Georgia eligibility challenge returns!

World Net Daily ^ | 02/07/12 | Bob Unruh

[Pfesser]

An administrative law judge in Georgia who held hearings on citizens’ complaints that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president and so shouldn’t be on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state failed to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent, according to one of the attorneys representing clients bringing the complaints....

Appeals of the decision already are in the works, ... Hatfield ... told WND he had expected Kemp to rubber-stamp whatever Malihi wrote....

He noted since Obama and his lawyer “failed to appear” and “failed to submit any evidence,” the determination by Malihi in the cases brought by his clients appears to be unsubstantiated.

Hatfield also explained that Malihi failed to decide the burden of proof.

“The defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional … If the defendant did, as plaintiffs contend, bear the burden of proof in these cases, then defendant can in no way be said to have satisfied his burden, and plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.”

He also noted that Malihi based his opinion of an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling from 2009, when, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court also has spoken on the issue.

While Malihi said he believed Obama was born in the U.S. and that automatically conferred “natural born citizenship” on him, that “is an incorrect statement of the applicable law,” Hatfield said.

“The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett … is binding authority for the proposition that the Article II phrase ‘natural born citizen’ refers to a person born in the United States to two (2) parents who were then (at the time of the child’s birth) themselves United States citizens.”

He said since Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama junior then is disqualified....

[El Sordo]

“Now I'm wondering if someone’s going to say I'm not a citizen at all. “

Why, I daresay that you're not a citizen at all!

Foreign law says so!

[edge919]

It is what it is. In the Wong Kim Ark decision, Justice Gray noted that:

For many years after the establishment of the original Constitution, and until two years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress never authorized the naturalization of any but "free white persons."

- - -

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

We can't go back and change the past. Again, it is what it is. And the Minor court had a very salient point to keep in mind:

Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be. ... If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"It is what it is."

Now I'm more confused than before. Pointing out that some of the Founders (as the Franklin quote in #66 did) may have been racist by intending the presidency for white children of white citizens (their "Kind") so as to demonstrate that attitude (citizens born of citizens, who were nearly universally white at the time) toward natural born citizenship is not the same as bushpilot1 advocating that the presidency, in the here and now, should be reserved for white European descendants.

I'm now unconvinced that bushpilot1 didn't get the bum's rush on this one. I've looked through about a dozen pages (so far) of their commentary history and I'm becoming increasingly leaning toward the opinion that if the Mods give a fair review of the posting history, bushpilot1 could very well have their banned/suspended status lifted.

If there are folks here that can point to comments made by this poster that definitively mark them as racist (and putting up images of African/Kenyan tribesmen to point up the lawlessness of the situation doesn't qualify in my opinion), then I'm perfectly willing to weigh that evidence. Until then, I'm not ready to "convict" them simply because they put up historical anecdotes, even anecdotes by founders that are racist by today's standards, unless it can be shown that bushpilot1 advocates such a philosophy. I don't think at this point, based on my admittedly limited knowledge, any fair-minded Mod will, either. Just my $.02.

I've Pinged the extra names (including those I can recall from memory as being "anti-birthers" in the hopes of bringing a broader knowledge base, and therefore hopefully clarity, to bear on the subject.

[allmendream]

And the wagons are circled!

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Of course, pointing out that some of the Founders may have intended the presidency for the white children of white citizens (or, more specifically, as bushpilot1 did, for the Anglo-Saxon children of Anglo-Saxon citizens) is not the same as advocating that the presidency, in the here and now, should be reserved for white European descendants.

But, bushpilot1 took that extra step. In post 33, he said that Bubba Ho-Tep is not a natural-born citizen because he is descended from Italian immigrants and "Those who immigrated from Southern Europe do not fit into this Kind." In post 56 (which has been removed), bushpilot1 again explained his position that the Founders limited the presidency to those with Anglo-Saxon heritage, and said (to paraphrase, since I don't want to re-post something that's been removed) that if you don't like it, ask Congress to change the Constitution. He was clearly saying that the presidency was and is Constitutionally reserved for those with Anglo-Saxon heritage.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

What else could he have meant when he said that the Framers limited the Presidency to those of Anglo-Saxon heritage, and those of us who don’t like it should ask Congress to amend the Constitution? Or that someone of Southern European descent is not a natural born citizen?

[allmendream]

Additionally “Kind” is used by creationists to denote types of animals that they assume could not be related through common descent.

By claiming that humans have different “Kinds” he was most likely buying into the racist ‘multiple Adams’ theology.

In other words that HE and HIS “Kind” were descended from the ‘real’ Adam - and other “Kinds” of humans are not at all related. They would be of a different “Kind”.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

. . .

[Kleon]

If there are folks here that can point to comments made by this poster that definitively mark them as racist (and putting up images of African/Kenyan tribesmen to point up the lawlessness of the situation doesn't qualify in my opinion), then I'm perfectly willing to weigh that evidence.

I've long thought that the argument he made in this thread, which he's been repeating for over a year, was in itself worthy of a ban, but you obviously disagree.

Until then, I'm not ready to "convict" them simply because they put up historical anecdotes, even anecdotes by founders that are racist by today's standards, unless it can be shown that bushpilot1 advocates such a philosophy.

He clearly believed that these were the standards by which Obama should be held. In the first thread I read of his, he was saying Obama was a "squatter occupying the White House" with "no natural born right to be President," because, he says, Obama doesn't have "kindred blood with the Founders."

I believe such a line of reasoning would be better suited for a place like Stormfront, not Free Republic.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

From #33: "Claims on Italian citizenship are only possibly valid for descendents down to the second degree. Your grandfather born in the U.S. could have inherited Italian citizenship from his Italian citizen father, and your mother could have inherited it from your grandfather, but you are past the second degree and are therefore ineligible."

Read that last bit again. The "past the second degree and therefore ineligible" refers to Bubba-Ho-Tep being ineligible for ITALIAN citizenship, not US citizenship.

I begin to suspect that major misunderstanding, if not outright dishonesty is afoot, and not on the part of myself at the least, but also likely/possibly bushpilot1 as well. For you to posit that "He was clearly saying that the presidency was and is Constitutionally reserved for those with Anglo-Saxon heritage" based on a removed post that I can no longer verify is disingenuous at best. Easy to parse the words of someone not able to explain themselves in person. . .

I'm a reasonable guy, open to reasonable arguments. However, if all that's going to be presented is a Double Nothing Burger with a side of Innuendo and a tall glass of Look It Up Yourself, plus a bonus "You're Circling the Wagons" toy, then I'll just take my n00b bench warmer position and let the First Stringers wrangle with you. This smells. Meh

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

That’s FR for “Link to the Stink, or Sink.” I think.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

And now, since it’s after midnight here in Yokohama, I must bid everyone a good night. Even the Obots. . . :)

[allmendream]

“It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendants of the White Europeans who formed the country.”

“1926 Bouvier Law Dictionary..American is defined..descendants from Europeans who were born in the US.”

“Can Obama say he has kindred blood with the Founders..with..the majority of United States citizens?”

all by bushpilot1.

“You are not a natural born citizen. Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens. A natural born citizen is a Kind of citizen. Those who immigrated from Southern Europe do not fit into this Kind.”

bushpilot1 to Bubba-Ho-Tep

Here he helpfully clarifies that even WHITE people of European descent are not good enough - IF they came from SOUTHERN Europe.

Apparently those Italians are FAR too swarthy to be of our “Kind” - by which he means race - by which he means White NORTHERN European.

Bushpilot1 was advancing this argument here since 2010. Nice to see he FINALLY got the zot when he more fully explained his position.

Almost every birther who chose to chime in on this idea chose to “circle the wagons” around bushpilot1, not a SINGLE ONE that I saw condemned this argument for the racist twaddle it is was and always will be.

While looking for his comments I see they have disseminated far and wide beyond Free Republic - in places where they use his argument to condemn us all as racists.

If I wanted to construct an argument that would be the MOST damaging to the birther movement and their credibility - the argument bushpilot1 advanced would be A#1!

He couldn't have done more to harm the birther cause if he had tried - and yet it seems that to the other birthers - he was “one of us”. You are known by the company you keep.

[philman_36]

If there are folks here that can point to comments made by this poster that definitively mark them as racist (and putting up images of African/Kenyan tribesmen to point up the lawlessness of the situation doesn't qualify in my opinion), then I'm perfectly willing to weigh that evidence.
Start here...@Yet, you just implied earlier that he was biased because he's a Muslim!
Go up the thread and then read it down to get "the Full Monty".

I don't care what race, nationality or religion (a cult isn't a religion, per se) a person is. There is supposed to be an adherence to the Constitution and the principles established by the Founding Fathers. Even an atheist can seek public office as long as they hold true to the Constitution. It's the unconstitutional imposition of one's personal or religious beliefs on others that revolts me. If an Islamist sits on the bench, judges according to the Constitution and doesn't impose his own personal or religious principles of Sharia, then I could care less that he's an Islamist. When, or if, he does impose them contrary to the Constitution I'll be one of the shrieking heads.

And the wagons are circled!
That is an unwarranted accusation as my previous statements will indicate, if you even bother to read them.

Like I've said before...lot's of folks like to go fishing at FR.
He's been "fishing" his "kind" bait for a long time. He apparently got pulled in by his own over weighted line.

[Harlan1196]

Obama didn't have to prove anything - the plaintiffs did it for him.

Irion and Hatfield challenged Obama’s eligibility on one issue - that Obama’s father was not a US citizen. They didn't challenge Obama’s citizenship so it was not an issue to be address in court. Irion stipulated that Obama was citizen and Hatfield did not present evidence challenging Obama’s citizenship.

If the copy of Obama’s BC was good enough for the plaintiffs then it was good enough for Obama. Either it was accepted as true or it was not - since it was central to Irion’s case, he stipulated that it was true accurate and the judge therefore accepted it as true and accurate.

I think you are making up the requirement that the BC had to have a proper certifying statement and the legally-prescribed raised seal to be considered probative evidence. Can you provide a specific legal citation from the Georgia legal code?

As for Orly, she was so incompetent that she destroyed her own case.

[philman_36]

Expanding on that this thought...
I don't care what race, nationality or religion...

Consider the case of Orly Taitz and every other "Russian" or converted Communist/Socialist who has come or is already in America. The real problem many people ("fellow travelers" if one wants to use "code words" - hat tip MSM) in America have with these "Russians" isn't the fact of their nationality, it's the fact that they broke off of the mental reservation and they aren't holding on to that ideology and continuing to help drag America down. Instead they're ringing the bell in warning because they've experienced how things could get here, the last bastion of refuge, if they aren't stopped.

[philman_36]

[edge919]

From what I see, bushpilot has been researching the language etymology of natural-born citizen as strictly related to the understanding and intent of the founders. The reaction from Obama sympathizers has been to treat that as if BP has a personal racist agenda, which we all know is a typical tactic used against anyone who questions Obama's legitimacy. BP defended what the historical intent and language is, as well as the fact that the Constitution has not been changed, which is true. That's why I pointed out that the Supreme Court said their job was to interpret what the law is, not what they want it to be or what THEY think it should be. Unless the constitution and/or the definition of NBC has been specifically changed, then it stands as the founders intended it.

IMO, BP was advocating for upholding the Constitution and for those who don't like it, to change it. That's what the Supreme Court said in Minor. BP seemed to say the intent of the founders would not just prevent Obama from being a natural-born citizen, but also those non-Anglo Saxon Europeans. That would exclude plenty of white people.

Interestingly, BP's point seems to be confirmed in Canada of all places. In 1907, evidently they had some racial backlash because of a wave of Asian immigration. This comment seems to confirm a very British tradition:

"Rev. Dr. Fraser said he was body and spirit with the movement, as he almost felt that unless some steps were taken to stop the influx his own pulpit would soon be in the hands of a Jap or a Chinaman," the Daily News-Advertiser reported the next day.

"There was no such thing as this cheap or common labour that was talked about," the Presbyterian minister was reported to have said. "It was pure Anglo-Saxon blood that had made the Empire and it would never be made with a mixture of Asiatic blood."

link to: "When racism ruled"

And speaking of British empire, when one looks at the British tradition, seeing as how so many folks are quick to say that we follow English common law on citizenship, there have historically been plenty of racism isues in the British colonies: Australia, India, New Zealand, Africa ... Does this mean those persons who support an English common law definition of citizenship are advocating a racist agenda??

To quote Shakespeare, IMO, the accusation that BP is racist or a bigot is "much ado about nothing."

[mojitojoe]

From what I see, bushpilot has been researching the language etymology of natural-born citizen as strictly related to the understanding and intent of the founders. The reaction from Obama sympathizers has been to treat that as if BP has a personal racist agenda, which we all know is a typical tactic used against anyone who questions Obama’s legitimacy. BP defended what the historical intent and language is, as well as the fact that the Constitution has not been changed, which is true. That’s why I pointed out that the Supreme Court said their job was to interpret what the law is, not what they want it to be or what THEY think it should be. Unless the constitution and/or the definition of NBC has been specifically changed, then it stands as the founders intended it.

IMO, BP was advocating for upholding the Constitution and for those who don’t like it, to change it. That’s what the Supreme Court said in Minor. BP seemed to say the intent of the founders would not just prevent Obama from being a natural-born citizen, but also those non-Anglo Saxon Europeans. That would exclude plenty of white people.

________________________________________

BINGO!!! The trolls may have won a battle for a day, they have not and will not win the war unless FR is turning into DU lite.

[philman_36]

BP seemed to say the intent of the founders would not just prevent Obama from being a natural-born citizen, but also those non-Anglo Saxon Europeans. That would exclude plenty of white people.

I don't agree with your Anglo-Saxon angle. None are more Anglo-Saxon than Germans.
@The latter included the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who were all from northern Germany or southern Denmark.

@Do you really want to know what Ben Franklin penned regarding who should immigrate to America and who should not?

Like this one about Germans? @The Support of the Poor - Benjamin Franklin 1753

He even used part of @one of Franklin's essays himself on that thread...
@#138

I too shall miss his efforts on the eligibility issue, but on that alone.