Craig Andresen

FULL ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING

By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 2:09 pm

For the first time, this morning in Georgia, the question of Obama’s 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, Obama’s 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 Obama’s 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 Obama’s father.

Obama’s 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 one’s 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 didn’t end there.

Also entered into evidence were documents, discs and expert testimony calling into question the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate, his Social Security number, his father’s immigration status, his real name and indeed Obama’s own citizenship status.

All of this in the effort to have Obama’s 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 shouldn’t, 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 Marshall’s opinions Marbury v. Madison (1803)and United States v. Burr, said that it was incumbent on the High Court to balance between the president’s 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 Court’s unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger was careful to give great credence to the president’s 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 Nixon’s 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 Nixon’s 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 America’s 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 office’s 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 Obama’s 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 we’re 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 today’s 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 state’s 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 President’s eligibility to appear on a state ballot been questioned in court? How often has a sitting President’s birth certificate been questioned as fake under oath? How often has a sitting President’s eligibility to hold office been testified to in court? How often has a sitting President’s nationality been testified to in court?

This is news. Regardless of what side one takes…This is news.

Never before has a sitting President’s 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 mother’s house in Hawaii.

One witness in court testified that Obama’s SS number was run through the E-Verify system, the system used to validate a person’s 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 don’t know, for his decision as to whether or not Obama’s 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 Obama’s failure to appear and his attorney’s 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 Obama’s 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 Obama’s 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.

TO READ A FULL BLOW BY BLOW ACCOUNT OF THE HEARING, PLEASE CLICK HERE!

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

47 Responses to “FULL ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING”

  1. Karl Oakes Says:

    These are either flat-out lies or delusions. Craig, quote the language of the Minor opinion on which you base your statements, and I will show you and everyone else that your statements below are false. It’s not even complicated:

    “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 one’s parents must be U.S. Citizens.”

  2. USMJP Says:

    STATES WITH THE NEW
    NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE LAW
    SHOULD BE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT
    THE PRESIDENT OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CASE
    JANUARY 26, 2012.

    Vermont, is a state which is violating
    the U.S. Constitutional rights of its voters by “giving away”
    our Electoral College votes to whomever gets the highest
    number of votes nationwide,
    rather than the highest number
    of votes in Vermont.

    The new Vermont law is called
    National Popular Vote.

    Doesn’t that give every Vermont voter
    legal standing to be concerned about WHO gets on the ballot
    for President in every other state for the primary and general
    elections?

    President Barack Hussein Obama presented his first birth certificate
    to the American public on factcheck.org,
    and on it, in the lower right hand corner,
    in tiny print, are H.R.S. codes,
    which are Hawaii Revised Statutes
    that prove the certificate was altered and/or amended.

    What was it altered and/or amended from?

    Why are the ultra super rich 1% treated differently under the law, as compared
    to how disrespectfully, and sometimes even hatefully, the lower 99% are treated?

    PROPOSED CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT
    BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FOR FRAUDULENT
    CONCEALMENT OF FACTS
    PROPOSED:
    |
    CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
    |
    AGAINST
    |
    PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
    |
    FOR
    |
    FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS THAT HE ALLEGEDLY HAS A DUTY TO PROVIDE
    VOTERS BECAUSE HIS “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH” SHOWS THIS LEGAL NOTICE IN TINY
    PRINT IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER:
    |
    “[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19].
    |
    l DUTY is required by the legal notice on his
    “Certification of Live Birth” which, in the lower right hand corner, in tiny
    fine print, states: [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19].
    ||
    Was it fraud in a fiduciary capacity against taxpayers and voters for each and
    every member of the United States Congress on January 8, 2009 to vote without
    first issuing a subpoena for Barack Hussein Obama’s original long form birth
    certificate? Isn’t it true that Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit the members
    of the United States Congress, both House and Senate, from relying on
    non-admissible hearsay?
    |
    Was the Congressional certification of Electoral College Votes on January 8,
    2009 an act of conspiracy to defraud voters and taxpayers
    because former Vice President Dick Cheney asked for members of Congress to vote
    without informed consent, and this resulted in an alleged possible conspiracy to
    issue forth certified votes as fraudulent conveyances?
    |
    28 USCS Section 1491 Claims against the United States.
    http://ucfc.uscourts.gov/
    Federal Claims Court
    http://uscode.house.gov/
    Online law library
    28 USCS
    |
    Chapter 91. United States Court of Federal Claims
    |
    Section 1491. Claims against United States generally
    |
    (a)(1) The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to
    render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the
    Constitution [USCS, Constitution], or any Act of Congress or any regulation of
    an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United
    States.
    |
    (2) To provide an entire remedy and to complete the relief afforded by the
    judgment, the court may, as an incident of and collateral to any such judgment,
    issue orders directing restoration to office or position, placement in
    appropriate duty or retirement status, and correction of applicable records, and
    such orders may be issued to any appropriate official of the United States. In
    any case within its jurisdiction, the Court shall have the power to remand
    appropriate matters to any administrative or executive body or official with
    such direction as it may deem proper and just.
    |
    “Court of Federal Claims is Article I Court of limited jurisdiction created by
    Congress as forum where private parties could sue government for non-tort money
    claims, where claims would otherwise be barred by sovereign immunity.” Slovacek
    v United States (1998) 40 Fed Cl 828, 98-1 USTC 50397, 81 AFTR 2d 98-1859.
    |
    “Congress created Court of Federal Claims to afford individuals forum to bring
    specific claims against government; while placing jurisdictional limits upon
    Court, Congress did not intend those jurisdictional limits to be manipulated to
    prevent claimant from recovering compensation against government.” Davis v
    United States (1996) 35 Fed Cl 392.
    |
    “Jurisdiction under 28 USCS Section 1491 applies only to contracts either
    express or implied in fact, not implied in law, where (1) agreement implied in
    fact is founded upon meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in express
    contract, is inferred from conduct of parties showing their tacit understanding,
    while (2) by contrast, agreement implied in law is fiction of law where promise
    is imputed to perform legal duty.” Hercules Inc. v United States (1996, US) 134
    L Ed 2d 47, 116 S Ct 981, 96 CDOS 1403, 96 Daily Journal DAR 2395, 40 CCF 76894,
    9 FLW Fed S 442.
    |

    “HRS 338-19″, on President Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, in tiny fine
    print in the lower right hand corner [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19] is a legal notice
    of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-19 which means that this Certificate of Live Birth
    is based on documents that were too old or otherwise in such condition that they
    could not be used to certify. This statute is contradictory because if the
    documents were too old or in too poor a condition to be used to certify, then
    why did the State of Hawaii issue a “copy” that was based on possibly
    non-legible material? It makes no common sense. The Statute is contradictory,
    overly vague, overly broad and therefore unconstitutional.
    |
    HRS 338-13(b) is subject to the requirements of HRS 338-16, HRS 338-17 and HRS
    338-18. These are for birth certificates that are issued one year or more after
    birth, and for certificates that have been altered, and/or both. This set of
    statutes also gives a party legal standing to request a judicial determination
    of the validity of the birth certificate because it was issued one year or more
    after birth and/or altered.
    |
    “Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear claims against States or
    their Agencies except where States or their Agencies acted as agents of United
    States.” Hassan v United States (1998) 41 Fed CL 149.
    |
    Clearly, the State of Hawaii and the Agency of the Department of Health of
    Hawaii, have acted as agents of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Speaker of
    the House of Representatives in the United States Congress, Nancy Pelosi, and
    each and every member of the United States Congress, House and Senate, and
    President Barack Hussein Obama.

    |
    28 USCS Section 2680. “Plaintiff’s federal tort claim against government is not
    dismissed prior to discovery on grounds that discretionary function exception of
    28 USCS Section 2680(a) applied, because factual issues and evidence to support
    those issues are not presently known to plaintiff, and dismissal of action prior
    to discovery would be premature and unduly harsh.” Fanoele v United States
    (1995, DC Kan) 898 F Supp 822.
    |
    (1) The United States Congress failed to do their duty to obtain any long form
    birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama before certifying the Electoral
    College Votes.
    (2) Former Vice President Dick Cheney failed to do his duty to ask for
    objections to the Electoral College vote.
    (3) President Barack Hussein Obama has failed to do his duty to release the
    information upon which statutes HRS 338-13(b) {which is subject to the
    requirements of 338-16, 338-17, 338-18} and 338-19 were legally required to be
    noticed on his “Certification of Live Birth”.
    (4) The United States Court of Federal Claims now has legal jurisdiction to hear
    complaints seeking President Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a natural born
    citizen because all of the Judges and Justices in State and Federal Courts,
    including the Supreme Court of the United States, dismissed and/or denied
    complaints where previous plaintiffs have tried various motions to compel Barack
    Hussein Obama’s original long form birth certificate and all other underlying
    documents supporting the legal notice on his short form Certification of Live
    Birth, including three legal notices on that form: (1) Date of Birth August 4,
    1961, Date filed with Registrar August 8, 1961; (2) [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]; (3)
    (Rev. 11/01) LASER
    |
    The third legal notice on President Barack Hussein Obama’s Certification of Live
    Birth states (Rev. 11/01) LASER.
    |
    Barack Hussein Obama received this “Certification of Live Birth” after he was
    already 40 years old.
    |
    What took him so long?
    |
    Why did he receive this “Certification of Live Birth” which was issued when he
    was 40 years old, or older, after September 11, 2001, the Terrorist Attack on
    the United States of America? Where was he living during the Terrorist Attack on
    the United States of America and why did he need to get a “Certification of Live
    Birth” after the attack, and how much was it altered from the original long form
    birth certificate?
    |
    WE, the PEOPLE, NEED TO KNOW!
    |
    President Barack Hussein Obama holds the Office of the President of the United
    States of America, and his “Certification of Live Birth” should now be required
    to be determined if it can, or can not, withstand federal scrutiny. 28 USCS Appx
    Rule 803, n 119. United States Code Service, Lawyers Edition, Issued in May
    1998, Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates, page 216,
    “District Court did not abuse its discretion in applying Federal Rules of
    Evidence rather than Hawaii Health Department rules and in finding results of
    intoxilizer test admissible under public records and reports exception to
    hearsay rule of Rule 803(6)(8), United States v De Water (1988, CA9 Hawaii) 846
    F2d 528, 25 Fed Rules Evid Serv 748.”
    |
    THIS PROPOSED
    Class Action Lawsuit to subpoena the material facts, the original material
    upon which the legal notice on the long form
    birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama was based,
    in the United States Court of Federal
    Claims,
    needs
    a Pro Bono attorney.

    President Obama should be treated with Equal
    Respect, the same as any other possible
    illegal alien.

    In other words, shall we give
    every alleged illegal
    alien Equal Treatment Under the Law, the
    same as if they were sitting in the White House?

  3. Rock Lyons Says:

    While I believe that there are LEGITIMATE questions about Obamas history, the claim that “The SS number assigned to Barack Obama is from 1890.” is ridiculous. Social Security was only created in the 1930′s.

  4. Wisesooth Says:

    The author of the post did a good job, in my opinion. As for the spin artists who misquote and ignore facts, that left a opening for me to do the same to them.

    To misquote Shakespeare, “Methinks the gentleman protests too much.” I am no expert in Constitutional law, but I know at least one person who is a member of the US Supreme Court Bar Association, among others. Facts are facts and all of the spin artistry of Obama faithful will never convince me that he is who he says he is.

    He does not belong in the People’s House. Finally, someone in the Judiciary has the intestinal fortitude to tell it like it is. The matter is before the US District Court. The sitting judge will decide, not us. If he decides that POTUS is ineligible, it will be appealed. If POTUS loses the appeal, all judicial retribution will break loose. Every bill POTUS signed, his judicial appointments and executive orders will be null and void unless the VP ratifies them. The VP’s next action most likely would be an executive pardon for Obama so he could not be tried for treason and other crimes.

    That could give the phrase “swatting a hornets nest” a whole new meaning. Our 2012 election would be in turmoil at worst case, and a hell of a good reality show at best case. Who among the other national leaders would ROTFL and who would weep for America?

  5. Christinewjc Says:

    The Georgia hearing was mentioned today on Fox News Channel’s Special Report during “The Grapevine” segment. At least that’s a start.

  6. Michelle Says:

    WOW!!!! Praying For truth and Justice and for the judge to have courage to do the right thing!

  7. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    @ Karl Oakes,

    You never did reply re Wong Kim Arc:

    SCOTUS majority in Wong Kim Arc says person born in US to two Chinese nationals who are not US citizens is a “Citizen” – court discusses what a “Natural born citizen” is and mentions others cases which have discussed the term “natural born citizen” – court does NOT hold that Wong Kim Arc is a natural born citizen. Since the court could have, if it so chose, to hold that Wong Kim Arc was a nbc, but it didn’t, the holding provides support for the argument that a nbc is somebody not only born in US, but who also is born to parents who are US citizens
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

    ?

  8. Paul Says:

    Daniel’s Seventieth 7 and USMJP. I have $1000.00 to bet each of you, that is $2000.00 total, that I will place in an escrow account to match $1000.00 from each of you that says Obama is an NBC under Wong Kim Ark. I will match that bet with each of you if any court rules that the Hawaiian COLB is not valid within 3 years of the bet. hat is a total of $4000.00 from me and $2000.00 from each of you. Loser pays escrow fees. You see, money talks, not BS. If you are so sure of yourselves, it should be easy money for both of you. If you do not accept, we all know that both of you are talking out of your rear ends. Deal? I bet further that both of you are too chicken to back up what you say.

  9. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    @ Paul

    Double the bet.

    But,

    All winnings go to charity.

    :)

  10. Paul Says:

    Daniels. You have a deal. Do you want to propose an escrow holder or should I? Just so you won’t accuse me of taking advantage of you, I have been practicing law for 26 years. Lets do it.

  11. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    @ Paul

    Keep practicing.

    Name your escrow (and charity) here.

    On this site.

    ><

  12. Paul Says:

    North American Title for escrow. Christian Children’s Fund for charity.

  13. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    Several States have North American Title.

    Please be more specific.

    CCF seems to have issues…

    “CCF’s work is more appropriately described as community development. Fundraising techniques leave the impression
    that the money donated is going directly to the sponsored child but the reality is that the money is spent
    on an entire community, which benefits the child tangentially.”
    http://www.ministrywatch.com/pdf/mwda_042704_ccf.pdf

    Community organizers?

    ?

  14. John Stolte Says:

    I would advise Karl to Google “Minor V. Happersett”.

  15. Paul Says:

    Fine. Tell me where you are and that will help. I am in Sacramento, CA. Then propose a charity. Gave you the option previously to initiate the proposals. Listen, I need to prepare for court in the morning. I will check out your response after 10 a.m. PST tomorrow.

  16. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    @ Paul

    You have another taker for the bet you made here: http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138#more-4138

    Are you planning to respond?

    ?

  17. Harry Says:

    I guess I need to post this again…

    Article II, section 1, Paragraph 5, States clearly “No person except a natural born citizen” or Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible for the Office of President of the united states.

    Now for the definition of the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as it was meant to be defined at the adoption of the Constitution you need to find the Public Acts of the first Congress, 2nd session, Chapter III. That will give you the true definition in the context of how it was meant in the minds of our fore fathers at the at it’s adoption.

    You can say its not there all you want but that doesn’t change the text or the meaning. Obama was not vetted by the DNC. Whether that was deliberate or not I do not know, but the facts remain that he has never been eligible to hold that office.

    If you can not find this information, then you’re not trying hard enough.

    Her let me help you…

    You can find the meaning of Natural Born Citizen here.
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_3

    Look for this part:
    “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”

    That seams to be a painfully clear definition of what was meant by “Natural Born Citizen” to me.

    I have had this argument many times and at least twice with Constitutional scholars. Most people argue the point only until they understand it.

    Some of course are hopelessly in love with Obama and will never admit that he’s not eligible even when faced with indisputable evidence.

  18. Rachel Guess Says:

    Paul,

    Betting is childish, does not address the issues, and certainly does not prove anything one way or the other. Grow up.

    The question at hand is whether Obama is a natural born citizen, which affects his eligibility to hold the office of President. Minor v. Happersett is the only SCOTUS case that I am aware of that comes close to defining the term ‘natural born citizen’. Wong Kim Ark only addresses the definition of citizen.

    States control ballots, even though POTUS is a federal election. If Georgia finds that Obama does not meet the minimum qualifications for POTUS, they are well within their rights under the 10th Amendment to keep his name off the ballot. If the Judge issues a finding that prevents Obama’s name from being on a Georgia ballot, a slew of cases will follow in most states within a matter of weeks.

  19. Call Me Mom Says:

    Thank you Harry.

    I have had the same discussion with many people. Logically, why would the founders even make the distinction if anyone could become or be considered to be a natural born citizen? They clearly had a specific meaning in mind and I am tired of watching people be dragged through the mud over the birth certificate issue when the real crime has been right in front of us all this time.

    I questioned my GAB in 2008, only to be told that verifying eligibility was the job of the electoral college and the Congress.

  20. David Says:

    @ Rock Lyons

    “While I believe that there are LEGITIMATE questions about Obamas history, the claim that “The SS number assigned to Barack Obama is from 1890.” is ridiculous. Social Security was only created in the 1930′s.”

    Reading comprehension and copy/paste skills fail you sir. The article clearly states “The SS number assigned to Barack Obama is from a man born in 1890.” The only thing ridiculous is your attempt to skew the facts by conveniently leaving out a few words in order to change the meaning of the entire sentence. Social Security was signed into law in 1935, so a man born in 1890 would have been 45 years of age and would definitely been issued a SS number.

  21. Mike Says:

    DO NOT CENSOR THIS POSTING!!! THANKS!! THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS POST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY CENSORING IT!!

    The issue is quite simple. To be President of the USA or to run for the Presidency of the USA, Obama must be a “natural born citizen” according to the Constitution of the USA. 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 Obama’s 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) Obama’s parents MUST BOTH be American citizens.
    We know that Obama’s 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 McCain’s 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.

    First 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!!!!
    —Finally, Obama is a former lawyer and therefore OBAMA CONSCIOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY COMPLETELY DECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA WHEN HE KNEW PERFECTLY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DO SO SIMPLY BECAUSE HE KNEW VERY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA REQUIRES ONLY ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!
    —THIS HUGE DECEPTION IS MORE THAN A FRAUDULENT ACT, IT IS WORSE THAN ANYTHING IMAGINABLE BECAUSE:
    1) IT RELATES TO THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE LAND, THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA, THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED;
    2) IT RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA BEING TRAMPLED UPON FRAUDULENTLY AND ILLEGALLY BY OBAMA;
    3) IT RELATES TO THE FACT THAT OBAMA INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED AND MISLED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
    ANY PERSON GUILTY OF SUCH SERIOUS FRAUD SHOULD AT LEAST GET A JAIL SENTENCE, NO MATTER THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTY HELD THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF THE USA FOR A PERIOD OF TIME!!!

    If you really want to have an expert legal explanation on what a “natural born citizen” truly is according to the Constitution of the USA and why legally speaking it is this way, then I suggest that you read at least a few articles on Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s web site “Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
    In particular, read:
    —”The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

    Second conclusion:
    —If you are a rational person, no matter your political affiliation, you surely will be forced to conclude that the facts speak for themselves and that there is no doubt legally that a “natural born citizen” indeed requires that the President of the USA has to have two parents that were BOTH American citizens at the time of Obama’s birth.
    —The Constitution of the USA is sacred to any American citizen AND it applies to every single American citizen, no matter one’s political affiliation, no matter one’s color of the skin, no matter what!!!!
    Therefore, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS UNDER THE RULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA LIKE ANYBODY ELSE!!!!
    —You now have the facts fully on the table concerning what a “natural born citizen” truly is, you cannot evade the truth about these facts!!!
    Now, what path are you going to choose?
    1) Keep Lying and hiding the facts, hoping that they will disappear by themselves!! Or
    2) Choose to acknowledge these facts fully and be determined to fight for the truth?
    The choice is yours! But the Constitution of the USA is at stake!!!

  22. Bob Says:

    If his name is not on the ballot, it will simply be written in.

  23. kohler Says:

    RE: USMJP
    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    NationalPopularVote
    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

  24. Karl Oakes Says:

    MINOR TRANSLATED:

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

    WE HAVE TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (NBC)

    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.

    UNDER THE LEGAL SYSTEM THE FRAMERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH, THERE WAS NO DOUBT YOU WERE A NBC IF YOU WERE BORN HERE AND YOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS

    Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

    SOME LEGAL AUTHORITY SAYS YOU CAN BE A NBC AS LONG AS YOU WERE BORN HERE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE CITIZEN PARENTS

    As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

    SOME DOUBTS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THAT

    For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    WE DON’T NEED TO RESOLVE THOSE DOUBTS — I.E., WE ARE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THAT NOW

    Thus, Minor did NOT define Natural Born Citizen as some are claiming

  25. Theresa Says:

    Thank you Mike and all the others for giving facts and backing them up. God Bless you. God Bless American. Dear Lord please get us out of this mess and bring us a true, honest leader to guide us in America.
    Btw I knew it in my heart what facts are showing us now. A would also like the thank all the investigaters and those that never stopped digging for the truth. :)
    Keep going for the sake of Our Country and it’s citizens.

  26. Jesse T Mims Says:

    @ Rock Lyons, who posted on January 26th, 2012 at 441pm

    Re your comment, as follows: “While I believe that there are LEGITIMATE questions about Obamas history, the claim that “The SS number assigned to Barack Obama is from 1890.” is ridiculous. Social Security was only created in the 1930′s.”

    Yes, that would be ridiculous; however, none of the evidence presented was claimed to have shown that the SS # was ISSUED in 1890. Rather, the evidence shows that the person to whom that # was originally issued was BORN in 1890; which, even if the names matched, would make Obama more than 120 years old!

  27. Karl Oakes Says:

    HARRY, I’ve had time to study this:

    “And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”

    This is talking about two different situations:

    (1) The children of persons naturalized as provided in the statute, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of 21, at the time of such naturalization, are U.S. citizens — except that citizenship does not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

    (2) The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, are natural born citizens — except that citizenship does not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States

    Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii (which is the assumption for purposes of this case), neither applies to Obama. He does not claim citizenship “descending from” a naturalized parent, he claims his citizenship from being born in the U.S.. He was not (1) a child of an alien parent who became naturalized before Obama reached age 21; or (2) born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States. Therefore, the statute has nothing to do with him.

    That’s why I said all you have is a “shred.” The statute is not directly on point. It is mildly “persuasive,” but it’s not “legal authority” for a court decision. It’s interesting just by the way, that when it was repealed five years later, they removed the reference to “natural born” citizen.

  28. Karl Oakes Says:

    And in case anyone thinks this statute “defined” natural born citizen, common sense tells us that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” are not the ONLY people who can be natural born citizens. I assume you’re natural born, and that you don’t fit the statute, right? SO it’s not a definition. What they were saying was, “even if you’re born out in the middle of the Atlantic, we’ll consider you to have been born on US soil.”

  29. Mildred Smith Says:

    The plaintiffs entered Obama’s birth certificate into evidence which ironically could sink their own case. Otherwise the defense will enter one and it will be over Obama will remain on the ballot.

    The two-citizen-parent-theory is just a fantasy.

  30. ron Says:

    Ga. voters will just write in his name when voting is a joke. Most of them are stupid
    they can’t write. lol
    He loses the electoral votes ha-ha

  31. Joe Kirkland Says:

    Using any standard other than that found in Minor vs Happersett makes it possible for the child of Iranian President Mahmoud Achmedinajad to be eligible for the office of president of the U.S. if said child was born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen mother and meets the other qualifications listed in Article 2, Section 1 of our Constitution. Clearly, having a standard other than that stated in Minor vs Happersett would be just plain stupid.

  32. Jason Says:

    Great analysis.. Now let’s see Obama’s college transcripts where AS A FOREIGNER FROM INDONESIA he applied for and received foreign aid.

    Also, take a close look at Ann Dunham’s signature on Barack’s alleged birth certificate.. Notice that “unham Obama” is overwritten on the signature.. This was done sometime after issuance of the original birth certificate to make it appear that Ann was married. Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY&feature=youtu.be

    I do not believe that Barack Sr. is the president’s father. HE LOOKS NOTHING LIKE HIM. Barack Jr’s real father is probably Frank Marshall Davis (Barack’s so-called “mentor”) or Malcolm X (no joke).

    Never in American history has a president’s past been so full of lies AND COMMUNISTS such as his mother and most of her acquaintances, his father and both grandparents on his mother’s side.

  33. Jake Says:

    Typical dumb stuff.

    “Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen and a great deal of evidence to that point was entered into the official record this morning.”

    Ooh–”evidence” of something he told us himself and that we’ve all known for 4 years now. I’m sure the Georgia SoS will be stunned to learn about this.

    “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 one’s parents must be U.S. Citizens.”

    No it doesn’t. It says that if both your parents are U.S. citizens (and you’re born in the U.S.), you’re definitely an NBC. Nowhere does it (or any other decision) say that they both *have* to be. Anybody who can’t see the difference should stay well away from this topic.

  34. cwsd Says:

    Why has it taken 3 years to get this to where it is now?? We need an investigation into how many knew and when they knew it. The DNC is the first place to look. They should be put in jail and never allowed in politics or Gov’t employment again. If George Soros is one of them, he should be sued to reimburse the Fed. Gov’t for the trillions of dollars of tax payers’ money
    that Obama has squandered and US citizenship should be revoked for both of them so they never again influence our natrional policies and national media. After serving their jail-time, both Obama and Soros should be deported and never allowed to return to the US.

    With all of the lives that we have lost fighting Communism, it is unimaginable that we now have Communists running rampant in our own Gov’t. This would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. Why aren’t they rounded up like we would have done then??

    Only then will our country be truly safe.

  35. JMW Says:

    Even if his name is wriiten in , due to the fact he is ” ineligible ” to be placed on the ballot , votes for him will not count. The only thing it will accomplish is delaying counting the legitimate votes. BTW…I live in Georgia and I can assure you we are far from stupid . After all , WE actually got this ball rolling where other states failed or ran scared. Lol

  36. Conservative ForLife Says:

    Obama is a fraud and any candidate running against him should bring this to the attention of all Americans.

  37. Conservative ForLife Says:

    This is a great article. Thank you.

    May our great God in Heaven bring this imposter Barack Obama and all who lie and cheat for him down and out of power. In the mighty name of Jesus I pray. Let righteousness flow like a mighty stream. Let justice and truth prevail in this great country of ours, one nation under Almighty God. Amen.

  38. traderjack Says:

    It brings up and interesting point. Can a literal Bastard child become the President of the United States?

    Some one has stated , somewhere, the Stanley Ann Dunham was unmarried when Barack was born, which , would , of course, make him a bastard child with an unknown father!

    Ergo, father’s citizenship could not be determined and that would confuse things even more.

    And, I do believe, that Michelle Obama has stated that when Barack was born his mother was a young unmarried girl!

    Perhaps that is why there is little evidence of a marriage license for Dunham and Obama.

  39. Chicago Nick Says:

    Obama and his minions can’t appear in court because they’ll be on the record and he knows as much as we know once that happens a cascade and literal waterfall of perjury will begin

    Furthermore, because he’s lied so much on government documents over the years, and held different identities and the likes, any response would open the door to the other suits being re opened with standing, because he acknowledged the suit in GA.

    This truthfully could be finally his legal unraveling and undoing God be willing.

  40. Leonard Says:

    1. What if the U.S. Constitution was abrogated by F.D.R. in march of 1933, using the War Powers and Alien and Sedition Acts?

    2. What if the U.S. Congress accepted the U.N. Charter as a Treaty (Article VI, para. 2 of U.S. Constitution)?

    3. What if the “Founding Fathers” were mostly Freemasons and created a new form of government for “… ourselves and our Posterity”?

  41. STCopper Says:

    Bob Says:
    January 27th, 2012 at 955am
    If his name is not on the ballot, it will simply be written in.

    If he is deemed to be ineligible then the write-ins won’t count either.

  42. AZSunshine Says:

    Aside from all this about whether he’s a natural born citizen, when he filled out forms for a Passport he was old enough to say that his name was Barry Sotero and was a citizen of Indonesia. If he says so, it’s good enough for me even if he did do it to get a free law degree in the USA. Smart him and stupid USA. A real, professional LIAR! And the point about an old man’s S/S number is the fact that he’s using it and the real owner’s been dead for years.

  43. S S Pierce Says:

    Perhaps someone else has previously addressed this, but in case not. To Rock Lyons, here is what was said about 1890. You will see that the person given that SS number was born in 1890, not given the numvber. “She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

  44. Harry Says:

    @Rock Lyons,

    The SOS # was not issued in 1890.
    The SOS # was issued to a man that was born in 1890.

  45. Truth Atlast Says:

    This is the most contemptible piece of garbage, cobbled together by lies and strategized by those who refuse to admit the Civil War is over. Any testimony I researched actually meant the exact opposite. True racists, from the claim that the Phonoshop tool to change type is called “unsharp mask” when if you were trying to do what was alledged, you would use “sharpen”. Most ridicoulous that the case Minor/Happenrsett form 1875 had any relevence. This was a case about whether the 14th amendment gave women the right to vote. It does not deal with Natural born citizen’s definition. In fact the opening statement is “From the opinion (women’s right to vote and the 14th amendment) we find it was the only one decided in the court below and it is the only one which has been argued here.”

    The ruling had nothing to do with Presidential eligibility and is only twisted here to denigrate the first Black President by stone racists. “Who is this guy” cries the author. He is the President elected by 52% of the vote. Who elected you? You are a self-appointed blowhard.

  46. roberta Says:

    Reply to Rocky Lyons:
    The SS number that obama is using belonged to a dead man born in 1890 CT. who died in Hawaii.
    How often has SS make that mistake giving a person born in Hawaii in 1961 a Connecticut SS#.
    SS # are given in the state you apply for it, obama was living in hawaii, never lived in CT.
    YOU CAN SPIN THE STORY ANY WAY YOU WANT TO, ALL YOU WANT TO.
    FACT: obama is using a dead man’s SS#. .

  47. Shadow Patriot Says:

    Turth Atlast must be drinking the kool-aid. The Natural-born citizen clause was born out of English common law and universally understood as being born of parents who are both citizens of the country in question. The 14th Amendment addressed the concern of citizenship, especially dealing with freed slaves and Native Americans. If you read it, there is a clause that the Supreme Court ignored in the Wong Kim Ark case. That clause is “…subject to the jurisdiction of…” If we went by that, and we largely have given the number of children born to illegals in the US that now possess social security cards and a US birth certificate, then Obama IS a natural born citizen. However, if the jurisdiction clause is considered, then no he is not.

    Oh, and I can promise you, the author definitely knows the Civil War is over.