Register | Login   
   
 
 


 

Click to visit our Pro-Life page

    Minimize
 
 

    Minimize
 
News Archives By Catagory
Acorn (14)
Agenda 21 (19)
Big Government (939)
Birth Certificate (172)
Book (1)
Business (214)
C4F Past Events (28)
Cap and Trade (81)
Carl Paladino for Governor of NY (268)
Carl Vincent (3)
Catholic (109)
Census (9)
Committeemen (5)
Communism (438)
Community (23)
Conservative (626)
Corruption (361)
Crime - Riot (336)
Defend Traditional Marriage (76)
Education Articles (320)
Elections (678)
Environmentalism Articles (378)
EPA (175)
Featured Articles (202)
Federal Power Grab (304)
Financial Meltdown (1132)
Fraud and Waste Articles (246)
Freedom (497)
Free Speech Articles (173)
Friends of Seniors (2)
GOE - Gathering of Eagles (12)
Governor's Race NY (268)
Governor Chris Christie NJ (12)
Health Care Articles (785)
Home Schooling (12)
Humor (11)
Illegal Immigration Articles (269)
Internet take over (62)
Judicial (217)
Legislation (131)
Lisa Douglas WC Leg. 2nd Distr. (17)
Local Politics (632)
Media (212)
Military (300)
Monroe Tea Party (10)
NY District 19 Congressional Race (28)
NYS Constitution Lobby (2)
New World Order (23)
Newsletter (2)
One World Government (45)
Opinion Articles (78)
Political Articles (1982)
Polls (69)
Preparedness (10)
Presidential Race 2012 (671)
Press Release (28)
Privacy Issues (37)
Pro-Life Articles (488)
Racism (152)
Radicals (1622)
Regulation (237)
Religion and politics (802)
Ricki D. (64)
Sarah Palin (129)
Senate - NY (29)
Social Articles (312)
Socialism Articles (258)
Supreme Court (7)
Taxes (256)
Tea Party Movement (848)
Tea Party Rally (79)
Tea Party Youth (10)
Treaty (6)
Trump (25)
TSA (51)
Unions (243)
Videos (939)
War on Terror Articles (1040)
2nd Amendment Articles (184)
    Minimize
 
News & Articles


26

Georgia court told Obama slam-dunk disqualified

Sworn testimony reveals fake Social Security number, other gaps

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1lGFYYNkw_o/TTX5_lPADvI/AAAAAAAACZA/hLlt7LLIjn8/s1600/%2521%2521ObamaPinching+ConstNBCNew.jpg

Georgia residents today delivered sworn testimony to a court that Barack Obama is slam-dunk disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state because his father never was a U.S. citizen, so he forever is prevented from qualifying as a “natural born citizen” as the U.S. Constitution demands for a president.

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

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

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

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

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

Several of the attorneys introduced passages from Obama’s own writings that Barack Obama Sr. was his father, and then introduced evidence that the man never was a U.S. citizen; that he was a citizen of Kenya at the time of junior’s birth and was therefore a subject of the United Kingdom.

That, they said, precludes him from serving as president, since the Founders required that officer to be a “natural born citizen,” unlike a “citizen.”

The term is not defined in the Constitution, but evidence introduced included a passage from an 1975 Supreme Court opinion that states, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

During Welden’s presentation, the attorney also explained that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural born citizen.”

He argued also that another later court case referenced citizenship in the dicta, not the central holding in the case, and thus was not controlling.

Many of Irion’s arguments were echoed by Hatfield, a strategy that at least one constitutional expert, Herb Titus, said was sound.

Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Va. Prior to his academic career, he served as a trial attorney and a special assistant United States attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Mo.

He told WND the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen should be sufficient.

“That is much stronger than the question of where he was born,” he said. “That alone is evidence. … They don’t need anything additional.”

Taitz argued multiple prongs of the situation; that the birth certificate released by the White House is a forgery, that he probably has had several citizenships, such as when he was listed in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen, and how he’s been known under the names Obama, Soetoro, and Seobarkah.

She also had a witness testify that it appears Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number.

Private investigator Susan Daniels testified to that issue, and documents and imaging expert Doug Vogt said the birth documentation released by the White House actually was a creation of a software program and not a scan of any original document.

That would leave Obama’s documentation, despite what the White House released in April, still under wraps.

Obama and his attorney boycotted the proceedings, issuing a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp that the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.” This comment came after Malihi refused to quash a subpoena for Obama’s testimony and his records, which effectively was ignored by the White House.

The judge is expected to review the evidence and make a recommendation to the state whether there is reason to be concerned over Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.

He apparently will have no defense evidence, but Kemp had warned Obama about that.

Kemp, said late last night in a response to a demand from Obama’s attorney he simply order the hearing stopped, “Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued. “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.”

But the judge thought otherwise.

“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.

“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.

“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,’” the judge said.

Jablonski also had argued that the state should mind its own business.

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

The image released by the White House in April:


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

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

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

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

Join citizens4freedom on facebook and share us with your fb friends. We are 5000+ strong for freedom!

Comments

Yankee Patriot
# Yankee Patriot
Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:40 PM

Update 1:05 pm: Per telecon between G Wilmott and Dean Haskins which was relayed to me. Dean Haskins who was in the courtroom this morning assisting with the Art 2Pac live stream. Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama’s name not be on the Georgia ballot! All the attorneys expressed a desire to put an abbreviated streamlined case on the record and the judge agreed. How does the mainstream media spin this? The Georgia SOS has already indicated that he will follow the judge’s recommendation. Obama will not get any popular vote or electors from the great state of Georgia! Congratulations to all freedom-loving Americans!
Yankee Patriot
# Yankee Patriot
Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:41 PM

Guys we have to keep this issue alive. We have to keep it going! Post this everywhere you go and everyday here! WE DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF TIME!!!!:

This is a national call to action to help ensure Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution is upheld by stopping Obama from getting back in the White House for another 4 un-Constitutional years.

Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. This FACT has now been placed into the judicial system in the state of Georgia. It began because a complaint was filed and the state had to answer the complaint. We as freedom loving U.S. Americans must now fill the complaint coffers in every state of our wonderful UNION!

File complaints in YOUR state, NOW:
http://​obamaballotchallenge.com/
Anonymous User
# Anonymous User
Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:23 PM
http://wheresobamasbirthcertificate.com/blog/?p=151
Site Administrator
# Site Administrator
Saturday, January 28, 2012 10:47 PM
Thanks for sharing C4F.

Doug McCormick:
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, (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
Judge Malihi 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.” (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.
Yankee Patriot
# Yankee Patriot
Monday, January 30, 2012 8:42 AM
It's called the LAW! This story is so far off base that it is an insult to journalism. Using "birther" again to demonize anyone that that calls Obama's qualifications to be the Constitutional President of the United States into question.

Even if he was born in Hawaii and even of the birth certificate posted last is not a fraud, in order to be a 'Natural Born Citizen' and qualify to be the President of the United States, both parents MUST be U.S. citizens at the time of birth. Not only was Obama, Jr's father, Obama Sr., not a U.S. Citizen, he NEVER became one.

Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. was not and is not qualified to be the President of the United States of America under Article Two of the United States Constitution. Article two, now, not an Amendment, not an added law, but the Supreme Law of the United States. Above all else, including the Supreme Court. Section 1, Clause 5 "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". Please note, especially the people that did this ridiculous piece of so-called journalism above that "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen" are mentioned separately in the Constitution.

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.

Here's the real problem, when this criminal act is finally admitted to or proven and in your face, who will pay for it? The media ...the Congress ...the Supreme Court ...the Governors ...how about Karen C. Handel and all the other Secretaries of State ...the legislatures of every state ...WHO WILL PAY FOR ALLOWING AN UNQUALIFIED PERSON TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES??? I know, George W. Bush, he was the leader of the Executive Branch and should have stopped Obama from even running for the Presidency in the first place and everybody wants to blame him for everything anyway! LOL!!
Site Administrator
# Site Administrator
Monday, January 30, 2012 9:05 AM
Thank you Yankee Patriot for your very informative post. Stay the course for freedom!
Yankee Patriot
# Yankee Patriot
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:59 AM
The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907 (federal statute) as proof, and being that, Elg was born prior to the 19th Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, her status was still tied to that of her husband.
Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents. (plural)

This all clearly shows: That a person can be a "citizen" under the following circumstances:
1) Person was born of one citizen parent (Obama), or
2) Person was born in the US mainland ("anchor babies"), or
3) Person was naturalized (like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who most know is not eligible for President).

To be a "natural born citizen" the person MUST be born in the US mainland of two US citizen parents. (plural)
Obama is at best a citizen, but NOT a 'natural born citizen' even IF he was born in the State of Hawaii because he had only ONE U.S. citizen parent. (singular)
Yankee Patriot
# Yankee Patriot
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:20 AM
Article II Super PAC does not make contributions to candidates. Art2SuperPAC may accept unlimited corporate contributions and unlimited individual contributions. Funds raised by Art2SuperPAC will only be used for independent expenditures. Contributions to Art2SuperPAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from foreign nationals and federal-government contractors are prohibited.

Join us in our efforts today by signing up to volunteer and/or making a donation. Every person and every penny counts. Working together increases our ability to reach a majority of voters to cast their 2012 votes for only those presidential and vice presidential candidates who are constitutionally eligible.

http://art2superpac.com/donate.html
Peter
# Peter
Saturday, February 04, 2012 12:45 AM
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12 Anyone that is a citizen can now be the President. No matter what the framers of the constitution wanted. Wow never thought that they would determine this. By reading his ruling the citizenship of the parents means nothing as long as they are born in the U.S.. So all of the children born to those that come over here to have their babies are now eligible to be our President. China will no be searching their citizens for kids that were born in the U.S. so they can usurp the U.S. with their own candidate.
Peter
# Peter
Saturday, February 04, 2012 2:32 AM
APPEAL!!!!!!
The judge refers to the Indiana case to provide the reasoning that he was eligible to be on the ballot but that case says that it doesn't determine what a natural born citizen is. This has to be addressed by the Supreme court. It has to be defined and to me it still doesn't pass the sniff test. If the only requirement be that they are born in the United States then why even worry about putting that in their? Even at the end of the case they state the following.
[14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born Citizen" using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation's history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S.Ct. at 478.

[15] We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.
Site Administrator
# Site Administrator
Saturday, February 04, 2012 7:08 AM
Thank you for the update Peter. argggggggggggg!!!
Anonymous User
# Anonymous User
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:09 PM
Thursday March 29, 2012 - C4F Newsletter - Stand Up for Religious Freedom

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.

Join citizens4freedom on facebook and share us with your fb friends.

    Minimize
 
Purchase Ribbon

Click here to purchase the "We The People Shall Speak" ribbon.

    Minimize
 
 

Your kind donation helps C4F in this fight for freedom.

God bless you! God bless and restore our republic!

Let's stand for freedom!

    Minimize
 
Facebook Live Stream

    Minimize
 
   

 

 

 

 
Click to see the US debt visualized
 

 
May 21, 2012
 
YOU ARE HERE:    Articles
 
Copyright 2011 - Citizens4Freedom
 Terms Of Use  |  Privacy Statement