Obama on Trial: Ballot Eligibility Hearing in Georgia Streamed Live

*UPDATE: The ruling on this matter is in.

*UPDATE: Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation results will be revealed March 1, 2012.

Though Hillary Clinton rarely gets the credit anymore for it, she was the ‘mother’ of the ‘birther’ movement.  While many people know the “birther” movement as one challenging President Obama’s birth certificate and birth place, there is another aspect of it that often gets overlooked. This aspect is that of him meeting the ‘natural born’ clause of the Constitutional requirement to be president.

When John McCain’s eligibility was challenged during the 2008 campaigns, Congress, including Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, declared he was “natural born” and eligible  due to him being born of two American citizen parents. Barack Obama, himself, by his own admission, does not meet this criteria because his father was a British subject. This is backed up by the birth certificate he produced April 27, 2011.

The matter of the president’s eligibility for the office which he holds and to appear on election ballots has been filed in courts before, but always with the same result: denial of a hearing. Until now. Not only has Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi agreed to hear the Georgia state ballot eligibility case, but he has denied Obama’s request (via his attorney) to quash the subpoena for him to appear and produce all relevant documents.

The hearing began at 9:00 a.m. ET on Thursday, January 26, 2012 and is being streamed live by at least three different websites, which will be providing “gavel to gavel” coverage. Coverage may be viewed on the websites of Article II Super PAC, Birther Summit and Art2SuperPAC.

Early reports were that President Obama was going to refuse to obey a subpoena to be present will all requested documents and that his attorney Michael Jablonski. Such action could lead to him being found in contempt of court.

By the time the hearing began, it was clear the president would not be in attendance. After the judge refused to quash the subpoena demanding Obama appear at the hearing, Obama, through his attorney, sought relief from Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp the evening before the scheduled hearing, in order to bypass the judge’s ruling and “take the trial away from the judge.”

This tactic failed, with Kemp responding that

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

Kemp went on to add

“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.”

Obama’s claim that he is too busy to attend and that attending would “interrupt his duties” is in stark contrast to his schedule, which contains record-setting numbers of days of vacationing and golf, as well as several days, during the course of the hearing, of campaign trail stops across the country.

Whether you agree with the challenge to his eligibility or not, this trial should prove to be an interesting one. If he is found to be ineligible in Georgia to be on the ballot because he does not meet the Constitutional requirements to be president, how many other states will follow suit? Will it be a clear Red state/Blue state issue, or will all states find themselves compelled to obey the law of the land?

Will Congress remove him from office or will they fight to keep him in? What do YOU think will happen, if he is found ineligible? If he is found ineligible he will likely not only appeal the ruling, but sue Georgia, given his track record of suing states that challenge him on anything, even no no hair removal reviews.

About these ads


Categories: Barack Obama, Constitution, Law, U.S. Constitution

Tags: , , , , ,

116 replies

  1. Excellent article, I was looking forward to your post. I understand that the only group that has to investigate weither a candidate is “natural born” is the party that nominates him. Since everyone knew he is not “natural born” which the Supreme has defined as the parents being citizens, you just have to wonder whose minding the store in Washington certainly not Congress. I sometimes wonder what kind of plans the devious Democrats have up their sleave.

  2. He will certainly make the statement(or his media will do it for him) that the Georgia judge is racist if he loses.

  3. Thank you, West Texas, for the kind words. I have often wondered the same thing. I think we have a long way to go before we get the Executive and Legislative branches sufficiently cleaned up.

    Mad Mike: great point. I thought about that as I wrote the article: the likelihood the DOJ or ACLU would step in and make claims that a ruling against him is racially based.

    It is my understanding that the ruling must be made before the primary election in Georgia, which is to be held on March 6. It is also my understanding that the burden of proof falls on Obama, who has opted not to be part of the process. Even if the ruling is against Obama, the Georgia Secretary of State can still put him on the ballot, so there are two battles to be won here.

  4. It seems to me that ignoring a subpoena to appear from a Judge is an impeachable offense.Abuse of power of the office of President. Nixon, and Clinton had to answer their subpoenas, so what is so different in this case for Mr. Obama, or whatever his real name is?

  5. @Robert at the very least, it is my understanding that he is currently in contempt of court, though I am not aware of any contempt order being issued against him. It will be interesting to see what consequences, if any, he will face for his willful and contemptuous failure to appear.

    His pattern of behavior is that of someone who believes he is above the law, not someone upholding an oath to ” . . .the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    His refusal to appear and to provide the relevant documentation only serves to fuel suspicions about him and his eligibility. From his own mouth, “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

  6. Let me start this off by stating I loathe this president, but what’s the issue here? His mother is a citizen and he was born in Hawaii. Did I miss something here? Can someone please explain this to me?

    • Both parents have to be citizens at the time of birth to be “natural born”. His father was not an American citizen at any time. He was a British subject. That is the issue in this ballot challenge.

      • Daniella,

        I WISH what you are saying is true. But based on what I have found, this idea of ‘natural born’ is anything but clear cut. There have been all sorts of preceding cases that make this term vague, at best. There are some theories that the founding fathers made this term vague on purpose, with the understanding that heavy immigration was under way in the United States. Also, they were technically not ‘natural born’ citizens! There have been two amendments to the original law- one to correct for slavery and one to correct for those born on U.S. soil overseas. They both use different wording than ‘natural born’. I believe one actually uses ‘native born’ and I think the term ‘natural citizen’ have been used in the past law. Thus far, most courts have refused (not just with Obama, either) to hear these types of cases, lacking jurisdiction most of the time. But perhaps Georgia can claim jurisdiction this time due to the primaries there? In any case, I think this will need to go to the Supreme Court for final clarification. As it will likely mean a constitutional amendment, I think they will be very reluctant. I believe that Congress will do what they did for McCain- pass a non-binding resolution to allow him to run.

        Remember, the McCain resolution was NON- BINDING.

        It would be so nice to get Obama out of the race, but alas, I doubt it…

    • The location of Obama’s birth has yet to be proven. A real birth certificate has yet to be produced. The birth certificate produced a while ago appears to be a forgery. It was admitted into court and is now a matter of pubic record.

      Odds favor him being born in Kenya, his mother was 17 when she gave birth to him and was unable to convey citizenship because the law at the time required her to be 18 years old or older.

      The story behind that is that she was going to fly to Hawaii but the airlines did not want a woman that pregnant on the airplane. Obama’s paternal grandmother claims he was born in Kenya and that she was present. Both Michelle and Barack have made statements to the effect that he was born in Kenya.

      I was aware of Obama’s citizenship problems before I heard about the question of his birth location. My concerns arose because of his move to Indonesia. People say that you cannot lose your US citizenship by such a move. I have 4 cousins who did just that in 1964. The oldest was 8 years of age.

      Indonesian law at the time required everyone in a household to have the same citizenship and religion as the man of the house. The man of the house was Lolo Soter and he was Indonesian and Moslem. There is a possiblility that Obama was adopted and that complicates things. He used the Sotero last name for some time.

      All together, President Obama has locked away 15 to 20 documents representing every milestone in his life. I have picked out a few that I would like to see:
      1. Selective Service registration
      2. Passport from his 1980s world tour
      3. college scholarship papers because he is said to have attended college on a scholarship for foreign students.

      These are 3 documents that he would have signed off on as an adult, so his mother’s actions would not have made the decision. How did he see himself.

  7. I will say this one more time:

    We look RIDICULOUS when we focus on B. Hussein’s “citizenship.”

    There is WAY MORE important “stuff” on which to focus. Super Dude could have been born on NEPTUNE – but how would that change the way he has screwed up America?

    Damn, people – get a grip.

    • You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The facts are that unless his father is someone other than he claims and is listed on the birth certificate he produced and was an American citizen at the time of his birth, he does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being “natural born.”

      The challenge about whether he is eligible to be on the ballot is a valid one, under the circumstances, to people who believe his status as POTUS does not exempt him from obeying the laws of the land.

      Yes, there are many things which need to be addressed with this president, but is him illegally being on a ballot any less important than any of the other things he has done of questionable legality? If he is not Constitutionally eligible, isn’t it just as reasonable a means of stopping his destruction of America as was nailing Capone for tax fraud?

      No one seems to be willing to hold him accountable for his actions or to actually do more than talk about what he is doing. The fact that a judge has found sufficient cause to hear the case and has stood up to his shenanigans, is at the very least, a glimmer of hope that something will finally be done about this menace to our society.

      And no, he could not have been born on Neptune. That would disqualify him from the office he currently holds as it would make him Neptunian, rather than American, much less a “natural born” American.

      • Thanks for “entitling” me to my opinion.

      • Then take Romney off the ballot. His father was born in Mexico. That makes him a Mexican, right? At the very least he’s not a natural born citizen and so when he copulated with his wife Lenore, that produced Mitt who would fall under the same problem as not a natural born American, like Obama. I want to see Mitt Romney’s birth certificate! His father was born in Mexico, so I think Mitt was born there too. He can’t be a president, nope.

        This whole thing is racist and stupid.

      • roffle, Mitt Romney’s father, George, was born in Mexico while his parents were on a Mormon mission. Both of his parents were American citizens when Mitt Romney’s father was born, THUS, George Romney is a natural born citizen.

      • It doesn’t matter even that George Romney was born in Mexico. All that really matters is if George Romney was an American citizen when Mitt Romney was born. George Romney was a citizen when MItt was born (as was Mitt’s mother), so Mitt is a natural born citizen.
        And, BTW, it is not racist to insist that the law be followed. It is racist to insist that it not be followed because of someone’s race.

      • Daniella, I can’t help but agree with Rat here. Obama’s birth place or his citizenship status (at best, a minutia-oriented legal-eaze issue) is not truly the point, is it? The real problem is that so many Americans like & want him. The problem is at the HEART of our nation. What kind of people have we become? Are we asleep while our nation and our rights and our constitution are ripped out from under us? Have we lost our EDGE as a People? What is the real difference between Obama and any other candidate who believes as he believes? As long as huge percentages of Americans vote for his/her policies, we are doomed.

        Obama has no magic. Obama can’t make himself president. Only the American people can.

        THAT, my friend, is the real issue. Let’s keep our focus where it belongs. This is just a frustrating and useless path. And you are incorrect about the legal aspects of the case. This will go nowhere.

      • I happily agree with your comment Short Little Rebel. We seem to have become a nation of blind idiots, the people of America embarass me greatly (present company excepted, including The Rat). I am deeply embarassed by our President and the current state of our government…..

      • Do you guys ever read music publications, like , perhaps, Rolling Stone?

        http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/arizona-debate-conservative-chickens-come-home-to-roost-20120223?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

        How about that race for the Republican nomination? Was last night’s debate crazy, or what?

        Throughout this entire process, the spectacle of these clowns thrashing each other and continually seizing and then fumbling frontrunner status has left me with an oddly reassuring feeling, one that I haven’t quite been able to put my finger on. In my younger days I would have just assumed it was regular old Schadenfreude at the sight of people like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich suffering, but this isn’t like that – it’s something different than the pleasure of watching A-Rod strike out in the playoffs.

        No, it was while watching the debates last night that it finally hit me: This is justice. What we have here are chickens coming home to roost. It’s as if all of the American public’s bad habits and perverse obsessions are all coming back to haunt Republican voters in this race: The lack of attention span, the constant demand for instant gratification, the abject hunger for negativity, the utter lack of backbone or constancy (we change our loyalties at the drop of a hat, all it takes is a clever TV ad): these things are all major factors in the spiraling Republican disaster.

        Most importantly, though, the conservative passion for divisive, partisan, bomb-tossing politics is threatening to permanently cripple the Republican party. They long ago became more about pointing fingers than about ideology, and it’s finally ruining them.

        Oh, sure, your average conservative will insist his belief system is based upon a passion for the free market and limited government, but that’s mostly a cover story. Instead, the vast team-building exercise that has driven the broadcasts of people like Rush and Hannity and the talking heads on Fox for decades now has really been a kind of ongoing Quest for Orthodoxy, in which the team members congregate in front of the TV and the radio and share in the warm feeling of pointing the finger at people who aren’t as American as they are, who lack their family values, who don’t share their All-American work ethic.

        The finger-pointing game is a fun one to play, but it’s a little like drugs – you have to keep taking bigger and bigger doses in order to get the same high.

        So it starts with a bunch of these people huddling together and saying to themselves, “We’re the real good Americans; our problems are caused by all those other people out there who don’t share our values.” At that stage the real turn-on for the followers is the recognition that there are other like-minded people out there, and they don’t need blood orgies and war cries to keep the faith strong – bake sales and church retreats will do.

        So they form their local Moral Majority outfits, and they put Ronald Reagan in office, and they sit and wait for the world to revert to a world where there was one breadwinner in the family, and no teen pregnancy or crime or poor people, and immigrants worked hard and didn’t ask for welfare and had the decency to speak English – a world that never existed in reality, of course, but they’re waiting for a return to it nonetheless.

        Think Ron Paul in the South Carolina debate, when he said that in the ’60s, “there was nobody out in the street suffering with no medical care.” Paul also recalled that after World War II, 10 million soldiers came home and prospered without any kind of government aid at all – all they needed was a massive cut to the federal budget, and those soldiers just surfed on the resultant wave of economic progress.

        “You know what the government did? They cut the budget by 60 percent,” he said. “And everybody went back to work again, you didn’t need any special programs.”

        Right – it wasn’t like they needed a G.I. Bill or anything. After all, people were different back then: They didn’t want or need welfare, or a health care program, or any of those things. At least, that’s not the way Paul remembered it.

        That’s all the early conservative movement was. It was just a heartfelt request that we go back to the good old days of America as these people remembered or imagined it. Of course, the problem was, we couldn’t go back, not just because more than half the population (particularly the nonwhite, non-straight, non-male segment of the population) desperately didn’t want to go back, but also because that America never existed and was therefore impossible to recreate.

        And when we didn’t go back to the good old days, this crowd got frustrated, and suddenly the message stopped being heartfelt and it got an edge to it.

        The message went from, “We’re the real Americans; the others are the problem,” to, “We’re the last line of defense; we hate those other people and they’re our enemies.” Now it wasn’t just that the rest of us weren’t getting with the program: Now we were also saboteurs, secretly or perhaps even openly conspiring with America’s enemies to prevent her return to the long-desired Days of Glory.

        Now, why would us saboteurs do that? Out of jealousy (we resented their faith and their family closeness), out of spite, and because we have gonads instead of morals. In the Clinton years and the early Bush years we started to hear a lot of this stuff, that the people conservatives described as “liberals” were not, as we are in fact, normal people who believe in marriage and family and love their children just as much as conservatives do, but perverts who subscribe to a sort of religion of hedonism.

        “Liberals’ only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution,” was the way Ann Coulter put it. “That’s their cause – spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.”

        So they fought back, and a whole generation of more strident conservative politicians rose to fight the enemy at home, who conveniently during the ’90s lived in the White House and occasionally practiced polymorphous perversity there.

        Then conservatives managed to elect to the White House a man who was not only a fundamentalist Christian, but a confirmed anti-intellectual who never even thought about visiting Europe until, as president, he was forced to – the perfect champion of all Real Americans!

        Surely, things would change now. But they didn’t. Life continued to move drearily into a new and scary future, Spanish-speaking people continued to roll over the border in droves, queers paraded around in public and even demanded the right to be married, and America not only didn’t go back to the good old days of the single-breadwinner family, but jobs in general dried up and you were lucky if Mom and Dad weren’t both working two jobs.

        During this time we went to war against the Islamic terrorists responsible for 9/11 by invading an unrelated secular Middle Eastern dictatorship. When people on the other side protested, the rhetoric became even more hysterical. Now those of us outside the circle of Real Americans were not just enemies, but in league with mass-murdering terrorists. In fact, that slowly became the definition of a “liberal” on a lot of these programs – a terrorist.

        Sean Hannity’s bestseller during this time, for Christ’s sake, was subtitled, Defeating terrorism, despotism, and liberalism. “He is doing the work of what all people who want big government always do, and that is commit terrorist acts,” said Glenn Beck years ago, comparing liberals to Norweigan mass murderer Anders Breivik.

        And when the unthinkable happened, and a black American with a Muslim-sounding name assumed the throne in the White House, now, suddenly, we started to hear that liberals were not only in league with terrorists, but somehow worse than terrorists.

        “Terrorism? Yes. That’s not the big battle,” said Minnesota Republican congressional candidate Allan Quist a few years ago. “The big battle is in D.C. with the radicals. They aren’t liberals. They are radicals. Obama, Pelosi, Walz: They’re not liberals, they’re radicals. They are destroying our country.”

        In Spinal Tap terms, the rhetoric by the time Obama got elected already had gone well past eleven. It was at thirteen, fifteen, twenty …. Our tight little core of Real Americans by then had, over a series of decades, decided pretty much the entire rest of the world was shit. Europe we know about. The Middle East? Let’s “carpet bomb it until they can’t build a transitor radio,” as Ann Coulter put it. Africa was full of black terrorists with AIDS, and Asia, too, was a good place to point a finger or two (“I want to go to war with China,” is how Rick Santorum put it).

        Here at home, all liberals, gays, Hispanic immigrants, atheists, Hollywood actors and/or musicians with political opinions, members of the media, members of congress, TSA officials, animal-lovers, union workers, state employees with pensions, Occupiers and other assorted unorthodox types had already long ago been rolled into the enemies list.

        Given the continued troubles and the continued failure to return to good old American values, who else could possibly be to blame? Where else could they possibly point the finger?

        There was only one possible answer, and we’re seeing it playing out in this race: At themselves! And I don’t mean they pointed the finger “at themselves” in the psychologically healthy, self-examining, self-doubting sort of way. Instead, I mean they pointed “at themselves” in the sense of, “There are traitors in our ranks. They must be ferreted out and destroyed!”

        This is the last stage in any paranoid illness. You start by suspecting that somebody out there is out to get you; in the end, you’re sure that even the people who love you the most under your own roof, your own doctors, your parents, your wife and your children, they’re in on the plot. To quote Matt Damon in the almost-underrated spy film The Good Shepherd, they became convinced that there’s “a stranger in the house.”

        This is where the Republican Party is now. They’ve run out of foreign enemies to point fingers at. They’ve already maxed out the rhetoric against us orgiastic, anarchy-loving pansexual liberal terrorists. The only possible remaining explanation for their troubles is that their own leaders have failed them. There is a stranger in the house!

        This current race for the presidential nomination has therefore devolved into a kind of Freudian Agatha Christie story, in which the disturbed and highly paranoid voter base by turns tests the orthodoxy of each candidate, trying to figure out which one is the spy, which one is really Barack Obama bin Laden-Marx under the candidate mask!

        We expected this when Mitt Romney, a man who foolishly once created a functioning health care program in Massachusetts, was the front-runner. We knew he was going to have to defend his bona fides against the priesthood (“I’m not convinced,” sneered the sideline-sitting conservative Mme. Defarge, Sarah Palin), that he would have a rough go of it at the CPAC conference, and so on.

        But it’s gotten so ridiculous that even Santorum, as paranoid and hysterical a finger-pointing politician as this country has ever seen, a man who once insisted with a straight face that there is no such thing as a liberal Christian – he’s now being put through the Electric Conservative Paranoia Acid Test, and failing!

        “He is a fake,” Ron Paul said at the Michigan debate last night, to assorted hoots and cheers. And Santorum, instead of turning around and laying into Paul, immediately panicked and rubbed his arm as if to say, “See? I’m made of the right stuff,” and said, “I’m real, Ron, I’m real.” These candidates are behaving like Stalinist officials in the late thirties, each one afraid to be the first to stop applauding.

        These people have run out of others to blame, run out of bystanders to suspect, run out of decent family people to dismiss as Godless, sex-crazed perverts. They’re turning the gun on themselves now. It might be justice, or it might just be sad. Whatever it is, it’s remarkable to watch.

        Links to more sources at the magazine’s site.

      • Ed, tell be that “other parties” don’t look like idiots during debates or during any other venue during an election year. Don’t be an embarassment.

      • It would be difficult to cram as many factual errors and sheer demonstrations of bigotry into a debate of any other party, including the former Republican Party, than we’ve seen in this year’s GOP “debates.” At least in the past other parties have not made conscious efforts to appear to be silly, clueless, bigoted and arrogant.

        Oh, Santorum may actually believe some of what he says — that’s even more scary.

      • Dude, you say it like it’s news to you. Where have you been? It’s politics dude! They lie for a living and blame others for failed policies… nothing new. ALL politicians do it.

      • I’ve been in the front lines. Where in the devil have you been?

        There are only two kinds of politics, good politics, and bad politics. There is no such thing as “no politics.” All people are politicians, especially in a republic.

        I reject your cynicism in people. Not all politicians lie. Few politicians are driven by evil motives, if any. Davey Crockett’s advice was good: Be sure you’re right, then press on.

        The truth is out there, findable, and we need to act on it. Calling everything “a lie” doesn’t help find the truth, nor get the action we need.

        Missing you in the front lines.

      • “Few politicians are driven by evil motives, if any. ”

        Ed, how old are you? You are the opposite of cynical, you are naive. And you are not an honest person. You like to make your arguments by putting words & thoughts into other people- weak.

      • Older than you, and with a lot more experience in politics. I work hard to be honest, as a lifelong Boy Scout and Scouter.

        Few politicians are driven by evil motives. I’ve known many, many good ones, and many you regard as bad — and few of them , if any, were driven by evil motives. Not even Dick Nixon thought he was working for evil, as he tried to subvert the Constitution.

        Why are you so cynical — and what is your experience in politics? I’ve worked with a lot of state legislators, U.S. Senators, governors, city and county government officials, and I’ve staffed the legislative and executive branches of various governments at various times.

        I think you’re leaping to a conclusion rather than check the facts.

        Do you really think all politicians lie? What lies has Ray LaHood ever told? How about Bob Michel? Mike Mansfield? Richard Lugar? Bill Bradley? Lamar Alexander? Dick Gephardt? John Glenn? (The last five are Eagle Scouts, by the way — they worked their entire lives at being honest.)

        From what well of information are you drawing such claims? Have you ever had that well checked for poison?

      • “I’ve worked with a lot of state legislators, U.S. Senators, governors, city and county government officials, and I’ve staffed the legislative and executive branches of various governments at various times. ”

        I like the words, “a lot” and ‘at various times’. Uh huh… I got some land in florida too. Ed, you are a liar and a joker.

    • I find it interesting that it hasn’t been put to rest once and for all. I wonder WHOSE head will roll if we were to find out that the current POTUS isn’t an American citizen… That would mean that “someone” has fooled the entire country – THAT would make us look more than just rediculous!

      • What the heck do we do with this Mexican potential (and probable) (white and Republican) presidential candidate, Mitt Romney?

      • It’s Constitutional. The rules (laws) apply to EVERYONE, Republican, Democratic, Independant… Black, White… Christian and Jew. Just procesute those in government who lie to us!

    • You, sir, are as dense as an ingot of gold.

      AIl that Obama has to do to silence all his critics on the citizenship matter is to provide the genuine documents. I’m sure that you, I, and many, many thousands of Americans have had to furnish proof of our citizenship for some reason. I wasn’t put out by the request. I believed that the request was reasonable under the circumstances and I certainly not embarrassed by the fact that I was asked to comply. I will cede to you that more than once, the request was annoying but to prevent a larger argument, I simply showed my requested document. That has been my experience when I have had the need to prove my citizenship. I truly believe that the citizenship request for someone seeking the office of President of the United States at least warrants it also.

      And in response to all the many requests for Obama to simply show a legitimate birth certificate, his royal highness and dictator-in-training-to-be simply says, “I’ve got it, but I’m the President, and you’re nobody. Therefore I don’t have to comply.” And he hasn’t…

  8. A very timely post and this case is apparently being watched by a great number of people. Facebook is all abuzz… It will be an extremely interesting thing to watch develop. My take on all the legalities and issues surrounding this issue when it first became a “big deal” can be found here.

    • Thank you, The Sage, for the support.

      As a writer, I am never quite sure which topics will really speak to readers and which ones will fall flat. I make my best guess, but I have not as of yet figured out how to keep riding that wave in more than just . . .well, waves.

      I am glad that so many have found this article of at least some interest and I am very appreciative of all those who have shared the link and taken the time to read and comment.

      Even when we disagree, I think dialogue is a great thing and that we can all learn much from each other.

  9. It remains an issue that is going NOWHERE.

  10. Every Governor and Attorney General should be watching this case with great interest. How did Obama ever get past the “qualification” phase of filing for candidacy? Who should be held accountable for this unspeakable oversight?

    • WHAT qualification phase? We need such a phase for every candidate- but this will be impossible until the Supreme Court decides to fully define, ‘natural born’ in legally enforceable language. Sadly, I don’t believe they will do it. This is a distraction from the real issue for America: why do Americans still like Obama? Answer THAT and then let’s get to work to combat it…

      • …”until the Supreme Court”… Horse-Hockey! Each and every voter must demand what is “right” – Perhaps the Supreme Court needs to be re-looked!

      • I understand the emotion of your comment, B52nav, but not your logic. Of course the Supreme Court has to make the final decision IF a clarification is needed and IF an amendment is needed. But you are right that Americans will decide what is RIGHT. But we need to focus on those Americans, not Obama’s eligibility status.

      • We need to focus on the rule of law (I know, we have differing interpretations of that law). We DO need on Obamas eligibility, as with each and every one of the others who decide they are foolihs to run (all parties). What if someone lies about their age and isn’t really the minimum age to hold office – God forbid! We’d be run by the high school kids I always think can do a better job than REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS and ANY OTHER party.

        PS – I still think we are mostly eye-to-eye

      • Well, b52nav, the matter is now settled. See Danielle’s last comment and link. Here come the eggs! Sadly, we can’t duck this one. We have just paved the way for Obama to the White House. FOOLISHNESS!

      • Agreed… I retrograde to my mantra. “We are surrounded by idiots”

  11. Tyvm Daniella for nicely bringing together facts and commentary on this issue. Part of the importance of this is quite simple, namely laws. Laws that everyone has to abide by. If the top person in any organization, public or private, can just thumb their nose at any law they don’t like. It sets precedence for everyone to pick and choose what law they will keep or not keep. And isn’t not keeping a law, simply breaking it.

    The more obvious issue, is why go to such great lengths to not prove eligibility. It is crazy for any country to have a foreigner as your leader. Someone who may or may not have the countries best intentions at heart. It is often difficult to know what someone’s agenda is. But it’s not easy to tell what it’s not.

    Again, thx Daniella

    • Thank you, plainandsimple, for your kind words and support.

      To be quite honest, when I first heard about ‘the birther’ movement, I felt much the same way as the ‘naysayers’. I assumed, wrongly, it was another silly conspiracy theory or other such nonsense. Part of what I do as a news and political writer is check into such things and ‘bust them’ in order to inform and educate.

      Imagine my shock to find, after untold hours of research, that ‘the birthers’ had it right, at least in part. Many valid questions have been raised, which all bear investigation. However, to me the thing that stands out the most is the blatant disregard for one simple and clear point: he is not a natural born citizen.

      I was taught the definition in school, but I did verify it through research just to be sure because I could not believe that someone who so clearly and publicly did not meet the Constitutional requirement of being natural born could ever even get on the ballot the first time around.

      I have no idea how he got a pass on it and I hate to encourage any type of speculation or conspiracy theory. That being said, the facts remain the facts and they are that he is not Constitutionally eligible but somehow got into office, anyway.

      Nothing has been done to this point about that or any other number of travesties he has committed, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

      • If ANY other person born of parents, one of which was not a US citizen, tried to become President, it wouldn’t happen. The law id the law. The Press would dig out the truth and spread it out across the world…. SO, how the hell did Obama get away with it? Ii’s so, so wrong. Someone (or a lot of someone’s) should go to prison!

      • Rich, Not true. McCain’s status was questioned- but the media didn’t make a big stink. Congress just did the ‘gentlemanly’ thing and created a non-binding resolution to let him run. It will be the same with Obama. Further, who are we to question the People’s will? Unless there was some clear cut violation of the ‘natural born’ citizen requirement, I don’t think we, as a nation, should spend time on this. Sadly, many people WANT him as candidate. If not, he would have no power in the first place. Let’s change those Americans’ minds. THEN we will be getting somewhere.

  12. All presidential candidates should be required to simply show/prove that they are eligible for that office with the Federal Election Commission or similar body when they file their paperwork to run. The burden of proof should always be on the candidate. Such a simple idea but since when did common sense or logic ever enter into workings of federal government or the political process? Such an easy requirement would help avoid the controversies, speculation, and legal issues we now see and have seen over the last few years.

    • I realize that I run against the grain on this one, but here’s the deal: This is a NON-STARTER for Conservatives and it makes those of us who waste time on it look like idiots grasping for straws.

      • I disagree. It looks like we care about the law. If we will grant Obama a pass on this obvious violation of election law, then what is going to stop us from letting Arnold Schwarzenegger on the ballot? He is a citizen of the U.S., however not born here. He has expressed disagreement with our requirement that a person needs to be born here to run for President. If we allow Obama to break this law (again), then why should there be any requirement for President? What if a 25 year old wants to run for President; should we just ignore the requirement that he be 35?

        If we let this go, where would it end?

      • “We” are not in a position to “grant” or “allow” ANYTHING here. The horse is dead. (Dismount.)

      • As to your “granting and allowing” comment, it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that the Constitution grants us rights rather than protects our rights from and limits the power of what could be an abusive government. We the people do have the right to grant and allow. It is why we vote and why we get representatives in Congress. The fact that the government is corrupt does not alter the fact that we are a Constitutional Republic.

      • Perhaps now that we have progressed to the point of actually being able to have each and every registered American cast a ballot via computer – there is no longer a need for the Electoral College… Let’s do away with it and run an election where one “man” gets one vote.

      • Rich, there are reasons we have a Republic and not a Democracy…

      • Well yea! So why was Obama allowed to continually campaign without having produced an authentic document? Someone (a lot of somebodies) turned their head(s). “Regular” people can’t get past square one without proper ID. What a load of political crap!

  13. The rat is a fool. Obama is going down like the Titantic. Obama has lied about almost everything. A progressive fool who has hood winked the sheepeople of the United States of America.

    • The Rat is a REALIST. The “fools” is (s)he who thinks this will EVER amount to a hill of beans. The fly in your wishful-thinking logic is that you seem to believe that if there is substance here – it matters. Guess what? From a “bottom-line” perspective, IT DOESN’T MATTER. Obama is our president -and tragically, will most likely remain so through 2016 – MUCH TO MY DISMAY.

      P.S. I stumbled upon this comment by Alf; to those of you who have also taken issue with my opposition to the “foolishness,” DITTO.

      • Hey, Rat, Buddy! Got your back on this one. Look, people, we all hate Obama and wish he weren’t a candidate. But THINK about why we wish that. It is because we FEAR that he might win. We fear what he will do. But guess what? No one but We, the People, can make him win. THAT, my friends, is the issue. The media is controlled by the Progressives. The American people have fallen asleep at the helm. They truly believe their civil rights and the constitution are inviolate. They simply don’t have time or are too lazy to do the research needed to see how wrong they are. Our job is not to disqualify the person they WANT for president, but to use logic and media to sell OUR point. This is a non-issue. The law is simply not clear enough for this GA court to decide anything binding. Congress will just give him a pass. Personally, I agree with this. If this were my candidate, I wouldn’t agree on discounting him on this basis.

      • Wouldn’t it be shocking (and covered-up) if “we” discovered that the hype was true? Gee, looks like Obama wasn’t really qualifed, sorry. Ha – a mockery of the entire American system of government. Oops! ………….. well, I’m done with this particular posting. I’ll look for another futile argument. It’s been real but it’s depressing. I’m hoping for a new face in the next election.

      • The media is controlled by the Progressives.

        When did Rupert Murdoch die?

      • Ed, who said he died? The old buzzard is still around. I will answer your question with the following link:

        http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/who-is-rupert-murdoch-who-controls-the-news/.

        I did an article to prove my point- via the ownership of stock in all the news agency. It is irrefutable proof that all the news is owned by six or seven (depends on your definition) families/groups in a clear conspiracy of shared ownership. It is sickening.

        I assume your point was that Rupert Murdoch is NOT a progressive. That, my friend, is something in question. Rupert Murdoch serves himself. Period. His political views swing from one side to the other. He was a huge fan of Hillary & Obama until they dissed him. I think it serves his bottom line to have FOX be conservative- for now. Rupert is a braggart who claims he has met with every presidential nominee- he sees himself as a king maker. Murdoch, I believe, is only interested in money & power- which makes him unreliable as an ally. News Corp is the only major news company NOT out rightly owned by Progressives. They own a huge amount of his stock, but he and his son have retained the voting shares of their company. There is a lot of wheeling & dealing behind the scenes as these progressives attempt to fully take Murdoch down. Remember that it was Sen. Rockefeller who wanted to put Murdoch on trial when the English tabloid scandal broke? Guess who Rockefeller is? Read the article. Then come back.

      • Not only is Rupert Murdoch not a progressive, neither are the vast majority of news media outlet owners. Regressives, “Get-off-my-lawn” conservatives, out-for-a-buck speculators, stick-in-the-mud conservatives, there are many.

        Progressives? Well, Kathryn Graham is dead. Our news media are overwhelmingly owned by conservativse, and often run by conservative reactionaries. There is no liberal equivalent of Fox, there is no Svengali of any liberal candidate running a news operation. Ted Turner was an innovator, but a conservative by any rational standard (except, of course, he does support flag-waving and the Boy Scouts, to the consternation of conservatives everywhere) — and Murdoch’s tentacles are reaching farther with his takeover of the formerly straight-up but still conservative Wall Street Journal.

        Do you actually read newspapers?

      • Ed: Our news media are overwhelmingly owned by conservatives, and often run by conservative reactionaries. There is no liberal equivalent of Fox, there is no Svengali of any liberal candidate running a news operation. Ted Turner was an innovator, but a conservative by any rational standard (except, of course, he does support flag-waving and the Boy Scouts, to the consternation of conservatives everywhere)

        How can anyone take anything you say as remotely serious or factual after making such an odd and factually inaccurate statement? I mean really…

      • Where do I err, Sage? The arch-conservative Rupert Murdoch alone makes the claim that media are liberal, false — especially with his control of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Can you give us a genuinely liberal news outlet owner whose views are reflected in the news? I’ll see that one, and raise you ClearChannel and 500 other outlets with conservatives at the helm.

        Why should we take seriously undocumented claims? Look at the news groups I’ve named — they are real, they are conservative (as is Disney, who owns ABC, as is GE, who used to own NBC, as is Viacom, who now owns NBC . . .).

        Got contrary data? Bring it.

      • Sage, um, I think we have a genuine troll on our hands with Ed. He’s been banned from my site. I love how he has staffed various governments with various legislators at various times in his life. Don’t you know that he is a boy scout and knows lots of Senators? We are to be impressed by all this. He says that ‘few or no’ politicians operate from evil intentions and that few or none of them lie. Guess he missed all those scandals, blow jobs, impeachment trials and pay offs, huh? OR, in his elevated mind, those ‘don’t count’ as lies or evil intent. My guess is that he has hung around bothering a lot of people (perhaps in government) and gives it a little more due than necessary. The list of his absurdities has taken its toll on my patience.

      • Got no reply to the facts, eh, Little Rebel?

        Come on over to my site any time. I support the Constitution in practice as well as words, especially the First Amendment. Regret you see things otherwise.

        I noted with specifics where you erred. Your response is to call me names and cut off access to your site. We know that truth wins in a fair fight, as Justice Holmes and Ben Franklin both observed at critical junctures in our national life. Is that what you fear?

      • My guess is that he has hung around bothering a lot of people (perhaps in government) and gives it a little more due than necessary. The list of his absurdities has taken its toll on my patience.

        But of course, it’s all guessing on your part. You refuse to be confused by the facts. You refuse to look at the facts, or even to discuss them. And then you have the gall to claim I post absurdities? Lady, you’re the candidate to replace The Bald Soprano and its author — but you’re a bad one.

        No, I didn’t miss any of the sex scandals. There are 538 Members of Congress at most times (deaths occasionally reduce the numbers temporarily). The vast majority of them are honorable people all day long. They make grand errors, most often on principle. It has been my experience that cynicism like yours is much more destructive to good government than almost any of their wanderings. Richard Nixon justified his trampling of the Constitution by saying, ‘LBJ would have done something like it,’ or ‘J. Edgar Hoover’s been in this business longer.’

        At some point we need to put our foot down and say, “no more of the craziness.”

        I called your bluff. You fold your cards.

      • Replies like yours tend to make you look ignorant dude.

      • Spoken like a man with no case to make.

      • For example, one could argue that Sumner Redstone donates to Democrats from time to time. But he’s a dinosaur, and he’s very conservative — and he doesn’t necessarily vote for Democrats to whom he donates because they are old friends. Redstone told Time in 2004:

        “WHAT ABOUT POLITICS? There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I’ve known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican Administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.”

        Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995270,00.html#ixzz1nTR0gjXt

        Redstone runs more media than just about anyone else around (if you don’t know who he is, you really shouldn’t be in this discussion). Did he even make SLR’s list?

        So I repeat — most of the owners of media have been left off the list, and it’s inaccurate to claim these conservative business guys who vote conservative, are liberal.

      • Fascinating, SLR. Somehow, in your research of who controls the news you managed to fail to consider Gannett, Harte-Hanks, McClatchy, Scripps-Howard, Belo Corp., Bloomberg News, the Hearst Corp., Conde-Nast, E.W. Scripps, ClearChannel Communications, Media General, and dozens of other companies who own newspapers, magazines and broadcast outlets in the U.S.

        Plus you seem to think Murdoch is a “progressive.”

        Sheesh!

        Not to mention, it appears that you oppose progressive policies. You seriously like tainted food? You really want to bring back legal spouse- and child-beating? You really think corporations should control the U.S. Senate?

        What happened to sanity in Atlanta? People there used to be very savvy politically, and news wise.

      • Well, Ed, I guess you didn’t read the article. You are uninterested in the truth, no matter how much you profess to seek it. Your last comment made so little sense that I have lost respect for you. I guess I gave you some credit for having an American flag as your gravatar. But your need to make illogical connections and false statements concerning what I have said AND your refusal to even read my article before making further statements tell me that you, sir, are 100% self interested. You only wish to be RIGHT. That is a far cry from wanting to find the truth. I’m done with you. You are banned from my website. Too bad, I was actually looking for some interesting discourse too!

      • The troll issue has now been addressed SLR.

    • Ed, just read my article, will you? There is only one reason for six families/groups to conspire to equally share, not only newspapers, but EVERY news outlet, major movie studio & magazine in America! Just try to guess why they would do that?

      My premise is this: IF there is a clear conspiracy to equally share ownership in ALL these outlets, then the conspirators are up to no good. They WANT something. The question remains: what do they want? Answer THAT question and then we will find some common ground.

      My article PROVES the shared owership. It also identifies, by name, the conspirators. It identifies the means by which they avoid monopoly laws.

      READ IT. I beg you. Then come back. Or you can contact me via Short Little Rebel and we can discuss it further. I am not your enemy, Ed. Just a concerned American. We ALL need to stick together..

  14. This President does what ever he wishes to do and NO ONE does anything about it. He will avoid this trial and he will ignore the results of it and no one will do anything about it. Again, he does whatever he wants todo and no one does anything about it. Everyone wanted to send Bill clinton down the pike for having sex with Monica and this man is screwing the Entire Country and no one does anything about it.

  15. Our country has gone down a road where our children look up and wonder if anyone in leadership has integrity. Few leaders have touched an honest approach to the shadowy skullduggery surrounding the 2008 election…and the world is just suppose to be okay with it.

    Teenagers and young adults are in tune with what is going on and watching to see how we make decisions and lead. We can’t blame them for not being engaged if we can’t make them believe that “right” is worth championing for.

    Politicians came become president. Only leaders can effectively serve as Commander-in-Chief.

    Young people serving in our Armed Forces and fighting our wars have more integrity than the person sitting in the White House who decides where they fight and maybe die.

    The Military’s Moral Dilemma article on World Net Daily
    http://www.wnd.com/2009/12/117857/

  16. Wow LeadOn, glad I saw your commentary, very enlightening and thought provoking…i am going to just tuck that away for future reference,,.it is as unfair as can be, soldiers in war zones getting in trouble, reduced in rank or worse, for trying to stay alive and come home to their families in 1 piece physically…and politicians messing up so horribley(think Wiener), and the media and other pols turning a blind eye to it…

  17. Rich, whose head rolls when we find out Obama is a natural-born American citizen, and all this hoo-haw has been done in order to get your blood pressure up over nothing, and take your eye off the ball? While Orly Taitz is polluting the courts, the Republican Party has managed to come up with the Saturday Night Live dream team of presidential candidates.

    Can you say, “Obama Cake Walk?”

    • I daresay any of the GOP contenders, or to use your reference, SNL’s the Church Lady, Frankie and Willie or one of the Coneheads, would all be better than the clown (or Homey D. Clown from In Living Color, if you will) currently in office.

      Unless Obama has lied about who his father is and the birth certificate is a fraud (which would raise other legal issues), Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. Period.

      The Supreme Court actually set the precedent of defining natural born as born of two American citizen parents in the 1875 case Minor v. Happersett. Note it was not a dicta, which is an authoritative statement by a court that is not legally binding, but an actual precedent, which is a rule of law established for the first time by a court and is referred to by other courts afterwards.

      Interestingly, many refer to Vattel’s definition of natural born (which is essentially the same thing and may have influenced the founders in their work on the Constitution), but it is not Vattel that sets legal precedent. The Supreme Court can and did set the precedent in the matter in 1875.

      Congress in 2008 (including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) also defined natural born as having been born to two American citizen parents when a challenge to John McCain’s eligibility was issued.So, even by the standard and definition of Congress, including Obama himself, he is not legally qualified or eligible.

      Obama was not born to two American citizen parents, by his own admission and via the birth certificate which he has provided to America. Ergo, he is not a natural born American citizen and does not meet the Constitutional requirement for the office of President of the United States of America. As such, not only is he not legally qualified to be in the office he currently holds, but he is not legally eligible to be on any ballot in the U.S. for the upcoming election. Period.

      And how, pray tell, is using legal means to resolve serious legal matters “polluting the courts”? That is what they are there for.

      • OK, so why the hell is that idiot in the office of POTUS? My point exactly! America has been duped!

      • I daresay any of the GOP contenders, or to use your reference, SNL’s the Church Lady, Frankie and Willie or one of the Coneheads, would all be better than the clown (or Homey D. Clown from In Living Color, if you will) currently in office.

        Excuse me. I had mistaken you for an American, a patriot, and someone who bears no ill will to the American people.

        Unless Obama has lied about who his father is and the birth certificate is a fraud (which would raise other legal issues), Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. Period.

        “Born on American soil” means “natural born American citizen.” Obama was born on American soil. End of your argument.

        BUT, had he been born on foreign soil, with one American citizen parent, he would still be a natural born citizens — as is John McCain, born in Panama (and not on a military base, but in the local Panama hospital).

        Remind me never to refer any of my clients or friends to you for immigration advice.

        The Supreme Court actually set the precedent of defining natural born as born of two American citizen parents in the 1875 case Minor v. Happersett. Note it was not a dicta, which is an authoritative statement by a court that is not legally binding, but an actual precedent, which is a rule of law established for the first time by a court and is referred to by other courts afterwards.

        The holding in Minor was that women are not voting citizens. The case dealt with Mrs. Minor’s attempt to register to vote. Obama is not a woman, and the issue you’re talking about has nothing to do with registering to vote. So, if the case says what you claim, it MUST be in obiter dicta. No offense, but you really could use some legal training. At least get a Black’s Law dictionary, will you?

        Here, read excerpts from the opinion:

        The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.

        So it would be error to claim the case got to the issue of who is a “natural born citizen” at all. It did not.

        And, had you read the case, you’d know that. In fact, the case says the opposite of what you claim. It says:

        Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

        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 [p168] 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.

        Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

        If you’re going to opine on citizenship, you would do well to read a summary of actual citizenship law, and don’t take the odd rantings of anti-Obama people on the internet.

        Dani said:

        Interestingly, many refer to Vattel’s definition of natural born (which is essentially the same thing and may have influenced the founders in their work on the Constitution), but it is not Vattel that sets legal precedent. The Supreme Court can and did set the precedent in the matter in 1875.

        Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) most assuredly did not rule that a child must have two U.S. citizen parents to be a citizen, nor to be a “natural born” citizen. Read the case’s key sections above.

        The precedent that is important here is the presidency of Chester Alan Arthur, a man who, like Obama, had a father born in a foreign country, and who was not a citizen of the U.S. at the time of Arthur’s birth. While opponents tried to make an issue of this in the campaign of 1880, it was a non-starter. You know the rest — Arthur was elected vice president under James Garfield, and ascended to the presidency upon Garfield’s death after being shot (no, Orly Taitz was not the shooter). So, had Hapersett had anything to do with presidential eligibility, it would have applied to Arthur. Since Arthur served out his term as president, it’s pretty clear that the actual precedent supports Obama’s eligibility 100%.

        Somebody told you a tall tale about the case — it’s about whether a woman may vote, not about what is a natural born citizen. Seriously, how could anyone confuse those issues?

        Congress in 2008 (including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) also defined natural born as having been born to two American citizen parents when a challenge to John McCain’s eligibility was issued.So, even by the standard and definition of Congress, including Obama himself, he is not legally qualified or eligible.

        1. That was a non-binding resolution, stating the opinion of the U.S. Senate.
        2. The resolution, S. Res. 511 in the 110th Congress, ( does NOT say “two American citizen parents,” but instead refers to children born to “Americans.” Obama’s mother was an American.
        3. Obama was born on American soil, and so the resolution, covering kids born outside the U.S., is inapplicable, and off the mark.

        Obama was not born to two American citizen parents, by his own admission and via the birth certificate which he has provided to America. Ergo, he is not a natural born American citizen and does not meet the Constitutional requirement for the office of President of the United States of America. As such, not only is he not legally qualified to be in the office he currently holds, but he is not legally eligible to be on any ballot in the U.S. for the upcoming election. Period.

        Except, none of the laws you cite says what you’d need it to say. Obama is natural born because he was born in the U.S. He is also natural born having been a child of a U.S. citizen. He is fully legally qualified — at least, to people who know the law, and who appreciate that it’s necessary to follow the laws.

        If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Your wishes do not change the law. Your misstatements of the cases and the laws do not change the laws. Your wish to find something bad against Obama, a good man and a good president, does not give you a leg to stand on, nor a horse to ride.

        And how, pray tell, is using legal means to resolve serious legal matters “polluting the courts”? That is what they are there for.

        Junk lawsuits. Nuisance suits. Orly Taitz has already been fined for making these nuisance claims. The evidence needed to challenge Obama’s eligibility simply does not exist, except in the fevered and overactive imaginations of those crazies. The stuff in Georgia this last week is a supreme embarrassment to America — but thank God, the courts got it right.

        But by all means, continue to stamp your foot and blather on about this. Your work on this insane and hopeless issue keeps you off the streets, and out of real politics. You can’t do damage to a schoolboard race while you’re lost in the ozone on citizenship and Obama.

      • @ Ed

        I understand what you are trying to say, but unfortunately it is based in some common misconceptions and misunderstandings.

        I’ll try to clear them up as best as I can. This is going to be a bit lengthy, so I apologize in advance for that.

        In law, no two cases are exactly the same. So, when it comes to citing precedents, what matters is how the precedent applies to the case in question. In Minor v Happerestt, as part of determining her right to vote as a citizen of the United States, it was explained in the ruling that it was also necessary to explore the different terms and definitions used for citizens.

        From the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in that case, “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.”

        So, the supreme court herein recognizes that a ‘natural born’ citizen is a person born of two citizen parents, on American soil, adding that there is no doubt as to that definition.

        The ruling goes on to say

        “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.”

        The Supreme Court distinguishes between these two types or ‘classes’ of citizenship and also states that there is some question as to whether simply being born on American soil is enough to establish citizenship, regardless of the status of one’s parents (think “anchor baby”). The SCOTUS also notes that for the purpose of the case at hand, it was not necessary to delve into the matter of the second class of citizen (simply bon on American soil), as it is only the first class, which applied to the plaintiff, that was relevant in the decision.

        The ruling also stated, “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

        A number of cases have since cited Minor V. Happersett (as does happen when legal precedent has been established), some of which have specifically addressed the matter of citizenship.

        As to the widespread falsehoods that Minor v Happersett was only a voting rights issue, ergo, the definition of natural born citizen is dicta rather than precedent, in Luria v US:“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162,88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins,112 U. S. 94,112 U. S. 101;Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738,22 U. S. 827 .”

        Please note that voting and the right to vote are not mentioned anywhere in this decision. Minor v Happersett was cited specifically due to the precedent established by the Supreme Court regarding natural born citizenship.

        Now some like to erroneously claim that even if Minor v Happerset set precedent, it was later overruled by the 19th Amendment. This is proven false via Mobile v Bolden, which was decided 60 years after the 19th Amendment and cited Minor v. Happersett as continuing precedent.

        One of the most blatant cases of citing Minor v Happersett as precedent specifically in the matter of citizenship is Ex parte: In RE Belva A Lockwood.

        The decision reads “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;” [bold added by me for emphasis]

        This clearly recognizes Minor v Happersett in the matter of defining citizenship, as well as illustrates the inclusion of needing to define the terms related to citizenship in coming to its decisions. This supports the fact that Minor v Happersett was not “just a voting rights case.”

        An interesting note in the story of Minor v Happersett is that it was a unanimous decision and one of the deciding justices was Stephen Johnson Field. He was also later involved in a case that cited Minor v. Happersett. That case was Ex parte: In RE Belva A Lockwood- the case that specifically cited Minor v Happersett in the matter of citizenship.

      • Ed is 100% right, Danielle. The quicker conservatives abandone this route, the better. We will only get massive EGGS on our faces when this comes to bite our butts. We will HELP Obama to the White House.

  18. Everyone wanted to send Bill clinton down the pike for having sex with Monica and this man is screwing the Entire Country and no one does anything about it.

    Wrong then, and wrong now.

    Is a lobotomy part of the initiation into the Republican Party these days?

  19. This article is pointless. Here we are fighting a battle to prove his citizenship. But Mitt Romney can’t be neither then. His father was born in mexico. If your born in another country you are not a citizen. no matter if you parents are. If illegal aliens come over and have a kid he is a u.s. citizen not the parents. Same rules for Mitt. Sorry facts beat out racism. In I just read the definition of natural born it says “The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.” so i’m wrong and right. Right from a source. black 17 year old:1, republicans:0

    • But George Romney was an American citizen eligible to run for the presidency, and so is his son, Mitt.

      In your quest to find some reason to hate the President, please don’t get so crazy as to forget the facts of the matter. A child born in a foreign nation with one American citizen as a parent is, under current law, a natural-born American citizen.

  20. Obama’s Father was not only a British subject, he was a drunken, wife-beating, bribe-taking bigamist and socialist. While Obama’s step father was not just any Muslim, he was a violent, radical Muslim. Obama’s own mother was an admitted and proudly agnostic woman who denounced Christianity. Obama’s paternal grandparents were atheist’s of the first right and guess what?

    The apple didn’t fall far from the tree. So apart form Obama’s fraudulent election he is not only not a Democrat, he’s clearly a radical Socialist/Marxist of the first order.

  21. It has been obvious for a long time, something was not right with Pres. Obama’s personal history…but a lot off people just had a hard time believing that something so blantant could be pulled off in plain sight….It’s obvious there is something a lot bigger than Pres.Obama behind him…an organization that coordinates or controls media reporting on him, helps to spin his life story, etc….

    does anybody have any insight into who or what would be found, if the curtain was pulled back to reveal who pulled off coup and got him into the US Senate and then the WH?

  22. Who’s going to break the news to the Donald? This seems to vindicate his statements.

  23. We need Donald Trump to run. I’d like to see him stand up and point to some idiot and tell them “You’re fired!”

  24. One of my posts is stuck in moderation, I think.

    Can you free it?

    • And let the laughing and egg tossing begin. Daniella, people like you hurt the conservative cause. You focus on the wrong things and the wrong tactics. I FEEL the same as you do about Obama. But we need to put our thinking caps on before we act so foolishly.

      Oh, the liberal news is going to have a field day!

  25. Excellent piece Dani! I look forward to hearing much more about this. Hopefully we can start to take our country back.
    God bless America!

  26. This whole ridiculous exercise plays nicely into the hands of the left; you people are the equivalent of the 9/11 “Truthers.”

    Give it a rest.

  27. Today is April 2, 2012 and this is still pending in court as well as other states filing suit for the courts to uphold the Constitution concerning his father not being a US citizen. We have not had a president in the Oval Office since George W. Bush left.

    • Arpaio is a hack. His group couldn’t get through a courthouse door with the evidence they have. They didn’t even bother to call Hawaii to ask whether the documents are good.

      We have a find president. It’s all the crazies who hallucinate that we don’t who give us trouble.

  28. Ha. Should be “fine president.”

  29. This post will assist the internet users for setting up new weblog or even
    a weblog from start to end.

Trackbacks

  1. Solving the Obama Citizenship Issue – Kick Hawaii Out of the USA « William on Life
  2. VIDEO TODAY => Obama On Trial In Georgia: Constitutional Eligibility Hearing In Georgia! | Political Vel Craft
  3. Follow the Obama Trial from the beginning until now | Is the End soon?
  4. Birthers: Lacking the sense God gave chickens « Millard Fillmore's Bathtub
  5. Moving Ahead in Georgia « The Constitution Club
  6. Georgia Obama Ballot Eligibility Ruling In « The Constitution Club
  7. Coming March 1: Sherriff Joe Arpaio Obama Eligibility Investigation Big Reveal Streamed Live « The Constitution Club

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,136 other followers

%d bloggers like this: