OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW

Posted on January 26, 2012 by Craig Andresen

Editor’s Note:

The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled numerous cases concerning Obama’s eligibility; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. This hearing took place in the courthouse lacated at: 230 Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 850 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 on January 26th 2012 at 9am EST.

Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE

1215136-60-MALIHI

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

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Game on.

5 minutes.

10 minutes.

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

20 minutes.

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

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

Certainly not.

Court is called to order.

Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

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

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

Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

Carl Swinson takes the stand.

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

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

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

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.

RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.

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

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

Dreams From My Father entered.

Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.

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

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

At this point, the judge takes a recess.

The judge returns.

David Farrar takes the stand.

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

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

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

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

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

Next witness takes the stand.

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

Linda Jordan takes the stand.

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

Next witness.

Mr. Vogt.

Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

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

States this is a product of layering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taitz takes the stand herself.

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

Taitz leaves the stand to make her closing arguments.

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

And with that, the judge closes the hearing.

What can we take away from this?

It’s interesting.

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

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

WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?

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

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

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

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

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

CLICK HERE FOR Full Analysis of the Ruling on This Case!!

Defining “Natural Born Citizen”

706 thoughts on “OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW”

handsoff on May 24, 2012 at 1113pm said:

First let me state I am no fan of Obama, his policies his incoherent agenda or what seems to be his overweening desire to impose his dictatorship upon the disappearing Republic. That said, There is so much misinformation, misinterpretation of SCOTUS decisions, so much irrationality and no credible “evidence” posted herein that I fear for our country. Many of the posters herein are just like the illogical, irrational uniformed uneducated voters who put Obama in office.
Everything that has been posted that claims NBC requires 2 US citizen is wrong or that dual citizenship disqualifies. Jus soli is the standard of the US.The author of the 14th amendment even said so as did the majority opinions in all the Scotus cases legal opinions (Lynch, Elg, Look, Ark).
Vatell is not binding on the US constitution and was never cited as foundational to the Constitution. Vatell was only cited in 2 Scotus cases, a dissenting opinion and the majority opinion Dred Scott, which is not binding precedent on citizenship and is considered a shameful anomaly in US jurisprudence.
1948 British law does NOT determine US citizenship laws or trump them; in addition, that British law was in disarray and phased out starting in 1962 and as of 1963 Kenya was no longer British, but it was always Kenya (1st the Crown Colony of) then the Republic of Kenya, but always Kenya. Dual citizenship as a minor child, one natural born US citizenship and one acquired citizenship does not disqualify or negate the jus soli citizenship, unless at or by the age of 21, the dual citizen either renounces his birthright citizenship in the US or takes up residency in the US and is entitled to full rights, including eligibility to the Presidency if he can get elected (this was stated specifically in Steinkauler in 1975 and quoted and affirmed in Lynch which was cited as binding precedent in Ark, an unbroken chain of SCOTUS decisions regarding natural born citizenship and eligibility which has been applied to hearings re Obama and the decision is he is/was eligible. SCOTUS has declined Orly’s attempts to get any of the “evidence” before the Court and most lower courts have denied hearings on lack of standing to sue, baseless and frivolous and/or nuisance suits.
Obama may have had a different name when he was born, and the birth certificate was changed, altered or reissued when he was adopted by Soetero. That is the practice of many states upon adoption, to change the name and some facts, but not the birthplace if in the US. In fact, foreign born children adopted by US citizens usually get birth certificates stating US birth, at least that is what my neighbors who have adopted 2 Korean born babies said. When Obama was 10, Stanley Anne Dunham had already moved him back to Hawaii, and sought to reverse the adoption, which is probably when the name was changed to Barack Hussein Obama II (which by the way, indicates no blood relationship to a Sr) and Barack H. Obama Sr was put on the birth certificate (the marriage was never legal and Sr was probably not the father). The birthdate of Sr is different than immigration documents show and the name is spelled differently (Barak on immigration documents). As a minor child, Obama would have no control over any of this. The Indonesian school enrollment documents cited by many “birthers” as proof of Indonesian citizenship clearly show and they admit this, that Obama, known as Barry Soetero between the age of 3-10 was born in Hawaii. Natural born citizenship in the US cannot be stripped from a minor child who may hold dual citizenship because of parentage until the age of 21, but the fact of a second acquired citizenship does not bar a natural born citizen from that citizenship.
Regarding the alleged SS# issue, it is a non issue. No one can have access to another’s SS# legally. Until 2003, when it became a de facto Nat’l id through a P.L., it could not be used for or required for any purpose other than Tax returns and SS benefits. (now, because of the Patriot Act and regulations, each state DMV as of 2005 is required to obtain an everified SS# for a driver’s license. E verify is supposed to be for employers and state DMV’s only. How a “homemaker” and a PI could independently obtain a SS #, insist it was used by Obama (where is the proof he used it on his tax returns for the last 25 yrs) and e-verify it may constitute misuse of a SS#, but not by Obama. SS# are not required to register to vote, or to own property and cannot be disclosed by law, to anyone, so the contentions, affidavits and/or sworn testimony of a PI is unverifiable opinion at best and perjury if given knowing its specious nature. The affidavit or testimony said no known connection to CT, but that is a lie or just bad research, because Barack Hussein Obama Sr was a resident of CT while in school. Plus, sworn testimony is not true evidence that the SS# is used by Obama nor can it be. I don’t remember the exact year, but it was well after Obama was an adult that SS# were assigned at birth (EUB). There may be records of his US school enrollment in LA, CA but I don’t remember if a birth certificate was required in the late 60’s and early 70’s. I do know that a SS# was not usually obtained until for work purposes you were required to have one, and his mother would have had to supply a birth certificate then to the SSA. Anything that happened before his 21st birthday is on his mother and grandparents; they may have told him stories that the abandoned, and probably emotionally abused child was desperate to believe and/or romanticize in order to ease his insecurities.
BTW, The book that was probably written by Bill Ayres (it is his style and his phrasing and his ideology) is Dreams FROM my father, not as has been posted Dreams of my father. There is a major difference… There are too few accuracies in the birther arguments.
It is time to go after Obama on what is possible-vote the legal bastard out. It is the only play we have left.
James E White on May 6, 2012 at 953am said:

In my 82 years I have never feared the election of our President as I do now.
With all that has recently taken place in this United States, the re-election of this
unknown person will eventually create a ‘Dictatorship’. How can a person get away with his history & still be ‘Our President’?
JW
johnschweitzer on April 26, 2012 at 645pm said:

Let’s get a supreme court justice to swear in Joe Biden as President.Congress needs to start filing charges against obama and some of his jack-leg thugs.
Bill Skadder on April 25, 2012 at 959am said:

All this is mute, why you ask, because the leadership in this country, State/Federal are corrupt. Voting is now corrupt/dishones. Congressman/woman, Senators, all want a piece of the pie. Their first priority is getting into the “club” of politics, which pays very well with lifetime incentives at our (the people) expense. The two parties only care about themselves, we the people come last. We have been screwed over so bad by the govenment, and lied to over and over. You really don’t realize how bad a shape this country and our present leadership have put this country in. And we have gotten so f—–k lazy we just sit by and watch, complain, but don’t do a f—-g thing about it. Washington will do anything to protect it’s own, lie, steal, cheat. they live by a double standard. We break the law, we pay or go to jail, they somehow find a loop hole. Unless the people of this nation wake up and start voicing their concerns, it will only get worse until the Govt. is in your house telling you what to cook, when to shit
Max on March 11, 2012 at 708pm said:

Lets be honest, everyone who is happy about this wouldn’t vote for him anyway, and probably didn’t in the first place. Its not going to change anything, he will win again in 2012, since the GOP can’t bring anyone worth their salt to the table. Deal with it.
Jon on March 5, 2012 at 1241am said:

(Hi National Patriot. Am circulating this new song of mine. Jon)

[To Whom… I’m a Gospel music songwriter who recently penned the following. I need to find someone who can create a tune for it and find a publisher and will split 50/50 on the royalties. You are free to “test the waters” by publishing these stanzas, but you must include “Copyright 2012 by Jon Edwards.” God bless America! Jon]

MY BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Copyright 2012 by Jon Edwards

(1) When I was born in this old world my birth was certified
And written down on paper so it could not be denied;
I can’t remember being born but do have proof of when:
I have the birth certificate a doctor issued then.

(2) In later years I was convicted of my dreadful sin
And learned that Jesus would forgive and come to live within;
What happened was an inward change we call the “second birth”
Which I do value more than all the gold upon the earth.

(3) Some folks can’t furnish written proof they’ve ever had a birth
For they have lost all papers that they’ve ever had on earth;
And some will cover up the facts of all their darkened past
By changing birth certificates so they won’t finish last.

(4) My “born again” certificate cannot be changed by pen
Or by a crafty rustler’s art or other wicked men;
It’s signed in blood eternally, as binding as can be—-
Christ signed it with His precious blood He shed for you and me!
Larry on March 1, 2012 at 1117pm said:

Birthers…give it up please!
Gisela on February 26, 2012 at 1239pm said:

the fact that this judge has made no decission based on the no show of Obama and his lawyer tells me that nothing will happen and Obama once again is laughing his a— off at those of us who are frustrated that he is getting away with murder (literally). Why on earth is our congress so spineless there is enough information that could be prooven that could impeach him.Obviously the democrats beat around the bush when it came to check his eligebillity and the republicans just said yeah is is ok and now we have the mess.
I still believe Obama is a Muslim and somehow was pushed in to this position by Sorrows and heaven knows what other thugs to ruin our country. So many Americans couldn’t see him for what he is. He is slick and arrogant and if we don’t vote him out,our country as we use to know it is gone.
Nancy Gross on February 21, 2012 at 301am said:

It’s time for Obama to go. Has been since the day he was elected. Problem is that democrats will vote democratic no matter who the candidate is. It would be such a blessing to this country if all states would declare him off the ballot. IN GOD WE TRUST, please dear Father get this man out of here!!!
MSGT JOHN CORREA on February 19, 2012 at 1023am said:

I may be late in pointing out an important issue; a foreign-born or domestic enemy can be charged under the catagory of “Saboteur” simply by its definition, for which, the foreign-born Muslim communist Mr. Barack Hussein Obama II can be charged with since he has violated many areas of the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, not to mention the ” cause’ of our Founding Fathers dream of a free nation for future generations.

“Saboteur”…. “the deliberate obstruction of or damage to any “cause,” movement, activity, effort, etc.” There you are folks; let’s use it against the foreign-born tyrant dictator now!

MSGT JOHN CORREA
USAF (RET)
glogrrl on February 18, 2012 at 259am said:

According to the 14th amendment, and since he was born in the United States (Hawaii IS a state), President Obama is a citizen. The fact that his father was not does not make any difference. He was born of a US citizen (his mother) in the United States of America.

There are two primary sources of citizenship: birthright citizenship, in which a person is presumed to be a citizen provided that he or she is born within the territorial limits of the United States,[3] and naturalization, a process in which an immigrant applies for citizenship and is accepted. These two pathways to citizenship are specified in the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
—from the Fourteenth Amendment.
- admin on February 18, 2012 at 450am said:
  
  Glo…
  
  What you and so many others either do not know…or are intentionally ignoring…is that one must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN to serve as president…not just a citizen. Please…LEARN the difference!
Sadie on February 17, 2012 at 947pm said:

Every single item listed above can easily be proven, or disproven by Barack Obama himself. If it is true that more than 90% of the experts who have examined the birth certificate he produced after more than two years into his presidency, have called it a fake, then he must show proof that they are wrong. (And please don’t tell me that a Republican Governor from Hawaii stated that it is real….prove it) If it is true that he used a SS number that is not legally his, then we must demand that he prove that fact to be wrong. If Michelle Obama also used an illegal SS number, then we must demand an explanation. If Barack Obama went to college on grants given only to foreign students, then we must demand an explanation.
And, for those who want to call this entire debacle, another “right wing conspiracy” you need to insist that Barack Obama disprove all the accusations against him, just so you can continue to gloat. The fact is, “all the denials and hiding of information, only makes this all continue, and the Democrats have only themselves to blame for the accusations still being leveled at Barack Hussein Obama Soretoro.
joe racioppo on February 17, 2012 at 449pm said:

Why am i not hearing from those who are supposedly looking out for us ,O reilly,
Hannity, Fox news in general and of course my guy, Rush Limbaugh. If this is not worthy for discussion, let them tell us so. but if it is, it is shamfull that they do not
jump all over this OBAMANATION. Lets put pressure on these guys and others to
keep us informed as to what is really going on. and yes, We should also be hearing about this fiasco from our candidates for the presidency, Romney,Gingrich,Santorum
and Paul, and lets not forget the RNC.
BigHal on February 17, 2012 at 748am said:

At first I thought this was a bad joke but I guess that will be the trademark of this administration. What a wonderful legacy — class warfare and racism. Click or type in the link and be amazed. http://youtu.be/BdjoHA5ocwU

Can you imagine any white candidate making such a blatant play of the race card? He or she would be tarred and feathered, boiled in oil and driven out of town. This should make your blood boil Obama Launches African Americans For Obama

If I were to announce the launching of Caucasian Americans for Anybody But Obama, I would be called a racist.
Zeke48 on February 15, 2012 at 829am said:

I am not very good with moving files, but if someone can post the Georgia file with all it’s information on the Blaze, that would get things moving.
Zeke48 on February 15, 2012 at 825am said:

We all need to call our Rep,s and Senators until they respond. Call or email Meggan Kelly of Fox news, she might look into this, and I think Greta Van Sustran will. Hannity, not Bill O Rilly, he will not have the back bone to talk about it at all. H e plays the game with the rest of the insiders. just keep up and don’t let it go. Now that it is a court record we need to push this to its end. God Bless and have Faith. I think the system will work for us but we must make everyone no about it so it can’t be pushed asides anymore. Tell everyone you can and do it today and thenext day until you see something happening. have Faith. Good Luck, and don’t be surprised when you get there.
Mike R. on February 14, 2012 at 234pm said:

SORRY…It was JAMIE’S comments on Jan 26th at 7:39 pm. ___Not Amie___

ATTA GIRL JAMIE !
Mike R. on February 14, 2012 at 224pm said:

Go back up to read what Amie wrote in her comments at 7:39 PM……that says it all ! What a bunch of “cry baby loses ” all these Republican idiots are.

Watch what happens in November !!!! I can’t wait !!
evil roy on February 13, 2012 at 828pm said:

Jesus people you don’t really think anything will ever actually come of this do you? The Federal gov’t has gotten too big, too powerful for its Chief Executive to be affected by a little thing like the law. Between the emperor-like status of the President (and virtually every member of Congress for that matter) and the public’s apathy and ignorance (ensured and perpetuated by the media’s complicity and corruption) this case will never amount to anything. Obama is not only going be the Democratic candidate for president, he Is going to win a 2nd term and this whole question of his birth status will become a laughable footnote to an otherwise disastrous Presidency.

But let’s assume for a minute that the birthers’ wet dream comes to pass–let’s say this case makes it all the way to the SCOTUS. And let’s say that the Court orders Obama to produce an original, Long Form Certificate of Live Birth. Do you think Obama will just throw up his hands and say, “Awww, shucks, fellas you got me”? Of course not. With the entire resources of the Federal gov’t and the Soros/Acorn/DNC cabal behind him he will certainly either refuse to cooperate and tie the case up over “Executive Privilege” and “National Security” OR he will produce a document that to one extent or another appears genuine. His supporters will say, “See we told you so”, and his enemies will shout, “You LIE!” Either way, we’re right back where we started. So while this dog-and-pony show might whet our appetite for some cosmic schadenfreude, even under the best case scenario it won’t make the slightest difference.
Diane Stewart on February 13, 2012 at 242pm said:

Thinking again about it further – why isn’t the press and anyone else involved, brought up on charges for cover-up, fraud, missleading the people, etc. (and, in my opinion – Obama arrested for impersonating an American?
Diane Stewart on February 13, 2012 at 238pm said:

I want to know WHY he is not impeached immediately and we, the citizens of the US, have to wait until the election to get him out of office? He has done enough damage to our nation in the 3 years he has been in office!

I also want to know why and how no one puts this all over the internet, tv, etc. to get the truth to everyone that thinks he is so wonderful?
Rick Ramo on February 12, 2012 at 1236pm said:

So, if it should finally come to pass that Barry Soetero is found to have been inelligeable to serve in either Senate or Presidency despite the extremely complex vetting process described by House Speaker Nanci Pelosi (She said someone told her he was ok). Being inelligeable does then all transactions become null and void?
mike west on February 12, 2012 at 1117am said:

“We the People” must summons our military sons and daughters to seize the media then lock down Washington D.C. ‘lock it down’ secure the Town and arrest them all!
Yes all of them every man and woman, every member of the press, every banking tycoon, every member of the CFR, CIA, IMF, NSC, ect ect. all of those that have orctestrated a fraud so outrageous it has produced a non-citizen President that is doing a fine job for their military industrial complex!
‘YES’ I say arrest them for TREASON!
Give each one a “fair and speedy trial” protecting the rights they are depriving the very people that they represent (U.S.) the rights they were afforded by their maker, the rights ‘WE’ were afforded by God our maker, the rights one in the same with the rights secured by the U.S. Constitution!
“We The People” must do this while holding special Nationwide elections, using written hand counted ballotts and a ‘carefully watched’ interum media!
We need to dissolve the corrupt power that now presides over D.C.
‘THEN’
“WE MUST” immediatly stut down the FEDERAL RESERVE and declare war on central banking around the World!
“As all Central Banks are controlled by the same interlocked socialist think tanks and familys”
“We The People” must put the power to coin money where it belongs in our country as money is truley “the root of all evil” and the foundation of “All World Crisis”
Where ‘does’ this money power belong you ask?
You need only to refer to article I section 8 and section 10 of your handy dandy short but sweet U.S. Constitution …If you have any questions about the legality of this action refer to article VI of that same document… anymore questions can be best answered in the first 10 (X) ammendents to that very same document (Your U.S. Constitution)
Not a shot needs to be fired by true patriots when acting in unity for a common goal…….FREEDOM!
Marian Pedersen on February 12, 2012 at 140am said:

OBAMA needs to be FIRED ! ! !
OBAMA NEEDS TO BE ARRESTED
Linneaus on February 10, 2012 at 249pm said:

Why was it that John McCain was vetted in congress regarding being born in Panama (the son of an active-duty military officer and his wife, assigned to that posting) yet Obama was never so questioned? There is a birth certificate out there which has been questioned extensively, yet has survived the scrutiny, which has on it a footprint of baby Barack. If it was I in question, and I knew the birth certificate to be false, I’d remove my shoe and sock and say, “Here… have at it! Take a print and see for yourself!” Has he done so..??? No. There are far more unanswered questions now than there were years ago.

Where is his past? Old school chums? Former dates/girlfriends? Why has he stifled the release of his transcripts? What about his Fulbright scholarship (for foreign students) and his trip to Pakistan when it was on the “Do Not Travel” list for American passport-holders? The list is endless…

Bring-on the elections.
Donald on February 9, 2012 at 413pm said:

These Birthers just kill me !!!!!!!!!!! Tea parties are for little girls. Barack Obama is the first African-American President, get over it !!!!! Republicans are idiots and arguing with them is a waste of time !!! Bottom line ?If you want to anger a conservative, tell them the truth.
Denise on February 9, 2012 at 946am said:

If you look at the Birth Certificate published by the WH you will find the following items that do not add up.

WHERE HAVE OUR PATRIOTS GONE. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND YET IT SEEMS WE HAVE FOSTERED A CULTURE THAT IS JUST THAT. IT IS A SHAME THAT OUR LAWS DO NOT MEAN ANYTHING FOR SOME PEOPLE OR YOU ARE A RACIST. BRING IT ON…….

HM-M-M! “Very Interesting Bit Of Detective Work”

1. Back in 1961 people of color were called “Negroes.”
So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is
‘African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used at that time?

2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists
Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein
Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s
birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that
Obama’s father was born in “Kenya, East Africa”. This wouldn’t
seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not
even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and
27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have
been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya
was formed in 1963, it was known then as the “British East Africa
Protectorate”.

3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed
place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.
This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were
called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity
Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani
Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two
hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital
be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been
applied to it until 1978?

Resources: http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx Post-colonial history (from Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kenya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya

Why hasn’t this been discussed in the major media?????
Please send this to everyone you know with the hope that we can force the media as well OUR NATION to address this CORRUPTION.

“IN GOD WE TRUST”
Drew on February 8, 2012 at 915am said:

Mr. Nicholas you don’t pay much attention to our nations debt do you sir? Mr. Obama has doubled our debt. Thanks to him our economy suffers because of his “blank check”, can you tell me where that money went? I however can not. Trillions of dollars he has spent at our expense not his. He was recently on the marine corps base in Hawaii, do you know how much money he spent to get there? Over $100,000.00 in jet fuel for air force one x 9 because of the 8 decoys. $900,000.00. He takes a trip once a year. Look at the ruling of the court. With all this amazing evidance the judge ruled in favor of this mystery man and excused the evidance. I think Obama should be arrested and charged with treason and receive the most extreme punishment. It does not matter that he’s getting out he still committed the crime.
Nicholas Bentley on February 8, 2012 at 815am said:

This is the most biased report i have ever read, He is about to be out of office soon so just drop it. He has gotten us out of two wars and repaired most of our economy. He has done a much better job than Bush ever did (crash our economy and start the Iraq war). Honestly Obama has done a pretty good job in office.
The writer of this is the most coincided person i have ever read.
I am an independent and not biased. i’m not gay or a faggot.
NicksTaxFree on February 7, 2012 at 555pm said:

I wrote way earlier that Obama has never been properly vetted. The DNC, The Federal Election Commission, Never challanged by the Republicans. 2 cases even made it to the US Supreme Court before he was sworn into office, which they dodged with the excuse of the Plantifif lacked “legal standing” to bring a legal suit to enforce the Constitution.
This is all very sad for our Country’s future, they all pass the buck and claim they have no legal Authority or Citizens have no ability to defend the supreme law of the land in our court system !!!

Now the court bastardized the clear meaning of our Constitution, what are we to do next? This is my 2nd post here, the 1st one was deleted somehow?
My 1st point was Obama just submit a long form, original raised seal birth certificate; like we all would need to do to get something from a Government office.

If it exist, then he would just give it to one of many of his attorny’s to present to a court. Now that doesn’t prove “Natural Born Citizen” status, but it would be a needed 1st step — seeing as he makes the claim of being born in Hawaii.

$10 bucks and he has this all behind him, IF it exists??????????

Online posting of LEGAL documents are not admissible in a court of Law!!!

Is that why my 1st post had to be disapeared???? Hope not to this one, Thanks.
Last Call on February 7, 2012 at 1201pm said:

Obama will have his Chicago Mafia threaten everyone into dropping the issue as he has done with other Socialist moves he has made in the past. Lets just pray to our Lord that he doesn’t fool more people into believing his radical ways/lies.
The Trivium on February 6, 2012 at 938pm said:

Hi All, consider focusing on the system instead of the personalities within the system that are used to manipulate us and control our reason….

“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”
– Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era

The system is corrupt.

Find out who the architects of this b*stardization and counterfeit of the Republic really are and you are well on your way down the rabbit hole to the “Reality based Community.”

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
~ David Rockefeller
The Trivium on February 6, 2012 at 933pm said:

Hi All,

Both establishment “parties” work for the very same financial interests.

Obama hasn’t spent one penny that hasn’t been tacitly approved by the Republican establishment since the Republicans took over the Lower House of Congress – you know, where the spending originates.

They just hope you don’t figure it out – and their paid for presstitutes won’t ever point this out… on either side.

They can’t tell on their bosses or their millions dry up.

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.
– Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”
– Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debt.”
– Henry Ford

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT4VXF1XJYk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juQc0rLdB-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/poverty-debt-inequality/

The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.
~ Andrew Jackson (and “the bank” mocks our societal ignorance by putting Jackson on the $20 bill)

“I have the Confederacy before me, and the bankers behind me, and for my country I fear the bankers most.” ~Abraham Lincoln.

From 1912… The Aldrich Plan was the Federal Reserve Act before it went to marketing…

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2011/09/Fed%20octopus.jpg

We are the resistance… but we have to agree what we are resisting.

Divide and conquer works… start finding commonality and resisting the “money power” parasites that are robbing **everyone**.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXWzSwZ_wPs
RealPOed on February 6, 2012 at 734pm said:

Send a REAL paper letter to the following address:

Judge Michael Malihi C/O
Georgia Office of State Adminstrative Hearings
230 PeachTree Street NW. Suite 850
Atlanta Georgia 30303

NOT email. Pay for a stamp! Ask for an explanation of his ‘ruling’ in this case!

OR.. Shut the hell up. Real letter… Real stamp and envelope. Go!
John Thomas on February 6, 2012 at 552pm said:

Clearly, he is a criminal, fraud, and a paid agent to destroy America! Not only he should be investigated and on trial but also the DNC, his lawyers, his wife Michelle, Hawaiian officials, Ophra and leftist media who are paid to cover him up!! They know FULL WELL of his status, his ambition, his agenda all of which to destroy or change or weaken America!
DENNISM on February 6, 2012 at 220pm said:

This is much ado about nothing. With American culture now so mongrelized, we are not in America, Toto! He going to retain office, and this all this will be swept under the carpet.
Dave on February 6, 2012 at 722am said:

SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!!!!!! THIS GUY IS MAKING A JACKA** OUT OF THE WHOLE USA!!! GET HIM OUT NOW!!!!!!!!
Trisha on February 6, 2012 at 715am said:

I have been researching this case and I am actually very disappointed in our justice system for allowing this to happen. Further more allowing him to stay. If you are allowing him to serve as president after these findings then exactly how safe are we under our so called civil defense which was suppose to be improved after the 9-11 attack. Then you allow this man to serve as president. Our constitutional rights are being violated. Not only should he be banned from the ballot in Georgia he should be banned from all states.
margaret on February 5, 2012 at 1000pm said:

Richard, you are correct that only one parent is required for a child to be considered a citizen however, that’s only half way there.

You don’t need EITHER parent to be a citizen in order to be a citizen yourself. That’s why we have the problem of anchor babies. They run over the border and drop the baby, and as long as it’s born in the US, it’s a citizen.
margaret on February 5, 2012 at 956pm said:

Hillary supporters knew all this during the primaries, and sent it to newspapers, congresspeople, everyone. No one cared. You guys seem to think this is “all coming to light” now. No, it’s been out there for several years. I doubt anything will happen now, because Obama has managed to be protected all along, and as I said, everyone has known this for a long time and they don’t care.

(And DON’T say why didn’t Hillary call him on it. No one would have believed it from her, she would have just been slammed, as everyone else was being slammed for even bringing it up. Furthermore, the race card would have been played for this, as it is for ANY criticism of Obama since 2007.)
Byron McCabe on February 5, 2012 at 1015am said:

Something is really fishy here. The stink is really bad even here in AZ

According to the blog post, the court offered the plaintiff a default judgment in their favor, which they declined, asking for a trial. This would have been plain stupidity on the part of ANY lawyer so unless it was a planned method of intentionally LOSING their case would never have happened.

The court finding that they did not have EXPERT witnesses and that the testimony was not presented with enough forensic evidence to prove forgery etc. is clearly inappropriate. If any common citizen was trying to use a SSN that was not issued to them they would be immediately arrested and charged with identity theft, then sent to prison.

Why is this not happening to Sad Sack Obama.

BK
William B. McCaslin on February 5, 2012 at 140am said:

INCARCERATE HIM FOR TREASON, GRAND THEFT, LYING UNDER OATH, FRAUD, FORGERY OF PUBLIC RECORDS, MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE, AND ANYTHING ELSE A GOOD CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY COULD DEFEND. Beyond those issues, there is a broader issue, the legality of every law which was passed because he signed into law and the legality of every veto of a legislation, in fact every action he made as President is questionable. The ripples in the lake are astonishing. For example, Congress awards The Congressional Medal of Honor, but it is bestowed by the President. If he had no right to the office, was the CMH legally bestowed?
If he outlives his period of incarceration, deport him to his country of origin. The United States of America has very high standards according to many other nations. If we do not uphold our laws, how then can we expect others to respect ours. The Chief Executive of The United States must be like Caesar’s Wife, totally above reproach. If the American People do not demand the highest standards, we deserve to be slaves! Yes, tyrrany turns free people into slaves. I say do not wait for the election, Impeach the man, let the action begin immediately!
Do not get me wrong, I am not opposed to a person of any race holding even the highest office in the land. I just want to be sure the holder’s agenda is based on sound policies for the good of the American People. Our government has some skeletons in the closet, I say we have collected enough. It is time to stop doing that.
This is bigger than Who Killed JFK, Viet-Nam, Watergate, as well as Monica and Bill combined!
John R Jensen on February 4, 2012 at 124pm said:

It’s time we start cleaning up this country and take it back from the corrupt few that control it. Can someone say get the rope 🙂 Obama, Clinton, etc…. all should be hung a traitors. This country needs to refocus on itself, seal its borders, stop funding and trading arms with other countries and rebuild this one great country.
gene floersch on February 4, 2012 at 113pm said:

How can we get the evidence presented in this case to be brought to the public?

How about a summary of the evidence to be somehow worked into one/all of the GOP debates by bypassing the media celebs who lead the debates with their “prepared” questions.

Newt seems to be one who is not afraid to challenge the media members who ask the questions; I’m sure he could find a way to weave this evidence into one of his answers – live in streaming video on the public network.

Can’t someone help him “package” the evidence to fit into the time that is given to the candidates to respond to media questions?

Then let the people be the judge!
sam calandra on February 4, 2012 at 1158am said:

so what is being done about it?
Why is he still in office?
Background check for Obama?
Why was it not preformed?
Who will pay the price for this great injustice?

We the people.
ONCE the greatest REPUBLIC in the world.
len fickling on February 4, 2012 at 1153am said:

William Davis
I too am old as shit at 70 served in viet nam as an air commando from field nine Eglin and in Panama during the cuban crisis.
You are correct in your assesment of this ruling and our elected officials our government and our courts.
I contend the government and by extension the various agencies created by the government are anti non government citizens, the ones that work to create the wealth of this nation that our leaders are squandering along with our once great nation.
I should amend this to state I agree with your assesment since I have no standing to judge your statement only honorable judges have that right.
The only question that remains is how long will we last as a nation with crooks and bribery running washington and the federal reserve?
I believe we are on the road to ruin God bless us all I think I can still address God?
gerald shults sr. on February 4, 2012 at 1144am said:

The man has to go strait down 6 ft,
Jack Pearson on February 4, 2012 at 1009am said:

Don’t you just love the way people try to skip around the point: “Natural Born Citizen”! Look at this– “one born naturally American”. LOL! Desperation. But back to the REAL point, there is no doubt or question that according to the Constitution and the arm of Government tasked with the interpretation thereof (No, that is NOT up to Obama’s lawyers; sorry!), the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Bary O is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. This is verified by a prominent witness- Bary O his highness himself, when he declares that his father was NOT a U.S. citizen. Then the issue becomes simply one of definition, which SCOTUS has provided. No one has raised a valid argument against this. And again (Shelia), the point is Natural Born Citizen, particular to a candidate for president only, NOT “American born”, NOT “one born naturally American”, NOT “babies with no legal father”, NOT “Barack the magic …”, well, you get the point: this person-elected 43-1/2 white president IS ineligible to run again, for ANYthing. Heck, he can’t legally get a driver’s license in Hawaii or apply for Social Security retirement benefits with the bogus I.D. he’s flashing! This is Funny!
crystal on February 4, 2012 at 1006am said:

suppose your birth or your parent birth was call into question only to promote an agenda. I am sure if we did deep enough we all are natural born citizens one way or another
Larry Current on February 4, 2012 at 838am said:

Well I guess this will test the laws to see if the only apply to tax payers
I have noticed most folks dont give a crap . ( Yet )
William Davis on February 4, 2012 at 1240am said:

WHEN !! will OBAMA ever be Convicted in a court in the USA of NOT being a Natural Born Citizen of USA . ??

OBAMA needs to be in JAIL and Deported to Indonesia or Africa .

PLUS OBAMA should be FORCED to re-Pay all money he earned as a FALSE President of our USA .

Where is True JUSTICE ??

Also WHY !! haven’t we seen even one word on the TV News or Regular Newspapers about this TRIAL of OBAMA in Georgia ????

Is ALL of AMERICA under control of our Corrupt Government ??

Lately I feel like I am living in a COMMUNIST type of a Government .

Also I believe that the OCCUPY movement is backed by OBAMA !!

I do NOT think the Tea Party is so STUPID as to sponsor the Occupy Groups that are beginning to look like Vigilantes .

WHO in their right mind would want to be a Sponsor any Groups like that . ??

It seems like America is going to Hell in a Hand Basket !

If you read the History of Argentina then it looks a lot like what America is going through right now .

I wish that ALL the A-holes in the Whitehouse would be FIRED and they ALL would be replaced and a BIG Sign would be placed on the front Lawn in Front of the Whitehouse and it would Say ;

If this happened Once then it might Happen AGAIN !!!

Do we need a CIVIL WAR to try to FIX our Government Problems ???

I am age 64 , Disabled and I worry every Day because I expect a Story to be on TV soon saying l SORRY all you OLD people ,, BUT the Government is 100% BROKE and we can NOT pay you Social Security any more ..

I am NOT Joking ,, I really am AFRAID that something like this might happen .

Also WHY are PRESIDENTS who work for only 4 years getting LIFETIME Pensions Plus other HUGE Benefits and $$$$$$$$$ ???

And I thing many Senators and Congressmen get Similar Benefits after only a FEW years of work . ?

It seems like all of America is either completely STUPID or toooo afraid to do anything to FIX these problems .

It is OUR TAXES that support these A-HOLES to live like KINGS !!

It makes me Mad as Hell .. especially since I am one of the Have-Nots ..

I struggle every day just to try to live on SSI and Social Security which Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger CUT 2 or 3 times while he was in Office here in California and NOW GOV. Jerry Brown is starting to do the same thing .

HELL I bet these A-HOLES could NOT live one Week on the $840 that I get per Month .

It seems to me that when the Government has problems they ALWAYS start Cutting $$$$$$$ that are given to the Poor people because they can not fight back .

I am a very Lucky American because I own my small 800 Sq. Ft. Mobile home Free and Clear in a Seniors Park here in California .

But If I even need to go to the Hospital then I might owe a lot of $$$ and then LOSE my Home .

Yes ! I really Worry all of the time because I can NOT TRUST the Future .
Frank Lee on February 3, 2012 at 751pm said:

The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy continues:

Stunning news from Georgia.

Posted by Judson Phillips on February 3, 2012 at 8:32pm in Tea Party Nation Forum

In what can only be described as an unbelievable ruling, a Georgia judge has ruled Barack Obama can be on the ballot this year.

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 “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. Accordingly, 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 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012).
Jacklynn Ackermann on February 3, 2012 at 621pm said:

this obama fellow is a dangerous person to and for this country,…he is 100% fake,…need to make the major media sit up a make them take notice,…even if they already realize this info,…then kick him and his family out of OUR White House,…and of course arrest him for faud,…obama needs to be made to pay for everything he accepted as the president,…no money, no job, no country,…and a lot of humiliation ! I always knew he wasn’t an American,…and hated our country,..our country ! obama has lied about most important things,…the best part,…God will deal with him,…I detest the very sight of him and his wife,…put them in jail !
Jazerino on February 3, 2012 at 552pm said:

Good coverage by Craig. But why did you have to include the long ago discredited picture of Obama with Richardson and Clinton? Picture of Obama was copied from a picture taken on another occasion. I thought we really had something there until I came to that picture. Why go for these cheap shots? You turn everybody off.
dusel1 on February 3, 2012 at 533pm said:

I know. It’s tough being pulled away from the weekly golf course, Martha’s Vineyard, or a walk in the Waikiki sands to answer a legal hearing on his eligibility for Executive office when his eligibility challenge should have been done over three years ago by the Democ_rats.
Jean Valjean on February 3, 2012 at 431pm said:

We are a nation at war and you think that attorneys should be able to call the Commander and Chief away from his post? How unpatriotic and anti-American. Don’t you know you don’t change commanders in the middle of a war or even subpoena them to some Podunk Georgia courthouse?

You all might be able to convince yourself that this is about citizenship and eligibility to be President but the rest of us know this is entirely about politics and race.
Byron McCabe on February 3, 2012 at 410pm said:

for your information, I sincerely believe that Mr. Obama is NOT eligable for the office he holds, that he using a stolen SSN, and that he was NOT born in Hawaii, and that he is in fact a Muslim.

what I have problems believing, is that a court actually is willing to find against him, and rule that he is not our president.

BK
Byron McCabe on February 3, 2012 at 405pm said:

I hae submitted a request to the court specified; requestiong verification of the events described. I am still awaiting a reply from them. I included a link to this page, and included the “Editors remark” at the beginning as noted below. oh, note, your editor could use a better spell checket “lacation”? give me a break…. BK

“The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled numerous cases concerning Obama’s eligibility; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. This hearing took place in the courthouse lacated at: 230 Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 850 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 on January 26th 2012 at 9am EST.

Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE

1215136-60-MALIHI”
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on February 3, 2012 at 359pm said:

link:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Malihi-final-ruling.pdf
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on February 3, 2012 at 337pm said:

It seems that they should have just let the judge issue the Default Judgment…

“Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits
of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request.

By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct
or legal scholarship of Defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely
based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”

CONCLUSION
President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary
election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).
SO ORDERED, February 3rd, 2012.

– Quoting Judge Malihi

.
kkflash on February 3, 2012 at 332pm said:

I don’t know whether the current law as it pertains to this historic case in Georgia will find Obama to be a “natural born citizen” (NBC), but I do have an opinion about how the law SHOULD read. Clearly, our founding fathers made a distinction between being a citizen, and being a NBC, reserving eligibility for the presidency only to the latter. In the context of the modern USA, in which more than half of marriages end in divorce, and courts overwhelmingly award custody of children to mothers over fathers, the idea that citizenship of only one parent should qualify a child born in this country to be considered “natural born” makes greater sense than in 1789. However, we should ask whether the framers of the Constitution intended to protect the security of the country by limiting eligibility for the highest office in the land to only those whose sole allegiance to the USA could not be questioned. Certainly, a dual citizen by birth or other means, carries inherent conflicts of allegiance that might be acceptable in an ordinary citizen, but not in the POTUS. Likewise, a child born here, and raised by parents who are not both citizens, would necessarily have some conflicts of loyalty to the countries of each of the parents. Again, perhaps not a disqualifying condition for citizenship, but a dangerous condition for the POTUS. I believe our founding fathers intended to eliminate such conflicts of loyalty in a POTUS, and thus would have required both parents to be citizens for a child to be considered a “natural born” citizen.

Another interesting eligibility question brought about by the condition of our times: Would a child born in the USA to a citizen mother where paternity is unknown be considered a natural born citizen? Lord knows we have a great many of those in the modern USA, and someday one of these may be seeking the presidency.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on February 3, 2012 at 331pm said:

.

He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. (Dan 8:24 NIV)

It looks like ^that^ just came true in Georgia….

🙁
tommy on February 3, 2012 at 208pm said:

Seems like the whole birth certificate is irrelevant if it has been proven that his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth. That makes him ineligible by itself. That on top of the SS # makes it all way too suspicious. The Dems need to come up with another candidate QUICK!
Wayne on February 3, 2012 at 153pm said:

When you read the vairious books on how communism is going to be successful in the US, you clearly see all of the things that Obama and the ultra left are doing.
If you go back and watch the Manchurian Candidate (orignial movie), and put the two together…what do you have? Barack Obama. Thank goodness that this is coming to light.
We either have a Constitution that is the basis of the rule of law, or we don’t have a viable Republic.
kkflash on February 3, 2012 at 136pm said:

@Karl Oakes:

You’ve posted your explanation that the Minor case is inapplicable here so many times that I’ve been unable to avoid reading it carefully, and I’m not buying your reading of the decision.

The SCOTUS said:
“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. Some authorities go further and include as CITIZENS (emphasis added) children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

You reasoned:
Now, ASK YOURSELVES, what did the court mean when it said, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” The court MEANT, we don’t need to decide whether a person born here is a citizen “without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

You wrongly reasoned:
“IN OTHER WORDS, we don’t need to decide if someone who has only one citizen parent would be a natural born citizen.”

I am quite confident that in a paragraph that makes reference to “citizens” and “natural born citizens” and distinguishes between the two, the SCOTUS meant what it said in the 4th sentence. If they had meant NATURAL BORN CITIZENS here, they would have said it. They said “CITIZENS”. It is you who have inserted “natural born” here to try to prove your erroneous point.

I’m no attorney, but that’s my interpretation. I take it you are an attorney, who should be trained in such interpretation, but you’re wrong and the Minor case is pertinent and supportive to the plaintiff’s Georgia case.
John on February 3, 2012 at 122pm said:

@Trevor- citizen, yes, but not a natural born citizen as the Constitution requires a president to be. His father was not American, therefore, Obama is not a natural born citizen. Doesn’t matter whether he was born in Hawaii or not.
MSGT JOHN CORREA on February 3, 2012 at 111pm said:

If one clearly understood the definition of ‘infiltration’ as in the Greek warriors inside the wooden horse for the sole purpose of conquering a nation ‘from within,’ this would be an act of ‘espionage.’

The foreign-born agent Mr. Barack Hussein Obama II was a well calculate plant groomed to infiltrate the United States and eventually supported for the U.S. Presidency by American traitors with the support of the corrupted ACORN and illegal monetary donations from foreign countries.

Impeachment is not an obtion for foreign-born agents… ‘Espionage’ is the legal charge for foreign-born agents whose intent is to destroy a nation ‘from within.’ And therefore, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama II must be arrested and executed for ‘espionage.’ And those American traitors who conspired with the foreign-born agent Barack Hussein Obama II must be charged with ‘High Treason.’

MSGT JOHN CORREA
USAF (RET)
Lethal Leprechaun on February 3, 2012 at 1259pm said:

Seems to me this is MORE than enough to institute Impeachment hearings followed by his being tried for Treason as a spy in time of war.

When he is found guilty he should be executed TWICE. Once as Barrack Obama & once as Barry Sorento, just to make sure we executed the right guy since we still don’t know who he really is.

Don’t let him be buried with any honors or on US soil. Send his remains back to Kenya or bury him with Bin Laden. Further if he wasn’t eligible to be President his widow should be required to forfeit all his salary as President and reimburse the government for all travel costs. She should also be denied any additional security after Obama is removed from office. Personally I’d STRONGLY suggest she be named a co-conspirator in his treason as I cannot believe she did not know this was a sham.
Trevor on February 3, 2012 at 1146am said:

Are you seriously posting this? This is fucking ridiculous. Being born on American soil makes him an American citizen. He has a birth certificate. He didn’t show up because this whole case is fucking moronic. The President of the United States isn’t going to waste his time with clearly racist bullshit. If Georgia takes him off the ballot, then that just makes them irrelevant anyway.
Evelyn Cunningham on February 3, 2012 at 1136am said:

This was on Fox News, but it was brief and they were clueless. AOB (Anybody but Obama). Ev
kkflash on February 3, 2012 at 1023am said:

@Karl Oakes:

You’ve posted your explanation that the Minor case is inapplicable here so many times that I’ve been unable to avoid reading it carefully, and I’m not buying your reading of the decision.

The SCOTUS said:
“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. Some authorities go further and include as CITIZENS (emphasis added) children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

You reasoned:
Now, ASK YOURSELVES, what did the court mean when it said, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” The court MEANT, we don’t need to decide whether a person born here is a citizen “without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

You wrongly reasoned:
“IN OTHER WORDS, we don’t need to decide if someone who has only one citizen parent would be a natural born citizen.”

I am quite confident that in a paragraph that makes reference to “citizens” and “natural born citizens” and distinguishes between the two, the SCOTUS meant what it said in the 4th sentence. If they had meant NATURAL BORN CITIZENS here, they would have said it. They said “CITIZENS”. It is you who have inserted “natural born” here to try to prove your erroneous point.

I summarize and paraphrase the SCOTUS decision in Minor this way:
“In this case, we’re not going to address the issue of whether a person born in the USA is a citizen, even if his parents aren’t both citizens, because that is not pertinent in Minor, though we do acknowledge there are some doubts about that. We are only addressing the issue of whether such a person is a natural born citizen, and we agree with the lower courts finding that he/she is not a natural born citizen unless both parents are citizens at the time of such person’s birth.”

I’m no attorney, but that’s my interpretation. I take it you are an attorney, who should be trained in such interpretation, but you’re wrong and the Minor case is very pertinent to the current Georgia case.
B G OWCZARZAK on February 3, 2012 at 915am said:

I don’t believe I would deport him because he knows too much about the office he’s in and too much about our Military. However – I would have him tried by a Military tribunal – then hung for treason.
Shelia on February 3, 2012 at 900am said:

Saying it doesn’t make it the truth. It does NOT take two American parents to make one born naturally American. Many US women have babies with no legal father and the child is American born by law.
Richard D Gregory Sr on February 3, 2012 at 605am said:

MISTER CONGRESSMAN and BOTH YOU SENATORS

Congressman Woodall, Mister Speaker and Senators Saxby and Chambliss,,
I post on several forums and we carry on serious discussions concerning the United States Government.
We here on the “JOINTHETEAPARTY.NET” forum, as well as the many other forums we are on, are getting extremely concerned with MISTER Obama’s disregard for OUR Constitution.

Please explain to me why there is no outcry from you Congress people; you are a member of Congress! I distinctly remember you asking me to vote for you. You want to be Speaker. Rep Woodall wants to still be a Rep; WE ARE TEA PARTY PEOPLE. We put you in office.

I am wondering why there is no mention of the HOUSE UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES. Is there STILL such an office? Is there no means of arrest by a U. S. Marshal for what Mister Obama is doing to our Constitution?
How much corruption must take place BEFORE you do what we are paying you to do?

Please post your answer, to the various TEA PARTY WEBSITES; and remember; WE ARE WATCHING YOU! We will take it from there; we are the voters! You asked us to vote for you! We are sending this to you via both houses of Congress.
Remember House Un-American Activities.
Sincerely
Richard D Gregory Sr
DADDYSR7@ATT.NET
Harry on February 3, 2012 at 523am said:

@ Larry,
Ditto.

Can you imagine .. putting a President into office that was not properly vetted?

It’s hard to believe an entire political party could be that stupid…

It’s no wonder they are trying so hard to cover it up.
Larry Martin on February 3, 2012 at 228am said:

In response to Mr smackwaterjack(Jan,26,2012) and his challenge to all Georgians to show proof of their citizenship I say…Bring it on!!! I will gladly produce a copy of my birth certificate, my one and only social security number, my high school records, my senior class year book, affidavits from my entire senior class(91 students) that they know me and attended high school with me, my military records and affidavits from my Army buddies that they served in the army with me, and affidavits, from my co-workers from my last 2 jobs, that they worked with me. I will gladly do ALL this if Mr. Obama will do the very same and then we both can have all our records, affidavits and documentation scrutinized by the same experts at the same time and see who comes out with the LEAST number of “questionable” discrepensies. I will do this within a 30 day period, NOT three years, as has Mr Obama. I feel sorry for you smackwaterjack, because you obviously can’t see the forrest for the trees…I’ll pray your eyesight gets better.
Dominic on February 2, 2012 at 929pm said:

I saw the picture of his Hawaii birth certificate on Brian Williams” news broadcast–and I’ll believe the Gov of Hawaii that he was born there, went to elementary school through 4th grade in Indonesia—very few President’s have done that, though Hoover spent many years in gold enterprises in Western Australia. O returned to Hawaii where he graduated from High School, attended Occidental, Columbia, Harvard Law School and worked as a lawyer.

Not bad for a mixed marriage kid in our USA—what a great place!
Harry on February 2, 2012 at 916pm said:

It still amazes me that so many people in the United States have no idea what the term “Natural-Born” means.

A testament to the public school system…
Ironette2019 on February 2, 2012 at 756pm said:

To southrngirl77: Let him spend the rest of his life in Leavenworth, have them throw away the key and put him under constant guard! I’d say he’s committed treason every time he violated the Constitution, plus this has been during wartime! The average soldier would have been executed for such a behavior!

I’d say deport him. His wife has admitted she never liked America until he became “president.” Now, what does that say about them both??

This has been a fraudulent adventure of his from the beginning. He and all his Csars should be punished accordingly. If not, the rest of the world will have absolutely no respect for the US anymore and laugh in our faces! We need to return to truth, justice and the American way!!
Frank Lee on February 2, 2012 at 742pm said:

Obama Eligibility Challenges Spread to 6 States
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=0c63abc741fff5c4813d80e0a&id=c1ef2bea13&e=%5BUNIQID%5D

Source: Minuteman PAC
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on February 2, 2012 at 740pm said:

@ Patrick M.

Courtesy of your friend L. Donofrio:

“SCOTUS majority in Wong Kim Arc says person born in US to two Chinese nationals who are not US citizens is a “Citizen” – court discusses what a “Natural born citizen” is and mentions others cases which have discussed the term “natural born citizen” –

court does NOT hold that Wong Kim Arc is a natural born citizen.

Since the court could have, if it so chose, to hold that Wong Kim Arc was a nbc, but it didn’t, the holding provides support for the argument that a nbc is somebody not only born in US, but who also is born to parents who are US citizens”

.
Is says ‘citizen’… regardless of your quotes from Galileo and Stone.

+
Patrick M on February 2, 2012 at 629pm said:

@Daniel’s Seventieth 7

You are IGNORING the FACT that the District Court had ALREADY detirmined that he was a NATURAL BORN citizen.

That is because ANYONE that is CITIZEN by birth in the United States is a NATURAL BORN citizen, REGARDLESS of their parentage.

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. The Immigration and Naturalization Service moved to deport him in September of 1980, and at an October hearing he was granted voluntary deportation within 90 days. Diaz-Salazar appealed the decision to deport him to the Board of Immigration Appeals and requested a joint hearing with the woman whom he considered to be his common-law wife.
…
The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

Diaz-Salazar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 700 F2d 1156 (1983)

http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156/diaz-salazar-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service

Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”–Galileo Galilei

“Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance.” – W. Clement Stone
- admin on February 2, 2012 at 710pm said:
  
  Patrick M.
  
  Having reviewed the case you provide I can not find where the court finds that the children are “Natural Born” rather, it finds that they are citizens. That is a 14th amendment consideration but not substantiating Natural Born status.
AMERICAN on February 2, 2012 at 627pm said:

This beagle-eared bozo should be taken out of office! If this is the way to do it, FINE BY ME! PLAY BY THE RULES, OR GET OUt OF THIS COUNTRY (MY COUNTRY) -THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – GOD BLESS US ALL
Harry on February 2, 2012 at 546pm said:

A president needs to be a “Natural-Born” citizen as it says in the Constitution.
Obama is NOT.

Therefore he is ineligible.
Bob on February 2, 2012 at 543pm said:

It is the easiest thing in the world to know when Chairman Obama is lying . . . his lips are moving!!!

If Congress had a back bone, they’d kicked him out of the his race for the Senate, and curtainly his race for the Presidency. The Congress is a disgrace to our Constitution for allowing this LIAR into the highest office of America.

I hope our Judicial System has more back bone than Congress!!!
Mercer Tyson on February 2, 2012 at 518pm said:

Before everyone gets all fired up, consider the consequences. Suppose Obama loses this baidle – Hillary is on the ballot. She would be harder to beat than Obama. Suppose Obama wins this one – GOP looks stupid.
The only way this turns out good is if Obama is disqualified a week or so before the election, or at least after the Dem convention.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on February 2, 2012 at 422pm said:

@ Patrick M.

Here is the decision: (from your quote above)

“…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

Note: It says “citizen”.

It does not say “Natural Born Citizen”

🙂
M. B. Anderson on February 2, 2012 at 338pm said:

Why keep hassling over the stupid B.C. The Fed Court (I think) has the authority to
issue a subpoena to the medical facility that “supposedly issued the B.C.” and make them reveal the real B.C. if there is one.
Arvie on February 2, 2012 at 336pm said:

OK Now What?????? how come no one has started impeachment? oh i forgot
he’s BLACK, and above the Law, NOT
Mac on February 2, 2012 at 326pm said:

Lol, you people are so wacked out of your minds its scary. The only thing you’ve proven is no matter what evidence is provided, it won’t be good enough. So, hilariously, no one pays attention to you anymore. And guess what, it changes nothing. You are having no effect on anyone else’s opinion, because the media (even the FIX NEWS) no longer pays attention to your wacked out theories anymore.

Don’t bother responding to me, because I won’t be back to this nut factory to read it.
Roy on February 2, 2012 at 259pm said:

Impeach the IMPOSTER !
Mike on February 2, 2012 at 237pm said:

You don’t need the see his birth certificate. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. You can go about your business. Move along…..move along….
Patrick M on February 2, 2012 at 1256pm said:

So according to Birther attorney Leo Donofrio, in U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK the U.S. Supreme Court SUPPOSEDLY affirmed a MYTHICAL parentage requirement for one to be NATURAL BORN.

“President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, as defined by the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein the Court identified, as natural-born citizens, only those who are born in the United States of citizen parents. That the holding in Minor v. Happersett was applicable only to persons born in the country of two citizen parents was confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), where the Court approvingly reiterated the exact passage from Minor that defined the natural-born citizen class, not modifying it, or questioning it all.”
http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/georgia-brief-merged-final-redacted.pdf

Leo is a LIAR. The court AFFIRMED that Wong Kim Ark was a NATURAL BORN citizen DESPITE that both of his parents were NON-CITIZENS.

“The district court, following as stare decisis the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing (10 Sawyer, 358), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizen by birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may thus stated: Is a person born with the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.
…
To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation — a right of all aliens — yet he was not born subject to the “political jurisdiction” thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”

US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898) Appellant’s LOSING Brief

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/page/2/

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.” U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

“Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, with whom concurred Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.
…
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” DISSENTING OPINION, U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

And the FACT that he is so blatantly LYING to people & MISREPRESENTING things should tell people a lot about the Birther movement.

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.

Patrick in California

Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

“It isn’t the jumping that kills you. It is the sudden stop.”-Unknown

“Common sense is not so common” – Voltaire
bruce rubin on February 2, 2012 at 1214pm said:

Why hasn’t Fox News been all over this as they cover all other high profile court cases ?
Gloria Muther on February 2, 2012 at 1108am said:

This bothers me a great deal. All of the information being revealed now should have been discovered prior to Obama being allowed to run for President. How can our country and the so called leaders allow these kind of mistakes or oversights? I personally did not vote for Obama and I believe he among others is ruining our Country. So, are the documents real? or Doctered? If findings show doctered, then impeachment is in order.

So who shut the door after the dogs got out?
Ted Gregg on February 2, 2012 at 1006am said:

A child prodigy in Kenya, chosen at an early age to be put into place in the USA by clandestine methods, to be schooled and infiltrated into the highest USA office (The White House) to take over our infidel population and government. (They knew they could never do it militarily).

What has Obama done thus far in Office that both economically and otherwise has NOT been a benefit to al-Qeada and islamic extremism ??
len fickling on February 2, 2012 at 836am said:

How is it even local media is not following this earth shattering event?
- admin on February 2, 2012 at 838am said:
  
  UPDATE ON THE LACK OF MEDIA COVERAGE!!!
  
  http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4248
George Fidler on February 2, 2012 at 831am said:

This all coming out of the state that has NEWT (HYPOCRIT) GINGRICH running for President. Don’t feel lot different here in Texas, as our on IDIOT is back. You Baptist’s, of which I am one, are tryly forgiving.
Randy Stratton on February 2, 2012 at 748am said:

Is this reality? I hadn’t heard of this at all until a friend forwarded the link to your website. Amazing if true, and so frightening.
WWP on February 1, 2012 at 957pm said:

I know it’s not PC to bring religion into this, but what do you think is happening?
Regardless of whether or not the current POTUS is eligible for the office it is certain that he has the backing of Lucifer. If you doubt that, look at all the immoral laws and regulations that Obama has forced upon this country. I say nothing short of God Himself will save us from Obama. And it’s partly our fault. We stood by in 2008 and let the DNC, the RNC, the media (ALL of them), and the massive hordes of the ignorant choose the Republican nominee who had no chance of defeating anyone the Democrats nominated. Now we’re letting them do it to us again. The only candidate still in the running who ‘MIGHT’ have a shot is Newt. But everyone (especially the RNC and the media) has foreordained from the very beginning that Romney would be the nominee. If he can beat Obama, I’ll eat my socks.
RixonGOP on February 1, 2012 at 903pm said:

When I first read this blog it seemed like the plaintiff had a good case, particularly regarding the Minor v Happersett opinion. But then I actually read Minor vs Happersett myself, at least the part that was presented in the hearing, and lost all hope. Here is the part from the opinion that looks oh so promising:

“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.”

But the next few sentences is a dream crusher:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

If the case to prove Obama is ineligible to be president because he is NOT a Natural-born Citizen rests solely on Minor v. Happersett then the plaintiff’s attorneys should have their law licenses revoked. When the “evidence” says that it is possible that someone who is born within the jurisdiction of the United States could possibly be considered a Natural-born citizen then there is almost ZERO chance that a sitting president will be ruled ineligible. And here I thought the national nightmare could end with a flip of the switch and everything just be undone. If something seems too good to be true then it probably is…
Ginny on February 1, 2012 at 851pm said:

I Hear everyone – but I do not hear people saying they are storming their reps asking about it – I don’t hear people actually going up to FOX News Live with signs asking them WHY they are ignoring…You guys are doing the same thing as all the Repubs have done…”Let someone else do it”

Go storm the Networks – Go stand in the middle of NY and LA in front of the TV Stations and ask away..Ask the public going by if they are aware of these proceedings.

Go to the LA Times and New York papers and ask why they haven’t posted it…

But don’t just stand here on this board and do nothing…You all need to group up…One person a military makes…But it takes a lot of those One Persons to win a war…And I still don’t see that…Get together – Form your groups – Call everyone on the carpet and demand to know why it is being ignored. But I see none of that…THIS IS EXACTLY WHY HE IS IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE…APATHY…Everyone t hinking…”Here, you do it.” Call your Senator – Call your City Councilman – Call your Rep. All of them…
Christopher A. Brown on February 1, 2012 at 835pm said:

I predict obamas fraud was planned to create major news distractions from very important events that have yet to manifest. Events that WILL help to unify America and restore the constitutional civil government. Media is in on the treason.

Accordingly, the story should NOT be allowed to dominate the front page and TV news. Report it, but a few pages back or for TV, specials once a month. I suggest that all attorneys and patriots consider legal actions upon newspapers and networks enforcing this. I’ve seen enough manufactured news and selectivity by media to know this has been a major tactic for misleading the citizens and preventing them from unifying to oppose unconstitutional activities at high levels.

Consider this. How many know about BBCI? How about OJ Simpson? The critical congressional hearings on BCCI were during the Simpson news debacle.
John on February 1, 2012 at 827pm said:

This is all sore loser Reblican hate. Can’t win the election..challenge on technical grounds. What more can the man do. He has released his birth certificate. Dufuss Republictons..give it up…it’s been four years already.
BIG DAVE THOM on February 1, 2012 at 757pm said:

Let everyone know the real truth, once and for all. PRESENT POSITIVE PROOF SO WE CAN ALL USE IT AND BELIEVE IT. IT IS OUR RIGHT TO KNOW POSITIVE EVA TRUTH.
top soldier on February 1, 2012 at 750pm said:

No doubt about it..he is an ILLEGAL ALIEN — and should be treated as such….cuffed — thrown in a cell — and deported… Scary….everyone knows it…?? BUT…nothing has been done to correct it .??? We need a “PURGE” of a lot of TRASH in our WHITE HOUSE……!!!
Leslie G on February 1, 2012 at 728pm said:

by law, established by U.S. Congress and the Constitution, a Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the U.S. and under the authority of the U.S., or someone born outside the U.S. to a parent or parents of U.S. Citizens. And of course a document examiner will have difficulty examining a birth certificate published online as that isn’t an actual document. The State of Hawaii has certified the birth certificate. The federal courts have already addressed this issue. It’s time to move on. If you don’t like what he’s done, actively campaign and vote against him. That’s how our system works. But quit wasting my tax dollars on these frivolous law suits. Incidentally, John McCain was born in Panama. I haven’t seen a single suit that questioned his ability to run for the office of President.
Doubting Thomas on February 1, 2012 at 639pm said:

Obummer is slicker than Willie. The Huffington Post said that Georgia’s Sec. of State will likely put him on the ballot to keep from ruining his future political aspirations. I think he should run with the ball, make Obummer or rep. show up in court with some real proof that he is legal. Duplicate court cases in more states immediately. We still do not know who he is really. Come on Sec. Kemp grow a pair, scoring a game winner against the community organizer would make you a HERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Billyvon on February 1, 2012 at 543pm said:

If VP Biden and Secy. Clinton had any gumption, they would force the issue for the good of the country. It is not healthy for a country to have its citizens making remarks about its leader such as we find here.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on February 1, 2012 at 527pm said:

@ Billy

Thank you for posting Mr. Donofrio’s latest thread here.

@ Admin

Mr. Donofrio has also filed an Amicus Brief and should be considered to be added to your list of Patriots…

@ Karl Oakes.

“If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument.”
(Courtesy Leo Donofrio)

🙂
Grandma on February 1, 2012 at 519pm said:

I have an email sent many months ago of Obama and Michelle both saying out loud that he was born in Kenya. I have sent it to many of the Fox News team and local broadcasters to no avail. Why is everyone so afraid to attack this ? Would love to send this to Donald Trump !!
alba on February 1, 2012 at 501pm said:

Obama is an impostor. Thank you Georgia. All the state should be follow this example but I am afraid nothing is going to happen and Obama will be in the ballot on November.
SpiderMike on February 1, 2012 at 414pm said:

This is all good news but to what avail? We will need several States with a Republican Governor, a Republican Legislature and Republican Sec. of State to get Obama off their ballots. And even then, you can be sure DOJ or some lone rogue Federal Judge will muck things up. The “press” has a blackout on this issue so nobody but the well informed choir will ever hear of this. The Republican establishment knows the truth of the matter but they want no part of it. If Obama was forced off the ballot or thrown out of office for ineligibility, can you imagine the bloody riots we would have in the black inner cities? Not to mention that the Republican establishment hopes one day to have President Marco Rubio, who I believe does not meet the “natural born citizen” clause. No folks, I’m afraid we’re going to have to beat him the old fashioned way, at the ballot box. Failing that, it may be “John Galt” time.
Billy on February 1, 2012 at 259pm said:

Here you go Karl Oakes..Read this and Have at it…http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/
unkie469 on February 1, 2012 at 232pm said:

Obama will indeed leave the Presidency on January 20, 2017.
Darla Neitzel on February 1, 2012 at 228pm said:

I said from the start that he does not belong and he doesn’t. I say nail his butt and get him out of here, he has caused enough problems with our country and he needs to go !
Ed Davison Jr on February 1, 2012 at 204pm said:

THANK THE LORD FOR HIS ACTIONS in SORTING OUT AN ANTI-CHRIST, MUSLIM LOVER….

OBAMAS LIES HAVE BEEN EXPOSED HIS FEINT IS OVER…USURPER…NEXT IS JAIL
Harry on February 1, 2012 at 1222pm said:

J. Moore,
We’re talking about law, and your talking about racism… Trying to drag the conversation down into racism makes me think that you yourself are a racist trying to use reverse discrimination to your twisted advantage.

Sorry that’s an old Democratic ploy that worked on the people out there with low IQ’s last election, it won’t work anymore because everyone is wise to it.

He’s not even from an African American background. He has absolutely no African American relatives.

That argument won’t hold water anymore. Frankly it didn’t hold much water last election either..The,.. “Prove your not racist and vote for Obama” ploy is now a nonfunctional argument.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on February 1, 2012 at 1221pm said:

@ Frank L.-

Here is a local news report (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)…

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-government/no-obama-in-court-1318908.html

As requested.
🙂
Frank Lee on February 1, 2012 at 1209pm said:

Can ANYONE post even one link to one Georgia State site, OR, one national, state, or local news media site (not a blog site) that has ANY coverage on this (alleged) court case?

Since the docket number and the court’s street address has already been proven to be wrong, this entire assertion of a current court case appears to be bogus.

Before REAL PROOF is provided, I will not waste the time of others with this story that increasingly looking like a fairy tale.
- admin on February 1, 2012 at 121pm said:
  
  I can assure you this hearing did indeed take place as reported in my
  article.
  
  Here is the link to the case brief.
  
  http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/georgia-brief-merged-final-redacted.pdf
  
  To the letter from Obama’s attorney to the GA Sec. of State.
  
  http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4120
  
  To the letter from Sec. of State Kemp to Obama’s attorney.
  
  http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4122
  
  And finally, a link to the video of the live stream of the proceedings.
  
  http://www.art2superpac.com/livevideo.html
  
  I can tell you the audio on the video is HORRIBLE and will give you, as it
  did me when I watched it live, a headache.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbsKUvKMFVg
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCBBiRRF5Fg&feature=related
  
  I will stand by for your apology.
Billie on February 1, 2012 at 1137am said:

Obama is destroying the US pulling us down into further debt, doesn’t even defend the US, in fact, apologizes for us when no apology is warranted, and, inflicting government control more than necessary. Impeach him before he finishes the destruction of the US.
Raka on February 1, 2012 at 1120am said:

Found this video on Youtube… Very interesting 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE&feature=related
Georgia Rocks on February 1, 2012 at 1115am said:

Thank you….Thank You…Thank You….Georgia for standing up for this great Country
and exposing this imposter . Obama and all that aided him in this fraud should pay for this crime. His only agenda was to ensure the “Death of America” .
Trish on February 1, 2012 at 1104am said:

Oh my gosh, my husband & I have suspected this since day 1. We are so glad to hear that this is being investigated and finally brought to a court room. Justice needs to be served IMMEDIATELY, since he is NOT a USA born citizen. He is systematically destroying our country (not his), our country, and he must be kicked out of our White House. Keep up the good work and get all other states involved so this can be finalized and he can be kicked out of our white house and country.
charlotte wilson on February 1, 2012 at 1041am said:

Please, oh please, let’s get the truth out. He is a sham and cheat. And a horrible president. Get him out of the country.
Jean on February 1, 2012 at 1010am said:

Fire him and deport him, we don’t need him, don’t want him. he is an evil person. do this after our courts remove all of his personal wealth that he has stolen from us.
William Morrow on February 1, 2012 at 938am said:

I have bin watching the news mainly FOX since last Thursday and they have not mentioned this not even once.. They are part of the system too. Good cop bad cop they only want you to think they are for the folks!!!!!
William Dunham on February 1, 2012 at 928am said:

I pray with all my heart that this case will not be settled with 30 pices of silver.
Dennis Mulvey on February 1, 2012 at 842am said:

This is great! How will it be carried out?
Mike S. on February 1, 2012 at 821am said:

Great Piece!
I’m all in…. This guy needs to go. Why won’t the media circulate this?
Robert W. on February 1, 2012 at 741am said:

Good job !!!!!!!!
Johnny L on February 1, 2012 at 717am said:

Look at the picture of him where everyone has there hand over there heart and that piece of SHIT doesn’t. What does that tell you. He has no respect for this country. In the past he and his wife attended American flag burning ceremonies. Check into it.
Thomas J. on February 1, 2012 at 647am said:

State run media won´t touch this.
Thomas J. on February 1, 2012 at 630am said:

Numerous trials for treason are in order.
W. Bank on February 1, 2012 at 628am said:

Just an IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE: Obama MUST BE IMPEACHED and not allow to complete his term. If he is allowed to complete his term “We the People” will end up paying him his Presidential pension for the rest of his life, not to mention all the other presidential benefits. The other reason his MUST BE IMPEACHED is that when he is IMPEACHED, correct me if I’m wrong by EVERYTHING HE HAS SIGNED INTO LAW would be immediately NULL AND VOID and everything SHOULD REVERT BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS PRIOR TO HIM SEALING THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ! ! ! Although not sure how that would actually play out but I do believe that is the way it is suppose to work…..This also definitely needs to be part of the overall court cases against obama in every state. As well, I absolutely agree with the person above who stated that with all his INSIDE INFORMATION he definitely should not be allowed to ROAM FREE to consort with the muslims etc. he MOST ASSUREDLY HAS TO BE IMPRISONED as he has committed probably some of the MOST GRIEVEOUS OFFENSES AGAINST OUR COUNTRY that any one person could possibly commit in this country’s life time.
J. Moore on January 31, 2012 at 1126pm said:

Oh and another thing….as far as I am concerned, you can all have his sorry behind and take him to Africa, Kenya or where ever in the heck you want to but just take him to heck away from here.
J. Moore on January 31, 2012 at 1124pm said:

I have read 90% of the comments on this board and am awed at the ones who post that there is obviously racial bias towards the President and that it is because he is black that all these “horrible things” are being said of him. To begin with, he has caused these “horrible things” to be said of him because he is arrogant and has nearly run our country into the ground, keeping poverty levels so low that most Americans cannot feed their families without the aid of the government. So many people are out of work and many are losing their homes, yet he still takes his many lavish vacations and has grand parties (one such that was hushed up so the public would not become angry; the halloween party) and he wonders why the country is getting upset. Now, for those that yell the race card…..what the hell are you yelling about? Whites are just as guilty for this man’s attitude as you blacks are…remember, he is half white and half black. Where do you get off thinking he is just black? If we are willing to take the blame for his faults then you damn well should be too.
david garcia on January 31, 2012 at 1119pm said:

If this is true and It looks like is then it’s time to take the kid gloves off. Go get him, he’s a fraud, an impostor. How did this impersonator get to be president in the first place is what I’m wondering. Who dropped the ball? I hope this judge doesn’t back off because of threats that are sure to come if this is made public. It HAS to be made public, the liberals be damned. If they don’t want to face the truth that they were made monkeys of that’s their problem but this has to be made public. It’s time to expose this antiAmerican fraud.
Herb Werner on January 31, 2012 at 929pm said:

He should be taken out of office immediatly .He is obviously an imposter. And the american public still looks the other way.LOTS OF TALK! NO ACTION.
Ron on January 31, 2012 at 921pm said:

If any one of us, “ordinary” citizens no-showed a court appearance, especially of this nature and not even giving a reason, there would probably have been a warrant for our arrest and/or a contempt of court ordered. He might as well have thumbed his nose right in the face of the judge!
Dan Taylor on January 31, 2012 at 847pm said:

It could be the next civil war to take his name off the ballot but if that is what it takes to get rid of him I’m down with that. I have been around 60 years and I’ve never seen any president hold votes in the middle of the night when nobody else is there but the Democrats and uses the constitution for toilet paper. We have hundreds of thousands of men that gave there lives for this country. I for one am tired of being told you can’t do anything about it. I got news for the Dems we are going to go toe to toe. You better haul out those guns you don’t have cause you don’t believe in them.
Dan Taylor on January 31, 2012 at 839pm said:

He shouldn’nt have been on the ballot the last time. Somebody was not doing there job. He is getting his money and backing from George Soros If we would do what England and the Philipines did we would throw him out of our country. He bankrupted there banks and they threw him out. He owns Progressive Insurance and gives billions to Acorn. I think he needs to stand charges for treason. That should put an end to his carreer. Blind fold and fireing squad. The End.
Steve on January 31, 2012 at 823pm said:

Just because the man, whoever he was, was born in 1890 he couls have obtained a SSN decades after that so he could recieve social security when it was enacted in August 1935 without paying hardly anything into it. Otherwise without that social security number he could not have drawn any benefits.
S.Quade on January 31, 2012 at 609pm said:

RobertParton: You don’t see something very wrong…illegal…about using a stolen social security number? What’s wrong with you?
Robert Parton on January 31, 2012 at 519pm said:

Even if it’s ALL true, the point is that no one cares. Way too much controversial stuff to be seriously considered. How would a person born in 1890 have a SSN? Depends and where and when it was issued. Just because the person was born before SS began doesn’t mean he didn’t get one late in life, you know?
Byron McCabe on January 31, 2012 at 419pm said:

your information, when checking references to the GA court systems are incorrect. The address of the court referenced is a JUVENILE COURT. And the proper address of the court mentioned is on a different street.

Please, get your facts together BEFORE you start raising peoples hopes.
- admin on January 31, 2012 at 444pm said:
  
  The venue was changed twice in the days leading up to the hearing. Where the hearing took place was a matter for the court and is accurate.
Al Kravchuk on January 31, 2012 at 346pm said:

I hope this comes true!!!, but I become suspect when I see that “the social security number was issued in 1890”???? Did not FDR institute the Social Security program during this reign?
Did everyone have a social security number in 1890?
Or…..did the Social Security system start when FDR institured the program?
Frank Lee on January 31, 2012 at 334pm said:

Thanks for the links. It sure would be helpful to find this case documented at the State of Georgia site (rather than just a blog sites) to convince skeptics that this case is really happening.
Merril Lane on January 31, 2012 at 304pm said:

What happens if his name is taken off the ballot? DH says that there will be riots!
Warren Young on January 31, 2012 at 255pm said:

As a loyal American sympathizer with relatives and many personal friends in the U.S., it hurts to learn of this tragic turn of events over the serious question of whether or not Obama is a true American citizen. Reason tells me that some of the comments above will most likely never be administered in law. BUT, denying Obama and discrediting him from ever running for President again seems like a legitimate and possible consequence for his being involved in this matter.

He, like any other American being addressed for any illegal cause should never be considered exempt from being summoned and appearing in a court of law.

The familiar statement in the upper left corner of the above transcript is heart rending – “We The People…” It signifies all that has made America GREAT. It’s the commencement affirming America’s independence and that also signifies its tradition of justice. YES, GOD bless America! This is a petition offered up to the God of creation that ought to be on the hearts of all Americans and her friends before its too late.
Eugene on January 31, 2012 at 222pm said:

Yes, this generation is about as corrupt as any generation in history.
Yes, the criminals have been in charge for a long time.
Yes, their control is so strong, it now doesn’t matter to them if they are “found out”, as there is little if anything that anyone can do to stop them now.
Our country is bankrupt, along with many other “Western” countries, the laws favor the criminals, not the victims, and there are so many warring factions within our country, it is nearly impossible to expect anyone to unite them. Lawlessness is being pushed by the “powers that be” so that the people will be compelled to call for a dictator to take charge. That dictator will look a lot like Anti-Christ, in my opinion, as the mass of people have already rejected their Christ. “Give us Barabas!” will be the call coming from the lawless and screaming mobs.
Scott Wilson, Sr. on January 31, 2012 at 212pm said:

We knew nothing about him in the first place and I for one, still know nothing about him and if you can tell me you do, then show me where you found it. As a result, I have never and would never vote for this (it would definitely appear) PHONEY. If found ineligible, he should be prosecuted and stripped of everything and sent somewhere where he cannot divulge any secret information(s) he has learned, if it has not already happened.
WHAT THE HECK HAS HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY, we now do not take notice and fervently delve into people in high offices until we know them inside out.
Nelson on January 31, 2012 at 1248pm said:

This is just so damn frustrating. Why are the Republicans in Congress not up in arms about this? Dan Rather had no trouble going on the air with unsubstantiated allegations about Bush but now we cannot find ANY reporter willing to follow through on the story of the century?
I’m afraid that we are witnessing the dismantling of the greatest country the world has ever known.
Patrick J. Ranallo on January 31, 2012 at 1207pm said:

If, Barack Obama is not eligilbale to be President of the United States of America, does this mean that every law, document & deals he made during him acting as president is all voided. Also, should he be tied for treson or impersonating someone he is not to obtain the highest position in the world. And finally, how can this happen, why isn’t there checks & balances in place from the beginning of his application to any form of goverment office?
Dave Carter Sr. on January 31, 2012 at 1159am said:

Well it is about time this Non American Idiot that has Destroyed, Demoralized and Shamed the people of this Great Country is going to be brought down and hopefully taken out of this Nations highest office where Great Men or Women should be, not this Communistic muslim, islam Idiot. He has done more to destroy this Great Nation in 4 years than we will be able to undo in the next 10. This man should never get any Protection from the Secreat Service or any pay for he or his Clan ever. Everything he has put in motion such as obamacare, 40 some Czars that are not needed, plus Unconstitunal movements against Congress where he had no Authority should be overturned. He should also be made to pay all Salries back and then either Imprisoned or Deported. What a Looser.
Joseph J. Westhoff on January 31, 2012 at 1154am said:

How come no one asked why he applied for aid as a foreign student with a name other then Obama?
zerohastogonow on January 31, 2012 at 1121am said:

Regardless of what the few idiot trolls who posted think, his BC has been shown to be a fake. His social is a fake, what more evidence do you want? The fool should be tried for treason and thrown in jail at the very least…and for the rest of his life, all bills he has signed should be rescinded and all of the 535 who voted for his treasonous acts should be placed in jail as well as unamerican activity, malfeasance and misfeasance charged as appropriate. The zero can still declare martial law, rescind posse comitatus, set the constitution aside and this nation will be at war. It will be citizens against government forces, the very thing for which the second amendment was written. Are you prepared for that? I know many millions are. Gun sales skyrocketed when the zero was erected, that should have given even the dumbest leftist reason for pause, if not reflection on the marxist regime they support. Yes, the dimocrats are marxists…socialism at the very core and many on the right in congress are the lapdogs going along to get along. When they come for you, bad boy, will you be so happy to lick their heels? Someone (most of each house of the legislative branch) better start getting their heads out of places where light does not shine. Our country is in trouble because people did not learn how it works while in school That is partly the fault of the student, but is laid right at the feet of the leftists who have taken over education. If you don’t know what the communist manifesto says about how to take a country down, you better be getting smart on that bit of information. They have been doing it for 70 years here.
Vic Damico on January 31, 2012 at 1048am said:

All states should follow this example and do exactly the same as was done by Georgia. To remove Obama from office, based on his ineligibility would be the true path to getting our nation back. If Obama were to be impeached, all legislation that carries his signature would be deemed as being based on false information and would be dismissed as being without merit or a legal standing. Everything from the health care plan to the NDAA would be voided from existence. If you have ever thought for a moment that the media is not controlled, then you need to ask yourself a simple question. On an issue such as this, whereas we are trying to determine if the president is actually a citizen, and eligible to hold his current position, in a court of law, why is this not worthy of media coverage?
ckwang on January 31, 2012 at 1036am said:

WHAT ABOUT HIS OTHER SEALED RECORDS…. RELEASE THESE IF OBAMA HAS NOTHING TO HIDE… I WOULD ASSUME THESE RECORDS WILL REVEAL A LOT ABOUT HIM… HOW HE FIANANCE HSI EDUCATIONAND WHAT HIS WRITINGS WERE…..
Harry on January 31, 2012 at 1017am said:

Karl,
Again you miss the point. We are looking for the definition of “natural born” in that piece of legislature to define the difference between a “citizen” which is general, “naturalized” which is specific, and “natural born” which is specific.

Since a general can not govern a specific by code, we see in that case that there is a difference between the citizen statuses as it was understood by the writers of the Constitution. Furthermore within that text is a definition of the difference. It need not apply to that instance as it was a specific term (natural-born) applied to a general term (Citizen). This Clearly defines the difference between the terms an sets a standard by which we can use to determine the real meaning of the specific terminology.

Since a general term can not ever control a specific we know that a “natural born citizen” would have to have at least a father that at some time was a resident of the USA.

Since Obamas father was never a resident. We can clearly see that Obama was not eligible.

Trying to cloud the issue can not work in this situation. The text is very clear.
Karen on January 31, 2012 at 953am said:

This makes me sick. How does this happen? The press is so hot to report so many inconsequential political issues but this just gets swept under the rug?????

Land of the free???? Free to do what???? Deceive the American people?
Rayna Raya on January 31, 2012 at 932am said:

Doesnt anyone have a currnet update. What did the judge finally say for the no show?
Raka on January 31, 2012 at 903am said:

I found this and paste this in here for you all to read together with the link…it’s under the comment section…

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-global-internet-treaty-worse-than-sopa/

LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA
WON’T !

Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

While I’ve little interest in getting in the
middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday
and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple
question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York ,
Jakarta , and Karachi ?

So how did a young man who arrived in New
York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket,
suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between
New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he
passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have
answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over
Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age
20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. .. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport,
or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia
passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a
U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on
the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in
1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian
passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport
that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in
Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport
that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship
he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian
step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the
American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born”
American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for
America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous
spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of
all this, the better.

If you Don’t care that Your President is not
a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete
this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S.
Constitution is already on life-support, and won’t survive much longer.

If you do care then Forward this to as many
patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and
ransacked!

HE SHOULD NOT BE OUR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cathy on January 31, 2012 at 859am said:

This should be upsetting to all Americans — Democrats, Independents, AND Republicans. No one has the right to place himself above the law. ESPECIALLY the President. This is not a case of Gotcha. It is a case of trampling on our constitution.
Cathy on January 31, 2012 at 854am said:

All of this is extremely disturbing. Not so much because he appears to be an imposter. But because there is an obvious loop of traitors and conspirators behind him!

The question is – will anything be done to move forward on this and by whom?
Terry Holms on January 31, 2012 at 848am said:

Obama should be canned. He simply does not qualify to be president in the first place. So what is the problem???
Terry Holms on January 31, 2012 at 845am said:

Obama,s authority is not the constitution of the United States of America, nor does he serve the people of the United States of America. Obama serves the power that owns and controls this country, ie; The Central Banking System (The Federal Reserve). Follow the money and you will discover who is really running the show…..
Lou Kober on January 31, 2012 at 834am said:

B. Obama’s sole purpose in life is to destroy the U. S. A.
He must be prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced to life
in prison without chance of parole.
steve on January 31, 2012 at 823am said:

Where is Donald Trumpt??? Now he has something to yell about.
Obama Your Fired!!!!!!!!
Frank Lee on January 31, 2012 at 822am said:

Craig Andresen – follow, I entered the docket number provided by admin (in the thread above) ….

admin Says:
January 30th, 2012 at 131pm

Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE
1215136-60-MALIHI

…. at the State of Georgia’s case reference site (http://www.osah.ga.gov/default.aspx?Date=1%2f26%2f2012) … and got the following error message from The State of Georgia:

“Option 2 | By Docket number Enter a valid 7 digit like in the picture below:

EX: OSAH-DDS-ALS- 1100000-00-JUDGE”

I tried each combination with and without a space and/or dash:

OSAH-SECSTATE-CE 1215136-60-MALIHI
OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1215136-60-MALIHI
OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- 1215136-60-MALIHI
OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI

Can you post the link at this State of Georgia site that shows this case? Thanks.
- admin on January 31, 2012 at 831am said:
  
  THE FOLLOWING IS EVERYTHING I HAVE REGARDING THIS.
  
  Here is the link to the case brief.
  
  http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/georgia-brief-merged-final-redacted.pdf
  
  To the letter from Obama’s attorney to the GA Sec. of State.
  
  http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4120
  
  To the letter from Sec. of State Kemp to Obama’s attorney.
  
  http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4122
  
  And finally, a link to the video of the live stream of the proceedings.
  
  http://www.art2superpac.com/livevideo.html
  
  I can tell you the audio on the video is HORRIBLE and will give you, as it
  did me when I watched it live, a headache.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 31, 2012 at 816am said:

@ Karl

Motivation is always the key and thanks for the retraction.

Your opinion is clear, however, here is your problem:

If you try to introduce Blackstone,

It would conflict with the 14th amendment.

The Amendment states:

All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…

It does not say NATURAL born, it says born.

They could have said Natural Born.

But they didn’t.

So,

who wins?

The Constitution? (which you would need to change)

or Blackwell?

?
james cook on January 31, 2012 at 433am said:

they impeached a pres. for lying and having sex.i think this is a little bigger.this blog should be sent to every gov. of every state,until he has no choice but to fess up.reps dont waite to long to get this out.what you got here is a nough to get him impeached
Karl Oakes on January 31, 2012 at 419am said:

@Daniel, I’m losing the motivation to explain this again. We adopted the English common law. Hence children of aliens born in the US are natural born. If you’re not born here, you can still become a citizen by “naturalization.” If the Founders specified “natural born” citizens, then they were necessarily excluding “naturalized” citizens. If that doesn’t make sense to you, let’s just agree that we’re not understanding each other. That’s what I meant when I said I “wasn’t working” — characterizing the process, not YOU. If the comment about postponing disappointment was offensive, I retract it.

@Everyone, I made a factual error and I want to correct it. I said only one 19th century case cited de Vattel. That’s incorrect, because many cases cited him simply as “Vattel.” When I searched for “Vattel,” I got 1017 hits, mostly 19th century. Far less than Blackstone, but not insignificant.

My sampling of the cases seems to indicate that he was cited primarily as an international law expert, on matters such as treaties and war and rights in seized vessels. Given that we adopted British common law, I continue to find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the Framers would have used the Vattel/French understanding of “natural born citizen” instead of the Blackstone/English understanding without giving future generations a clear indication of what they meant. I think they were smart enough to understand that we would assume the English meaning, which is what we have in fact done. Except for Louisiana, we are a country based on the English, rather than French, legal tradition. However, I wanted to correct my factual misstatement.

At this point, I’m content to let this play out in court.
Bragan33 on January 31, 2012 at 110am said:

These are gutsy folks to be applauded.I always hope for a balanced view of things in the media,but sadly it is not to be. Fox news and Bill O’Reilly in particular need to give an explaination for not reporting this event. One would think it important enough to be considered by all of us. In addition all the “CZAR’S” need some exposure,what a rogues gallery! Next Congress!
Fred E. Vanosdall on January 30, 2012 at 1121pm said:

Consider the context when determining what the framers of the Constitution had put at risk when they considered the future leadership of their country. What would your father prefer when leaving this world and his family? When your family loses everything, to whom do you go for assistance? Is it your neighbor, who you know; or someone you know you can trust?

Those formulating laws that will protect their interests and for all who follow them planned for those they loved as dearly as their new nation. Now how you think you can define or describe that judgment for posterity and legal purposes, deeming the future maybe several generations away? No debate here – : Write it down to Amend the Constitution.
William and Joyce on January 30, 2012 at 1013pm said:

What makes him any different…..title does not excuse one from disobeying the law….if one does not appear in court……this is a violation…..he should have a warrant for his arrest…..found guilty of all charges…..any and all laws or papers filed or signed by him holding office of the president of the United States should be found null and void……erase him from the record…….let it show that he never existed. This is a disgrace to our wonderful country……we all need to stand up for what is right……God Bless you Judge Malihi…..let it be know that (he what ever his name is) needs to be taken off the ballot not only in Georgia but all of our States…..hold him in contempt of court….What a Disgrace…
TruthWILLprevail on January 30, 2012 at 1001pm said:

Can we start calling all the news stations and start bombarding them with why they are not covering this story and that we demand that they do (accurately) so that this gets out? I can’t even find a number for Fox News. I do NOT want this to be swept under the rug!
Ross on January 30, 2012 at 914pm said:

Look at these websites and see why Obama’s handlers won’t let him near there.
Bidens is the actual CEO of corporate Amerika.
http://www.vaticanassassins.org http://www.chick.com http://www.arcticbeacon.com
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 823pm said:

BTW Karl,

This is also ad hominem:

“I don’t think the process of you trying to ask me sequential questions is working effectively. ”

argumentum ad hominem:

is An Attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

}{
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 819pm said:

Calm down Karl,

Here is your Blackstone quote:

‘William Blackstone, who said:

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

How does this support YOUR position that:

“The language certainly excludes naturalized citizens”

?
?
?
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 818pm said:

Wrong. I cited Blackstone’s summary of English law, the fact that we adopted common law, and three 19th century cases treating natural born citizens as citizens born here regardless of parentage. I also debunked the misrepresentation of Minor and I debunked the “influence” of de Vattel. That’s pretty darn thorough if you ask me.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 749pm said:

@ Karl,

This is your position:

“The language certainly excludes naturalized citizens”

You may not think it’s ‘working’ very well.

But,

You have yet to show support for your position.

@)
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 744pm said:

And that wasn’t ad hominem. If you look at my comment on the other thread, de Vattel was cited once in the entire 19th Century, while Blackstone was cited over 1100 times. How on Earth are we supposed to believe that de Vattel was so influential that the Framers assumed future generations would refer to his framework instead of the framework of the English common law? 49 out of 50 states use the English system rather than the French. But the Framers assumed we would understand “natural born citizen” in its French meaning rather than the English? Can you understand why I would find that a little ludicrous?
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 740pm said:

@Daniel, why don’t you just come out and say whatever your argument is. I don’t think the process of you trying to ask me sequential questions is working effectively.

My position is that citizen includes a natural born citizen and naturalized citizen, and that specifying one excludes the other. I base that on our adoption of English common law. Apparently you have a different understanding. Go for it. What is it?
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 739pm said:

@ Karl,

Your ad hominem quote:

“If you want to rely on a Swiss philosopher’s interpretation of this general issue rather than the foremost expert on the British common law that we adopted, as well as the early American court cases I cited, you’re certainly welcome to. I think you’re just deferring your disappointment, but time will tell” . . .

Answer:

So of us will be more than happy to accept the rule of law rather than your opinion.

The court will do God’s will,

And,

Whatever the result, it will not be a disappointment.

🙂
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 735pm said:

@ Karl

Your quote:

“The language certainly excludes naturalized citizens”

Which “language” are you referring to?

Your apparent answer:

Article II section 1 of the Constitution.

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

C’mon Karl,

You know that this does not say ‘naturalized’?

Are you still playing games?

?
suezenne on January 30, 2012 at 718pm said:

This is all so very sad….. How could this happen in our beautiful country???? That we are deceived by any party? And the havoc thaat has been Wreaked….. just pitiful, and the debt!!! Did everyone see soros european video??? Said Mitt wont be any different than o.~~~ Really pitiful state of affairs!!! We have to really rally round the voting booths!!!
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 712pm said:

@Harry, I know what it’s like when a person’s explanation doesn’t penetrate. It’s frustrating on both ends.

“The right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States” applies ONLY to the language preceding it. That’s what “Provided that” means in a law. It doesn’t mean “this is true everywhere and all the time.” It means “this is an exception to what we just said — and only to what we just said.”

So the restriction on descending from a nonresident father applies ONLY when someone’s claim to citizenship is that they were born outside the US of two citizen parents. That’s it. No other application.

Besides, Obama’s claim to citizenship is not that it “descended” from his father. It’s that he was born here. It’s as though citizenship emanated from the ground and bathed him in it. His father has NOTHING TO DO WITH Obama’s citizenship.
Aprildawn Walker on January 30, 2012 at 706pm said:

What worries me is….Who the heck is he and where did he come from??????
Harry on January 30, 2012 at 511pm said:

Karl,
I can not even understand how you could twist that around like that. It’s clear to me that I am correct and can not see any logic behind your argument.

“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”

“And” and “also” would include those not limit it to only those.. Regardless Natural born means you have to have a father that has at some time been a resident of the U.S. Now they can start faking documents to try to prove that….

I still say that definition applies accurately to this situation. “Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States” Says it all.

This means that regardless of where Obama was born he is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” as described by our forefathers.

Therefore ineligible for the office of President of he United States.

Apologies if you disagree but have been looking at this for months and I have looked at it from all angles. When you twist it around and shake it upside down it still means the same thing.
Harry on January 30, 2012 at 434pm said:

@Francis Burke Jankowski

The SOS# you speak of was not issued in 1890, it was issued to someone born in 1890. This would make that person approximately 40 to 50 years old when they got their SOS # if I have my “math on the fly” correct.
Harry on January 30, 2012 at 433pm said:

@Francis Burke Jankowski

The SOS# you speak of was not issued in 1890, it was issued to someone born in 1890. This would make that person approximately 40 to 50 years old when they got their SOS # is I have my “math on the fly” correct.
Harry on January 30, 2012 at 428pm said:

To Ed and Sue,
I don’t mean to upset you with my findings, but just for the record I am a registered Democrat.
Jim Orr on January 30, 2012 at 415pm said:

At this juncture in our nation’s history, when criminal involvement can be detected by a single hair, fibre, DNA, and many other shreads of minute evidence, it should baffle our greatest intellects as to why and how the door to our nation’s highest office could have opened to someone who, according to what we’ve read, was able to waltz right in without being ‘veted’. Does this mean that even though vetting is required of potential Supreme Court Judges and other cabinet members, their CEO and future Commander In Chief automatically flies above such scrutiny?
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 405pm said:

Article II section 1 of the Constitution.

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

I’ve got places to be now. If you want to rely on a Swiss philosopher’s interpretation of this general issue rather than the foremost expert on the British common law that we adopted, as well as the early American court cases I cited, you’re certainly welcome to. I think you’re just deferring your disappointment, but time will tell . . .
Francis Burke Jankowski on January 30, 2012 at 359pm said:

How cold he have a SSS ID issued in 1890, Didn’t FDR enact the program in 1935????
Give him a O/W boat ride to Gitmo,Cuba….
It’s still open, isnt it????
- admin on January 30, 2012 at 405pm said:
  
  Please reread that segment…carefully.
J.Davis on January 30, 2012 at 358pm said:

This BASTARD NEEDS TO BE VOTED OUT ALONG WITH THE UN-AMERICANS, PELOSI AND REED.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 353pm said:

You didn’t answer this question:

@ Karl

Your quote:

“The language certainly excludes naturalized citizens”

Which “language” are you referring to?

(Please show it.)

][
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 347pm said:

@Daniel, I’m answering your question, “Why did the framers make a DISTINCTION between “Citizens” who can be Senators and “Natural Born Citizens” who can be president?”

The language “natural born citizen” excludes “naturalized citizen.” You can’t be both.
Sol of Texas on January 30, 2012 at 345pm said:

This article could have been clearer. I am still not certain if …

a) if the judge actually ruled on the motion,
b) if the Secretary of State of Georgia will stand by the ruling, and
c) what statutory citations the plaintiffs attorney’s offered regarding the definition of “natural born citizen”?

Can anyone enlighten me as to these questions (not your opinions or interpretations, but facts)

Thanks in advance.
- admin on January 30, 2012 at 352pm said:
  
  The ruling will be issued this weekend and the SOS has indicated he WILL stand WITH the judge’s ruling.
Ed and Sue on January 30, 2012 at 339pm said:

You know, the far right wing of our Party just continues to get more and more crazy. We are always crying about waste of tax money. Well, this little fiasco is right up there. There is no one on our ticket I would vote for and after following the rhetoric of the evangelical nuts and the tea party we just MIGHT be forced to vote DEMOCRAT for the 1ST TIME IN BOTH OUR LIVES.

Leave this crap alone. Get to the issues and find a candidate that will represent ALL Americans, not just the far right wing nuts.
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 339pm said:

According to English common law as adopted by the US, there are (1) natural-born citizens, born here and (2) naturalized citizens. If they said “natural born,” they simply meant to exclude “naturalized.” That’s my analysis and the overwhelmingly prevailing analysis of the entire American judicial community. That’s why this movement is having difficulty attracting lawyers to take these cases.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 323pm said:

@ Karl

Your quote:

“The language certainly excludes naturalized citizens”

Which “language” are you referring to?

?
Harry on January 30, 2012 at 313pm said:

That’s just silly..

That is the definition of natural born citizen as is relevant to the situation.
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 313pm said:

I don’t think I need one. Unless they put the words in there by accident, they must not have wanted naturalized citizens to become President. The language certainly excludes naturalized citizens. No one thinks Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President, for instance.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 309pm said:

@ Karl

Your quote:

“They didn’t want naturalized citizens to become President.”

Do you have a reference?

?
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 307pm said:

Look at it his way: If I say a home run is a base hit, have I “defined” base hit? Are ONLY home runs base hits?
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 305pm said:

No, you’re incorrect. If it were the “definition,” then the ONLY people who were “natural Born Citizens” would be:

“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States”

In other words, someone born HERE (not included in the statute) could NEVER be a Natural born citizen. That’s completely absurd, so it CAN’T be the definition.
Harry on January 30, 2012 at 303pm said:

Karl,
It is the Founders definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

Therefore relevant.

The founders of this country would have found Obama to not be a natural born citizen.

It is painfully clear.
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 258pm said:

@Harry, you’re citing a (since repealed) NATURALIZATION statute. It doesn’t pertain to someone with a birth certificate from within the US, and it doesn’t exclusively define “natural born citizen.” Remember, “naturalized” is the other category of citizen — someone whose citizenship is not based on being born here.
heroay on January 30, 2012 at 254pm said:

John Says: Both parents don’t have to be “Citizens” for a person to be “Natural Born Citizens”

In your uneducated words, an illegal bordercrosser spawns a creep via a ‘natural’, and it has eligibility to the Presidency?? Well, that would be Obongo according to your hallucinations, EXCEPT, he was born in KENYA (savvy Kenya?) to boot! He is an imposter, subversive, stoolie, crackpot, thief, liar, homosexual, perjurer, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-2nd, and contemptuous court fugitive. Nice try, Jon.
Harry on January 30, 2012 at 251pm said:

“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 250pm said:

Now that Santa has spoken, is there anyone who still thinks the plaintiffs have a good case and wants to test their understanding?
heroay on January 30, 2012 at 245pm said:

Karl j-Oakes, you kosheros make for 2% of US population, yet, you have posted 13% of this thread. Need to improve. Your tribesmen fill 33% of Democ-rat Con-gress. To match them, you must post 3 times as much, else, they will flunk you as their agent of disinformation. Ah-yes, and make SOME Constitutional sense for SOME credibility.
heroay on January 30, 2012 at 231pm said:

Daniel’s Seventieth 7, Mr.Ed, Magdalene51, Harry, Joe J, Stan Nelson, Joe the Pimpernel, Barbara, etc., etc…

If you were a Khazarian-Ashkenazi greedy rapine ‘lawyer’, would you spend one minute threading nonsense on this site, OR, rather spend juicy hours in your legalese crypt, fleecing your victims at $300 an hour and more?

These robotic Neanderthals and Khazars are trained from birth to FOOL the world’s ‘cows’ (you and me), and grow to excel in it – read the Protocols of the Crazies of Zion. Except, since the Internet we have learned even their names, ethnicity, origins, disguises, deceit, treachery, and genocidal goals. Look at this country, no thanks to rapine banksters and an imposter of the same breed.

This Karl Oakes is the worst example of these creatures. Did you know this ‘busy’ greedy ‘lawyer’ has posted…. 66 times, and counting?? If he does NOT have a Kosher agenda, am Santa Claus!
John on January 30, 2012 at 231pm said:

Both parents don’t have to be “Citizens” for a person to be “Natural Born Citizens”
- admin on January 30, 2012 at 237pm said:
  
  THE OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING, THE FOUNDERS AND NATURAL BORN DEFINED!!
  
  MUST READ AND SHARE!!
  
  http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4202
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 219pm said:

They didn’t want naturalized citizens to become President. But Obama is not a naturalized citizen, so . . .
FRANK TOZOUR on January 30, 2012 at 219pm said:

Frank says:
January 30, 2012 at 4:15pm

Have you ever in your entire life ever read or seen anything so bazzar !!!

Shara Palin tried to push the issue 3 years ago !!!!!
Nothing surprises me in todays world, JESUS come quickly, for this ole
world today is heading for HELL in a whirlspin….
Nothing will happen to OBAMA in this case, To many in on the deal !!!!!
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 215pm said:

@ Karl O.

Why did the framers make a DISTINCTION between “Citizens” who can be Senators and “Natural Born Citizens” who can be president?

lol
Dick Garrison on January 30, 2012 at 213pm said:

Atleast there is a state that is doing their job to protect the WHOLE country!!!
If the other 49 States would do the same, what a wonderful day that would be!!!
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 201pm said:

Citizens includes (1) naturalized citizens and (2) natural-born citizens.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 159pm said:

@ Karl O.

Here is a simple question:

As written in the constitution,

What is the difference between “Citizens” who can be Senators and “Natural Born Citizens” who can be President?

?
Jim on January 30, 2012 at 145pm said:

Round up the posse boys we got work to do!!!!
heroay on January 30, 2012 at 136pm said:

Oakes, 70% of lawyers are Khazashkenazis. Obongo is NOT Muslim, but a crypto dark Ashkenazi. His mother, grandpops, Ashkenazi. The traitor Democ-rat subversives behind the Obongo SCAM are Khazashkenazis.

His backers from the 60′s were Soviet style commies, some Ashkenazi-Khazars. Communism-Marxism was invented by Ashkenazi Neanderthals. His 2-year contract ‘father’ Obama was an African commie. Obongo, his mother, Soetoro, and Obama were CIA assets.

Only a complicit Khazashkenazi; a communist; a traitor; a subversive for Zion; an agent for the Ashkenazi Neanderthal Rothschilds; a mole; a troll; a disinfo Khazashkenazi ‘Ambassador to the internet’ in Tel Aviv; and a parasite welfare recipient voting Democ-rat could argue any nonsense in favor of the illegal alien; subversive for Zion; perjurer; thief; imposter; homosexual druggie Obongo.

And you certainly fit in THREE of these categories: For a ‘lawyer’, you waste too much time peddling nonsense for 3-year olds; therefore you are a welfare recipient of tax-robbed monies via Rapine Tax-IRS-FED, from American Sheeple.

Second, as a lawyer, plus the previous fact, makes you a Khazashkenazi (either one) by DNA. So where is your “racist” “stuf”? You are as fake as the word ‘jew’, invented in the 13th C. AD for The Vulgate. Google “letter ‘j’ invented”.

Thirdly, for a trained Khazarian-Neanderthal “lawyer”, where are YOUR counter-arguments to ALL the easily verifiable FACTS about Obongo, Annie, accomplices, historicity, ad nauseam? Educate yourself; read “Revenge of the Neanderthal”, FREE. Then get a JOB and feed yourself.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 135pm said:

@ Karl O.

Your quote:
“common law would be applied ”

In other words,

when you say it ‘became’ law-

You were misleading people.

Wouldn’t a less misleading phrase be:

“common law COULD BE applied”

?

.
Brian on January 30, 2012 at 121pm said:

well if he is not a naturalized citizen then I totally agree he should be arrested and deported
Frank Lee on January 30, 2012 at 111pm said:

Craig Andresen – Do you have a docket number? When one does a search for this hearing at the State of Georgia’s web site for Jan 26, 2012 with Judge Michael Malihi (http://www.osah.ga.gov/hearing.aspx?Date=1/26/2012&Judge=15), it displays: “0 Case(s) to be heard on 1/26/2012 , Click your case ID for more information”.
- admin on January 30, 2012 at 131pm said:
  
  Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE
  1215136-60-MALIHI
W.T. Schwander on January 30, 2012 at 102pm said:

VOTE the BASTARD OUT !!! That’s all.
Mikey on January 30, 2012 at 1252pm said:

If he is inelgible to run for president, he is not a legal president right now, meaning he can be arrested and transported to the Haige to stand trial for war crimes since he is not a legal commander in chief of US forces, and all orders he issued are illegal.
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 1240pm said:

@Daniel, it wouldn’t become law in a “state,” since citizenship is a federal matter. Al I’m saying is that we adopted the common law of England as a “default” for are own law. We were free to change it, but common law would be applied in the absence of any cogent reason why it shouldn’t be. Many areas of our law (personal injury, for example) are still deeply and heavily grounded in English common law. So, when we ask ourselves what a bunch of British subjects who had just declared independence meant by natural born citizen, the PRESUMPTION is that they meant the same thing as was meant under British common law. You need to come up with a compelling proof that they were contemplating something else. And it might help some of the people here feel better about why the rest of the country isn’t up in arms over this to understand that there are very good legal reasons for believing that Obama is a natural born citizen, even if you happen to disagree.
Roswitha Craig on January 30, 2012 at 1207pm said:

Where is the media? This should be headline news & everyone should know about this. Who is this man, where did he come from, what is his background? So many of us in the USA have been asking these questions and would appreciate some answers. It appears Donald Trump was right on target!!!
STCopper on January 30, 2012 at 1203pm said:

My question is this if he ruled to be ineligible to run then obviously he was ineligible for this current term. It goes without says that he’d be impeached, but what happens to all the laws passed, appointments made and so on? Seem to me that they’d be invalided, much like when a cop is found to be dirty and all his arrests are reviewed and dismissed/overturned since they is an integrity issue. Apply the same to Obama would lead one to believe that the healthcare is thrown out, Sotomayor and Kagen are off the Supreme Court, Frank/Dodd bank bill gone and so on.

Lets pray that this judge has the fortitude to do what legal and justice and not what’s easy.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 1157am said:

@ Karl O.

Your quote;

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

became…”

Please show where it “became” law.

(Which State)

+
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 1107am said:

@Daniel, no he didn’t, but we adopted the common law of England. So,

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

became

“The children of aliens, born here in the United States, are, generally speaking, natural-born citizens, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”
PeteH on January 30, 2012 at 1102am said:

@MrEd

“PeteH,

Please review this comment:

“Back to the LAW in 1961 – here is the exact law regarding a child born in 1961 to a married couple with the mother being a 18-year old “US Citizen” (who was NOT legally old enough to confer her citizenship to the child) And the father being a East African BRITISH Subject/Citizen. Since the mother was too young in 1961 to confer her US Citizenship (by the LAWS of 1961), Citizenship of this “dual citizen child” is DETERMINED By the FATHER’s Citizenship.

Here is a link to the LAW and Authority that was in effect in 1961 ( lots of reading in this – FYI)

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf“”

Should I go past the title of which is “ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT” from the “Foreign affairs” manual (note the phrase “BY BIRTH ABROAD” in that title)?

Unless you can prove the birth certificate is fake and he was not born within the US, how would this at all apply? There is no “legal age” for conferring citizenship to a child born *in the US*.

Prove that he birth certificate is forged, and that he was really born outside the US – and *yes*, I will fully agree that the rules of that document apply. Without proving that, you are trying to apply rules for births *outside* the US to someone who for all (present/proven) legal information was born here and to whom they would not apply.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 1059am said:

@ Karl O.

Your quote:

“William Blackstone, who said:

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

Clearly he did not say “born here in the U.S.”

/\
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 1051am said:

BTW, “de Vattel” shows up exactly 24 times in the database of all American court cases ever decided (and may not be the actual basis for the decision in any of them). “Blackstone” yields more than the maximum 10,000 results. So how strong is someone’s case if they’re relying on de Vattel?
Jerry on January 30, 2012 at 1044am said:

Is the 1948 establishment of the nation of Israel the blossoming fig tree? “I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all theses things have happened.” Mathew 24:32-34. What will have happened? All the Nations of the world will go after Israel actually to try to fight against God. Of course God wins. The US will not be there to help unless we are there to help the other Nations. That’s why God let Obama in office so prophesy would be fulfilled. Which does not mean we should quit trying to do that which is right in our allegiance to our country.
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 1041am said:

@Daniel, Craig Andresen is quoting Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations. de Vattel was a Swiss philosopher. His opinions have almost no weight whatsoever in a court of law. I quoted from Blackstone, the foremost authority on the English common law, and from 18th-century American cases. These are actual legal authorities. There’s no contest.
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 1034am said:

@Mr. Ed, I want to make sure we don’t start talking past each other at this point:

It seems to me that you’re trying to reason out what the result “should” be here — based on something you’re pretty sure you read.

When a case goes to court, the judge isn’t free to make decisions that way. That, in fact, is what so many conservatives have been so upset about over the years in watching the SCOTUS make decisions. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not legislate based on what “makes sense” to them.

The way you invite a judge to interpret the law is to put actual legal authority before the judge, and then suggest to the judge what it means. I’ve done legal research and have found the actual legal authority a judge would be willing to look at. The only area I haven’t explored is speeches and correspondence of the Framers, which would have some relevance. I didn’t do that research because it’s far too time-consuming for me and I don’t even know where the best searchable databases would be.

So, the conversation you seem to want to have is legally abstract, and not the kind of conversation a judge is allowed to base an opinion on if it isn’t supported by actual legal authority. I’m not saying you’re “wrong,” I’m just saying “the judge isn’t going to listen to that.”

If you wanted to help these or similar plaintiffs, you would need to explore the speeches and letters of the Framers and see if they said anything concrete along these lines which could be incorporated into a legal brief.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 1033am said:

@ Karl O.

Your quote:
“I didn’t know what the common law of England — which we adopted —
Now I’ve done the research and I KNOW that as well …”

Perhaps there is more that you didn’t know-

Mr. Andresen posted these fine words this morning:

“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Or

perhaps you now think that you know everything.

🙂
Mr.Ed on January 30, 2012 at 1016am said:

Karl,

Back to the example…since there is no shield, the child could become eligible for the presidency while also being heir to the British throne?

I am not a lawyer so my research skills are lacking, but I am pretty sure I read somewhere that this was the reason behind the natural born clause.

Now we could flip it the other way and ask, why would the framers want to prohibit a child born of US Citizen parents outside of US soil?
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 1015am said:

@Daniel, I KNEW that Minor v Happersett was not good authority for the proposition that a natural born citizen has to have two citizen parents. I didn’t know what the common law of England — which we adopted — had to say on the subject, or what 19th century American court cases had to say. Now I’ve done the research and I KNOW that as well.

I posted my research query and the citations it generated, and I quoted directly from the cases. I also quoted directly from Blackstone, and linked to the source and the Wikipedia article explaining who Blackstone was and why his pronouncements carry as much weight as they do.

Anyone is welcome to go to an online legal database and do a similar search and show me anything I might have missed. Anyone is welcome to show me cases, statutes, and/or other legal material they think support the plaintiffs in the Georgia case.

I’m sorry if the results of the legal research I did disappoint you. But let’s focus on the research itself, and not on anything else. The actual legal authority is the only thing that matters here.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 954am said:

@ Karl O.

Your quote:

“until I did the research yesterday, I didn’t know what to think…. My personality is such that I often inject myself into discussions based on faulty data.”

You sure acted like you knew “what to think” when you first posted to this thread FOUR days ago…

So,

Are you now asking people to believe that your data is no longer faulty?

?
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 952am said:

@Ed, diplomatic immunity is more than a criminal defense — it’s a jurisdictional shield. For instance, it protects against civil lawsuits. And under 8 USC 1401(a), one might be able to argue that this shield made the alien not subject to US jurisdiction.

As for what you “would imagine” the Framers had in mind, please understand that one can’t get anywhere in a court of law based on such speculation. In a legal brief, as well as a legal court opinion, everything has to rest on actual legal authority. If you had a letter from George Washington to John Adams spelling out what you just said, you might be able to get some traction. But when you put what you “would imagine” against what Blackstone SAID, Blackstone wins every time. That’s the way the legal system works. I remember getting shot down pretty hard in law school until I accepted this fact. My “brilliant” thoughts about something didn’t mean squat if I didn’t have a citation to back them up.

On the divorced pregnant wife thing, I think the child is definitely a natural born citizen under US law, because the mother has no “shield” against US jurisdiction, and so the child is “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” You might not be comfortable with it, but that’s what the actual authorities pretty clearly seem to say.
George Miller on January 30, 2012 at 947am said:

In just a few days, briefs are due and Judge Michael Mahili will make his ruling, which he has said will likely be against the defendant, the one who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama, usurper in the White House. Secy of State Brian Kemp will then rule. The judge’s recommendations will carry much weight. Expect a fight from the Obama camp.

We need to start a chain reaction across the country. Dozens of complaints have already been filed, with more every week. Go here: http://obamaballotchallenge.com

We badly need legal help, as there don’t seem to be enough attorneys willing and able to take such cases. You can represent yourself in a ballot challenge complaint, but chances are better with an attorney who knows election laws in your state. Help us find counsel.
Mr.Ed on January 30, 2012 at 934am said:

Karl,

Diplomatic Immunity? There is no crime committed.

You said in previous posts that the US Law does not care about British law when determining citizenship. Take it a step farther then…the divorced pregnant wife of the king moves to the US and bears the King’s son on US soil.

The point of the extreme example is to try to see if natural born can be applied to a citizen born with dual citizenship. As I would imagine what the framers were trying to prevent by stipulating natural born and not just citizen.
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 914am said:

@Daniel, until I did the research yesterday, I didn’t know what to think. I knew Happersett wasn’t good authority and it bothered me that people had been duped into thinking it was. My personality is such that I often inject myself into discussions based on faulty data. I prefer the truth to propaganda, and there is so much propaganda everywhere, about so many things.

After doing the research, I mainly feel sadness that people are living with a false belief that their government has been unlawfully taken away from them. I’m making an effort to relieve that burden for those who are willing to learn what the law is and how you make a legal case for something. My hope is that Craig Andresen will realize that he has made a mistake, and stop stirring this pot. If I see that he has done that, I will go back to other pursuits. If I see that he’s going to keep stirring no matter what, then I will also go back to my own pursuits. As the saying goes, one can lead a horse to water . . .
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 904am said:

@Magdalene, I’m not qualified to answer any of that. I would really contact Fox News ad the National Review and ask them why they’re satisfied. Or contact the software expert mentioned in the Fox piece . . .
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 904am said:

@ Karl O.

You sure seem to be spending plenty of time on this ‘non-issue’.

><
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 851am said:

SORRY 1401(a) not 1409(a)
the Law on January 30, 2012 at 847am said:

Why is the media virtually ignoring this case?
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 844am said:

@Daniel, okay. I’m not trying to “lay down” law here, I’m just trying to dispel a lot of inaccurate beliefs which are causing people to get very excited over a non-issue. If anyone prefers to remain charged up in spite of the relevant legal research, that’s certainly their prerogative.

@Mr. Ed, the son of the British king in that example might not be a natural born American citizen because he might be considered to have some sort of diplomatic immunity to the jurisdiction of the United States. Just speculating, partly on the basis of 8 USC 1409(a):

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Obama was clearly “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth, so there’s no parallel there to your extreme example.

The link you provided is to a huge file. Most of it is clearly not on point. If you could cite the portion you think is directly relevant (e.g., 7 FAM 1134.7(a)), I’d be happy to tell you what I think of it.
Magdalene51 on January 30, 2012 at 844am said:

@Karl, I remember reading about this at the time, as well as National Review’s article, and as I said in my earlier post, neither of them gave the name of any scanner or scanning software that would create the layers that show up. That’s first of all. Second, only someone really inexperienced would use OCR to scan a form like that. It simply makes no sense. OCR is used only when the text in a document needs to be editable separately from the scan. For instance, if you scan s page of text that you want to copy and paste into another document. If the document was scanned in Hawaii, what would be the point in using OCR? Is it common for a birth certificate to be scanned for a request? Or was a paper document provided and scanned at the White House?
My point is that even if the layers were created by a scanner or scanning software, it indicates intent to manipulate – since the default of any scan is simply to provide an image – a photograph, if you will, of a document, unless it actually is your intent to edit it in some way.
The other problem is, as I said in my post above, that even if you assumed that the layers wer created by the scanner or software being used by an operator who didn’t know what they were doing, it does not explain the irrefutable evidence of manipulation of individual elements in the document, nor does it explain how you could end up with a mixture of bit depths (8, 16, & 32) in a simple scan. Bit depth is a single option in scanning software. I have never seen anywhere any explanation for these technical issues.
As I said, I used Photoshop and Illustrator, as well as a wide range of scanners and scanning software, and taught others their use as well. If asked, I could have produced a birth certificate for the President that would pass any test. But that’s not something that I would ever do.
Mary Ellen Price, Md. on January 30, 2012 at 840am said:

Fact is …. as an American citizen you hold your hand over your heart honoring our flag and Country ….. our Commander in Chief will not honor our flag, but will kneel in public at a Mosq ….. as an American citizen when subpeonaed to court you would think our President would attend …… as an American citizen we are required to show up in court or we would be in contempt and a bench warrant would be issued for our arrest ….. do you know of any American citizen being above the law? ….. If Obama is an American citizen he would proudly honor our flag and Country, show up for court and be able to produce a legitimate birth certificate.
Ron on January 30, 2012 at 821am said:

I hope that your ideas and message get to more people. To read them is to understand ignorance. The conservative party is a dying breed and the country will be a better place when it is gone. To be a republican is just as bad as being a democrat. Look around find the masses of people under forty that think like conservatives. (good Luck on that)They don’t exist. We inherit the wreck of a country left by generations of hate mongers. The anti-sentimism towards our nations seniors stem from the ideas of forums like this.
Mr.Ed on January 30, 2012 at 817am said:

PeteH,

Please review this comment:

“Back to the LAW in 1961 – here is the exact law regarding a child born in 1961 to a married couple with the mother being a 18-year old “US Citizen” (who was NOT legally old enough to confer her citizenship to the child) And the father being a East African BRITISH Subject/Citizen. Since the mother was too young in 1961 to confer her US Citizenship (by the LAWS of 1961), Citizenship of this “dual citizen child” is DETERMINED By the FATHER’s Citizenship.

Here is a link to the LAW and Authority that was in effect in 1961 ( lots of reading in this – FYI)

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf“
Mr.Ed on January 30, 2012 at 809am said:

Karl,

Let’s have a little though experiment then…(please bear with me as this experiment requires a non-historical story with extreme examples to pose my question.)

Think for a moment that the King of England and his pregnant wife visited the United States in the early 1800’s. During their visit, she gives birth to a son. The wife decides to live in the United States with her son, and the King goes home.

Based on what you are saying, the son is considered a natural born citizen and as such would be eligible for the office of the President once the other requirements are met?

I pose this question b/c I would imagine the framers had something like this in mind when they added “natural born” as a requirement.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 30, 2012 at 728am said:

@ Karl O.

Thank you for your reply: (your quote)

“It’s true that I can’t give that the force of law… ”

And thank you for understanding that your opinion has no law to back it up.

.
Joy on January 30, 2012 at 636am said:

Our intercessors group has prayed for years that “God’s Kingdom would come and His will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” and agreed with Isaiah that “the government shall be upon His [Jesus”] shoulders.” His Word says, “They shall know the truth and the truth shall set them free.” We’ve asked for the mercy for Mr. Obama to be knocked off his horse like Paul, but it’s not time to stop praying! Will you join us in imparting grace for Mr. Obama and his co-conspirators to RECEIVE the correction which can return them and our nation to truth? God bless you, and America, bless God!
john on January 30, 2012 at 615am said:

To Will Teller:
The Judge can and should issue a warrant for FTA (failure to appear). At least that is the law in TX. Having been a police in Tx for 27 years, that’s the way it works here, and the warrant is good till the person is arrested and brought before the issuing Judge, or dies.
Ron on January 30, 2012 at 519am said:

So let me get this straight, the majority of you believe in a two thousand year old myth with absolutely NO evidence and that he walked on water, turned water to wine, died and came back to life, and is the mortal son of a being that has never been seen and enjoys watching man kind suffer, but can’t believe President Obama is a natural born citizen. To believe in god is to believe that God must want Barak Obama to be the President.
- admin on January 30, 2012 at 553am said:
  
  Or…in your case…the water was turned to Kool Aid.
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 446am said:

A lot of you recent posters haven’t read the conversation above. Under the English common law, which we adopted when the US was formed, a child of alien parents born in the country is a “natural born citizen.” That is backed up by several 19th century cases (cited and quoted above), and unaffected by the passing reference to “doubts” in Minor v Happersett.

The actual legal authority is crushingly on the idea of the defendant here, which is why he didn’t appear to submit evidence. He doesn’t need to. On the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, the POTUS wins on the law. Read and check my legal research above (Rutherford, Yeo, Lynch and Blackstone) before you disagree.
Grandma on January 30, 2012 at 433am said:

Now impeach him and make everyone happy!
Karl Oakes on January 30, 2012 at 415am said:

@Magadalene, but Fox News was aware of those issues and reported this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/

If you’re convinced that they missed something, I would suggest that you get in touch with them:

newsmanager@foxnews.com
Bigfeather2Ponies on January 30, 2012 at 244am said:

Too bad the judge isn’t going to do anything about it. The whole system is so flawed that the judge would likely be disbarred if she ruled against Obama… and she won’t sacrifice her seat and the money to do what’s right.
estero on January 30, 2012 at 150am said:

If Obama has nothing to hide, why did neither he or his attorney not show?
PeteH on January 30, 2012 at 132am said:

@MrEd.
“Just to keep things clear. You use natural born citizen and citizen interchangbly. I don’t question citizenship. I question natural born citizenship. Others have argued that the birth mother was not old enough to pass citizenship and as such the father would be the only parent to do so.”

Obama’s mother was born in KS, and her parents were also born in KS – therefore his mother (being born of two US citizens, and in fact two natural born citizens) is a natural born citizen. Even from the argument that one would require both parents to be US citizens, she therefore was a Natural Born US citizen *at birth*. Where does being “old enough to pass citizenship” come in that? I’d think even the ‘birthers’ couldn’t possibly argue that. Even Minor vs. Happersett backs that up.

And Minor vs. Happersett does not resolve the question of natural born, it merely affirms that a child born in this country of *two* citizen parents is natural born (which was what the plaintiff in the case was), but continues with “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” In other words, it does not at all specify that natural born is one born *only* of two citizen parents, only that if one is born such in this country they are.

Trying to twist it otherwise is like trying to say that because a baseball player is an athlete – all athletes must be baseball players (an obvious fallacy).

Any references to where he went to college, if he went to college, etc, are in effect meaningless fluff meant to inflame the discussion, totally irrelevant. The *only* relevant items are “was he born in the US” (which is the question of the validity of the certificate of live birth), and the issue of whether a child of only *one* natural born citizen (or even of non-citizens) born in this country is a natural born citizen. Minor vs. Happersett is meaningless in that debate, since it doesn’t even address it.

Obviously the birthplace of his father is irrelevant to the former, his father could have been born on the moon for all it matters to where Obama himself was born. As far as I know all attempts to “prove” his birth wasn’t in this country have been proven to be falsehoods or forgeries so far. (As to whether he was, or not, I have no ‘proof’ of either, but it would take some serious proof to override valid state birth certificate information – which I have yet to see).

That leaves the matter of whether a person born in this country of *less* than two citizen parents is natural born or not. I’m not sure the SCUS has ever ruled on this definitively, but its quite obvious the statement from the article above:

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

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States.”

Is untrue – there is *nothing* in Minor vs Happersett that says one “must have” 2 citizen parents, only that if one does they are a citizen. Trying to use that opinion to back up that statement is dishonest at best – since it plainly says no such thing.

So essentially the entire case hinges on either (A) proving his birth certificate is falsified *and* that he wasn’t born in this country (since even if his birth certificate was forged, if he was really born in the back seat of a car in Montana, he’s born in this country) – while the first would open the question, it would require the second to really determine it, or (B) ruling that a child born in this country (assuming he was) of less than two parents is not a natural born citizen (which I would think would require a definitive ruling from the SCUS to really be valid).
Smorgasbord on January 30, 2012 at 131am said:

Things that will happen if Obama is declared ineligible to run for president:
(1) I will get the biggest steak dinner paid for by my financial planner. He won’t complain since Obama won’t be running again.
(2) If he doesn’t qualify this election, he didn’t qualify in the last election. This means that every appointment, executive order, contracts and laws signed into law, etc., are voided.
(3) The democratic party will be investigated.
(4) King Obama and a lot of his court will move from the White House to the Big House.
(5) The democratic party will disappear.
(6) We will get all of the money and freedoms back that Obama took from us. (Let me dream this one for a while)

The only two bad things I see if Obama is declared illegal are:
(1) Joe Biden takes over.
(2) Joe pardons Obama and his court, but they have to be convicted first to be pardoned.
Kathleen Venturi on January 30, 2012 at 111am said:

I sent a copy of the transcripts to Rush Limbaugh, We know him personally, and I know he will do something to get the ball rolling….GOD BLESS AMERICA. !!!!
Arthur on January 30, 2012 at 1243am said:

It is getting interesting and the start of Obama downfall.
Hawaiian Gal on January 29, 2012 at 1134pm said:

Kudos to Judge Malihi for his courage and integrity to stand up for the truth and for the Constitution. God bless him!
Magdalene51 on January 29, 2012 at 1118pm said:

See my earlier post for more details about the birth certificate. I posted quite a lot of my findings and my bona fides.
Joseph Taylor on January 29, 2012 at 1004pm said:

It would seem to me that if he can’t prove that he’s a natural born citizen then NOT having him on the ballot should be the last thing we should care about ! If he’s provin to be a fraud then he should be removed from office that day and arrested as a terrorest of our nation for all the damage he’s done to us! And the law he just signed that takes even more rights from us and lets our military arrest you and hold you without a trial just because they think your a home grown terrorest, and the dept. of homeland security states that anyone storing WATER, FOOD, GUNS, AMMO, OR SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS BEING PRO LIFE is a home grown terrorest, you stand up and make your voice heard and become a thorn in their side and see if your not one of the first ones to be rounded up when they try to take the rest of our rights from us, we are only as free as they let us to be! It’s gotten crazy, they(the goverment) are trying to fundamintally transform our nation into a communest socialist state! My question to you out there across this great nation,,, ARE WE JUST GOING TO SIT ON OUR ASSES AND LET THEM DO THIS? I’m not! Get out the vote! We all know he’s not one of us, nobody that belongs here would do the things to our nation that he has knowing good n well he’s hurting us! Everything about him is fake, and that fake ass big ass wife of his can hit the road too! Bitch! Squandering the tax payers money like pouring water down the drain! If congress won’t clean house? Then WE need to clean house at the polls! You might not believe me but also if Romney wins nothing in Washington will change! BET! hE’S NO DIFFERENT THAN O BLA BLA, Romney was asked if he would have signed the same bill taking rights of americans away and he said YES! There’s NOTHING different about Romney, we will fill the same way about him as we do about O BLA BLA.
Daniel on January 29, 2012 at 946pm said:

What if other states do this sucessfully? Obama will lose by a majority vote.
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 943pm said:

@Daniel, if you read my posts, you’ll see that I went back to English common law, as explained by the foremost authority of the time, William Blackstone, who said:

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

It’s a well-known fact that we adopted the common law of England. Hence, we adopted that principle. Hence:

“The children of aliens, born here in the United States, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects (citizens), and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

That conclusion is bolstered by the 19th-century American cases I quoted, treating a person born here as a natural born citizen regardless of their parents’ citizenship.

It’s true that I can’t give that the force of law, but I submit that it’s pretty indisputable. However, you’re welcome to offer a legal counter-argument if you want. I doubt, by the way, that this will ever make its way to SCOTUS. SCOTUS reserves itself for controversial cases. Honestly, in light of what Blackstone says, this is a no-brainer.
mark foster on January 29, 2012 at 917pm said:

Where is the liberal media? Oh, George Soros owns most of them or partly at least?
Thanks to the Great State of Georgia for doing the right thing and hearing the case!!! Thanks to Judge Malihi!!!!
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 29, 2012 at 914pm said:

@ Karl O.

Make up your mind:

This: (the quotes are yours)

…”one looks to things like the statements of the Founders at the time the Constitution was being written and ratified, the English common law of citizenship, and federal statutes from the same period. … If this case is ever won, it will be won based on a very well-organized presentation of that material”…

or this: (your quote)

“he’s a natural born citizen under our laws”…

Scotus can decide.

Not you.

🙂
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 913pm said:

Maybe a simpler way to put it is, British citizenship passes to the child only under British law — not under American law. While Obama remains in the United States, American courts must apply American law in determining Obama’s citizenship status. British law will be treated as though it didn’t even exist. Were he to move to Britain, the exact opposite would happen (although being commander in chief of our armed forces would disqualify him for British citizenship under British law).
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 854pm said:

@Mr. Ed, I understand your question. I’ll try again to answer you clearly. British citizenship could pass to Obama from a British perspective. However, the British legal perspective is independent of the American legal perspective. Obama’s eligibility under American law can’t be diminished by Britain’s willingness to extend him citizenship. You’re stepping back and looking at it from an “overall” perspective, but that’s not how it works. Countries disregard the laws of other countries when determining a person’s status under their own citizenship laws. Obama’s status under American law gets looked at from an American perspective, and from that perspective “a child of aliens born in the United States is a natural born citizen.” Therefore, he’s a natural born citizen under our laws, regardless of how the British government would have related to him if the family had moved to Britain.
Ironhorse on January 29, 2012 at 831pm said:

Soro’s the puppeteer dangles the strings of the WhiteHouse invasion impostor puppet, and the legal American citizens suffer the consequences..
Mr.Ed on January 29, 2012 at 821pm said:

@Karl,

Just to keep things clear. You use natural born citizen and citizen interchangbly. I don’t question citizenship. I question natural born citizenship. Others have argued that the birth mother was not old enough to pass citizenship and as such the father would be the only parent to do so.

If his father was a British subject then wouldn’t British citizenship pass to the child? That being the case, wouldn’t this situation be the exact type that the founding fathers envisioned when the decided to have the natural born wording included? If not, then why the distinction? What is a natural born citizen?

And at the very least he should be considered a dual citizen. If that is the case, how can you have true alligience to two countries? There would be a conflict of interest.
Leonard W. Giddens Jr. on January 29, 2012 at 800pm said:

This Judge has restored my faith in the system. A great American indeed. With all the crooked people in the Ga. justice system you Sr. are a breath of fresh air. I want to thank you and your Secretary of the State of Ga.Continue to stand with America, the both of you good men.
Donna on January 29, 2012 at 748pm said:

It is all well and good that this has been proved But you know a well as I do there are no balls in Washington to do anything about this So this man will go on as he has done so far and contuine to be a bigot and a sucm bag. Now all you who think you know more than most well maybe some of you do. But let me tell you I worked for everything I have and I will be damed if I will let that ass take it from me without a fight.
Bonnie Pierce on January 29, 2012 at 746pm said:

Sadley nothing will come of this
Carl on January 29, 2012 at 734pm said:

We the People of the Great Country should stand up to We all know that Obama is NOT an US Citizen. He needs to be REMOVED from the White House NOW. He has hurt this Country BAD. I feel after he is removed for the white house he shouldn’t have any kind of security around him at all, NO EX-President PAY, or Ex-President in front of his NAME either. He needs to get a real JOB where he is needed some where he is welcome and It’s NOT in this Country.
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 657pm said:

Harry, I would love to be fly on a whole bunch of walls. Fortunately, I have learned to make peace with the limits of my knowledge. I try to stay humble, and I try not to assume, because I’ve been sure of myself only to find out I was wrong a million times.
Harry on January 29, 2012 at 627pm said:

Karl,
Frankly I think that they may believe that it would take longer to get him out via the court system, than it would take his 4 year term in office to run out, additionally that they can block most things he will be trying to do anyway. That’s just a hypothesis of course, but wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall in the GOP meetings sometimes?
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 523pm said:

@Harry, yes, I’ve seen that. The certificate may be a fake. I can certainly understand why people think it is. But, as I said, I’m not a Photoshop expert. I have no idea how the software really works. And I really can’t imagine why Fox News and the National Review would let this go. Do you have any ideas about that?
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 510pm said:

@Joe, I believe the attitude and perspective of the POTUS and his team is that they’re not going to let themselves get dragged into court whenever someone wants to harass them with a legally groundless claim. I’m guessing that they are not afraid of the outcome of this case at all, and that when it does get up to whatever appellate level allows the POTUS to submit a brief on the law, the POTUS will cite Blackstone and the same three cases I found, along with whatever else the legal team has uncovered. And I predict that the POTUS will win easily.

As for the judicial response, I think the courts should do whatever it is that they are supposed to do, and whatever they typically do in similar situations. If the Georgia case should be defaulted at this stage, and would be defaulted for another defendant, then that’s what should happen — with maybe a LITTLE consideration for the many demands on the POTUS’ time. To give you a better answer, I would have to look into the Georgia legal framework a little more. I might or might or not go down that trail. I’m really more interested in the natural born citizen issue, and I enjoyed learning about it today.
Harry on January 29, 2012 at 503pm said:

Here Karl.
Have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=e-knbOeAfAg
Harry on January 29, 2012 at 448pm said:

I watched the video and yes optimization can do that but if that were the case it would have effected all of the text on the document not just specific lines.

But why would some one alter an official document like that in the first place? Who hits optimize unless they are editing an image, or putting something together?

If you are scanning a document you scan it and save it as a .jpg ect and save it. Poof its done. You don’t go playing with it.
Joe J on January 29, 2012 at 441pm said:

@Karl Oakes, the whole exercise of looking to [18th century] contemporary understanding to find meaning is effectively what defendant has been preventing. If it was such a slam-dunk as you would [have us] believe, it would have been a simple matter to present it to the court in Georgia. (Of course, I realize that the choice may have been made to save that for a different venue — wouldn’t want to lose your trump card to a finding of fact in a rigged game).

I think this has been a case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” and counsel is just waiting to get the case moved to the friendler confines of an Appeals court to deal with it, as the attempt to “bully” (my words) the SOS [appropriately] went nowhere.

Admittedly, I am of the opinion that the BC controversy was ginned up to occupy the rabid and ridicule the rational (these tactics should sound familiar). I don’t fear a finding by SCOTUS opposite to the meaning promoted by plaintiffs; on the other hand, it has been quite evident that defendant is not keen to engage in any form of discovery with respect to his past. (Amazingly, actions do sometimes speak louder than words).

Just out of curiosity, do you have an opinion on the Defense strategy of the “no show” or what the appropriate judicial response (if any) should be?
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 437pm said:

@Harry, I can’t answer that. I don’t know whether the certificate is real or not. All I know is that Fox News and the National Review have given up on this issue, which leads me to believe that it’s not as obviously false as you think.
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 434pm said:

@Mr. Ed, the answer to your question is that for US purposes, it doesn’t matter what the British think about any claim they have on one of our citizens. We have treaties with some countries which permit dual citizenship. But the overrriding principle is, if we think Bob is an American citizen, then for our purposes, he’s an American citizen no matter what anyone else thinks. He can’t be “un-US-citizenized” by some other country’s law. We treat or own law on this subject as supreme.
Harry on January 29, 2012 at 422pm said:

I watched the video and yes optimization can do that but if that were the case it would have effected all of the text on the document not just specific lines.
Mr.Ed on January 29, 2012 at 419pm said:

Assuming of course that Obama’s father was considered a British subject at the time.
Mr.Ed on January 29, 2012 at 415pm said:

Karl,

You quoted William Blackstone and stated that those laws are held in effect unless modified by US law. That same document spells out how citizenship (natural born) is passed from father to son for British subjects. I am not aware of any US law that changes how British subjects pass citizenship.

If that is the case, then Obama should be considered at least a dual-citizen, correct?

“so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 408pm said:

But as far as that exception goes, if we adopted that as well, then all it means is that American children born overseas are American citizens:

all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain
THEREFORE

all children, born out of the the US, whose fathers were natural-born citizens, are now natural-born citizens themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with the US

Since Obama was born in Hawaii — according to a certificate which hasn’t been officially disproved and is therefore legally effective — the above language doesn’t apply to him.

So we’re left back at:“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

THEREFORE

“The children of aliens, born here in the United States, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects (citizens), and entitled to all the privileges of such.”
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 355pm said:

Mr. Ed, keep it simple. English law was described in 1765, by the foremost expert on the subject, as such:

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

We adopted that principle. Hence:

“The children of aliens, born here in the United States, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects (citizens), and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I really don’t see any escape.
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 323pm said:

@Harry, I’m not a computer expert. I know that I’m not knowledgeable enough to have an intelligent opinion about the certificate. However, I do think this video, which shows the software creating layers when the document is optimized, is at least reason for pause:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHZQ_SrEiOc
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 318pm said:

@Joe, I think our messages crossed. I agree that the Chancery Court of NY is not weighty authority, but when it comes to the common law of England, Blackstone is pretty much the last word. And since we adopted the common law of England, that makes Blackstone pretty much the last word as to the legal framework in existence when the Framers wrote the Constitution. When you add the fact that what might be the only 19th century American cases on point are in agreement, it’s really overwhelming. The plaintiffs are going to need something huge to overcome all of that, and the Minor dictum will be like a field goal at the buzzer when you’re down by 21.
Harry on January 29, 2012 at 317pm said:

Karl,
I can easily prove the birth certificate is fraudulent all by myself.

It’s not rocket science.

The image that they posted was “layered”.

Many of you may not know what that means so I will explain. A layer is sort of like taking a transparent piece of plastic drawing an image on it then taking another one and drawing an image on that one. then placing one on top the other. when you look at it you can see both images as one picture.

The birth Certificate has several layers and who ever forged it never merged the layers back into one layer.

If the Birth certificate was a direct unaltered copy of the original it would not have several layers. It would only have one layer.

And that is just one reason. The anti-aliasing around the edited parts of the document are wrong, further proof of editing of the document.

Those things in themselves are absolute proof that the document was a forgery.
Mr.Ed on January 29, 2012 at 310pm said:

Karl,

So if his father was a British subject, would it follow that the son is also considered a British subject, thus making him a dual-citizen? Are dual-citizens eligible for the office of the President?

This quote comes from the same website that you quoted:

“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
Stan Nelson on January 29, 2012 at 307pm said:

Mr Oakes.
Why is President Obama so secretive about his past? If he was indeed born in this country, then provide undisputable evidence and documentation to support his citizenship status, instead of all the legal wrangling and legal expense to keep it out of the courts. Also, US citizens that are born overseas have their US citizenship passed on through their father, not the mother. Where there’s smoke, there’s usually a fire. His legal team’s no show in court speaks volumes. I don’t believe the DNC had him properly vetted for the presidency.
Joe J on January 29, 2012 at 300pm said:

@Karl Oakes, I would agree with you that the search results appear to be prejudicial to plaintiffs, but you would also have to agree that the defendant in the Georgia case would not want place all his eggs in the basket of a single statement [regarding the laws of another country] by the Chancery Court of New York as being the definitive statement of the meaning of a phrase as it used in the Constitution. And this is the crux of the issue, isn’t it? It is not in the best interests of the [current] status quo (both major politicial parties and even the SCOTUS) to examine this phrase in detail and attempt to resolve it once and for all. Nothing to be gained, regardless of the [unpredictable] outcome, is there?

I watch all of this with some fascination (and disgust) as you must, also. I can applaud the behavior of the ALJ and SOS, as they appear to be attempting to follow the letter of Georgia law; I don’t know what to make of the behavior of defendant’s choice to thumb his nose at the Judicial proceedings, except to see it as a gambit to somehow deligitimatize or prevent the opening of the proverbial “can of worms” as it were.

After three years of successfully disposing of all challenges to his legitimacy, I find it hard to believe POTUS can simply drop the ball in this case unless there is already a confidence in the value of the outcome either way. I guess we’ll all have to wait a while to see how this theater plays out…
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 234pm said:

And now, the real kiss of death. Remember that the United States adopted the common law of England, and that it has held force in this country except insofar as we have modified it:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship)

Document 1
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62 (1765)

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html

In case you’re not familiar with the legendary William Blackstone, see the Wikipedia article on him, which includes this quote:

William Searle Holdsworth, one of Blackstone’s successors as Vinerian Professor, argued that “If the Commentaries had not been written when they were written, I think it very doubtful that [the United States], and other English speaking countries would have so universally adopted the common law”

The Georgia case is legally dead, ladies and gentlemen. No one is going to be able to overcome Blackstone and the three cases I cited above.
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 203pm said:

@Joe, for purposes of a legal case, I just proved it. The plaintiffs would have to come up with a lot more than your common sense impression to overcome the actual legal authority I just presented.
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 158pm said:

Those three cases and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (not relevant) are the only 19th century cases I found when I searched all American cases for “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” /P “NATIVE BORN” “NATIVE BORN CITIZEN” /P “NATURAL BORN” I didn’t know what I was going to find, and would certainly told you if the results had favored the Georgia case. These results, however, are very prejudical to the Georgia plaintiffs.
Joe J on January 29, 2012 at 148pm said:

@Karl Oakes, your response to @Magdalene is cogent and reasonable. As you have correctly pointed out, all subsequent legislation (including the 14th Amendment) does nothing to clarify the meaning of the singular phrase “natural-born citizen”. On the other hand, the simple fact is that it is rather obvious to deduce that the term “citizen” cannot have the same meaning as “natural-born citizen”, and the 14th Amendment pretty much defines “citizen” to be synonymous with being born in the country, citizenship of parents notwithstanding. If “natural-born citizen” is to mean something else, then what can it possibly be? It is only natural (no pun intended) to see that Minor gives a hint that it was, in fact, common knowledge at the time [of the founders] that the Constitutional requirement for office of President — with the exception for those ‘grandfathered’ in — would require the person to be a citizen born in the country to citizen parents (plural). I believe it will actually be a difficult task to prove otherwise.
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 143pm said:

The next case is a total disaster for the Georgia plaintiffs.

Lynch v. Clarke
3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583
1844

3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 7 N.Y. Ch. Ann. 443

Chancery Court of New York.
BERNARD LYNCH
v.
JOHN CLARKE and JULIA LYNCH.
Jul. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, 1843.
May 6, Jul. 19, and Sept. 17, 1844.
Decided Nov. 5, 1844.

“it is also the law of England, that children born in that country of alien parents are held to be natural born subjects”

(Note that the law of England is the “common law” of the United States, referred to in Minor v Happersett. That’s why this is relevant.)
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 137pm said:

Next case doesn’t help either. In the portion I quote, the court treats “natural born citizen” and “native born citizen” as interchangeable terms:

KeyCite Citing References
Yeo v. Mercereau
18 N.J.L. 387, 1842 WL 3351
N.J. 1842.
1842

18 N.J.L. 387, 1842 WL 3351 (N.J.), 3 Harrison 387

Supreme Court of Judicature of New Jersey.
SARAH YEO, DEMANDANT
v.
MERCEREAU.
February Term, 1842.

The statute, authorizing aliens to purchase and hold real estate, passed in 1817, provides that “it shall be lawful for an alien friend to purchase lands within this state, and to have and to hold the same to him and his heirs and assigns, as fully and to all intents and purposes, as a ****natural born citizen may do.” And by the second section it is enacted, “that all purchases of lands within this state, which may have been made by aliens before the passing of the act, shall be deemed as good and effectual as if the same had been made after the passing of it.” This act was passed after the war with Great Britain had terminated, and from a careful examination of it, it would seem to have been the intention of the legislature not only to secure to alien friends the right to purchase and hold lands, but to settle and confirm the titles or purchasers before made by aliens, whether friends or enemies. For the second section does not limit such confirmation to purchases made by alien friends. The estate of Yeo, therefore, under the operation of this act, although an alien, became lawfully vested in him, whether it is to be esteemed as having its origin in the deed from Covert to Baldwin, in 1813, and during the war, or resting in the grant from Parcell to Leonard, in 1815, and after the war. No objection, therefore, to the demandant’s claim, can arise from the fact that the original purchase was made when her husband was an alien enemy. But the question still recurs, did the alienage of the husband prevent his children from inheriting? If an alien may purchase and hold lands to him and his heirs, he may of consequence transmit them by inheritance to his children. The statute places him on a footing with ****native born citizens, and gives him inheritable blood.
William on January 29, 2012 at 133pm said:

If you are interested,

I do not know the source for the following quote:

“A President must be accepted by all 50 states according to legal Constitutional requirements. Any subject failing to provide native born status can legally be rejected by any one state, and that one state in it’s minority rights will negate the other 49 states in the check and balance the Founders left silently in the Constitution to protect America from threats domestic and foreign.”

The following is from the book titled:

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

OF THE

SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION

OF

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE:

THE

DECLARATION HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED;

AND A SKETCH OF THE LEADING EVENTS CONNECTED WITH THE
ADOPTION OF

THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION,

AND OF

THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

BY B. J. LOSSING,

AUTHOR OF “SEVENTEEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SIX,” “LIVES OF THE
PRESIDENT,” & C.

ILLUSTRATED BY FIFTY PORTRAITS
AND OTHER ENGRAVINGS.

NEW YORK.
J. O. DERBY, 8 PARK PLACE,
BOSTON : PHILLIPS, SAMPSON 7 CO
CINCINNATI : H. W. DERBY
____

1854.

Quoting from the book at the following:

Chapter titled: THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

Page 358:

ARTICLE IV.

SECTION1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. † And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. ‡

___________________
† A judgment of a state court has the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court within the United States, which it had in the court where it was rendered; and whatever pleas would be good to a suit thereon in such state, and none others can be pleaded in any other court within the United States.—Hampton vs. McConnell, 3 Wheaton, 234.
The record of a judgment in one state is conclusive evidence in another, although it appears that the suit in which it was rendered, was commenced by an attachment of property, the defendant having afterward appeared and taken defence [sic].—Mayhew vs. Thacher, 6 Wheaton, 129.
‡ See laws United States, vol. ii., chap, 38 ; and vol. iii., chap. 409.
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 127pm said:

So I started doing research on cases mentioning BOTH “natural born citizen” and “native born citizen.” I just read the first case, and unless I’m confused, it doesn’t help the case against Obama. Seems to me it refers to the children of an alien living here aas natural born citizens (see my **** note):

Rutherford’s Heirs v. Wolfe
3 Hawks 272, 1824 WL 360
N.C. 1824.
December Term 1824

3 Hawks 272, 10 N.C. 272, 1824 WL 360 (N.C.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Den on demise of Rutherford’s heirs
v.
Wolfe.
December Term, 1824.

The act of 1801, permitting the nearest descendant or relation, not an alien, to inherit where there are nearer relations who are aliens, is not repealed by the act of 1808, providing a general system of descents; because the act of 1808 provides a system of descents so far only as regards the question of consanguinity, and therefore leaves untouched the law of alienage.

THIS was a special verdict in ejectment, the facts of which were as follows:

James Rutherford, of Scotland, a native born subject of the king of Great Britain, removed to the United States in the year 1781, and continued to reside therein until the year 1819, when he died, seised in fee simple of the lands described in plaintiff’s declaration, intestate, without issue and without having ever been married, leaving, him surviving, brothers and sisters residing in Great Britain, natural born subjects of the king of that kingdom, who are not citizens of the United States, but are aliens incapable of inheriting real estates. The said James left also surviving him one Walter B. Rutherford, a nephew of the said James, and son of one of the before mentioned brothers of the said James: the said Walter is an alien, born in Great Britain, now residing in this state, but has never been naturalized. The lessors of the plaintiff are the children of the said Walter B. Rutherford, ****and are natural born citizens of the United States, and the said lessors of the plaintiff are the only persons of kin to the said James who are citizens of the United States, or any of them. Catharine, one of the lessors of the plaintiff, was born before the death of said James, the others were born since. The jury further find, that the defendant is in possession of the premises, as a tenant under the trustees of the University of North Carolina, who claim the land as escheated property. Badger, Judge, who presided, gave judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed to this Court.
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 1252pm said:

@Magdalene, one looks to things like the statements of the Founders at the time the Constitution was being written and ratified, the English common law of citizenship, and federal statutes from the same period. Unfortunately, the federal statute being cited here is only about NATURALIZED citizens, so that doesn’t help very much. The other stuff is a big research project. If this case is ever won, it will be won based on a very well-organized presentation of that material, not based on a citation to Minor v. Happersett.
L. C. Chrietzberg on January 29, 2012 at 1250pm said:

From an old warhorse lawyer.
Based on evidence of record, Orly Taitz should appropriately file a motion for declaritory judgment directing the Georgia Secretary of State to not place Barak Hussain Obama on a ballot.
Dave on January 29, 2012 at 1200pm said:

Good job folks…………..I might contribute to his deportation ticket so we do NOT get further in dept!
Ron on January 29, 2012 at 1141am said:

you people are idiots! Like it or not President Obama is our President. Voted into office by a majority of the American people. This ignorance makes our whole country look ridiculous to the rest of the world. He is an American Christian trying to clean up the mess left by President Bush and his awesome cabinet.(you know they guys that made President Reagan look so good) It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. Apply your efforts where they could do some good. Why not hold ALL of our politicians accountable for the state of our nation? Or maybe to eliminate lobbyist from Washington. The answers to our issue are not easy, but they are obtainable without the presence of ignorance.
Magdalene51 on January 29, 2012 at 1141am said:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. ”
This says to me that there is, somewhere, an “elsewhere” from whence to ascertain “that”. I want to know what, or where, that “elsewhere” is. Karl? Admin? Anyone?
Conservative ForLife on January 29, 2012 at 1120am said:

Having trouble posting my comment…WHY?
This is a great article. Thank you.

May our great God in Heaven bring this imposter Barack Obama and all who lie and cheat for him down and out of power. In the mighty name of Jesus I pray. Let righteousness flow like a mighty stream. Let justice and truth prevail in this great country of ours, one nation under Almighty God. Amen.
Conservative ForLife on January 29, 2012 at 1111am said:

May our great God in Heaven bring this imposter Barack Obama and all who lie and cheat for him down and out of power. In the mighty name of Jesus I pray. Let righteousness flow like a mighty stream. Let justice and truth prevail in this great country of ours, one nation under Almighty God. Amen.
Richard Ferriera on January 29, 2012 at 1059am said:

I am not an Obama supporter but this article contains several errors. 1. Historically, only one parents needs to be a natural born citizen for a child born outside the U.S. to be eligible for citizenship. 2. A child’s parents could both be illegal aliens but if the child was born in the U.S. the child would be a citizen. 3. the Consitituion is vague on defining Natural Born Citizen. 4. If you research you will find out that 7 presidents and/or presidential candidates (as recently as John McCain) have citizenship that could be in question.

If you are trying to get rid of Obama as President, your best course of action is via an election. All this “birther” stuff is nothing but foolishness.
- admin on January 29, 2012 at 1209pm said:
  
  Richard, you are correct that only one parent is required for a child to be considered a citizen however, that’s only half way there. For someone to be eligible to serve as President, one must be a Natural Born Citizen which requires BOTH parents to be citizens. As Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen, Obama doesn’t qualify under the Constitution.
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 1033am said:

FTB, you’re as bad as heroay in my book. If we’re unable to talk about the actual issues, using relevant source material, without calling each other names, then we’re a society of children, and the future is not bright for us.
Franklin T. Bonner on January 29, 2012 at 1001am said:

You people are delusional. The sound of all these Birfer heads assploding when the decision is announced will be epic.

FTB.
Susan on January 29, 2012 at 925am said:

what else do we need. he has always been in question and yet was elected by WHOM(not the people) for pete sake America WAKE UP, GET UP, DO SOMETHING!!!!!! it is said one person can make a change, well there is a whole lot of Americas ,wheres the change . If Obango (love that) does not and never did respect our America and refuses to salute our flag that should be good enough for anybody. If there is a movement I’am in.
larry on January 29, 2012 at 909am said:

It is one nation under god and if you don’t like that we don’t need you go to your great home land and stay there.
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 821am said:

@Joe J, I see in your link the distinction you’re referring to:

“the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss)

That’s potentially significant. It would be interesting to trace this back to whatever the ultimate legal source of that terminology is.
Richard David Hayes on January 29, 2012 at 816am said:

Nothing happens by accident in politics.
Hillary Clinton will be a shoe in!
Watch “AGENDA-Grinding America Down”
http://www.agendadocumentary.com
WAKE UP AMERICA!
Karl Oakes on January 29, 2012 at 811am said:

@Admin, we all KNOW that the Constitution says one has to be a natural born citizen. That’s not “the end,” it’s the beginning. The question is WHO is a natural born citizen. As the Court said in Minor:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. ”

@Joe J, okay, I take your point. I think we’re both right, in this sense: Minor can be read to leave an IMPRESSION, as you say, that the Court distinguished between citizens born here of two citizen parents and citizens merely born here. But, Minor is not AUTHORITY for the proposition that here’s a difference. Authority, in our legal system, is something a lower court judge can rely on without fear that an appellate court is going to blow the decision out of the water and make the judge look like a fool. What you have is a bit of “persuasive” legal history.

So, if we’re trying to look back and understand what the attitudes and beliefs of the time were, Minor is a little piece of a puzzle we have to reconstruct. But, it’s inaccurate to say that it “defined” natural-born citizens. Legally, it didn’t do that. The comment being cited is not the legal “holding” of the case — it’s a “dictum,” from which one gets an “impression.”

IMO, this effort would have more credibility — and would fare better in court — if Minor were represented correctly.

As far as the administrative law link, I’ll look at it and respond a little later. I like to give myself time to think.

FINALLY — if anyone wonders why there’s a tendency to dismiss this movement as racist, read @heroay’s post. I would put as much distance between myself and opinions such as those as possible, if I were you. When you leave that kind of stuff up there for all to see, it suggests that you agree with it, and guarantees that no will respect you or listen to you.
Edward M. Buttimer on January 29, 2012 at 743am said:

Who “subpoenaed” Obama & his lawyer? Was a bench warrant issued for either of them? How do “anchor babies” citizens? What about the children of illegal immigrants? Sounds like Taitz et al have some ‘splainin to do.
Wes Freeman on January 29, 2012 at 727am said:

I have looked at all his phoney birth certificates using adobe illustrator and they are all clearly fakes, How the hell does this imposter remain free and not in federal prison where he belongs, along with every member od congress that aided and abetted this crime.
Jack on January 29, 2012 at 727am said:

Pertaining to Obama it is a case of fraud, forgery, and a few other things. In the case of those covering for him (Democratic Party, etc.) it is a case of all those things with treason added. Not sure in todays judicial system, but treason used to be punishable by execution. Maybe all of them should just be deported to simplify, with no chance of return.
Helen Hammonds on January 29, 2012 at 231am said:

You know…It all comes down to a mot point, really. I am a grandmother. I know where, and when my grandchildren were born–“I was there…”. I am sure Oblamey’s grandmother KNEW where she was when she said he was born in Mombasa. Then, Hawaii was not a state, his mother was a minor, and was in another country. His adoption cancelled any possible American citizenship because Indonesia didn’t recognize dual citizenship. He wasn’t born in America, or Hawaii. His mother wasn’t allowed to board a plane for the flight because of the late stage of pregnancy, and so he was born in Kenya. They used to have such rules for the safety of Pregnant women. She fell squarely into the no-fly time. I bet that could be checked out, easily.
heroay on January 29, 2012 at 1255am said:

Oakes, 70% of lawyers are jew-daics. Obongo is NOT Muslim, but a crypto dark jew. His mother, grandpops, jews. The traitor Democ-rat subversives behind the Obongo SCAM are jews. His backers from the 60’s were Soviet style commies, some jews. Communism-Marxism was invented by jews. His 2-year contract ‘father’ Obama was an African commie. Obongo, his mother, Soetoro, and Obama were CIA assets. Only a complicit jew, a communist, a traitor, a subversive for Zion, an agent for the jew Rothschilds, a mole, a troll, a disinfo ‘Ambassador to the internet’ in Tel Aviv, and a parasite welfare recipient voting Democ-rat could argue any nonsense in favor of the illegal alien, subversive for Zion, perjurer, thief, imposter, homosexual, druggie Obongo. And you certainly fit in one of these categories.
Joe J on January 29, 2012 at 1212am said:

@Karl Oakes, you have posted your same interpretation of Minor multiple times:

** ** ** **

And, Admin, you’ve been citing Minor as authority for the proposition that a natural born citizen needs to have two citizen parents, in spite of the fact that the Court said they weren’t deciding that:

MINOR TRANSLATED:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

WE HAVE TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (NBC)

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.

UNDER THE LEGAL SYSTEM THE FRAMERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH, THERE WAS NO DOUBT YOU WERE A NBC IF YOU WERE BORN HERE AND YOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

SOME LEGAL AUTHORITY SAYS YOU CAN BE A NBC AS LONG AS YOU WERE BORN HERE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE CITIZEN PARENTS

As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

SOME DOUBTS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THAT

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

WE DON’T NEED TO RESOLVE THOSE DOUBTS — I.E., WE ARE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THAT NOW

** ** ** **

But you (convienently?) switched the meaning when you said this:

SOME LEGAL AUTHORITY SAYS YOU CAN BE A NBC AS LONG AS YOU WERE BORN HERE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE CITIZEN PARENTS

Sorry, the Court said “citizens” there, not ‘NBC’ (i.e., “natural-born citizens”).

Correctly read, the Court distinguished three classes of persons: 1) “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”; 2) “aliens or foreigners”; and 3) “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”.

As you point out, the question was which of these three classes were citizens — not natural-born citizens — and the Court said, in effect, that the first two classes (yes, and no, respectively) were not in doubt, but the third one was, though they did not need to settle that question in this particular case.

Of interest is the fact that: A) they made a specific distinction between children born of citizen parents (note the plural) and those merely “born within the jurisdiction” ; and B) they referred to said children born of citizen parents as “natural-born citizens”.

Clearly, the Court chose to apply the moniker “natural-born” to the children born of citizen parents (plural again) and NOT to the others “born within the jurisdiction”.

You may disagree that Minor is applicable to the meaning of “natural born citizen” as construed in the constitutional requirements to be President — fair enough — but you should not be disingenuous about the clear meaning of the words in the Court’s opinion: they only said that there had been doubts whether children of non-citizens were, themselves, “citizens”, not “natural-born citizens” as you have allowed with your interpretation.

It may be that there is yet no clear (i.e., legally recognized) definition of the term “natural-born citizen”, but Minor certainly leaves the impression that the Court did not think it meant the same thing as simply “children born within the jurisdiction”, and I see no reasonable way to interpret it that way, either.

By the way, the U.S. government (in administrative law) actually distinguishes three types of citizens: naturalized, native, natural-born. See for yourself:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/
Control Freaks on January 29, 2012 at 1202am said:

What I want to know is, when will this Kenyan-born Village Idiot be required to repay the citizens of this country all of the wages that he has received from the taxpayers?

Are we REALLY supposed to give this moron 3 years of Secret Service protection along with his retirement pay and health insurance?

Enough is ENOUGH! WE CANNOT pay for anything else that has to do with this fraud!
GHere Stokoe on January 28, 2012 at 1120pm said:

How the Globalist Bankers, the owned Media & Politicians scammed the voting public for decades.
The Repub Party NEOCON “leadership”, is the Fascist/Warfare arm of the Banker’s CFR/TC/Bilderberg NWO agenda. With unlimited financing & Media control, Repub voters choices are limited to CFR members with the same NWO agenda. Obama continues the Banker’s NWO agenda. The Int’l Banksters got what they wanted either way; the further elimination of our liberties and Constitution, and the continued raiding of our treasury.
Obama filled his cabinet with CFR/TC members & “The Set-Up” continues.
CFR members are very tightly affiliated with the U.S. government. Since 1940, every U.S. secretary of state (except for Gov. James Byrnes of South Carolina, the sole exception) has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or its younger brother, the Trilateral Commission. Also since 1940, every secretary of war and every secretary of defense has been a CFR member. During most of its existence, the Central Intelligence Agency has been headed by CFR members. Virtually every key U.S. national security and foreign policy adviser has been a CFR member for the past seventy years. Google: CFR,TC,Bilderberg

The Repub Party NEOCON “leadership”, is the Fascist/Warfare arm of the Banker’s CFR/TC/Bilderberg NWO agenda. With unlimited financing & Media control, Repub voters choices are limited to CFR members with the same NWO agenda. Obama continues the Banker’s NWO agenda. The Int’l Banksters got what they wanted either way; the further elimination of our liberties and Constitution, and the continued raiding of our treasury.
Karl Oakes on January 28, 2012 at 1024pm said:

@Magdalene, I’m not saying this actually proves or settles anything, but you might want to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHZQ_SrEiOc
Marjorie 0120 on January 28, 2012 at 1023pm said:

I sincerely pray that everyone who reads this website will forward a link to it to the Govenors, Secretary of State (in charge of elections) and their Congress people,
everyone you know will also help!

This faker, will stop at nothing to be re-elected and he’s got an impressive bankroll to pursue it.

I, as a regular citizen caught a glaring error on his BC and researched to prove what I thought is correct and it was. It’s his mother’s signature, only one letter touches the signature line. But if you researh all other documents signed by her,(applications for passports, applications to allow Sortoro to enter the country as her husband, etc) she is committed to the signature line, it’s not a conscience thing, either you sign on the line or you don’t. You do it one way or the other all the time. Not to mention she added her first name as an “after thought”, hard to swallow on a document as important as your child’s BC.
Peter Kasis on January 28, 2012 at 1014pm said:

The 14th amendment states if a person is born in the US, regardless of their parents citizenship, they
are a citizen of the US. Hawaii was a state when Barack Obama was born there so he is a citizen. The
End.
- admin on January 29, 2012 at 316am said:
  
  The Constitution states one must be a Natural Born Citizen to serve as President. Ahhh the constitution…learn it, love it…the end.
Joe the Pimpernel on January 28, 2012 at 959pm said:

@Karl Oakes – nice lies there, Jamal.

Both parents of a a natural born citizen have to be US citizens themselves.

Ubama’s pervert old man had dual citizenship, neither of which was US citizenship.

Ubama is not eligible for the Presidency. Period.
Joe the Pimpernel on January 28, 2012 at 954pm said:

@terri E – It ain’t about the fake PDF birth certificate, Lashonda. (BTW, I dare you to try to get a passport with a PDF file.)

It’s about the fact that, in order to be eligible for the Presidency, both of your parents have to be American citizens.

Ubama’s Nigerian father had dual-citizenship, but his second was British.

He’s not eligible.
cameron on January 28, 2012 at 924pm said:

you know as much as I know that the heat from the whitehouse will come on the judge in the next while and he will fold and dismiss the case or find some bump in the rug to sweep the case under, so please don’t bother getting our hopes up that obama and reid and palosi will all be arrested for fraud and thrown in jail or deported….cam
Karl Oakes on January 28, 2012 at 853pm said:

@MyGrandKids — No, if the certificate can’t be disproved, I don’t think there’s any alternative other than to nominate a Republican candidate who can beat him. None of the impeachment arguments I’ve heard have ever impressed me. If he leaves office at all, it’s going to have to happen the old-fashioned way.
Karl Oakes on January 28, 2012 at 845pm said:

@Magdalene, my understanding is that there are two types of citizens: (1) natural-born (born in the US); and (2) naturalized — and that Obama is natural born unless his certificate can be disproved. If someone can cite some actual legal authority for the idea that there are three categories (born, natural born and naturalized), I’m willing to listen, but the 1790 and 1795 statutes cited here are about naturalized citizens ONLY, and the court in the oft-cited Minor case found it unnecessary to decide who was a natural born citizen. So the supposed “authority” is irrelevant, as any good lawyer would know.

On the certificate, I’m not qualified to make an assessment. I know that the National Review threw in the towel on it, and I would think conservatives would keep at it if there were any chance of proving a forgery. But that’s all I can really say. I’m a lawyer, not a graphics or computer expert.
TOMMY FREEDOM on January 28, 2012 at 820pm said:

BUSINESS, ECONOMY, UNEMPLOYED, 1.6 MILLION HOMELESS CHILDREN, WE
HAVE ALL SUFFERED AT THE HANDS OF THIS STUPID AND WRECLKLESS MAN.
HE IS SO ARROGANT HE LAUGHS AT THIS SUFFERING. HE WANTS TO PUNISH US FOR 4 MORE YEARS. I SAY OBAMA & HOLDER SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE ASAP, OBAMA HAS A LONG LIST OF FELONIES, CHECK WITH D. ISSA.
Magdalene51 on January 28, 2012 at 744pm said:

First,
@Karl Oakes, you have not answered this question yet.
What IS the distinction between citizen and NBC? What is the attribute that distinguishes one from the other? Obviously there is, because the Constitution permits a citizen to be a member of Congress but only a NBC can be President or Vice President. So there must be some attribute that distinguishes between the two.
What is it, please?

Second, I am a retired graphic artist. I was in the business for 35 years, throughout its transition from conventional to computer. I was one of the earliest users of all the composition software, including Photoshop and Illustrator, and even taught in the Vo Tech system. I had my own business for 17 years, consulting, and composing large full color catalogs in the food service industry. I closed my business due to health reasons but was called out of retirement (unofficially) when the birth certificate was posted. I downloaded it from the website that day. I’ve gone over it myself, and I can tell you specifically what is phony about it.
I’m aware that some people have said that the scanning software creates the layers. I have never seen scanning software that could do that. No one who says that’s what happened has ever provided the name of the scanner or software that does that, so I’m skeptical.
However, even if we granted them that detail, it does not explain why the layers are individually manipulated. It does not explain the presence of linked files, that is, images that are imported, have names, and further, are scaled and/or rotated separately from each other.
It also doesn’t explain the presence of different bit depth images, that is, 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit images, in other words a mix of black & white, grayscale, and color in the same file.
This addresses only the technical anomalies in the file, not the content. You don’t have to believe my bona fides, but these are what I found with my own eyes. If this had been a student’s assignment, it would have flunked. Shoddy, shameful. A complete fraud.
marihem on January 28, 2012 at 731pm said:

Someone with an evil political agenda is behind this puppet…he can’t even talk without a teleprompter! He is an absolute fraud. What you need to find out: who is the puppeteer ? Soros and his cronies? If he gets reelected, we won’t recognize this country as a republic any longer.
David Farrar on January 28, 2012 at 709pm said:

All of the facts, documents and testimony entered into evidence during this hearing will have to been taken by the judge as the absolute truth, period. In a court of law, especially an Administratuve Law court, uncontested testimony is the truth.

Even on appeal…all of the evidence will be based on the record…all of which will be tendered as the absolute truth.

Even Sec. Kemp must look upon this evidence gathered as the absolute truth in basing his decision.

Could there be any question then that Sec. Kemp will support his Administrative Judge’s ruling?

ex animo
davidfarrar
Caitlin on January 28, 2012 at 651pm said:

Question: What if Obama had been a bastard? What if Obama’s mom had stated that she, a world traveler, did not know who the father was before Barack was born in Hawaii? What if she’d had multiple lovers in America and beyond? Is a bastard, born in America entitled to citizenship or even the presidency? If not, then all children with no known fathers claiming them, would be considered non-citizens. Natural born in the U.S. has always meant born on American soil or U.S. base to an American mother and/or father. In this case, it is even clearer that the mother’s American womb, which OB resided in for 9 mos., delivered him onto American soil. The point being, the man has the right to be president even if the egg was fertilised on another continent by their citizen!
MyGrandKids on January 28, 2012 at 554pm said:

Attorney Oakes, you don’t seem to be a supporter of President Obama, yet you offer up nothing but a legal standing why President Obama should retain his position under legalese. Can you present a way that this standing president can be removed, other than an a defeat in re-election?
Georgia Peach on January 28, 2012 at 426pm said:

Karl and Harry, and other posters of legal logical info – thanks… I’ve learned a lot today.
I think he will make it on our ballot here as these arguments will find a way to be settled to his favor. I am concerned about the SS number that shows as fraudulent though. Is that something that happens often? It doesn’t seem to be garnering much interest here.

And to the people asking about any rulings should he be shown NOT to be a citizen, anything he signed into law I would think would be invalidated. But then Biden would be sworn in and he would just sign them back into law all over again.

I had an interesting conversation a few days ago with a black pastor who also made some remarks about whites who spoke up against Obama (I may have referred to him as that incompetent boob Obama) are racists. Then he proudly told me that 97% of blacks voted for him in 2008. He did offer that perhaps that could be seen as racism also. I give him credit for that. But I get tired of that same old liberal line that he cannot possibly be criticized by whites or else we are racists. His white half is incompetent also.
RealAmerican on January 28, 2012 at 418pm said:

Can’t wait to see him hauled away in handcuffs.
No longer living in the white house; he’ll be living in the black house
Karl Oakes on January 28, 2012 at 323pm said:

@Barbara, yeah I’ve seen videos on both sides of that. Possibly there’s a valid issue there — I don’t know. I don’t have the software background to be able to evaluate. All I’m saying, as a lawyer, is that the legal argument is totally weak, and it’s really unrealistic to expect the courts to buy into it.
Karl Oakes on January 28, 2012 at 319pm said:

And, Admin, you’ve been citing Minor as authority for the proposition that a natural born citizen needs to have two citizen parents, in spite of the fact that the Court said they weren’t deciding that:

MINOR TRANSLATED:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

WE HAVE TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (NBC)

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.

UNDER THE LEGAL SYSTEM THE FRAMERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH, THERE WAS NO DOUBT YOU WERE A NBC IF YOU WERE BORN HERE AND YOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

SOME LEGAL AUTHORITY SAYS YOU CAN BE A NBC AS LONG AS YOU WERE BORN HERE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE CITIZEN PARENTS

As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

SOME DOUBTS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THAT

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

WE DON’T NEED TO RESOLVE THOSE DOUBTS — I.E., WE ARE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THAT NOW

So, why keep trying to push this losing legal argument, which the Georgia courts are going to spike? Why get people’s hopes up for no reason?
Karl Oakes on January 28, 2012 at 308pm said:

@Admin, no it actually isn’t. As the Supreme Court said in Minor v Happersett:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”
CJ Anderson on January 28, 2012 at 254pm said:

This surely must be a joke? Anyone who supports this sham trial is completely off-tap. It’s going to be funny watching y’all cringe when he is relected for a second term, LOL.
Wallace Cowper on January 28, 2012 at 247pm said:

Unfortunately this information (evedence) will not be acted upon .

This Oboma is a plague on American Society, but as long a America panders to the worthless(handouts) he will have favor with those slugs.
Barbara on January 28, 2012 at 229pm said:

@Karl Oakes: This link is to a video of the layed birth certificate being divided into its many parts. It is downloaded from the whitehouse website. It is interesting and appears to be valid, as I’ve watched it several times to review the steps taken. I don’t have the software to verify it on my own computer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7k8T7tjTEg
It is not my page, just one that shows how the digital experts MAY be analyzing the birth certificate.
Ted on January 28, 2012 at 224pm said:

The argument that Obama cannot be President because he cannot be a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen is clearly a specious argument and to keep belaboring the issue is a frivolous waste of judicial resources. As I understand the argument, if his father was not born in the U.S. then Obama cannot be a “natural born citizen”. If that is true then Thomas Jefferson (3rd President of the United States) was not a natural born citizen either because his mother was born in England, not the United States: Per Wikipedia:

“Jane Randolph Jefferson, née Jane Randolph (1721–1776,) was the wife of Peter Jefferson and the mother of president Thomas Jefferson. Born February 9, 1721 in Shadwell Parish, Tower Hamlets, London, she was the daughter of Isham Randolph and Jane Rogers, and a cousin of Peyton Randolph.[1]

Also neither of George Washington’s parents were natural born U.S. Citizens since there was no U.S. to be a citizen of when they were born. I have not bothered to check but likely the same is true for many of our earliest Presidents and perhaps others.

Clearly the law is: if you are born in the U.S. you are a citizen. The legal technicality of him not being a natural born citizen due to his father not being a U.S. citizen, as you can see, is also nonsense because then Jefferson, Washington and others would not meet that definition. So in effect, you “patriots” are bad mouthing our founding fathers. Stand up for the Constitution and the founding fathers of this nation. They were natural born citizens and if Obama was born in Hawaii then so is he! It has already been determined as a fact in other proceedings that Obama was born in Hawaii. Case closed. To keep retrying a case that has been decided is a frivolous lawsuit. That case is over so quit trying to re try that issue.

If you want to do something for this great nation, quit living off your U.S.benefit checks (Social Security and Medicare included), get a job and do something productive. Go out and beat Obama at the next election, do something but quit wasting taxpayer time and money. Some of us actually work and pay taxes and do draw government support checks. When we have an issue, we vote and work to change the system legally by voting out a bad candidate, not by trying to scheme up legal technicalities with not historical basis. Do the same, and stop clogging up the courts with this nonsense.
- admin on January 28, 2012 at 240pm said:
  
  Hate to tell you I saw this coming but…I saw this coming. Read this…be patient as we are experiencing extreme traffic on the site but just keep trying!! http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4190
john czubaja on January 28, 2012 at 220pm said:

we are a government with set rules/regulations concerning our elected officials. these elected officials are answerable to the voters.the constitution is being ignored and most of the public could’nt care less.i applaud georgia and everyone involved for bringing this matter to the public’s attention.doesn’t the press realize that if this government continues to make it’s own rules/agenda that they will be one of the first estates to be silenced?thank you,john czubaja
Barbara on January 28, 2012 at 203pm said:

This means that Obama’s signature on the NDAA is useless? If he is not a citizen then is actions as President are all fraudulent? I hope to God that is what it means.
terri E on January 28, 2012 at 147pm said:

this is beyond ridiculous, and most of you are insane. no, most of the country does not “know all of these facts”. most of the country considers all of this to be utter foolishness and outright bigoted nonsense. do you SERIOUSLY believe that there were birth announcements made in the paper announcing a birth in a Hawaiian Hospital that didn’t happen?
In Jesus sweet name WHY???

please. I’m begging you. stop making the South look foolish to the rest of the country. stop making our COUNTRY look ASININE in the eyes of the world! and do you really think, in your heart of hearts, that what you’re doing here is right, and that your motives are pure?

it’s time to move on, folks. move on, and let go.
Barbara on January 28, 2012 at 139pm said:

The huffpost is covering this. They had an article yesterday, 1/27, and there are well over 6000 comments at this time. The hate and accusations of predjudice are palpable on the stream. I had hoped to discuss the merits of the case but it was impossible to find someone who would discuss instead of attacks with media slogans and bandaids for the issue.
Enough of my commentary. It’s nice to find a place to evaluate the issue. thx
MyGrandKids on January 28, 2012 at 115pm said:

This is all very interesting. Many things I did not know about legalities. Both sides have valid points, excluding the Democrats that posted in favour of His Majesty.

Only the courts will decide this, but I like hearing different opinions, and hopefully those who share their opinions will respect one another rather to drive a wedge between each other and split conservatism apart. President Obama has not been good for the country in any way. Hope & Change are very powerful words and ideas when we seek a new direction from years, nearly 100, of government encroaching upon our lives. It was never meant to be this way according to the framers of the Constitution. We have let scumbag lawyers, politicians and lobbyists distort their intent.

Apathy for politics among “the people” is what got us here. The citizens must be active in order to keep it alive. Too many of us have no interest or vote without an understanding of what that vote means (not seeing the consequences).

This is not TV…Entertainment Tonight, American Idol, The Apprentice and all that B/S. Our future is at stake, as well as our future generations.

The court hearing is a first step (finally), but will not yield any significant impact on the elections this coming fall due to foot- dragging from all parties involved. (9) months is such a short time in the legal system, meanwhile the electoral procedures continue.

This fight for validation is necessary to prevent it in the future, but will not stop this year’s process.

In order to deny President Obama a second term, we need to coalesce around a conservative candidate that will representative of our values. If President Obama is re-elected, our country will not look like anything we grew up in and we’ll (325M) will be more divided as a populace than ever before. GOD forbid we ever have violence, rioting or civil war amongst ourselves, but the pre-cursers are there.

I cannot believe that people would actually resort to “key” someone’s vehicle for displaying a bumper sticker promoting someone or something they support. What happened here? Where is the civility we are suppose to have? Have our parents failed in their duties of teaching right and wrong? Have we failed in listening to them? Are we failing to teach these principles/ideals to our children?

These fools only fuel the fire and do not engage in the ideas and ideals that our Constitution provided for us. They are anarchists.

That being said, and it is somewhat off the track of the thread, but it is big picture. Get to the polls and vote the BUM out. There is no way the President will be removed from office with so little time left.

All is not lost. Some say hope is not a strategy.

Hope is good. I attribute the following to Lisa McLeod, a contributor to a local newspaper, which I found inspirational:

Hope, Energy, Ideas, Action, Success

“Hope gives you energy, which helps you generate ideas, which enables you to take action, which results in some success, which gives you more hope”

Let’s try it. Successful people fail, but they keep trying until they get there.
Karl Oakes on January 28, 2012 at 1256pm said:

@Harry, I don’t know anything about the birth certificate. I’m a lawyer, and my field of expertise is the law. I also love and accept the truth, whatever it might be. I’m just saying, if I were a judge and I had this case, I would want some “authority” on which to rest a decision taking a sitting President off the ballot in my state. It would need to be authority which would hold up on appeal and which didn’t make me look ridiculous to my peers in the profession. I would not be able to use the statute you cited because it’s a “naturalization” statute, and Obama’s claim to citizenship is not based on “naturalization.” I would also definitely not be able to use Minor v Happersett, for reasons I have laid out many times. So — that leaves us with (1) someone comes up with other compelling “authority,” or (2) someone PROVES that the birth certificate is false, or (3) Obama wins.
Harry on January 28, 2012 at 1245pm said:

Karl,
That’s an interesting twist. However , its descend “to” not descend “from” In the English language of that day, the meaning is still very clear.

“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”

No matter really seeing that we must except the fact that he probably was not born in Hawaii in the first place. Wasn’t his grandmother that was at the birth? She stated that had never left Africa? I found that interesting. Could she have remembered wrong? It doesn’t seam likely.. how many child births has she witnessed? Now how many family child births. Now how many English speaking white women have given birth in front of her i Kenya?..It just doesn’t seam likely that she got that wrong…I lean heavily towards believing the statement she made regarding this issue.

Then there is the forged Birth certificate..

If you want to take all the imaging and forgery experts observations on this, and pass them all off as “nut jobs” as one of the previous posters so rudely stated, you are still faced with the fact that his photo shopped Birth Certificate number is out of sequence with the children born before and after his birth date in the hospital for which he claimed he was born. Was he the only child born that day out of sequence? The answer to this is there are NO children born out of sequence in that or any other hospital because its state law that all are in sequence. that being said his birth number is not only out of sequence but not even close to the numbers they were using.

Since he was not born in the USA his natural-born citizenship is non-existent, undeniable, and he is ineligible.

Also, not that it is relevant to this discussion but since you asked,… the natural-born status would apply to me because I have 2 parents both of whom were born on U.S. soil from citizens of the U.S.A. making my parents natural-born citizens also.

But, this is not about me… This is about a violation of the Constitution by some one who claims to be a Constitutional scholar.

We can not allow criminal activity to prevail over Constitutional law.

I am also very skilled with photo imaging software and when I downloaded the “Birth Certificate” Obama released, off of the the U.S.Government site the day of it’s release I saw that it was a photo shopped forgery immediately. I was however not privy to the number sequence laws that were in place for birth certificates at the time.

One thing I can tell you as an absolute definite… The Birth Certificate that they posted on their site was was with out a doubt altered in an image editor.

I know for a fact that the Constitutional activists pursuing this case, have this part of their case correct.

Additionally, if someone can not prove beyond a doubt that they are eligible, then they are not, and can not possess the office legally. As far as I can see, he has been unable to prove he is eligible.
Therefore he is not.
IrvingIronic on January 28, 2012 at 1145am said:

This is all SWEETLY ironic since it was Obama who got all of the other candidates for the Illinois State Senate disqualified and removed from the ballot!! He pushed his way into the IL senate! Now it is his turn to be disqualified….
Marijo Gillis on January 28, 2012 at 1131am said:

Folks, the “mighty ” and “questionable” global force behind this fraud, this “destructionist”, would decisively preclude any US judicial ruling and would muffle even the slightest outcry from the conservative press. Do not, I repeat, do not raise your hopes high….This spawn of the devil and the American conceptualization of “Democracy” ain’t going anywhere and if by some mighty “grace of God”…he is defrocked of his cloak of deception…I will crawl on my knees to the BIRTHPLACE of JESUS CHRIST!
Magdalene51 on January 28, 2012 at 1123am said:

@karl Oakes
What IS the distinction between citizen and NBC? What is the attribute that distinguishes one from the other? Obviously there is, because the Constitution permits a citizen to be a member of Congress but only a NBC can be President or Vice President. So there must be some attribute that distinguishes between the two.
What is it, please?
Clifford Ball on January 28, 2012 at 1050am said:

Yeah right!! he is off the ballot in GA. like that really means anything. Get off the horse, all you are getting are sores on your ass. he was born is Hawaii, Supreme Court said so and Congress agreed. in some countries including the U.S. you can have dual citizenship especially if you are a minor with an Indo stepfather. Georgia right!!! how many electoral votes are those?? but you know what, I am going to check to see if GA has the balls to take him off the ballot. I would be curious to see how many GA election official go to jail for fraud. who in the hell thinks a sitting president is going to go to GA to defend something that the higher courts already decided to be bogus. are you guys for real?
- admin on January 28, 2012 at 301pm said:
  
  One of the side effects of drinking Obama Kool Aid must be the inability to get the point. It matters NOT where Obama was born, rather it matters the nationality of his FATHER. It’s all in the constitution which, perhaps, you should read though it’s questionable that you’ll get the point of that either.
babaji5150 on January 28, 2012 at 1037am said:

I have been saying for three years that he will NOT be a factor in the 2012 election and chances are he wont be anywhere near the USA on inauguration Day 2013.
Of course, I’ve taken a lot of heat for my views, especially from the crowd on Huffington Post.
jfhdsiu on January 28, 2012 at 1031am said:

Well, well, well. Barry Soetoro is dam_ed if he does and dam_ed if he doesn’t. Let’s face it, he’s just….. One should simply follow the logic to it’s logical conclusion. There are a LOT of flee party Liberal Democrats out there gnashing their teeth, pulling their hair out and generally weeping in futile frustration right about NOW! On a lighter note…. It’s certainly a PLEASANT day, isn’t it?
Karl Oakes on January 28, 2012 at 1023am said:

Admin, I totally get the distinction between “citizen” and “natural-born citizen.” The problem is, there’s no authority that you need two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen. If you take your authority from Minor, then please tell me what part of this translation of the Minor opinion is wrong:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

WE HAVE TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (NBC)

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.

UNDER THE LEGAL SYSTEM THE FRAMERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH, THERE WAS NO DOUBT YOU WERE A NBC IF YOU WERE BORN HERE AND YOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

SOME LEGAL AUTHORITY SAYS YOU CAN BE A NBC AS LONG AS YOU WERE BORN HERE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE CITIZEN PARENTS

As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

SOME DOUBTS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THAT

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

WE DON’T NEED TO RESOLVE THOSE DOUBTS — I.E., WE ARE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THAT NOW

Thus, Minor did NOT define Natural Born Citizen, and you have no authority for your claim that you need two parents.
Jack Dusan on January 28, 2012 at 1005am said:

I’m in favor of all means it takes to establish anyone’s credentials for any high political office and if the person can’t provide credentials of
citizenship within 6 months before the election, they loose it, and can’t run for ANYTHING (Even dogcatcher) ever.
Ford Ott on January 28, 2012 at 905am said:

Any rational person can reach the conclusion that Barry is not eligible for the office but where is the discussion regarding the leadership of the Democrat Party that conspired to conceal his ineligibility?

The mainstream news media will never let either of these stories see the light of day.

The question is: Will the Republican nominee? These issues existed during 2008 and McCain chose to fall on his sword for the Washington Establishment…
Paula A on January 28, 2012 at 901am said:

people need to re read the above proceedings and what was entered INTO EVIDENCE.. regardless of the status of natural born or naturalized, his SS# is fraudulant and he has several ID’s. He won’t release his college records B/C he most likely used Barry Santoroe for get foreign student aid. Either way somethings fishy, and lets not forget his priest condemning the US.

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

****It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment DOES NOT ALTER THE DEFINITION OR SUPERCEDE THE MEANING OF NATURAL BORN****. It is pointed out that lower court rulings ***do NOTconflict with the Supreme Court opinion*** NOR do they OVER RULE the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
Obama Fathers was in the US as a guest and NOT a citizen!!!!

From the link below…
A Presidential Eligibility Primer
Regarding Citizenship
~Guidelines for Presidential Candidates~
~Seven Truths About Eligibility~
1. The Constitution allows only “natural born citizens” to be President.
2. The Constitution bars all naturalized citizens from being the President.
3. The Constitution bars anyone born merely as a “born citizen” from being President.
4. The Constitution bars anyone with foreign citizenship only from being the President.
5. The Constitution bars anyone with a parent who is not American from being President.
6. The Constitution bars anyone not born with American citizenship from being President.
7. The Constitution bars anyone fathered by a transient alien or diplomat from being President.
These facts demolish the legitimacy of Barack Obama as an eligible candidate for the presidency.
All but 2 & 3 apply to Senator Obama who was not born with American citizenship because under the United States INS policy in full force when he was born in 1961, his mother was not an American citizen but a British subject due to the impact of the federal legal tradition known as “expatriation by marriage”. By marrying a foreigner, she lost her American citizenship and took on his in its place. The father was the only source of imputed nationality for their child. This policy was in effect for several centuries or longer. It’s origin was in British legal tradition, and even may have been the legal tradition in much of Europe and the Roman Empire.

VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE of of how this all came about…. http://patriotpost.us/commentary/2012/01/27/the-end-of-eden-the-rise-of-obama/#commentform
A freeman on January 28, 2012 at 746am said:

Mick, How can you call this racist? He is half white too you know. I think you are the racist because you brought up the subject that was never mentioned here!
Karl Oakes on January 28, 2012 at 643am said:

Finally, @Curious, you state: “By opinion in “Minor v Happersett”, there is no legal authority for concluding that one parent is sufficient, since there was historically disagreement about that.”

Minor acknowledges the doubts, but it doesn’t resolve them either way. So Minor should be off the table all together. We don’t know how serious or intelligent the doubts referred to were, so we have to try to find both sides of the argument on our own, based on the historical record as it exists. Based on what I’ve said above, there’s not much doubt that Obama is a citizen. Under the 14th Amendment (born or naturalized), he gets in under “born.” The common-sense meaning of natural-born is “born here.” For a court to impose a parental citizenship requirement, they need some sort of AUTHORITY to hang that on. So far, I haven’t seen anyone come up with any AUTHORITY — just a few “persuasive” passages from the Law of Nations. Minor and the Naturalization Act don’t actually apply, and are not AUTHORITY.
Karl Oakes on January 28, 2012 at 635am said:

And READ this Headnote from the 1898 Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark (decided after Minor, BTW, although Minor actually says nothing:

“A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States.”

NEITHER PARENT WAS A CITIZEN and the Supreme Court said the child was a citizen because the child was born here. In so deciding, the court rested on the 14th Amendment, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This doesn’t define “natural born citizen,” but it pretty much kills any argument based on the idea that Obama isn’t a citizen at all.
- admin on January 28, 2012 at 817am said:
  
  Karl, try as you might, all you seem able to prove is that such a child is a “citizen” of the United States. Now, if all the Constitution required was a “citizen” to be eligible, you would be 100% correct. However, the Constitution CLEARY states…”Natural Born Citizen” and sadly for you, Obama is not one.
Karl Oakes on January 28, 2012 at 620am said:

@Curious: You say: “You can’t specifically be a “Natural Born” citizen if there’s an act from 1795 still in legal effect saying that under the relevant circumstances you aren’t legally even a generic citizen, let alone “natural born””

HOWEVER, you’re misconstruing the 1795 statute. That law is strictly about NATURALIZATION — specifically, (1) the passing down of citizenship from a naturalized alien to his/her child or children at the moment of naturalization and (2) the extension of citizenship to children of two citizens when they re born outside the US. Did you become a citizen either of these way? I didn’t. And neither did Obama. The statute does not apply to him because his citizenship derives from being born here — not from naturalization.
patrick on January 28, 2012 at 519am said:

We should arrest George Soeros while we’re at it for all of the insider trading the White House allows him as he spends his unheard of gains on the Obama agenda – like the occupy movement and others aimed at crushing the value of the dollar and ruining this great country of ours.
Patrick on January 28, 2012 at 350am said:

People need to REALIZE that the discussion in MINOR v. HAPPERSETT was DICTA that did NOT even address the issue of the CITIZENSHIP of children of ALIENS born in the United States & SPECIALLY referred to CITIZENSHIP under English COMMON LAW.

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT supposedly did WHAT???
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/message/335

That is because CITIZENSHIP in the United States has ALWAYS been according to the English COMMON LAW rule of JUS SOLI & has NEVER been based on parentage.

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.” James Madison, House of Representatives, 22 May 1789
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)

A FACT that is CONFIRMED by two contemporaries of the FOUNDERS – James Kent, who was the first professor of law at Columbia College in 1793-98, served in the New York Assembly & was Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court & by William Rawle who was appointed as an United States district attorney by George Washington

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
…
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
…
Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

William Rawle, A view of the Constitution of the United States of America (1829, 2d ed.)

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships23.html

A FACT that was CONFIRMED by CONGRESS before the passage of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1866 & the 14th AMENDMENT.

“The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens.” Rep. John Bingham, (chief framer of the 14th Amendment) Congressional Globe 37.2 (1862), p. 1639.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680

“Blackstone says ‘The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.’ The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here… The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1116 (1866).
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=157

“The first section of the bill contains the following declaration concerning citizenship:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States without distinction of color.

This provision, I maintain, is simply declaratory of what the law now is. This, I presume, would not be disputed if the language were qualified by the presence of the word “white.” In the absence of this word, I am sure that my proposition will be disputed by every member of this House who believers that this Government is exclusively a “white man’s Government.”

Rep. Wilson, (House Judiciary chairman and House Manager of the Civil Rights Act) Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115 (1866).

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=156

“This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee and by the authorities he has cited ….. In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all citizens that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866)(House reply to Johnson’s veto).
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=873

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=099/llcg099.db&recNum=690

A FACT that was once again AFFIRMED by the U.S. SUPREME COURT.

“The district court, following as stare decisis the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing (10 Sawyer, 358), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizen by birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may thus stated: Is a person born with the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.
…
To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation — a right of all aliens — yet he was not born subject to the “political jurisdiction” thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”

US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898) Appellant’s LOSING Brief

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/page/2/

“The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 624 , 625 S., 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 , 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U.S. 270 , 274. [169 U.S. 649, 655] In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
…
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject…
…
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
…
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion [169 U.S. 649, 663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’ 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
…
That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the court of chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, secretary of state, in 1854 ( 2 Whart. Int. Dig. [2d Ed.] p. 394); by Attorney General Black in 1859 (9 Ops. Attys. Gen. 373); and by Attorney General Bates in 1862 (10 Ops. Attys. Gen. 328, 382, 394, 396).
…
By the civil rights act of 1866, ‘all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,’ were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright; or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children or foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country, nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the civil rights act, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ gave way, in the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, to the affirmative words, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’
…
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘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.’ It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher’s case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: ‘Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,-it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger [169 U.S. 649, 694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.’ Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster’s Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92.
…
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

“Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, with whom concurred Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.
…
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” DISSENTING OPINION, U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

And the INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS addressed & DISPOSED of the BIRTHER “two parent argument” over two years ago.

“Leading up to the 2008 Presidential Election and in the ensuing months after, a number of lawsuits were filed nationwide challenging both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain’s10 status as “natural born Citizens” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008), aff‟d by 2009 WL 2870668 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 8, 2009); Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709 (Conn. 2008). As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President‟s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an “official birth certificate‟ that is satisfactory to [the birthers].” Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 4:09-CV-106, 2009 WL 2997605, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009), reconsideration denied by 2009 WL 3111834 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 18, 2009).

The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States‟ and a natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.
…
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude 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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”15

The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs case. 16 See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., 860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs‟ arguments had been sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s grant of the Governor’s motion to dismiss.

STEVE ANKENY AND BILL KRUSE V. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, No. 49A02-0904-CV-353, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 12, 2009

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Patrick in California

Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

“It ain’t what ya don’t know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin’ on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain’t so.” — Uncle Remus

“Mass mind control was an art in Old Testament times and it is not a lost art, but a perfected one.” – Unknown

“The moral of the story is that words are mankind’s greatest weapon; as shown in this quote,”‘ There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be found only in the minds of men.'” – Rod Serling, The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street, S01E22 of the TWILIGHT ZONE
LHaney Correctional Officer on January 28, 2012 at 229am said:

I am glad that someone is finally taking the “bull by the horns.” America was built on trust, truth and God. Somewhere in the last election something went amiss. Natural born citizen means that both parents were born United States Citizens. I don’t care if they were standing on US soil or in a boat in the Red Sea. It’s time we took a stand to stand up for our Country. The country that our Service men are and have fought for. I think that if you don’t like what our country stands for there are plenty of other places on this planet to live. Go try to voice your beliefs there and see how far it gets. I am a mother and two of my adopted boys were United States Air Force graduates.
Curious Bystander on January 28, 2012 at 137am said:

It all rests on whether both parents must be USA citizens for him to be “natural born”, or whether one parent is sufficient. As shown by the Naturalisation Act and by opinion in “Minor v Happersett”, there is no legal authority for concluding that one parent is sufficient, since there was historically disagreement about that. Being born in the USA, AND having BOTH parents citizens at the time of birth is the only legal guarantee of the child being “natural born”.
Since his father was never eligible for citizenship, Barack Obama was ineligible for presidency even if he was born in Hawaii.

It’s worse than that. You can’t specifically be a “Natural Born” citizen if there’s an act from 1795 still in legal effect saying that under the relevant circumstances you aren’t legally even a generic citizen, let alone “natural born”. Obama is today a resident alien, not even a citizen.

Can anyone show why I’m mistaken in the above conclusion, since it seems consistent with the relevant laws and the case information provided by “First Patriot”, “Harry”, “Karl Oakes”, and admin.
W. C. Switzer on January 27, 2012 at 1124pm said:

I want to see his passport when he travelled to Pakistan. The State Department at that time did not allow American Citizens to go there. If his passport stated that he was a Brittish or Indonesian Citizen, then he could go to Pakistan. This may be prima facia evidence that he lied on his passport (a felony?) or was not an American Citizen, and therefore ineligible to become President. He won’t release this document. This is a HUGE issue and the American people should never vote for this man when he has intentionally had this passport hidden and blocked from our inspection. How can any intelligent/educated person vote for this man when he hides this extremely important document? This is something we cannot forget! C’mon Mr. President. You are a very likeable guy, but if you want our vote, you absolutely must not withhold this stuff. Thank you.
Helen Hammonds on January 27, 2012 at 1112pm said:

Wow…informational, and AWESOME comments–for the most part. Glad you brought up the “Law of Nations” Mr Oakes… I am a little surprised at the comments from people that are just realizing–after “3 years of his Presidency” that all of his documents are false, that he has used many aliases, and his entire family seems quite proficient at doing the same thing since they all seem to be here illegally from Kenya, and fighting deportation. I would like to throw out the alias…Harrison J. Bounel, of Chicago, and who is being tracked down for real estate fraud. This is an Obama alias. It is probably the reason he and his wife no longer have their law licenses. As a nurse, I can tell you that NO ONE voluntarily relinquishes their license after all that hard work, unless there is the possibility of prosecution, or to prevent public disgrace after the Professional Authority that governs their profession publishes its disciplinary actions in their Review or Bulletin. What generally happens is that somehow a complaint of some impropriety is made, it is investigated, you are called before that panel, and if you CAN make a deal…often surrendering your license voluntarily, you can prevent prosecution, and silently slip away. An investigator looking into some serious real estate fraud and stolen money, debt and other things, tracked back that fraud to Michelle and Barack Obama’s cell phones and address in Chicago. Another little tidbit, that has been around but not discussed much. then, there is his lifetime membership at “The Man’s Club” in Chicago. The gays of that area don’t mind telling you he was one of their own, either. And, he is (or was, verifiable) on their roster as a member. This man is so sneaky, conniving, and deceitful that it is obvious why he has now spent upwards of 2 million dollars to pack away all his records. And, how convenient that there was a break in at the Pass Port Office, and his kind of disappeared, while others–Hillary’s and a few more were tampered with, but still there. And, what about the wake of death that follows everyone that has had any information they tried to share about him…to many for it to be random coincidence in that specific circle. Many, homosexual lovers (as they professed to be), some even talking about his drug use as a Senator. this guy is toilet slime.
C. R. V. on January 27, 2012 at 1100pm said:

The penalty for Treason is the Gallows, is it not? This Bloke qualifies in every way. Need a volunteer to pull the lever? ? ?
mick on January 27, 2012 at 1058pm said:

How much of this is just racism ?
Karl Oakes on January 27, 2012 at 1051pm said:

And in case anyone thinks this statute “defined” natural born citizen, common sense tells us that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” are not the ONLY people who can be natural born citizens. I assume you’re natural born, and that you don’t fit the statute, right? SO it’s not a definition. What they were saying was, “even if you’re born out in the middle of the Atlantic, we’ll consider you to have been born on US soil.”
A freeman on January 27, 2012 at 1051pm said:

To all of you, Even if Obama is a nbc he is still not eligible to sit in office! Case#1 he denounce his citizenship to go to school in Indoneasia, this disqualifies him. Case #2 He is or has been a member of the BAR (Brittish Accredited Registry)assotiation which requires an oath to the Brittish Crown which also disqualifies him. On top of that how could you liberals (liars and leaches) vote for someone who refused to resight the Pledge of Aligence to the Flag to be our leader if you love this country?
Karl Oakes on January 27, 2012 at 1047pm said:

HARRY, I’ve had time to study this:

“And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”

This is talking about two different situations:

(1) The children of persons naturalized as provided in the statute, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of 21, at the time of such naturalization, are U.S. citizens — except that citizenship does not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

(2) The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, are natural born citizens — except that citizenship does not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States

Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii (which is the assumption for purposes of this case), neither applies to Obama. He does not claim citizenship “descending from” a naturalized parent, he claims his citizenship from being born in the U.S.. He was not (1) a child of an alien parent who became naturalized before Obama reached age 21; or (2) born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States. Therefore, the statute has nothing to do with him.

That’s why I said all you have is a “shred.” The statute is not directly on point. It is mildly “persuasive,” but it’s not “legal authority” for a court decision. It’s interesting just by the way, that when it was repealed five years later, they removed the reference to “natural born” citizen.
Old Glory on January 27, 2012 at 1028pm said:

TODAY 1-27-12 in Atlanta, George it was a Default Judgement. Anyone an attorney? I don’t get meaning of that when I looked it up A defendant who fails to file an answer or other legal response when it is due CAN REQUEST that the default be SET ASIDE, but must show a legitimate excuse & good defens to the lawsuit???
The other question I have is How many delegates does the democratic party have in Georgia and can they vote at the democratic convention on Obama no matter if he was on the ballet or not?
David Perkins on January 27, 2012 at 1023pm said:

That Obama is a fraud is without question. Consider this…1961, right. Obama put his COUNTRY OF ORIGIN (remember, this is 1961) as KENYA. “Kenya” was not known as “Kenya” until (drum roll…) 1963!!!!!! Hello?!?!?!!!!
Additionally, the “Kapiolani Gynecological and birthing center” was NOT called that until 1978!!!!!
Obama, and those who “vetted” him should be tried in a criminal court for HIGH TREASON!!!!!!!
Ted Holden on January 27, 2012 at 1003pm said:

The 14 th amendment clause 1870 gauranted due process for all. He was given due process. He has just broken another law. And apparently has no regard for any of the laws of the United States.If any of my children ignored a summons or used false documents to enter college or a federal job a job with any company requiring a bond would and would subject to prosecution. Just ignoring a summons the judge would issue a bench warrant for arrest. Just a point of interest every one lying to the senate or congress is also subject to arrest. They are relieved from their federal job until they are either found guilty or not guilty. This is done to help ensure that they not influence the filling with their position. It is my belief that all expenses occurred by the citizen true tax paying citizens be re-embursed by the person that has benefited from it. IE: if a soldier misuse government property for personal gain he would have to pay the government back. It is the same in the private sector as well. It is my opnion reviewing case law that there is sufficient evidence to arrest many others that conspired to this cover up. Water Gate would be a well known example. I have concerns that what ever the judge says will be appealed. And some how turned over. Remember who the criminal (attorney general) is working for and with. The first step in the right direction, next fire all czars.
Yankee Doodle Dandy on January 27, 2012 at 945pm said:

You southern racist bigots may be citizens, but you’re also natural born idiots. The biggest mistake that the North made after the civil war was not to hang Robert E. Lee as a traitor along with a bunch more rebel officers and politicians and put the rest of your relatives on parole. If we could find an island big enough now I think it would be a good idea to exile all of you white trash there and bomb the place. “F” off and get out of my country.
jj on January 27, 2012 at 935pm said:

Nice work, Craig. I actually got this as a forwarded email via FL, and the person sending it wondered if it was fake since it wasn’t on the news! LOL I set them on the right path, of course. Couldn’t hear the live hearing well enough, but may try to listen later. Probaly easier to read your piece instead.
Mark Anderson on January 27, 2012 at 910pm said:

There are two obvious discrepancies in the supposed officaila and certified birth certificate.
The name Keny did not exist when obama was born. It came about approximately 2.5 years late.
African was not used in the early 1960’s and even much later.
The proper term was and still is Negro.
No way in hE!! that anyone ever referered to a person of color as African on an offical US or Officail state document at that time.
The birth certificate was forged and the person that allowed this to happen in the state office should go to jail for many many years as adiding and abetting a crime beyond comprehension. This type of act should be considered treason and the spouse who aided in this matter should also be held accountable.
Bill Richardson on January 27, 2012 at 848pm said:

The entire setup screams CIA.
AntiWacko on January 27, 2012 at 847pm said:

One thing all these anti-Obama chest-beaters ignore is that “natural born” is not as defined in an obscure European book of which most of the Founders were probably not even aware. The Constitution was derived from English Common Law, which was familiar at that time to all the Founders. Under English Common Law, a natural born citizen was someone who was born within the boundaries of England. The Founders would have used something they were familiar with, not some definition from some obscure European book.

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/debunking-corsi-english-common-law/

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/originalism-and-the-natural-born-citizen-clause
Josh Simon on January 27, 2012 at 845pm said:

Very puzzled how intelligent people, or at least deemed to be so, just accepted the “photo shopped” birth certificate without question. Within minutes of it’s release, photo-shop experts all around the country said with 100% surety that what Obama’s handlers put forth was nothing but fraudulent. And displayed the proof all over the net and YouTube. And I’m even more puzzled and disappointed in Donald Trump who had Obama on the ropes forcing him to show the BC, but then just readily accepted this fake document without any further investigation. Donald should have stayed on it and pressured Obama about it’s authenticity still being in question.
warrior4Truth on January 27, 2012 at 837pm said:

oh – and I have some questions:

1) Has anyone read this before?

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1893155/mccain-nbc-fraud-pdf-may-4-2010-9-35-am-324k?da=y

2) Will you please share your “opinion”/”take”? with us here?

Thanks, in advance….
Robert Blumenstein on January 27, 2012 at 822pm said:

Keep it up fellow Republicans…you embarrass the party. Better stick with the main goal to “defeat Oboma” by your underlings demands. This just makes Trump a happy camper, and the American people distancing this craaap from a small following. Georgia people are behind Obama any way you look at Natural Birth Kangaroo court. -No need to respond here…you’ve made your point.
Marla Shaw on January 27, 2012 at 809pm said:

Obo has deliberately, willfully defrauded 325,000,000 people, as have those that assisted him. People have died following his orders. (e.g., the soldiers that were told not to shoot their weapons, and therefore were killed in return.) He has protected terrorists (e.g., Hassan), has given away military secrets to foreign governments (launch codes for British missiles), and refused to protect the people of the USA (Arizona.)

— wouldn’t this normally call for the death penalty?
warrior4Truth on January 27, 2012 at 756pm said:

Please research THE LAW of THE U.S. of A. – please double check my FACTS – and please correct my, for I am not a lawyer nor am I an attorney.

I do, however, seek the TRUTH. PLEASE PROVE me Wrong – PLEASE find me the LAW (not some opinion, THE LAW) that contradicts the following FACTS.

This is NOT about “Politics”; This is NOT about “Race”, “ethnicity”, NOR “Skin color”. This is NOT about “party” nor “hate”…. This is Simply
about THE TRUTH AND THE LAW of the United States of America.

I implore all decent, educated, sober-minded people to study these things – prove them (and please correct me – for I am human). Let us all rejoice in Truth and Love – for as John wrote in the New Testament, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32).

Let us all share the truth with our fellow brothers and sisters – for we are ALL God’s Family!

Concerning the LAW of the Land….
And MORE specifically – what was THE LAW in 1961 – THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND AND REMEMBER!

For the Love of God, for the love of my COUNTRY, and for the Love of ALL that is TRUE, Here it is:

Fact : Stanley Ann Dunham (obama/soetoro/sutoro) gave birth at the age of about 18 years and 8 months to “baby barry”. Under the LAW in 1961, she was Too young to confer citizenship to “baby barry”(Barrack Hussein Obama II).

Here is the law and FACTS regarding a baby born to an ALIEN/”Non-Citizen” Father and a U.S Citizen mother in AUGUST of 1961:

[please research all of these FACTS and double check all the laws – please]….

——————-

All The Following FACTS and LAWS can be found in the U.S. Department of State’s “Foreign Affairs Manual” (FAM),
Volume 7 – Consular Affairs

The specific heading reads, “7 FAM 1130 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT”

The Specific Legal references to UNITED STATES LAW as found under the U.S. Department of State regarding
Citizenship are found below:

[found on page 17 of 81 of the United States Department of State – Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) – Volume 7 – Consular Affairs]

7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
(CT:CON-317; 12-08-2009)
“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of
fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from
12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and STILL is applicable to PERSONS BORN DURING THAT PERIOD.”

(my emphasis added with capital letters in that last sentence) – read for yourselves:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

*** Please remember that “Obama’s Mama” – the REAL BIRTHER/MOTHER – Stanley Ann Dunham (obama, Sr.’s SECOND WIFE) gave birth to “baby BARRY” (Barack Hussein Obama, II) ALLEGEDLY on the 4th of August in 1961, which is LESS THAN FIVE (5) YEARS from the day of HER Birth on Saturday, the 29th of November in 1942 (to be MORE precise—
The Mother of “Baby BARRY” was 18 years 8 months and 7 days old. Stated another way – she was ONLY Four years, eight months and seven days AFTER Reaching her 14th Birthday in 1956.)

Therefore, according to THE LAW in 1961, she was TOO YOUNG to confer United States Citizenship.
————————–
Quick Caveat…. There is as much if NOT More Evidence that “baby barry” was born in Kenya. Having personally “lived, grown up, and worked” in Hawai`i, there
are many monuments for many historical figures in the Hawaiian Islands. No such monuments exist in Hawai`i – while there is a school named after the person many people refer to as “barrack hussein obama, ii”/”barrack hussein obama, jr.”. Did y’all know that there is a Monument/Marker Claiming to be the “birth hospital”?

It’s location??

Mombasa, Kenya (Africa)

There are also newspaper articles, news media claiming this , etc….

[So who is lying – the “government liars” in Hawai`i? or the “government liars” in Kenya?….. here’s a though – WHAT IF they are both Lying? ]

?????

[dramatic pause]

and as much as “uncle barry” (soetoro – AKA harrison j bounel – AKA barrack hussein obama, ii – AKA barak mounir ubayd – AKA bari malik shabazz – or whatever name he is referred to) –

as much as this individual and his “thug handlers” CLAIM Kapi`olani Medical Center for Women and Children as the birthplace, it is Important to Note that the hospital NEVER has and NEVER will claim to be his “birth hospital” (that would require THEM to lie, falsify documents, decieve, and be involved in the fradu/hoax) – so they have remained mostly silent.

Even More “suspicious” is even though “uncle barry/bari AKA” has “locked down his records, he cannot lock down his mother’s records. The most under-reported thing is that Stanley Ann Dunham (obama-soetoro-sutoro) was never seen at nor ever admitted to ANY Hospital for ANY Medical condition – let alone childbirth! Hospitals cannot release details – although having worked at several hospitals in Honolulu, they CAN acknowldge if a person was THERE or not (simple yes/no).

There is NO EVIDENCE and NO HOSPITAL RECORD that Stanley Ann Dunham ever was at Kapi`olani Medical Center for Women and Children (OR at the former name of the facility – Kapi`olani Maternity and Gynecological Center).

Nothing – Nada – Zero….

Yet – there are records, witness ,attending phsycian, family was present ,etc…

So whose “allegations do you believe”? They may STILL Be celebrating in Kenya!! (and my african friends LAUGH at how foolish some Americans are – believing everything the “talking heads” tell us out of the “TV Box”!)….

Again – there is “paperwork/certifications” from Hawai`i – and even MORE from Kenya….

Let me restate – I think both governments (Hawai`i and Kenya) are lying! Just my opinion on that… however, I have digressed enough…

————————————
So, where we were – oh, yes, Stanley Ann Dunham is TOO Young to confer citizenship, and thus…

According to the LAW, we Then must look at “baby BARRY’s” Father. Since Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a BRITISH SUBJECT in 1961 (he was ALWAYS a NATURAL BORN BRITISH CITIZEN of the East AFrican Protectorate of Great Britain – now called Kenya. He was appears to have been born in Africa on June 18 (either in 1934 or 1936) [seems interesting that Obama, Sr., ALSO has some “birth question marks” regarding the TRUE Facts of his birth – in the daddy’s case – he lied about his age more than once… Like Father, Like son??].

He was, under U.S. Law, an “alien” (his “alien Number” was A11 938 537). Under British Law, he was a Natural Born British Citizen and he appears to been a LIFELONG BRITISH CITIZEN with his LOYALTIES and ALLEGIANCES toward the
BRITISH Colony of Kenya.

*** here is the BRITISH LAW that governs “uncle barry” (soetoro/obama)’s BIRTH-DADDY – and this is the LAW that determines that “barry soetoro/obama” is a “Natural Born BRITISH CITIZEN under the LAW:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1948/56/pdfs/ukpga_19480056_en.pdf

(specifically look for Part 2, Section 5, Article 1 – which is found on page 5 of this pdf document)

The Law – aka the “British Nationality Act of 1948” – applies to all children born to a British Subject. The law is STILL in effect today, I believe.

There

Hopefully that clears up any “Legal Authority” questions that “karl oakes” brought up…. There is the LAW – regarding anyone born in 1961 to a 18-year old US mother and a 24-26 year old Great British Citizen/subject born in what is now called Kenya.

For the same reason, and under the same law, “uncle mitt” willard m. romney AND “uncle rick” santorum are also NOT “Natural Born Citizens” of the United States of America.

That is the law (and there have been MANY Attempts to CHANGE THIS – please ask if you need the historical references on that)…. This is the LAW of the LAND – The Authority (for those who still believe in, support and sustain the Constitution of the United States).

In no uncertain terms, we have a ILLEGAL And UNCONSTITUTIONAL resident in the white house = “Greatest HOAX in the History of the White House”!

Now please contact your Secretary of State, Your state senators/ representatives AND your national senators, representative! Time to cleanse Congress!

[and one more book I’d like to recommend – rather a story I was told as a child…

anyone remember Hans Christian Anderson’s, “The Emporer Has No Clothes” ???

Go read that and you’ll understand why you may be tempted to call me “crazy”, “stupid”, “time-wasting”, “Right-wing”, “radical”, “nut-job”…. name-call all you want – attack this messager, if you feel the need – However, my message – and the message of TRUTH others share will still stand! Read and understand the message…

A Dual-Citizen CANNOT EVER Be POTUS/VPOTUS – that is the Law!

We the People MUST VETT All the candidates…

In the sacred name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
AntiWacko on January 27, 2012 at 754pm said:

Racist rodents had a visceral reaction to a black man becoming President of their WHITE Nation and occupying THEIR White House. They are still trying to unseat this upstart black man. These rodents have created the most fantastic of conspiracies and have been trying to foist their garbage on America, using pseudo experts and other pieces of fantasy. Only in Racist Georgia will this nonsense even get a hearing, and, once again, Georgia proved that it is the sewer-dweller of American states.
Steve Moschonas on January 27, 2012 at 747pm said:

You are stupid, ignored,unpatriotick and you should be in jail, for spreading
cancerous coments, in this great country of ours for having presidents like
Barrack Obama, it’s the one, who try to rejuvenate this country, which for eight
years was governed or, distroyed by a bunch of idiots like you!
You should be joyful, for having president barrack Obama, he is one of a kind, and it’s not surprise, if YOU, cannot see his abilites, but from a stupid like you, what you expect!
Steve Moschonas
Diane T. on January 27, 2012 at 728pm said:

I have just one question.

If Obama has nothing to hide then ‘why’ are literally ALL of his records under lock and key? And, why has he gone to such great lengths to keep everyone from knowing about his past…to the tune of well over $2 million dollars?

And, why haven’t any people from his past (college, etc.) come forth to say ‘they knew him when’? If, he was a professor, why haven’t any of his former students come forward???

Questions, so many, many questions!!!
Karl Oakes on January 27, 2012 at 722pm said:

R.S., that’s interesting “persuasive” authority, but it’s far from conclusive on what the Framers intended on this particular issue. Their own writings would carry vastly more weight, especially writings from the late 1780’s and early 1790’s. I’m not saying it’s irrelevant, I’m just saying there’s a limit to how much influence it would have in a court of law.
Davis Stevens on January 27, 2012 at 717pm said:

One Question!
“When” are we as true citizens going to DEMAND that this Faker be Run out of Washington?

“When” are we going to say “Enough” of this Slurper and his UnGrateful Wife being the residents of the most important House in the Nation?

“When” are we the people are going to say enough is enough of this Pandering Family living off the Fat of the Land we once call our Great United States?

I Spent 35 years Active (13 Years) active and (22 Years) Reserve, Air Force helping protect this Nation and now have to watch this and the ones who served and are now serving this nation and am now watching it Go Down the Drain in World integrity!

God Help Us!!!!
Goldminer on January 27, 2012 at 717pm said:

The elitiest already know who the next prez is. so cut out the dog and pony show.
warrior4Truth on January 27, 2012 at 709pm said:

[and I’m giving the ADMIN some time to “moderate” and read what I have typed – hopefully not edited too much! ] [that would be censorship – right? 😉 ]

Number 1 – I am a “DUALER” = one who firmly believes “dual citizens” by birth are NOT NATURAL BORN Citizens of the United STates – and therefore DUAL Citizens are NOT eligible for POTUS/VPOTUS.

Number 2 – I am NOT A “Birther”. A “birther” is a woman/female species who give birth.

Number 3 – Are y’all aware of the authority and the law AS IT Existed in 1961 (the alleged birth year of “uncle barry/bari” (soetoro – aka bari malik shabazz – aka barrack hussein obama, ii – aka harrison j bounel – et al.)??

Sure there is the US Constitution, the supreme court cases and “stare decisis” (legal precedent) (although there is nothing about “ignorant precedent”)…

And YES, Natural Born Citizen Makes a difference – in other words, one has to be a “SECOND GENERATION American child of Two United States LEGAL Citizens” !

Are y’all aware of the Law in 1961? Stanley Ann Dunham was TOO YOUNG to confer her citizenship (if she was, in fact, married to Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. – who was a polygamist and is a Natural Born BRITISH Citizen – always has been always is and will be)….

According to the British Nationality Act of 1948, ANY and ALL Children begat by Barrack Hussein OBama ,SR., are LEGALLY Natural Born BRITISH Citizens – regardless of the citizenship of the mother and Regardless where the child/children were born. That LAW is still in effect TODAY!

Similarly, “uncle bari/barry”‘s HANDLERS messed up their LIES (they should of said that Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro Sutoro had a child OUT OF WEDLOCK and say that the child was born in a house, at the beach, someplace other than a hospital… they messed up in their lies – even the “half-sister” Maya got the Lie messed up in the newspapers one time…. however, I digress…

Back to the LAW in 1961 – here is the exact law regarding a child born in 1961 to a married couple with the mother being a 18-year old “US Citizen” (who was NOT legally old enough to confer her citizenship to the child) And the father being a East African BRITISH Subject/Citizen. Since the mother was too young in 1961 to confer her US Citizenship (by the LAWS of 1961), Citizenship of this “dual citizen child” is DETERMINED By the FATHER’s Citizenship.

Here is a link to the LAW and Authority that was in effect in 1961 ( lots of reading in this – FYI)

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

[more information and facts to come…]
warrior4Truth on January 27, 2012 at 707pm said:

this next post is somewhat for Mr. “Karl Oakes” – as well as for others to keep in mind and consider:
warrior4Truth on January 27, 2012 at 705pm said:

@ DWeichold – Amen…. and our Duty to God, our country, our families, our loved ones, our neighbors…. PLEASE Spread the word – share the truth! Get the fraud off the ballot in Your state ASAP!
warrior4Truth on January 27, 2012 at 659pm said:

jamie is factually and historically incomplete (as many liberal-progressives-democrat-“rinos”-marxist-socialist-communist types are often times)

shall we call Jamie the “fountain of misinformation”?? “Admin” is correct in his response to you, Jamie…

(and after reading your “exchange” with Admin) – you are racially inept, as well – the person you refer to as Barrack Hussein Obama, ii – is Kenyan and Irish!
Are you able to get over the FACT that the illegal and unconstitutional occupant of the white house is MULATTO – “50 % “black” – 50 % “white”?
Are you aware of many “conservative,educated and independent black people” who DO NOT Identify with this FRAUD in the white house?
AND….

Are you aware that FACTUALY History shows that we’ve had Previous “BLACK” Presidents? Who are they, you ask?

Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Dwight Eisenhower…. (some may include
John Hanson in 1781 to 1782 — under the article of Conferation. George Washington and others UNANIMOUSLY Voted John Hanson to be
President for that year; the law at that time decreed one-year terms for the President. We actually had 7 Presidents BEFORE George Washington – FYI).
This was before the United States Constitution was signed in 1789 and after we had the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Do you know ACCURATE History?

here’s some history that has been “covered up” – please read theses revelations and “Educate yourself” on Accurate, Factual history and please
put aside your “dumbed down history that you learned in some ‘government indoctrination center’ – aka public school”:

http://www.rwcs.com/Black_Presidents.pdf

http://hiphopwired.com/2011/02/21/is-barak-hussein-obama-really-the-first-black-president-of-the-u-s/

http://g33klite.com/index.php/facts/general/188-6-black-american-presidents

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/nov/05/esu_prof_says_obama/

http://fookembug.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/the-seven-black-presidents-before-barack-obama/

http://www.computerhealth.org/ebook/5blkpres.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1771850/posts
———–

and here are more historical references you may want to read up – perhaps AFTER you read the Constitution. The Truth is what matters – regardless
of anyone’s “demonizing” tactics, name-calling, inaccuracies, lies, deception, slander, and “politics of hate”. Yes, the Truth
does not have an agenda – Yes, the Truth will set one free.

We all must Read, study, learn, ponder, contemplate…. REMEMBER! [ and for “jamie” ~ please grow up! ]

———————
Adler, D. (1987) Thomas Jefferson: Father of our Democracy. New York: Holiday House.

Bakhufu, A. (1993) The Six Black Presidents, Washington, D.C.: PIK2 Publications.

Bennett, L. (1988) Before the Mayflower. New Penguin Books.

Brodie, F. (1974) Thomas Jefferson, An Intimate History. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Curtis, J. (1982) Return to These Hills: The Vermont Years of Calvin Coolidge. Woodstock, Vermont: Curtis-Lieberman Books.

Dennis, R. (1970) The Black People of America. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Erickson, E. (1974) Dimensions of a New Identity: Jefferson Lectures. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Kane, J. (1981) Facts About the Presidents: From George Washington to Ronald Reagan. New York: The H.W. Wilson Co.

Mapp, A. (1987) Thomas Jefferson: A Strange Case of Mistaken Identity. New York: Madison Books.

Morrow, E. (1963) Black Man in the White House. New York: Coward-McCann Inc.

Remini, R. (1966) Andrew Jackson. New York: Harper & Row

Reuter, E. (1969) The Mulatto in the United States. Haskell House.

Rogers, J. (1965) Sex and Race. St. Petersburg, FL: Helga Rogers Publishing

Rogers, J. (1965) The Five Negro Presidents. St. Petersburg, FL: Helga Rogers Publishing.

Sullivan, M. (1991) Presidential Passions: The Love Affairs of America’s Presidents – From Washington and Jefferson to Kennedy and Johnson. New York: Shapolsky Publishers Inc.

Whitney, T. (1975) The Descendants of the Presidents. Charlotte, NC: Delmar Printing Co.

Vaughn, L (2002) Black People and Their Place in World History. Inglewood, CA: Cure Publishing

=============
peace
Jerry on January 27, 2012 at 649pm said:

I am glad to have received a link to this! You sure don’t hear about this in the media! I added a link to this from my facebook account. Maybe a lot more will do the same. Let’s get this story out there while it is fresh! MAKE SURE HE DOESN’T GET ON THE 2012 BALLOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ayelet on January 27, 2012 at 641pm said:

All this is good news, but I fear the “court records” will mysteriously disappear….
Ralph Kett on January 27, 2012 at 626pm said:

If it is a given that Oboma was born somewhere outside the U.S. Two things seem to be important, either the Imigration laws changed by 1961 or when I claimed citizenship through my mother in 1955. Priour to October of 1932 it required the father to be a U.S. citizen. Neither before or after that date did it require both parents to be U.S. citizens. I was born in Canada in 1935, an older brother was born in May of 1932 so was not eligable Reguardless of the year the application was submited. I only hope that as of 1961 that ruleing was changed. Reguardless I beleive he should be impeached for the falsification of everything he’s tried to cover up. Born in Canada, I hope my citizenship in this country is not in question.
Beverly S. Hill on January 27, 2012 at 617pm said:

You people are REALLY pathetic.

Get a life!

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom on January 27, 2012 at 605pm said:

Great, then you’ll be just like Obama who you assume is an illegal president violating the law. You’ll break the law to protest?? Typical, but then again not common with folks of your ilk.

IF THAT HAPPENS, MOST OF US WILL REFUSE TO “PAY” TAXES
TO SUPPORT THE “DEADBEAT’S” WHO SUPPORT A “USURPER”. UNLESS THEY ARE INJURED, OR OVER THE AGE OF 65 WHO PAID INTO S.S
R.S. Riley on January 27, 2012 at 551pm said:

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758), by Emmerich de Vattel
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It

“§212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in
order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

See: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations was key in framing the United States as the world’s first constitutional republic. Virtually unknown today except amongst specialists, Emmerich de Vattel was born on April 25, 1714, in the principality of Neufchâtel, which was part of Switzerland. De Vattel was a Swiss Diplomat and Jurist versed in International Law. There can be no doubt that the term “Natural Born Citizen” in the U.S. Constitution came from his book, The Law of Nations.
MDell on January 27, 2012 at 503pm said:

Tom Rarity – really? Taxpayers expense? What about his million dollar “date” night in NYC? The wife’s 30 person group vacation to Spain? The 17 day vacation in Hawaii? ALL PAID FOR WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS? Please… He has taken more vacations than any other president. I still don’t believe he was even eligible to be.. until he proves this to me, I will not support him. I love my country and want it to run like our founding fathers wanted.. under the Constitution of the United States of America!

SKSPM – Bravo!
LS on January 27, 2012 at 448pm said:

Ok, if we are going to question Obama’s eligibility then we need to go back and question LBJ’s taking office after he had Kennedy whacked. Most people don’t know he was indicted by a federal grand jury in Texas after Billy Sol Estes turned states evidence on him. He was indicted for the murders of NINE people including an agriculture official in Texas, his own sister Josepha, and John F. Kennedy.
He conveniently got out of being convicted by dying.
If we are going to talk rule of law then let’s really talk rule of law!!!
Karl Oakes on January 27, 2012 at 409pm said:

Nate, as much as I think the birther case is weak, you’re missing the point. The President has to be a “natural-born citizen” under Article II of the Constitution. The statutory definition of “citizen” doesn’t resolve whether he’s a “natural-born” citizen. 8 USC 1401 is irrelevant. This is one of the few things Craig is right about.

The problem with the birther case is that there’s no real authority on which to rest a decision that “natural-born” means “born here of two citizen parents.” They keep citing Minor v Happersett all the time, but as I’ve shown above, the Supreme Court in that case said (paraphrasing) “we’re NOT GOING TO DECIDE whether you need two parents.” So in legal terms, their case is silly.
Nate on January 27, 2012 at 400pm said:

Can I please borrow your time machine? You are proposing someone went back in time to falsify documents and payoff government officials for the purpose of someday electing a half-black infant to first the Senate and then the White House in 1961. If they didn’t go back in time you are suggesting they played a very long game that had NO possibility of working within their conceivable future. There are real issues that affect the country we can all agree need to be addressed NOW. This is a distraction that will continue to marginalize those who cling to it and diminish any of the valid criticisms they may raise. You are working against your own cause and making it easier to ignore anything else you may have to say. Even if you believe this nonsense this kind of discussion is only benefiting Obama’s re-election. Please join us real republicans whose agenda is about what the country needs moving forward. Right or wrong this has been decided. Please, PLEASE stop making the rest of us seem so silly. Any one born outside the United States, if ONE PARENT IS AN ALIEN AND AS LONG AS THE OTHER PARENT IS A CITIZEN OF THE U.S. This covers him even if was born in Kenya.
Again: Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:” Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. At birth=Natural born.
There is no victory here even if you somehow won a judgment. It would be held up on appeal until long after he has left the White House and will never overturn any laws certified by Congress or order issued by the Executive office.
D Weichold on January 27, 2012 at 353pm said:

He should be jailed for life, as a Democrat who voted for him, Will Never vote for this phony again
R.S. Riley on January 27, 2012 at 338pm said:

For Karl Oakes and other like believers. By releasing his fraudullent(?) birth certificate in the White House on 27 April 2011, Obama tacitly admits that he was born a Dual-Citizen of Great Britain and the United States. The certificate plainly states that his father was a native of Kenya in East Africa, and he was never an American citizen–but at the time one of Great Britain and the Protectorate of Kenya. A Dual-Citizen does not equate to be a “Natural Born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section I, Clause V of the U.S. Constitution. That is exactly the reason the term of art, “Natural Born Citizen,” was written in the Constitution to avoid a constitutional crisis. The intent was for a Presidential Candidate to have grown up in the United States from birth to adutlhood in order to show complete loyalty to the country. But, then it becomes more complicated than just the birth dual citizen issue. Was not Obama officially adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia? Are there any official documents which show Obama ever tried to regain his American citizenship after returning to Hawai’i as a teenager? And, did he attend Occidental College in Los Angeles on a Fulbright Grant as a foreign student with the name Barry Soetoro?
Also, see Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations published in 1758 which defines “Natural Born Ciitizen. De Vattel was the leading authority on International Law at the time the Founding Fathers drafted the U.S. Constitution. By the way, Senator Marco Rubio is also not eligible to be President or Vice-President for the exact same reason; he was born a Dual Citizen of Cuba and the United States.
Sherm Moe on January 27, 2012 at 331pm said:

BHO should not be allowed to be put on the ballot in any of the 50 states. It is against the law of the land (Constitution) To remove would be the best way to keep our country becoming a Socialist/ Communist nation.
jamie on January 27, 2012 at 330pm said:

admin, the only fact i can discern from all of this is that you have no life and, like alot of other whackadoodles, are obsessed with Obama and can’t wrap the idea around your “brain” that a black man is president.

This will not end well for you. Keep at it and you will guarantee not only that Obama gets re-elected, but the Senate will be 60+ Democrat and the House will be run by Nancy Pelosi. Thank you for that.
Karl Oakes on January 27, 2012 at 320pm said:

Admin: You are correct that Nate’s citation of 8 USC 1401 doesn’t resolve the issue. And it’s equally true that Minor v Happersett, which you keep citing as legal authority, declined to resolve doubts about whether a person needs to have citizen parents to be a natural born citizen:

“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

So, aren’t you just jerking your less-informed readers around so they can believe justice has been denied when this weak case inevitably crashes and burns? If not I’d appreciate it if you explained what part of my translation of Minor (above this post) you think is wrong, and what the correct line-by-line translation would be.
Nate on January 27, 2012 at 257pm said:

Pesky facts

Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if ONE PARENT IS AN ALIEN AND AS LONG AS THE OTHER PARENT IS A CITIZEN OF THE U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
ANY ONE falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
It must be nice living in a fact free world where you never have to back up any of your assertions. You disrespect the constitution and the office of the presidency during a time of war. Didn’t I hear a few years ago about that being unpatriotic? You are an embarrassment to those of us who believe in the rule of law and the ideals of democracy as defined in our Constitution.
- admin on January 27, 2012 at 310pm said:
  
  Another pesky fact
  
  One needs to be a Natural Born Citizen to serve as President…not just a citizen.
Michael J. Schmitz on January 27, 2012 at 245pm said:

ANOTHER GOOD ITEM TO CHECK OUT AND SEND TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF GA. IS WHEN OBAMA WENT TO GRADE SCHOOL IN HAWAII, SINCE HIS ARRIVAL AT AGE 8, WHEN HIS MOTHER DROPPED HIM OFF WITH HER MOTHER. WHAT EXACT GRADES HE ATTENDED. BACK THEN ALL CHILDREN WENT TO SCHOOL (MANDATORY LAW) OBAMA DID’NT START UNTIL HE ARRIVED AND A GOOD POSSIBILITY HE MAY NOT HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA GUARANTEEING HIM GOING TO COLLEGE ON A GRANT IN AMERICA. YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK ALL THESE IMPORTANT ITEMS OUT JUST INCASE. MIKE
Karl Oakes on January 27, 2012 at 243pm said:

IF YOU THINK A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN HAS TO HAVE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS — you are probably relying on false information someone has given you about the 1875 Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happerset. Here is the language from that case the “birthers” rely on, along with a translation which shows that the case is legally worthless and does not say what they claim. Follow along:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

WE HAVE TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (NBC)

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.

UNDER THE LEGAL SYSTEM THE FRAMERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH, THERE WAS NO DOUBT YOU WERE A NBC IF YOU WERE BORN HERE AND YOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

SOME LEGAL AUTHORITY SAYS YOU CAN BE A NBC AS LONG AS YOU WERE BORN HERE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE CITIZEN PARENTS

As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

SOME DOUBTS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THAT

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

WE DON’T NEED TO RESOLVE THOSE DOUBTS — I.E., WE ARE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THAT NOW

Thus, Minor did NOT define Natural Born Citizen as some are claiming. Not everything you read on the Internet is true . . .
jamie on January 27, 2012 at 241pm said:

Kentucky: I guess they can’t let it go because they ARE crazy
Carol on January 27, 2012 at 234pm said:

Jamie are you saying all those presidents were illegal? How long has this been going on?
Kentucky on January 27, 2012 at 230pm said:

Are you people crazy? Let it go already.
jamie on January 27, 2012 at 217pm said:

Herbert Hoover – mother Canadian
Woodrow Wilson – mother English
Chester Arthur – father Irish
James Buchanan – father Irish
Thomas Jefferson – mother English
Andrew Jackson – BOTH parents Irish

So do facts not matter to you whack jobs?
- admin on January 27, 2012 at 308pm said:
  
  Jamie…hate to burst your bubble but…
  Due to a congressional act in 1855, Hoover’s mother became a U.S. Citizen upon marriage to his father.
  The exact same act covered Wilson’s mother.
  As for James Buchanan…His father came from Ireland sure enough and settled in PA. In a treaty between the U.S. and Great Britain in 1783, colonists who wised to stay in America were then considered FORMER British citizens AND…before the ratification of the Constitution, citizenship was given by state. As a citizen of PA and due to the treaty, when James was born in 1791…BOTH his parents were U.S. Citizens.
  Thomas Jefferson, whose mother was from England was covered by the clause in the Constitution stating that those whose parents were born before the date of independence would be considered eligible to serve. It’s a grandfather clause.
  Now, instead of Jackson, I believe you are speaking of Andrew Johnson. The naturalization act of 1795 covers his parents as they had lived in the U.S for 13 years before Andrew was born and the act stipulated, at that time, a 5 year period.
  That leaves us with Chester Arthur. Chester is a tough case and guess what? HIS eligibility was ALSO highly questioned. Chester was a highly suspicious character who told many different stories regarding his past. It seems likely that he, like Obama, was not eligible to serve. One of the problems in proving it was the fellow primarily questioning it was also full of tall tales and Arthur himself destroyed nearly all his records. What remained was an old family bible which was somewhat incomplete. His father may or may not have become naturalized but there are no records in existence either way. If Arthur’s birthday was a year different in the right direction, he would have been covered and indeed, there is evidence that he changed the date of his birth by moving it back by…1 year. Chances are, Arthur was ineligible to serve and managed to cover up the facts.
Don ald R. Burleson, Ph.D. on January 27, 2012 at 203pm said:

The fact that this story, so central to the whole issue of Obama’s bogus qualifications to be President, has not been reported on by the mainstream media, only indicates how deep this phony’s fraudulent grasp on our society (or what used to be our society) really goes. Clearly the media are controlled by the White House, by and large, or (what is the same thing) by fear of reprisal.
Randy on January 27, 2012 at 149pm said:

@TheDave,

Why would you be using wikipedia as a source. The liberal colleges will not even let their students use that to reference their papers. Get a verified reference, and then get back to us.

P.S. She denounced her U.S. citizenship, while they were living in Indonesia to become a citizen their. Probably on orders from Sr.
nefer on January 27, 2012 at 147pm said:

I think Mr Rubio´s parents were USA citizen at the time of his birth.
nefer on January 27, 2012 at 137pm said:

An american citizen born abroad to two american citizens parents or one american citizen parent whether diplomat , military…etc, (unless born inside the base or inside the embassy) is an american citizen born abroad, not a natural born, therefore not eligible to become president.
I hightlight the fact that the two parents must be americans citizens at the time of birth on United States land, in oder to be a” national born”.
Karl Oakes on January 27, 2012 at 136pm said:

ONCE AGAIN — For those who think there is a good case against Obama here based on Minor v. Happersett, as Craig and some others claim:

MINOR TRANSLATED:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

WE HAVE TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (NBC)

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.

UNDER THE LEGAL SYSTEM THE FRAMERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH, THERE WAS NO DOUBT YOU WERE A NBC IF YOU WERE BORN HERE AND YOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

SOME LEGAL AUTHORITY SAYS YOU CAN BE A NBC AS LONG AS YOU WERE BORN HERE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE CITIZEN PARENTS

As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

SOME DOUBTS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THAT

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

WE DON’T NEED TO RESOLVE THOSE DOUBTS — I.E., WE ARE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THAT NOW

Thus, Minor did NOT define Natural Born Citizen as some are claiming. Any argument based on Minor is going to go down in flames.
SomeMightCallItTreason on January 27, 2012 at 132pm said:

The below is copied from an article that appeared on Rense in 2011 (see http://www.rense.com/general94/hide.htm).

————————–
What Barry Soetoro Obama Is HIDING From US

5-12-11

Hold on folks. It’s wrong to ridicule citizens who are asking legitimate questions about the man who is our President. In fact, as responsible citizens, it’s our duty to protect our country, not to blindly support someone who quite frankly, we’d never even heard of 3 years ago.

Here are a few things that Obama is hiding from you and all other Americans:

Barack Obama / Stanley Ann Dunham marriage license — Not released

Lolo Soetoro / Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama marriage license — Not released

Record of adoption by Lolo Soetoro — Not released

Baptismal certificate — Not released

Indonesian Passport, renewed for travel to Pakistan, a restricted nation for U.S. citizens in 1981 — Not released

Student records at Mentung No. 1 public school in Jakarta, Indonesia — Not released

Hawaii elementary school records — Not released.

Punahou High School records — Not released

How his education at Punahou, a very expensive private school (Current tuition is $17,300/year.), was paid for.

Selective Service Registration — Released but proven to be Counterfeit

SAT score Not released

Occidental College records — Not released

Columbia College records — Not released

Columbia thesis — Not released

Harvard College records — Not released

Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, but not signed)

How he paid for his Occidental, Columbia and Harvard education — Not released

LSAT score — not released

University of Chicago scholarly articles — None found

Law practice client list — Not released

Financial records while a community organizer in Chicago — Not released

Annenburg Project records — Not released

Illinois State Senate records — None (Locked up to prohibit public view)

Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘Lost’ (ALL other Illinois state senators’ records are intact)

Medical records — Not released

Passport — Not released

Why his social security number allegedly starts with 042, a number issued in Connecticut sometime during 1976-1977.

Why his mother, Ann Dunham, is reported to have nearly a dozen aliases, at least two different Social Security numbers, and upwards of over 99 separate addresses.

Father’s name and address, and if dead, his death certificate — Not released

Mother’s death certificate showing who survivors are — Not released

Mother probate estate records showing who heirs are — Not released

In addition to being simply “Not released” most of these records are SEALED.

————————

You gotta have a license just to catch a fish but they’ll let any asshole be a… POTUS!
orv. on January 27, 2012 at 125pm said:

We have to realise that obama does not really want to be president. He really wants to be king. President is just a stepping stone. After he has killed the US he has as a working leverage on the rest of the rest of the world. Hang onto your hat.
jamie on January 27, 2012 at 122pm said:

there’s a reason none of the media are publishing this story; Even Fox News knows a bunch of fruit cakes and whack jobs when they see it. Please keep up what you’re doing. It will guarantee Obama’s reelection as well as a greater Senate majority and the retaking of the House. Good work guys.
exBPofficial on January 27, 2012 at 112pm said:

As much as I would like to see this guy and all his cronies defeated come election time, the subject of his citizenship is a non-issue. First, a person is granted citizenship in two separate ways, one is a natural born citizen and the other is a naturalized citizen. I know, confusing by virtue of using the word “natural” in two different context.

A naturalized citizen is one who was granted citizenship by another potentate (by another country, in this case) and who petitions the U.S. government to bestowed U.S. citizenship, i.e. Arnold Shwartzenegger (sp.). who was an Austrian citizen and became a U.S. citizen through a court process. All others are natural born citizens, including derivative citizenship.

U.S. law states that any person born on U.S. soil or territory, thereof, i.e. Puerto Rico, is automatically a natural born citizen. Obama has produced a certificate of birth revealing he was born in the state of Hawaii.

The only time in which the citizenship of ones parents come into play is when a person is born outside the 50 united states and either one of the two parents is a U.S. citizen. This is referred to as derivative citizenship, deriving citizenship from one parent. There is no legal requirement for a child born outside the U.S. to have both parents as U.S. citizenship. But this is a non-issue because he was born in Hawaii and nobody has been able to prove otherwise.

As a former Border Patrol agent, I did have to study immigration law and apply that training to real world situations on a daily basis. I re-emphasize, I don’t want him re-elected, any more than I wanted him elected the first time around, but this citizenship factor is a waste of time for everybody concerned.
Sharon Barnes on January 27, 2012 at 1258pm said:

By this logic Mr. Rubio of Florida would not be eligible for the job either, or any immigrant even if born here if the parents were not citizens. Makes sense to me. I’ve always though something was fishy.
Shirley Jean on January 27, 2012 at 1233pm said:

Today once again, Obama is saying that he will by-pass Congress if need be…he is so arragrant, he does not and has not respected our American Flag…our Constitution, our American Laws. Why are the courts and the American people allowing this to continue? Judge Malihi, we the people, are praying that you will use any and all of your authority to see that Obama is brought to trial and faces the full extenct of the American Law according to our American Constitution. I knew we were in trouble when the first lady walked out on the stage with her husband, Obama, and said, in part, This is the first time I am proud of America…
Bless her heart, she has missed many reasons to be proud of her(if America is her Country) American…of all the work and care that the American people have showed other countries…or how the American people may be pushed down, BUT WE ALWAYS RISE and RECOVER…and we will do it again! God help us, Obama or no one else is above the law. Judge Malihi, thank you and don’t let anyone change your mind, and never back down. God bless you and God Bless America
Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd on January 27, 2012 at 1217pm said:

Finally, all of the hard work of Orly Taitz and others is on the record in a court. If the Federal Constitution and the adjudged decisions of the Supreme Court are ignored by Obama, therein that should be sufficient conclusive evidence to determine that Obama should never have be deemed to the President of the United States; and, that he should be removed from Office being charged criminally. But also indicted with this is all of Congress and the other courts that have participated in ignoring the “Supreme Law of the Land” and Federal Constitution. Is the plan to cause a constitutional crisis? Nothing of this importance is by accident. This should now open the door and also force the other several States of the Union to adjudicate within their own jurisdictions this exact same constitutional issue; wherein, the only result available is the final elimination of Obama and all of his “official acts”, being void ab initio.
Donald Duck on January 27, 2012 at 1200pm said:

Hmmmmm. This is going on in GA while Hillary is saying she will not sign on as Sec. of State for Oblahblah’s second term. Seems like Hillary and Bill know alot more about this case than most do and he will not get a second term. She will be available to step into the breach of the race when Barry O. is ruled ineligible to run. I wonder if she will name Joe Biteme as her running mate.
SavingtheRepublicDOTcom on January 27, 2012 at 1142am said:

Let go of the birth issue as a matter of fact assume he has a BC and the name on it IS BHO II, FOCUS on what his legal identity is!!

If he was in fact adopted by Soetoro and his name was LEGALLY CHANGED to Soetoro as Indonesian school records indicate when was his LEGAL name CHANGED BACK to Obama?

If it was never done and his LEGAL name is Barry Soetoro not BHO II then every single time he signs his name BHO is an act of IDENTITY FRAUD. Trust me kids this is where you need to focus the search it makes a hell of a lot more sense as to why he is running the cloak and dagger act on his who he is.
Who is Obama? http://www.savingtherepublic.com/Who_is_BHO.html
Stop and Think on January 27, 2012 at 1117am said:

@Karl Oakes- I could not agree more. Minor only confirms one definition of NBC but leaves open the possibility that a person is a NBC if they are simply born in the U.S. Therefore, there is an open question of law that has gone unanswered.
People here state they love the Constitution. What about the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution? If another state, such as Hawaii, acknowledges Obama as a NBC, then all the other states have to follow suit unless there is opposing laws ON THE BOOKS. Because state law does not trump Federal law or the U.S. Constitution, no state law can redefine NBC. Therefore, even if this Georgia court finds Obama is not a NBC and therefore cannot be on the ballot, the Full Faith and Credit Clause says that he must be included, which would trumps this Admin’s courts findings.
fantum on January 27, 2012 at 1102am said:

A sitting president cannot be compelled to appear in a lower court! But if Obama is not a legitimate President, he doesn’t have this protection.

Kind of a chicken-egg thing.
Phillis on January 27, 2012 at 1052am said:

It is very interesting that the majority of you take the stand that “Officials should be qualified before they entered their offices” now, I bind you all to your commitments that “all officials should be qualified before they take their offices, or they should be fired, put in prison and the key thrown away, etc.” Well, before you pass judgement on the Honorable President Obama, perhaps one really ought to do their HOMEWORK, before calling the kettle black, because NONE OF THE JUDGES IN GEORGIA, including Judge Malihi have a current OFFICIAL SURETY BOND and/or OATH OF OFFICE on file as required and mandated by the Georgia Statutes!!! These judges in Georgia and/or their staff will say that they have “limited liability coverage” well if you read the GA Statutes and verify with (AIG) American International Group Inc, top insurance company in the United States if not internationally “a financial institution bond is not a third-party liability policy, but rather a first party loss policy for the benefit of the name insured only. As the bond is the benefit of the insured only, only the name insured can file a notice of claim.” Meaning if a judge injure themselves, they pay themselves. So perhaps, BEFORE Georgia brings this type of attention to them — selves on questioning President Obama’s qualifications, you need to make sure that your judges are qualified. You can be assured that Judge Malihi has no qualifying Official Surety Bond or Oath on record, and as such, has committed fraud on his office, the public and is required to step down immediately from his position making all of his decisions NULL and VOID, check it if you got the courage. It is said, “The Truth will set you free, but at first it will piss you off, with that in mind, you all OWE an apology to President Obama, and now hold Judge Malihi accountable for his Surety Bond and Oath just as you are relentlessly going after President Obama being qualified per his birth certificate or do we have a double standard here???? Be blessed!!
Karl Oakes on January 27, 2012 at 1010am said:

MINOR TRANSLATED:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

WE HAVE TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (NBC)

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.

UNDER THE LEGAL SYSTEM THE FRAMERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH, THERE WAS NO DOUBT YOU WERE A NBC IF YOU WERE BORN HERE AND YOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

SOME LEGAL AUTHORITY SAYS YOU CAN BE A NBC AS LONG AS YOU WERE BORN HERE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE CITIZEN PARENTS

As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

SOME DOUBTS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THAT

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

WE DON’T NEED TO RESOLVE THOSE DOUBTS — I.E., WE ARE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THAT NOW

Thus, Minor did NOT define Natural Born Citizen as some are claiming
Karl Oakes on January 27, 2012 at 943am said:

I’m going to keep this simple because it’s not worth much more of my time. The court in Minor flat-out said: WE ARE NOT GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER YOUR PARENTS NEED TO BE CITIZENS IN ORDER FOR YOU TO BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Read the paragraph. If it doesn’t make sense to you, read it a few times:

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. SEE? “FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SOLVE THESE DOUBTS.” What doubts? Doubts as to whether “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” are natural-born. In other words, doubts as to whether someone like Obama is natural born. The Court said, “WE’RE NOT GOING TO GO THERE.”

So, the amicus brief someone pointed me to is, for lack of a better word, retarded. Any argument based on Minor is going to get laughed out of court.

Also irrelevant is any language from any law passed many years after the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act, for example, has nothing to do with this. Same with the 14th Amendment.

The ONLY RELEVANT items are the comments of the framers back in the 1780s and 1790s, and while they are relevant, they aren’t iron-clad “authority” the way a Supreme Court case would be. I’m willing to take a look at that stuff and think about it. In the meantime, I promise you, Minor is absolutely worthless to this case, as I showed you above. Read the language and you will see for yourself . . .
Dave on January 27, 2012 at 923am said:

OK, even if 10% of the things they say about Obama are true…WE SHOULD BE VERY CONCERNED!!!!

It is obvious that the MSMedia is covering for him, otherwise this would be front page news. Another reason to be concerned!
Stan Hall on January 27, 2012 at 918am said:

Lots of interesting discussion. One thing many miss is that we can’t file criminal charges against a “sitting president.” We have to impeach him and remove him from office first. So at this point it’s likely best to just keep him off the ballot is as many states as possible to prevent re-election.
He should be escorted out of the White House in chains, but that’s unlikely. Invalidating everything he’s done sounds attractive but would create numerous problems. I would love to see Obamacare thrown out entirely. But for example, Obama extended unemployment benefits. Should all those recipients be required to pay that money back? It would require review of all laws signed and executive orders issues to determine what stays.
William on January 27, 2012 at 910am said:

Congratulations and thanks to the Great State of Georgia for actually HEARING this case. It has been squashed in so many places, but you can not hide from Liberty!
More than 20 years ago, I took an oath to defend this country from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. I have not forgotten that oath and will stand, if necessary, in defense of this United States of America against this internal enemy.

Craig Anderson, you are my Friday Morning Hero!
Kathy on January 27, 2012 at 848am said:

Ms. Douglas-

Thank you for contacting the Office of Secretary of State with your inquiry and information. We appreciate the time and manner in which you have provided our office with the insightful information. The information has been directed to our Elections Division and our attorneys.

Thank you again for contacting our office and please feel free to contact us with any other questions you might have.

Sincerely,

Thomas Culligan
Office of Secretary of State
Elections Operations Coordinator
2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, SW
West Tower, Suite 802
Atlanta, GA 30334
404-656-2871

—–Original Message—–
From: kathypd@hotmail.com [mailto:kathypd@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 7:20 PM
To: Ford, Linda; Culligan, Thomas; Waters, Josh; Hamilton, Erica
Subject: Web E-Mail [Elections] From Kathy P Douglas

Question / Comment: TO THE ELECTION BOARD/VOTER FRAUD AND ELECTION FRAUD. Constitutional Crisis!!!Today we know alot that has been hidden. The Current President is a Unconstitutional Elected offical and some fraud has gone on on the National level and by the DNC and Then Speaker of the house. I have written my Senators and written my local election board. I want this addressed. It is illegal for Barak H Obama to be POTUS.
Efforts to Eliminate the Natural Born Requirement From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee – All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

Definition of natural born
1) those born in the country, of parents who are citizens
2) those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights
3) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children
4) in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen.
The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33, Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33 in 1977 under H.J.R. 38, again failing to gain support from members of congress

1.On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2.September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3.February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.
5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” –

Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.) Finally on April 10, 2008, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511 – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

THE NEWS BAIT AND SWITCH..
We have a Unconstitutional President of the USA. 3 Years later we learn Barak H Obama was a Foreign Aid Student, Has a Non E verified SS# and a BirthCertificate that is Forged per experts in the field. He was never even qualified to be a Senator.. A National Lie and Treason we have America
BlogMagog on January 27, 2012 at 845am said:

Puppet President. When history is written this will be found out to be the greatest fraud and infiltration against the citizens of the U.S.

Ask yourself, who is the next puppet they are setting up to take over for him?

We already know what won’t be done… 1 – any meaningful energy reform to lower oil and gas prices. 2- any meaningful tax reform to make the rich pay more in capital gains taxes. Doesn’t matter who D or R is in charge, they will do more of the same… nothing.
Steve Pettit on January 27, 2012 at 807am said:

Many are obviously, conveniently overlooking the fact that the exact criteria used to determine John McCain’s eligibility to run for president in 2008 were these 2 factors… That BOTH of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth and that he was born on American soil. That’s not 1797 or 1832… that’s 2007/2008. So the most recent body of government officials who reviewed presidential eligibility criteria specifically used those exact parameters and that makes them the most current recognized precedent regarding the matter. Ironically Obama was a senator at the time and among those who approved McCain which proves that he knows that he is not eligible.
Fred on January 27, 2012 at 802am said:

Evidence standards for an AdminiStrative Proceeding before an ALJ are lower than in court, so an unsworn, uncertified BC. Printed off the Internet was apparently accepted.
CEC2 on January 27, 2012 at 800am said:

My question is this…if they finally determine that he is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States of America, does that invalidate every bill, edict, Executive Order he’s signed?
jean vetter on January 27, 2012 at 733am said:

I lived in Germany in 1967 with my husband who was in the army. We lived off-base. We (the wives, who were required to attend evacuation meetings monthly) were told numerous times that if we had a baby on the army base, our child would be a natural born citizen. If we couldn’t make it to a hosopital on base and the child was born in a German hospital, the child coould never be President.
Steve Pettit on January 27, 2012 at 723am said:

Many are obviously, conveniently overlooking the fact that the exact criteria used to determine John McCain’s eligibility to run for president in 2008 were these 2 factors… That BOTH of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth and that he was born on American soil. That’s not 1797 or 1832… that’s 2007/2008. So the most recent body of government officials who reviewed presidential eligibility criteria specifically used those exact parameters and that makes them the most current recognized precedent regarding the matter. Ironically Obama was a senator at the time and among those who approved McCain which proves that he knows that he is not eligible
Robert Powers on January 27, 2012 at 704am said:

It will be important to see if the Romney situation can be made less murky…it may be a factor in why issue is being ignored by many on the right.
and:
I have been offered the “opinion” of some in “places of influence” see 2-5 below…
If this were in mainstream media…”there would be “hell to pay”….Think about it.

1. I believe that Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico??? (anyone know?)
2. If ineligible….all of Obama’s actions could be ruled “null & void”….Both houses would have to entertain legislation to re-approve much legislation “in mass”….and would be a real mess…
3. As a minimum, all “Executive Orders would be cancelled. This wuold not be too bad!!!
4. Obama supporters will riot in th streets….violence will ensue…both sides know it! there will be Marshall law declared by the acting POTUS (J. Biden)
5. Hillary will be the nominee and will, unfortunately, be elected….if we ever get to elections (which may be delayed/deferred due to the chaos).
George Spigott on January 27, 2012 at 701am said:

smackwaterjack says: I am stupid and did not understand what the article meant about Barry’s dad not being American. I don’t understand the difference between being a Kenyan/African or being American.
smackwaterjack says: I am racist, and Barry should be above the law, because he is half black.
smackwaterjack says: I am stupid and Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are my idols. i believe everything they tell me.
truebeliever2012 on January 27, 2012 at 609am said:

There is no doubt in my mind what so ever that Obama’s intention from the start has been to destroy America from within, makes you wonder about the ones in government that stand with him. Here we had a change to jump start an economic recovery with the Keystone pipeline. From what I have read, it would create 85,000 jobs, $71 billion in wages, boost our economy by $149 billion, and would reduce the cost of gas at the pump, but what does Obama do, he rejects it. Why, because it doesn’t fit into the plans Obama has for America. His goal is to change America into what she was never meant to be, a communist country. Our forefathers are turning over in their graves. The life blood of America does not flow through the veins of Barack Obama, it never has and it never will. I want to personally say thank you to all envoled in bringing Obama’s eligibility to the forefront. Thank you, thank you. Also there is a site, http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html, has an article called, Understanding Obama: The making of a Fuerer. Its an eye opener.
Mark on January 27, 2012 at 532am said:

I guess all you folks better be in an uproar when they nominate Mitt Romney since his father was born in Mexico.
essence428 on January 27, 2012 at 449am said:

Here we go again. Can someone tell me when Mexico became a State in the United States? Last night in the debate, I heard Romney clearly state that HIS FATHER was born in MEXICO. Doesn’t that make him ineligible for the Presidency? Seems to be the same argument we are having over Obama. Just curious…
- admin on January 27, 2012 at 640am said:
  
  While George Romney was born in Mexico…HIS father and mother were a U.S. Citizens…making George a dual U.S./Mexican Citizen. George as I understand it, renounced his Mexican citizenship. It’s murkey but clearly different than Obama’s situation.
Immortal_Relic on January 27, 2012 at 432am said:

The real problem here is that it is only the Office of President of the Senate that requires one to be a Natural Born American Citizen and that office has never been filled. At the first elections of 1789, no one would qualify due to “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States;” (+1776 – 1789 = 13 years), and it remains vacant due to “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”

The President of the United States of America is elected by the Presidential Electors of the States of the Union of the United States of America and that Person fills his Office when all Votes are counted. That office requires the Person who fills it to take the Article VI Clause 3 oath and be bound to support “this Constitution.”

There is no record anywhere that any Executive President has been bound thereby. So the Constitution of September 17, 1887 becomes the Constitution of the United States which is the District of Columbia and all territory and other possessions within North America owned by the united States of America and ceded to “The United States of America,” for which all wtitten law applies.

All Elected Executive Presidents take the Article II Section 1 Clause 8 oath of the appoint Legislative Office of President of the United States.

What results is a Dictator when one Person becomes the Head of State, Head of the Military and Head of governemnt. The one people of America were freed from all governemnt at the late Treaty of Paris of 1783, and they remain free today without their consent.

The founding fathers found a way to make us all believe that the written law of an Administration of territory and other possessions applied to everyone by enforcing those laws through military force.

Obama was not elected to the Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Executive Office of Vice President of the United States of America as Head of the Senate and I defy anyone to show otherwise.
skspm on January 27, 2012 at 325am said:

Congratulations to the state of Georgia and to U.S. citizens who have the right to file in court their legal complaint and records. The court system is the only recourse we have left now to prove or disprove our grievances. When Obama first took office he did not focus on jobs or the economy but on the enormous health care bill which a majority of Americans did not want. The Democrats had the majority in the Congress and Senate and pulled every trick they could to pass the bill. Even though the house of respresentatives were being told by their constituents that they did not want the bill, these so called representatives ignored them and voted the party lines and passed the health care bill. Because of this, the next election removed those who did not listen to their constituents.

Obama was set aback by this and took notice, but he could not get any compromise or help from congress after his health care bill debacle. Now Obama is threatening Congress that he will govern by himself and without any congressional input. He uses executive orders and regulations to govern at this time. The audacity is that Obama was a House Resprentative from Illinois and that is it.

His mother was born in Kansas and his dad was born in Kenya. Yes, many people made a mistake and voted for an unknown, a man with no experience governing anything, a city or a state. No experience as a CEO or business owner or of any economical career. No military experience. And all of this is showing itself for him as his administration is imploding. No leadership experience.

There was no reason for Obama to be elected as President, except for one, he would become the first black president of the USA. He was especially proud of that fact and even though it might have helped him get elected, there are other requirements for the job. Like any other job out there, experience is a major factor in getting hired. Polls show that Obama has a low approval rating and like an employee on probation, he has not met the demands of the job and should be fired, let go, he is not good at it. He has been good at hosting White House parties and playing golf and campaigning for the Democrats and that is about it.

The moral of the story is that a real natural born citizen, born of citizen parents of the USA care a great deal about our country and we pledge allegiance to it from childhood. As citizens we have ancestors who have been in the USA since before the American Revolution and as these citizens we have invested more in our generations in the USA. We deserve to have a fully legitimate and capable President to lead and be concerned with all Americans and their future lives. We do not have this now and now we know why we do not have it. We deserve better.
Dansmith1954 on January 27, 2012 at 312am said:

@Tom Says:

January 27th, 2012 at 255am
Yall are a bunch of conspiracy theorists. You’d believe in Aliens before accepting that Obama was born in this country. I suspect that if he wasn’t black this wouldn’t be an issue.

The fact that you’re annoyed pleases me – I can’t wait to see how you’ll feel when he wins another four years,

IF THAT HAPPENS, MOST OF US WILL REFUSE TO “PAY” TAXES
TO SUPPORT THE “DEADBEAT’S” WHO SUPPORT A “USURPER”. UNLESS THEY ARE INJURED, OR OVER THE AGE OF 65 WHO PAID INTO S.S………..
Dansmith1954 on January 27, 2012 at 303am said:

You “Obots” must be mentally challenged. What part of a “No Show” by your African leader don’t you understand. Your “Leader” did not appear. He did not even submit his Whitehouse [website] Released “colb” for fear that it would incriminate him. Obama/Soetoro left you in the dust….
“Alert” Obot suicide Watch……Yikes! Mommy should have waited 3 months.
Tom on January 27, 2012 at 255am said:

Yall are a bunch of conspiracy theorists. You’d believe in Aliens before accepting that Obama was born in this country. I suspect that if he wasn’t black this wouldn’t be an issue.

The fact that you’re annoyed pleases me – I can’t wait to see how you’ll feel when he wins another four years,
Glen Teel on January 27, 2012 at 252am said:

I feel Obama is a Muslim and here to destroy the U.S. from the inside. I think he is laughing his ass off at every one for being so stupid and paying him to fly around in Air Force 1 spending millions while he enjoys his vacations and travels all over the world.
Jack on January 27, 2012 at 241am said:

@ Paul . . . If you did in fact challenge Donofrio (and we have no reason to doubt you did because you said you did and you ARE an attorney so we can believe you), we should be safe to assume you’ve read the amicus brief he filed. He actually did a fairly decent job, BTW – in my unprofessional opinion. If you have read it and believe you can still prove Obama is a NBC under Wong Kim Ark, I have a suggestion for you – rather than get on a forum like this and just wave your wallet in front of everyone like some egomaniac calling people blowhards, etc. – why don’t you just take a couple of hours (shouldn’t take you any longer than that, right?) and brief the argument yourself, then submit it to Obama’s legal team. You could get them to acknowledge you by challenging them on the cover letter submitted with your brief, with the same bet you’ve trying to get here (I’d probably up the anti though if I were you – make you appear more knowledgeable, you know – the bigger the bet the smarter). You could become the man who put Obama’s name back on the ballot in GA (assuming it in fact does get removed), and stop the snowball effect this case might create in the rest of the states (at least some people are suggesting that might happen) – let alone prevent some big Constitutional crisis. If you could pull that off, you would for sure become famous worldwide – not just on some thread on somebody’s blog out there on the internet somewhere, and you know he’d owe you big time! Hell, he’d probably even make you a Czar over something – maybe the “anchor-baby” Czar or some shit like that. You would be famous – no doubt about it. Anyway – just a suggestion. Good luck with that . . . .
Djaid Robertson on January 27, 2012 at 204am said:

Hi
Being Australian, I don’t know US law but if Obama is found to be an unlawfull citizen and President doeas that mean that all the laws he passed while in office are nul and void as well?
James Hartzog on January 27, 2012 at 106am said:

Obama’s birth certificate states that his father was a resident of Kenya, East Africa. Obama was born in 1961, Kenya was not established as a Republic until 1963. How could Obama’s father be listed as a resident of Kenya at the time of Obama’s birth if Kenya didn’t exist at that time?

Obama’s birth certificate claims the name of the hospital were he was born was called Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. The hospital he claims he was born at didn’t change its name to this until 1978. Before this it was known as Kaui’keolani Children’s Hospital and Kapi’olani Maternity Home. Were the people who signed Obama’s birth certificate anticipating the name change 17 years in advance?
Buck Yancey on January 27, 2012 at 101am said:

The big question in my mind is this.

If this trial legally verifies that B. H. Obama cannot legally run for president, then will that show that his first term presidency was an illegal presidency? If this is so will any bill he signed into law be voided?
Steven Marquis on January 27, 2012 at 1234am said:

When I brought the 1st lawsuit challenging my state’s SOS to formally review the eligibility issue with BO, I thought long and hard about the strange collection of bedfellows, notably BO and Hillary who championed McCains status. Why? I concluded that they had picked their appointment and wanted to put him in a compromised position unsuitable for challenging BO. But what about Hillary? I am becoming convinced that she was always intended to replace BO either before the election if things go poorly legally for BO of just after as his VP – if we see the move to remove Biden and elevate Hillary then you can be assured that a master conspiracy was indeed at play. Of course it may be just a huge exploitation of human nature to our detriment, but I have my doubts. When that poor fellow was executed a few days after attempting to leak Obama’s passport activity, that clinched it for me. I believe this is indeed King Georges revenge. He certainly rules like King George.
Rosemary Thornton on January 26, 2012 at 1055pm said:

EVERY ONE READING THIS needs to go to drudgereport.com and send this link to drudge as a “news tip.” If everyone does this, it might end up on drudge.

Look on the right side of the home page of drudgereport, about half way down the page, and you’ll find a text box that says, “Send news tips to drudge.” Fill that out, and include this link.

Please – let’s get this on the drudgereport where it will be read by MILLIONS.

Rose
... for those who endure on January 26, 2012 at 1050pm said:

no you cannot impeach a fraud since he’s literally not a president BUT….
you can declare him a USURPER and the remedy is far worse that he might have been allowed to get away with through impeachment.
forensically test obysmal's b.cert on January 26, 2012 at 1044pm said:

someone above used the term, OBYSMAL…. priceless! and thank you. it made me chuckle.

will his name be allowed on ballot while he appeals if his name is taken off the ballot for reasons given by Plaintiff? i fail to comprehend at this time how a judge could rule otherwise and doubt the State Attorney going against the judge in the absense of any evidence at all from obama.

nothing? i mean his attorney presented nothing?
if the b.certificate is real then why not simply say, here it is and case closed?
ANSWER: BECAUSE the Judge would then have that baby sent out to be forensically tested.
David D. on January 26, 2012 at 1035pm said:

Great job and great reporting Craig. Tip of the hat to you.
TJ McCann on January 26, 2012 at 1033pm said:

Yes, Obama is not eligible to hold office. and all of that is established by the known fact of his father’s British citizenship at Obama’s birth.

However this is much bigger than just Obama, or even the Democrats themselves.

John McCain was also not qualified to hold office in 2008.

John McCain: A Case of Senate Fraud (PDF)
http://tinyurl.com/senatefraud
bor on January 26, 2012 at 1013pm said:

@ kenyan…nothing for the bible comment? do you have no faith in God? that would be truly pathetic. but i digress, do you consider anyone you isn’t american the enemy? you do remember we all come from someplace else. unless you are native american.

my advice, just have faith that things will work out as He intends them. obama or not. in the meantime, if you think what you are doing is right, do it with a clear conscience, but try to be a little nicer 🙂
TruthWILLprevail on January 26, 2012 at 1007pm said:

Please dear God, forgive us and restore us for the elects sake. Let’s stand up people ……… get rid of this evil one. Every state!
Chicodoodoo on January 26, 2012 at 951pm said:

Cuff him, Danno.
Calvin Raven Eagle on January 26, 2012 at 937pm said:

KARMA is a SPIRITUAL LAW…and none of us escape it’s grasp….TIME TO PAY THE PIPER BARRY.. TREASON, PERJURY, AND THE LIST GOES ON…
Virginia on January 26, 2012 at 935pm said:

@Bor
In a way you’re correct. I think Obama got elected to do tremendous harm in great quantity so WE would wake up before it was too late. Had it been McCain, we’d have stayed asleep, unmindful, and ended up too far down the hole to get ourselves up. My question is why the big concern about O being on the Georgia ballot. The big question should be, how quickly can we get him out of the White House. Biden would then be acting president. I’m afraid the plan is to wait till close to elections then(God forbid!)something awful happens to O and the Dems will raise a hue and cry to extend elections to give them time to choose a candidate. That in itself, will throw a kink into our election system that would do irreparable harm.
Paul on January 26, 2012 at 932pm said:

While all of these legal proceedings may result in GA determining that Obama is not a valid candidate it won’t matter. Sadly he and his posse have done what they have wanted since day 1 and have gotten away with it. Why would a ruling by a state change this?

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in the power structure of the government has been able to put a finger on him. I don’t even think Ron Paul will take up the fight if GA determines him ineligible. Yes Ron Paul wants to give back the power to the states that was ripped of year by year by the federal government, but the media and government officials have labeled him as nuts.

Most American’s believe a constant bombardment of lies. Hence when the state of GA pulls out the Constitution of the US to serve as the basis for rules of the game, all 3 branches of government will certainly simply ignore the ruling as bogus.
Jason on January 26, 2012 at 926pm said:

Even if 0bama IS a citizen, HE IS NOT A ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’ (Barack Sr. was a British citizen) SO HE’S STILL NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT..

Good work to all in that courtroom.. Now if the Judge decides to stand for the rule of law then we can all applaud!!!!

The Marxist, Muslim, gay illegal alien named ‘Hussein’ with a PROVEN FRAUDULENT BIRTH CERTIFICATE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY&feature=youtu.be) NEEDS TO BE KICKED OFF EVERY BALLOT IN EVERY STATE. PERIOD.

INDICT. CONVICT. IMPRISON. This has gone on long enough! Lock Eric Holder up for attempting to subvert our 2nd Amendment rights through ‘Fast & Furious’ too!
PLC on January 26, 2012 at 908pm said:

Why is there not a single Big Media report on today’s court proceedings? I searched the internet and could find nothing. Is the AP deliberately burying this story? Hmmmmm…could be.
YJ Draiman for Mayor of La on January 26, 2012 at 908pm said:

“Let us take back our city and make it Los Angeles governed by the people for the people”

We need honest government with integrity.

Public confidence in the integrity of the Government is indispensable to faith in democracy; and when we lose faith in the system, we have lost faith in everything we fight and spend for.

YJ Draiman for Mayor of LA – 2013
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General on January 26, 2012 at 859pm said:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm

There was only one class of State Citizens when the organic Constitution was first ratified on June 21, 1788.

The term “U.S. citizen” does not occur in that Constitution!!

The term “United States” in the Qualifications Clauses means “States united”. People v. De La Guerra. Pablo De La Guerra was a California Judge: he would know:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/swornaff.htm#delaguerra

As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the
Conventions of nine States that established and created the
United States***, it is obvious there could not then have
existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the
United States***, or who possessed the Presidential
qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural
born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United
States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means
the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for
seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States
which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a
representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the
States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a
citizen of one of said States at the time of such
ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five
years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one
of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications,
according to the true meaning of the Constitution.

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]
[emphasis added]
slcraig on January 26, 2012 at 857pm said:

Karl Oakes Says:
January 26th, 2012 at 337pm
@Harry, if that’s true, then you’ve got a shred of something. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will look into it.

@KBO: He’s not my messiah, and the 14th Amendment was drafted in 1866, and has nothing at all to do with eligibility for office, so it’s really hard to see any connection.

We’re talking about whether there’s any legal authority on which a court could base an interpretation of “natural born Citizen” in this clause:

Article II. The President, Section 1, Clause 4. Qualifications, Office of President

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

/////////////////////////////////

You might try reading this Amicus Brief for a better understanding of the nature of citizenship in general and the nature of a natural born Citizen specifically under the Rule of Law and as used for cause in the Constitution………..

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

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79112841/AMICUS-BRIEF-by-Leo-Donofrio-in-Georgia-Presidential-Eligibility-Case
Kingcruiser on January 26, 2012 at 854pm said:

First, a lot of wasted space here. The question before the court is to put Obama’s name on the ballot or not. The only evidence entered says he is not eligible and indeed, it has a strong appearance (reasonable cause) to question both Obama and the DNC’s action for submitting his name for the 2012 ballot.
Appeals do not go forward on the evidence submitted, they go forth on the procedural issues/judges rulings (what will or will not be submitted, usually over an objection by the lawyers for either side). Since the Obama side of things were officially notified to appear, and both lawyer and Obama refused, a bench warrant can (but not required) to be issues on a possible contempt issue. As president, Obama may or may not be required to appear (only Congress is free from arrest while in session). I serious doubt that Obama will be held in contempt. His lawyer might be, but that’s probably 50-50… I DO expect the judge to rule that Obama (the responder) has not submitted any evidence that he IS eligible while the claimant has submitted a fair amount of evidence that he is not, I expect this to be a slam dunk that he is NOT eligible to be on the ballot.
Then it will be appealed, but on what grounds? The judge gave the Obama side fair warning of the case. Both sets of lawyers know ahead of time what will be entered into evidence and have time to either counter it or ask for an extension, but the refusal to appear does not seem to be over a lack of an extension. So most likely an appeals court will find nothing to overturn! Unless they have been bought by Obama’s supporters. At which the winners can appeal the appeal that all the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed, what’s to appeal?
YOU CANNOT OVERTURN THE EVIDENCE (which is why this was SO important to submit the evidence officially), You appeal on the procedures used by the court. If the judge allows something into evidence, usually it stands unless the lawyers for the other side ask it Not be allowed and the judge overrules the request. THAT could be appealed. But that didn’t happen.
Andee on January 26, 2012 at 848pm said:

Cannot impeach an imposter, but Boehner could have rescinded the election and he did not do it….he made not one move to protect the citizens of America; he always said, “it would upset Americans too much, ” paraphrased; what in the heck does he think this creep continued to do…more freedoms lost, we all are terrorists in our own country, NDAA made America a unilateral war zone how is that for what this less than human did to Americans. Insane Napitilano needs to go; she is a creep herself; must lay awake at night and dream what else she can do to undo Americans and put the fear of God in them..she is awful and Paul would soon have her gone and others like her..Kagan never should have been apptd and needs recalled.
The Kenyan Fraudster on January 26, 2012 at 844pm said:

The lawyers should have subpoenaed the person who released that ‘Hawaiian’ birth certificate that was entered into evidence, and asked them about the discrepancies that show cut & paste, scanning, and layering irregularities and make them explain how that happened. I bet they wouldn’t show up either since it can’t be explained in a truthful manner without incriminating themselves as part of the cover up. If half a dozen States would do the same thing and keep him off the ballot it would just about guarantee his removal come January 2012.

Don’t count on the US Supreme Court doing the most important job the Constitution gives them in verifying the eligibility of a Presidential candidate to hold the highest elected office in our great country. Chief Justice Roberts already kicked the can down the road in the months after Obama became President.
Andee on January 26, 2012 at 843pm said:

Pelosi and the vetting committe should be tried for Treason and the whole DNC..they knew, you bet they knew..then go after Boehner and the House for not doing their job at all ….both before and after the election of this fraud, this insane human being…
jamie on January 26, 2012 at 842pm said:

Andee, did you stop taking your meds?
Andee on January 26, 2012 at 841pm said:

He should be tried for attempt of sedition , treason 5x and counting; fraud, 33x and counting, attempt to defraud, depraved indifference to human lives, number 2100 and counting, murder, 31 and counting, fornication/sodomy, 3x and counting…he needs to be tried and imprisoned or thrown out the country and never allowed to come back and take his spouse and those like him with him..the two girls that are so prissy and better than anyone else!!! What is it called when they misued someone else’s money…that too needs to be taken into account and he needs to pay every dime back, he also can pay China for the loan that he took out against our will not once but twice, perhaps thrice.
GiGi Rudolph on January 26, 2012 at 828pm said:

One question? If he was born here then why did he take foreign student money and put himself as Indonesian?

No two questions? Just think who could run if we let this ride: Let’s see:

Arnold Schwartenegger, Henry Kissinger, George Soros…..ohh that is a scary one
Annie on January 26, 2012 at 828pm said:

I guess this means you all aren’t planning on voting for the President in the 2012 election??? LOL
jamie on January 26, 2012 at 825pm said:

KBO, i can’t tell what’s smaller, your mind or your package. I guess you do alot of blowing.
keepitsimple on January 26, 2012 at 824pm said:

Tina Says:
January 26th, 2012 at 154pm
“Think about this – if the birth certificate is fraudulant, if the SS number, assigned when Obama was 16 is also fraudulant; there is much more to this than what appears on the surface. This was planned by people far above Obama. He is as much their puppet as anyone. This is really scary, people. Look deeper. Obama is just the tip of the iceburg”

YES!!!
But the first domino needs to fall first.
TerraHertz on January 26, 2012 at 811pm said:

Great to see this finally breaking through the court system’s wall of silence.

Here’s a list of articles on Obama’s eligibility.
http://everist.org/archives/links/!_Obama_eligibility.txt
Some other Obama lists in the same folder, plus:
http://everist.org/archives/links/!_Obama_curious_series_of_events.htm

There are many versions of Obama’s birth certificate.
Here’s Obama’s true, Kenyan b.c., and a stat.dec. by the person (Lucas) who obtained it in Kenya:
http://everist.org/pics/Obama_bc/

Lucas made the huge mistake of trying to sell this copy and supporting evidence on ebay. Naive… of course ebay blocked all of his several attempts to list it. And that was when a spate of fraudulent versions suddenly started popping up all over the place, and the whole topic of ‘Obama’s birth certificate’ got web-shilled and well-poisoned to death. This is why no one wants to know about that topic now – and that would appear to be the intended purpose behind the production of so many fakes.

With that background, Obama then felt game to officially release, via the White House web site, his ‘real’ birth certificate. Presumably assuming everyone would be too repulsed by the entire subject to actually look closely at the document he offered.

Unfortunately… the thing was such a shockingly blatant photoshop fraud, that people _did_ notice. That fake is sooooo bad, that the only question is how it came to be created at all.

There are two possibilities. Either some low-level WH Dilbert got ordered to ‘produce an official BC’, and he was so disaffected he deliberately produced something just good enough to pass his pointy headed boss’s casual inspection (but with flashing neon ‘this is a fake’ signs for anyone with a working brain), or….

Obama himself is so psychopathic and contemptuous of the American people, he ordered up an obvious fake bc, as a kind of rude gesture. An attitude like “F*** YOU! I’m not a pathetic citizen like you, I’m THE PRESIDENT, and there’s nothing you can do about it!”

Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if that Georgian court house has an unfortunate accident involving a fully armed predator drone, or ‘out of control’ accidentally fired nuclear cruise missile. Or everyone involved suddenly vanishes into indefinite military detention.
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 805pm said:

@Paul I said I would bet you!

And I’d LOVE to have a debate HERE AND NOW!

I will blow you away!
Rex on January 26, 2012 at 804pm said:

I’m not a fan of Obama but my question is: what about the birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers? I understand that two newspapers in Hawaii announced the birth of Obama. Is this correct information or incorrect information? If the information is correct, then it seems to be a pretty strong case for supporting the position that Obama is a citizen. surely we can’t say that the powers that be duped the newspaper into posting the birth announcement because they knew Obama might seek the presidency someday. The newspaper announcements seems to me to be a pretty powerful piece of evidence in favor of Obama.
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 804pm said:

@bor

WOW, you have overdosed on the koolaid!

I feel sorry for you, you have no patriotism or love for your country and could care less about handing your country over to the enemy!

What a disgrace od n American!

Truly Pathetic!
American Patriot on January 26, 2012 at 800pm said:

This Usurper Muslim Terrorist Obama Should Be Removed From Office And Immediately Put In Gitmo Prison Along With Other Threats To The United States. This Includes Politicians From All Parties That Has Backed Up This Traitor Obama
He Has Done Nothing But Seek To Destroy Our Nation.
This Sham & Shame On America Runs Deep.
There Are Others Involved That Must Suffer The Same Fate As Obama.
Other Traitors To Our Nation Has Been Imprisoned Or Even Put To Death.
The Same Should Happen To All Those That Has Taken Part Of This Scam.
We The Natural Born Citizens & Nationalized Citizens Demand It.
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 800pm said:

@plemmen

There are only 2 types of citizens.
You have:
1. Natural Born (Born to 2 citizens parents)
and
2. Naturalized (become citizen by law/naturalization)

If you have not been naturalized and renounced all allegiance to any foreign powers (dual citizenship received from non Americna father) then you are NOT a US Citizen!

The naturalizations oath clearly reads:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;…”

Now why would they make an immigrant swear to full allegiance but not make their own citizens to do the same? WAKE UP PEOPLE, this isn’t rocket science!
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 754pm said:

@Paul Oh and once Obama is rendered ineligible, Wong Kim Ark will be made VOID along with anything else that has Justice Horace Gray’s name on it because he was appointed by the original usurper Chester Arthur.

Horace Gray is just like Kagan and Sotemayer, appointed ILLEGALLY!
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 746pm said:

@Paul I will bet you $1000 cause I KNOW that I am right!

Should I give you my paypal number now?
JoePhoto on January 26, 2012 at 743pm said:

I was glad to see that part of the evidence today was the lack of “eligibility” on Pelosi’s submitals to the states.

Another FACT not mentioned is that Obama himself admitted he was not “natural” born during his Senate run, with a response that it did not matter because: “I am running for Senator, not the president”. (which of course he eventually did).

Also notable is that several Democrats tried several times to get the law (constitution) changed after he became Senator to relaxe the NBC rule.

But also MOST NOTABLE and something I have seen NO-ONE yet mention:

On April 27, 2011 when the (fake-long form) BC was presented, it was presented by his ATTORNEY (and Press Secretary). They indeed held the (fake) BC as they showed it to the press, and then stated that the president would come into the room to talk to them in an “hour”. (why and hour?)

But one of the press specifically asked if the “president” would “hold” the form they were being shown, the response was: “NO he will NOT, and will will not LEAVE IT IN THIS ROOM FOR HIM TO SEE !!!”.

WHY ???? …. Was it to get the president a wall of plausable deniability if/when it is found to be fake ??? I can see no-other reason why the “president” would not physically hold it.

To my knowledge, indeed, the “president” has not only not held it, he has also only stated that his BC was “presented and shown to us by his attorney” ….
jamie on January 26, 2012 at 739pm said:

a bunch of sad, delusional and pathetic losers who can’t get over the fact that a smart, articulate black man is in the White House. Keep up your nonsense. It will only guarantee that the GOP will go down in flames in November and give the House, and a strong Senate majority, back to the Democrats. Thank you for that.
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 26, 2012 at 735pm said:

@ Paul

Double the bet.

But,

All winnings go to charity.

🙂
Tom Fincher on January 26, 2012 at 734pm said:

@bor—Just the fact that you say it is no big deal is proof you have no regard to the Constitution of our country. Not only that fact, but the other damaging, unlawful things he’s enacted since in office. So if you like him so well, then take him with you when you move out of OUR country!!!!
JoePhoto on January 26, 2012 at 731pm said:

“i don’t see what the big deal is.”

///////////////////////////////////////////

1. The “big deal” is the CONSTITUTION.

2. He has committed the biggest fraud in American History. Fraud is a CRIME !!!

I have heard many argue that it is “too late” because he is already president and therefore we can’t do anything about it …..

My response is that if a bank-robber is successful in getting out of the bank with the money, is it “too late” and we should let him keep the money ???

If you are only 14 and present a fake birth-certificate and get a drivers-license …. should you continue to be allowed to drive if/when they find out you are not yet old enough ???
LuvleeWA on January 26, 2012 at 731pm said:

I hope something stops Obama Fast !!!! He’s gotten rid of all our Chemical warfare weapons down in Umatilla Or, dismantled our largest cruise missles, they are blowing up the missle silos in MT, taken out the missle defense in Poland, closed our space program, activated 73 Fema concentration camps, sending out military tanks across the nation from our Military, talking of getting rid of our air craft carriers and are building a 12 million dollar bldg up in Colville WA to house 240 border patrol agents w horses tanks etc., they are blowing up dams and closing roads, they’ve loaded the western states with wolves, the southern states with wild hogs, they’ve given the Mexican cartels thousands of 50 caliber weapons, they’ve ignored the 36+ Islamist terrorist training camps (right here in the U.S.), taken away our right to a trial, given themselves the authority to take away our citizenship or detain us indefinately or deport us, or kill us, training New york police/troops for false flag events and have drastically reduced funding for our military and then there’s HAARP and their weather modification and chemtrails.
It boggles my mind that everyone just goes on about their business as usual.
Paul on January 26, 2012 at 722pm said:

Just as I thought. You people are a bunch of blowhards. Won’t anyone bet me real money ($1000.00) that Obama will be found to be an NBC under Wong Kim Ark? If not, it just proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. I have also challenged Apuzzo and Donoforio to debate this issue but they chickened out. So, you guys can talk while you are safely behind your computers but you are too afraid to back up what you mouth off about. If not, take the bet.
bor on January 26, 2012 at 719pm said:

@kenyan…the crime of the century? wow. even if he is secretly a muslim radical terrorist, he’s had 3 years to blow our country up, or whatever else he’s gonna do. last time i looked, we are still here. do you really think we are going to start electing people that have lived in the US for a few months? i want people in office that represent me and my beliefs. for me, obama did so more than mccain, so i voted for him. if he was born in indonesia and didn’t move to the US until he was 10, so be it. it isn’t a big deal. I’m sure you do not agree with me, which is fine. you may even be right and obama is a fraud. but, the bible says that God appoints the leaders of nations. obama is there for a reason.
Longstride on January 26, 2012 at 707pm said:

This truly is the crime of the century… and that ain’t now Supertramp song! You president is an unqualified foreign national that has control of everything. America, you must wake up before you lose it all! Kudos to Georgia for having the balls to do what’s right.
L. Allen on January 26, 2012 at 655pm said:

This man (whoever he is) knows too much. He has the keys to the kingdom in US Military intel, National Security, State secrets, and who knows what else??? He can’t be deported, neither him nor his wife. This story should be circling the globe…why isn’t it?

Lock them up in Ft. Leavenworth.
Pingback: VIDEO TODAY => Obama Eligibility On Trial In Georgia: Evidence For The FIRST Time Has NOW Been Entered Into Court! | Political Vel Craft
Patrick T on January 26, 2012 at 651pm said:

This is encouraging. Unfortunately I have lost faith in authorities to do what needs to be done. Obama could almost commit murder on TV and we would never see it. Gutless Republican leaders would wring their hands, hoping that no one asks them about it. This president is lawless, and the sheriff is under the bed. There has been a coup in the United States.
plemmen on January 26, 2012 at 643pm said:

What the deflectors try to accomplish by claiming there are only two designations of citizen is the “Big Lie”, a portion of Marxist ideology wherein the ‘useful idiot’ is used to propound lies as truth and deflect from the real issues, create conflict and dissent. There are, in actual fact, more than two citizenship definitions or status’. Natural Born Citizen is a child born of two citizen parents. Native Born Citizen is a child born in the United States, regardless of either or both parents not being US Citizens (cf. anchor babies) and Naturalized Citizens, a person born outside of the United States who lawfully immigrates to the United States and fully completes the naturalization process, swears the oath and is declared a citizen by a lawfully appointed or elected judge.
Cody Robert Judy on January 26, 2012 at 640pm said:

I’m one of the Plaintiffs with Orly Taitz running for President in 2012 –
Cody Robert Judy
http://www.codyjudy.us

This was a very good run down of the hearings in a concise manner. I have mentioned it on my Blog today and place a link to the site.

http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/01/cody-robert-judy-asked-is-democrat.html

http://www.codyjudy.blogspot.com

Again, great job and keep up the good work!

Cody Robert Judy
http://www.codyjudy.us
http://www.codyjudy.blogspot.com
YouTube: CODE4PRES
duane on January 26, 2012 at 628pm said:

Impeachment of Obama should be a slam-dunk, too. Obviously, he has no defense. Total FRAUD! He simply needs to be challenged directly by the Supreme Court: “SHOW OR GO!” Get him out of office before he does even more damage on the way out!
Paul on January 26, 2012 at 628pm said:

Do any of you armchair lawyers want to put your money where your mouth is? I have $1,000.00 that says that he is an NBC under Wong Kim Ark. Money talks and BS walks. Since you all are so sure of yourselves, you can all pitch in on the $1,000.00. Does not matter to me how you get it, it is easy money for me when I win. We can set up an escrow account at any bank or title company of your choosing. Loser pays escrow fees. Come on now. You are so sure you are right then you must believe this is easy money for you. Anyone? All blowhard cowards. That is why birtherism will go nowhere. You all are wimps.
Melissa on January 26, 2012 at 625pm said:

How is he getting away with it? He is learning or has already learned all of our Country’s secrets and can do with them whatever he wants. He can destroy us and we never find out it was him. He obviously has some crooked people standing behind him to alter all of those documents. He is a LIAR and can’t not be trusted. Why haste they not sprayed this story all over CSPAN and every other news station.
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 621pm said:

@terry nixon

OH, AND we HAVE a LIFE!

We are just trying to save it by removing this Usurper from our White House!
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 620pm said:

@terry nixon

WHAT could me MORE IMPORTANT than a usurper in the White House, TELL ME?
kris foltyn on January 26, 2012 at 615pm said:

For everyone out there questioning where natural born citizen is defined. here you Go And ask yourself why they felt it so important to make such judgements and show me where it changes!!!!

anyone born after July 4, 1776 in the U.S. to parents who became “Citizens of the United States” as a result of the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution was born in the country to U.S. citizen parents and therefore a “natural born Citizen.” The First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 even extended the “natural born Citizen” status to persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. The Third Congress, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the 1790 Act and declared such children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be considered as “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the united states constitution : No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: —

First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.

Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 610pm said:

@Bor STOP DRINKING THE KOOLAID!

Wake Up! Your country is being run by a foreign enemy and you are saying it’s no BIG DEAL! THis is the crime of the Century! America has been invaded.

I we let this go, it will set precedant that you only need to be born here (and I don’t believe he was born here) to be President. How long will it be before we have an anchor baby President?

You obots need to do snap out of it and see what’s really happening here!
Dee Beers on January 26, 2012 at 603pm said:

Isn’t it true that the father’s birthright shall be handed on to his children? Means that Obama, (whatever his real name is) would be a British Subject by birth and can in NO WAY an American citizen, no matter where he was born.
terry nixon on January 26, 2012 at 550pm said:

Get a life people, there are much more important, and genuine, issues at hand. While you play with the birhter issue, teh GOP is handing our entire democratic process over to corporations. Oh, I guess you missed thatpart while you head was buried in the sand!
vharlow on January 26, 2012 at 544pm said:

Strump is actually Strunk, Gogt is actually Vogt. There are a few other minor errors, but I watched this entire thing and couldn’t hear well enough to here what was being said. I just know these facts so well…. have been following and studying this for years. Also, fyi, Leo Donofrio of naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com filed an Amicus Brief with all his research and tons of documentation on the nbc issue as well. I wish the judge had issued a default ruling immediately today rather than wait around till next month. We’ve been waiting for action for so long.

He was respectful to all involved, and even treated Orly well, even if he cut her short. Her witnesses had plenty of evidence to give and did well.
- admin on January 26, 2012 at 603pm said:
  
  Thank you so much for the correct spellings. I am still dealing with the headache from trying to listen to the poor audio from today’s stream.
Darwin on January 26, 2012 at 541pm said:

Is this the entire decision in MINOR v. HAPPERSETT

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

I noticed in the paragraph before the one I quoted, it DOES discuss the meaning of natural born citizen as it relates to the presidency.
Ralph on January 26, 2012 at 540pm said:

I don’t get it, Law is law, so why all the arguing, OB is ILLEGAL to be PRES. so lets do our duty and remove him. Why keep dragging this out and costing tax-payers? Anyone have a good answer? I do! Most attorneys have been bought off!!! Come on AMERICAN PEOPLE get your heads out of the sand and defend our country!!!!
bor on January 26, 2012 at 537pm said:

i am confused…so if obama is not a natural born citizen, then apparently he’s not eligible to be president. but he’s lived the vast majority of his life in the US, which by all other accounts makes him like other US citizens. i don’t see what the big deal is. its not like he’s new to this country and doesn’t understand our ways/culture. many of us have parents and grandparents who grew up in other countries. that didn’t make them any “less American.” many soldiers in WWII were born in europe and came to the US to fight against their own countrymen.

i suspect this is just a convenient excuse for people against obama to get him out of office. isn’t that why we vote?
Chuck Feney on January 26, 2012 at 527pm said:

Obama as been an enrolled member of the Crow Tribe in Montana since 2007.

Game – Set – Match.
Donald Schiewek on January 26, 2012 at 526pm said:

Our president has been above our countries laws since running for office. I certainly Georgia accomplishes their objective but I, for one,, will not hold my breath
jamie on January 26, 2012 at 521pm said:

Birthers need to get a life
already. He’s the president, legally. Get over it.
Blackie Lynn on January 26, 2012 at 516pm said:

We have known all along that Obummer is not a citizen. This information has been swirling around the internet almost as long as he has been the president. Thank you to the state of Georgia for having the courage to do something about this and nailing him to the wall. He has committed treason and should be run out of the White House on a rail and put in prison for a long time. Just wish someone in Congress would start impeachment proceedings.
Batwings on January 26, 2012 at 509pm said:

It is WAY past time for this clown to remain in office. Arrest and remove him NOW!!!
We still are waiting for Sheriff Joe’s findings.
When you leave “Our House”, take ALL of your Communist Czars with you.
jamie on January 26, 2012 at 508pm said:

You northwest are a bunch of racist idiots. Obama is President. Legally. Get ovexr it. And get a life already.
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 502pm said:

AND this Karl, prove me wrong!!! You didn’t do your homework KARL or the dog ate it!

1862 Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment (Cong. Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639):
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 failed to pass in the Senate until Lyman Trumbull proposed an amendment to the bill adding the words “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html

The bill then went to the House where Representative John Bingham (author of the “future” 14th amendment), confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, in regards to Trumbull’s amendment to the bill:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

The 14th amendment was introduced to render the Civil Rights act constitutional and amend it to the Constitution. It passed in the House, but failed in the Senate until Senator Jacob Howard’s amendment to the bill (the citizenship clause) was introduced. In 1866 while while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had just recently passed and again states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html

Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the law/amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and see the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!

What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause amendment to the bill, so I think he knew what HE meant::
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

So this proves that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same exact thing as “not subject to any foreign power”
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 500pm said:

KARL, explain this one!

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
http://books.google.com/books?id=Dm0FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=%22hereafter+be+born+a+Citizen+of+the+United+States%22+%2BHamilton&source=bl&ots=s6a4fGDolB&sig=K063NZIEWeaqsInb-bnTgoE6orQ&hl=en&ei=q610SsWEIY7mMdiJnLEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts.
Madison’s notes of the Convention.
http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 457pm said:

Karl, you are 100% wrong. You obviously didn’t watch the video or you did watch it and you KNOW that you can’t dispute it, so you divert and change the subject.

The Civil Rights Act clearly tells you what a Natural Born Citizen is!

FIRST LINE:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”

Now tell me that has nothing to do with natural born citizen. A citizen IS a natural born citizen. There are only two kinds, a Natural Born Citizen and a Naturalized Citizen.

YOU FAIL KARL!
Bob P. on January 26, 2012 at 452pm said:

This guy was manufactured for evil reasons. There is no doubt about that. It’s hard to tell who he is, but it’s very likely that Barack Obama Sr. is not his biological father. I think it is more likely that it is Malcolm X or Frank Marshal Davis. He looks a lot like Malcolm X and there are some very interesting findings that could support this. And the whole story has to do with a creepy character named Fred Newman.

Interested? Read about it at terribletruth.wordpress.com

Be prepared to s#$%t your pants.
Bobby on January 26, 2012 at 449pm said:

Hey Oakes

Maybe you could read the Amicus Brief filed in this case

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79112841/AMICUS-BRIEF-by-Leo-Donofrio-in-Georgia-Presidential-Eligibility-Case
Tom Fincher on January 26, 2012 at 441pm said:

It is nearly beyond belief that, with all the evidence presented, that there is still people in this Country that believes that WE, as American citizens have no right or reason to question what this Man has done against this country. We are a country of LAWS, we are not a country of Men and Women that make up laws as we go along. WE THE PEOPLE own this Country, not the GOVERNMENT!!!!! The Constitution of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA is our DEED to this land, and it was bought and paid for with the blood of our ancestors all the way back to George Washington…..
It has long since past the time that WE THE PEOPLE clean this mess up since our “ELECTED OFFICIALS” refuse to do it. These people better get the message that the people of this Country is tired of this CRAP they try to feed us. GET THIS MESSAGE ALL YOU CAREER POLITCAL CREEPS, DO THE RIGHT THING AND THROW THIS CREEP OUT OF OFFICE!!!! IF YOU REFUSE OUR DEMANDS, ALL OF YOU WILL PAY A HEAVY POLITICAL PRICE COME ELECTION TIME….. YOU NEED TO HEED THESE WORDS!!!!!!
Timo on January 26, 2012 at 430pm said:

Ummm… Obama Sr was a US resident from 1959 to 1964, first in Hawaii and later in Cambridge, MA… Or at least that’s what “they” would have us believe.

I’ve been told this whole conspiracy thing is actually the truth and part of a secret restitution contract agreed too by Castro and the US Italian Mob to soothe the incredibly powerful Kennedy’s after the first assassination. They knew they could no longer could they be assured of dominating the entire planet without old Jack running things. Others were “sacrificed” along the way until BHO, who had been identified and groomed from birth along with others, was unanimously chosen by “The Farm” in 1969. There is nothing anyone can do to stop what has been set in motion so long ago.
Sheepdog on January 26, 2012 at 430pm said:

As Southrngirl77 said, a heartfelt thanks to Judge Malihi and please, please restore my faith in our judicial system by proving as was stated, a nation of laws! I would also like to applaud Mr. Power’s clarity of the difficult road ahead. We either follow and honor our Constitution or we don’t. We are either a nation of laws or we aren’t. The GOP is equally at fault here for not contesting the certification of the election. They were cowards. It isn’t always easy to stand up for the Constitution but our founding fathers staked their very honor and lives on it and we have failed them miserably.
Yes, Mr. Powers, your points 2, 3 and 4 are spot on, but with so many folks in the country hurting IF it were explained clearly and correctly, the violence might not be as bad as you might think. It’s not just freedom loving, conservative patriots who have been harmed by the administration…most all have. God bless this judge and all who worked so hard in this effort and in the days and months to come.
freedomgal on January 26, 2012 at 416pm said:

Craig has done it again. An excellent piece of journalism..clear and concise. Leaves not one doubt as to the importance of this court hearing.
Hey zero..get your ass out of the White House. You never DID deserve to live there,nor did your man/wife. And Pelosi knows it. That’s why HER statement of eligibility is “guarded”..to say the least.
Karl Oakes on January 26, 2012 at 414pm said:

Harry, I’ll look into it. You’re the one person on this thread who has made a reasonably informed argument. I know a lot of others are trying, but law isn’t something the average person can just pick up and be good at. As for the trolls on here, well, you find that everywhere. Best not to feed them . . .
Harry on January 26, 2012 at 410pm said:

Karl… I just told you were to find it….
Harry on January 26, 2012 at 409pm said:

I would call that more than just a shred… That’s Constitutional law as it was written. The reasoning behind the law was very clear and well thought out.

We become distanced from our fore fathers at time because we, in our arrogance, begin to believe that the fellows that wrote the Constitution were pushing antiquated ideals. However, In reality they were the brilliant minds of the times. They knew exactly what they were doing ind it all still works extraordinarily well. The catch is we have to stick by it if we want to retain our freedoms. As long as we enforce it to the letter we will remain free.

We can never let people twist it’s meanings for political or any other purposes.

We live in the best and the most free country in the world but its up to us to protect it when its assaulted from the inside.

Congratulations to all Georgians for their victory over tyranny.

*Thumbs Up*
Mr. Potato Head on January 26, 2012 at 405pm said:

Karl,

State law says that the citizen, as a voter, has standing to raise the question within Georgia’s court system. And not even the President’s lawyer has denied that the state of Georgia has the legal authority to withhold Mr. Obama’s name from the ballot. The remaining question is whether Georgia’s legal requirements have been met.

Georgia law states that candidates “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications”. Michael Jablonski has argued that Congress has the responsibility of determining eligibility. But Georgia wants to let its own courts determine whether the rules have been followed to its satisfaction. And the Constitution doesn’t say that “approval by Congress” is necessary and sufficient as qualification. So it simply isn’t clear why Congressional approval would offset missing or conflicting evidence within a Georgia courtroom.
Karl Oakes on January 26, 2012 at 404pm said:

To everyone who thinks Minor v. Happersett is authority here, please READ THIS:

“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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Now, ASK YOURSELVES, what did the court mean when it said, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

The court MEANT, we don’t need to decide whether a person born here is a citizen “without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” IN OTHER WORDS, we don’t need to decide if someone who has only one citizen parent would be a natural born citizen. That’s why Minor is WORTHLESS AND IRRELEVANT.

I acknowledged that Harry might have a point. I am not here to defend Obama. But if you think Minor has any weight here, you’re not bothering to READ it.
rewinn on January 26, 2012 at 357pm said:

I am highly amused at the impotent rage of you birthers. You seem to think that Karl Rove and Hillary Clinton never thought of this angle. Seriously, do you think that both of them were too nice to bring it up?

Obama was born in Hawai’i, it is part of our United States, his mother is a U.S. citizen – he is a natural born citizen by any rational definition. You can pick and choose sentences from over two centuries of cases and statutes, out of context, to “prove” almost anything, but so what? “Natural Born Citizen” in our sacred Constitution doesn’t mean what you wish it does no matter how long you hold your breath and stomp your feet.

There is nothing wrong with a lawyer deciding not to bother showing up to an unimportant hearing. The key point here is a legal one, not a factual one: the definition of natural born citizen, and that minor judge is not in a position to make a final determination. All the fake experts blathering about the B.C. means nothing because (as a few of you above have the honesty to admit) it has nothing to do with the issue of natural born citizen. If this judge decides he has the power to define natural born citizen, the matter goes to an appellate court where the judges won’t be looking for face time on TV and the case will be laughed out of court. Then Orly Taitz and the lower court judge can write a book together to be sold by Regnery to fools.

A minor judge in an unimportant state can rail angrily all he wants, and who knows? maybe the GOP in Georgia will keep Obama off the ballot in that state. But think what that means: Georgia will go for Romney LOL.

If any of you had bothered to read our Constitution, you would know that once someone is sworn into office, our Constitution give two ways for him or her to leave office: expiration of the term or impeachment. Go ahead and try impeachment; I understand y’all tried that last time and it ended with Gingrich resigning in disgrace.
Finally, think what happens if Obama *were* to be “declared” ineligible for office. None of the bills he signed would cease to be in effect, because the signature of the President is NOT required for a bill to become law. If he doesn’t veto a bill, it becomes law ten days after Congress sends it to him (…except for those at the end of Congress’ term — the “pocket veto”.) Some guess what, ya dern fools … even if Orly Taitz won 100% all the way to the Supreme Court etc, “Obamacare” would still be in force …

… you make me laugh. You have no respect for our Constitution. You hate Obama more than you love our country.
LYNN PICCIANO on January 26, 2012 at 355pm said:

I KNOW~I KNOW {hand raised~waving}PICK ME!
HE’S ObamaNation is who the hell he is..
GOD BLESS MY FELLOW CITIZEN’S
You know the ball’s in Our corner`it’s Our Duty to take back our AMERICA-the only man willing to do that, and has walked his talk is no other Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul~and know this-ISOLATION THEORISTS’, take off the tunnel vision blinders~he’s is not a draft dodger and would never back down from an attack-and to those of you who mock about his 400 ignored bills he submitted-you shameful S.O.B.’S EVER venture yourselves outta isolation long enough to look them up? they are all to protect US~WE, THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, FROM THE TYRANNY BEING REAPED/RAPED UPON US BY OUR TERRORIST GOVT EMPLOYEES.. So, LAUGHING AT THEM MAKES FOR the only poopshoot that goes up-IS OUR OWN..
The Dave on January 26, 2012 at 354pm said:

So let me put this to bed for all the morons out there waisting valuable time and energy beating this dead horse. Anne Dunham, Obama’s mother, was born in Witchita, Kansas in 1942 and remained a US citizen until her death in 1995. That means… are you ready for this… Obama could have been born on Mars and he would still be a US citizen.
Here is a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen.

Please take the time to educate yourself before you waste every ones time, and sometimes taxpayer dollars, being stupid. That’s all.. Thanks for Listening.
Nana on January 26, 2012 at 351pm said:

I have never felt so hopeless in my life as since Obama has been elected. This judge has to be the real thing and will not be scared away from doing what is right for this country and our citizens. No person should fall in the position of not having to be held accountable under the Laws every citizen is under in the Constitution of our country. When this Great Judge rules against Obama and finds he is a fraudulent President and has commited crimes against our country and “We the People” there should be no question as to what Obama’s punishment should be and Pelosi, and Reid , who did not vet Obama and signed that he was eligible to become president, should also receive the same punishment. Everything passed by the democrat congress and the first 3 years should become void, every person appointed by Obama including the justice, federal judges, etc. Null and void. Every dime spent by Obama to pay his appointments , staff, etc. to be repaid by Obama. Every exacitive order Null and void. Obama should have to pay for every trip he and his family took on Airforce One and all the other expense for the trips. This Narcissitic Man has damaged our country more than he could pay if he was worth 16.4 trillion. Thank you JUDGE for doing what our LAWS require and is seldom followed if the person thinks He or She is above the laws or feel that laws only apply to other Americans .
Robert Powers on January 26, 2012 at 350pm said:

Great Job….
Now the hard part begins….both political parties will do their best to bury this.
Several Reasons:
1. I believe that Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico??? (anyone know?)
2. If ineligible….all of Obama’s actions could be ruled “null & void”….Both houses would have to entertain legislation to re-approve much legislation “in mass”….and would be a real mess…
3. As a minimum, all “Executive Orders would be cancelled. This wuold not be too bad!!!
4. Obama supporters will riot in th streets….violence will ensue…both sides know it! there will be Marshall law declared by the acting POTUS (J. Biden)
5. Hillary will be the nominee and will, unfortunately, be elected….if we ever get to elections (which may be delayed/deferred due to the chaos).
Evan Oulashin on January 26, 2012 at 342pm said:

Karl,

Isn’t it true that the Supreme Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen, and that fact due only to the Court establishing her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens.

I’m not sure why the above would even be in question.

?
George Edmundson on January 26, 2012 at 341pm said:

Karl Oakes, there are people who will always argue against the obvious, and you are one of them!
kjcanon on January 26, 2012 at 337pm said:

Karl, you are cracking me up!!!! It’s so amusing to see the kool-aid drinkers go nuts over this. Poor things… They just can’t stand to WRONG. LOL!! Now run along and pick up your measly paycheck from Soros/Acorn, and scamper back to your mommy’s basement, like a good little obot.
Karl Oakes on January 26, 2012 at 337pm said:

@Harry, if that’s true, then you’ve got a shred of something. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will look into it.

@KBO: He’s not my messiah, and the 14th Amendment was drafted in 1866, and has nothing at all to do with eligibility for office, so it’s really hard to see any connection.

We’re talking about whether there’s any legal authority on which a court could base an interpretation of “natural born Citizen” in this clause:

Article II. The President, Section 1, Clause 4. Qualifications, Office of President

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Take it from me as an attorney, the 14th Amendment is not “authority” for interpreting Article II, which was written almost 80 years earlier.
Charles Mercer on January 26, 2012 at 336pm said:

It is obvious that Mr obama has nothing but disdain for our constitution and our laws, as well as our heritage. He will not admit we are founded on Christian principles but stated we are as much muslim as christian. It would make me extremely happy to see this come out in the news all across the country. It may not be won but would surely instill the DOUBT. We are lost if this man is re-elected.
The Dave on January 26, 2012 at 335pm said:

Here you go morons. Now get back to work and stop waisting everyones time.

Anne Dunham, Obama’s mother, was born in Witchita, Kansas in 1942 and remained a US citizen until her death in 1995. That means… are you ready for this… Obama could have been born on Mars and he would still be a US citizen. Here a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen.

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[8]:
1.The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
2.One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
3.The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
4.A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:
1.the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and
2.the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.[9] (See link for those born to a U.S. father out-of-wedlock)[8]
- admin on January 27, 2012 at 306am said:
  
  Dave…seriously, get to know your Constitution. One must not be just a U.S. Citizen to serve as President…One must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN to serve as President. The Supreme Court, in written opinions, defines a Natural Born Citizen as one of who BOTH parents are U.S. citizens. Now, you see, while you are calling others “Morons” you haven’t noticed that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. citizen. So guess what? Obama is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and therefore should not be allowed to serve.
Harry on January 26, 2012 at 333pm said:

At least to the best of my knowledge…

“The First Patriot” seams to have information I have never seen about his father visiting here. I would like to see any evidence of at all of Obamas father ever even being on this continent.
Debi on January 26, 2012 at 333pm said:

WOW……………He will not go quietly or freely. I beleive he has been placed in office by others who want him to “finish” what he started, and now at an alarming pace. We should fear this man and his people. We need to take the USA back but not in violence. They want violence. It will take years to undo what the evil has done to us. Freedom is never free.
urstrange on January 26, 2012 at 331pm said:

Finally a hearing on the Fraud in Chief and his non-nbC status, forged birth certificate, invalid SSN and numerous aliases had been entered into evidence in a court of law. I hope that this is the beginning of the change in people’s ignorance of the ineligible poser as POTUS. That would be real Hope & Change not the pap of “hoax and chains” ushered in by this usurper who slithered into the office and is posing as POTUS. The same protests to keep him off ballots have been presented in several other states. These cases are being brought to the Sec. of States and the DNC, who fraudulently certified O.whodat as eligible under Art. II Sec.1 of the Constitution. Please go to http://www.obamaballotchallenge.com and sign up to be the citizen in your state who will help bring about the investigation, indictment and incarceration of this the faux POTUS, which would make EVERYTHING he signed into law, appointed to his cabinet, SCOTUS, Czars, treaties, executive orders and proclamations null and void. This would include the Veep Boob, because he rode in on the charlatan’s coat tails and is not qualified either. “We” must make this happen for the future of our blessed Republic and her protection from our enemies and foreigners inside the country and outside.
Harry on January 26, 2012 at 329pm said:

Karl,

Obamas father was never in the USA at all, much less was he ever a resident.
F ALL FREEMASON LIARS on January 26, 2012 at 328pm said:

This terrorist hijacked the presidency and passed a bunch of laws to hijack the constitution in other ways as well
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 321pm said:

@Karl Oates,
Would you call the person who WROTE the law (Citizenship Clause) of the 14th amendment a LEGAL AUTHORITY? I mean if you don’t accept the words from the guy who WROTE the clause himself, who’s interpretation can you take?

What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause amendment into the bill (14th amendment), so I think he knew what HE meant:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

C’mon Karl tell me that Senator Trumbull didn’t mean it when he said a “CITIZEN” owes allegiance to NO ONE else!

FAIL FAIL FAIL!!!
Give it up Karl, your messiah is going DOWN!
PELOSI AND CHANEY FORGED HIS PAPERS on January 26, 2012 at 321pm said:

DICK CHANEY AND PELOSI FORGED BARRYS DOCS TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT!!! VERIFIED IN ONLY ONE STATE, NOT ALL..WHICH IS ILLEGAL ALSO. SS NUMBER IS A DECEASED CONN. CITZ, BUT HE COINCENDENTLY DIED IN HAWAII, WHERE ANNS MOTHER WORKED IN RECORDS!!!
Anodandawink on January 26, 2012 at 318pm said:

The question of citizenship is irrelevant; if the birth certificate is a forgery then the Presidency is “a nullity from the beginning”. That is the impact of perjury, forgery and fraud upon any contract. End of story.
The First Patriot on January 26, 2012 at 318pm said:

Larry,

The issue is not ‘citizen.’ To be eligible to become President, one MUST be a ‘natural born’ citizen. His father was a brit and in the US on a student visa. He was only here a matter of months; he later returned years later for one month, but again on a visa.
Under no circumstances and the language of English common law (which one MUST look to given when it was written), obama is NOT and can NOT be a ‘natural born’ citizen.

His best case is native born assuming he was in fact born in Hawaii.

Native born does not = natural born. The import of the distinction I have already explained above.
Karl Oakes on January 26, 2012 at 316pm said:

@Harry, I’m not in love with Obama, so let’s take that stuff off the table, okay?

Let’s focus on this:

“Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

The key word there is “resident.” They could have said “whose fathers are not citizens of the United States,” but they didn’t. They knew the difference, didn’t they? So if this statute were to be taken as evidence, I don’t see it as helping your case, unless Daddy Obama was not ever RESIDENT in the US. Can we agree on that? If not, what do yo think I’m missing?
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 315pm said:

@Karl Oates…

Checl out the LAW which is called the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which clearly states:

FIRST LINE:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”

YOU FAIL KARL!
Rosemary on January 26, 2012 at 313pm said:

To Tom Rairty: You don’t seem to understand that Obama is depriving us, that includes you of your Constitutional rights of life, liberty and happiness. He is a criminal having comitted identity fraud to impersationing a government official. What part of that don’t you understand? Only a person who intended to do evil would do such a thing. Please start thinking with the right side of your brain for a change.
KenyanBornObama on January 26, 2012 at 311pm said:

@Karl Oakes

Yo Karl, i’s like you to TRY and dispute my video that proves 100% that Obama is ineligible. I guaranteed you you can’t! Don’t let Barbie fool ya!

The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dbtOoX3exk
Aristotle on January 26, 2012 at 310pm said:

Why has the GOP ignored this obvious and blatant violation of the US constitution?
Do they believe that both the Dems and GOP are above the US Constitution?
QUESTION: If elected officials are not subject to the highest law of the land, am I?
Duke of Earl on January 26, 2012 at 309pm said:

Karl Oakes:
Congratulations, you have won the ‘Obama Obot Idiot’ award. Stand out in the middle of the road to collect your prize, and oh, keep looking up because a UFO is going to fly over you and confirm every one of your claims.

Your insights were SOOOOO great in your statement that “there is NO legal authority which says that his Daddy has to have to have been a citizen” that you must have gone to Obama’s night school college classes in myopia. So, since you asked in your previous post for any ‘foo like me’ to challenge your wisdom regarding Minor vs. Happer, here goes.

Now, I know that the 1878 SCOTUS decision of Minor vs. Happersett doesn’t count in your eyes as requiring BOTH parents (the reason being is that you don’t do REAL research, but only read the Huffington Post and listen to MSNBC But, let me ask you this, if you ARE right, then WHY did that STUPID judge NOT stop the proceedings in his chambers, or in the first 10 minutes of the courtroom if your claims have any ‘standing’ at all?

Oh, you say, he is a right wing fool, and a tool of the running dog Republicans, sho he MUST be wrong and it will be overturned on appeal. However Karl, if you are right (and I’m sure you are), then why did the owner of Justia.com scrubbed ALL MENTION of its existence for over three years? Why did that Left wing Demo contributor/adulator who OWNS Justia.com feel the need to do anything….Hmm. Karl, something fishy in Justia land…

You have another problem with your UNSUPPORTED argument Karl. Can you tell me why, in over 134 years, Minor vs. Happersett, which states that a ‘natural born citizen’ MUST have BOTH parents as citizens, is clearly shown in that SCOTUS ruling begins on ppgs. 165-166, where the Court first defined the meaning of the word “citizen” and then, on pgs. 167-168, the court (SCOTUS) defined the class of “natural-born” citizens”. the Court left open the issue of who were “citizens” under the 14th Amendment, which the Court wisely avoided by exercising judicial constraint.

Instead, the Court construed Article 2 Section 1, Clause 5, the natural-born citizen clause. In doing so, they defined and closed that class to persons BOTN IN THE COUNTRY TO PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS.

Now Karl, please comment and/or chew on this. In 134 years, The Minor Court’s UNANIMOUS opinion & DEFINITION of natural-born citizens and the requirement of having BOTH parents as US citizens HAS NEVER BEEN OVERRULED OR EVEN QUESTIONED.

In fact, if your argument is going to try and bring up the favorite ‘Leftie’ argument abouot Wong Kim Ark, the very passage defining the natural-born citizen class was re-stated in Justice Gray’s opinion from Wong Kimn Ark. Had he intended to take issue with that definition, or to expand it, then his opinion would certainly have contained something else.

Now, you may CLAIM, that ‘Wong Kim Ark’ is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President.’ But no such statement by the SCOTUS exists. It is also important to remember at all times that the Court in Minor specifically avoided construction of the 14th Amendment, thereby defining the class of natural-born citizens and identifying Virginia Minor as a member of that class. Virginia Minor directly petitioned the Court to determine that she was citizen under the 14th Amendment.

BUT, the Minor Court DECLINED to construe the 14th Amendment, and thereafter set about defining the class of persons who were natural=-born citizens (as being the children of ‘citizens’….which Obama’s putative father IS/WAS not…and even if Malcolm X, who REAL father most likely was comes out, then Obama, even if WAS then, upon this ‘discovery’, ‘became’ an ‘NBC’ he would be in even deeper criminal troubles, since ,would be facing about 20 different state and Federal charges on filing false applications on virtually every federal and legal form he has ever completed).

So, your claim that there is NO legal authority for the proposition that “to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States,” is not only wrong, it is foolish, ignorant and devoid of ANY evidence at all. In short Karl, if you were in that courtroom today, you’d have been laughed out of it….along with all of your Left Wing pals.

P.S. Have you even read the case of Minor vs. Happersett and, oh genius one? Answer honestly now. No lying like the entire Left does, thinking any lie is the truth. So, Karl where is your countering EVIDENCE that your claim has some basis other than the claim that your mouth made but your brain, so far, can’t cash.
NeoCom Statist on January 26, 2012 at 307pm said:

No wonder he left Club Gitmo open, he’s going to libe there for awhile!
Harry on January 26, 2012 at 307pm said:

Yes it does Karl,

Article II, section 1, Paragraph 5, States clearly “No person except a natural born citizen” or Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible for the Office of President of the united states.

Now for the definition of the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as it was meant to be defined at the adoption of the Constitution you need to find the Public Acts of the first Congress, 2nd session, Chapter III. That will give you the true definition in the context of how it was meant in the minds of our fore fathers at the at it’s adoption.

You can say its not there all you want but that doesn’t change the text or the meaning. Obama was not vetted by the DNC. Whether that was deliberate or not I do not know, but the facts remain that he has never been eligible to hold that office.

If you can not find this information, then you’re not trying hard enough.

Her let me help you…

You can find the meaning of Natural Born Citizen here.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_3

Look for this part:
“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”

That seams to be a painfully clear definition of what was meant by “Natural Born Citizen” to me.

I have had this argument many times and at least twice with Constitutional scholars. Most people argue the point only until they understand it.

Some of course are hopelessly in love with Obama and will never admit that he’s not eligible even when faced with indisputable evidence.
A graphic artist on January 26, 2012 at 300pm said:

The so-called expert testimony on the birth certificate is nonsense. What’s on the web is a PDF of a scanned image. Scanner software generally applies an unsharp mask by default, so that’s no indication of Photoshop manipulation. PDFs are almost always made up of layers, so that means nothing either.

You can always find an “expert” to testify to anything.

As to the rest, if he was born in the US, he’s a natural-born citizen. There are only two kinds of citizens: natural-born or naturalized. Obama is the former.
Buck on January 26, 2012 at 300pm said:

Sound like a way to remove him from office and repeal every law he has signed.
Bobby on January 26, 2012 at 258pm said:

Hey Obot Oakes,you sound like Al Gore…..no controlling legal authority.
Founding father’s …see Article 2, “natural born”.
Natural born….defined in Minor. “Parents”….plural, actually includes his daddy. What part don’t you understand?
Robert on January 26, 2012 at 255pm said:

Since the kenyan bastard didn’t show up nor it’s spindoctor attorney, that means he has NO recourse in filing an appeal.
Karl Oakes on January 26, 2012 at 250pm said:

There is nothing for you to celebrate. The plaintiffs have no case and they’re going to lose. Again, I challenge anyone to give me legal authority to support the plaintiff’s argument. I’ll show you why it doesn’t mean what you want to mean. If you’re at all willing to be honest with yourself, you’ll end up reluctantly agreeing with me.

Who thinks they have legal authority for the plaintiff’s case?
Darwin on January 26, 2012 at 246pm said:

Buck, read the Constitution. In the cases of senators or congressmen, it says they must be “citizens”. In the case of president and vice president, it says they must be “natural born citizens”.

They made the distinction for a reason. If they had meant “citizen”, they would have written “citizen”
Leonard W. Giddens Jr. on January 26, 2012 at 246pm said:

I am so glad this is now a part of court records, I could get a 5th of Wild Turkey and celebrate for three days straight. I want to see this arrogant maggot in prison. That old dog has run loose long enough. It is not time to get cold feet or soft hart. To hell with the race card dealers, Jackson, Bad hair Sharptop, and any of the other morons that are fool enough to follow what is called Democrat of these days.
Richard M on January 26, 2012 at 241pm said:

I don’t care if there is NO legal authority. I want the SOB out! What he’s doing to our country is tantamount to an enemy agent sitting in as POTUS, and doing the same thing this fraud is doing. What’s the difference. An imposter is certainly NOT going to tell the truth. He’s an imposter! Get it?! Talk all you want about this legal thing and that, Obama’s house of cards is coming down around him and thank Go for Judge Malihi! A true patriot who actually takes his oath of office seriously.

Let’s see how you wiggle your way out of this Obama/Sotoero, Shabaaz, whatever the hell your name is. Bye bye Obama!!!!!!!
Karl Oakes on January 26, 2012 at 241pm said:

@Darwin, if you were trying to support the Georgia case, you killed your own argument. What do you think the Court meant by:

“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

It was saying, “we don’t need to decide whether you need two natural born parents or not.” That’s why Minor is NOT authority.
Joe M. on January 26, 2012 at 240pm said:

Karl Oakes…. would you quote chapter and verse for your “opinion”?
Please do enlighten us. If you read the eligibility rules for President, you’ll see it there. It’s always been that way until you just tried to change it.

My opinion is that Obama will walk. He’s trampled every law in the land, and he’s a liar. But “they” just let him have a pass. If he doesn’t walk… I’ll be drunker than 40 alcohol Czars! You’re all invited to attend the party. :/
The First Patriot on January 26, 2012 at 239pm said:

Bob Kelly, NO a ‘naturalized citizen’ is not eligible for same reasons previously stated. Same reason Ahhhhhhhnold can never be president.
Karl Oakes on January 26, 2012 at 239pm said:

@Harry, the language you quote does not appear anywhere in the current version of the United States Code. It is not the language of any current federal law. So, while it can be pointed to persuasively, it can’t be “authority” for any decision a court makes today. Second, “residency” is not the same as “citizenship.” I think Daddy Obama was probably “resident” when Obama was born, no?
Buck on January 26, 2012 at 237pm said:

Right from the ruling: In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also
The First Patriot on January 26, 2012 at 236pm said:

George,
He can’t ignore it. We have filed similar lawsuits in 18 states with more to come. The dems will have no one on the ballot come Nov 4.

LOLOLOL
Homer 69 on January 26, 2012 at 235pm said:

Make the “Usurper” Con man pay the price! Make him pay back every dime he and his family have squandered with our taxpayer monies. Put him in jail until it is paid back. Have his bankster friends, his Hollywood friends, including Oprah, help pay the bills. Then deport him in shame…..after he is taken before a Judge and jury to account for all of his crimes against this government…..if it is treasonous….get out the firing squad!
The First Patriot on January 26, 2012 at 232pm said:

I should add you all are aware the dems sued John McCain claiming not eligible b/c of his birth place. John readily provided all documents proving his ‘natural born’ citizenship and the suit quickly dropped.

You might note the dems are well aware they have a Constitutional crisis on their hands and are equally culpable criminally by aiding and abetting this fraud on America. They had a fiduciary responsibility to vet ALL candidates not just Republicans. Stretch Pelosi flat out lied in her role as Speaker.
Delores Smith on January 26, 2012 at 230pm said:

CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEYS,
Is any attorney ready to question why Obama sits in the White House without having been vetted, thereby, with access to the highest security clearance possible. Obama and George Soros are Hitlerizing our nation, collapsing our economy via the Cloward-Piven Strategy (overload the system of government by putting people on food stamps, creating unemployment, dividing our nation, sidestepping Congress…our elected officials…and defying court orders.) Obama and his radicals are guilty of ACTS OF TREASON against the United States. Who will come forward to stop them? My goal is to to convict him of TREASON.
Delores Smith
Delores109@cox.net
The First Patriot on January 26, 2012 at 227pm said:

Darwin, you must look further to distinguish between ‘natural born’ v. ‘native born.’

Moreover, the BNA of 1948 clearly states progeny flows from the father and this is universally accepted. obama’s father was never a US citizen nor was there ever a desire to be one. Of this, he and we agree.
George Miller on January 26, 2012 at 223pm said:

Marine, well he can try to ignore it, but he may have to do that without Georgia votes. When other states start seeing the video, reading the evidence, etc., they will realize they’ve been had. We had an earthquake in GA today.

for fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O3-MHEbZNSw
junenicole on January 26, 2012 at 223pm said:

imagine if at the time of the Revolution ,, KING of ENGLAND sent his Mistriss to Americas who was pregnant and had the boy who then RAN FOR PRESIDENT>> DUH .. this is why Obummer is NOT eligible is that the KING of ENGLAND would then be CONTROLLING via his SON .. the new country…..

it is amusing to see those in denial who make sure they comment on this website..

as these types do not seem to CARE about any other of OB s records that he is spending MILLIONS of taxpayer money to REFUSE TO LET US SEE.. ie passports,, DRAFT registration SCHOOL records.. elementary, older school, college, /LAW school .. all the Stuff the CONTROLED media LOVES to denigrate anyone in the Republican party on but at the same time does NOT require that of OB.. DENIAL only works so far before those who so viciously want every detail on the REPUBLICAN side but REFUSE TO GET on the Democrat side . ends up corrupting any democrat sincerity.. or morality.. well if there is any left.. in the DEMS.. Denial is also in the Frozen Embryos.. Imagine implanting them into LOVING Mothers .. you do NOT end up with MONKEYS>. but HUMAN beings FULL OF LIFE>. same DEM denial here too… they are , like the health care they are forced on everyone SICK puppies.
The First Patriot on January 26, 2012 at 223pm said:

To Craig and all the inmtelligent reasonable peeps posting, pls note the following:

The judge originally wanted to issue a default judgement against obama. The brilliant Van Irions who was repping David Welden, declined and asked to be heard so they could get the facts on record. The judge agreed. The attorneys will now file their briefs by Feb 5, at which time the judge will rule.

The import of this action and Van’s quick thinking could not be more important and highlighted. To date, the motions filed by Orly Taitz and others have been dismissed on merely procedural issues, ie, plaintiff did not have standing in that particular court. . She was sent crisscrossing the country and every court said her plaintiff did not have standing. If a US citizen does not have standing., who does? No court to date had any record. But thankfully, we don’t need to deal with that problem anymore.

NOW however, whichever side loses will appeal. The appeal can ONLY be on SUBSTANCE and the record today. The procedural argument that obama has hid behind & used to his advantage for past 4 years, is gone for good now. He is in major trouble now. So this is HUGE VICTORY for WE, THE PEEPS.
Darwin on January 26, 2012 at 222pm said:

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT

“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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“
Bob Kelly on January 26, 2012 at 222pm said:

Regardless of the NBC issue, there is documentation showing Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen. Is there any proof that he renounced his Indonesian citizenship and is a naturalized citizen of the US? Would he qualify as POTUS even if such documentation existed?
Critical Thinker on January 26, 2012 at 220pm said:

JFK really tried to warn ALL OF US.

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” -Galileo

IN JFK’S OWN WORDS HE IS TRYING TO WARN THE U.S. ABOUT A MONOLITHIC & RUTHLESS CONSPIRACY AROUND THE WORLD WHERE HE ASKED THE MEDIA TO HELP ALERT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE MEDIA DID NOT ALERT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE EVIL CONTINUES!!!

JFK “The President and the Press,” before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, 27 April 1961

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDe6QCqFu4c
George Miller on January 26, 2012 at 219pm said:

Good report, thanks, Mr. Andresen.

Well you got some names wrong, but amazing you could hear that well, since the sound quality of our video wasn’t great, although we’ll soon have an archive up with better quality.

That should be Doug Vogt, Carl Swensson, Chris Strunk.

G. Miller
http://art2superpac.com (video co-sponsor)
Harry on January 26, 2012 at 215pm said:

Yes there is Carl, a Natural Born Citizen as defined by George Washington and John Adams in the public acts of the first Congress 2nd session Chapter III on March 26, 1790 clearly states “That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been residents of the United States” I found this when trying to determine the meaning of “natural born citizen” as described in Article II Section 1 paragraph 5 of the Constitution.

The meaning becomes very clear if you read paragraph 5 then look through the original copies of the Constitution for what was meant by our for fathers by “Natural Born” People confuse “Natural Born” with “Naturalized” and some how in their ignorance think that the two are the same thing simply because they sound the same. They are not.
Obama was clearly ineligible.
Larry Kraft on January 26, 2012 at 212pm said:

U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” is defined as […including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.]

Only ONE parent must be a United States citizen. The child does NOT need to be born in the United States, as long as ONE (1!) parent is a U.S. citizen. It matters not one iota that his father was not a U.S. citizen. His mother WAS a legal U.S. citizen. Therefore any of her offspring, no matter the nationality of the father, is by legal rights, a United States citizen!
The First Patriot on January 26, 2012 at 210pm said:

Karl Oakes, I suggest you do your homework b4 posting so you don’t look like a silly moron.. There is most certainly legal precedent and if you look to the language at the time The Constitution was written PLUS underlying Federalist Papers you will see it is crystal clear the Framers precluded a fraud tyrant like obama from ever becoming a legal president.
The words “natural born” were included b/c that is what is required. One can only be “natural born” if BOTH parents are US citizens at time of birth. The Founders did not want a president who could have allegiance to another country. obama’s best case is native born if born in Hawaii.

There were 3 separate cases heard this am on this issue, with 3 distinct and different arguments; albeit the substance and remedy are the same.

The POTUS did not show up b/c he is a fraud and has flagrantly flouted the law and Constitution for the past 3 years.
jim on January 26, 2012 at 206pm said:

An influential Minuteman PAC is weighing in on the argument over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, with a call for concerned citizens across the country to flood their state secretaries of state offices with requests that Obama be removed from the 2012 ballot.
if your a concerned citizen who once and for all wants this question resolved get involved !!! this is our country lets take it back!!!!
copy and past the statement below into an email with your name and town at the bottom of the email google secretary of state for your state to get the correct email address of your secretary of state ::

We respectfully request that Obama be removed from the 2012 ballot, Obama likely does not meet the constitutional requirement of being a “natural born citizen” to be president.
The Founders likely understood that to mean the offspring of two citizen parents and an 1875 Supreme Court decision suggested the same. But Obama, by his own admission, could not qualify under those circumstances because his father never was an American citizen. As our Founding Fathers intended, it is the states which protect us from all out tyranny. The federal election in 2012 and the constitutional eligibility of the candidates is no different. In the end, our states are responsible for ensuring the eligibility of candidates and our states will protect us from the tyranny of a presidential usurper.
your name and town here
Ellie on January 26, 2012 at 204pm said:

@Smackwater….you are an idiot….it is not a “waste” of taxpayer money to bring a criminal to justice, and that’s what Barry is….you liberals think this is going away simply because you don’t want your precious messiah removed from the ballot. If you will take the time to look at the evidence, the birth certificate is a fake! What exactly do you think of his SS# belonging to a dead person? It amazes me that liberals cannot see what Barry has done to this country!
Rocky Vnvmc on January 26, 2012 at 159pm said:

To all of those Obots, who keep adhearing to the Party Line, that the Obama Birth Certificate is valid…

You completely missed the whole Point ! His Father was a Foreign National, thus Barry is NOT a ‘Natural Born Citizen’, as required , by the Constitution… Thus, Barry is NOT ELIGIBLE to hold the Office Of the Presidency !

Point, Period, Paragraph !

There is, simply, nothing more to add, to the equation.
Marc Avery on January 26, 2012 at 156pm said:

Our own disregard/liberalization of Constitutional law(except when it’s convenient), as well as Biblical Law(God’s laws) is why we’re in this mess in the first place. Most Americans don’t know what they believe, and don’t know(or care)what the Bible says regarding how we’re supposed to live. Since God is no longer the Divine Example of how to live(since 1962, when some “bozo’s in black robes” removed the Ten Commandments from the public schools), we shouldn’t expect anything but more confusion, until the return of Jesus Christ. Another four years(or less, in lieu of an economic collapse) of Barack Hussein Obama should expedite the tribulation we so aptly deserve for our disobedience. Don’t worry atheists. Just pretend none of this matters to you folks. After all: There is no God anyway. Right? Just another “Christian nut job”.
Karl Oakes on January 26, 2012 at 155pm said:

There is NO legal authority which says that his Daddy has to have to have been a citizen. See my previous comment.
Tina on January 26, 2012 at 154pm said:

Think about this – if the birth certificate is fraudulant, if the SS number, assigned when Obama was 16 is also fraudulant; there is much more to this than what appears on the surface. This was planned by people far above Obama. He is as much their puppet as anyone. This is really scary, people. Look deeper. Obama is just the tip of the iceburg
Anodandawink on January 26, 2012 at 154pm said:

Dear Craig Andersen, this is the single most coherent and excellent overview of the Court proceedings as they occured anywhere on the web that I can find at this present time for which I am most grateful. Nobody, but nobody has come even remotely close to so much as a half decent report as far as I can see.

In Ireland some of us have been waiting for this moment for months and watching this case with great interest, people who are familiar with Court procedures and reporting same. Thank you.
John Herron on January 26, 2012 at 153pm said:

I call for his immediate resignation and subsequent trial on charges of High Treason. If he does not voluntarily step down he should be removed via the process described in Amendment XXV Section IV (written declaration that POTUS is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office). It is not difficult to conclude that if he is not eligible to become our President then he is unable to discharge his duties as President.

I also call for the immediate recall of any member of Congress and Senate who voted in favor of the NDAA. It is in direct opposition to our Constitution rights. And let us not forget Eric Holder who’s involvement in Oklahoma City bombing and implication with Operation Fast & Furious makes him look just as guilty of Treason. I have a new job for Seal Team 6. Apprehend those who our courts try, convict, and sentence. Deliver them to our courts to stand trial for the crimes committed against the people and our Constitution. That’s a start in the right direction.
coolidgerules on January 26, 2012 at 152pm said:

smackwaterjack- lay off the crack. If it is such an easy determination that he is a US citizen, why not send the lawyer down to GA to get all of this dimissed? Because he thinks that he is above any law, and he has the Make Believe Media to run interference for him. This clown’s ego and narcissim are beyond anything that I thought of in 2008.
Rob Mullinkin on January 26, 2012 at 152pm said:

What was the Judges name?
What County in Georgia?
Bluestreak on January 26, 2012 at 149pm said:

smackwaterjack,

You refuse to open your eyes to what happened here today! The birth certificate was entered as posted by OBAMA. It was questioned, but that was not the foundation for the case.

It was the fact that OBAMA’s daddy was never a U.S. Citizen, naturalized or otherwise. This was evident on the birth certificate, forged or authentic. This was also evident in the purpoted writings of OBAMA in DREAMS OF MY FATHER, which was also submitted as evidence. That is the fact that served as the foundation for this case. Every other issue with his documentation only serves to evidence the fact that there are people who know that he is ineligible and are complicit in the fraud that has been committed.
LTC_Ray_Burke on January 26, 2012 at 146pm said:

The vital question remains unanswered. When will Judge Malihi render his decision?
When, when, when?
Daniel's Seventieth 7 on January 26, 2012 at 145pm said:

@ Karl Oakes..,

Good luck:
SCOTUS majority in Wong Kim Arc says person born in US to two Chinese nationals who are not US citizens is a “Citizen” – court discusses what a “Natural born citizen” is and mentions others cases which have discussed the term “natural born citizen” – court does NOT hold that Wong Kim Arc is a natural born citizen. Since the court could have, if it so chose, to hold that Wong Kim Arc was a nbc, but it didn’t, the holding provides support for the argument that a nbc is somebody not only born in US, but who also is born to parents who are US citizens
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/
Mary Duff on January 26, 2012 at 143pm said:

got this pg via FB and all I can say is that other states can’t get things filed fast enough. From the first time I heard him open his mouth red flags went upall over the place. I went from voting democrat to republican back to my roots as a conservative. What he needs as far as punishment goes is something that will shame him soo that it will break him in every way possible, then make him serve time for all of the laws he’s broke, then deport his ass back to where his sperm doner is from. I just hope that all of those that were fooled and voted for him do more than see the light now and stand up for what is right, our Constitutio and our Country otherwise (and I already know I am probably on a watch list for many things I have said about this trash) I won’t be sprised if we have another revolution or civil war and I say bring it on I’m ready to step up and defend my country and my family from the treasonous trash that not only live in the WH but those that are on capital hill and back his trash.
The Last Patriot on January 26, 2012 at 139pm said:

Time to break-out a can of whoop ass on homey the clown aka Bari Malik Shabazz!!!
Karl Oakes on January 26, 2012 at 138pm said:

“Sigh” There is NO legal authority for the proposition that “to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States.” The Minor case, referred to before on this website, does NOT say that, as any reasonably literate and intelligent person could see if they wanted to. The POTUS is not showing up because the argument is legally frivolous. If anyone wants to argue otherwise, start by giving me word for word what you think the legal authority is. At some point today or tomorrow, I’ll show you why you’re wrong.
Tom Rarity on January 26, 2012 at 137pm said:

I’m sure this will be deleted since I am not on your deluded bandwagon but, really people? You’ve all lost your minds. If you don’t like what he’s doing, vote him out of office. But these silly little games you’re playing, at tax payer expense, are ludicrous.

Please stop being reactionary, hate-filled morons. You, not Obama, are destroying our country.
william Barber on January 26, 2012 at 136pm said:

Put the bum in jail,Ground airforceone where it sits.We can furnish him transportation to the PEN>>>He is a muslim to boot,He needs to be put before a firing squid.. I will volintier to be one…
Ginger Ghent on January 26, 2012 at 135pm said:

Sounds good BUT..I’ll bet NOTHING will be done..he has bamboozled his way in and will continue….martial law anyone?
Luther Henry on January 26, 2012 at 134pm said:

As was stated elsewhere in comment above, I think the most important factor up till now is that all of this evidence has now been presented in a legitimate court of law in one of these United States and has been sworn to by the witnesses. They are placing themselves in some jeopardy of perjury charges were they to be found guilty of such an offense. It will be difficult for the naysayers to ignore or dispute the allegation that this man is an impostor who has no legal right to be the POTUS.
Luther Henry on January 26, 2012 at 133pm said:

As was stated elsewhere in comment about, I think the most important factor up till now is that all of this evidence has now been presented in a legitimate court of law in one of these United States and has been sworn to by the witnesses. They are placing themselves in some jeopardy of perjury charges were they to be found guilty of such an offense. It will be difficult for the naysayers to ignore or dispute the allegation that this man is an impostor who has no legal right to be the POTUS.
Darwin on January 26, 2012 at 123pm said:

I recorded the audio and posted it. I hope the people involved don’t mind.

http://negligentdischarge.com/0Hearing1.mp3

http://negligentdischarge.com/0Hearing2.mp3
smackwaterjack on January 26, 2012 at 119pm said:

…what a complete and total waste of Georgia taxpayer monies…this issue has been settled, but you refuse to acknowledge the validity of his birth certificate…so I propose that the rest of this country hold Georgia born residents to the same standard and the rest of America will continue challenge not only your citizenship, but your patriotism as well..
Ira Berrian on January 26, 2012 at 116pm said:

Ignoring a subpona results in a bench warrant and then forcing the man to be in court later. What will happen here in Georgia. Will Justice Malihi and Sec. of State Kemp let him off . . .?
Marine101 on January 26, 2012 at 109pm said:

What if Obama simply chooses to ignore this and all other attempts to disqualify him for the office in which he illegally sits? It’s sort of like renting your house to a family that refuses to pay the rent and won’t leave. I went through this once and it took personal friends in the police station threatening them to get them out and they immediately trashed the place on their way back to the getto. Obama is also stealing from the citizens of this country, but will he be made to pay? I somehow doubt it. Like a bad renter, he’s in and it’ll take some strong action to get him out. Never rent to a brother, yo.
DeeKay on January 26, 2012 at 100pm said:

If he is deemed ineligible to become the president in the first place, he will also be ineligible for additional benefits and may even have to pay back a lot.

We get rid Biden, as well, as he was not considered “elected” as VP.
DeeKay on January 26, 2012 at 1257pm said:

A sitting president cannot be compelled to appear in a lower court, but his lawyer damn well better show up. If he is the plaintiff in a case, he has to have his lawyer to explain his side of the story.
Perhaps, his lawyer was a “no show” because he has no explanation.
Bluestreak on January 26, 2012 at 1250pm said:

If the SOS determines upon reading Judge Malihi’s report and recommendation that Obama should not be permitted to be on the Georgia Primary Ballot, then Obama will appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court.

Due to the default judgement, all of the evidence being entered and testified to as fraudulent, and the definition of NBC becoming part of the record; the burden of proof should be placed upon him to show that Malihi erred in his ruling and that the evidence and testimony are not valid.

No longer should we hear that all other courts have dismissed the issue (even though they have dismissed the 2008 issue, not many have had the chance at the 2012 issue). That fact alone should save Jablonski some ink!

Let’s Roll!!!
slcraig on January 26, 2012 at 1230pm said:

Ratchell Says: do we have to go through this mindless proceedings in all 50 states? I am at a loss here people and time is running out….LMSW/#……………………

Yes, WE do want Challenges in each of the various States….but perhaps start in the State District / Superior/Supreme Courts instead of with the Sec0State/Election Boards………..

…there may/will be “Full Faith and Credit” issues that may attach to the Determination by this Judge and the actions the SoS takes with the determination…..

……..regardless, even though this may be the beginning of the end, it’s not over yet………………….
Sophie on January 26, 2012 at 1217pm said:

Only the SUPREME COURT can order a President to show up in court. It’s a shame that American’s don’t know how their own country runs!

Obama will be on ALL Ballots, he is the ONLY DEMOCRAT running!
Caryn on January 26, 2012 at 1215pm said:

Okay…so IF the judge decides in favor of the People, and IF eventually Obama is declared to have been elected fraudulently, and IF we get him out of the White House by way of being found guilty of treasonous acts,,, will he still get the Presidential pension and the multitude of other benefits of having been in the position at all… including Secret Service protection? Just wondering what everyone thinks…
Dinkiedow on January 26, 2012 at 1214pm said:

Bad Boy,Bad Boy, What you gona do,what you gona do when they come for You!

Treason Bastards That Allowed This Should Be Hung!!
Peg on January 26, 2012 at 1212pm said:

I commend the efforts of all those who appeared today, whether witnesses or attorneys. I commend those who took the time to attend. Wish I could have been there as we’re seeing history in the making. Yes, why isn’t the main media covering this? It’s obvious that Obama is NOT qualified to be president and certainly with this evidence, a judge cannot possibly throw this case to the wind. The people who were there are courageous and persistent. I am so thankful for their efforts! Now, it’s our turn to pray and spread this to others. I am appalled that we have a man as our president who is not even a qualified citizen. How embarrassing for our country! Let’s pray earnestly that the efforts of these people will see us all to victory!!!
Ratchell on January 26, 2012 at 1210pm said:

Default Judgement—what of the evidence? what will the State do? If O is sticken from the Georgia ballot, do we have to go through this mindless proceedings in all 50 states? I am at a loss here people and time is running out….LMSW/#
Susie C, IN on January 26, 2012 at 1208pm said:

Nebuchadnezzar……….hopefully his end will be viewed in real time now. Look it up.
Congratulations to Orly Tait and this entire crew of brave citizens for following this up amidst all the Saul Alinsky attacks they have endured. I pray for all of you and, yes, for America and for this judge. Maybe the devil does go to Georgia and meet up with “Johnny” who can outdo him……..GO, GEORGIA!!!!!! BRING TO THE NATION WHAT THE REST OF THEM WERE AFRAID TO DO. GOD BLESS THIS JUDGE FOR AGREEING TO THIS AND FOR ART2SUPERPAC.COM FOR FOLLOWING IT UP.
BIGNICK on January 26, 2012 at 1207pm said:

WHY< WHY can't he be arrested or not showing up for court??? Is our country that CORRUPT???
Trisha Ann on January 26, 2012 at 1201pm said:

You know…it’s awful that the President did not do what was expected of him during his presidency, and it’s a disgrace that neither he nor his lawyer showed up today for the Georgia Hearing (what are you hiding, Mr. President?)…but what gets me in addition to this, is; Why hasn’t the many media-TV/Radio/blogs reported on any of this. It’s as though they condone what he’s done these past years and today!!

I’m also disappointed in what I’ve heard about Facebook (if it is true…where they are censoring us/denying friend adds/overall shutting us down, as we express our right of free speech by expressing our opinions. I thought we live in a FREE COUNTRY…has that changed?

This is not over…not by a long shot!

Lord God, please have mercy on our country and our people, Amen. (1/26/2012)
Michelle on January 26, 2012 at 1152am said:

Thank you for the info.
Dawn on January 26, 2012 at 1152am said:

Where can you view this “live”? Please provide a link, wonder if the “popular” press will pick this up at all. Or will it be buried.
NotaLemming on January 26, 2012 at 1147am said:

They did an interview with Susan Daniels at the very end. I have it at YouTube if anyone wants to see it. “Susan Daniels Testifies in Atlanta: Obama’s Social Security Number is Fraudulent” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqD3XN-hwtE
verdell on January 26, 2012 at 1146am said:

I think he should be arrested and placed in prison, America can not affort to let him leave this Country with all the inside information that he has to share with his Muslim brothers! This would be insane!
Strenuous on January 26, 2012 at 1139am said:

Once Obama’s birth certificate was placed in the record it was all over. That was the only piece of relevant evidence. So nice for the opposition to be making Obama’s case for him.

Did Orly at least object to the birth certificate as not being genuine, TO KEEP IT OUT OF EVIDENCE?
Amos on January 26, 2012 at 1133am said:

I didn’t expect the Lame Stream Media to attend. They are afraid to touch this with a ten foot pole. The evicence is has been recorded and the Judge should do his duty that his Oath requires. He could be the most famous judge in America if he does, this case will be the opening truth about the Biggest Hoax in American History. God Bless America, again!
Donna on January 26, 2012 at 1119am said:

Sounds like a case of Treason to me … trial time . The Taliban always said , they would get to us from within, Well isn’t that what is happening
David Palmer on January 26, 2012 at 1102am said:

Lets not leave this as a dog & pony show and get this false so called president of my United States out of the White House and the USA for that matter…….and somebody else please take over control of the military!!!!
Kathleen on January 26, 2012 at 1100am said:

WHY no media coverage? I am furious, went to Atlanta Fox site…nothing.
Kimberly on January 26, 2012 at 1100am said:

Thank you this as is was hard to hear the live streaming.
Deport him !!!!
Tim Flaherty on January 26, 2012 at 1059am said:

Guilty…take Barry off of the Ballot in Georgia and charge him with contempt of court for not showing up
Capt-Dax on January 26, 2012 at 1058am said:

It does not matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent; Obama has deceived all of us and has lied his way to the top with the help of many leftists in and out of government.
This should be a nonpartisan issue and should be examined as a grave national security issue.

The Laws that Have Been Broken
PolitiJim (@politiJim) on January 26, 2012 at 1055am said:

Orly Taitz is the most unlikely lawyer in reputation, national identity and (forgive me) skill to be the one to get this issue FINALLY into hearing in a court of law.

HUGE applause and thanks are due her for never giving up despite being ridiculed not just by public opinion, but by the courts themselves.

Whatever the outcome – she is an American hero.
Bcorp on January 26, 2012 at 1046am said:

Now what? Most of the country already knew these facts and have ignored them. Why? Do our laws not count with certain people or situations? Obviously they do not or this man would not have become POTUS. Time to impose the laws and boot his butt out of our house.
Laney D. Gulotta on January 26, 2012 at 1040am said:

Thank you so much for this blog. Of course nothing is being reported by news media, and could not access video feed.
WillTeller on January 26, 2012 at 1038am said:

Can the judge submit a Warrent for Obama for failing to attend the hearing?
Emmanuel Etchells-Ayre on January 26, 2012 at 1031am said:

You can also look at it this way, If Winston Churchill wasn’t ELIGIBLE even though his Mother Jenny Jerome was an American Citizen, the neither would Obysmal be ELIGIBLE!
Kerry on January 26, 2012 at 1030am said:

Thanks for the summary. Now that we have testimony and evidence under oath, it should also be packaged and expedited to some Federal Grand Jury… after all there is credible suspicion that crimes have been committed. Regardless of the ballot question, no one can dismiss this as Internet nonsense. Giving and telling falsehoods under oath is also a crime; which is why this testimony is important and , of course, why Obama’s minions did not show.
Finally on January 26, 2012 at 1025am said:

Arrest and deport? No, by his own new law we should lock him up forever.
John Stolte on January 26, 2012 at 1023am said:

Thanks for this rundown. I watched the proceeding live but had a hard time following because the sound quality was poor and I’m somewhat hard of hearing. Did the judge say when he would render a decision?
Monica Couch on January 26, 2012 at 1018am said:

i got in late, so i guess i missed carl swensson… (darn it! i’m a BIG fan of his, since 2008…) interesting that jerome corsi wasn’t called in to testify… and, i’m wondering if anyone from joe arpaio’s team came to watch the barry soetoro/barack obama story unfold; since they’re investigating it as well…
Steve Brown on January 26, 2012 at 1018am said:

Its about time all this has been put into the official record. If Mr. Obama refuses to address these issues he should not be allowed on the state ballots. In fact, I think his attorney should be ruled to be in contempt of court.
southrngirl77 on January 26, 2012 at 1016am said:

Thank you Judge Malihi for agreeing to hear this case. Please show the country that this is a nation of LAWS and not of MEN. Obama has been lawless in so many, many things as President of the US. He should have to face the consequences. I’d suggest his next Term be served in prison.
William J. Green on January 26, 2012 at 1010am said:

Great job, again, Craig. Much obliged. Keep up the great work!
Pamela Villela on January 26, 2012 at 1008am said:

So very proud of Orly Taitz and the witnesses who know they could potentially be in danger by testifying, but know our country in serious trouble and that a fraud has landed uncontested in OUR WH and something MUST be done! Prayers for all of them and I hope other states are bold enough and honest enough to follow suit and that this Ga court DOES find him both in contempt and GUILTY on the charges brought that We the People know to be facts from all the evidence! It will make us proud if justice is served!
Debi on January 26, 2012 at 1007am said:

Great follow up Craig! Thank you!
Joe of St Therese on January 26, 2012 at 1004am said:

Game on! Citizen’s arrest time.
Kritisa Baxter on January 26, 2012 at 1003am said:

He’s not a natural born citizen.
Ronald Schwartz on January 26, 2012 at 1002am said:

sounds like a good case to get him off the ballot.

Comments are closed.