The rest of the world has to be laughing at us for electing a President that doesn't even qualify to run for office. How stupid are we anyway?
IS
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN? (Berry Soetoro)
A
Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to
appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the
state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012
presidential ballot.
WND reported this week when Obama
outlined a defense
strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which
argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential
candidates.
“Presidential
electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional
responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,”
Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the
hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.
“The
election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by
Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,”
the lawyer said.
Judge
Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.
“Defendant
argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as
president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia.
However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion
to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order, released today.
“Defendant’s
motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court
hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court
with any legal authority,” the judge continued.
“Specifically,
defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his
attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is]
irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation
or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the
subpoena should not be enforced.’”
Hearings
have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s
candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s
name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under
state law.
It
is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run
elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a
compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The
schedule for the hearings was set by Malihi of the Georgia state Office of
State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every
candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive
committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet
the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being
sought.”
State
law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote
for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a
candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Three
different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one
represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a
subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for the
cases, argued that he should be exempted.
“Make
no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate Two or ObamaForgeryGate.
I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting president is
ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might
eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking
individuals,” Taitz said.
She
told WND that it’s been 40 years since any court issued such a ruling
concerning a president.
Separately,
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had gotten a
subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the goal apparently is to
ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s eligiblity, but he
said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn’t be able to say much
about it.
He
wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama’s long-form birth
certificate.
Also,
required are medical, religious administrative and other records about Obama’s
birth; passports, applications and related records; college and university
applications; bar association applications and materials; details on the
citizenship of Obama’s father and other documents.
Taitz
had filed an opposition to the motion to quash, taking Obama directly to task
over what many consider an important constitutional question – the eligibility
of a presidential candidate.
“It
is noteworthy, that [the quash request] comes on the heels of his extended 17
day Hawaiian vacation, which cost U.S. taxpayers 4 million dollars. Mr. Obama
has earned a dubious distinction as a Vacationer in Chief, Tourist in Chief,
Partier in Chief and a Golfer in Chief due to his endless vacations, parties
and rounds of golf. Considering … it is not too much to ask for Mr. Obama to
show up once at a hearing and present his original identification records,
which were not seen by anyone in the country yet,” she argued.
Obama’s
attorney, Jablonski, also had argued that the state should mind its own
business.
“The
sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the
State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its
territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing
argues.
“What
a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the
United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf?
If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting
the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four
years,” said one.
Wrote
another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors,
confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff
irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”
In
fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging
Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute
was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later
ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the
inauguration.
Irion
said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born
citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be
the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his
books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the
jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under
any circumstances based on his own testimony.
Those
who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts
have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian
birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It
is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of
that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be
released in the next few weeks.
The
Georgia hearing apparently will be the first time among dozens of so-far
unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will
be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as
standing, without a presentation of the evidence.
There
are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state
election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire
and other states.
The
image released by the White House in April:
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural born
citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported
by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The
case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that
addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”
That
case states:
The
Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort
must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.
An extensive analysis of the issue
was conducted by Titus,
who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years
at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was
the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney
and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural
born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is
eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another
way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a
natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not
according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but
because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If
you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require …
that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a
father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other
country,” he said.
“Now
what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father
was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify
as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
