To Secretary Brian Kemp: Based upon what I have seen reported, heard and read, must not the challenged person show that he is eligible to serve in the office he seeks? Mr Obama did not prove he is a natural born citizen. And by the research I have done he can never be a natural born citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has referenced the specific definition of natural born citizen multiple times over the last 200 plus years as being born in the country of citizen parents.
When I look at Judge Malihi’s decision I see a ruling that flies in the face of logic and reason. The first is Mr Obama did not present any evidence he is eligible to serve as President. Therefore, by law, Mr Obama has admitted he is not a natural born citizen and should be removed from the ballot for President. The second is that Judge Malihi ignores the evidence presented using a bogus argument that somehow the people presenting it are not capable of identifying fraud and deceptions. By his logic if a person testifies in Court they saw another person forging a signature on a document, the testimony is not acceptable unless the person is trained in document forgery detection. This is a ridiculous and illogical statement and conclusion.
This is what Juries do all the time: evaluate evidence. Judge Malihi also uses an Indiana Supreme Court ruling instead of looking at the source rulings referenced to insure they are properly being read and state what is claimed they state. In a case I am now involved in against the US Government the opposition lawyers regularly misrepresented cases and case laws as supporting their positions when the cases, when read and examined, support our position and claims (Purpura v. Sebelius, Supreme Court Docket 11-7275). I have even found Judges’ rulings misrepresenting the content of Plaintiff’s brief as part of the research done for the case I am involved in. The Judges did not want to rule for the Plaintiffs and distorted the content of the plaintiffs’ briefs to justify their per-determined rulings.
Mr Obama has publicly admitted he is not a natural born citizen for years. And in the illicit declaration of John McCain being a natural born citizen, in the 2007/2008 time frame, Mr Obama acknowledge the two citizen parents requirement to qualify as a natural born citizen. Yet Judge Malihi appears to have chosen to ignore this and all of the evidence presented.
What is a natural born citizen?
Judge Malihi relies on an Indiana case Arkeny [sic; meant Ankeny] v Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App 2009) which clearly distorted what Amendment 14 States and ignores numerous Supreme Court rulings. The case distorted the case United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898) and the Minor case. While there is much discussion of what a British natural born citizen is, the simple fact is Wong Kim Ark was a citizen under Amendment 14 due to birth in the country and being subject to jurisdiction (or sovereignty) of the United States. He was not declared to be a natural born citizen and the definition of natural born citizen did not change. Even in the Minor case the Court did not define or redefine “natural born citizen”. It cited the definition as one would the definition of a word from the dictionary. In a discussion with a local State Senator I pointed out how he was trying to “say the dictionary does not define the meaning of words”, in relation to the definition of natural born citizen and its source, in his debate with me on this very issue. The State Senator in question is very intelligent and knowledgeable and was doing his best to challenge my position and argument.
The below embedded document “Minor Update” shows how both Courts have distorted the explicit words of the Minor case. I wrote this after a number of people kept doing what Judge Malihi and the Ankeny judge did in misreading the words of the specific paragraph in the Minor case on various blogs. The discussion of Minor was not about citizenship but voting privileges. The Supreme Court of the U.S. Stated basically stated that a person can be declared a citizen without reference to parents. This is Amendment 14 citizenship or Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 based citizenship (i.e. naturalization). They cited the definition of a specific type of citizenship – natural born citizenship, first. They then say that other conditions may create citizens. In Germany, to my knowledge, there is no jus soli citizenship (our Amendment 14). The ruling did not change the referenced definition of natural born citizen, or extend it, as people claim who support Mr Obama illicit occupation of the Presidency.
It should also be noted that the U.S. Constitution does not use English Common law. While it is often cited in Supreme Court rulings, as well as treaties are (see Perkins v Elg), it is for a historical and legal perspective. While some States do use English Common law, others use French or Spanish common law. History teaches us that U.S. Common law is rooted in the treatise “Law of Nations”. The embedded document “Why Barrack H Obama Jr is not President” is the research I did as a result of the attacks on people who challenged Mr Obama eligibility in January/February 2010 timeframe. It is also a document in the case Purpura v Sebelius 11-7275 at the U.S. Supreme Court. Count 6 ask the question “Can an individual who is not a natural born citizen exercise Presidential authority?”
History and numerous Supreme Court rulings clearly state that for a person to be natural born citizen of the United States one must be born in the country of parents who are citizens. Amendment 14 did not change this definition. The embedded document does discuss a 1790 change to the definition that was rescinded in 1795. Amendment 14 simply made “birth on soil” based citizenship (jus soli) the norm if one is born in the country and subject the jurisdiction (i.e. children born to illegal aliens, visitors and diplomats are not U.S. citizens). The cases of Minor, Elk, Ark, and Elg as well as historical records show this to be the case. While all current evidence (faked or otherwise) in the public record indicate Mr Obama is a citizen under Amendment 14, and through his mother, it establishes he is not a natural born citizen.
Natural born citizenship when examined in light of the real definition used by the U.S. Constitution and its authors, history, and Supreme Court rulings can be thought of as a tripod. Each leg of the tripod is one of the requirements – birth in country, citizen mother at birth and citizen father at birth. When one examines the real evidence and Mr Obama’s public statements he is missing the leg of “citizen father at birth”. When one looks at Mr Obama’s earlier claims (pre-2007/2008) of being born in Kenya he is missing 2 legs of the tripod. As part of my own research into this issue even if Mr Obama was born in Kenya, as his paternal family always claims, his mother appears to have given him citizenship under Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 laws. Natural born citizenship is a condition of birth and can not be acquired after birth.
For the record when Mr Obama first appeared on the campaign trail I did consider voting for him. But I took the time to look at his politics and views and determined voting for him would be a violation of my Oath of Office sworn on September 27th 1977 at 1330 hours. It should also be noted that John McCain is not a natural born citizen either since he is missing the tripod leg “born in the country”. And while I did not vote for Mr Obama, I can not vote for Mr Obama even if I wanted to, since he is not a natural born citizen of the United States and voting for him would be, at least, a high crime due to my Oath of Office and would possibly be treason.
Please also note that Congress has attempted to change the definition of natural born citizen many times over the last 50 years or so. Indeed, in the last 6 years alone Congress has tried to change the definition 8 times.
Judge Malihi ruling flies in the face of reason, logic and evidence. Mr Obama, by his own admission, is not a natural born citizen of the United States and is not eligible to serve as President. Therefore his name, and electoral college electors for him, cannot appear on the ballot for President in any State of the Union. Please uphold your Article 6, Paragraph 3 Oath and remove Mr Obama’s name, and electoral college electors, from the Presidential ballot, therefore upholding Georgia State law and Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution.
Donald R Laster Jr
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]
- Christianity Today
- Constitution 101
- Creation Corner
- Entertainment Today
- First Amendment
- Foundation of our Nation
- Guest Columns
- Human Interest
- Ignite the Pulpit
- Let's Talk
- Money matters
- Racial Issues
- Tea Party
- Trump elevator pitch
- World news
Constitution3 days ago
Executive powers – a split decision
Accountability4 days ago
More companies covering travel costs for employees seeking an abortion
News3 days ago
Abortions can continue in Texas after Judge temporarily blocks pre-Roe ban
Accountability3 days ago
Military to continue providing abortions after Roe reversal
Constitution4 days ago
Executive powers and their limits
Legislative1 day ago
Rep. Lauren Boebert in worship service speech: ‘Church is supposed to direct government’
Accountability2 days ago
Supreme Court rules President Biden can end Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy
Guest Columns8 hours ago
We must get Trump