Skip to comments.Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen
Posted on 02/03/2012 2:19:38 PM PST by GregNH
We just spoke with plaintiff Kevin Powell and he reports Judge Malihi has ruled against the Plaintiffs and stated in his order that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore Obama is a natural born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
The liberals and progressives are freaking Morgana, and have been using the breath of the dragon for evil. I hope they all suffer Morgana’s fate.
Well, his first one was brilliant. I have no idea if this is going to get appealed or not. I know there are other Super PAC’s out there ready to offer funding... but I don’t know if they have it in em to keep on keepin on.
I hope and pray they do.
“I’m finding it very hard not to release a fuselage of cuss words right now, just damn...grrrrrr”
I know bro, I know. It is a tremendous burden morality.
“based on what vidence did he say Obama was born in the USA?”
Irion and Hatfield conceded that he was born in Hawaii because the Minor 2 citizen parent theory is based on being born in the US.
“why would a US PRESIDENT give the public a forged document?”
Taitz’s expert didn’t explain very well what proved it was forged. Orly didn’t help with her “stamp stamp stamp”, whatever that was about. Looks like Malihi decided it’s real.
I hate thinking revolutionary thoughts. I sincerely do. But the longer this goes on, the more I have to consider the possibility that civil war might be the eventual outcome. Not today, not tomorrow, but the seeds have been planted and the progressives are watering the garden and pulling any weed that get’s in their way.
It makes me sick.
A few years ago it was stated in more than one thread on FR that Zero had never had a US passport until he was a Senator - IIRC a US Senator. Somehow that info was dug up. Researchers will know the details. So that means his entire life he was using passports of some other country or countries. Even as an adult when he went to Pakistan.
Surprised I haven't been whipped by the FR grammar police yet ;)
“Surprised I haven’t been whipped by the FR grammar police yet ;)”
I am surprised I have not been spanked myself. I have used strategically placed asterisks, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what I was saying. I think the Mods know we are just that disappointed. They’re cutting us some slack.
And it will be 100% their fault.
>>...A person born outside the United States is born under the sovereignty of some other state which would then have jurisdiction to dictate his acts. A person born inside the United States is subject, at birth only to the sovereignty of the United States....<<
Again, that flies in the face of simple common sense and I gave two *very common* examples where a child born inside the US is subject to two (or more) sovereign nations depending on parental citizenship. Two couples I know would tell you and the S.C. to go pound sand as their children (all born within the US) were born with dual citizenship and dual national allegiances as both fathers are foreign citizens. The US does not have sole claim to those kids and those kids can (and do) eagerly claim their foreign citizenship as well as their US citizenship. I fail to see how something this simple completely escapes those in black-robes who “think they know better”.
So, the founding fathers sought to best assure the integrity and allegiance of a presidential candidate using the common-sense answer to the following common-sense question: A child born in the US of two US citizens forms a birth allegiance to the US and what other country? Answer: None.
That later courts have ginned up a non-common-sense alternate definition of NBC does not in any way remove the risk the founding fathers clearly sought to avoid.
Like I said, the courts can define terms that defy common sense. They can say that Obama has no birth allegiance to Kenya *legally* and that’s fine. But that does not address the dangers the founders wished to avoid. The founding fathers wanted to avoid, “matters of the heart” (IIRC) — emotional allegiances formed at birth — that might cloud or affect presidential decisions. A legal definition may stop some civil or criminal action, but it does nothing to address emotional bonds. Yet again: common sense, in spite of any legalistic, court ruling that defies it.
Like Wickard v. Fillburn which ruled that a farmer growing crops for his own use affects commerce between the states because he won’t need to purchase any, the mental gymnastics required to arrive at that decision, and the presidential eligibility decision are (imho) quite similar. Only an over-educated, hyper-rhetorical, legalistic mind could fool itself into jumping through those hoops.
To allow yourself the intellectual dishonesty needed to willingly accept either of those decisions (and countless similar others) in now way makes them correct. They are erroneous based on simple common-sense and we have no feasible recourse to correct it. There are too many apathetic, complacent citizens who accept that the courts are infallible and are a superior, rather than co-equal, branch of govt.
I can’t state it any clearer. All I can do is try to explain the common-sense point of view to someone. If I fail to communicate it clear enough, then that’s all I can do. I can’t “understand” it for them too.
I don't think there is enough slack for what I wanted to say!
LOL...I have to get out of here before I go nuts, I have chores to do anyway.
I'll talk to you later, hope you have a good day!
Leo is working up his version as we speak, no doubt...
“The US does not have sole claim to those kids and those kids can (and do) eagerly claim their foreign citizenship as well as their US citizenship. I fail to see how something this simple completely escapes those in black-robes who think they know better
“Under the sovereignty” doesn’t mean sole claim. If that were true, a US citizen couldn’t have a second citizenship. It means under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US. Every tourist, businessman and illegal alien who’s here from another country is under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the US while he’s here.
Nor by any other law made by political process, such as a Constitutional Amendment.
A natural citizen is such by natural law, and not for any other reason. Natural law defines what is true by the nature of the world, regardless of what any political entity may decree. So the 14th Amendment cannot have changed who was or was not a natural citizen. It's text makes no claim that it does.
To see who the natural citizens are, remove all the laws and Constitutional definitions regarding citizenship. Whoever are still citizens must be so naturally, by the nature of things. Any such who weren't so from birth—such as those who became citizens at the moment the nation came into existence, without needing any statute or Constitutional provision—are natural citizens. Any who were such from birth are also natural born citizens.
By definition of natural and born.
Harlan1196 uses a common leftist liar trick. He makes two false statements in the same assertion in order to try and confuse the reasoning and thus establish his specious point. I suspect the poster is an obamanoid having fun with the ‘rube birthers at FR’. Drew68 is doing that and the anti-birthers are having their fun. Ultimately what these do is revile in lies and deception, openly mock any notion of right and wrong. Barry revealed their mindset with his ‘we won, you lost, get over it.’ Several of the obamanoids haveposted that snippy response in one form or another, one in particular was fond of stating it as ‘eat crow and like it’. Harlan is just as smarmy, but not yet as juvenile. He/she/it is only sunken tot he level of ‘I write the truth; if you can’t handle it that’s tough’. Whether these creeps speak the truth or not isn’t even the issue anymore. Where are the guillotines?
Drew68’s kids aren’t NBC’s... thus the twisted knickers.
Wow, that was FAST. It is almost as if he anticipated what malihi would do. but then I have heard this was going to be the outcome from a couple of different sources. I had hope they were wrong, but really, I should have known better.
Malihi took the total punt option. Flippin coward. Relying on an INDIANA STATE CASE instead of SCOTUS.... its insanity!
I hope those with the resources will perk up and start aggressively dismantling the Indiana case, appeal it and Georgia, and get’erdone!
In the magical world of birtherland, titles such as "document expert" and "constitutional scholar" are bestowed upon individuals for no other reason than saying what birthers want to hear.
Entered as an exhibit affirming my accusation about obamanoids.
Most people will not see it coming.
I do not know what the numbers are but the founding fathers were probably 20-25% of the population.
Sad state of affairs and unnecessary but probably predictable throughout human history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.