Posted on 02/03/2012 8:27:03 PM PST by OUTKAST
Georgia Judge Malihi decides to keep Barack Hussein (The Long Legged Mack Daddy) on the Georgia Ballot. Recorded on 3 February 2012.
lol Thank you!
We’re getting there. Pretty quickly too.
I'm even concerned about the aftermath of Obama's losing reelection fair and square, and you can bet your bippy that "republican leaders" are concerned as well.
Would "republican leaders" throw the race to Obama to avoid a civil eruption? I don't know, but they certainly haven't demonstrated much courage so far, go along to get along may win the race.
“lol Thank you!”
FWIW, I caught the sarcasm, too. The “So apparently it’s just there arbitrarily and doesn’t mean anything special.” was a dead giveaway. :)
‘why not pursue these allegations when he gets out of office and isn’t so protected.’
Problem is -
he is so in control of the justice system, and the money, and the voting-fraud machine, and the obama-love media machine that there is no way to vote him out!
Another 4 years and we are finsished!
If only the pres cnadidates gang up on him and expose his ineligibility while they are on the center stage! At least bring to the public’s attention that he shows utter contempt for the courts/law! But that is not going to happen!?
You think Gingrich will be brave enough to draw people’s attention to this -
perhpas on his next debate, for his closing remarks, sneak in this - ‘obama shows utter contempt for our court/laws when he did not show up as ordered for the Jan 26 Ga hearing for the ballot access challenge case. No president has ever shown such blatant contempt for the justice system!
Do you want such a lawless president?’
Because made-up birther nonsense isn't the law of the land.
Then you should be outraged that a sitting president ordered the assassination of an American citizen in Anwar al-Awlaki, who under your logic would be eligible to be POTUS.
There is nonsense and then there is stupidity, as in obot troll logic.
Being a despicable scumbag doesn't negate presidential eligibility. The key is not voting them into office. Even before being blown to pieces by a Hellfire missile, the road to the White House was looking pretty dim for Anwar al-Awlaki.
“So apparently it’s just there arbitrarily and doesn’t mean anything special.”
When the Constitution was written, we did not have Americans posted outside the U.S. (in every stinkin’ country around the world); therefore, this means they were not procreating out side of the U.S.
The key is to not to vote them into office? Didn’t work out too well in 2008...You seem to forget that Obama associated himself with domestic terrorists as well.
P.S.
But our forefathers looked at the present as well as far into the future and didn’t want anyone, ever, with divided allegiances to be president. And for good reason. Look at the mess we have right now.
By the way, you need to read this:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd520.htm
WILL THERE BE A CITIZENSHIP ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGE FOR ROMNEY?
By: Devvy
January 7, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
“then please explain why ‘citizen’ was changed to ‘natural born citizen’.”
Probably because “natural born subject” was the phrase used in most all the citizenship laws in colonial America.
As an example used in the wording by Massachusetts:
“In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.
In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.””
Notice they used natural born subject and natural born citizen interchangeably - even AFTER the Constitution.
Writing in Conn in 1795, Zephaniah Swift (A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut) wrote:
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
A huge problem for the birther argument is that the states and writers of the time often used NBC & NBS interchangeably.
““And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html
Aha. Sorry. There so many, apparently including Malihi, whose understanding about corresponds to your sarcasm.
There are an amazing number of people who haven't had, or made the time, or known where to look, to correct the misinformation being spread by so many for whom the Constitution now means whatever is acceptable to the media. Malihi has just contracted the signed understanding of a federal judge, Michael Chertoff, and every US Senator, who signed Senate Res 511 confirming their understanding that a natural born citizen is born to two citizen parents. That they were providing cover for McCain is not relevant here, but it seems that these days judges just say whatever is convenient or correct for their allegiance of the moment.
Then please educate me on the difference beteewn a citizen and a natural born citizen, comrade.
Thank you. I hadn’t seen that article yet and didn’t know there were challenges filed against Romney and Obama in Texas...and by a Democrat.
You are most welcome.
Thank YOU!!!
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.