Regardless of where you stand on the natural born citizen controversy - and their are arguments pro and con to consider , here is a balanced believe to read and ponder. As noted , it's not just President Obama , but also Florida Senator Marco Rubio one must look at and consider ! To be frank , the involvement of Orly Taitz has tainted the Ga situation as her credibility is less than zero !
OBAMA Eligible For GA Ballot: A Perfect Example Why NOT to Believe Everything You Get in Your Inbox
Sinclair News contacted the office of Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp at 11:52:25 AM Friday asking if Judge Michael Malihi had filed his opinion/recommendation on the challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be on the Georgia Ballot. As of the time of our call to SOS Kemp’s office, Judge Malihi had not yet filed his opinion/recommendation. Then we were contacted late last night an informed Judge Malihi had filed his opinion/recommendation sometime Friday afternoon and it was nothing close to what Attorney Orly Taitz and Rightmarch.com had claimed just one week earlier in its massive email press release titled:
“WE WON: Obama OFF THE BALLOT in Georgia? SPREAD TO MORE STATES!” Obama has LOST His First Court Case on Eligibility — Tell Every OTHER Secretary of State to REMOVE Obama NOW:
Sinclair News reported on the email-press release being circulated by Taitz and Rightmarch.com when it first surfaced and we sent Rightmarch.com a request for comment. RightMarch.com chose to reply with “if you have the email it contains links to the sources of the information.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution headline makes it clear
Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate
In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has a computer-generated Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is ineligible to be a candidate because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.The findings by Malihi, a judge for the State Office of Administrative Hearings, go to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who will make the final determination. Last month, at a hearing boycotted by Obama’s lawyer, Malihi considered complaints brought by members of the so-called “birther” movement.With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification papers, Malihi said he found the evidence “unsatisfactory” and “insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.”A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation and “none … provided persuasive testimony,” Malihi wrote.SeeHave Orly Taitz & RightMarch.com killed their chances of success in GA ballot challenge?
With all the glowing comments Taitz and others associated with the Georgia Ballot challenge made in just the past two weeks about Judge Malihi it is going to be very difficult for them to now accuse Malihi of being unfair or biased in favor of Obama. Sinclair News (based on past incidents involving Taitz) believes that some if not all those associated with the Georgia challenge will attempt to claim Judge Malihi was somehow in the tank for Obama. Past actions of Orly Taitz makes this story newsworthy. As has been reported and the record clearly shows, Mrs. Taitz has a history of making claims about having obtained Court rulings in her favor only to have it shown no such rulings ever existed. The Georgia ballot challenge is yet another one of those claims.Regardless of where people stand on the issue of Obama’s eligibility each and every person should be aware of the actual “facts” before being asked to support any state of federal challenges. The January 27, 2012 email and press release sent out to Rightmarch.com members proclaiming a Georgia victory before the Judge ever filed an opinion has to be a wake up call to them and others who are so quick to distribute information that they clearly know to be untrue. The continued Internet postings of what is clearly untrue in an attempt to solicit financial contributions for a cause will only hurt any serious and sincere challenge. Any effort to obtain a definition of the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement to be President will only come when Barack Obama has long since left the White House.It is clear to Sinclair News that this challenge to Obama being or not being a “natural born citizen,” is far from over. It appears likely that the GOP may become the target of “Birther 2.0″ movement if FL Senator Marco Rubio is chosen as the GOP VP nominee. Tuesday on FOX News Joseph Farah, Founder & CEO of WND told Sean Hannity that “Marco Rubio is not eligible to be VP, he is not a natural born citizen.”WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah promotes Rubio ineligibility argument
By Alicia M. Cohn – 02/01/12 01:08 PM ETConservative Joseph Farah on Tuesday evening predicted that “10 percent of the Republican vote” would fail to get behind Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) as the hypothetical vice presidential nominee because they will believe the circumstances of his birth make him ineligible.
One can only step back and wonder whats next for Orly Taitz and WND’s Joseph Farah. Will the far left challenge Marco Rubio’s eligibility to be VP? Will Taitz and/or Farah challenge Rubio’s eligibility to be VP? Will the United States Supreme Court or Congress ever define “Natural Born Citizen,” as it pertains to eligibility to be President or Vice President? Does America have more important and more urgent needs to deal with? All of these questions will of course be answered differently by different people. Sinclair News does however believe that for the sheer publicity of it Farah and WND will push the same type of “Birther” movement against a Rubio VP run as he continues to do over Obama being a constitutionally eligible President.
It is a myth, created by a few birther lawyers, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the parents. It comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.
ReplyDeleteMinor Vs Happersett is not a ruling. It is DICTA, and it says right in the case that the court did not have to decide the definition of citizenship, much less Natural Born Citizenship.
However, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision (which followed the Minor vs Happersett decision and hence would have overturned it, if Minor vs Happersett actually was a decision, which it wasn’t) ruled that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”— Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]