Federal Imperialism vs State Territorial Sovereignty

For a painfully long time now, our federal masters and their judicial enablers have ignored and, to my way of thinking, flagrantly violated the Constitution with impunity. All too often, Supreme Court rulings have served to override equity, common sense, constitutionality and original intent.

And so long as black-robed, unelected and unaccountable judicial oligarchs, aka judges–as well as the submissive states themselves–allow “judicial supremacy” to trump “constitutional supremacy” on a whole host of consequential constitutional issues, our economic growth will be hobbled, our liberties diminished, state sovereignty degraded, constitutional order imperiled and common sense abandoned.

To wit, per Art 1.8.17 of the Constitution and provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and despite a veritable cesspool of clubby, contrived and revisionist court rulings over the years through which I was barely able to wade, it appears glaringly obvious to me that our federal overseers are occupying millions of otherwise productive acres within the several states without the “concurrence” of those states and without constitutional justification.

Article 1.8.17 (“Enclave Clause”) granted power to Congress “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States [i.e. the District of Columbia], and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” Crystal-clear what the original meaning is here despite the shamelessly self-serving litany of subsequent spinmeistering on the part of our judicial overlords, lap dogs of the federal government.

Clearly this clause meant that the people of the states empowered Congress to exercise complete jurisdiction and authority over all lands or facilities purchased within a state, provided it was with the consent of the legislature of that state, and that such lands would be used for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.” Clearly implied in this clause is that the several states, the immediate fiduciary agents of the people, reserve the right to assume title to all lands within their borders which are not being used by the federal government for the specific purposes provided in the clause, that being “the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.”

It is also important to note that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the enumerated power of complete jurisdiction and authority over state territory; thus, state retention and ownership of public lands stems from the 10th Amendment which reserves all rights to the states which are not specifically granted to Congress. The twisted and carefully crafted Delphic court rulings notwithstanding, the original meaning seems abundantly clear to me.

Art 4.3.1 allowed a mechanism for the formation and admission of new states into the union, and Art 4.3.2 described the extent of congressional authority over federal territory within those states. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled that federal property applies only to the territory at the time of the Constitution’s adoption and is considered public land only until that territory is granted statehood and the national debt incurred by the Revolutionary War is paid. In other words, temporary federal control over those lands.

In accordance with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was re-enacted after the Constitution’s ratification, all new states were to be admitted to the union on the basis of full equality with the original thirteen states. It was generally understood that as territories were granted statehood, the people of those states would acquire title to all lands within their state boundaries—except, of course, those lands granted to the feds for those well-defined purposes cited in Art 1.8.17.

To help pay down the national debt, Congress assured the states of full title to those lands not used for federally sanctioned purposes when that land was sold off. The following then became the established policy for new states:

1. The feds would retain all ungranted public lands.
2. The feds guaranteed that it would dispose of these lands as soon as possible.
3. The new state would acquire jurisdiction over these lands as fast as they were sold to private individuals.
4. States would be admitted on the basis of “equal footing” with the original 13 states (each of which retained complete ownership/control over their respective territories.

As a result, all states east of the Mississippi and those comprising the Louisiana Purchase eventually acquired title to all but a very small portion of the land lying within their state boundaries.
However, following our war with Mexico, Congress inexplicably digressed from this policy and virtually eliminated the sale or disposal of federal lands in the western states. This resulted in Congress’s retaining major portions of those state lands, this in seemingly direct contravention of the Constitution and of the Northwest Ordinance. Essentially, the federal government became the sole owner and manager of nearly 30%, or a whopping 650 million acres, of America’s landmass, for the constitutionally unspecified purposes of maintaining national forests, national parks, national monuments, Indian reservations, coal and oil reserves, lands leased to farmers and ranchers, and resources-rich so-called “wilderness areas”. And, of course, the cost to taxpayers for maintaining the sprawling federal bureaucracy in order to manage these federally controlled lands is in the billions of dollars.

Federal defenders of this overeach breathlessly point to the so-called “property clause” (Art 4.3.2) which provides that “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make any needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States and any territory or property belonging to the United States.” Clearly, doesn't this create a convenient constitutional ambiguity by contradicting the original intent of Art 1.8.17? Does this not exact restrictions on the western states, which had never been imposed on earlier states? So much for states being admitted into the union on “equal footing” and “full equality” with earlier states. Is federal retention of 30% of America’s real estate really a “necessary and proper” exercise of federal powers? For me to believe that would require a willful suspension of common sense.

To give you an idea of how much state land is now imperially held by the feds, check this out: NV 85%, AL 70%, UT, 60%, OR 53%, AZ 47%, CA 45%, WY 42%, NM 42%, CO 37%, and poor Alaska 96%! Note: 65% of federal land holdings are located west of the Mississippi and a paltry 1% of all federally controlled land in the country is currently being utilized for those specific purposes cited in Art 1.8.17. One must wonder why these lands are still being held by the feds. Pay off the Revolutionary War debt? Gee, I don’t think so. Lofty, if not entirely contrived, constitutional justifications? Or, more likely, the relentless federal grasp for power and, today, a way to placate a host of environmental allies by denying the states and the country access to those climate-warming pollutants such as oil and gas.

Regarding the Enclave Clause, James Madison stated that “the public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.” But, have the courts sought the concurrence of the states? Nope.

Clearly, the federal government is occupying millions of acres without the “concurrence” of those states, but maintain their grip with the twisted and self-serving judicial sanction of federal Courts intent upon expanding and strengthening federal power.

So, what is the recourse of the several states? My opinion, which is shared by many other originalists, is that in keeping with the doctrine of state sovereignty, original intent and the 10th Amendment, states should simply legislatively assume title of all lands not being utilized by the federal government as specified in the Enclave Clause. Of course, to placate the courts and public opinion, states should first sue the federal government to acquire title. And since the states will not prevail in such a lopsided judicial struggle, they should then rightfully and unhesitatingly assert their 10th Amendment rights by immediately assuming direct ownership and control of what I have dubbed the “royal federal reserves” lying within their state boundaries.

But, do the chastened, weak-kneed, and heavily bribed states have the backbone to hazard the restoration of their constitutional sovereignty and honor? Ah, yes, that’s the burning question.

The constitutional issue aside for a moment, in truth the achievement of energy independence alone should provide ample motivation for the states and their people to step up and take back their land, which is illegally held by the feds. And should the states fail to assert their rights under the original constitution, they should quietly accept their bondage and compliantly move on with their drab, submissive lives.

“An injustice unchallenged is justice denied.” Author Unknown

“In the Constitution, the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea…of people, territory and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.” State of Texas v White (1868)

“Nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to absurd or unjust consequences.” Abraham Lincoln (1861)

Marco Rubio: a Constitutional Dilemma

My beef with a Rubio VP candidacy is that it creates a painful moral dilemma for those of us who respect the Constitution and who are determined to uphold its inviolability.

Like millions of other anti-Progressive, anti-Marxist, anti-"living constitution" voters, I am Conservative and, most importantly, an originalist.

That said, though the prospect of four more years of subversive Progressive dominion in DC is fearsome indeed, I may be compelled to stay home in November. Why? After years of carefully researching the meaning of “natural born citizen”, it is painfully clear to me that, like our putative President, Sen. Rubio is, per the Presidential Clause, constitutionally ineligible for that office. I have seen absoutely NO persuasive constitutional evidence to the contrary and I am, therefore, acutely disinclined to violating my oath merely to placate the political party with which I am currently registered.

If, like the Progressives, the GOP also perversely ignores the Constitution's Presidential Clause, in good conscience I cannot–I should not–violate my oath to uphold the Constitution. As it should be for every patriot, the Constitution should ALWAYS trump blind, self-serving parochial party loyalty. That is the way our Founders would see it.

I can only hope and pray that the Romney campaign seeks an affirming SCOTUS advisory opinion on Rubio’s eligibility before tapping him for the VP slot. While Mr. Rubio is stellar in so many ways, we should vote with our heads and not with our hearts.

The widespread willful ignorance on this issue which has contaminated nearly every part of our society, has been nothing short of shameful and alarming.

And if Obama is re-elected, he should be promptly impeached, convicted and removed from office for myriad constitutional violations, not the least of which is his ineligibility. For this reason alone, we must redouble our efforts to take back the Senate where a 2/3 majority to convict and remove a president is required. We should then go after those co-conspirators, in whatever dark corner we may find them hiding, who had a hand in perpetrating this insidious fraud on the American people.

"Cold Case Posse" Confirms Obama Documentation Fraud & Forgery

Just finished viewing Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio's very somber press conference regarding the initial findings of his volunteer "cold case posse" on the matter of Obama's birth certificate, selective service registration card and birth place.

The short of it is he and his lead posse investigator concluded that there is sufficient probable cause and sworn affidavits to conclude that fraud and forgery have, in fact, been committed.

Very briefly, despite his investigators' attempt to affirmatively validate the authenticity of the birth certificate presented by the White House last year the posse investigators were unable to do so; that following a careful and expert forensic examinatioin,  the document shown by the White House last year was, in fact, a forgery and that "a person of interest" has been identified as the likely forger; that, similarly, his Selective Service registration documentation is also a forgery; that when trying to locate INS travel documentation for persons travelling to and from the US in August 1961, that for the period Aug 1 - 7 all documents were missing from the archives without explanation; that there is a sworn affidavit that a person was present when Obama, in his earlier years, was introduced in the yard of Bill Ayers as a foreign student; that the investigation could not determine with certitude whether or not Obama was born in the United States or elsewhere.

The assembled press immediately launched an attack on Sheriff Arpaio and his investigative team, impugning the motives of the Sheriff and his volunteer investigators, animatedly charging them with deliberately accusing Obama of fraud. Sheriff Arpaio stoutly defended his position as a law enforcement professional, saying that he wasn't accusing the President of anything, but that, like any other criminal investigation, he is treating the evidence uncovered as part of a criminal investigation but is NOT accusing anyone of a crime--yet.

He did suggest that the President might want to unilaterally "come up with documentation to put the case to rest" and to verify his "place of birth", but, again, he did not in any way suggest that the President has committed a crime.  And in answer to a hostile press enquiry, his lead investigator also noted that a certificate of live birth does not provide credible evidence of one's identity or citizenship.

Again, it was not a gleeful event. It was somber, professional and very serious. No one was in a celebratory mood that I could see.

As to the next step, Sheriff Arpaio confirmed that deciding upon the next step will be "tough", though he did laugh off any thought of turning the matter over to the Justice Department for follow-through. He did indicate that at this juncture he would prefer a congressional investigation.

The posse's investigation will continue until the forger(s) are identified and, presumably, arraigned. Where this investigation, arraignments and sworn statements lead is anyone's guess. But, frankly, it doesn't look good for the President. In retaliation, I suspect Atty Gen Holder will redouble his efforts to further harrass the Sheriff in the meantime.

The American people are indebted to Sheriff Arpaio and his volunteer "Cold Case Posse" for their deliberate and professional effort.

Stay tuned. That proverbial fan against which fecal matter is often prone to slap is just starting to rotate.

This is a very, very serious moment in our history. This long-standing issue can no longer by conveniently ducked by the willfully ignorant or politically motivated. It's now a criminal investigation.

Obama's Economic Razzle-Dazzle

Sadly, but not surprisingly, the Administration’s recent rosey economic statistics are simply f-r-a-u-d-u-l-e-n-t.

In January 2012, the Bureau for Labor Statistics (BLS) changed the way the unemployment rate is measured; thus, it turns out that the miraculous unemployment “drop” from 8.9% to 8.3% is not a drop at all. (Reportedly, the real unemployment rate is closer to a staggering 22%.)

In fact, measured in pre-January 2012 metrics, unemployment remains unchanged at 8.9%.  Note: deducting those no longer seeking employment are conveniently omitted  from the equation rendering a considerably brighter, albeit erroneous and misleading, stat.  (The troubling truth is that the percentage of our population in the labor force is actually the lowest its been since the 1950’s. And that's what our Dear Leader calls "recovery"?)

Pointing to an upsurge in personal borrowing, Obama assures us of more robust consumption and, therefore, economic growth. Note: the upsurge in credit debt is because student loans are now included in the credit debt metric. In fact, Visa and MC debt hasn’t appreciably changed at all.

And don’t forget the Congressional Budget Office's recent projection that unemployment by year’s end will near 9%--and that’s using the new BLS measuring formula.

As we all know, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

Obama's retaining his princely power and glory is a helluva lot more important to him and his bloodsucking cronies than any silly recovery for the unwashed. The trick, of course, is to convince inattentive voters and those who are hooked on government handouts that the economy really is moving "in the right direction" and that the feds will, of course, continue to dole out the goodies.  And, for the most part, that cynical campaign strategy might very well work on the majority who are either willfully ignorant or totally without virtue or self-respect.

Just Who are the Domestic Terrorists?

It's been reported that in a recent memo to all law enforcement agencies, the FBI counter-terrorism unit  associated those who referenced "Constitution", "the Bible", "US Supreme Court decisions", and "treaties with foreign governments" as part of a "domestic terrorist movement". You can't make this stuff up, folks.

You will recall that in 2009, Homeland Security issued a report on "Right Wing Extremism" labelling those who used terms like "Constitutionalist", "Patriot" or "linking their belief system to the [ideals of the]American Revolution" were also potential national security threats. And, yes, lumped in with these threatening domestic elements were returning American veterans. Folks, this is beyond stupid and offensive. This is scary.

Of course, the Occupy Wall Street "useful idiots", the darlings of the radical left, Soros, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, are nothing but grassroots, highly principled moral paragons of American virtue who are merely trying to peacefully right fundamental wrongs in our depraved capitalist society. But, how do our Progressive overseers explain the thousands of OWS arrests for violence, trespassing, attacks on policemen, and the wanton destruction of private and public property? Well, they don't explain because no one is making them accountable. Remind you of the formative years of the Nazi movement? It should.

Boy, are we on a downward spiral into the bowels of tyranny! And if you can't see that, better consult a physician because you're deaf, dumb and hopelessly blind.

But, just so the FBI and HS don't miss me on their intrusive radar: I love the Constitution and am sworn to defend it on my life. I am a Veteran, a Tea Partier and a  Patriot to boot. Opponent of Obama's Utopian America, you betcha'. Defender of our Founders' America, absolutely on my life!

Notwithstanding Obama's recent attack on the freedom of religion, add to all this the Administration's  relentless assault on our 2nd Amendment rights by its "Fast & Furious" gangsters, aka their so-called "Dept of Justice", the Democrats' open support of the Occupy Wall Street thuggery, both the Democratic Socialist Party's and the American Communist Party's OPEN support for Obama and his Progressive minions, and Obama's insidious class warfare strategy to pit Americans against Americans, races against races, economic classes against economic classes, and we have a powder keg on our hands. Could that be Obummer's intention? To the clear-eyed among us, and at the risk of being politically incorrect, it sure as hell looks that way to me.

On top of this, for some time now I have been monitoring the globalist efforts of Obama's Progressive handmaiden, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who has been quietly pushing the following loathesome treaties which she hopes Obama will shove down the Senate's throat, a chamber, by the way, currently dominated by Progressives who share Hillary's and Barack's obscene globalist goals.

And here are those damnable treaties:

1) the authority of the International Criminal Court would be expanded by adding a new crime, that being "aggression", which, in effect, is waging war without the United Nation's approval. This would empower the International Court to prosecute Americans who have not violated any American laws and would give Russia and China veto power over US military actions. (There goes American sovereignty, which is, of course, the globalist goal of these treasonous vermin.)

2) The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST for short): requires that the US contribute half its royalties from offshore drilling to an international entity of 160 members and would allow that body a free hand to distribute those funds in any manner and to any nation they please. The US would be out-numbered 1- 160. Without compensation, LOST would also obligate the US to share its offshore drilling technology with any other nation who asks for it.(Leveling the playing field and redistributing wealth on a global basis,)

3) Small-Arms Control: in the work for some time now, Clinton is negotiating a treaty which would require that each signatore to this treaty implement domestic measures to stop the exportation of all small arms and to register all ammunition in order to track its source.(If Fast & Furious fails to undermine our 2nd Amendment, then this intrusive Small Arms Control Treaty will. These statists never give up.)

4) Outer Space Code of Conduct: this code would ban activities which are likely to generate debris in outer space. On the surface, EU-endorsed effort is an innocuous international anti-litter campaign in space. How very, very green. HOWEVER, this could very easily lead to prohibiting America's deployment of anti-missile platforms in space. (Not a good idea.)

5) Rights of the Child: And just who wouldn't support the rights of children? But at the needless risk of jeopardizing our sovereignty, Comrade Clinton is pushing for the establishment of a 14-member court which would oversee the international distribution of funds for shelter, food clothing and education for children in poor nations. This could mean that the court would be able to successfully challenge the United States if, in the court's opinion, Americans weren't  forking over enough. (Totally unnecessary and inane. The United States Agency for International Development doesn't need to be told how to distribute America's foreign aid. Again, a Progressive attack on our sovereignty.)

The disturbing reality is that America's sovereignty, our freedom, our liberties, our Constitution, our constitutional republic are of little consequence to the self-serving and shortsighted Progressive ideologues now ruling our lives and transforming our republic out of existence.

And if I hear one more time how much better off the country would be with Hillary rather than Barry at the helm, I will implode! These Progressives are ALL dangerous, destructive of our way of life, and disloyal alien-oriented fruitcakes of the first order who must be STOPPED!

On the treaty issue, I recommend that readers pass this list on to their congressperson, Senators, the Senate Minority Ldr and the Speaker of House and pray they are still on America's side. Tell them NOT to allow the further undermining of either our Constitution or our sovereignty by the Senate's misguided passage of these outrageously offensive treaties.

So, if the goal of terrorism is to instill fear, disorder and instability in order to facilitate fundamental political change, and aside from some imported and homegrown conniving Jihadis and a handful of weirdo "militia" groups, who else among us is a clear and present danger to our lives, our liberties and our God-given right to pursue happiness? Now think hard. I'm sure you'll get it.

Yup! You got it. The PROGRESSIVES! Dangerous to a person, these unprincipled vermin now dominate the once venerable Democratic Party and infect many in the Republican rank and file as well. We call them RINOs. So, don't be fooled by "Democrat" or "Republican"--high-sounding and patriotic labels, but it's subterfuge, plain and simple. It's well past time to call a spade a spade and to hold these brigands accountable for their faithlessness.

Judge Malihi's Ruling Grossly Incompetent

Having read Judge Malihi's embarrassingly flawed opinion as well as Atty Mario Apuzzo's thoughtful analysis of that opinion, to the best of my humble abilitylet me try to reasonably summarize the latter for your consideration.

For even the acolyte, the uninitiated, the layman, an objective reading of the Constitution and pertinent caselaw clearly and unambiguously defines "natural born citizen" as a person born of two US Citizen parents. Defenders of Obama and the willfully ignorant may scream, rant, rave and hurdle ad hominems 'til they're blue in the face, but this is incontrovertible FACT and LAW--not opinion.

Gratuitously adjudging Obama has having been born in the United States and that he is, therefore, a "natural born citizen", Judge Malihi violated the rules of evidence by failing to rely upon the evidence presented by plaintiffs at the hurried January 26th hearing. In effect, by "considering" Obama born in the US, what evidence DID he rely upon to reach this whole cloth opinion? Certainly not the plaintiffs' evidence, and most certainly not the evidence which was NOT submitted by Obama's absent defense. No, he relied upon a terribly flawed state decision, Ankeny v Governor of Indiana.

The grossly incompetent and insupportable Ankeny v Governor of Indiana ruling gratuitously defined "natural born citizen" quite apart from original Constitutional meaning, a ruling which, in any event, has no binding sway beyond the State of Indiana. Only SCOTUS can render such a uniformly binding ruling. And, yet, Ankeny and Malihi relied upon their own trumped up definition of "natural born citizen" and not upon the original intent and meaning conveyed to that word of art by our framers and corroborating caselaw.

Central to the framers' and founders' meaning of NBC was the framers' reliance upon de Vattel's Law of Nations (1758) which defined NBC as being one who is born in the country of parents who are citizens. Note: the Natualization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802 show that only children born in the United States of US Citizens can be Art II "natural born citizens" and that children born of aliens in the US are aliens themselves.

Citing  and misreading Minor v Happersett (1875), Ankeny erroneously opined that Happersett left in question whether or not a child born in the US of alien parents was a NBC. Not so. Where doubt was expressed in that ruling was on the question of whether or not a person born of alien parents in the US is even a "citizen". In fact, Happersett, correctly relying upon de Vattel and American common law, and not English common law, left NO DOUBT that a NBC is a child born in the country of two US Citizen parents.

Relying upon the Wong Kim Ark ruling in 1898 which dealt only with the issue of US Citizenship and not natural born citizenship, Ankeny errantly cited this ruling as demonstrating who a NBC is. Huh? In fact, Wong Kim Ark never contested Happersett with respect to the meaning of NBC per de Vattel's Law of Nations. In effect, Ankeny misrepresented the Wong Kim Ark holding by gratuitously ruling that Wong was a NBC, when, in fact, Wong Kim Ark ruled that Wong was a US Citizen--not an Art II NBC. IN FACT, the Wong Kim Ark distinguished between a child born to one or more alien parents and a child born to citizen parents, noting that only the latter can be described as a "natural born citizen"!

Thus, being a US Citizen is NOT the same as being a "natural born citizen". NBCs are citizens per natural law; others are statutory citizens.

In effect, Ankeny, upon which Malihi relied for his opinion, errantly relied upon flawed or misinterpreted  caselaw as well as English common law to define NBC, this despite the fact that all SCOTUS cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, relied upon American common law.

What is especially disturbing is that Judge Malihi's reliance upon Ankeny's "advisory opinion" mysteriously led him to the unwarranted conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he was, therefore, a NBC. However, Ankeny never actually RULED that Obama was a NBC or that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. Never mind that Ankeny blew the constitutional definition of NBC, Obama's birth place was never even examined by Ankeny and defense never admitted any evidence to  that effect. As an advisory opinion, therefore, Ankeny cannot be relied upon as proof of Obama's birth place, much less his status as a "natural born citizen". Even in footnote 15 of that advisory opinion, the Ankeny court cautioned that "while the question of whether someone born out of the United States can be a NBC was not before it, its decision should not be interpreted to mean that being born in the  US is the only way someone can be a NBC".

Exhausted  or boiling yet?

Incorrectly concluding that since Wong was a US Citizen that he was also a NBC is a judicial leap into never-never land. For in the same opinion, Ankeny differentiated between citizen and NBC and admitted that the Wong ruling did NOT discuss NBC.

Willfully tortured obfuscation or woeful judicial incompetence? You decide.

Point: relying on natural law and Law of Nations, the founders were adamant and clear that to prevent usurpation of the Presidency by a person of dual alliegiance, that person must have been born of two US Citizen parents. PERIOD!

SO, SCOTUS has been crystal clear as to who is a NBC: a child born in the US of two US citizen parents, whether naturalized or by birth. Thus, all natural born citizens are citizens of the US, but not all citizens of the US are natural born citizens.

The burden of proof rests upon Obama to prove his elibility without a shadow of doubt, but Malihi ignored that burden of proof, instead conjectured that Obama may be "considered"--not ruled--to have been born in the US and, therefore, a NBC. Again, birth place ALONE is insufficient to meet the Art II NBC requirement.

We can only hope that the GA Sec. of State's due diligence and objective and courageous defense of the Constitution and the Rule of Law will hold sway. Since that's not likely, let the appeal process go forward with all deliberate speed.

(For those readers interested in a more detailed analysis of this subject, I urge you to carefully read Mario Apuzzo's commentary in legal opposition to Malihi opinion. Very astute and clear-headed. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html)

Georgia's Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Rule of Law is Dead.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is no longer on life support. It is D E A D. To believe otherwise is sheer idiocy and monstrously delusional.

Today, Judge Michael Malihi, a name which will live in infamy, "ruled"--something effete judges love doing--AGAINST plaintiffs, rendering Barack Obama ballot-eligible in Georgia on the basis of his being born in Hawaii and, therefore, a natural born citizen.

The ignorance demonstrated by that conclusion is breathtaking and the ruling itself utterly contrived and absurb. Judicial historians will have a veritable heyday with this one. Every legal treatise and case I have rad many times over clearly compels precisely the opposite finding.

What this means is that ANYONE born in the United States of illegal aliens, Legal Permanent Residents, one US Citizen parent--and never mind there's no irrefutably authoritative proof that s/he was actually born within US jurisdiction--is now eligible to be our President. As far as I can see, this may well mean Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Gov. Schwartzenegger, Sen. Rubio and the "anchor baby" of that illegal alien down the street can some day be our President. No effective rules, no constitutional constraints. The possibility of dual allegiances irrelevant.

So much for original meaning and intent of the Constitution's and the 14th Amendment's framers .

In effect, the Constitution's Presidential Clause, de Vattel's Law of Nations and Minor v Happersett, et. al. are now heaps of meaningless words--and wholly irrelevant at least in Georgia.

Scrambling on January 26th to diligently submit a mountain of evidence against Obama during the rushed hearing, plaintiff attorneys took the fall for their patriotic effort and due diligence, and both Obama and his attorneys who showed nothing but contempt for the court and who failed to submit one scrap of authoritative evidence to refute plaintiff claims have, without lifting as much as a finger, prevailed with impunity.

Folks, we are no longer a nation of laws. We are nation of ignorant, Progressive, anti-Constitution nihilists.  And when I think of all the past lives and limbs lost on our nation's battlefields in defense of this Republic and the rule of law, I could, quite literally, cry.

My stomach in knots, I am so digusted and enraged, I could spit bullets.

(Postscript: just spoke with Carl Swensson, plaintiff, who firmly voiced his intention "not to give up". The ruling is on expedited appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Since evidence of Obama's ineligibility is already a matter of public record, a full hearing of evidence is anticipated. In passing, and for whatever it's worth, Carl noted that Judge Malihi is a Muslim Iranian.)