quo and continue the illusion of a democratic republic, which, in actuality, is a country of the American people, but for and by a wealthy elite.

Ergo – the Big Stall.

The Republicans hope to beat Obama on “the issues”, that is, arcane policy points, while ignoring blatant violations of the Constitution and criminal behavior by an illegal President.

Similar to the Democrats, the Republicans want to bury the truth, but through stalling and allowing Obama’s crimes to be overtaken by events, like a Republican Presidential victory in 2012.

Republicans also see political advantages to Obama’s violations of the Constitution.

Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution states that only a natural born citizen can be President of the United States.

Binding Supreme Court precedent Minor v. Happersett (1874) defines natural born as a US citizen born of citizen parents at the time of the child’s birth.

Obama has never been eligible for the presidency because his father was a British subject at the time of his birth.

The precedent of a Constitutionally illegal President having been established by the inauguration of Obama, both parties believe that they have successfully amended the Constitution by fiat.

Republicans now feel free to promote their own illegal candidates.

Not only has the Constitution been violated, but the process for amending the Constitution has been violated.

The Republican leadership will continue their collaboration with the Democrats and the mainstream media by perpetuating the Big Lie.

Permitting themselves to be held hostage by the Big Lie, the Republicans will be vulnerable to the dirtiest, most violent, most racist and most fraudulent election campaign in US history.

Through their own lack of courage and conviction, the Republicans will lose the Presidency in 2012.

———————————————————-

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com

Huckabee advised Romney to challenge the media

Corazon7 — 2012-01-21T10:47:14+01:00

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

Huckabee advised Romney to challenge the media and demand,that when Obama releases his college records, to show, whether he was admitted as a foreign student, then Romney will show his tax returns.

My advise to Romney, not to limit himself to college records. Challenge corrupt officials in Hi to show Obama’s 1961 original birth certificate and our corrupt SSA commissioner Michale Astrue to release an original application to CT SSN 042-68-4425, which Obama is fraudulently using. We have to end this corruption in the government and in the judiciary.

Video: Illegal Obama "Propped Up" By Congress!

Corazon7 — 2012-01-21T10:34:34+01:00

GEORGIA BALLOT CHALLENGE WILL PROCEED WITH DISCOVERY

Corazon7 — 2012-01-20T13:58:17+01:00

http://elections2012.blogcindario.com/

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

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/20/breaking-georgia-judge-denies-obamas-motion-to-quash-subpoenas/

Breaking: Georgia Judge Denies Obama’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas

GEORGIA BALLOT CHALLENGE WILL PROCEED WITH DISCOVERY

by Sharon Rondeau

Judge Michael Malihi has denied a Motion to Quash Subpoenas submitted by Barack Hussein Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski

(Jan. 20, 2012) — 11:45 a.m., ET – Atty. Orly Taitz informed The Post & Email moments ago that Georgia Administrative Hearings Judge Michael Malihi has denied Obama counsel’s request to quash subpoenas requesting originaldocumentation of Obama’s birth, aliases and social security number application, school records, and other records.

Taitz will be posting the order from the judge on her website shortly.

Taitz had written an Opposition to Obama counsel Michael Jablonski’s Motion to Quash the subpoenas she issued as a result of Malihi’s denial of Jablonski’s Motion to Dismiss in the challenge to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to run for president in 2012.

The order is posted elsewhere here.

Jablonski had claimed that the hearing scheduled for January 26, 2012 would cause Obama to “interrupt [his] duties as President of the United States” and that the subpoena was, “on its face, unreasonable.”

However, last night Obama sang a solo at The Apollo Theater in New York City.

This is a developing story.

Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings.

Corazon7 — 2012-01-19T09:51:09+01:00

http://elections2012.blogcindario.com/2012/01/00021-obama-argues-against-appearing-at-eligibility-hearing.html

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

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-argues-against-appearing-at-eligibility-hearing/

OBAMA ARGUES AGAINST APPEARING AT ELIGIBILITY HEARING

'Electors, Congress, not Georgia, hold responsibility for qualifications of candidates'

Published: 11 hours ago

by BOB UNRUHEmail | Archive

Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.

“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.

Hearing have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.

It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.

The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for these cases, argtued that he should be exempted.

Jablonski earlier had argued that state eligibility requirements didn’t apply toObama, but the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.

“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does notapply to the presidential preference primary.”

In Obama’s attempt to be excused from providing testimony and evidence such as his original birth certificate, he argues that such testimony would “interrupt duties” as president.

He also argues that the documents and testimony “is, on its face, unreasonable.” And further, the documents and testimony already have been made public, he argued.

“The president made the documents available to the general public by placing it on his website. Although the document has been generally available for years, the president took the extraordinary step of acquiring a copy of the record of birth, informally known as the ‘long form,’ making it available to anyone who cares to check the website,” the filing argues.

And the state should mind its own business anyway, he argued.

“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing explains.

Taitz’ supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she’s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.

“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.

Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”

In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election, and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.

Barack Obama

Those bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented byTaitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell,represented by J. Mark Hatfield.

Irion said not many court observers believed Obama actually would comply with the subpoena for a number of reasons. He said for his clients’ arguments the testimony wouldn’t even be an issue.

His argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances.

Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that a multitude of experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.

It is that concern that also has prompted Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Their investigation report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.

The Georgia hearing will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus explains that the use of “natural born citizen,” does, in fact, require parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision

The hearing is set at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.

Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states as well.

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

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.”

What the White House in April released was as an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama’s father’s nationality.

The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House

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

UPDATE: Obama’s Georgia Attorney Files Motion to Quash Subpoenas in Ballot Challenge. CASE TO BE HEARD ON JANUARY 26 IN ATLANTA - MORE HERE

Farrar(Taitz) v Obama - Motion to Quash Georgia Subpoenas - Obama Ballot Access Challenge - 1/18/2012

The person who is constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander of our Military must be a

Corazon7 — 2012-01-16T12:17:30+01:00

http://elections2012.blogcindario.com/2012/01/00019-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen.html

OBAMA NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/ad-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen-washington-times-natl-wkly-by-cdr-kerchner-ret/

January 16, 2012

Ad – Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen – Washington Times Natl Wkly | by CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Filed under: Ads,Articles/Reports-CFK,News Announcements — cfkerchner @ 2:36 am
Tags: art2superpac, Article II Section 1, Article II Super Pac, Barack Obama not a natural born Citizen, CDR Kerchner (Ret), Constitution, kerchner v obama, Obama not constitutionally eligible to be president, Washington Times ad

Click on ad image to read and/or download or print a copy

Full Page Ad – Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen – Washington Times National Weekly Edition – 16 Jan 2012 issue – Page 5 – 2nd Ad in Support of Article II Super PAC | by CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Simply being ‘Born a Citizen’ or a ‘Citizen by Birth’ is not sufficient. The person who is constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander of our Military must be a “natural born Citizen” at birth, i.e., born in the USA to two U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized) parents. A “natural born Citizen” has no divided loyalties, foreign citizenship, allegiances, or foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them via their birth. John Jay and George Washington insisted on it for reasons of national security for the future generations after the founding generation was passed – which is why they put the “natural born Citizen” presidential eligibility clause into the U.S. Constitution in Article II Section 1.

Given the immense power of our military, both conventional and nuclear, this concern that the person in control of our military forces be a person with sole allegiance to the United States, at and since birth, is an important national security issue that very much needs to be protected and not usurped. Article II Section 1, the presidential eligibility clause, is that national security protection element in our Constitution, put there by the founders and framers, and it must not be ignored or usurped.

Read these essays for more about how and why the natural born Citizen clause got put into the Constitution for national security reasons and what it truly means: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressive’s long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government