A dynamic alert and dialogue on preserving the U.S.A. Constitutional Republic form of limited government, free enterprise systems and responsible individual self-rule, as in... We the people, for the people, and by the people. A free flow of ideas, comments and opinions about individual challenges and/or opportunities and their solutions - congruent with the Judeo-Christian core values on which the U.S.A. was created, developed and formed.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama Eligibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama Eligibility. Show all posts
In
former Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams, eligibility activist Tom
Ballantyne thought he had found a Republican ally who would champion the
Constitution by demanding a congressional investigation into Barack
Obama’s “natural-born citizen” status.
After all, Adams told Ballantyne he was so fierce a defender of the
Constitution that he battled his state’s Republican governor in court to
protect the legislature’s enumerated powers from executive-branch
encroachment.
When it came to investigating Obama’s eligibility, however, Adams –
who is now running for the U.S. House – said he feared Congress standing
up to the chief executive would trigger “a constitutional crisis unlike
one we’ve seen since perhaps the Civil War.”
In a video shot by Ballantyne, author of “Oh Really, O’Reilly!”
and cameraman Gabe Zolna, Adams affirmed his oath of office to defend
the Constitution, but worried that investigating Obama’s potential
violation of that Constitution would create tremendous “fallout” among
the American people.
“First off, I do think it’s entirely appropriate that every candidate
for office be able to prove their eligibility,” Adams said. “But … can
you imagine the constitutional crisis that would ensue?”
He continued, “Because of how big that would be, I simply do not
believe that an investigation by a volunteer posse of the sheriff gives
enough credibility to this issue to really push this issue.”
Instead, Adams insisted Congress shouldn’t act until the question of
Obama’s eligibility had “worked its way through the legal process.”
Video of the exchange can be seen below, with Adams’ remarks on eligibility beginning at roughly the 5:55 mark:
The video concludes with Ballantyne arguing that Obama’s potential
ineligibility has already triggered a Constitutional crisis and that the
issue can’t “work its way through the legal process” because the courts
won’t grant “standing” to those seeking answers.
“Absent a congressional hearing and congressional force of authority
being brought to bear,” Ballantyne said, “it seems that everybody is
waiting for somebody else to do it.”
Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today's professional journal for church leaders. He is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, "Popcorn and a (world)view."More ↓
Chelsea Schilling is a commentary editor and staff writer for WND, an editor of Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, and a proud homeschooling mother of two. Schilling joined the Army at age 17, receiving the rare designation of expert marksman three times. In addition to WND, Schilling has worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news reporter for the Sacramento Union.
While many U.S. mainstream media outlets spike news about the Obama eligibility investigation, Russia’s government radio is keeping the world abreast of the scandal that has caused “the biggest censorship and blackout in the history of journalism.”
The Voice of Russia – successor of Radio Moscow, the official station of the Soviet Union – published an exclusive interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio March 26 titled, “Obama’s birth certificate may be forgery.” As WND reported, Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse announced there is probable cause indicating the documents released by the White House last April purported to be Obama’s original, long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card are actually forgeries.
“Wherever I go, people commend me for doing this,” Arpaio told The Voice of Russia. “So, naturally this has been probably the biggest censorship and blackout in the history of journalism when no one from the national level will cover the story.”
He continued, “You know, when I do something, whether it is [inaudible] pink underwear or chain gangs, what I feed to inmates, that goes national. I’ve been on 4,000 international profiles, international and national, and yet this has been has been blacked out when I’m investigating this situation.”
WND recently reported Russian news website Pravda published an accusation that the American media is “tame,” afraid to publish news and is “deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about [President Obama's] defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States.”
However, in the recent The Voice of Russia interview, the Russian host argued that the Obama eligibility issue has been covered by “hundreds” of U.S. news outlets for years – after both Donald Trump and Arpaio brought up the question.
“Well, I wish you would tell me who they are. I’m sure it’s not national. CBS, ABC, cable?” Arpaio asked. “Just show me who has been covering it. They haven’t been covering. I’m not going to get into inside sources that say that they don’t want to cover it, that’s another issue when we are talking about the media. But where is all the news? You are calling me, you are dealing with Russia, so I have to talk to Russia to get this story out.”
Arpaio explained that he is on cable news outlets regularly to talk about other issues, but producers are not calling him to ask questions about the Cold Case Posse investigation.
He noted that major media outlets showed up to his March 1 press conference merely to scoff at his efforts to hold Obama accountable.
“They showed up to insult me and not look at the facts of the evidence that we put on the screen,” he said. “They didn’t question the evidence, which is interesting. They wanted to question what my motives were.”
Arpaio refuted allegations that the Cold Case Posse investigation has anything to do with his own efforts to be re-elected.
“I’ve been elected and re-elected five times,” he said. “I sure don’t need this to get elected this year, believe me. I can get elected on pink underwear that I make the inmates wear. I sure don’t need this issue. I’m doing something that I know might be rather controversial. But when people came to me and asked to look into it, why not give it to my volunteer posse? So, I did. And I told them I want you to clear the president on this birth certificate, but they’re coming up with evidence that’s not clearing the president. That’s the way it is in law enforcement.”
Arpaio explained that any layperson could conclude that the birth certificate Obama presented online is a forgery.
“Well, we’ve done our research,” he said. “I think any amateur could look at what we presented and come to the theory that it is not the true birth certificate.”
Arpaio added, “You know, I don’t run Hawaii, so I presume that we will be writing to Hawaii. And you know, from Day 1 all I said – to clear the air, let’s look at the microfilm in Hawaii, if the president was born in that hospital, look at the microfilm and prove it, that’s all. We have two other twins that were born the day after and the day before. The microfilm shows that they were born, so let’s see the microfilm – forget the birth certificate, if that’s an argument. Show the microfilm, and that clears the air. Where is the microfilm?”
A political action committee which believes Barack Obama is not legally qualified for U.S. president plans a live broadcast of tomorrow’s hotly anticipated court hearing in Atlanta regarding Obama’s eligibility.
Based in Simi Valley, Calif., the PAC says it decided to act out of a sense of frustration, since most national news outlets have been ignoring the constitutional mandate that presidents be a “natural-born citizen,” which the PAC maintains is a person who is a child of two U.S. citizen parents.
“The PAC saw the need to do this last month, because of the often incomplete and biased coverage of this issue by mainstream news media and recently received permission from the court,” said director Helen Tansey, who will personally manage on-site efforts.
“After the office of the president of the United States was usurped by a dual-citizen candidate in 2008, the nation was awakened to the realization that the U.S. Constitution, in particular Article II and presidential eligibility, no longer matters to our elected representatives and the mainstream media,” the PAC says on its website.
“Efforts for redress against this attack on the U.S. Constitution ranging from lawsuits to merely seeking the truth as to how it could happen were met with lies, obfuscation and even ridicule. With a complicit media ignoring all calls for honest reporting on the issue, Americans harnessed the Internet and the new technologies of the 21st century to join in a communications revolution bypassing the media and bringing to life the ideals of our Founding Fathers.”
The PAC says its overall goal is to “ensure that citizens and elected officials clearly understand Article II and the definitive meaning intended by the United States of America’s Founding Fathers of ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,’ thereby working to create a legally binding vetting apparatus which will ensure all presidential and vice-presidential candidates are constitutionally eligible in 2012 and future elections.
“We are raising the needed resources to develop materials, to promote our message across the country, assisting with key state ballot challenges, continuing to assemble our legal team which include the brightest constitutional and elections law experts and so much more.”
The PAC has even produced a brief video stating its concerns:
WND reported Friday on the stunning decision from Judge Michael M. Malihi, who refused a demand from Obama’s lawyer to quash the subpoena for Thursday.
WND had reported earlier when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates. Such challenges have been raised in New Hampshire, Arizona, Illinois and several other states.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Malihi, however, took a different view.
“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.’”
Hearings have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by 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.
Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for the cases, argued that he should be exempted.
“Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate Two or ObamaForgeryGate. I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting president is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking individuals,” Taitz said.
Separately, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had gotten a subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the goal apparently is to ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s eligibility, but he said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn’t be able to say much about it.
He wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama’s long-form birth certificate.
Obama’s attorney, 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.
“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.
Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”
In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.
Barack Obama
Irion said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances based on his own testimony.
Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.
The Georgia hearing apparently will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.
There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states.
The image released by the White House in April:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”
That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.More ↓
A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.
WND reported this week when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Judge Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.
“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, released today.
“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.’”
Hearings have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by 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.
Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for the cases, argued that he should be exempted.
“Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate Two or ObamaForgeryGate. I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting president is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking individuals,” Taitz said.
She told WND that it’s been 40 years since any court issued such a ruling concerning a president.
Separately, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had gotten a subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the goal apparently is to ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s eligiblity, but he said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn’t be able to say much about it.
Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, 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.
He wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama’s long-form birth certificate.
Also, required are medical, religious administrative and other records about Obama’s birth; passports, applications and related records; college and university applications; bar association applications and materials; details on the citizenship of Obama’s father and other documents.
Taitz had filed an opposition to the motion to quash, taking Obama directly to task over what many consider an important constitutional question – the eligibility of a presidential candidate.
“It is noteworthy, that [the quash request] comes on the heels of his extended 17 day Hawaiian vacation, which cost U.S. taxpayers 4 million dollars. Mr. Obama has earned a dubious distinction as a Vacationer in Chief, Tourist in Chief, Partier in Chief and a Golfer in Chief due to his endless vacations, parties and rounds of golf. Considering … it is not too much to ask for Mr. Obama to show up once at a hearing and present his original identification records, which were not seen by anyone in the country yet,” she argued.
Obama’s attorney, 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 argues.
“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.
Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”
In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.
Barack Obama
Irion said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances based on his own testimony.
Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.
The Georgia hearing apparently will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.
There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states.
The image released by the White House in April:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”
That case states:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.
Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Hearing have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael M. 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.
Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for these cases, argtued that he should be exempted.
Jablonski earlier had argued that state eligibility requirements didn’t apply to Obama, but the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”
He also argues that the documents and testimony “is, on its face, unreasonable.” And further, the documents and testimony already have been made public, he argued.
“The president made the documents available to the general public by placing it on his website. Although the document has been generally available for years, the president took the extraordinary step of acquiring a copy of the record of birth, informally known as the ‘long form,’ making it available to anyone who cares to check the website,” the filing argues.
And the state should mind its own business anyway, he argued.
“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 explains.
“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.
Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”
In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election, and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.
Barack Obama
Those bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, 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.
Irion said not many court observers believed Obama actually would comply with the subpoena for a number of reasons. He said for his clients’ arguments the testimony wouldn’t even be an issue.
His argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances.
Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that a multitude of experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It is that concern that also has prompted Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Their investigation report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.
The Georgia hearing will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus explains that the use of “natural born citizen,” does, in fact, require parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision
The hearing is set at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.
Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states as well.
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
What the White House in April released was as an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama’s father’s nationality.
The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
Shortly after Obama took office, it was CRS staffer Jerry W. Mansfield, an information research specialist in the Knowledge Services Group, who wrote a memo titled "Qualifications of Barack Obama to Be President of the United States" that seemed aimed at providing talking points for members of Congress whose constituents who were questioning the absence of documentation for Obama.
He cites the questions that have plagued Obama from before his 2008 election – the location of his birth and the status of his parents. The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," and a common definition at the time the Constitution was written was an offspring of two citizen parents.
While Obama has released a purported "Certificate of Live Birth" from Hawaii, there are experts who have questioned whether it is genuine. Others say even if he was born in Hawaii, he would not be eligible because his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of the birth. They argue the inclusion of "natural born" in the Constitution precluded dual citizens from occupying the Oval Office.
The definition of the status was addressed in 1875 in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Minor v. Happersett, which concluded it was a child born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of location of the birth.
That decision 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."
The current Supreme Court has avoided addressing the question directly, according to one of its members, by refusing to hear any of the dozens of cases that have been brought specifically on the question of the application of "natural born citizen" to a child whose father was a foreign national, whether he was born on U.S. soil or not.
But Maskell states that "the Supreme Court has never needed to address this particular issue within the specific context of a challenge to the eligibility of a candidate under Article II, Section 1, clause 5, the only place in the entire Constitution that the phrase appears."
He said that because the Supreme Court "has never needed to address this particular issue," there is "certain speculation on the scope of the language."
Corsi notes that Maskell simply advances the argument that "native born" is equivalent to "natural born" and that "being a 'U.S. citizen at birth' is equivalent to 'natural born citizen.'"
"The end result of Maskell's analysis is that an anchor baby born to two illegal immigrants, or a baby born in 'birth tourism' to two foreign national parents and raised outside the United States would both be eligible to be president, provided the person was 35 years old and had spent 14 years as a resident living within the United States before running for president," Corsi writes.
"Maskell typically states as established fact legal principles that truthfully remain in dispute, for instance, on page 1 of the report, where he asserts that a person born 'in' the United States of one or more alien parents is 'clearly a U.S. citizen 'at birth' by the Fourteenth Amendment,'" Corsi continues.
"In so concluding, Maskell intentionally ignores the 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' qualification with the language of the Fourteenth Amendment that opponents to anchor babies and birth tourism feel invalidates the entire concept that being born in the U.S. is sufficient to being deemed a 'U.S. citizen at birth,'" he says.
Corsi continues, "Similarly, Maskell wants to read English Common Law into the 'natural born citizen' requirement of Article 2, Section 1, because under English Common Law a 'natural born subject' is anyone born on English soil, a principle known as jus soli – a right conferred by place of birth – rather than jus sanguinis – a right conferred by blood, requiring an inquiry into the citizenship of the parents when a child is born."
He notes that Maskell, "in his pro-Obama advocacy," asserted the two-citizen parent requirement would "entail the unique notion that under American jurisprudence parental citizenship or lineage is the determining factor for eligibility to the presidency for native born U.S. citizens."
"In so doing, Maskell failed to acknowledge the concern the Founders had when inserting into the Constitution the 'natural born citizen' requirement that being a citizen was not sufficient for a person to ascend to the presidency," Corsi says.
Maskell argues that "natural born" citizens probably were considered by the early members of Congress "to include more than merely the 'native born,' that is, those born in the country."
And he notes at the time of the Dredd Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court affirming slavery, the U.S. attorney general wrote, "I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship."
The Constitution, however, requires "natural born," not only "native born."
That's no problem, Maskell said, as various commentators, such as James Kent in his "Commentaries on American Law," equated the two terms.
And he said the U.S. Supreme Court did the same thing in an opinion, quoting, "We start with the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be president."
In Obama's case, he says, "there is currently no requirement under federal law … for any federal candidate, that is, candidates to the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, of the office of president, to publish, produce, or release an official 'birth certificate.'"
He writes, "The initial burden of proof is always upon those who challenge a candidate's eligibility, and not on a candidate to 'prove' eligibility."
He continues by noting that "no official record" … is around that places "President Obama's mother in a foreign country at the time of the president's birth."
He also moves on to arguments that are thin, Corsi says, quoting the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the Kerchner v. Obama eligibility case that "because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed."
However, in that case, when the Kerchner side pointed out that under the rules of the court, a threat of sanctions comes with a right to discovery regarding the allegations, the court retreated from its position.
That also happened in a previous case involving Gregory S. Hollister, who brought a challenge to Obama's eligibility. A threat of sanctions was met with approval by Hollister's attorney, because then he would have the right of discovery. Again, the court retreated.
Concludes Maskell, "Every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States … is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a 'natural born citizen' eligible to be president … regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one's parents."
The article in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy stated: "The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'decidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision.'"
She said "emotional" reasons were defeating attempts by "rational" arguments to remove it.
She was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm Kirkland & Ellis, where partner Bruce I. Ettelson cited his membership on the finance committee for Obama. Her writings were available online under law review articles from Kent University until after WND reported on the statements.
Mansfield told WND that he had written the memo to give to congressional constituents who were peppering congressional offices for a response to eligibility challenges.
WND also has reported that there have been at least eight attempts by members of Congress, during the past few years as Obama was developing his power base and running for president, to remove the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump, who staged a weeks-long public campaign questioning Barack Obama's eligibility to be president during March and April – and rose to the top of the pool of potential candidates for the 2012 GOP nomination then as a result – says he believes the "birth certificate" released by the White House is forged.
Trump asked Corsi about the book, its evidence and what is happening next in the effort to document whether Obama is, in fact, constitutionally qualified for the presidency under Article 2, Section 1's "natural born citizen" requirement.
Trump said his period of almost-complete silence on the issue following the release by the White House on April 27 of the image of a "Certificate of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii was not because he was satisfied with the document.
"I always said I wanted to know if it was real," Trump told Corsi.
The image has been challenged by a number of experts in the field, and the original, of course, has yet to be seen, much less analyzed.
The state of Hawaii said it inserted "safety paper" into a copy machine and copied onto the new paper the original image from its state records. However, state officials were unwilling to confirm to WND after the image was released that what was issued by the White House was, in fact, an accurate representation of their original records.
During their conversation, Trump told Corsi his own computer expert told him at the release that it was a computer-generated document.
That opinion has been repeated many times, and WND has reported on a few of the objections that have been raised by various experts:
Ivan Zatkovich, of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, for example, analyzed the various layers in the PDF file released by the White House, and concluded: "The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web."
The image that was released, described by the White House as "proof positive" of Obama's Hawaiian birth:
Image released by the White House April 27, 2011
Zatkovich, with 28 years experience in computer science and document management and for more than 10 years an expert witness providing testimony in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation, said the multiple PDF document layers are unusual.
"When a paper document is scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file it normally contains only a single layer of graphical information. The PDF that appears on the White House website however, contains multiple layers of graphic information. Multiple layers usually appear in a document like this when it is being edited or modified in some fashion.
"It is possible to take a single layer PDF and inadvertently create multiple layers, without changing the image in any fashion. But that does not appear to be the case here. The multiple layers in the PDF document are a result of changes made to the image," his report said.
Among the various items that were separated into different layers include the main text, the mother's occupation, the dates accepted, the stamp and signature of the state registrar and the time stamp of the state registrar:
The document is broken into layers.
The background layer – with all of the additional layers removed – essentially has the text removed except some random portions of signatures and a white border where the text appears on other layers:
The background, without layers of information added on top
Also, the main layer of text reveals most of the wording on the document, with strange exceptions such as the first part of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama's signature. The main text layer has only "unham Obama." Likewise, "Kenya" is spelled "enya" and "Barack" is spelled Ba ack."
Denninger posted a series of reports online, including on YouTube, where he explains his concerns, which focus around the lettering as it appears on the document that reportedly is a photocopy on green "safety paper" of the original record in Hawaii
He explains that the type on the birth document show evidence of "kerning," the squeezing of letters into a line so that they intrude into adjacent letter spaces. Kerning is routine since the advent of word processors and computers, but impossible with a typewriter.
"This process, of course, requires that you know what the next letter is. With a computer this is pretty easy, since the computer can retroactively go back and adjust, and it also can typeset the current letter with the knowledge of what the previous one was," he reported. "A typewriter, on the other hand, is a mechanical device. It does not know what the next letter is that you will type, nor does it know what the last letter was that you typed. It thus has a typeface that always leaves physical space between the boundary of each character."
His full explanation is on video:
"To refute this point you must come up with a typewriter that contains a flux capacitor and thus is capable of accurately predicting the future," he said. "This document has been assembled by somebody on a computer."
However, the document released by the White House was entirely typed. Only the signatures and two dates at the very bottom were "handwritten." What Fukino described is apparently a different document from what Obama released to the public.
Among other questions that remain about the document:
The objectivity of "experts" cited by the mainstream media to verify the birth certificate is suspect, including that of Fox News Channel's Jean-Claude Tremblay, who assured America they "should not be suspicious" of the document, but who, WND discovered, had heralded Obama's election victory in an online post.
Obama's posted birth certificate contains the same anomalies as a well-known forgery that claimed he was born in Kenya, suggesting the anomalous markings came from the same source. "How could Obama's 'real' birth certificate share these unique characteristics with an obvious forgery?" asks Farah. "For the life of me, I can't figure out an answer other than they were created by the same person or persons."
The birth certificate's reported delivering physician, Dr. David Sinclair, differs from previously published reports and even the myth-busting Snopes.com's original entry, which named Dr. Rodney T. West as the doctor of record.
Obama's purported birth certificate contains over a dozen differences in form from the verified, Hawaii copy of the birth certificate issued to the Nordyke twins, born the next day at the same reported hospital.
The local registrar listed in the Nordyke twins' birth certificate is notably different than the local registrar on the Obama birth certificate.
Though Obama was born before the Nordyke twins, and though his birth was filed with the registrar three days before the twins' birth, Obama's purported birth certificate has a higher registration number.
In Box 3, "This Birth," there are two "Xs" above "Twin" and "Triplet" – why are these "Xs" here and what do they signify?
What is the meaning of the smudges in the Obama birth certificate in the box containing the name of the attending physician?
What is the significance of the numbers, seen vertically, on the right side of the Obama birth certificate?
There are those Obama critics, too, who says that the document released by the White House, if authentic, actually proves Obama's ineligibility. They cite the indication that Barack Obama Sr. was listed as the father, but he never was a U.S. citizen. They contend those who wrote the requirement for presidents to be a "natural born citizen" disqualified dual citizens at birth, such as Obama.
Obama Jr. himself even seemed to hold that position, suggesting in a resolution he co-sponsored to address Sen. John McCain's status as a "natural born Citizen" that the status requires "American citizen" parents.
Listen to Corsi's account of the conversation with Trump:
"I told him he needs to publicly say that the document in the vault, the original long-form birth certificate, needs to be exposed and examined independently," Corsi said. "The doctor's records, the Kapiolani records of Ann Dunham to corroborate she was in that hospital."
"I told him if you don't press these issues you can't be surprised if there are those who think you're working with Barack Obama [on the dispute]," Corsi added.
During much of April Trump made regular appearances on talk shows and news broadcasts, and almost every time either he or the interviewer raised questions about Obama's eligibility. At the same time, he regularly was in conversation with Corsi and others who helped Corsi investigate the Obama eligibility dispute about the evidence that exists.
As a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll demonstrated, by raising questions about Obama's eligibility repeatedly, going as far as suggesting Obama's tenure might be illegal, Trump rose in popularity among GOP voters.
In that poll, 19 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they'd likely support Trump for the 2012 GOP nomination.
His support rose from only 10 percent just a month earlier.
WND has reported on Trump's statements regarding Obama's eligibility:
"There's something fishy about the whole thing," Trump has said of Obama's background, birth story and constant refusal to release a wide range of documents that would reveal information about his heritage and upbringing.
Trump has also been skeptical regarding the oft-cited 1961 Honolulu newspaper notices.
"I see so much fraud in this world, an ad like that could have been staged. I see so many fraudulent things going on that would be like the least of it," Trump said.
He suggested it was incredible that no doctor, nurse or other person has come forward to recall the birth of such a famous person.
Trump told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly the significance of the dispute isn't clear to many people.
"There is certainly a chance that he was not born in this country. Now if he was not born in this country, that means he can't be president. It's very simple," Trump explained.
by Drew Zahn
by 
by 
by 
