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.
What about Malcolm X as the father? Explains a lot of issues.
“Just a technicality” I’ve seen posted here by Hussein Heads.
Then he lied on his job application. Fraudulent application is due cause for immediate termination with no recourse to appeal.
Actually, Obama said quite a bit. He said “I am a native-born citizen of the US.” His statement affirmed that he was not a “natural born citizen”. A “native-born citizen” is the language of the 14th Amendment, created to make slaves, born on our soil, citizens, but not natural-born citizens. Being citizens, their children become natural born citizens. The 14th Amendment says nothing about natural born citizens, and its principal author, John Bingham told us why in the House Record, “The Globe” of 1866, when he was arguing for passage of the 14th Amendment. He told us, in effect, the same thing the Chief Justice Marshall told us, and the Chief Justice Morrison Waite turned from ‘dictum’ to ‘precedent’ in Minor v. Happersett. That precedent was confirmed as early as 1895 in the case Wong Kim Ark, in which Justice Gray, appointed by the only other ineligible president Chester Arthur, confirmed that Wong Kim, born on our soil to resident Chinese parents, was not a natural born citizen, but was a 14th Amendment citizen, a native-born citizen of the US.
Every US Senator, including Obama, signed Senate Res 511 in April 2008, confirming his and her belief that a natural born citizen is born to two parents who are citizens. They didn't include the other requirement, born on our sovereign soil, because they were creating the false impression the John McCain was eligible. He wasn't, and that is why Republicans refused to vet Obama. Had they done so, McCain would have been gone, and Hillary was ready and able.,
Read Arizona's own Rogers Professor of Law at U of Arizona, Gabriel Chin, whose excellent paper “Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President:” We may all believe his background should have made him eligible, but, in spite of twenty six attempted amendments to Article II Section 1, none has passed - and there were eight attempts alone between 2000 and 2007. Even Clare McCaskill and Obama made pretended to try in February of 2008 with a “Bill to enable Foreign Born Children of Military Citizens to Become President.” It didn't pass, and couldn't have affected a Constitutional definition. Republicans and Democrats colluded to obscure the definition they all understood because it was a political embarrassment, and probably, a violation of the oaths they all took upon being sworn to their offices. McCain seemed deserving, but ignoring the Constitution to reward McCain paved the path for Obama, who never said he was a natural born citizen. He doesn't believe the Constitution is binding, and told us that early in 2002.
You have been told the “Because the term natural born citizen was not defined in the Constitution..” That was sophistry. Terms were not defined in the Constitution, by design. As Minor v Happersett Justice Waite explained, “...In the language understood by the framers of the Constitution, it was never doubted...” There is only one word with a definition contained in the Constitution, and that, 'treason,' is probably because our new form of government, a republic required a variant of the common-law usage - which had many variants as it is.
Don't trust the pundits. Read Minor v. Happersett for yourself. It is not hard to read, but takes some mulling to understand the key idea, that Virginia Minor was only identified in the Constitution as a Citizen of the US, there being no "Uniform Rules for naturalization" before the 14th Amendment, becuase she was born on our soil to parents who were citizen. Without nailing the defintion, Justice Waite had no jurisdiction and no decision.
Dozens of Supreme Court cases containing citations to Minor v. Happersett were scrubbed by Soros’ Center for American Progress cadre and provided by Google to anyone curious enough to search Supreme Court cases involving citizenship. Cornell Law still has an expurgated case, Ex. Parte Lockwood, with a whole paragraph scrubbed. The corrupted "Justia.com" cases have now been replaced, and Google/Justia has blocked access to the "Wayback Machine," the internet archives. Our legislators and judges have caved, as has our presumably conservative legal history pundit, Mark Levin, who is going to the bank while avoiding the most cited legal reference for the first thirty years after 1779, Vattel’s Law of Nations, because Chief Justice John Marshall cites Vattel in “The Venus, 12 US 253, para 289” as the most concise source (and not by any means the only one) for the definition of natural born citizen.
Our legislators have become our enemies by their complicity in obscuring part of our law which was created to protect us. Our framers and founders understood how critical it was that our commander in chief and chief executive be born to and with allegiance to our foundation. Could it be any more clear that Obama has no such allegiance, and that his father, who never had any desire to be a citizen of the US, a professed Marxist, helped define who Obama is?
Why not? It beats watching soap operas all day.
MUST SEE VIDEO FOR ALL FREEPERS!!
Excuse me...but I read that the Judge Malihi will issue his default against 0bama today.
And that the SOC is ready to deny 0bama position on the primary ballot.
Anyone have an update from the court today....?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks, I was hoping for an answer like, here is a blog every day on it, or this site covers it every day...:
There seem to be a lot of people here who go out of their way not to take this issue seriously, as apparently evidenced by you, unless I am mistaken about your glib soap opera comment.
This is a live court case and I don’t like reading 6-day old “news” on it.
Look, Treetops, I do indeed take the issue seriously and when interested in the outcome of the future of this liar and communist-muslim, dig out the facts for myself.
Referring to the soap operas was merely a failed attempt at humor.
I’m sure there will be something posted in Breaking News by 5pm today.
There most probably will be something posted on Orly’s site.
Today will be a “sitting on pins” day.
I thought that today is the deadline the judge gave for accepting briefs and he would rule on the 5th, which is a Sunday, which didn’t sound right to me.
Should we call obama Mr. Frank Marshall Davis jr.?
How about “Bammy Davis jr”?...yeah..that’s the ticket.
You may be correct in that he brought forward the final day to submitt pleadings to Feb 1st.
So I guess we will have to wait and see what eventuates.
(waiting with bated breath and eyes nose fingers and toes crossed)
The flames are wonderful! It was a little chilly this morning is Sourhtern Arizona, but it it quite toasty now! ;-)
The constitution needs to be followed. If that means Marco Rubio is not eligible to be VP or Pres., then so be it. Are we going to be a nation of laws or not?
...certainly agree with you, so it was interesting to me that Hannity immediately DISMISSED Joe’s comment with something like “that’s not happening”... right, Hannity , let’s not let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of the great Hispanic savior who is in the tank for RinoRomney...
Please accept my apology for taking offense.
It also ap0plies to Bobby Jindahl, I think.
The media refusal (including Fox) to address and report on this issued has been disturbing. Proves they are all manipulative and untrustworthy.
So be it.
SubMareener: “His real father was Frank Marshall Davis. He was born in Hawaii. Get over it.”
If that is the case, Obama should be convicted of presenting false information to the SOS in various states. If he knowingly presents a birth certificate with incomplete or relevant information to his qualifications, he must be held accountable.
Barack Marshall Obama was born in Seattle. His father was Jimi Hendrix.
Well it explains why Obama does things left handed.......
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.