As much as Obama supporters or the US citizen ignorant of the “NBC” definition want to bury their heads in the sand … that pesky little issue of “natural born citizenship” WILL NOT GO AWAY.

Nor will it until it finally creeps its way into the Supreme Court for settlement.

For anyone willing to take the time to look into the congressional records of THAT TIME it is clear that “natural born citizen” is clearly defined as a child born IN THE US of PARENTS who are citizens thereof.

That very simple “term definition” from John Bingham (author of the 14th ammendment) found in … 39th Congress Senate and House Debates (December 4, 1865 to July 28, 1866) PP Page 961 of 1920 Page 1291.
Image of that page can be seen HERE.

That says: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

Anyone looking at that definition WITHOUT BIAS understands it to mean BORN IN THE USA OF TWO (2) CITIZEN PARENTS.

Now it can be argued until the cows come home IF, IF, IF or WHY, MAYBE? … and has been already.
Frankly I do not care who influenced who, how they arrived at or who just plucked the term out of the air.
I only care that they did and it was recorded in simple ENGLISH TEXT for those who can still understand BASIC ENGLISH.

I have yet to find any argument cropping up in Congressional records (for that period) which argues or redefines that specific term “natural born citizen”.

The movement being launched to keep Barack Obama off the official state ballots in election 2012 has began.
Rightfully Judge Michael Malihi has taken up the case, refused the Obama quash requests and ordered him to appear.

The door has now been cracked.
This hearing is a BIG DEAL!
WHY?

It was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. Obama never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.

WHAT A SURPRISE! Obama and his lawyer did not show up.
So now what?
Well the hearing went on without him.
Blow by blow results are below:

By Sharon Rondeau
The Post & Email (site is under maintenance at time of publishing; see The Post & Email for further details on this and other Obama eligibility cases, documentation, and history)

(Jan. 26, 2012) — The court convened at approximately 9:30 a.m. Judge Michael Malihi began by asking those present to stand and reading the last paragraph of Atty. Michael Jablonski’s letter to Brian Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State, “into the record,” commenting that Jablonski was not present at the hearing.

The judge called plaintiff David Welden to stand and asked where he resided and if he were a registered voter in the state of Georgia. Then his attorney, Van Irion, stood and stated that there were three types of citizenship in the United States. He then provided argument on the definition of “natural born Citizen,” referring to Minor v. Happersett.

“The court should recognize that the term ‘citizen” is not ‘natural born Citizen,’ Irion said. “The Minor court’s definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ says ‘parents.’

“In closing, this case is about the Constitution,” Irion said. We’ve shown that Barack Obama’s father was never a citizen…and that means he is not constitutionally qualified…Finally, the defendant was ordered to be here, and I wish to state on the record that that shows not just a contempt for this court…”

Then Irion was interrupted and stopped speaking.

9:54 a.m.: Atty. J. Mark Hatfield stood and stating that he represents Kevin Richard Powell and Carl Swensson. Hatfield mentioned the White House schedule as he saw that it related to Obama’s lack of attendance at the hearing.

Carl Swensson was sworn in at 9:56 a.m. and stated his residence and county. Then Kevin Powell was asked the same. Both were asked if they were able to vote for President of the United States.

Swensson and Powell explained their challenges filed with the Secretary of State’s office to the judge.

Hatfield held up the Certification of Nomination which Nancy Pelosi signed in 2008 to place Obama’s name on the ballot. The judge asked if it was a “certified copy,” and Hatfield answered that it was. He then read from it, stating that it did not affirm that the candidates met constitutional requirements to serve, while the wording from the Republican National Committee for its candidates did contain that wording.

The judge asked if the documents were from a “United States government source,” and Hatfield answered “Yes, sir, they were.”

Hatfield cited Jablonski’s January 25 letter “indicating that they did not want the proceedings to go forward and did not want to participate.” Hatfield also entered into evidence Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father.

Ken Allen, a resident of Arizona, stood to present the documentation he had received from the State Department after submitting a FOIA request early in 2009, which The Post & Email reported on here. He stated that “Barack Obama Sr.” was “never a citizen.”

At 10:09 a.m. someone said, “Let’s take a short break,” and people stood up and began moving around and talking with one another.

At 10:17 a.m., the court was called back in to order.

Atty. Orly Taitz was called upon to speak. The Georgia registered voter whom she represents, David Farrar, stood and identified himself.

Taitz utilized a projector on the wall to the right of the judge as an aid in her presentation. She then stated that evidence existed that Obama possessed Indonesian citizenship, to which the judge was heard by this writer to say, “That’s not relevant.” Taitz then discussed the court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett and was interrupted by the judge, who said, “Counselor, can you save your argument for the closing?” She then stopped speaking.

Mr. Christopher Strunk of New York then went up to the front of the courtroom to testify, and Taitz began to ask him questions about the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, one of which contains the name “Soebarkah.” Strunk stated, “She wanted that expunged from her record, but we never got that.”

Susan Daniels, Private Investigator from Ohio, then took the stand, and spoke about her investigation which revealed that Obama had reportedly been using a social security number which she contended had not been assigned to him.

Taitz asked Daniels, “What was the social security number attached to your request?” and Daniels read off “042-68-4425.” Daniels said, “In all my years, I’ve never seen anything like this.” She stated that the person who had originally owned the number had been born in 1890.

“First I ran the social security number to check the address, and the same number came up for him in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC. It showed a phone number, and it was always the same number…It would show intermittently ‘August 4, 1961′ and ’1890.’” Daniels stated that she obtained information “directly from the Social Security Administration.”

At 10:30 Mr. Chito Papa took the stand. He stated that he works in the field of Information Technology including Adobe® software.

Taitz asked Papa if the “birth certificate” which “Obama posted online” had flattened layers. ”Did you see one layer or multiple layers? Taitz asked. ”I saw multiple layers,” he answered.

Taitz asked Papa about Obama’s social security number which appeared on his tax return posted on the internet, and Papa stated that the layers had not been flattened. Taitz then thanked Papa for his testimony.

At 10:36 a.m. another witness, Linda Jordan, was called to the stand. Taitz adjusted her Powerpoint presentation by means of a laptop computer and began by asking a question about “E-Verify,” the U.S. government’s system for flagging potential illegal immigrants from working. Jordan stated that she ran Obama’s number through the E-Verify system and said, “When I read it, it was 2011, and it could not verify it. It came back.”

At 10:39 a.m., Douglas Vogt took the stand. Vogt stated that he owns a typesetting company and has been “in the business for 18 years now.”

Taitz asked Vogt if he examined the birth certificate which was posted online, and he said, “Yes, I did.” He stated that “sloping lines” would not be seen if the image had been made from a paper document.

Taitz asked, “Would you expect to see a clear embossed seal on the document?” and Vogt answered, “Yes, I would.” However, he stated that such was not present on Obama’s birth certificate. Regarding the number of Obama’s purported birth record, Vogt stated that “federal regs” require that “all birth certificate numbers have to be sequential, starting on January 1.”

At 10:49, witness John Sampson took the stand. He stated that he has a background in criminal justice, served as a police officer in New York City and worked as an immigration inspector. His background includes working for the INS in the area of “immigration fraud” and he was also a deportation officer. He stated that he has testified in front of “federal grand juries.” He stated that he started his own consulting firm in 2009 and has been self-employed since then.

Taitz asked Sampson about Obama’s social security number, and Sampson said that he “ran” the number 042-68-4425 and that it was assigned to Obama since 1977.

Taitz asked if Sampson had examined the birth certificate, and he said, “Yes.” He raised the issue of the Nordyke twins’ birth certificate, whose numbers were lower than Obama’s even though their birth occurred a day later. He stated that the registrar’s name was different than that on the Nordyke twins’ documents and that it was unlikely that the registrar would have been different in the “same hospital” regarding births one day apart.

Sampson recommended further investigation, including subpoenas and court orders, to obtain more information on the number “042-68-4425.”

Sampson mentioned that Obama has also been known as “Barry Soetoro.”

Taitz asked what Sampson thought needed to be done regarding the questions about Obama’s background, and he recommended asking for an official copy of the SS-5 for his social security number application and the Hawaii Department of Health to see “if he was born in Hawaii.” Sampson stated that an investigation would be “a criminal investigation” through a U.S. attorney’s office. He said that if a person has been found to be impersonating a U.S. citizen, he would be subject to “deportation.”

Shortly thereafter, Sampson’s testimony ended, and Taitz began discussing Obama’s alleged years in Indonesia from 1968-71, during which he was known as “Barry Soetoro.”

“We have another boy who from 1968-69 was in Hawaii,” she said. The judge then said, “Are you testifying? Do you know how?” which brought laughter from the assembly. The judge then said she could discuss the matter during closing arguments. Taitz responded, “I would like to testify,” after which she took the stand.

Taitz stated that “Mr. Obama has resigned from the bar.” The judge asked, “How is that relevant?” Taitz said that it was pertinent because Obama was “hiding his identity.”

“I’m going to ask you to submit your testimony in writing,” the judge said. ”OK,” Taitz said. She then left the stand and spoke from the assembly once again. She stated that “We have clear evidence of fraud and forgery…Mr. Obama has used other last names…” She then stated that of all the lawsuits filed against Obama regarding his eligibility, none were heard on “the merits.” Taitz asked Judge Malihi to order the release of Obama’s records in Hawaii and to hold Obama in “contempt of court” for failing to appear at the hearing.

The judge said, “Thank you” and adjourned the court at 11:12 a.m.

Article II Facts

After Running a Deficit of 10.9% of GDP The GDP Growth Rate is Projected to be 1.7%.

Real Per Capita Disposable Income is projected to drop 0.85% for 2011. What this means is that there is more activity in the capital users economic numbers, distorted by Federal Reserve policies of inflating the money supply, than on Main Street where paychecks declined.

Inflation creates false signals of artificial demand and causes capital users to increase demand for inputs when there is no real inflation adjusted demand there. This means they will take on more risk than they would otherwise assume, increasing the probability of a bust in the near future.

Below is a summary from Zero Hedge of the GDP Numbers;

“When commenting earlier on the GDP number we noted that the sellside brigade is about to start coming out with Q1 GDP “warnings” now that inventories will likely subtract between 0.5% and 1% from growth in the current quarter. Sure enough here is Goldman with the first warning saying that “The composition of growth was slightly negative for the Q1 outlook, in our view.” That’s not surprising. What is is that also according to Goldman, the auto sector contributed 0.3% to the overall GDP number. Which means that ex inventories and autos (sold courtesy of NINJA loans provided by Uncle Sam as discussed extensively every month with the release of the Fed’s Consumer Credit number), the US economy grew a meaningless 0.5%! And this in the quarter when the US economy was supposed to be on a tear. We are now fairly concerned that there is an outright chance of economic contraction in Q1.

Real Per Capita Disposable Income, Main Street lost in 2011

BOTTOM LINE: Q4 GDP growth slightly worse than expected. Compared to our forecasts, details showed more inventory growth, less consumer spending and less business investment.

MAIN POINTS:
1. Real GDP increased by 2.8% (annualized) in Q4, a bit weaker than the consensus had expected. The composition of growth was slightly negative for the Q1 outlook, in our view. Growth in domestic final sales–GDP less inventories and net trade–was just +0.9%, in contrast to our expectations for +2.0%. The weakness reflected: (1) slightly weaker than expected consumer spending of +2.0%; (2) weaker than expected business fixed investment, reflecting a 7.2% decline in structures investment; and (3) a 12.5% contraction in federal government spending on national defense. National defense spending tends to be volatile, and we would therefore discount this component as a signal about the near-term growth outlook. The misses on consumer spending and business investment are arguably more meaningful.

2. Among the other details, inventories increased by $56bn during the quarter, adding 1.9 percentage points (pp) to GDP growth–much more than we had expected. In contrast, net exports actually subtracted 0.1pp from growth. We had forecast a positive contribution from net trade of +0.5pp. GDP excluding motor vehicles increased by 2.5%, implying that the rebound in the auto sector added 0.3pp to growth.

3. The GDP price index increased by just 0.4% (annualized) in Q4, far below consensus expectations for a 1.9% increase. Nominal GDP growth was therefore quite soft at just +3.2%. The core PCE price index rose by 1.1%, slightly above consensus forecasts.”