Get a worry stone then if it bothers you that much.
Posted on 02/08/2012 10:09:23 AM PST by 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....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
... to which Malihi said, “The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little if any probative value ...” “Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes the Plaintiffs claims are not persuasive.”
Context of what?? You're not saying what your point is for needing more context of anything.
My point there was to show that if the non-Anglo Saxon European aspect were to be followed then the descendants of the French/Normans/Gauls (minus the Gaulic/Germanic tribes of that time) who are non-Anglo Saxon Europeans would never be eligible for POTUS.
Which would reinforce that what BP posted was not racist.
Perhaps we should end this conversation - we are simply talking past each other. Have a good evening.
Mario Rubio Naturalized 1975?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81132658/MarioRubioPetitionForNaturalization-Admitted1975
Welcome to FR, so glad you are here now to straighten us all out with your brilliance!
Thanks - I feel very much at home here.
This is a stupid reply. You’re the one who commented on something I posted with random links to BP’s comments about Ben Franklin, followed by a pointless interjection about Norman Saxons. If anyone was worried, it was you by posting THREE different times in reply to me when you weren’t part of the previous conversation.
You have the option of completely ignoring my comments if you so choose, but I hardly see how you are authorized to tell somebody, whether they be right or wrong on the issue in your view, that they can't join a conversation in progress.
How nice of you to change the topic. No one said anything about who can and can’t join a conversation. The topic was about allegedly being “worried” about what was being posted, and I gave the context of your dialogue to illustrate that you were being a hypocrite by posting a picture of a worry stone.
@I don't agree with your Anglo-Saxon angle. None are more Anglo-Saxon than Germans.
@The French would have been out of luck under that as well as they descended from Gauls.
@Think Norman Saxon.
So, if I understand this properly, BP was saying, as he understood things, people of German (Saxon)/French (Norman) descent couldn't be POTUS. The phrase used was non-Anglo Saxon. By that reasoning basically only those of British/German (Anglo/Saxon) descent could be POTUS. Yet strangely enough Anglo-Saxons comprise only a small part of Britain because after the Norman (French)/Saxon (German) invasion their descendents predominately became Anglo-Normans after the Norman conquest of 1066. William was from Normandy (French) and Normandy was previously taken over by the Saxons/Franks (the Franks were Germans).
@Is the "race" component supposed to be because Franklin used the term "swarthy" to describe the complexion of the non-English Europeans such as Russians and Swedes??
Why are you asking me when, IMO, Franklin did a fine job of expressing himself in his own words? And BP isn't here to clear up his intent so one can only presume.
All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so.
And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.
Tawny and swarthy...Seems pretty clear cut to me as to what "races" Franklin meant.
England is a hodgepodge of national descendents and true "non-Anglo Saxons" are a small subset of that nation.
I hope I've made myself clearer this time.
No. You say, for example, that you think it’s clear what races Franklin is talking about when he says tawny and swarthy ... well, what races?? Which race is “swarthy”??
Christ, man, Franklin's words are right there in front of your face!
And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted...
@America as a Land of Opportunity
Perhaps the most important essay written by an American during the eighteenth century, Franklin's "Observations Concerning the Increase of mankind" was one of the first serious studies of demography.
Are things clearer yet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.