56 thoughts on “URGENT BREAKING…OBAMA ELIGIBILITY RULING IN GEORGIA”

1. Thanks Karl.

   +

2. You know what? I’ll settle for us having given people more information to decide for themselves. That’s a positive result and it’s good enough.

   Just don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, folks. Not everyone who gets you all charged up is really your friend . . .

3. Your question:
   “The question is simple: Is the statement, “there is no wiggle room” true or false?”

   The answer is simple:

   You would like to pull one quote out of context,

   and ignore the balance opinion.

   Did you even read it?…

   (The quote below is from L. Donofrio)
   ‘This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”.’

   Argue the opinion in it’s entirety

   or not.

   Either way,

   You are still fun 🙂 and it gives people more information to be able to judge for themselves.

4. We don’t need to get into any of that in order to evaluate whether you correctly characterized the flexibility of canons of statutory construction. You/Donofrio claim:

   “There is no wiggle room.”

   But SCOTUS states: “[A canon] of statutory construction . . . is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent.”

   The question is simple: Is the statement, “there is no wiggle room” true or false?

5. You asked for a judgment.

   and you got one.

   The link was provided:
   http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/

   If you want to argue it-

   Argue it in it’s entirety:

   ( All the words below are by L. Donofrio)
   The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

   I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.

   Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:

   Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”

   Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”

   (While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)

   The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.

   Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.

   Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.

   According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.

   It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.

   Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule:

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

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

   This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”.

   Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B?

   Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule.

   Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect.

   Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated:

   “Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.)

   Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States.

   The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

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

   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.

   Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents.

   Leo Donofrio, Esq.

   [For a more detailed analysis of this issue, please see my Amicus Brief entered in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases.]

6. I’m not clear. Do you think that this Donofrio/DS7 post:

   “The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all.”

   can logically coexist with this SCOTUS statement:

   “The general rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is subject to exceptions. Like other canons of statutory construction, it is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent.”

   Yes or no?

7. The link was posted:

   http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/

   ^His opinion could be correct^.

   You asked for a judgment.

   It was posted: (as a humble opinion of course)

   YOU are nowhere close to the ‘truth’.

   )(

8. This is what you posted:

   Donofrio/DS7:

   “The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all.”

   This is what SCOTUS says on the subject:

   “The general rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is subject to exceptions. Like other canons of statutory construction, it is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent.”

   Is your position, then, that what you posted “could be correct?”

9. Mr. Oakes,

   Leo’s opinions could be somewhat correct (as they relate to the Constitution)

   As stated numerous times: Take it up with him and SCOTUS. It would be fun to watch.

   But,

   Since you are spamming for an answer-

   (Humble opinion):

   YOU are nowhere close to the ‘truth’…

   🙂

10. So you refuse to answer the question as to whether what you posted was patently false. Correct?

11. -And now spam?

    Take your questions to SCOTUS (assuming you practice law outside of the internet)

12. Let’s stay focused, shall we?

    Do you or do you not acknowledge that what you posted is patently false?

    Donofrio/DS7:

    “The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all.”

    SCOTUS:

    “The general rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is subject to exceptions. Like other canons of statutory construction, it is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent.”

13. Credibility?

    -Name calling.

    -Copyright infringement.

    -And now spam?

    Take your questions to SCOTUS (assuming you practice law outside of the internet)

    🙂

14. Let’s keep our eyes on the issue of your credibility, shall we?

    Do you or do you not acknowledge that what you posted is patently false?

    Donofrio/DS7:

    “The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all.”

    SCOTUS:

    “The general rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is subject to exceptions. Like other canons of statutory construction, it is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent.”

15. You may think you are qualified to judge the truth on your own.

    But you might also be mistaken…

    John 16:13
    Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

    As for Leo’s quotes:

    Take ‘them’ up with him (and SCOTUS) :

    “The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

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

    ^Courtesy L. Donofrio^

16. The answer is that I’m qualified to make the judgment on my own.

    Do you acknowledge, then, that what you posted is patently false?

    Donofrio/DS7:

    “The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all.”

    SCOTUS:

    “The general rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is subject to exceptions. Like other canons of statutory construction, it is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent.”

17. @ Karl.

    Here is the quote:

    “Rather than just judging the ‘truth’ on your own,

    Why not give more legal opinions such as this:”

    How is that an ‘endorsement’?

    It was a question.

    (That you have yet to answer)

    🙂

18. When you pick post them and endorse them, they become your words, and they are patently false:

    Donofrio/DS7:

    “The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all.”

    SCOTUS:

    “The general rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is subject to exceptions. Like other canons of statutory construction, it is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent.”

19. @ Karl,

    Here are more of Mr. Donofrio’s words: (just for you)

    “The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

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

    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.”

    And here is a link giving credit where credit is due:http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/

    }{

20. @ Karl

    Those are L. Donofrio’s words.

    a link was provided. (Here it is again:http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/)

    You, as an attorney, should realize that you may be violating his Copyright by attributing them to ‘DS7’.

    🙂

21. DS7:

    “The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all.”

    SCOTUS:

    “The general rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is subject to exceptions. Like other canons of statutory construction, it is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent.”

22. Keep posting Karl-

    You are fun!

23. Wow Karl,

    Resorting to name calling?

    Why so desparate.

    And,

    Exactly how is it fraudulent to post Someone Else’s legal opinion?- link included.

    Perhaps you typically call your fellow attorneys “fraud” when you disagree.

    But,

    in this case,

    it simply shows your true nature.

    Good luck with Leo…
    🙂

24. DS7:

    “The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all.”

    SCOTUS:

    “The general rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is subject to exceptions. Like other canons of statutory construction, it is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent.”

    DS7 you are COMPLETELY BUSTED. You’re a fraud, pure and simple. I don’t know how you can be shameless enough to continue showing your face here.

    BTW, I have posted to Donofrio an another page of his, and my comments are still “awaiting moderation” while he continues to post. It’s easy to sell this crap to people without a legal education and without the resourcefulness to look for flaws and counterarguments. Donofrio is not going to publicly talk to someone he knows will tear him apart.

25. @ Mr. Oakes,

    Thank you for confirming the point.

    YOU and you alone seem to know the ‘truth’.

    Is that why you try to practice law on a blog?

    Better yet,

    If you are really out to save EVERYONE,

    Why haven’t you posted your argument directly to Mr. Donofrio?

    It would be fun to watch 🙂

    Here is the link again: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/

26. Karl Oakes, let’s cut right to the chase:

    Your wonderfully convoluted spewing of verbage is nothing more than just a wordy smokescreen. The simple plain truth is, you are deliberately championing the son of a (known communist) non-American British citizen, in order to help that son retain his post as a deliberately-incompetent US President who falsely attained – and is falsely retaining – that position of trust via a set of carefully constructed lies which cannot stand the light of day.

    That you are so clearly relishing this expert, ongoing obfuscation of yours, while carefully avoiding the fact that your agenda repeatedly amounts to deliberate sabotage of the very foundation of these United States of America, speaks volumes of your true allegiance.

    You have proven who you are. You do not belong here, Mr. Arnold.

    Be gone!

27. Your argument is utterly flawed.

    First, you speak of the “code” of statutory construction, when there is no such thing. There are instead judicially-created “canons,” or general principles. Canons of statutory construction are general guides to help us make sense of legislative intent. When different canons clash, or when a focus on one to the exclusion of others would lead to results which defy common sense, we are required to apply them with some flexibility. This was explicitly stated by the US Supreme Court:

    “The general rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is subject to exceptions. Like other canons of statutory construction, it is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent.”
    Springer v. Government of Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189

    Thus, when you state that “There is no wiggle room at all” in the canon you would like us to apply to Minor, you are — whether you realize it or not — peddling cow manure.

    Second, your clause B actually says more than “persons born here are citizens of the US.” It says “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.”

    So (1) it addresses more than just US citizenship, but state citizenship as well; and (2) it includes other material which was already established, namely that a naturalized citizen is a US citizen. If we applied your rule of statutory construction as inflexibly as you suggest we should, then what would we do with that instance of supposedly prohibited repetition? How would we make “every person naturalized in the US is a US citizen” say MORE than what was already established on that subject, and recognized in the Article I grant of power to Congress to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization — namely that a person naturalized in the US is a US citizen? We can’t. Hence, this particular canon is not the “golden key” to understanding the 14th Amendment.

    Bearing in mind as well that the post-Civil War political and social context of the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with the issue of eligibility for the Presidency, it’s far more reasonable to assume that the Framers of the 14th were (1) setting forth in one place a single, comprehensive statement about plain old citizenship, and (2) laying a coherent definitional foundation for the next sentence:

    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

    If you had even a shred of contemporaneous evidence from 1868 (letters, speeches . . .) to suggest an effort to integrate the 14th with the concept of eligibility for the Presidency, you might have a case. Otherwise, your interpretation is not credible, and can’t be bolstered by the false assertion that “there is no wiggle room at all.”

    If you and your friends here at the NP want to understand why your type of legal “scholarship” or “analysis” commands so little respect in society at large, and why you are relegated to a fringe and scoffed at, the example above should be instructive. It has nothing to do with people “drinking kool-aid;” it has to do with the fact that you spread distortions relentlessly, victimizing the ignorant and the fearful in the process, and sullying the institutions you so conspicuously profess to love in the process. As Samuel Johnson famously said, “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

28. @ Karl-

    Still trying to save everyone?

    Rather than just judging the ‘truth’ on your own,

    Why not give more legal opinions such as this:

    The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

    I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.

    Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:

    Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”

    Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”

    (While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)

    The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all

    The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.

    Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.

    Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.

    According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.

    It’s truly that simple.

    This is not some crazy conspiracy theory.

    Read more: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/

29. To the people living with the false impression that some vast conspiracy is at work, I urge you to read the Minor opinion yourselves, and to notice that the Court said:

    A person born here of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen

    Then I ask you to consider that what this site CLAIMS the Court said is:

    A natural born citizen is a person born here of two citizen parents.

    If you think this is a distinction without a difference, notice that the true statement:

    A bee is an insect

    cannot be turned around to make a true statement:

    An insect is a bee.

    This is not a matter of opinion. This is a universally-accepted logical principle. If a statement is true, it does not follow that its CONVERSE is true. This site is selling the lie that the Minor Court said the CONVERSE of what it actually said.

    Here is a good place to find the Minor opinion:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

    The key paragraph is 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

    The key portion of that paragraph is this:

    “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”

    This can be abbreviated thusly:

    “children born in a country of parents who [are] its citizens … [are] … natural-born citizens”

    Note that this is the CONVERSE of what this site claims Minor said:

    “natural-born citizens [are] children born in a country of parents who [are] its citizens”

    Remember from above, with the bee and insect example, that if a statement is true, it does not follow that its CONVERSE is true.

30. Craig Anderson –

    I have appreciated you coverage of this. PLEASE dig deeper to find out what the judge’s basis for his ruling. What was the rule of law used. In my mind the judge had to be bribed or threatened in his resolve. There is clearly something that is not being reported. Will the GA Secy of State be following up? Will the local Fox news cover the ruling, since it was the only on that covered the hearing? Clearly this finding leaves us with more questions than answers. We need to bring this into the vision of the people.

31. @ Karl,

    It’s actually quite fun interacting with you.

    One one hand you claim to be here saving people from “rumor and fear “, and then the lawyer in you claims that it’s not your ‘job’.

    You have no comment on the president personally,

    but you have no problem attacking others personally.

    You claim a desire for ‘truth’ to prevail, but how are you so sure you know the ‘truth’?

    ?

32. I don’t “assume” that people are fearful; I “conclude” it from evidence. If you aren’t in that category, fine.

    I also don’t assume that “it’s my job.” Rather, I exercise my God-given right to offer what might be helpful to someone — albeit clearly not to you. You do the same when you give feedback to me.

    I have no comment on the President personally, and I am aware of and grateful to our Savior.

    Are we done?

33. @ Karl,

    Calm down.

    If you were addressing the fifth post on this thread, then perhaps you should have addressed it to the fifth poster.

    You assume that people a fearful and that it’s your job to ‘save’ them.

    Humble opinion:

    THAT is the biggest problem with our current POTUS.

    We already have a Saviour…

    🙂

34. @Daniel,

    No insinuation of threatening or bribing? You must be referring to the article. I’m referring to the the fifth post on this thread:

    “Judge Malihi ~~ Please reveal how much you were paid to make this decision?? or, perhaps it was a threat?”

    As for “interest,” the word has more than one meaning: I was using it in the sense of a “stake” — specifically, a political stake. I do not spend my days asking myself how I can help the President get re-elected.

    You don’t know me, sir. I urge you to give that some thought. In addition, “you” may feel good, but this publication attracts and plays to many who hold the belief that gangsters have hijacked their government, and who are suffering from it — in my judgment, unnecessarily.

    A cornerstone of that belief is the lie that Minor clearly establishes the “citizen parent” requirement, and the insinuation that only (1) blindness induced by messiah-worship for Obama and (2) media complicity keeps this “truth” from being known. This is propaganda. Take a tour of the pictures on this site and ask yourself, would people who respect my intelligence and my ability to think for myself show me the President leering from a thundercloud, with a lightning bolt emanating from it? If you think about it, isn’t it insultingly manipulative?

    The intention is to induce fear, and one of the byproducts of fear is a distortion of the capacity for thought. If I am motivated to offer those who are imprisoned in that fear pattern a little clarity about what the law actually IS, I have that right, and I’m not interested in getting into a urinating contest with you about it. So, unless you have a comment which specifically addresses a legal point I have offered here, kindly leave me be, sir.

    A very good day to you . . .

35. @ Karl

    Because there was no mention of ‘threatening or bribing’, your insinuation is yet another example of your continued use of ad hominem attacks. (no need to retract again)

    And,

    Your numerous posts to this and other threads highlight your extreme interest and therfore a sincere ‘congratulations’ seemed to be appropriate.

    The truth will prevail, as you desire…

    But,

    For the record- “I’ve” never felt better. 🙂

36. I can see the 2013 headline now: President obama nominates THE HON. MICHAEL MALIHI to the Supreme Court. Seig Heil!

37. This just proves that justice no longer exists when those who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution are willing to make it mean what they want the law to mean instead of what our Founders intended. No amount of “I’m a legal expert” can change the FACT that our Founders intended and wrote specifically that a natural born citizen was to be someone born of two parents, both of whom were US citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

    Unless Americans stand up and demand that our Founders and our Constitution be followed as it was written and as it was intended, America is finished. The descendants of all the “experts” will still pay the price of tyranny even though their ancestors, in all their self-righteous ego, “knew” the law was what THEY believed it was rather than what our Founders SAID it was and is. God have mercy on you.

38. @Daniel, there’s no reason to congratulate me. I’m not involved or invested in this, beyond my desire to see truth and intelligence prevail over rumor and fear. As I’ve said before, I don’t have firsthand knowledge of where he was born, and I’m not qualified to assess the authenticity of his certificate. I am, however, pretty highly qualified to interpret legislation and judicial opinions, and I know that the LEGAL argument presented by Orly Taitz is flimsy at best. So I also know that there’s no need to threaten people or bribe them to rule in Obama’s favor. If you or any of your fellow National Patriot readers would rather believe otherwise, I’m genuinely sorry that I haven’t been able to help you feel better.

    With regards, — K.O.

39. Could not agree with you more Karl. People always want to judge the law on what they feel it “should” be or say, not on what the law actually states. It is comical that folks spend time chasing a sitting President on the grounds of not being “natural born”. The only folks whose “people” were naturally born here on this soil are Native Americans, who most of this blog has conveniently forgotten about. Couldn’t they then make the same argument about George Washington?

    • Jay, George Washington was covered under the constitution. This article should clear that up for you.

      http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4190

40. Congratulations Mr. Oakes. (sincerely)

    And, (to quote you)

    There is another possibility, you know…

    🙂

41. If he has been found guilty, someone has paid off Someome. He should be releaved of bieng president NOW.
    He is just another HITTLER and he is out to destroy America.

42. Whether or not that should be the law, that’s what the actual legal authorities most strongly indicate IS the law. The Law of Nations is not legal authority, by the way.

    We can’t just make the law what we would like it to be . . .

43. So Karl you believe that any person born on this soil is a citizen, regardless of parental citizenship? Like the ones mooching off our system now??

44. Don’t let the commies above fool you.

    The intent was …. Of parents owing NO allegiance to any foreign Sovereignty!

    Seems pretty clear, eeeh!

45. Of two parents owing NO allegiance to any foreign sovereignty …. That was and is the intent of two citizen parents… No matter how you commies try to twist it.

    We know what

46. That is exactly what I expected you folks would be saying. There is another possibility, you know:

    You might not understand the law
    You might be trusting websites that are spreading disinformation
    You might be driving yourselves nuts for no reason.

    At least consider it . . .

47. The judge was either bribed or threatened to much such an irresponsible ruling! This is unbelievable!

48. Taitz failed to establish the qualifications of her expert witnesses, which is completely incompetent lawyering. And anyone who thinks that ANY court is going to buy the Minor v. Happersett argument does not understand just how lame that argument is. Seriously, Minor does not say “a natural born citizen is a person born here of two citizen parents.” It says, “a person born here of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen.” Trying to flip it around is like trying to flip:

    “a bee is an insect”

    into

    “an insect is a bee.”

    You can’t do it. The Minor argument will never, ever, ever win.

    So instead of going to bed tonight eating yourself alive because of how corrupt everything is, consider the possibility that maybe you’ve been misinformed. Take a deep breath and let yourselves feel better. It’s not Satan winning, it’s logic winning, and that’s okay . . .

49. Daniels and KBOA: Are you not glad now that I did not take your money? Dtate Bar here frowns on lawyers taking advantage of the intellectually challenged. However, I wish you both the best of luck in your future endeavors…as long as you learned your lesson from this.

50. I just read a post on another page that has info on this from another source that stated the judge ruled that Obama was NOT eligible to be on the GA ballot.

51. Judge Malihi ~~ Please reveal how much you were paid to make this decision?? or, perhaps it was a threat? How did they threaten you? … which is a crime in itself. Sarah Palin was threatened, which made her withdraw her candidacy. Is there no one that will stand for America? No one with Patriotism and love for America, to stand up against obvious crime and destruction????

52. Here’s the link from Orly’s site for the final court ruling. It appears they would’ve been better off just asking for the default ruling they were entitled to. Instead, they asked for a hearing on the record. Maybe it will be better on appeal, but not for now. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Malihi-final-ruling.pdf

53. This just makes me sick!!!!! This judge is such a disappointment to this country. Obama has been allowed to spit on a legal subpoena, so HE IS ABOVE THE LAW. WHAT A SAD DAY FOR EVERY CONSTITUTION LOVING AMERICAN. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO TRUST IN THIS JUDICIAL SYSTEM. THEY SOLD OUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TODAY, I HOPE HE CAN LOOK AT HIMSELF IN THE MIRROR. PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE THIS MATTER IN THEIR OWN HANDS. NOBODY IN JUDICIARY OR CONGRESS IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THE CANCER IN THIS COUNTRY BEFORE IT TAKES CARE OF US.

54. This is treason. Obama is not a natural born citizen. I have lost faith in both the Media and the Judiciary.

55. Impeach the BA$TARD…and NOW!

Comments are closed.