Uncle Sam & Lady Liberty

Here comes another attempt to make Hussein eligible on somebody else’s coattails:

Amid ongoing challenges to Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility, some have raised questions about the constitutional status of the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, Gov. Mitt Romney, contending he was born in Mexico or that his father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth.​

And this:

The questions have been raised because Romney’s grandparents went to Mexico in the 1800s, where Mitt Romney’s father, George W. Romney, was born, July 8, 1907.​

Forget all of the phoney issues and polls the media puts out, you gotta believe that Hussein & Company pray daily for Romney to get the nomination.

And can you imagine Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal on the ticket as Romney’s running mate?:

As WND has reported, according to the standard that both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of birth, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana would not qualify. Both have been discussed as future presidential candidates.​

A Romney-Rubio, or Romney-Jindal, ticket would make Hussein look like his parents were Uncle Sam and the Statue of Liberty.

As far as liberals are concerned it’s just a crying shame Rubio took himself out of the VP sweepstakes, and there is no groundswell for Jindal.

Interestingly, Rubio and Jindal lose their attraction after Hussein is out of office. Liberals are salivating over the prospect of either one being on the Republican ticket against Hussein, but would raise holy hell after Hussein is gone. As fate would have it Romney showed up.

The SCOTUS is the most annoying element in the Eligibility Clause debate. The High Court has been sticking its freaking nose into everything else since the FDR years, yet today’s justices refuse to settle the eligibility question once and for all. Apparently, Minor v. Happersett is not enough to put the issue to rest; so Congress should pass a law worded in such a way it forces the Supreme Court to give a no-wiggle-room ruling on the Eligibility Clause.

Hell, the Court might even demand DNA testing if samples are available just to make sure the father named on the birth certificate is the real deal. DNA testing could go either way. An American woman married to an immigrant could have played hide the salami with an American man as well as the other way around.

The following article is in two parts:

Mitt Romney not a natural-born citizen?
Some point to his father's birth in Mexico, grandparents citizenship
by JEROME R. CORSI

Amid ongoing challenges to Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility, some have raised questions about the constitutional status of the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, Gov. Mitt Romney, contending he was born in Mexico or that his father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth.

However, the available evidence shows that even under the strictest interpretation of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, Romney is a natural-born citizen, according to Article 2, Section 1.

The questions have been raised because Romney’s grandparents went to Mexico in the 1800s, where Mitt Romney’s father, George W. Romney, was born, July 8, 1907.

A genealogy of Mitt Romney has been prepared by eligibility researcher Charles Kerchner.

According to a Romney family genealogy prepared by the London, England, LDS Temple, Romney’s grandparents – Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt Romney – were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States when the Mormon church disavowed polygamy. As the genealogy points out, polygamy was a federal crime in the U.S., but it was allowed in Mexico.

The grandparents were even married in Mexico, although each of them was born to a U.S. citizen father in U.S. sovereign territory.

Gaskell Romney was born Sept. 22, 1871, in St. George, Washington County, in the Utah Territory;

Anna Amelia Pratt Romney was born May 6, 1876, in Salt Lake City, in the Utah Territory.

After the Mexican Revolution broke out in 1910, the Mormon colonies began to be endangered, starting in 1911-1912 by raids from marauders. In response, Romney’s grandparents fled Mexico, taking their 5-year-old son, George W. Romney, with them. They settled first in Oakley, Idaho, and finally in Salt Lake City, Utah.

When George W. Romney ran for president in 1968, Charles Gordon, a counsel with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Georgetown Law Center, addressed the eligibility issue in an article in the Winter 1968 issue of the Maryland Law Review.

In the second paragraph of the article, titled “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” Gordon wrote:

“In the early stages of the 1968 presidential campaign this question became increasingly urgent, because Governor George Romney of Michigan was a leading contender for the Republican nomination. Governor Romney was born to American citizens in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico, and came to the United States with his parents when he was five.”

After reviewing the history of the issue, Gordon concluded on the last page of his article that whether or not being born outside the United States disqualified George W. Romney from being president was never resolved during the 1968 presidential campaign:

“The withdrawal of Governor Romney has ended the possibility that clarification would emerge as a result of his candidacy.”

Gordon’s analysis is fairly typical of the treatment given in various law review articles of George W. Romney’s eligibility to be president.

In an often-cited law review article published by lawyer Christina S. Lohman in the Gonzaga Law Review, Volume 39, 2000-2001, titled “Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-born Citizen Clause,” she addresses George W. Romney as follows:

“The clause [Article 2, Section 1] did emerge from the constitutional woodwork when, in 1968, Governor George Romney of Michigan, born in Mexico to American parents, was in pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination. Romney quickly dismissed concerns of potential presidential ineligibility by asserting natural-born status on the grounds that both his parents were American citizens. While Romney’s political pursuits produced temporary debate as to the exact meaning of “natural-born,” upon his fading, the issue paled in the political arena as well.”

The only direct Supreme Court discussion on point as to the meaning of “natural-born citizen” in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution remains Chief Justice Waite’s discussion in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874):

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.

As WND has reported, according to the standard that both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of birth, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana would not qualify. Both have been discussed as future presidential candidates.

Is Mitt Romney a natural-born citizen?

Judging by the Happersett decision and most interpretations of the eligibility clause, a president’s parents would only have to be citizens of the U.S. at the time of his or her birth, not natural-born citizens.

Therefore, even if George W. Romney’s birth in Mexico disqualified him from being a natural-born citizen, Mitt Romney could be a natural-born citizen, because his father was a citizen when his son was born.

Opponents of George W. Romney’s presidential candidacy in 1968 argued that his grandparents had renounced their U.S. citizenship when they went to Mexico, but there is no evidence for that. Nor was it considered necessary for George W. Romney to become naturalized to be a U.S. citizen after he was brought to the United States for the first time when he was 5 years old.

Moreover, decades after George W. Romney was brought to the U.S. by his parents, the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137, specifically provided that a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen, provided the father or mother, or both, at the time of the birth of the child is a U.S. citizen.

No debate of any importance can be found in the public record challenging George W. Romney’s citizenship in 1963, when he first ran to be Michigan’s 43rd governor.

Section 13 of the Michigan State Constitution provides: “No person shall be eligible to the office of governor or lieutenant governor who shall not have attained the age of 30 years and who has not been 5 years a citizen of the United States.”

Thus, according to the constitution of the State of Michigan, George W. Romney had to be a U.S. citizen to be Michigan’s governor.

 

PART TWO:

In 1968, when he decided to run for president, the only serious debate at the time was whether George W. Romney was a natural-born citizen under Article 2, Section 1, not whether or not he was a U.S. citizen.

Mitt Romney, then, was born on March 12, 1947, in Detroit, Mich., to two U.S. citizen parents – George W. Romney and Lenore Emily LaFount; LaFount was a U.S. citizen, born on Nov. 9, 1908, in Logan, Utah.

Interestingly, LaFount, even though she was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment because she was born in the United States and considered under the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of her birth, may not have been a natural-born citizen. It’s possible her father had not been naturalized as a U.S. citizen by the time she was born.

Her father, Harold Arundel LaFount was born in Birmingham, Warwickshire, England, Jan. 5, 1880, and without further research it is uncertain whether he was naturalized as a U.S. citizen by the time his daughter was born.

Lenore Emily LaFount’s mother, Alma Luella Robison, was born in Montpelier, Idaho, on Aug. 19, 1882.

But even if neither of Mitt Romney’s parents were natural-born citizens, it would not prevent Mitt Romney himself from being a natural-born president.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

 

Minor v Happerset had exactly nothing to do with eligibility, or citizenship. It is not considered precident by a single legal scholar or member of the judiciary. What IS precident is wong kim ark, which was cited in ankeny v daniels in which the indiana court of appeals smacked down yet another idiotic birther lawsuit.

there is a reason you birthers maintain a perfect record of fail in court.

 

I understand where J. D. Longstreet is coming from, but I cannot agree with everything he says. My take on hyphenated Americans follows his article:

The Hyphen that Destroyed a Nation
Tuesday, 17 January 2012 09:02 J. D. Longstreet

“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic.

There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American is to be a traitor to American Institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of foreign votes are engaged with treason to the American Republic.” … (Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, in a speech before the Knight’s of Columbus, October 12th, 1915.) (SOURCE)

As we see today, Teddy was absolutely right. We have become the very thing he warned we would become
if we did not drop the hyphen – both mentally and physically. Indeed, we have become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”

Even President Woodrow Wilson regarded "hyphenated Americans" with suspicion, saying, "Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.” (SOURCE)

At no time is it more obvious than during an election cycle when the politicians begin their pathetic pandering to every hyphenated group of so-called Americans in the country… both legal and illegal.

Since Teddy made his remarks we have embraced the hyphen ad infinitum. Now we have: African American, Arab American, Asian American, European American, Latino American, Native American, Chinese American, English American, Filipino American, Greek American, German American, Irish American, Indian American, Italian American, Japanese American, Jewish American, Korean American, Mexican American, Norwegian American, Azerbaijani American, Polish American, Russian American, Spanish American, Swedish American, Ukrainian American, Vietnamese American, and the list just continues to grow.

America is more divided today that she was during The War Between the States. We each seem to have our own little tribe to which we belong. The once famed “American culture” no longer exists. We have submerged it in a sea of multiculturalism and it has become the victim of something called “diversity.” Both Multiculturalism and Diversity were begat by Political Correctness, which has its roots in Marxism. Yes, I am saying America is becoming a Marxist country. The evidence is overwhelming. For exhibit number one, look no farther than the current occupant of the Oval Office of the President of the United States.

We are drowning in a sea of hyphens!

Whatever happened to plain ole Americans? Only a cursory investigation will reveal that they have been relegated to the dusty corners of our society where they can speak of such things as loyalty to one’s nation, honor, patriotism, and worse, GOD! … and not offend the purveyors of political correctness -- the practitioners of Marxism.

The past few generations of Americans have been indoctrinated in our government schools so that they believe that multiculturalism and diversity are GOOD. These are the same government schools that replaced prayer with policeman, psychologists, chain link fences, and metal detectors.

What did we expect?

America is in such hopeless shape that we cannot manage to convince anyone capable of leadership to even stand for election. Instead, we republicans have this gaggle of second and third stringers who have done nothing but embarrass half of the GOP while the other half is praying to God that he provide a miracle and produce a leader (quickly) we can have, at least, SOME confidence in.

America has lost its identity. We no longer know who we are. This is the result of hyphens, multiculturalism, and diversity. Until we can reclaim our real identify -- and coalesce around that identity as one people -- we cannot hope to heal our nation.

J. D. Longstreet

http://www.rightsidenews.info/20120...fdb270d-daily-rss-newsletter&utm_medium=email

The important thing is that the government does not force any individual, or ethnic group, to use a hyphen. They do it on their own as a matter of pride, or defiance, and to identify themselves as a voting bloc:

At no time is it more obvious than during an election cycle when the politicians begin their pathetic pandering to every hyphenated group of so-called Americans in the country… both legal and illegal.​

Pandering is a two-way street. Ethnic groups pander to politicians as much as politicians pander to voting blocs. If there is one evil in the hyphen it is nurtured by democracy itself; hence, it’s only natural that others use the hyphen when referring to a specific group. Drop the hyphen in print and the media would still write Mexican American, Irish American, and so on. The fact is: It takes several generations for the melting pot to work. In time, successful individuals assimilate and break away from those who remain stuck in group-think.

I totally agree with this:

The once famed “American culture” no longer exists. We have submerged it in a sea of multiculturalism and it has become the victim of something called “diversity.” Both Multiculturalism and Diversity were begat by Political Correctness, which has its roots in Marxism. ​

In the days before credit cards were considered good coin of the realm, the United States prided itself on being a melting pot. Obviously, multiculturalism promotes the hyphen, while attacking the melting pot. Ethnic groups becoming Americans rather than citizens of the world hinders the march toward a one government world. The message is: Everybody keeps the national identity of their ancestors, but loyalty belongs to global government.

A melting pot meant that people from different backgrounds would blend together over time, and eventually everyone would be American. In a very few decades Socialists discredited the melting pot and replaced it with anti-American multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism means that neither immigrants, nor their descendants, will ever become Americans. An English-speaking Christian white male is multiculturalism’s image of an American —— not as a role model, but as a target. Establishing a false image made it easier to depict all Americans as creatures to be hated by anyone who lacks every "American" trait as defined by Socialists.

Newcomers to America are encouraged to remain what they are when they arrive from whatever inferno they came from rather than become Americans. Heaven forbid anyone telling them to go back to where they came from if they hate Americans so much.

Realizing that acts of terrorism are not going to kill Americans fast enough to bring about the desired change Socialist multiculturalism calls for, the courts, the Ministry of Propaganda, and the education system have decided to increase the help they give to immigrants in their push to eliminate Americans altogether. Sometimes I think the Socialists controlling those three institutions hate Americans so much they can't wait to see them go down on their knees to aliens.

Finally, here is the reason I posted this addendum to my OP: The hyphen in natural-born American separates Americans who are eligible to be president from those who are American citizens but not eligible. That hyphen is indispensable.

 

Of course Jindal and Rubio and Romney are all eligible- assuming they were all born in the United States. All Americans know this.

Only a fringe group of xenophobic wackjobs thinks otherwise- in other words not Liberals, not Conservatives, but the wackjobs that rational people cross the street when they see them walking along and talking to themselves or carrying a sign proclaiming conspiracies involving the million galaxies.

 

To SFJEFF: The conspiracy defense does not seem to be working with Judge Malihi either:

“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.’”​

Judge whacks Obama in eligibility case
'Defendant has failed to enlighten the court with legal authority'
by BOB UNRUH

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/judge-rejects-obama-demand-to-quash-subpoena/

Since you rely so heavily on conspiracies you can pick up a few pointers from Cass Sunstein about the Left’s reliance on conspiracies. See this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/other-miscellaneous/226976-vrwc.html

 

you do know the case was dsimissed right flanders?

another loss in the birther column. you birthers still maintain a perfect record of fail in court.

 

Defense attorneys never let their clients take the stand in criminal trials contrary to what you see in fictional TV courtroom dramas where prosecutors destroy them. That’s the exact reason why defendants should never take the stand in real life. Hussein not testifying is nothing more than a defendant taking the Fifth. He is only exercising the Right everybody else enjoys. Still, he could have his attorney submit the documentation the court is asking for.

Anyway, here’s the latest as the showdown gets closer to January 26th, two days from now. The update in two parts includes a video.

Will Obama show up at eligibility hearing?
Judge wants president in Atlanta courtroom Thursday
Published: 9 hours ago

There’s a subpoena from a Georgia administrative court with Barack Obama’s name on it for him to be in Atlanta on Thursday, along with the documentation about his birth, to answer to challenges from residents of the state objecting to the presence of his name on the 2012 ballot.

They believe he’s simply not eligible under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” They say the Founders thought of that status as the offspring of two citizen parents, and Obama’s father was Kenyan. Or they say he wasn’t born in the U.S. They are legitimately allowed to raise those challenges under a state law.

But several observers say no one really should expect Obama to arrive.

For one thing, his important presidential trip to Denver, Detroit and Las Vegas, three key regions where he wants to build his support before the November 2012 election, is on tap.

Besides that, Eric Segall of Georgia State University told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that this is just like all the other lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility: worthless.

“There have been many, many lawsuits trying to litigate the issue of the president’s nationality,” the law professor opined. “They have all been dismissed and this one should be too. In light of the frivolousness of the case, the judge has no valid authority to require the president to appear in court.”

The administrative court itself probably would not pursue any sort of procedure against the president should he fail to appear, but Marietta, Ga., attorney Melvin Goldstein said the logical sequence of events would be, presuming Obama’s failure to appear, for the court to refer the matter to a superior court judge in the county, who could determine whether a contempt citation against Obama would be supported.

It was White House Press Secretary Jay Carney who told reporters Obama would be delivering the State of the Union Tuesday, then traveling for three days, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

“He will be speaking specifically about … American manufacturing, American energy, and skill for American workers,” Carney said.

WND reported Friday on the stunning decision from Judge Michael M. Malihi, who refused a demand from Obama’s lawyer to squash 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.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGgDLnjYotM&feature=player_embedded"]Breaking! ALERT! Obama Summoned to Appear in Georgia Eligibility Hearing! - YouTube[/ame]

 

PART TWO:

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.

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

Hatfield also had filed with the court a “Notice to Produce” asking for Obama’s documents and records.

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.

Taitz’s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she’s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.

“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.

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:

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.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-to-miss-eligibility-hearing/

 

It ain’t network television but it will do:

Obama eligibility hearing to be broadcast live
'Complicit media ignoring all calls for honest reporting on the issue'
by Joe Kovacs

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-eligibility-hearing-to-be-broadcast-live/

The festivities begin at 9:OO A.M. See the following if you plan on watching on your computer:

PRESS RELEASE – JANUARY 21st, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: ARTICLE II SUPER PAC TO BROADCAST JANUARY 26TH, 2012 OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARINGS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA – LIVE!

Article II Political Action Committee (http://art2superpac.com) will be on site with uncut, uncensored, complete, live streamed gavel-to-gavel video coverage of the first ever “Obama” Constitutional Presidential eligibility hearings. “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.

The PAC describes this upcoming event as “The hearing of the century, for the (alleged) political crime of the century,” referring to the breathtaking implications of an illegal “President” in the White House or on the presidential ballot.

For live video coverage from the hearings, go to http://www.Art2SuperPAC.com.

These proceedings could lead to the removal of the incumbent from the Georgia ballot, which would raise questions nationwide. This would be the first time that these issues and related evidence are deliberated in open court. Numerous ballot challenges have been filed in dozens of states, contesting “Obama’s” questionable eligibility, based upon natural born citizenship requirements, in Article II of the U.S. Constitution and laws in multiple states. Georgia will be one of the first states heard. This is due to the timing of challenge filings and its unique state administrative court set up to handle such matters, in a jurisdiction potentially receptive to such
cases.

Three cases are being heard on one momentous day, in this order: Plaintiffs David Welden (represented by Van Irion); Carl Swensson and Kevin Powell (represented by Mark Hatfield); David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas MaClaren, Laurie Roth (represented by Dr. Orly Taitz).

CONTACT: Helen Tansey, 804-840-1449, director@art2superpac.com

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFil...NOUNCEMENTREGARDINGLIVEGAHEARINGBROADCAST.pdf

 

when this is tossed out, like every single birther court case to date, will you stop treating this forum like your own personal blog?

 

Waiting for the other shoe to drop. Judge Malihi’s:

“. . . recommendation on the issue, whether Obama’s name should be on the ballot or not, is expected later and eventually will end up before state Secretary of State Brian Kemp.”​

Eligibility attorney: Obama needs impeaching
'We don't have a constitutional republic any longer'
Published: 27 mins ago
by Bob Ubruh

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/eligibility-attorney-obama-needs-impeaching/

 

Would that be any attorney who has actually won a single case, ever?

I thought not.

 

Originally Posted by SFJEFF
Of course Jindal and Rubio and Romney are all eligible- assuming they were all born in the United States. All Americans know this.

To SFJEFF: Hardly “All Americans. . .”.

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens.

Ah self proclaimed 'constitutional expert Herb Titus. Yeah I grant you, that you managed to find one qualified attorney who is selling this idea. But even he admits that "Most people think that anyone born in the United States is a Natural Born Citizen"- he offers his differin interpretation.

One clearly not accepted by any authority anywhere. Me- I will trust Chief Justice Robert over Herb Titus. Because as Titus admits- most of us already know that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

 

To SFJEFF: Now, now, you should know better than to play fast and loose with Titus’ context. Jumping “. . . from most people think. . .” to “. . . most of us already know. . .” is a no-no.

TO SFJEFF: It only takes one victory for Hussein’s house of cards to come tumbling down. Hussein & Company understand that even if his ostriches are in denial.

This could be the one:

What happened at Obama-no-show trial
Sworn testimony reveals fake Social Security number, other gaps
by Jerome R. Corsi

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

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

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

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

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

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

His father’s citizenship, they said, precludes him from serving as president, since the Founders required that officer to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a “citizen.”

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

Weldon explained in his presentation that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural-born citizen.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

She also had a private investigator, Susan Daniels, testify that it appears Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number.

Documents and imaging expert Doug Vogt asserted the birth documentation released by the White House was a creation of a software program and not a scan of any original document. That would mean Obama’s documentation, despite what the White House released in April, is still under wraps.

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

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

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

Kemp said late last night in a response to a demand from Obama’s attorney that he simply order the hearing stopped.

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

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

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

But the judge thought otherwise.

“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.
“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.

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

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

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

The image released by the White House in April:

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

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

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

GO TO LINK TO READ REPRODUCTION OF LETTER FROM Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp to Hussein’s lawyer Michael Jablonski.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/georgia-court-told-obama-slam-dunk-disqualified/

 

Hussein has to be singing the blues today. This line from an old song is especially prophetic:

“Lord, I believe it’s raining all over the world”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qr5djzzeA3M

Ballot eligibility cases will be Hussein’s undoing because state-court judges and legislators are the deciders:

“I can tell you from my own personal knowledge that there are challenges going on in other states. Van Irion has one in Arizona and one in Tennessee. We have one in Illinois that is has gone under the radar. We’re going to be filing similar challenges around the country. We’ll be filing one within a week and another right around the end of the month,” he said.​

Obviously, Hussein wants the federal courts to decide; however, it is my understanding that if he goes into a federal court as a plaintiff rather than a defendant he has to testify —— if not him than the plaintiff acting on his behalf. Presumably that would be his lawyer or an administrative official. In other words somebody has to testify. It’s also likely the defendant will call witnesses like Nancy Pelosi who signed all of those Certificates of Eligibility in 2008. Even if it isn’t Pelosi any witness would open the door to even more questions. I cannot see Hussein going down that road as a plaintiff.

There’s more

Ballot eligibility cases are moving along while the gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Arizona is shaping up between Sheriff Joe and the Justice Department. It’s just too bad Tombstone is not in Sheriff Joe’s county.

The following article is in two parts:

Obama accused of disrespecting court, state, Americans
'My belief is if Supreme Court held he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling'
Published: 7 hours ago
By Dave Tombers

One of the attorneys who fought a court case over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court says he fears that even if the U.S. Supreme Court declared Obama unqualified, he’d simply ignore the ruling and continue issuing orders.

But those who observed a court hearing today in Atlanta say it could be the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign, because of the doubt that could surge like a tidal wave across the nation.

The comments came today from Leo Donofrio, who led the pack in filing lawsuits over Obama’s 2008 election and his subsequent occupancy of the White House.

He was commenting on today’s hearing before a Georgia administrative law judge on complaints raised by several state residents that Obama is not eligible to run for the office in 2012. That hearing went on after Obama and his lawyer decided to snub the court system and refuse to participate.
A decision from the judge, Michael Malihi, is expected soon.

The Georgia residents delivered sworn testimony to a court that, among other things, Obama is forever disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state because his father never was a U.S. citizen. Because the Constitution’s requirement presidents be a “natural born citizen,” which is the offspring of two citizen parents, he is prevented from qualifying, they say.

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

In Georgia, the law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

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

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

Donofrio’s case – like all the others that have reached the Supreme Court – simply was refused recognition.

“That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” Donofrio said. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.”

He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.”

“If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned.

“My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said.

The White House today was absolutely silent about the issue. The Georgia case is far different from the lawsuits over the 2008 election, in which judges virtually unanimously ruled that they could not make a decision that would remove a sitting president, no matter the circumstances.

This hearing was about concerns being raised, as allowed by Georgia state law, that Obama is not eligible for the office of president and therefore should not be allowed on the 2012 election ballot.

“If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation.

His organization pursued several of the lawsuits over Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices simply decided they wouldn’t be bothered with such issues as the constitutional eligibility of a president.

“He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said.

Kreep’s cases have outlined out there is precedent in the U.S. for the removal of a sitting chief executive because of an issue over ineligibility.

Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned Secretary of State Brian Kemp yesterday that he needed to simply call off the hearing, and he and Obama would not participate.

Not only did Obama not participate, there also was no comment.

On a day when Obama was campaigning in Arizona and Colorado, he released formal statements about the retirement of Congressman Brad Miller, and the retirement of Gov. Bev Perdue.

But WND calls to the White House brought only the instructions to e-mail a question to the media affairs department. WND did but got no response. WND also contacted Obama’s campaign headquarters, to receive instructions to email a question. WND did again, but again got no response.

Jablonski, the Atlanta attorney representing Obama, also declined to return WND messages left at his office today.

 

PART TWO:

Mario Apuzzo, who also shepherded a case to the Supremes, said Obama, by not showing, “actually failed to meet his burden of proof, to show that he is eligible and should be placed on the ballot.”

“For him to just ignore due process here is really telling a lot,” he said, noting, “This decision will have a ripple effect.”

“He’s not above the law. That’s a very important thing here. He’s a private person running for office, so he had no business not showing up. So the court can enter the judgment, and then the secretary of state does what he wants with it. And this will have a ripple effect for other secretaries of state, for other states, for the public. Also for any case that could be pending in the Supreme Court, where the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility is implicated,” he said.

“It’s a really important milestone that has been reached.”

Apuzzo warned that an administrative law judge certainly wields authority in such cases.

“We had a legitimate hearing in a legitimate court where this private person, Barack Obama, was asked to come there and satisfy the basic Georgia election law ballot procedure, and he doesn’t show up. Nor does he send an attorney. We don’t see this on television yet, but I can’t imagine this not being major news. It boggles the mind that a sitting president who is running for re-election doesn’t show up at a state’s legitimately constituted proceeding to make sure that he is indeed eligible to be on the ballot,” he said.

Charles Kerchner, on whose behalf one of those cases went to the Supremes, said, “Obama thinks he is a king and thus not subject to the election laws of Georgia and the United States Constitution. He will soon learn otherwise.”

He continued, “As the Georgia secretary of state said in warning Obama and his attorney if they did not show.up for the court hearing today … if they do that, they will do so at their own peril.”

Kreep, who has fought battles in both state and federal courts over the issue, said a ruling that would remove Obama’s name from the Georgia ballot would be a “tremendous victory for … America.”

“If the judge issues a default and rules that Barack Obama will not be on the Georgia ballot, and if the secretary of state upholds that, then Mr. Obama, having told the court to essentially stick it in their ear, he wasn’t going to participate, wasn’t going to recognize their power – he’s going to have a tough time convincing some other court to overturn the ruling, because he waived his right to object to it by not appearing,” he explained.

“That’s a big deal to judges. A judge may or may not agree with another judge’s ruling, but when one party waives their ability to object, judges are very reluctant to get involved, because the party has basically said, ‘We don’t care what you do, we’re not going to abide by it.’ Judges don’t like that. They don’t like to be blown off,” he said.

He said the election outcome also could be decided because of not being on a ballot in even one state. And he said there’s more to come.

“I can tell you from my own personal knowledge that there are challenges going on in other states. Van Irion has one in Arizona and one in Tennessee. We have one in Illinois that is has gone under the radar. We’re going to be filing similar challenges around the country. We’ll be filing one within a week and another right around the end of the month,” he said.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-accused-of-disrespecting-court-state-americans/

 

Prediction: Less than 24 hours after the decision is released declaring, on the merits, that Obama is eligible and will be on the ballot, Apuzzo will release a statement that in some way declares the proceedings to be illegitimate.

Call that one my "lock of the week."

 

Obama's born in HI and Romney in MI. That's all that matters. Both are US citizens by birth in USA (jus soli). Only exception would be if they were children of foreign diplomats and that isn't true.

 

You know a poster is desperate when they are quoting from WND

 

And the judge today told Orly that no, she doesn't get to make Hawaii bring the birth certificate to Georgia.

 

To Rollo1066: Hussein’s eligibility to be president is in question. Until the Constitution is amended both parents must be American at the time of birth. No one is questioning his citizenship.

To SFJEFF: Where does your information come from?

To SFJEFF: So far, I’ve not seen anyone show that WND’s reporting contains falsehoods. Pooh-poohing interpretation and opinion is one thing, but everything reported about actual events in the courts has been accurate.

Here’s the latest for you to chew on:

Georgia judge considered 'default' against Obama
Ruling could have brought immediate recommendation to remove name from ballot
Published: 8 hours ago
by Bob Unruh

Attorneys who argued in a Georgia court this week that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president say Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi considered granting a default judgment before they even argued the case.

That presumably could have recommended that Obama failed to prove his eligibility and therefore should not be on the 2012 ballot, since he and his lawyer snubbed the hearing, for which Obama was subpoenaed.

But the attorneys argued against such an easy victory on the point of the single hearing, expressing instead their desire to get the evidence concerning Obama’s eligibility or lack of it in the record, so that it would be there should the case elevate to an appellate level.

The attorneys also said the strategy decision by Obama to simply ignore the subpoena and the hearing may ultimately backfire, because judges typically aren’t pleased to listen to arguments from someone who wants to introduce evidence during an appeal.

Both attorneys, J. Mark Hatfield and Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation told WND they felt comfortable discussing the situation as the judge had imposed no ban on communicating what happened.

“The judge … was considering just entering a default judgment against Obama,” Hatfield said today. “The plaintiffs’ attorneys uniformly did not want the judge to do that because there wouldn’t be any evidence in the record at all.”

In Georgia, 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.

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

Hatfield and Irion told WND the expected process is that Malihi will make a decision over the course of the next week whether Obama, without appearing or being represented at the hearing, documented his eligibility to the court’s satisfaction.

That recommendation then goes to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, to whom Obama’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, earlier had complained that Malihi was letting the attorneys “run amok” since the issue of Obama’s “citizenship” had been resolved.

But in fact the U.S. Constitution demands a different status for presidents, that of a “natural born citizen,” which Founders likely considered to be the offspring of two citizen parents. If that is the case, Obama could not be eligible as his father was a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

At the time Jablonski complained to Kemp and told him he should simply cancel the hearing, Kemp warned Jablonski that he ultimately would be reviewing the hearing result, and to not participate would be at Obama’s “peril.”

Both lawyers, whose cases in fact are separate from each other as well as from the Taitz’ case, said it was important for them to be able to introduce evidence and build a court record.

Hatfield said the goal ultimately is to have a court rule on the substance of the controversy: Is it necessary to have citizen parents to be a “natural born citizen” or will that definition evolve as America ages?

Hatfield told WND that he specifically asked the judge at the end of the hearing to close the record, and he did that. Hatfield said that should make it clear that as the decision is made, and any challenges progress, no new information can be added to the evidence already submitted.

He said it’s very clear that the court had jurisdiction to take the case and accept evidence, since the ballot at issue is a ballot with which the state election in 2012 will be conducted.

And Hatfield noted that although Obama’s lawyer at least made a motion to quash the subpoena from Taitz for his testimony and records, Obama’s attorneys never even bothered to respond to his own motion to produce records.

Obama’s campaign declined to respond to WND emails and messages inquiring about a comment on the situation.

Irion told WND the default is a typical result when one side fails to appear for a dispute that’s being adjudicated in court, but in this case, that would have left it wide open for arguments on appeal that had nothing to do with the issue.

He said he explained to the judge that awarding a default judgment actually would have been rewarding Obama for failing to respond to the subpoena.

The attorneys said they would be watching for Obama’s next move in the contest. And they said they believe there is a possibility that because of the dispute, Obama may end up not being on the Georgia ballot in the fall.

Obama lost the state in the 2008 election to John McCain.

Earlier, several attorneys who previously took cases challenging Obama’s eligibility as high as the U.S. Supreme Court said Obama’s refusal to participate in the hearing was a travesty.

“That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” said attorney Leo Donofrio. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.”

He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.”

“If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned.

“My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said.

“If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

His organization pursued several of the lawsuits over Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not accepted any eligibility cases.

“He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said.

Mario Apuzzo, who also shepherded a case to the Supreme Court, said Obama, by not showing, “actually failed to meet his burden of proof, to show that he is eligible and should be placed on the ballot.”

“For him to just ignore due process here is really telling a lot,” he said, noting, “This decision will have a ripple effect.”

“He’s not above the law. That’s a very important thing here. He’s a private person running for office, so he had no business not showing up. So the court can enter the judgment, and then the secretary of state does what he wants with it. And this will have a ripple effect for other secretaries of state, for other states, for the public. Also for any case that could be pending in the Supreme Court, where the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility is implicated,” he said.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/georgia-judge-considered-default-against-obama/

 

The linked article was written by two writers from the American Thinker who:

“. . . attended yesterday's hearing in Georgia over President Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot.”​

January 27, 2012
Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By
By Cindy Simpson and Alan P. Halbert

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/georgia_ballot_challenge_obama_walks_on_by.html

In this thread, I’ve tried to keep interested parties up to date on the judicial proceedings. The Simpson-Halbert piece adds some detail on what actually transpired at the hearing. It includes:

“. . . a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday's hearing in GA.”​

As near as I can determine from everything I’ve posted, and read, the physical evidence is now part of the record in all future judicial proceedings. I don’t see how Hussein & Company can have that evidence thrown out later on? In short: That boat sailed yesterday.

My guess is that Hussein will not make a move until the state of Geogia keeps him off the ballot. At that point he either has to accept Georgia’s decision quietly, or move to overturn it in a federal court. Even then, I do not see how the federal government can make Geogia comply if it decides to play Hussein’s game by not showing up so to speak? After all, turnabout is fair play.

 

From what I have read, the only relevant physical evidence was the Hawaiian Birth Certificate copies that the plaintiff's submitted as evidence, which show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Since that demonstrates he meets two of the three requirements, and the plaintiffs never claimed he didn't meet the third requirements(14 years here in the U.S.) I rather expect the judge to report to the SOS that according to the evidence, Barack Obama is eligible.

But we shall see. I look forward to it all. My prediction is future whining and wailing by Birthers when once again the law says they are wrong, wrong, wrong.