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.)

Stop it, Hannity! Your Shining Star, Sen. Rubio, is NOT Eligible.

Talking heads and politicians often have a problem keeping their brains and their mouths, their hearts and their minds in proper sync. Are you listening, Hannity? O'Reilly? Beck?

On the issue of Senator Marco Rubio's becoming either a VP or Presidential candidate, here's a news flash, Mr. Hannity: RUBIO IS NOT ELIGIBLE!

To be eligible for either slot, per the 12th Amendment (1804), Rubio must also be eligible to be President.

Per the 14th Amendment (1868), Mr. Rubio is a US Citizen, but to be eligible for President, per Art II, Sec 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution, Mr. Rubio must be a "natural born citizen", meaning that he must have been born in the United States of two US Citizen parents who were US Citizens either by birth or through naturalization.

Mario Rubio, Marco's father, didn't petition to become a naturalized US Citizen and renounce his allegiance to Cuba until 11/05/1975, four years AFTER Marco's birth in May 1971. In short, Marco's parents were Legal Permanent Residents--not native born or naturalized US Citizens--when Marco Rubio was born. (Researchers should refer to the National Archives (NADA) and the Constitution to confirm this information.)

For an in-depth legal constitutional analysis of the meaning and requirements of "natural born citizenship", interested readers are encouraged to go to http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born- citizen-clause-requires.html, art2superpac.com, thenationalpatriot.com, federalistblog, US Justice Foundation, and a host of other authoritative sites.

And this: wouldn't it be an inspiring act of selfless public service were Sen. Rubio to publicly confirm that he is constitutionally ineligible to be VP or President?

As importantly, can you imagine the firestorm which would grip the DNC machine, and the abject horror which would pervade the White House whose current occupant is also constitutionally ineligible to serve as Chief Executive? (Obama's mother was a US Citizen, but his purported father, Obama Sr., was a Kenyan national, a British subject at the time of Barack's birth in 1961.)

If Mr. Rubio is the venerable and articulate defender of the Constitution he has appeared to be, then why has he been so studiously silent on this issue. Why has he and his staff avoided answering any questions from many enquiring minds regarding the status of his constitutional eligibility.  His silence has been defeaning, and one can only reasonably speculate that Mr. Rubio is more concerned about his political ambitions than he is about the sanctity of the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong. I love this guy. He's a breath of fresh air in that God-awful beltway. But, I have to wonder if, like so many of his political colleagues, his patriotism and his love of the Constitution stops at the water's edge.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The Constitution is not a toy to be conveniently interpreted or knowingly circumscribed merely to advance one's political or ideological agenda. Nothing honorable, patriotic or redeeming about that.

I will try to obtain a reply on this matter from either Sen. Rubio or his Senatorial staff. Will keep you posted.

"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way." Thomas Jefferson

"Law and liberty cannot become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge." James Wilson (1790)

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." Thomas Jefferson

POSTSCRIPT:
Sen. Rubio's office never responded to my enquiry.

Obama's Economy: Sunshine and Roses at Last!

Yup! Not to worry, folks. Obamaland's economy is on the upswing!

By Obama's objective estimates, the economy of the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America is on an upward trajectory. We've so much to crow about! Wowee! Break out the champagne!!! There's light at the end of the tunnel!!! Whoopee!!!

Regaling us with assurances that since his takeover in 2009 millions of jobs have been "saved" and the number of "created" jobs has been steadily increasing, the breathlessly exuberant Obamabot spinmeisters have been deftly persuading the essentially walking dead among us that Obama's profligate Keynesian top-to-bottom big government approach to recovery is working just splendidly. I mean, come on, folks. You'd have to be a hopelessly partisan dolt not to see the truth and join in the celebration.

Ah...just one tiny wrinkle in Obama's rosy take on the economy: it's ummitigated drivel. A lie!

This week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the budget deficit for 2012 wil hit $1.08T, the jobless rate for 2012 will climb to 8.9%, and in 2013 the unemployment rate will soar to 9.2%.

But, don't let that get you down. The gloom-and-doomers are always raining on our parade. I mean, come on. Whom do you trust? The CBO or Obama? Obviously, the CBO folks are vile racists in the bag for the GOP. Conspiracists, each and every one. They can't be trusted.

And let's not forget Obama's winning toothy smile, his impeccable teleprompter skills and his engaging, polished manner. Afterall, let's remember that Obama wants nothing more than to make sure everyone equally shares in this country's bounty. No filthy rich, no poor. Like, what could possibly be wrong with that?

The only sensible way forward is for us to "collectively" and faithfully put our trust, our hopes, our lives and our fortunes in Obama's hands. He'll take care of us.

Obama Ineligibility: Salient Points to Keep in Mind

Going forward--and without getting too deeply into the weeds--it is important to keep the following points clearly in mind:

Per existing constitutional law, to be eligible for President or VP one must be a natural born citizen, meaning that, at a minimum, one must have been born of two US Citizen parents. As Obama's purported father was not a US Citizen, Obama is ineligible to serve as President. (Primary references: Art II, Sec 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution; unanimous opinion in Minor v Happersett -1875 regarding the definition of natural born citizen; et. al. cases)

1. Judge Malihi will rule on either Feb 1st or 2nd on whether or not the evidence of Obama's ineligibility presented at the hearing on January 26th is sufficient to warrant his recommending to the GA Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, to keep Obama's name off the state ballot. (Having spoken with plaintiff attorney Carl Swensson today, there is the highest confidence that both Malihi and Kemp will, in fact, rule against Obama, and such a ruling would establish a solid legal precedent for similar lawsuits to go forward around the country.)

2. If Sec. of State Kemp does, in fact, decide on Feb 2nd to keep Obama's name off the ballot, Obama could appeal the action to the US Supreme Court.

3. If Obama does appeal the Secretary's action, the evidence of ineligibility presented at the January 26th hearing would need to be contested in court by Obama. This means he would need to present authoritative documentation to effectively refute that ineligibility evidence already on the record, something Obama and his attorneys have doggedly avoided.

4. If the Supreme Court does review the case, and if Obama loses, his eligibility to hold the office of President, his entire administration, and all laws and executive orders issued under his signature, and his Supreme Court appointees will be  rendered retroactively illegitmate, null and void.  (For this reason alone, the sense of the plaintiff attorneys is that Obama will NOT appeal the GA decision. By not contesting the GA decision, Obama will be denied Georgia's 17 electoral votes in November, electoral votes he most likely wouldn't have won anyway in a "red" state.)

5. With the Georgia ruling as solid legal precedent, judges around the country will be compelled to hear ineligibility suits in their states as well. (Currently, there are at least 6 similar suits underway around the country--AZ, IL, NH, NC, TN, AL. And with a Georgia judgement against Obama, the number would likely grow.)

Note: It is speculated that Obama might opt to either ignore any and all state rulings on his ineligibility (unless the aggregate electoral votes denied him around the country are too large in number for him to prevail in an election), or he would resign before November in favor of another Democratic candidate. (A Hillary Clinton candidacy has been seriously and publicly pushed by Democratic apparatchiks.) There has also been speculation about a desperate Obama's imposing martial law, but it is generally believed that military and police forces would not cooperate. (Napolitano's Homeland Security has already branded veterans as "potential terrorists", so even Obama understands that the vast majority of vets would not support such an extra-constitutional action.) Not yet fully fleshed out is when criminal actions would be brought against those persons in the Democratic hierarchy who may have knowingly been a party to this fraud. Also not yet fully thrashed out are the nature and extent of likely felony charges against Obama for, at the minimum, birth certificate, social security and other ID fraud.

Keep your ear to the ground. This historical drama has only begun.

Are All Conservatives Willing to Defend the Constitution?

Not on your life!


Mr. Carl Swensson, one of the plaintiff attorneys at the 1/26/12 Obama eligibility hearing in Atlanta, reported that none other than conservative radio talk show host Neal Boortz "berated" the hearing, calling both GA Sec. of State Kemp and Judge Malihi "backwoods hicks who are going to initiate a race war."

So far, I haven't been able to confirm if it was Boortz who leveled this attack, or if one of his guests did, but in an interview with Pastor James David Manning (atlah.org) on January 27th, Mr. Swensson attributed the derisive comment and scare-mongering to Neal Boortz himself. Go to YouTube to view the interview for yourselves (www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hxx33V4WuY).

Tragically, I understand conservative icon, Eric Erickson, also cavalierly disparaged the proceedings in Atlanta.

When so-called conservatives either fear or are demonstrably unwilling to defend the Constitution and, instead, attack those who do with dire predictions of gloom and doom, in this case "race wars", this Republic is more than merely teetering on the brink. It's no longer on life support. It's in a coma.

I don't know what scares me more, the threat I see, that being Obama and his neo-Marxist minions, or the vipers slithering silently within our own ranks. Let me hasten to answer my own question: I fear the elusive snake in the grass more, and so too should we all.

“When the people rise in masses in behalf of the Union and the liberties of their country, truly may it be said, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against them." - Abraham Lincoln

01/30/12 UPDATE:

I tried reaching Neal Boortz this morning. Was only able to speak to his screener who told me that "he knew nothing about it." I also scoured the audio archives of his radio show and couldn't find anything. So, I'm thinking it was caller, not Neal Boortz himself, who derisively characterized Kemp and Malihi as "backwoods hicks."

I then emailed Pastor Manning who, at the end of his show, repeated what may have been an  erroneous attribution to Neal Boortz for those words. Awaiting a reply.

I then called Carl Swensson who actually took the call. He readily admitted that his report was second hand and that he couldn't verify if, in fact, Neal Boortz had made that statement. We spoke for 10 minutes and I have to tell you he is one of the most sincere, soft-spoken, genuinely patriotic and evenhanded men with whom I've ever had the pleasure of speaking. Not once did I detect anything but thoroughly authentic humility.

I extended my heartfelt thanks to him for his "heroism", likening him to the Founders who were also on the outs with their friends for their principled stand. He was a tad forlorn by the "friends" who had abandoned him, but, like the Founders, he is determined to "walk the walk" and to do the right thing in order to restore our country to greatness. He described his experience as very humbling and more than once thanked me and others who have called and donated to the effort for their encouragement and support, without which his lonely struggle would be much more difficult, both procedurally and personally.

I ask that you please go to his website (www.riseupforamerica.com) and send a much-needed donation to the cause. A phonecall to buoy his spirits might be helpful as well (678-438-6138).

He is a man of stellar character and grace. Simply a great American.

As for the words attributed to Boortz, I can do no more. Still can't absolutely determine one way or the other if Neal made that statement, or, as said, if a caller did. If I hear anything, I will add a clarifying update to this post.

Newt Must Climb Out of the Muck & Mire to WIN !!!

Newt must return to the straight and narrow. He should do what he does best: talk straight and substantively, and stick to the facts and to solutions alone.

No ad hominems, no more silly, often specious, boneheaded, wasteful and self-destructive attack ads which Romney, who has desperately committed his last six years to winning the prize, has shown over and over again he is able to deflect or, to Newt's chagrin,  altogether neutralize. In short, Newt's endorsing inaccuracies, exaggerations and mischaraterizations about Romney or any other candidate brings Newt down to the level of unprincipled political pit viper, surely an unenviable place to be if one aspires to a loftier purpose. He needs to listen to his heart and head, not his "political consultants".

Newt should unwaveringly zero in on Romney's political record, his stated policy positions, and not upon easily refutable political ads. A guy can't run away from his rancid liberal record or his words--especially if the record and his words are accurate and fully in context. Yes, I know PACs are independent of the candidates, but, plainly and simply, candidates DO have influence over the PAC ads' overall content, quality and focus and we all know it.

Because I'm convinced Newt is a commonsense solutions-driven man whom both the Democrat and GOP establishments loathe--a surefire testiment to his more conservative cred--I'm a Newt supporter. Yes, like us all he has blemishes, no doubt, but he's fearless and, for me, has convincingly evolved away from some questionable political positions he himself has errantly espoused in the past like elements of cap and trade, bailouts and health mandates.

That said, when he is pigeonholed about those faulty positions he needs to fearlessly and unabashedly explain why he espoused those positions then and what learning experiences have caused him to change his mind.  Doing this will blunt the attacks from conservatives, RINO Romney, Romney supporters and GOP establishment types alike, and, what's most important, doing so will earn the admiration and support of an ever-expanding voter base thirsting for a return to fearless integrity in DC.

Short of cash and and hamstrung with a lousy ground game going forward, Newt must be the Newt I had always thought he was: a straight shooter unafraid and firmly committed to returning to small government, fully reinvigorating free enterprise, and restoring constitutional order and individual liberty.

There is a reason bonafide conservatives like Laffer, Watts, Norris, Sowell and, yes, Palin, support him. Now it's entirely up to Newt not to disappoint us or the country.

Newt needs to reset the tone before it's too late.

FINALLY: Evidence of Obama INeligibility Under Court Review!!!!!

Further to my previous post, good news, America!

For some time now, I have deliberately avoided discussing the eligibility issue. Why? With so many legal developments on so many fronts, it was simply too daunting to keep up with, and the dead ends and disappointments were so painful. I also believed that, in time, the truth would have its day in court. And so it has!

Art2superpac.com live streamed the court proceedings which took place on January 26th. Though the audio was often garbled and unintelligible, I watched and listened with a mixture of foreboding and vindication and monitored what few authoritative after action reports I could find on the internet.

In a fairly packed court on January 26th, the OSAH court in Atlanta was gravelled to order by Judge Malihi @9:33AM. Having been informed on January 25th by Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, that neither Obama not his attorney would appear at the hearing, in a pre-hearing with plaintiff attorneys Taitz, Hatfield and Irion, Judge Malihi signaled he would enter a "default judgement" against Obama. Delighted but cautious, plaintiff attorneys requested that for the first time ever the actual evidence of Obama's ineligibility be entered into the record. Judge Malihi agreed and allowed for a relatively speedy hearing (aprox 2 hrs).

Note: this is the first time a court has allowed arguments and evidence on the merits of the controversy over Obama's eligibility. Heretofore, the evidence was never allowed to see the light of day by sitting judges. And this: only matters of law--not the evidence itself--may be appealed. Clearly, the Obama machine stumbled big time when it arrogantly failed to appear. Since they didn't take the time to refute the arguments, the evidence is, for all practical purposes, unassailable--the evidence presented at the hearing cannot now be disputed later on appeal. A major victory!!!

With the help of expert witnesses flown in from all over the country, the attorneys cogently, calmly, substantively, albeit hurriedly, discussed the constitutional meaning of "natural born citizen" (relying upon an amicus brief from Leo Donofrio and an analysis of the 1875 Minor v Happersett ruling on the subject), the illegitimacy of Obama's Birth Certificate, and Obama's fraudulent use of a Social Security number assigned to a deceased person born in 1890.

Following the testimony and presentation of evidence, Judge Malihi ordered all attorneys to file briefs and a summary of "facts and points of law" to him by February 5th. At that time, he will review the evidence and, per Georgia law, render a "recommendation" to the Georgia Sec. of State as to whether or not Obama's name should appear on the Georgia presidential ballot in 2012.

From all reports, Mr. Kemp, Sec. of State, has agreed that he will act in accordance with the Judge's recommendation. Of course, how soon after his review of the evidence and facts of law on February 5th Judge Malihi will actually submit a recommendation to Mr. Kemp uncertain. In any event, my hope is that his decision will, at long last, be just and timely. And at this juncture, and despite a possibly vengeful Obama whose ruthless sycophants are capable of considerable mischief, there is nothing to persuade me that the judge will be anything but judicious, forthright and fair. He is to be roundly commended for his unprecedented courage and integrity, and I urge all readers to contact him thank him for his extraordinary service.

Note: I scoured the internet for evidence of media coverage of this seminal development. Except for Druge and American Thinker, NADA. I was able to view one telecast of an Atlanta WST-TV newscast about the hearing, but, true to form, it pooh-poohed the hearing and erroneously reported that plaintiffs were trying to prove once again that Obama is not a "US Citizen". Another insidious example of the media's willful ignorance or calculated dissembling, or both. Notable too was the disturbing silence of "we're watching out for you" O'Reilly and "question with boldness" Beck. Hiding under their beds, to be sure. Frauds!

I cannot overstate how monumentally important this hearing has been. Evidence of Obama's ineligibility is now part of the judicial record and cannot be expunged or otherwise ignored.

Finally, and on a more sobering note, what my abiding concern is the possibly tumultuous effect this will have on the country. Can we properly manage a painful constitutional crisis of this magnitude and all the legal and political ramifications such a crisis will surely entail? Will ruthless remedies be relied upon by darker forces at work to nullify this historic turn of events? Frankly, I am no longer sure that most Americans--and most certainly not our entrenched political elite--are up to the challenge of peacefully, fearlessly and properly restoring constitutional order. But, come what may, we can all be proud and buoyed by the fact that the Constitution and the Rule of Law won a resounding victory yesterday. Now let's pray that Judge Malihi and Sec. of State Kemp do their jobs judiciously and forthrightly.

Stay tuned. I would strongly suggest your monitoring Citizen Wells, TalkWisdom, and the Post and Email for authoritative and credible analyses and updates.

God Bless America! And God Bless those few Americans who refused to surrender in the face of derision, threats and lies. Let's keep on marching forward to a better day for America!