Skip to comments.FULL ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING
Posted on 02/01/2012 4:32:56 AM PST by IbJensen
For the first time, this morning in Georgia, the question of Obamas eligibility to serve, became official. No longer the stuff of speculation, no longer dismissible by liberals as something which will never be heard in court, Obamas eligibility became a matter of an official court record.
What does it mean?
To answer that, one must look at the reason for the hearing to begin with.
For years, Orly Taitz and the Liberty Legal Foundation along with others, have questioned Obamas legal right to serve. For years, that argument centered on the birth certificate and whether or not Obama was born in the United States.
What made this case and this hearing different, is that it mattered not where Obama was born rather, at the center of the stage, would be the nationality of Obamas father.
Obamas father was never a U.S. Citizen and a great deal of evidence to that point was entered into the official record this morning.
Another linchpin in all of this, is the definition of Natural Born Citizen which one must be, by writ of the Constitution, to hold the office of President. According to the plaintiffs in this hearing, that definition can be clearly found in the written opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Minor vs Happersett from 1875.
That opinion, which by the way is backed up by several other Supreme Court opinions, states that for one to be a Natural Born Citizen both of ones parents must be U.S. Citizens.
There is no opinion offered, at any time, by the Supreme Court in conflict with this definition and as the attorneys made clear this morning, while some lower court opinions say something else, they do not override nor do they directly conflict with, the Supreme Court decision from 1875.
If that definition is upheld, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore has no standing to hold th office of President as per the Constitution.
This hearing today certainly didnt end there.
Also entered into evidence were documents, discs and expert testimony calling into question the legitimacy of Obamas birth certificate, his Social Security number, his fathers immigration status, his real name and indeed Obamas own citizenship status.
All of this in the effort to have Obamas name kept off the Georgia ballot in 2012.
Here is where it become even more interesting.
After being subpoenaed to appear and after an endless stream of excuses as to why he shouldnt, neither Obama nor his attorney were at the hearing.
This means, all the evidence and all the expert testimony was entered into the official record without a response, a peep, or a rebuttal from Obama or his attorney.
At this point, all of it remains unchallenged. All of it.
This begs the question; Can a sitting President be commanded by subpoena, to appear in court? Many claim Executive Privilege prevents it.
They would be wrong.
While EP can be claimed and upheld in cases of National Security or where it interferes with sensitive issues of security or the military, in other actions, outside those parameters, a court can compel even a sitting President to adhere to the rule of law.
In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court of the United States, citing many landmark cases, including Chief Justice Marshalls opinions Marbury v. Madison (1803)and United States v. Burr, said that it was incumbent on the High Court to balance between the presidents need for confidentiality in executing his constitutional duties, on the one hand, and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice, on the other. The Courts unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger was careful to give great credence to the presidents need for complete candor and objectivity from his advisors. The justices also recognized the need for a great degree of confidentiality for the internal deliberations of the executive branch of government. Chief Justice Burger agreed that, if military or diplomatic secrets were at stake, the Court might reach a different conclusion. However, given that President Nixons claims were based on a blanket statement of executive privilege without claiming that any state secrets were at stake, the constitutional duty of the courts is to guarantee due process of law, something that Nixons actions were gravely impairing, according to the Court. The justices ruled that President Nixon had to comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued by Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Nixon immediately prepared to turn over the subpoenaed materials to Chief Judge Sirica.
Presidents since Nixon have continued to claim that the special place the presidency holds under Americas constitutional system demands that much of its internal deliberations remain secret and privileged. When faced with investigations, special prosecutors, subpoenas, and impeachment proceedings, President William J. Clinton, for example, claimed that much of what went on in the Oval Office was protected by executive privilege and executive immunity, and that he and his aides should not have to respond to subpoenas. As was the case with President Nixon, President Clinton eventually accepted his and his offices place under the rule of law. Since United States v. Nixon, executive branch claims of immunity from the normal processes of the American legal system have been tempered by the fact that the constitutional demands of due process of law and justice are likely to outweigh claims of executive immunity from subpoenas.
It is yet to be seen whether the court in Georgia will take action regarding Obamas failure to appear and the failure of his attorney to participate.
Another question worth asking; Why no media coverage of this hearing?
Granted, the mainstream or elite or whatever were calling them these days media lean hard to the left and it should come as no surprise that they refuse to give an eye blink toward this hearing. But what of Fox News and even their local Georgia affiliates? Why was nary a word of any broadcast given to todays hearing?
I suspect it has a great deal to do with their prior position that the birth certificate was real case closed. I also suspect, that should the Georgia judge find compelling reason to exclude Obama from the states 2012 ballot, this WILL become a story.
For those in the conservative blogosphere, this IS a story and IS newsworthy?
How often is a sitting President subpoenaed? How often has a sitting Presidents eligibility to appear on a state ballot been questioned in court? How often has a sitting Presidents birth certificate been questioned as fake under oath? How often has a sitting Presidents eligibility to hold office been testified to in court? How often has a sitting Presidents nationality been testified to in court?
This is news. Regardless of what side one takes This is news.
Never before has a sitting Presidents Social Security numbers been shown by evidence and sworn testimony in court as being fraudulent.
The SS number assigned to Barack Obama is from a man born in 1890. It was issued in Connecticut to Obama in 1977 but at that time, again according to sworn testimony and evidence in court, Obama was living in his mothers house in Hawaii.
One witness in court testified that Obamas SS number was run through the E-Verify system, the system used to validate a persons citizenship, and it came back as a high degree of being fraudulent.
Anyway one looks at this, it is news.
At the end of the 2 hour hearing, Judge Michael Malihi adjourned the hearing gathered up all the evidence and the court reporters transcript and returned to his chambers.
At this time, we wait, for how long, we dont know, for his decision as to whether or not Obamas name is eligible to appear on the 2012 Georgia ballot.
One can easily suspect, that should he find against Obama in this hearing, a tidal wave of similar cases will be filed in other states. Already, similar cases are pending in some states.
Orly Taitz, the Liberty Legal Foundation and others stand ready to carry forward in such cases.
We also await a decision as to what, if any action, might be taken regarding Obamas failure to appear and his attorneys decision to simply not participate under a court subpoena.
Why, if as liberals have claimed for years, all of this is folly and easily dismissed by facts, did Obamas attorney not simply present those facts and put an end to it? It would seem that letting it all go unchallenged clearly adds fuel to the fire.
The mere presentation of evidence and sworn testimony today lends a great deal of credibility to the arguments as it is now a matter of official record.
A default judgment should be rendered and no doubt, it will be appealed but we suspect the judge will disallow Obamas name from appearing on the Georgia ballot. No doubt too, other states will begin to file similar complaints.
The final questions, left unanswered and unchallenged by Obama and his attorney are Who is this guy Obama really? Who is this who by evidence presented lived in Indonesia and Hawaii at the exact same time? Who is this guy whose SS number indicates he is more than 120 years old and lived in a state in which he never lived. Who is this guy who has been known by at least 2 different names? Who is this guy to which evidence in court indicates is a citizen of Indonesia? Who is this Obama whose birth certificate, shown in evidence and sworn testimony, has been created through layering and computer manipulation and has serial numbers out of sequence with those of others born in the claimed hospital within 24 hours of his supposed birth?
Whoever he is
Whoever he really is
he now occupies the oval office.
The term natural born citizen has been defined previously and it requires two conditions:
1) Obama must be born in the USA. The forged document provided by the White House web site of Obamas supposedly long form birth certificate is simply that, a bad forgery! Therefore, the only way to check this long form birth certificate is to go to Hawaii and to check directly the original long form birth certificate and in particular to assess if even this original is genuine that is if it is not also a forgery!!
2) Obamas parents MUST BOTH be American citizens. We know that Obamas father was a Kenyan and that he NEVER was an American citizen!!!!! Therefore, THIS SECOND CONDITION ALONE DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA AND IT ALSO DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, NO MATTER THE FACT THAT HE WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!!!
More, Obama is a former lawyer. Therefore, he knew perfectly well that he was not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA but he nevertheless did it DISHONESTLY, FRAUDULENTLY, deceiving purposefully the entire American people.
Furthermore, Obama was confronted with the definition of what a natural born citizen is when he directly participated in the investigation of John McCains eligibility to run for the Presidency of the USA. Obama then signed Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008 that reveals the indispensable requirement of having two US citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen according to the Constitution of the USA and therefore to be eligible to run for the Presidency of the USA or to be President of the USA!!!!! Therefore, once again, Obama knew very well that he FRAUDULENTLY decided to run for the Presidency of the USA despite the fact that he knew perfectly well that he was NOT a natural born citizen and therefore that he was not entitled, according to the Constitution of the USA, to be President of the USA.
Conclusion: Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore he is not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA nor is he entitled to be President of the USA, no matter the fact that he won the Presidential election!!!!
“Fatetur facinus qui judicium fugit.”
Right when I thought that fire was going out...it goes nuclear.
Didn’t Obama’s presented birth cert have Obama Senior on it? If FMD is his father then he is guilty of forged documents.
Zero didn’t say anything because he has nothing to say. He knew he was not eligible in 2004 and said so himself. His only defense is “The King” doesn’t NEED a defense. So far it is working.
* Illinois Board of election to have hearing on 2/2 on obama elig challenge (ballot access)
* Alabama will have hearing soon.
* GA judge will have ruling soon.
* Joe Farah of wnd.com was on Hannity show: ‘Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen therefore not elig to be VP or pres’
the naturalization paper of Rubio’s father proving that Rubio was born to a non-USA citizen father.
Th Dems challenged George Romney when he ran for pres that he was not a natural born citizen; but now the dems won’t touch this issue when obama’s nbc status is in doubt!
If the R intentionally push Rubio to be VP, they are purposedly dismantling the constitution without the proper amendment, but rather by setting precedent!
The “Magic Negro” isn’t subject to the laws of any nation, especially one founded by “slave owners.”
If this plays out, and I truly hope it does, it places a positive perspective on preventing Newt/Paul/Perry/etc from the Virginia ballot. The argument between “it’s about punishing the candidate not following the rules” versus “it’s about fairness to the voters needing a choice”, goes in favor of the former. As it does so in Virginia, it should also do so in Georgia.
Get over it? If you are right then everything about him is fraudulent and you say get over it. Wake up!
‘His real father was Frank Marshall Davis.’
Oh ya? You admit that soetoro/obama/soebarkah/barry/steve/whoever the hack he is, has lied about his identity, that he really is NOT bho as his phoney bc states?
It is ok for a president to lie to the Americans about who he is?
It is ok to have an imposter in the oval office?
Should we call obama Mr. Frank Marshall Davis jr.?
You need to have your brain examined!
Of course the stay at home vote will be large as well.
Headline, “Mitt Wins VA With Five Votes—Paul Second With Four.”
Either way the state is going to be badly embarrassed.
But either Obama Sr. is his father and his eligibility is in doubt, or FMD is his father and he's a fraud. And he made his parentage a much larger issue than most other candidates do.
Or, it will be swept under the rug again, and America will continue its slide downward.
Whatever. Thanks to all for any responses, and flames, in advance.
If it determined or ruled that he is ineligible to be put on the ballot, it stands to reason that he is a fake and should be removed from office....immediately!
The document image he presented is a forgery in any case.
Yes, I agree, but this article is SIX days old.
Must I do a search every day here for Atlanta or Georgia + Obama eligibility?
Is there anywhere I can go every day for the latest on this?
I saw that last night on Hannity. I thought he was going to choke. You could tell he was not happy about it being said out loud.