CFP: Barack Obama - 50 Impeachable Crimes and Counting

CFP: A few weeks ago I wrote an article From the White House to the Big House: 25 Impeachable Crimes and Counting that detailed 25 illegal acts committed by President Obama and his Democrat cohorts in Washington. It showed a President and political party willing to break the law at will in order to accomplish their political aims. Thanks to reader contributions and conservative writers around the country, here are 25 more for your consideration.

Whether or not any of these troubling examples will lead to Obama’s impeachment and/or imprisonment, only time will tell. Regardless, taken together they paint a picture of an out of control President who lacks basic American values and has little to no respect for the rule of law

25 More Impeachable Crimes

1. Obama’s term as Board Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in the mid-1990s where he and his colleague, unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, misused over $300 million in private donations meant to improve the education of minorities. Instead of spending the money on traditional learning programs, Obama and Ayers directed the funds to local community activists who wasted it on trying to “radicalize” the students. An official review of the program found that it was a complete and utter failure.
2. As an Illinois State Senator, Obama directed tens of millions in state money to slumlords Valerie Jarrett and Tony Rezko meant to provide for housing for low income, minority tenants in return for political donations. Due to shoddy construction and nonexistent maintenance, the majority of the units, after less than 10 years of use, have been rendered uninhabitable.
3. Michelle Obama’s politically connected $316,000 VP of Community Affairs job at University of Chicago Hospitals while her husband was serving as US Senator. She was responsible for the design of an illegal “patient dumping” scheme that prevents local African Americans from using the emergency room at one of the nation’s finest hospitals and instead redirects them to community healthcare centers where they often receive substandard and inadequate treatment. The high paying position was eliminated soon after Mrs. Obama’s departure from the university.
4. Millions in illegal contributions accepted by the Obama campaign during his presidential run. Credit card filters designed to screen out foreign money and domestic donors who had maxed out their legally allowable limits, as required by US law, were intentionally switched off.
5. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s ongoing effort to create international small arms accords that will subvert the Second Amendment rights of US citizens.
6. The Russian-American START treaty signed by Obama in April 2010 that has no chance of making it through Congress unless passed during the lame duck session. Not only does the treaty hamstring US missile defense development and make it difficult to modernize our rapidly aging nuclear weapons arsenal, it represents unilateral disarmament by the US in return for nothing more than Russian “good will”.
7. Moving control of the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department directly into the White House where it is managed by Chief of Staff Rham Emmanuel.
8. Providing de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton, who has prohibited ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws outside the institutional setting. The ICE union has subsequently taken the unprecedented step of voting “no confidence” in Morton’s leadership.
9. Attorney General Erik Holder’s failure to sue sanctuary cities for violating US immigration law, while at the same time proceeding with a lawsuit against the State of Arizona for enforcing US immigration law.
10. Failure by Obama to treat the takeover of sovereign land in Arizona by the Mexican drug cartel as an Act of War.
11. Refusal by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Administrator David L. Strickland to release results from an internal investigation into the Toyota sudden acceleration problem that contains findings favorable to the foreign automaker.
12. Ongoing efforts by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to gain control over the internet in opposition to a judge’s ruling and Congress’s will, by reclassifying internet companies as telecommunication providers thus making them subject to FCC regulation.
13. Obama and his environmentalist allies preventing US industries from taking advantage of our rich natural resources including oil, coal, uranium and timber.
14. Obama’s month long stint as UN Security Council Chair in 2009, the first ever by a sitting U.S. President. Not only did this action give credibility to an international organization ruled by tyrants, it also called into question potential dual loyalties by our President.
15. The Obama National Security Strategy released in May that allows for the targeted assassination of US citizens including “homegrown terrorists” without due process. It has also been described by the Kremlin, which knows quite a lot about these kinds of things, as a “new law put forth by President Obama capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.”
16. Obama executive order signed in Dec. 2009 that allows Interpol to operate in US territory with impunity and without oversight by Congress, the courts, FBI or local law enforcement.
17. Deployment of 1,200 National Guard troops to border states where they will not, under any circumstances, be used to stop the flow of illegal aliens or drug traffickers.
18. A foreign policy that can be best described as the turning away of our allies, in particular Great Britain, Israel, Honduras, Poland, Columbia, and Taiwan, and the embracement of our enemies.
19. The State Department using $23 million in taxpayer money to help transform Kenya into a constitutionally communist nation where the freedom of speech is limited and private property rights are subservient to “social justice”. In addition, the recently adopted Kenyan constitution allows for the practice of Sharia Law in some regions, ensuring women will not be guaranteed basic human rights.
20. Obama’s refusal to hold press conferences and answer difficult questions as expected of a US President. Never in the modern age has there been a President so unwilling to answer to the American people for his actions. Considering the public’s growing anger towards his progressive policies, it is doubtful Obama will ever hold another press conference again.
21. The $26 billion bailout of the teacher’s unions that Obama recently signed into law. Not only was the money taken from food stamp programs for poor Americans in order to fund Democrat special interests, a portion will be skimmed off the top as union dues and funneled to Democrat political campaigns this fall.
22. Obama’s involvement with Governor Rod Blagojevich’s attempt to sell his old Illinois Senate seat. Even if Obama didn’t try to purchase the position for his chosen replacement, slumlord Valerie Jarrett, at the very least he had to know the seat was for sale.
23. Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s plans to take control of millions of acres of public and private land in Western states by designating them national monuments. These efforts are being carried out in secret and without input from Congress, state and local officials and current land owners.
24. Obama’s use of taxpayer money to pay for Democrat propaganda including $15 million for The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act road signs and $18 million for the perpetually misleading recovery.gov website.
25. The lasting damage Obama has done to the Jewish people. In his less than two years in office, there has been an outpouring of hatred towards the Jews the likes of which I thought I would never live to see. From Helen Thomas telling the Jews to “get the hell out of Palestine” to heavily armed, terrorist flotillas destined for the Gaza Strip described as “peaceful” by the western press. From throwing stones at little old ladies leaving synagogue in Sweden to the thousands of Jewish families fleeing Muslim persecution in France, a sea change in world public opinion against the Jewish people has been accomplished during Obama’s term. Because of his refusal to speak out against virulent anti-Semitism being pushed by left-wing politicians and Islamists around the world, the harm to the Jewish people will surely outlive his presidency and could have terrible, unforeseen consequences.

Original List of 25 Impeachable Offences

1. Convicted felon and Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko’s purchase of land adjacent to Obama’s house in Hyde Park, IL. In 2006, Rezko sold a 10 foot strip of his property to Obama for $104,500, rendering the remainder of Rezko’s $625,000 investment too small to be developed and, for all intents and purposes, worthless.
2. The provision of Obama campaign donor lists to ACORN in 2007 and 2008, more complete than the ones he gave to the FEC. ACORN used the lists to raise money for Obama’s election from donors who had already maxed out their legally allowable contributions.
3. Widespread voter fraud including voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, falsified documents, and threats of violence against Hillary Clinton supporters committed by the Obama campaign and ACORN during the 2008 Democrat primary election. For more information see my CFP article How Obama Used an Army of Thugs to Steal the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination.
4. Obama’s refusal to release his long form birth certificate which would show conclusively that he is a dual citizen and therefore not constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Obama’s college records, which have also not been released, would also contain information regarding his dual citizenship status.
5. Protecting union interests over those of GM and Chrysler bond holders during bankruptcy proceedings, forcing investors to accept millions of dollars in losses in direct violation of bankruptcy laws, money to which they were legally entitled.
6. Preferential treatment given to minority and women owned car dealerships by Obama administration officials as part of the auto industry bailout program and the forced closing of a disproportionate number of dealerships located in rural areas that did not vote for Obama.
7. Unsubstantiated firing of Corporation for National and Community Service Inspector General Gerald Walpin for exposing Sacramento Mayor and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson’s misuse of an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant.
8. Purchase of Congressional support for the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill including the “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and having the Department of Interior increase water allocations to the Central Valley of California to secure the votes of Democrat Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa.
9. Lying to the American people by promising they could keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to, when in reality tens of millions will be forced out of their current plans.
10. Attempted bribery of Rep. Joe Sestak with job offers to get him to drop out of the Senate primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter.
11. Directing the EPA to unilaterally set carbon emission standards, thus bypassing Congress which opposes Obama’s energy reform bill. For more information see my CFP article Forget Cap and Trade: EPA Regulation of CO2 Emissions Will Begin in 10 Months.
12. The Obama administration’s statement that a panel of experts had agreed with their plan for a 6 month Gulf Coast drilling moratorium, when in actuality none of them had supported the measure.
13. Bullying BP to set up a $20 billion slush fund to compensate Gulf Coast businesses and residents affected by the oil spill, to be administered by an Obama political appointee without any judicial or congressional oversight.
14. Implementing a third oil-drilling moratorium after the first two were thrown out of court, creating a de facto Gulf Coast offshore drilling ban in opposition to two judges’ rulings.
15. Establishment of a commission to investigate the Gulf Coast oil spill that contains not one oil industry expert and whose transparent purpose is to push a partisan political agenda rather than investigate the cause of the disaster.
16. Obama’s policy of intentionally not securing our nation’s borders, in opposition to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which calls for the President to protect states from foreign invasion, in an attempt to blackmail Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform. In essence, Obama is holding border states and residents politically hostage during a time they are being overrun by a narco-paramilitary invasion.
17. Department of Justice illegal race based policies regarding voter fraud as exposed by former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams. This includes the dropping of voter intimidation charges against 2 Black Panthers brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Philadelphia and the stated intention by political appointees to ignore voter crimes committed by African Americans, Latinos and other minorities.
18. Department of Justice purposefully allowing some states to continue their disenfranchisement of military personnel serving overseas in direct opposition to the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which was established in response to the more than 17,000 military votes that were not counted in the 2008 election because ballots had arrived after the deadline.
19. Recess appointment of Donald Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services without even a token attempt to put him through the Congressional nomination process, signaling that Congress’s constitutional obligation to vet presidential appointees means nothing to Obama. The same can be said of the 30+ Obama administration czars.
20. Spending $23 million of taxpayer money through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to support a constitutional referendum in Kenya in spite of the Siljander Amendment, which makes it illegal for the U.S. to lobby for abortion in other countries. The Kenyan referendum was partially written by Planned Parenthood and is designed to legalize abortion in that nation.
21. The participation of the Obama administration in the firing of Sherry Sherrod from the USDA without due process because of publicized out of context remarks she made at a NAACP meeting in March 2010.
22. The White House sham investigation of BP’s involvement in the release of the mass murdering Lockerbie bomber from prison. The Obama administration not only knew beforehand of the Scottish government’s plan to set Abdel Baset al-Megrahi free on “compassionate” grounds, they even sent a letter to Scottish authorities stating their preference for his remaining in Scotland over his transfer to a Libyan prison.
23. The canceling of 77 properly filed oil field development contracts approved by the Bush administration by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, preventing the extraction of up to 3 trillion gallons of oil buried under Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and North Dakota, more than enough to end our dependence on foreign oil and supply the U.S. with its energy needs for hundreds of years at current consumption rates.
24. Investigations by the Department of Homeland Security to determine the political affiliation of people making Freedom of Information Act requests and the subsequent delay and even altogether ignoring of requests made by Republican affiliated individuals.
25. The hardest to prosecute in court, but worst crime of all that Obama has perpetrated against the American people is the economic tyranny his socialist policies have wrecked upon our nation. While Obama has been living the life of a king including frequent 5 star vacations, dozens of concerts at the White House and endless rounds of golf, all paid for by taxpayer money—the increased transportation and security costs alone are in the millions of dollars—he has called for the rest of us to endure economic sacrifice. The annual trillion dollar deficits and borrowing of 41 cents of every dollar of federal spending by Obama is leading to unsustainable and potentially catastrophic national debt.

By Fred Dardick - the owner and operator of a medical staffing company based in Chicago. Prior to the business world, he worked as a biological researcher at Northwestern University and The University of Chicago. He has BS and MS degrees in biology and maintains a blog at conservativespotlight.com.  Fred can be reached at: fdardick@hotmail.com

Technorati Tags: CFP,BHO,impeachable crimes,one term Obama,Obama's impeachable offenses,constitutionally ineligible,connect the dots,Manchurian Candidate,crimes,Obamaland,rule of law,Tony Rezko,Valerie Jarrett,Chicago-style politics,Rham Emmanuel

Arpaio Obama Probe Finds 'National Security Threat' - Sheriff Joe's long-awaited press conference!

Excerpts:

Since 1955, Hawaii's been giving US citizenship to children born in other countries.  I saw it on Sheriff Joe's press conference today.

Under Hawaii's Revised Statute 338-17.8, a person only has to be an established resident of Hawaii, ... not necessarily a U.S. citizen, but any out-of-state, or foreign-born person, ... and then pay taxes there for One Year ... to be able to register and receive an official Hawaii birth certificate.

The concern is also relevant given the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling concerning Arizona’s proposed state immigration law, SB 1070, in which the federal court ruled state laws cannot be in contradiction or in conflict with federal law.

If AZ can’t contradict law, neither should Hawaii.  Plus there are probably thousands or more of those people who have received a “birth certificate” from Hawaii that should have gone through the naturalization process, making them illegals…

Certainly sounds like something Congress needs to address, but then they are too busy making laws to control us or laws about football or honorary days for celebrities.

However, Exposing Obama would reveal the depth of US Government corruption.

WND:

Hawaii found to be bogus birth-certificate factory

PHOENIX – After determining earlier this year there is probable cause to suspect the document released by the White House as Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said today he believes his Cold Case Posse’s investigation should be advanced to the federal government, based on further information released at a press conference in Phoenix that was live-streamed by WND.

Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo said the new information confirms the document presented to the American public in April 2011 is undoubtedly fraudulent.

Arpaio told WND he intends to move the investigation and the new information to a higher authority within the federal government because of what he calls an imminent threat to national security and U.S. immigration laws. The threat is posed by a flaw in Hawaii’s law discovered by his investigators that allows a foreigner to obtain a Hawaii birth certificate.

“Although I am having a difficult time deciding who to forward this information to given the fact that the obvious choices report directly to the president, I cannot stand by and hold on to information that threatens to weaken national security,” Arpaio said.

Arpaio said he intends on keeping a case file open if more information surfaces or if federal authorities decide to ignore the case.

Zullo explained that along with new information discovered regarding the birth certificate since the posse’s March 1 press conference, his team has discovered Hawaii provides easy access to a birth certificate, even if the child wasn’t born in the state.

Under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8, a person only has to be an established resident of Hawaii, not necessarily a U.S. citizen, and pay taxes there for one year to be able to register an out-of-state or foreign-born person with an official Hawaii birth certificate.

“If a nation’s security is only as strong as its weakest link, then America may be in serious trouble,” Arpaio said in a statement. “Hawaii may be our weakest link and could have a serious impact on our nation’s immigration policy.”

Among the new findings presented by lead Cold Case Posse investigator Mike Zullo:

• The sheriff’s investigators have learned of a birth certificate coding system that indicates the White House document has been altered.

• An interview with the Hawaii official who allegedly signed the Obama document in 1961, Verna K.L. Lee, provided further confirmation of the coding anomalies.

• Investigators were troubled to find key information missing on the verification document Hawaii provided to Arizona’s secretary of state in May.

• Hawaii’s deputy attorney general, Jill T. Nagamine, confirm the state has a birth document on file for Obama. But she would not confirm on the record that the White House document matched what was on file with the Hawaii Department of Health.

• The sheriff’s investigators interviewed three persons of interest who have provided additional information in the case.

In prepared opening remarks, Arpaio chastised the media for the way it has handled the investigation.

“You have demeaned this investigation at every turn as silly and wasteful,” he said. “Your contempt about the subject and me for pursuing it has been duly noted.”

He urged media members to listen to Zullo’s presentation of the new evidence.

“Keep an open mind if you can,” he said. “Put away all you pre conceived ideas. Keep your eye on the ball.”

Arpaio’s investigation was initiated last October when 250 Maricopa County citizens approached him for help because they believed the electronic document presented by the White House to the American public was a forgery. Arpaio said he went ahead with the probe with the intent of being able to clear the president and put the matter to rest. But he explained the investigation found too many inconsistencies on the birth certificate.

“We also looked into the president’s selective service registration card and found that it, too, appeared to be fraudulent,” Arpaio said.

Investigators since then have traveled to Hawaii and have interviewed more witnesses, the sheriff said.

Addressing the coding issue, Zullo explained that the Hawaii Department of Health, which categorized vital information issued at the time of the president’s birth, used specific number codes that were written in pencil to transfer information from a paper birth certificate to a database file.

The codes seen on the document issued by the White House are not consistent with the information entered into the various fields, indicating the document has been altered or amended.

In the coding system, the number 9 indicates the information is not stated, meaning there should not be any information in the box in which the number is written.

However, the number 9 can be seen written in pencil next to the fields for “Usual Occupation,” “Kind of Business or Industry” and “Race of Father” on Obama’s document. Each of those fields are filled with information.

“This proves the document has been tampered with and information has been placed on it,” Zullo said.

Hand written codes on Obama birth document  -->

Sheriff’s investigators tracked down the registrar who allegedly signed the White House’s birth document, U.K. Lee, who is now 95. She provided information that posed further inconsistencies with the story of Obama’s birth at the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in 1961.

The investigators also analyzed the Hawaii Department of Health’s response to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s request that Obama’s birth information be verified.

They interviewed in person the Hawaii assistant attorney general to verify that the document presented by the White House was the same document on file with the Department of Health.

Investigators said they were troubled to find key information missing on the verification document, including the president’s date of birth.

They said they were equally troubled that the deputy attorney general would not confirm on record that the White House document matched what was on file with the health department.

The national security concerns raised by the investigation are based on Hawaii Revised Statute 338.17.8. which states:

338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of state.

Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

Arpaio and his investigators said they have deep concerns that the Hawaii Revised Statute is a loophole that makes it possible for foreign born children to illegally establish U.S. citizenship.

They said the concern is also relevant given the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling concerning Arizona’s proposed state immigration law, SB 1070, in which the federal court ruled state laws cannot be in contradiction or in conflict with federal law.

Zullo noted that, normally, when it’s necessary to prove a person is a U.S. Citizen, the main form of documentation is a state certificate of birth.

“It appears that in the case of Hawaii law, any person can obtain a birth certificate if any adult or their parents can prove that they resided in Hawaii for one year and paid taxes,” he said. “There is no requirement to show that the child itself was actually born in Hawaii or on U.S. soil.”

More to come ...

More to come …

This is a 4-min video – primarily the question and answer after the press conference.

Video: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Obama Investigation News Conference July 17th, 2012

Related:

Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent'

'Indisputable proof' of Obama forgery to be released

Status of Sheriff Arpaio's Press Conference?

Watch Joe Arpaio’s next press conference

Watch Sheriff Joe's long-awaited press conference!

Another Sheriff Asking For Obama Documents and More Leaks About Obama 2008

Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue.

Barack Obama is an illegal president, period

WHY REPUBLICAN ELITE WON’T TARGET OBAMA OVER ELIGIBILITY

Barry Soetoro 1982… Indiana and Arizona Eligibility Challenges

How Did Obama Obtain a Social Security Number from Connecticut?

Obama’s Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul his presidency

The Obama Eligibility Question – (best article on the topic)

Eligibility Rulings Vanish from Net

Anchor Babies

The Obama campaign declined to comment on Arpaio's allegations.

h/t to AJ and MJ

Technorati Tags: Sheriff Joe,Joe Arpaio,illegals,Hawaii,Obamaland,birth certificate,Arizoan,sovereignty,natural born,national security threat,illegal president,Manchurian President,Where's the Birth Certificate,connect the dots,Obama's family,Obama's connections,unconstitutional,eligibility,watch the other hand,you be the judge,knowledge is power,common sense,stand-up America,wake-up America,Constitutionally ineligible,Founding Fathers,birthers,Manchurian Candidate,Election 2012

What Happened At Obama’s Eligibility Hearing? - Part 2

June 23, 2012 By Alan P. Halbert  - Western Journalism

During the hearing Monday in front of Judge Terry Lewis, the defense argued their motion to dismiss. Mark Herron for Obama stated that since he ran unopposed that he was not in “fact” nominated and would not be Florida’s nominee until the Democratic national convention in September.

It was ironic however, that he cited Florida statute 101.252.  This statute was discussed in part one; since Obama ran unopposed, this statue automatically “declares” him nominated for the Democratic executive committee for the state of Florida.  The delegates are now pledged to support Obama by this action per statute 103.101 at their national convention. This left me to wonder how he could be “nominated” though not nominated until September; the legal conundrum left me reeling that such a contradiction in logic could happen. With all the other fortuitous circumstances that have happened to and for Obama, we can only wait and see how this one will play out.  What he attempted to do was focus and steer the court to a narrow issue and decide the case based upon the right of a political party and not the people of the state of Florida to elect candidates.

We are used to these types of paradigms with Obama, with his propensity to disenfranchise any group and people that stand between him and his political goals, so this was just more of the same.

He then went on to discuss that if in fact any dispute in Obama’s eligibility were to arise, it is the responsibility of Congress when the Electors are called to Washington D.C. to cast their votes for President in the Electoral College.  However, the question at issue in front of Judge Lewis is a matter of Florida law, and Obama’s attorney is only stalling until after the election; to quote Larry Klayman, they are “trying to kick the can the down the road,” which would make this matter moot after the general election in November.

These same tactics were used successfully in 2008 before and after the election on all the actions that have questioned the eligibility of Obama to hold office since then.

Mr. Herron then went on to cite Florida statute 102.168 with Ambler v. Norman, a case that was heard in Leon County and was reversed on appeal.  This is an important case to the question at issue in this matter since it involved a question of a candidate’s eligibility.  The appellate decision came down to what the legislature’s intent was in the language of this statute (more on this case later when the plaintiff is heard from.)

Mr. Daniel Nordy came next as attorney for Florida’s Secretary of State; he re-iterated much of what Mr. Herron presented. However, his position is that the political parties “nominate” the candidates.  His position was quite strange since he intimated that these parties controlled the nomination and placement of a candidate's name upon any ballots in Florida. Judge Lewis was not buying it. Mr. Nordy produced the letter and read it to the court, and indeed, they stated he was their one and only candidate.

His position seems to disenfranchise the people of Florida since the “law” was drafted to make sure of complete disclosure of any candidate's party affiliation or political benefactors when it comes to financial support for costly political campaigns.  He certainly cannot mean that these same political parties (private entities) control all aspects of the ballot.  If this was the case, why does the “law” require notification to the nominated "candidate" by certified mail from the Secretary of State and the qualification documentation being expressly executed by the candidate himself?

One question that seems to stick out like a sore thumb, and one that Mr. Herron or Nordy have failed to answer, is what enjoins the delegates to the national convention in September?  The purpose of the “presidential preference primary” is to enjoin delegates in this case to the Democratic Party’s candidate who would prevail at the primary election.

The argument that they make is missing this crucial piece of information.  Their argument is simply put that there has not been an “election”; therefore, Obama has not been “nominated.”  This places the “law” at issue and leaves a question to answer that they stay silent on.  Florida statute 103.101 in sections 1, 4, 5, and 6 speaks about “binding” the political party’s delegates to the national convention so that the people’s voice can be heard as they voted.  If, as they say, no election transpired, how are these delegates bound to proffer the voice of Florida’s citizens?  Party hacks will do as they choose if not bound?  Clearly, this was “not” the intention of Florida’s legislature when they drafted and made into law statute 103.101, and that is where Obama’s argument fails!

If in fact this is the case, the legislature needs to address this deficiency in current law and “expressly” declare that a given candidate if he ran unopposed is given the pledge of the delegates at the national or nominating convention; to do otherwise would nullify and disenfranchise the people of Florida.  Florida statute 101.252 already does this, so any further legislation would only further clarify this issue!

Mr. Larry Klayman came next as counsel for the plaintiff; as mentioned previously, his opening statement started with a quote from John Adams, our 2^nd President (“We are a Nation of Laws, not Men”) to bring some levity to this issue. Mr. Klayman said it was an honor to be seen before Judge Lewis once again.  He was referring to Bush v. Gore, which he attended as co-counsel in this monumental case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. In a rare moment of levity, Judge Lewis answered back; he did not appear to be that old.

He then went on to explain that Florida’s election laws mirrored the intent of our Constitution and that a person must meet the unique conditions of Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5, the requirement that the person seeking the office of president must be a “natural born citizen.”   Alternatively, they could be declared “ineligible” per Florida statute 102.168, which is shown below:

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:

(b )Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.

This is an important point and issue that the court must consider since Judge Lewis is specifically charged with upholding Florida state statutes.  He then went on to discuss how the intention of the legislature and “laws” of Florida were in harmony with the United States Constitution and that his duty was to uphold the rule of law.

Mr. Herron will probably wish he had not brought up Ambler v. Norman, as it is a case that was heard in Leon County, where the circuit court set aside a primary win for a candidate on grounds that were of an administrative nature.  On appeal, the matter was reversed as the court erred; 102.168 sec. 3(b) was only to be used for Constitutional matters of which Obama faces and not the administrative relief that was available in that case.

He then went on to explain that the court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate this question since Mr. Voeltz, an ardent Democrat, has questioned the qualification of Obama to hold the office of president per statute 102.168 and the grounds for the action of the court to determine the eligibility question of president Obama.  He also cited that the court could make a declaratory judgment and require a mandamus decision to enjoin the Secretary of State in this matter to remove Obama’s name from the November general election ballot.

The discussion then turned to what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is, since this is at the heart of the question that must be answered regarding Obama holding the office of president.  Mr. Klayman then defined the question as a child born of “citizen” parents.  Judge Lewis questioned what “born” meant and whether each parent needed to be alive at the moment of birth. Mr. Klayman stumbled at this point, then regained his composure as he collected his thoughts.  The parents of any given child do not change whether they are alive or not, so the Constitution is silent on this issue since it was not intended to answer all questions. Suffice it to say, at birth, the “parents” do not change for the child; it only means a “parent” has preceded them in death if they are born without one parent.  This frail, meager, and in many cases inadequate requirement for the office of President is all the founding fathers could do to safeguard against a person of foreign influence ascending to the office of president.

Mr. Klayman then went on to explain that Obama’s father was allowed into the United States on a student visa.  He was also not in the process of “naturalization”, so he could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered a citizen.  Therefore, Obama was not a “natural born citizen” under the requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.  Numerous hypothetical situations were discussed as Judge Lewis probed the Constitutional requirement when persons were in foreign nations for themselves or their parents after being born on United States soil. Frankly, this did not add much to the discussion, although it was meant to probe the argument of Mr. Klayman. The definition of a “natural born citizen” did come up with Mr. Klayman citing Minor v. Happersett, a voting rights case from Missouri decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1875 where the definition was explicitly given: a citizen child born of two citizen parents.

The next issue that was discussed was the shell game and the semantics Mr. Herron and Mr. Nordy were attempting to pull over the court, by not specifically mentioning in their pleadings and in testimony the operative language of Florida statute 103.101 (wherein they only cited section 2 of this statute and left out sections 1, 4, 5 & 6 of their discussion.)  These sections discuss the operative language of the election and pledging of “delegates” to the national convention as the candidate exits the “presidential preference primary” as the “nominee” from the state of Florida.

Mr. Klayman then discussed the portion of 103.101, where the candidate's name is left off the ballot when only one candidate is put up for nomination by a political party.  He also explained Statute 101.252 where the same language is placed and is shown below:

101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.

(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office.

This is the portion of the “law" that Mr. Herron and Mr. Nordy were trying to hide from the court, since it works in conjunction with 103.101 where the “name is left off the ballot”; the candidate then exits the “presidential preference primary”  as being “declared nominated.”

He then accused Obama’s lawyers of using these very same tactics in 2008 to squelch any review with the courts prior to Obama being sworn in and that they were repeating the same pattern of “pushing it down the road” until after the election and he was sworn in once again. A passing reference was made to “Graham”, another election case that was heard by the Florida Supreme Court. The findings of this case were essentially three fold:

1. Where the law is silent, the statutes must be construed in a manner that would not nullify the right of the voters of the state of Florida.

2. The operative date for a cause of action for ineligibility would be at the date the  “primary” was closed or thereafter.

3. Any legal construction must enhance democratic rights of the voters.

He then when on to discuss that we live in a constitutional republic and that all the election laws of Florida and the United States Constitution must be read in concert with one another and be understood to enhance the voter's rights.

In rebuttal, Mr. Herron and Nordy again reiterated their construed interpretation of 103.101, again leaving out the fact that Obama left the “primary” as the nominee from the state of Florida with the Democrats delegates pledged to him for their national convention.  One other issue was brought up in that the plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed without a demand for “declaratory” relief being explicit in the complaint. Mr. Klayman was given time to respond and made the parties aware that it included other relief as the court felt necessary.  The subject then came up as to whether Mr. Klayman would be able to prove that Obama was not born in the United States, and he said he was not. Then Judge Lewis seemed to indicate he would grant a leave to amend the complaint to allow this to be entered.

On a personal observation, after the hearing concluded, both sides shared a little housekeeping task discussion as always happens after conclusion of hearings. However, Mr. Herron seemed to have a concerned look on his face; it was slight scowl.  I can only guess why as this matter is probably going to the mats, and the short easy victories Obama has always had at these proceedings is just a bygone memory.  Mr. Herron was expecting a dismissal at the conclusion of the hearing, and now his legal strategy lays in shambles (as well as that of the state's attorney Mr. Nordy, possibly their reputations as well.) Why they both went down this road is simply mind-boggling.

A simple reading of statutes 99.061, 101.252, and 103.101 shows the fallacy of their argument plain as day without any complicated legal analysis or gymnastics needing to be performed.  Obama is indeed “nominated” per Florida law, and the “delegates” are pledged to him, which is the operative outcome of 103.101. Obama's and the States attorney's protests to the contrary is futile as far as Florida law is concerned.

At the end of the day, I am struck by one incontrovertible fact; Obama chose to create phony technical grounds to dismiss this lawsuit rather than throw down his so-called long form birth certificate he released in April of 2011 and other bona-fides as absolute "proof" of his right to hold office.

Link to Part One

A hearing was held on June 18, 2012; it began precisely at 9 am Eastern Time in Leon County, Florida in the Court of Judge Terry Lewis to decide whether Obama would appear on the ballot in November and whether the lawsuit filed by Mr. Michael Voeltz (a lifelong Democrat) should be dismissed with prejudice. The same Judge who heard the famous Bush V. Gore (ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States), heard this matter. This famous case was started in his courtroom at the circuit court level where Judge Lewis presided in 2000 over Florida election statutes as well.

Speaking for the plaintiff was Larry Klayman; his opening statement quoted John Adams, our second President: “We are a Nation of Laws, not Men.” (framing the question for the court, the state of Florida and the Nation in his first utterance.) Mr. Klayman outlined that Florida election law does not operate in a vacuum but in concert with the Constitution of Florida, the United States, and our respective legislature(s). He showed that each party’s obligations and interests must be read in concert with one another.

This was in stark contrast to Obama’s attorneys and the attorney for Florida’s Secretary of State, who attempted to narrow the issues for the court and Judge Lewis. The basis for their argument was that since Obama was not in fact “nominated” by the Democratic Party and would not be until September, this action in this court was not ripe and should be dismissed with prejudice. Their argument was supposedly based on Florida Statute Chapter 103.101, which in their view states that since the election held last February was a “Presidential Preference Primary” election and that Obama ran un-opposed that he in fact was not “nominated” by the Democratic Party and therefore the action in this court was premature.

To dispense with some of the more technical issues, which will be discussed shortly, a synopsis will be presented first.

The basis of the argument came down to a multi-faceted supposition that was construed as a technicality by Obama’s attorneys and the State’s counsel. In their view, it was operative in the context that the Democratic Party (a private legal entity) controls the nomination process. To bring some clarity to this issue, it is ludicrous as a “matter of “law” to allow such an argument to stand. We have in essence three parties to the candidacy of any individual that seeks either a state or federal office. Therefore, to develop some reasonable logic, we need to look to each party’s rights, duties, and obligations in this process.

Only two of these parties reduce to a matter of law, the actual candidate and the election law within the state that the individual files to declare candidacy. The political parties (Democrats, Republicans, Marxists, Libertarians etc.) are legal entities that control who they will support with their funds, political machinery, and operatives. They must also meet certain qualifications under law and affirmatively execute certain documents that are filed with either local or state election officials.

Even if a political party chooses to “nominate” and support a given candidate, the candidate must tender the affirmative execution of qualification documents.

These political parties choose whom it is that they will support; the statute makes clear that the people of Florida will know their choice. They do not as a matter of “law” control the process as to the “legality” of any candidate(s) filing for any office within the borders of any state or for the nation for that matter, which is where their argument fails for Obama and his attorneys.

If we were to accept the argument of Obama and the state of Florida, we must accept the choice that the political party makes and only that choice. If this position and argument were allowed to stand, the voter’s choice(s) could then be nullified regardless of their choice of candidate after an election, a ludicrous proposition. Much to the chagrin of Obama, we are not a one-party state and government quite yet in the fashion of the communist party of the defunct Soviet Union, where only their party’s candidates appeared on the ballot.

If we accept Obama’s argument, that is in effect what we would have to accept.

Once again, it is the political parties’ “prerogative” to lend support, not declare who any candidate is; they only choose the declared candidate they wish to financially and cooperatively support. Therefore, we must look to the “laws” of the state of Florida for any answers to this issue and the legislature’s intent to enjoin the parties in the interests of the Constitution, the candidate, and the people of Florida.

Florida Statutes

Florida law under Chapter 99 (“Candidates”) declares what a candidate must do to become eligible to be placed upon any ballot for public office in Florida.

Chapter 103 discusses “Presidential Electors, Political Parties, Executive Committees, and Members”; Florida statutes are specific as to what must be done when a political party declares a “candidate” that will carry their “brand” of political identity of the nominating party.

It must be assumed that Chapter 103 was written by the legislature to make sure that any citizen of the state of Florida was aware of the “party affiliation” of any “person” who filed for any public office in Florida, or national office. In this matter, of course, for the office of president.

These private legal entities (political parties) do not control who would in fact be placed upon a ballot in the state of Florida. This is affirmed in the statutes that after “nomination” by a political party, the Secretary of State notifies the nominee by certified mail. Furthermore, the named individual, if they do not intend to run for the office of president, must decline the “nomination” to the Secretary of State. These safeguards have been legislated so the people of Florida will expressly know if a given candidate has a political party affiliation supporting them in an election. The action by the individual is considered affirmative so that the political party is not dictating to the “candidate” or the state of Florida who must appear on a general election ballot.

To do otherwise could disenfranchise the electorate and nullify any vote that the “people” could make when they voted their preference of any particular “candidate” for public office in Florida. The “political party” could otherwise substitute candidates at will even after an election for possibly capricious reasons if these safeguards were not in force.

Chapter 99 (“Candidates”) occurs first in Florida election law and therefore declares what qualifications a “candidate” must posses and would be considered a predicate condition for consideration to any office. Section 99.061 (“Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office”) declares what must happen for a candidate to be considered qualified for any particular party(s) nomination:

99.061Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office.—

(1)The provisions of any special act to the contrary notwithstanding, each person seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a federal, state, or multicounty district office, other than election to a judicial office as defined in chapter 105 or the office of school board member, shall file his or her qualification papers with, and pay the qualifying fee, which shall consist of the filing fee and election assessment, and party assessment, if any has been levied, to, the Department of State, or qualify by the petition process pursuant to s. 99.095 with the Department of State, at any time after noon of the 1st day for qualifying, which shall be as follows: the 120th day prior to the primary election, but not later than noon of the 116th day prior to the date of the primary election, for persons seeking to qualify for nomination or election to federal office or to the office of the state attorney or the public defender; and noon of the 71st day prior to the primary election, but not later than noon of the 67th day prior to the date of the primary election, for persons seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a state or multicounty district office, other than the office of the state attorney or the public defender.

Therefore, if we look at these statutes, we will ascertain what must occur for a candidate in-and-of-themselves to become eligible to be placed upon a ballot. This section of Florida law is shown below for these qualifications in Chapter 99.0955:

99.0955 Candidates with no party affiliation; name on general election ballot.—

(1)Each person seeking to qualify for election as a candidate with no party affiliation shall file his or her qualifying papers and pay the qualifying fee or qualify by the petition process pursuant to s. 99.095 with the officer and during the times and under the circumstances prescribed in s. 99.061. Upon qualifying, the candidate is entitled to have his or her name placed on the general election ballot.

(2)The qualifying fee for candidates with no party affiliation shall consist of a filing fee and an election assessment as prescribed in s. 99.092. Filing fees paid to the Department of State shall be deposited into the General Revenue Fund of the state. Filing fees paid to the supervisor of elections shall be deposited into the general revenue fund of the county.

As can be seen by the above statute, “party affiliation” is not necessary to be placed upon any election ballot in Florida. Furthermore, these qualifications are the minimal qualifications that a “candidate” must possess to be placed upon a ballot. So why would the legislature create this statute if a “candidate” could only be placed upon a ballot if they needed the endorsement(s) of a political party? The short answer is they would not! So, then, why was this statute drafted and made into law?

Again, it can only be seen in the light of the people of Florida to truly know what party was supporting a given “candidate”, not that they controlled the ballot of any person’s name within the state of Florida. An affirmative action must be performed by the candidates themselves when they file the qualifying documents with the Secretary of State; after they are “nominated” by a political party, they must again affirmatively decline by expressly declining the “nomination” directly to the Secretary of State if they choose not to run.

In Obama’s case the ‘law” is clear as shown below:

101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.-

(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office.

Now that we have examined the applicable statutes of a particular candidate’s qualifications and the express declaration of a candidate’s political party affiliation, we can turn our attention to the particular statute cited by Mr. Klayman, Chapter 102.168 Section 3(b), with the applicable law shown below:

102.168 Contest of election.—

(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.

Mr. Klayman has stated the particular statute that is applicable to this case, much to the admonishment of Obama’s counsel who vehemently opposes such a condition. The “taxpayer” requirement of the statute is satisfied from section 1, and an election did transpire and was challenged by a “person” of standing to bring a complaint to the circuit court as required in the statute. Mr. Voeltz has been specific in his complaint on what especially is a defect with Obama, namely his ineligibility to hold office under section 3 (b) shown above.

The statute discusses two reasons: either they are not eligible for “nomination” (again, a reference to a political party) or actual qualification for the office itself.

In Obama’s case, he is not eligible as he is not a “natural born citizen”; however, he is the de-facto nominee of his party and for his attorneys and Secretary of State to believe otherwise is mere folly. Having them make believe that it is contingent upon the Democrats’ Convention in September is merely obscuring the facts in this case.

If common sense was applied by these men, they would know that Obama is running for president in every state in the union, and by statute, he is already the declared nominee in Florida.

So, pardon me if the authorities are engaging in subterfuge; we can expect that from Obama. However, the Secretary of State for Florida is a real stretch since Obama is “declared” nominated per statute 101.252!

What in essence we have done is lay open the fallacy of the arguments made by Obama and his attorneys, as it is unreasonable to assume that a “private entity” (the Democratic Party) has complete control on who would be placed upon a primary or general election ballot in the state of Florida. If we follow the arguments of Obama’s attorneys, the people are disenfranchised and nullified by the sheer capricious whim of a political party that would be free to place any person upon a ballot in Florida, even against the expressed wishes of any given candidate, again a ludicrous proposition which the “law” precludes.

Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible

Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and that it doesn’t matter.

According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit, “…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.”

In numerous previous lawsuits questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats have maintained that voters, not the Constitution, should be the final arbiters of presidential eligibility. Though a disgraceful assertion on its face, such mindless rambling was about all that desperate Democrat attorneys had in their arsenals, apart from the perpetually employed “plaintiffs lack standing” defense.

But now, the cat is out of the bag, and the true sentiments of Democrat Party officials have finally been aired. It seems that, according to the left, as long as the acting president has the requisite contempt for the United States, is willing to work tirelessly to destroy the national economy, and will ignore both the rule of law and his Constitutional duty to enforce it, he is eminently qualified to hold the country’s top job.

In February, Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi ignored Supreme Court precedent, made a shambles of case law, and distorted the rulings of other courts in a pathetically obvious mission to find Barack Obama eligible for the Georgia presidential ballot. Although the first judge to decide an Obama eligibility case on the merits, his contempt for an honest judicial process certainly did nothing to mend the rapidly deteriorating reputation of the American legal system.

On Wednesday, United States District Judge S. Thomas Anderson joined a long list of robed colleagues, ruling that plaintiffs in the Tennessee case “lacked standing” to point out Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for the presidency. That is, plaintiffs could not claim sufficient personal harm should the Manchurian Candidate remain in or be re-elected to the White House.

Strange how the law works. After 3 ½ years of cynical disregard for the borders, language, and culture of the United States, one would think that some 240 million people have suffered “sufficient personal harm” to claim legal standing for a crack at His Royal Highness in a court of law! There are only 30 million illegals currently residing in the United States, and those the Attorney General refers to as “his people” might actually lack legal standing in the eyes of an honest arbiter.

At any rate, Democrats have finally admitted what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Barack Obama is NOT qualified to hold the job won for him by the national media in 2008. But it seems only the voters will have the authority to reclaim it from him. God willing, the vast majority who exercise that authority in November will be both American and alive

Read More in: Where's the Birth Certificate?

Technorati Tags: eligibility,natural born,birthers,Constitutionally ineligible,watch the other hand,wake-up America,stand-up America,Where's the birth certificate,Florida,natural born citizen,vetting our candidates,smoke and mirrors,Manchurian President

Stunning News from Georgia - 'Judicial Fiat From the Bench - Changed the Meaning of the Constitution and Natural Born Citizen'

In what can only be described as an unbelievable, yet in many was ‘to be expected’ ruling, Georgia Judge Michael Malihi has ruled Barack Obama can be on the ballot this year.

When you read the transcripts of the trial the final ruling seemed a formality, but in true Chicago-style politics they got to the judge.  This is my friends is how Election 2012 will come out as well if each and every American does not insist on transparency of the voting process, the vote count, the vote certification, and the demanding of recounts and complete new elections if there is any doubt.  Team Obama, George Soros and his network are everywhere and will do anything to win and keep their Manchurian Candidate in power!

From The Atlanta Journal Constitution:

President Barack Obama’s name will remain on the Georgia primary ballot after a state law judge flatly rejected legal challenges that contend he can not be a candidate.

A Georgia judge rejected a so-called "birther" challenge that claimed President Barack Obama was ineligible for the Georgia ballot.

In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has a computer-generated Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is ineligible to be a candidate because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth.

The findings by Malihi, a judge for the State Office of Administrative Hearings, go to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who will make the final determination. Last month, at a hearing boycotted by Obama's lawyer, Malihi considered complaints brought by members of the so-called "birther" movement.

With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification papers, Malihi said he found the evidence "unsatisfactory" and "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 and "none ... provided persuasive testimony," Malihi wrote.

Addressing the other claim that contends Obama cannot be a candidate because his father was never a U.S. citizen, Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents.

Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen," Malihi wrote, which is absolutely wrong if you know the Constitution.  It is absolutely wrong even if you read the John McCain resolution in 2008 voted on by then Senator Barack Obama, a resolution that Obama co-sponsored.

Questions were raised over McCain’s eligibility under the Constitution’s demand that a president be a “natural born Citizen,” because he was born to American citizen military parents while they are on assignment overseas.  The resolution defined a ‘natural born Citizen’ as one who is born on American soil, which includes American military bases, American territories and American embassies and consulates, plus whose parents are both American Citizens.  Obama’s father was not even a legal resident; he was a foreign student.

Questions over Obama’s eligibility have arisen because of his almost total concealment of documentation from his life – including his passport records, kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules, medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license and adoption records. Also there are questions about Obama’s Connecticut Social Security number that belonged to a dead person.

Specifically, because of the lack of documentation, it was suspected he might not have been born in Hawaii, or might have another circumstance that would preclude his eligibility under the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” requirement, such as a loss of that status by taking Indonesia citizenship during his childhood, or relinquishing that status by using a foreign passport during his college years. Or that he didn’t qualify because of a dual citizenship inherited from a foreign national father.

But according to Malihi, using case law and obviously under influence, Obama is eligible as a candidate for the upcoming presidential primary in March, the judge said.

To call this ruling beyond belief would be an understatement. First, Obama and his legal team boycotted the proceedings. Unfortunately, the eligibility legal team might have made a strategic error in not simply accepting a default judgment.

According to the order that was issued, the Judge offered them that option but instead they insisted on a trial, which allowed the Judge to make certain rulings he would not have been able to make.

The ruling from the trial court is here. Hopefully it will be appealed and quickly, as the evidence in this case seems very strong.

The eventual possibility of a Barack Hussein Obama is exactly why the Founding Fathers put in the requirement of  being a “natural born” citizen in the requirements for in running for U.S. President in the U.S. Constitution.

We now find ourselves the victims of our own failings… Constitutionally and historically illiterate as a people with a judiciary that rules by case law instead of Constitutional law, a circumstance intentionally created by the Progressive Movement over the past 80-years.

Georgia Judge Malihi’s ruling that Obama and anyone born in the U.S. is now eligible to be President and Vice President (natural born citizen).  It opens the door for the children of terrorists, foreign dictators and usurpers like Obama to takeover and destroy the greatest country for the average man the world has ever seen.  Oh… that already happened, didn’t it?!?

La Raza, Mexico, gangs and Islamic extremists are celebrating tonight.  15 million illegal alien anchor babies born in the U.S. to illegal alien foreign parents over the past 30 years are now eligible to lead the U.S. when they reach the age of 35.  New World Order/one world government here we come!  Our founders are rolling in their graves and we gave our children’s future to cowards, terrorists and freedom hating fanatics.

More info on Constitutional requirements for Prez/VP:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

This from Attorney Orly Taitz:

YAP, IT LOOKS LIKE OBAMA REGIME GOT TO YET ANOTHER JUDGE, HE STATES THAT MINOR DOES NOT CONTROL AND NO WITNESS WAS PERSUASIVE. KEEP IN MIND, OBAMA WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY AND HE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY WITNESSES AND HE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE

Posted on | February 3, 2012 | 45 Comments -  Malihi final ruling

Here is the final ruling. Keep in mind, in GA it is up to the candidate to prove his eligibility.

Candidate did not show up, did not produce any documents  and did not prove anything.

Malihi’s order looks like it was drafted by Obama’s personal attorneys from Perkins Coie. He brings forward a ruling from another court in IN and says, that because they ruled that Minor does not control, he rules that as well.

In regards to the evidence and witnesses, he says, that none of them were persuasive. Well, plaintiffs witnesses were not supposed to prove that Obama is not eligible, plaintiffs were supposed to show, that there is a reasonable doubt. Obama was supposed to provide evidence to overcome this reasonable doubt. If HI refuses to provide any original documents and Obama is refusing to provide any certified copies, what can the Plaintiffs do? How can we provide better evidence. I filed a motion for Malihi to issue letter Rogatory to the circuit court in HI, so we can get the original birth certificate or provide definitive proof, that it does not exist. Malihi stated that he does not believe, that he has jurisdiction to sign a letter Rogatory.   I can go to the superior court and petition for letters rogatory, but with the level of corruption in courts, I don’t know, if the Superior court of Fulton county is any better.

From now on we have an official anarchy. No rule of law, no real documents exist. Any criminal can create any forgery, post it on line and that would be enough for one to be the President, to be in charge of the military and nuclear weapons. From now on anyone can use stolen social security numbers of deceased individuals from the states, where they never resided.

We officially have a free for all, we officially have a mob rule, a criminal enterprise running the nation and we have no judge that will stop this mob.

Bottom line, we need to get the original documents from Hawaii and from the Social Security to show, that Obama is a fraud and a criminal. I am not sure yet, how to get the original documents. I don’t know how to break through the stonewalling of this criminal enterprise running the country. I welcome your ideas. I am not sure, how people can stop this criminal enterprise rule short of  a total citizen’s revolt.

At any rate, I will ask for a stay, pending motion for reconsideration and me filing a petition for letters rogatory to the Fulton county court to be sent to the circuit court in Hawaii, seeking circuit court in HI, issuing subpoena for Obama’s original documents, as well as SSA providing the original application for this SS-5 application for 042-68-4425 Connecticut SSN, that Obama is fraudulently using. If the documents, that I got so far are not good enough, than higher courts should issue letters rogatory and subpoenas to the Social Security administration and Department of Health in Hawaii to force them provide the original documents, which of course we all know do not exist.

I need plaintiffs in Indiana ASAP.

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2012 Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire

Some Interesting Comments:

• Looks like the judge has been told that he will end up like the judge in AZ that died before Gabby was shot...
• Judson, this is just the tip of the iceberg - Obama will do whatever it takes to win 2012 Election. Why are the unemployment figures coming out so low. Someone is playing with the numbers!
• Why are we surprised?  Has anyone paid any attention to the bible lately?
• The judge ended up being Obamas lawyer.
• Wonder what they threatened him with? NDAA? Going after his family?  Or did the bribe him and pay him off? Or both?
• If we don’t wake-up soon and monitor the election and vote count, we are done!
• The Federalists papers made it quite clear that parents needed to be US citizens to qualify to be President. John Jay was quite specific in his wording. Yet this Judge ignored the intent and the wording of the Constitution, should be removed from the bench. The defendant presented nothing, no proof, yet won the entire hearing. What a scam on America.
• America, No Longer a Sovereign Nation Subject to Constitutional Law

  Obama was selected, tutored, groomed, and scripted and given enough money to buy the office of President by his puppet masters, George Soros, and the 100+ members of the Democracy Alliance, the Bilderberg Group, and other uber wealthy individuals and groups. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24864 Newt’s buddies!Seriously, if Obama is allowed to run without being first vetted then this country is dead! The fix is in and he will win! All this election stuff is just smoke and mirrors to make the public think they really have a hand in picking the next president. I no longer feel that there is any viable solution available. People are apathetic and not willing to give up anything to get this country back on track other than talk, make phone calls for the election and that's about it. If I could I believe I would find another country to live out my remaining years of life. If Obama gets in, I am through with all this stuff...it is a waste of time and energy.

• Seriously, if Obama is allowed to run without being first vetted then this country is dead! The fix is in and he will win! All this election stuff is just smoke and mirrors to make the public think they really have a hand in picking the next president. I no longer feel that there is any viable solution available. People are apathetic and not willing to give up anything to get this country back on track other than talk, make phone calls for the election and that's about it. If I could I believe I would find another country to live out my remaining years of life. If Obama gets in, I am through with all this stuff...it is a waste of time and energy.

  GEORGIA JUDGE MALIHI RULES THE CONSTITUTION MOOT
  

  • January 3, 2012 (TPATH) - Georgia State Administrative Judge Malihi lit a match and dropped it onto our Constitution this day.

  • Despite giving the appearance that America had finally found a patriot in the vast swamp of vermin that has been posing as the legal system in this country, Judge Malihi has immersed himself into the slimy bottom scum of the bog.
    

  • Disregarding the many Supreme Court rulings of the past, the clear and evident meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" and Georgia's state own law that requires a candidate to provide proof, the Judge folded like a cheap camera and ignored his states own law and the US Constitution. Obama, the Judge ruled, is a "Natural Born Citizen" because his mother was a citizen. What? As of now, #Obama will be on the ballot in Georgia and this Judge has helped him take one more step towards dismantling the Constitution he so vehemently abhors.

  • All of us who love this country and fear what we see happening to it, this day, are very sad, disappointed and disgusted. The feeling of embarrassment has invaded my emotions as I realize this was most likely a "set up".
    
    This may well have been charade, from the outset, to try to once and for all shut down opposition to Obama, and for the first time, allowing evidence to be admitted, in a controlled and preconceived outcome. Instead of not allowing the cases to go forward for lack of standing, which has been the case in all other efforts, they may well have decided to let one go to court, not have any of Obama's people there so they could not be charged with perjury, and then, rule in favor of the Usurper.

  • There are some very important questions that Judge Malihi needs to answer. This article and these questions are being sent to him.
    Judge, as you read this, I dare you to take a few minutes and answer these questions. I don't think you will because you are either one of two things. An imposter, a faux jurist with a liberal, progressive agenda who has plastered a slap in the face of our founding fathers or you have been scared out of your soiled robes by whatever Obama's people threatened you with.
    

  • This is your first question:
    1. Which of the two above descriptions best fits you?
    2. If you were of the opinion that only one parent need be a citizen in order for the offspring to be a "Natural Born Citizen" why did you waste the time of the court, Obama's attorneys, the plaintiff's attorneys and the tax payer's money by allowing this suit to go forward?
    3. When John Jay asked George Washington to add the term Natural Born Citizen to Article II, what could have been his purpose?
    4. If his purpose was, as he declared it to be, to protect the government from being usurped by foreign affiliation, do you think he and the rest of the first Constitutional Convention participants would have chosen a legal phrase that would allow for just 50% protection?
    5. Since Georgia election law requires the ballot petitioner, if challenged, to show proof of his eligibility, why were you persuaded to rule against evidence put forth by the plaintiffs, as you allowed the defendant to disrespect you and the legal system of Georgia, when they refused to offer proof or even participate?
    6. Would not the issuance of a forged birth certificate, in your mind, raise some question as to why it was forged?
    7. If, as you say, you found the witnesses not to be credible, how much more credible was the non-evidence Obama's attorneys did not provide when they did not show up?
    8. Since the testimony of the witnesses, at least the ones that did appear in your court, stated under oath, that Obama has been using a Social Security number that failed a government security check, and that the birth certificate Obama put on the White House web site was a forgery, if you don't believe them, why have you not brought criminal charges against them for perjury?
    9. Part of your ruling stated that since Obama was born in Hawaii, he is therefore a "Natural Born Citizen" and you don't believe the plaintiff's testimony equates to perjury, and if where Obama was born guided the impetus of your decision, why did you rule on this case without further investigation into those two very important criteria?
    10. Judge Malihi, since you believe that our founding fathers were so stupid as to not want to protect America from both ends of possible threat, by allowing only one parent to be a citizen, your ruling today would appear to suppose that the King of England, back in the day, could be the father of the next President. Is this what you believe?
    11. Supposing you are not as dull witted as you appear to presume our founding fathers were, if you were in charge of a bank, would you set up regulations that only require one of the two doors to be locked at closing time?
    12. Since you had the opportunity to help America begin to restore, respect and once again protect the US Constitution, can you say you are proud of what you have done? In closing, only you know the answer to the first question. Either way, you have let the American people down and have failed to live up to your oath to protect and defend our land. Shame on you, Sir.
    Regards, Dwight Kehoe - www.tpath.org

-->  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. - http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

February 3, 2012Georgia 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.”

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.” See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (states have no authority to change, add, or diminish the eligibility requirements for members of Congress). Moreover, as naturalization needs uniformity, so does the citizenship standard needed to be met by those wishing to be eligible to be President. Hence, any state court decision on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not binding on the nation in determining who is eligible to be President. Such a decision can only be ultimately made by the U.S. Supreme Court which would make its decision the law of the entire nation. The Ankeny case is a decision of the Indiana state court and not by the U.S. Supreme Court. For this reason, the Ankeny decision is not binding on any court deciding the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” But not only is the decision not binding, it also needs to be rejected for diminishing the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Apart from the Ankeny decision not being binding on the national issue of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the decision itself should be rejected on its merits.

The Constitution’s text does not define a “natural born Citizen.” Yet, Ankeny did not even discuss what the Founders’ and Framers” original intent was in including the “natural born” Citizen clause in the Constitution. It is a rule of constitutional construction that we can learn what the Founders and Framers intended by a certain term they included in the Constitution by discovering what their purpose was for including the term in that document. But the Ankeny court told us what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is without examining the purpose for which the Founders and Framers included that clause in Article II, Section 1. No where in the decision do we see that the court examined what the Founders’ and Framers’ intent was for inserting the clause in the Constitution. The court conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. It provided no sources from the Founding period which in any way supports its holding. It discussed no historical records or declarations of historical figures. So its decision as to what a “natural born” Citizen is has no historical or legal support.

The Founders and Framers placed their trust in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. They came to learn what natural law was from studying ancient history and its influence in the then modern world. They knew from studying this history and the great publicists, including Emer de Vattel who was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite, that natural law became the law of nations. And Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. There he said that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Indiana state court in Ankeny did not even discuss natural law and the law of nations. The Ankeny court just barely acknowledged Emer de Vattel. It refers to Vattel's highly influential work, The Law of Nations, as "an eighteenth century treatise" and discusses neither Vattel nor his work. Hence, it fails to understand the importance of the law of nations and Vattel to the Founders and Framers and in the founding of our nation and their drafting of our Constitution in which they included the law of nations and not the English common law as part of Article III "Laws of the United States." The court hardly knew who Emer de Vattel was. This should be an indication to anyone who has seriously studied the Obama eligibility issue of how much reliance we can place on the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.

Judge Malihi also did not discuss the early naturalization statutes passed by our early Congresses. These acts are critical in understanding the definition of a “natural born Citizen” because so many members of the early Congresses were Founders and Framers. “The significance of such a statute passed by the first Congress was, of course, the fact that many of the framers of the Constitution were Members of that first Congress, as well as the fact that the first Congress’s understanding of the meaning of the terms of the Constitution was most contemporaneous in time with the document’s adoption. One author has noted that of the “Committee of Eleven,” which first proposed to the Convention of 1787 the eligibility requirement of being a “natural born” citizen, 8 of the 11 committee members were in that first Congress, and none stated objections to or disagreement with the characterization of the term “natural born” by statute by the Congress.” Christina Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonzaga Law Review 349, 371 (2000/2001). The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, prove that only a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” These acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. These acts also naturalized children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be in 1790 “natural born citizens” and then in 1795 and thereafter “citizens of the United States.” By analyzing these acts, we can see that the only child over whom Congress did not exercise its naturalization power was a child born in the United States to citizen parents. Hence, that child was the “natural born citizen.”

Ankeny misread Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), saying that the Minor Court read Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment "in tandem," suggesting without any support that the latter somehow amended the former. It also erred when it said that Minor "left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." The Court did no such thing. Rather, the Court left open that question as it applies to a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," not an Article II "natural born Citizen." Minor told us that there is no doubt who a “natural born Citizen” is, telling us that it is a child born in the country of two U.S. citizen parents. That definition is based on natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Indeed, this confirms that the Founders and Framers gave us only one citizenship definition to be used to determine eligibility to be President. On the other hand, Minor added that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Framers gave Congress the power to make future “citizens of the United States” through naturalization. Hence, the doubts have been over the definition making persons the parents of a future “natural born Citizen,” not over the definition making the child of those parents a “natural born Citizen.” It also confounded Minor and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) as relying upon the English common law to define a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” It said that Minor relied upon the English common law like Wong Kim Ark did when it did not do any such thing, for it relied upon natural law and the law of nations which when applied in the United States became “common-law” (the language that Minor used), which given the definition of a “natural-born citizen” that the Court provided (including the citizenship of the parents as a condition of being a “natural-born citizen”) could not have been English common law but rather was American common law. In order to justify its decision, Ankeny gave authority and respect to the feudal English common law (per Lord Coke and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn) on matters of U.S. citizenship and gave no such authority and respect to our own American common law which Minor showed replaced that feudal law in the new republic. In fact, there is not one word in the Minor decision which sounds in the language of the English common law, yet Ankeny said that it relied upon English common law. It distinguished Minor in footnote 12 by saying that it “contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.” But it did not explain how or why having one U.S. citizen parent rather than none would make any difference when applying the “natural born” Citizen clause.

Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case, answered the question left open in Minor, which question concerned whether Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law, which historically had been used to define British nationality and not American nationality, to define a “citizen of the United States.” But Ankeny mistakenly concluded that Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. There is nothing in Wong Kim Ark decision that suggests that the Court declared Wong Kim Ark an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) already had told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no doubt and if Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. government would not have argued that he was not even a “citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark never said that Minor was wrong in defining a “natural born Citizen” in the way that it did under natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law.

Also, Ankeny relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and its historical sources for its decision on what a “natural born Citizen” is. They made a monumental declaration as to the meaning of the clause based solely upon a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case that did not even involve any dispute regarding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and which ironically confirmed Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” as stated by Minor v. Happersett in 1875.

Ankeny incorrectly took the Wong Kim Ark holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," and even though Wong itself provides a different definition for an Article II "natural born Citizen," and even though Wong cites and accepts Minor's definition of a "natural born Citizen," the Ankeny court equated the Wong "citizen of the United States" with an Article II "natural born Citizen" and said that the Wong decision stands for such a proposition when it does not. Hence, it erroneously relied upon Wong Kim Ark, stating that the Court there declared Wong a “natural born citizen” when it only declared him a “citizen” of the United States. In Footnote 14 it said: “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. This is a fantastic statement given the care and precision which the Founders and Framers used with their language in drafting and adopting the Constitution, a circumstance which has always been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court when called upon to interpret the Constitution. Additionally, Wong Kim Ark itself distinguished between a child born in the country to one or two alien parents and a child born in the country to citizen parents, telling us that while both are “citizens,” only the latter is a “natural born Citizen." Wong said: “‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ p. 22, note.” Wong Kim Ark, at 666-67 (citing and quoting Binney’s 1853 pamphlet on citizenship).

Ankeny erroneously conflated an Article II "natural born Citizen" with a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other parts of the Constitution are clear in distinguishing between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” The text of the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.” Even if we were to give them any controlling effect which they do not have, there is also nothing in the legislative debates which indicates that the amendment was designed to change the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We cannot just forget about the distinction made by the Framers in Article II between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” Just ruling someone to be a “citizen of the United States” does not necessarily mean that the person is a “natural born Citizen,” for “citizens of the United States” are made up of “natural born Citizens” and naturalized “citizens of the United States.” The latter are naturalized either “at birth” or after birth. “Natural born Citizens” are citizens by virtue of natural law. Other U.S. citizens are citizens by virtue of positive law which in Wong Kim Ark was “by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment.” Wonk Kim Ark, at 686.

Ankeny as did Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830). What the court did is cite and quote from Justice Story who was in the minority and whose opinion was not accepted by the majority. The majority of the Court in Inglis, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, did not rely upon the English common law jus soli rule but rather the law of nation jus sanguinis rule when it held that if the demandant was born in New York after July 4, 1776, his minority incapacitated him from making any election as to which citizenship to chose and he therefore inherited the character and election and therefore the citizenship of his father (father and mother) who, if born a British subject and if he continued that national character as of the time of his son’s birth, made the son British also, subject to the son renouncing the citizenship chosen for him by his British father during minority and choosing U.S. citizenship upon becoming an adult. Id. at 124 and 126. The majority cited and relied upon Vattel when arguing that a person has a right to elect what nation to be part of in time of revolution. Id. at 122. Justice Story put forth the English common law jus soli rule for citizenship and ruled that the damandant if born in New York was an “American citizen” regardless of the citizenship of his parents (Id. at 164 and 170). But Justice Story was in the minority. The majority of the Court did not adopt Justice Story’s opinion and reliance on the English common law.
Both Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon that part of the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), which was not directed to the issue of slavery disabling blacks from being citizens but rather directed to whether we defined U.S. citizenship under natural law and the law of nations or under the English common law. This dissenting opinion did not carry the day and was also rejected by the Minor court which in 1875 defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to citizen parents.

Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II "natural born Citizen" when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so.

Ankeny said: “Although President Arthur’s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.” But the court provided no evidence that anyone then was aware that when Chester Arthur was born, he was born to an alien father. Additionally, even if anyone of any authority was aware that Arthur’s father when he was born was an alien, one constitutional violation does not justify another.

Ankeny cited and quoted from Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) in support of its definition of a "natural born Citizen" when the question of the meaning of the clause did not exist in that case and the only reference therein to a "natural born Citizen" was made by the court when it recited the facts but not when it provided any legal analysis. It is incredible that the court would give such weight to such a statement of dicta and not give any weight to the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” in Minor.
The pro se plaintiffs in Ankeny claimed, among other things, that Obama was not eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1. The court said 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….” The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint on defendants’ motion that on its face plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. What is also amazing about the Ankeny case is that after it went through its explanation as to what a “natural born Citizen” is and while it dismissed the plaintiffs’ case in which they argued both that Obama has yet to prove that he was born in the United States (it called that claim a “non-factual assertion[]”) and that even if he were so born he still fails to meet the legal definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it neither held that Obama was born in the United States nor that he is a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, there was absolutely no evidence before the court 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. Hence, the Ankeny opinion regarding whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” is nothing more than an advisory opinion, for the Court never ruled that he was such. 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.”

Ankeny was advisory on the "natural born Citizen" issue because it gave us its definition of a "natural born Citizen" but never applied that definition to Obama's personal situation. It resolved no real controversy. After it pronounced what the law was, it needed to apply that law to the facts. It needed to find that Obama was born in the United States and that he was thus a "natural born Citizen" to give its opinion any binding effect. It never made the finding that Obama was born in the United States. It never said that such a fact was established by the evidence before the court. So its whole opinion on what is a "natural born Citizen" is purely advisory.

To conclude that plaintiffs did not state a sufficient claim given the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is, there would have to exist uncontroverted evidence that Obama was in fact eligible to be President. The question of presidential eligibility is a legal question which the court could examine on a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But in order to make any conclusion as to whether plaintiffs adequately challenged Obama’s eligibility, given the fact that on a motion to dismiss a complaint the court is supposed to “view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the nonmovant’s favor, and given the court’s own definition of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the court had to examine whether Obama was “born within the borders of the United States.” This legal hurdle shows that the court could not decide the question of the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint by simply examining its face alone. Rather, the court needed evidence outside the complaint (e.g. a birth certificate) which means that the court would have had to convert the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment.

But not only was there no evidence presented to the Ankeny court showing that Obama was in fact born in the United States, the court never called for such evidence nor did it even make such a factual finding. By the court’s own words, the citizenship of Obama’s parents was not relevant. But surely the only element of its “natural born Citizen” test, that Obama was born in the United States, was critically relevant. Yet the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim without any evidence that Obama was born in the United States. Hence, how can the court dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim? Rather, what the court did is just by way of advisory opinion tell us what it believes to be a “natural born Citizen” without applying its definition to the question of whether Obama is constitutionally eligible. If the court had addressed the place of birth issue, given its definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it would have ended the live controversy. It did not do that so its opinion is a mere advisory opinion with no application to a live factual controversy producing a just resolution. Lastly, if the court’s decision had not been advisory, the nation today would know whether Obama was or was not born “within the borders of the United States.”

The Ankeny plaintiffs may have argued that place of birth did not matter, given the two-citizen parent argument. But surely, they did not concede that Obama was born in the United States and the court did not make a finding that they made any such concession. Hence, once the court rejected the citizen-parents element and relied strictly on the place of birth, it could not simply conclude that plaintiffs did not state a claim, for the ultimate issue was always Obama's eligibility which they clearly stated in their complaint. Again, the court was duty bound on a motion to dismiss on the face of the complaint to give the non-moving party every reasonable inference. I cannot imagine, given that the court was well aware of the issue of place of birth, the plaintiffs never conceded that Obama was born in the United States, the ultimate issue was eligibility, and the requirement that a court faced with a motion to dismiss on the face of a complaint is to give the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the court not treating a complaint that says that Obama was not eligible as also encompassing the place of birth issue or in the alternative not giving the non-moving pro se parties the opportunity to amend their complaint.

The Ankeny court could have completely disposed of the case on an independent state ground. There was no need for the court to journey into the waters of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Not being satisfied with giving us its opinion on what a “natural born Citizen” is as it pertains to persons born in the United States, the court in Footnote 15 even cautioned that while the question of whether someone born out of the United States can be a “natural born” Citizen was not before it, its decision should not be interpreted to mean that being born in the United States is the only way someone can be a “natural born Citizen.”

As we have seen, Ankeny is simply bad law for many reasons. The main one is that it rests on the incorrect notion that Wong Kim Ark declaring that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily means that the Court said he was a “natural born Citizen.” Such a position is remarkable given that the Indiana court itself admitted in its own opinion that it is aware that the Constitution contains both “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” and that the Wong holding did not include “natural born Citizen.”

So, any citation to Ankeny v, Governor of Indiana is misguided for at least two reasons, and as we have seen above there are many more. It read Minor v. Happersett as having doubts about who was a “natural born Citizen” when it had no such doubt. Its doubts were only whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen” under the law existing prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and necessarily also under that very amendment. It also read Wong Kim Ark as resolving those non-existing doubts and holding that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” But Justice Gray only held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. He never held that he was a “natural born Citizen.” So Wong, not addressing the issue, never resolved any doubts concerning what a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, the Court cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett’s definition of the clause which was a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Judge Malihi finds that Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” What he is saying is that by the mere fact that Obama was a citizen at birth, he is a “natural born Citizen.” But this is not the definition of a “natural born citizen.” Judge Malihi's definition must fail just on a textual basis. The clause is "natural born Citizen," not "born Citizen." The "natural" must also be given meaning. And when we do give "natural" meaning, we see that it cannot be separated from the word of art and idiom, "natural born Citizen" which means a child born in the country to citizen parents.

The Founders and Framers looked for a citizenship standard that would assure them that the President and Commander in Chief would have the most allegiance, attachment, and loyalty to the republic. A citizenship test that depended only upon when a child became a citizen would not be sufficient, for it alone would not say anything of how the child would be reared. But a test that included to whom a child was born and that provided some indication of how the child would be raised much better provided for their needs for allegiance to the nation. For those reasons, a “natural born citizen” could not just depend upon being declared a citizen from the moment of birth, which any positive law could declare. Rather, the Founders and Framers included two natural components which were that the child would have to be born in the country to citizen parents. This was the time-honored definition of a “natural born Citizen” under natural law and the law of nations and this is what they accepted.

A “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth,” if he or she does not satisfy this original American common law definition, is an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by natural law and the law of nations which definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. In other words, a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act is simply a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As can be seen, in the Fourteenth Amendment there is no citizen parent requirement, but there is a “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement. In contradistinction, in the “natural born Citizen” definition, there is a citizen parent requirement, but there is no “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement, for being born in the country to citizen parents, such a child could not be born other than "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Since the amendment is designed only to allow someone to become a member of the United States and nothing more, according to Wong Kim Ark there is no need to require citizen parents but at least to require that the child be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Since a child that is born in the United States to citizen parents will always be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, we do not engage in “jurisdiction” analysis when exploring whether one is a “natural born Citizen,” but rather just look to see that the person was born in the United States to citizen parents. This is why Minor engaged in no “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis when examining Virginia Minor’s citizenship status. On the other hand, since under Wong Kim Ark a Fourteenth Amendment (or Congressional Act) "born . . . citizen of the United States" can be born in the United States to one or two alien parents, Wong Kim Ark instructs that we must do a "subject to the jurisdiction" analysis which is what it did of Wong. All this tells us that there is a fundamental constitutional difference between an Article II "natural born Citizen," who is born within the sole, full, and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction and therefore sole citizenship of the United States and a Fourteenth Amendment "born . . . citizen of the United States" who is born with divided allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship.

If any “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth” does not satisfy the “natural born Citizen” definition, we cannot simply amend Article II by changing the definition of a “natural born Citizen” to one of these phrases. In other words, we cannot just take an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by American common law which has its basis in natural law and the law of nations. Rather, if one is going to maintain that he or she is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” then let he or she prove it under the time-honored definition of the clause. Let us not accept that the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” has somehow been changed to some other phrase such as a “citizen at birth” or “citizen by birth” without seeing any evidence of that ever happening. Let us not because of political expediency take someone who may at best be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on those seeking to change the Constitution and its original and long-standing definition of a “natural born Citizen,” not on those who are fighting to preserve, protect, and defend them.

So as we can see, our U.S. Supreme Court has given the exact “natural born Citizen” clause only one definition and that is a child born in the country to citizen parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). This means that only a child born in the United States to two parents who are either Article II “natural born Citizens” or Fourteenth Amendment or statutory “born or naturalized . . . “citizens of the United States” is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This is the consensus opinion of a “natural born Citizen” as provided by our U.S. Supreme Court and Congress since the beginning of our nation. Consequently, a “Citizen of the United States” is any citizen so made by Act of Congress, treaty, or other positive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, while a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States” may be born with dual and divided allegiance to the United States, an Article II “natural born Citizen” is born only within the sole, full, complete, and undivided legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of and sole citizenship in the United States.

A “natural born Citizen” includes all those who are born with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those who are born with any foreign allegiance. On the other hand, a “citizen,” “native-born citizen,” “born Citizen,” or “citizen of the United States” who is not a “natural born Citizen” can be born with foreign allegiance but through positive law is nevertheless naturalized to be a “citizen of the United States” either at birth or after birth. Hence, a “natural born Citizen” has only one definition which was recognized during the Founding and which has been confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and other historical sources. That definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Satisfying this definition removes from the child foreign allegiance which may attach by birth on foreign soil (by jus soli) or by birth to one or two foreign parents (by jus sanguinis). It is by satisfying this definition that one is born with no foreign allegiance and thus attached and loyal only to the U.S. Consequently, all “natural born Citizen[s]” are “citizens of the United States,” but not all “citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizen[s].” Therefore, any “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment must still show that he or she satisfies the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” in order to be considered a “natural born Citizen.” Failing to make that showing, a “born” or “native born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is just that but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

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.
Should the Georgia Secretary of State find that there is sufficient evidence in the record which conclusively shows that Obama was born in the United States, then he can still find that Obama is still not a “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that Judge Malihi relies on Ankeny which is bad law when it comes to the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He fails in not giving controlling effect to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor which clearly defined a “natural born citizen.” Finally, Judge Malihi incorrectly reads 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.

Related:

Progressive Insurance?:  Hillary Leaving Just as Obama’s Eligibility Trial(s) Move Forward… Coincidence?