ELECTIONS 2012 USA
Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Obama Not A Citizen Thanks To His Own Mother

Obama Eligibility Obama Not A Citizen Thanks To His Own Mother

Attorney Orly Taitz vowed to shove everything she had concerning Barack Obama’s evidentiary problem at last week’s eligibility challenge in front of Indiana’s election board.  Taitz, whoseairline ticket to the hearing was purchased by a concerned citizen, presented evidence of a “stolen social security number and a forgery instead of a birth certificate!”  She told WND reporter Bob Unruh that Indiana just removed their Secretary of State Charlie White for his discrepancies with voter registration irregularities over “minor” problems.  Taitz said our sitting president’s eligibility problems are major in comparison.

But new questions about the status of BHO’s teen age mother Stanley Ann Dunham are surfacing as analysis at another web site is revealing a Congressional rule change for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986 puts in serious doubt Stanley Ann Dunham’s ability to confer citizenship status on her son.

Since Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in 1961, this newly discovered law involves Dunham’s age because she was only 18 at time of delivery!  The law says:

”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status according to blog discovery.  One commenter said, “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements!  Backing this statement up, another commenter reiterates:” The law specifically outlines the requirements for a CITIZEN mother to confer citizenship to her baby.  Ann Dunham was NOT old enough-case closed!”

Judge Malihi in his pg. 6 footnote went back 20 years to cite Jill Pryor’s statement to the Yale Law Journalin which she said: “Despite its apparent simplicity, the Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution has never been completely understood.”  Pryor goes on to begin her next sentence with the nonsensical anonymous pronoun IT: “It is well settled that Native Born citizens, those born in the U.S., qualify as natural born.”

Huh?  Who is “It” Judge?

The WND analysis found the state Supreme Court of North Dakota over seventy years ago threw out of office a governor because his “lack of residential qualifications is a legal disability!” You can view the C-Span video of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas  telling Puerto Rican Representative Jose Serrno: “We’re evading that one!” when his questioner asked about the NBC clause. So a new angle enters the Obama NBC protest. While state and federal officialdom keeps ignoring American citizens, Attorney Orly Taitz, who was born in the USSR and who fears her beloved naturalized country is heading toward the fate of Germany, is keeping the controversy up on court dockets.  If she and her other appeals colleagues get rebuffed on the birth father’s NBC issue, maybe they can start in on a new round of hearings using the birth mother’s status.  They just won’t have President Obama’s own words telling them his father was NOT a U.S. citizen!


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 3:26 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Saturday, February 25, 2012

http://www.exposeobama.com/2012/02/24/oath-keepers-we-can-legally-file-charges-against-obama/

Oath Keepers:We Can Legally File Charges Against Obama



491 Oath Keepers:We Can Legally File Charges Against Obama

The Oath Keepers recently held a convention in Las Vegas,NV,open only topolice officersand sheriffs in which former sheriff (and current congressional candidate) Richard Mack  discussed how the 168 attendees could reacquaint themselves with their oath to the Constitution and their own protection when they carry out their duty.  One of those dutiesincludeissuinga warrantfor the arrest of Barack Hussein Obama.

This has gone way past the issue of Obama being a natural born citizen.  It’s now about the multiple high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and how he may be brought to justice.  Peace officers represent the last line in the sand when members of Congress have repeatedly failed to honor the oaths they swore to uphold the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.  To add additional fuel to this movement,Sheriff Joe’s Cold Case Posse will be releasing their findings on  live stream video here.

This journalist spoke to Sheriff Mack before the convention to determine the purpose and planned outcomes.

Putting aside the issue of Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen to hold office,there are a significant number of wrong doings he has committed that would allow any peace officer desiring so to issue a warrant for Obama’s arrest.  As a recidivist offender of the United States Constitution, a mere twenty-five are listed here.

The video below is a summary discussing Sheriff Mack’s accomplishments and goals of his current project.  This is a man who sued the Clinton Administration over the Brady Bill,lost and was finally vindicated by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Read more at the


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:29 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Friday, February 24, 2012

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44815

The Forbidden Word Impeach

Author
- Dr. Robert R. Owens  Thursday, February 23, 2012 

What does History tell us about the impeachment of an American President?  It has only happened twice.

Today Lincoln is an icon.  His Roman style temple and oversized statue dominate one end of theNational Mall.  But in 1864 he was an embattled president caught in a war he couldn’t win and running againstGeorge B. McClellan, a popular general who said he could end it.  Even History was against Lincoln. No president had won a second term in over thirty years.  Mr. Lincoln needed all the allies he could muster to win.  So the first Republicans led by the President tried to split the opposition.  They changed the party name to the National Union Party and chose a Southern Democrat as a runningmate.  In a surprise to everyone including Lincoln, he won re-election positioning Johnson one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

After the worst mistake by a Southern sympathizer since the attack on Fort Sumter, the assassination of Lincoln, Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency and almost immediately ran afoul of the Radical Republicans who had a three to one majority in Congress and who wanted to punish the South.  Johnson was the only Southern Senator to remain loyal to the Union.  He served as the Union imposed military governor of Tennessee until chosen to run for Vice President.  A mere forty one days into Lincoln’s second term Johnson was sworn in.  When he sought to allow the South a path back into the Union that re-imposed limitations upon the freed slaves and ensured the rise of ex-Confederates to power, he was impeached for breaking a law concerning the firing of appointees.  After a contentious trial he was acquitted by one vote.

Johnson and his presidency survived, barely.  He was afterwards relegated to irrelevancy and served as a mere caretaker until General Grant came along to become the face of Reconstruction.  In this first impeachment battle the President was acquitted, but Congress won.

If you ask the average person who lived through the national ordeal President Clinton was impeached because of his scandalous tryst with a young intern in the Oval Office.  Though this was a shameful betrayal of trust, it was not the reason he was impeached.  He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a legal matter that had nothing at all to do with Monica Lewinsky.  And even though Clinton was later found in contempt by a federal judge for lying under oath and was later disbarred for ethical violations it was the leadership of the House that impeached him that paid the political price.  The Senate, which on a strict party line vote (all the Progressives voted to acquit), came out relatively unscathed.  Today we are constantly told by the Progressive Press Mr. Clinton is a beloved elder statesman.

Etched upon the memory of the Republican wing of the party of power is the knowledge that unless there is a Senate willing to convict there is no glory in being a House ready to indict.

Republics rise and republics fall.  They rise due to the explosion of creativity and production which always accompanies freedom, and they fall when demagogues convince a majority that they deserve a free ride at the expense of a minority. The good thing about History is that if we are wise enough we can learn from other people’s mistakes.  And if we aren’t going to allow History to instruct us we should at least be wise enough to allow it to warn us.

Our History teaches us that the impeachment process is possible to initiate but difficult to consummate.  So what are we to do if History warns us that what we are witnessing is the fall of our republic?  Have we learned enough from History to navigate our way through to a safe harbor, or are we helpless in the face of a hurricane oftransformation?

Due to the information developed by the American intelligence community and thebravery of Navy Seal Team Six we learned that the leader of Al Qaeda, the fraternity of terrorists America finds itself endlessly destroying, was not hiding in a cave.  He was instead living in a compound barely 1,000 yards from the military academy of our principle ally in our decade long undeclared war.  Today’s Hitler is dead, yet the war goes on as if nothing has happened.  We have victory after victory with no conclusion and no peace in sight. 

Looking at our current economic and social situation America appears more like an occupied nation than the victor of the Cold War and the sole remaining Super Power on Earth.  Perhaps it is time to conceptualize the idea that our existential enemy is not a rag-tag group of malcontents dedicated to turning back the clock by six centuries.  The enemy that poses a mortal threat to our way of life is instead the homegrown Progressive Movement that has labored for more than a century to subvert our education, corrupt our politics, and evolve their way from constitutionally limited government to central planning and total control.

The visible head of the Progressive Movement today is President Barack Obama.  As portrayed by the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media he is not just anAlinsky-style community organizer, he is a constitutional scholar.  We are told endlessly that he was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago.  Leaving the reality of these claims aside suffice it to say that this constitutional scholar professes to believe that the constitution is a flawed document because it does not provide forpositive rights such as guarantees of housing, jobs, etc.  The kind of rights that the constitutions of the Soviet Union did and of Red China does provide its slaves, I mean citizens.  Not to worry, our constitutional scholar-in-chief also believes that our Constitution, written to set strict limits on the federal government is a living documentthat each generation is free to interpret: that is, change at will. 

President Obama has presided over the most calamitous decline in American prestige and influence since his fellow Progressive Jimmy Carter disgraced the office.  Mr. Obama’s apology tours, his over-the-top spending which are nothing less than cross generational theft are eclipsed by his blatant assaults upon the very core of his responsibility: the integrity of the Constitution.

The president of the United States is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, but instead Mr. Obama has trampled upon the letter as well as the spirit of this document meant to define the perimeters of federal power. 

Unconfirmed Czars rule like potentates over shadow departments dispensing huge budgets while creating a parallel government outside of citizen scrutiny or control.  Appointees at the National Labor Relations Board work at subordinating the nation to organized labor.  A rogue justice department provides guns to Mexican cartels, refuses to prosecute obvious instances of voter intimidation, gives a pass to Islamist groups,  and stonewalls Congress, while aggressively going after peaceful pro-life demonstrators and America’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  They sue states that try to enforce immigration laws they ignore and seek to try the perpetrators of 9-11 in a New York trialthat would parade itself through our national consciousness like a Broadway production of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Superstar.

Beyond these abuses of power there are two glaring examples of the type of blatant transgressions of clear constitutional limits, which, if not addressed, set a precedent that may stand in the future as signs of the times that were missed at the time.  If not addressed, they will point accusing fingers at a generation asleep at the switch when the bounds of limited government were finally breached.

Ruling by decree from Chicago-on-the-Potomac our Leader has taken us to war without even consulting Congress and made recess appointments while Congress was in session.

Mr. Obama has said he can rule without Congress because he can’t wait.  He travels the country at tax payer expense campaigning for four more years to seal the deal, inflaming class warfare, and dispensing government giveaways to buy votes.  These two egregious affronts to the Constitution lie at the feet of the Washington Monument passed over by the media and explained away by the government’s propaganda arm.  And what does the loyal opposition do?  They huff and they puff but actually they do nothing.

Only two Congressmen had the integrity to point out that presidents are not allowed to take us to war by whim. And only one had the courage to point out that making high level appointments without Senate confirmation while the Senate is in session is more than bad form: it is unconstitutional and more compatible with a dictatorship than a republic.

We stand before the yawning maw of collectivism presided over by a self-proclaimedtransformational president seeking to change us from what we have been to what he thinks we should be.  Mr. Obama is supported by what amounts to a personality cult in the media and a legion of fellow citizens addicted to either distributing or receiving the dole.  The Republican candidates are standing in a circular firing squad working hard at allowing the Progressive Media make them look like the bar scene from Star Wars.  At the same time the media gives the President a pass for everything from gas prices to artificially deflated unemployment figures.  If America as we have known her is to survive, we must elect a Congress with enough courage and enough votes to do what must be done.  The Congress we have now is passive in the face of serial provocations and outright illegality.  They will not call Mr. Obama to account on anything so he feels free to do everything.

If he wins again we all lose unless we replace those who merely go along to get along with those who are willing to speak the forbidden word…Impeach!


Dr. Robert R. Owens 
Most recent columns


Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, Religion, and Leadership for Southside Virginia Community College.  Contact Dr. Owens
© 2009 Robert R. Owens 
Dr. Owens is available for speaking engagements.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:15 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/


Thursday, February 23, 2012

Two States Move Forward Proof of Eligibility Bills for Presidential Candidates

Two States Move Forward Proof of Eligibility Bills for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates House Elections Committee Approves Rowland Birther BillFired Up Missouri: Rep. Lyle Rowland's recycled...

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Eligibility Report Press Conference To Be Live-Streamed Over Internet

WND TV to live-stream Arpaio eligibility reportMarch 1 news conference to announce findings of 1st official probeWorld Net Daily PHOENIX, Ariz. – When Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio announces the findings...

Pennsylvania Press Conference Video: CDR Kerchner Schools Staffers; Applauded

Pennsylvania Ballot Challenge Press Conference Video: Commander Kerchner Schools Staffers; Applauded - VIDEO HERE PREVIOUS REPORTS HERE: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/search?q=Pennsylvania+Ballot+Challenge ARTICLE...

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Indiana Election Commission Warns Obama of Default in Ballot Hearing Set for Feb. 24th

Indiana warns Obama of eligibility 'default'Election commission set to hear complaintBob Unruh @ WND A state commission in Indiana that was asked to review whether Barack Obama is eligible to be on the...

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:49 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Wednesday, February 15, 2012

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

Obama Media Begin the Faking of Obama Poll Numbers

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

by Sher Zieve, ©2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 5:03 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Saturday, February 04, 2012

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

February 4, 2012

Obama Wins Georgia Ballot Challenge

By Cindy Simpson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama may have won the Georgia ballot challenge,


but the rule of law and the Constitution suffered a


crippling blow. 




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


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:41 AM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Wednesday, February 01, 2012

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

WND EXCLUSIVE

CITE OBAMA WITH CONTEMPT, LAWYERS URGE

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

Published: 16 mins ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:57 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

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

WND EXCLUSIVE

'GREEN LIGHT' TO SEE OBAMA'S HAWAII FILES

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

Published: 16 hours ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The image of the latest release from the White House:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 3:41 PM
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar