Give Us Liberty

GEORGIA JUDGE MALIHI
RULES THE
CONSTITUTION MOOT

January 3, 2012 (TPATH) -  Georgia State Administrative Judge Malihi lit a match and dropped it onto our Constitution this day. 

Despite giving the appearance that America had finally found a patriot in the vast swamp of vermin that has been posing as the legal system in this country, Judge Malihi has immersed himself into the slimy bottom scum of the bog.

Disregarding the many Supreme Court rulings of the past, the clear and evident meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" and Georgia's state own law that requires a candidate to  provide proof, the Judge folded like a cheap camera and ignored his states own law and the US Constitution.  Obama, the Judge ruled, is a "Natural Born Citizen" because his mother was a citizen. What?   As of now, #Obama will be on the ballot in Georgia and this Judge has helped him take one more step towards dismantling the Constitution he so vehemently abhors.

All of us who love this country and fear what we see happening to it, this day, are very sad, disappointed and disgusted.  The feeling of embarrassment has invaded my emotions as I realize this was most likely a "set up". 

This may well have been charade, from the outset, to try to once and for all shut down opposition to Obama, and for the first time, allowing evidence to be admitted, in a controlled and preconceived outcome.  Instead of not allowing the cases to go forward for lack of standing, which has been the case in all other efforts, they may well have decided to let one go to court, not have any of Obama's people there so they could not be charged with perjury, and then, rule in favor of the Usurper.

There are some very important questions that Judge Malihi needs to answer.  This article and these questions are being sent to him. 

Judge, as you read this, I dare you to take a few minutes and answer these questions.  I don't think you will because you are either one of two things.  An imposter, a faux jurist with a liberal, progressive agenda who has plastered a slap in the face of our founding fathers or you have been scared out of your soiled robes by whatever Obama's people threatened you with. 

This is your first question: 

1.  Which of the two above descriptions best fits you?

2. If you were of the opinion that only one parent need be a citizen in order for the offspring to be a "Natural Born Citizen" why did you waste the time of the court, Obama's attorneys, the plaintiff's attorneys and the tax payer's money by allowing this suit to go forward?

3. When John Jay asked George Washington to add the term Natural Born Citizen to Article II, what could have been his purpose?

4. If his purpose was, as he declared it to be, to protect the government from being usurped by foreign affiliation, do you think he and the rest of the first Constitutional Convention participants would have chosen a legal phrase that would allow for just 50% protection?

5. Since Georgia election law requires the ballot petitioner, if challenged, to show proof of his eligibility, why were you persuaded to rule against evidence put forth by the plaintiffs, as you allowed the defendant to disrespect you and the legal system of Georgia,  when they refused to offer proof or even participate?

6. Would not the issuance of a forged birth certificate, in your mind, raise some question as to why it was forged?

7. If, as you say, you found the witnesses not to be credible, how much more credible was the non-evidence Obama's attorneys did not provide when they did not show up?

8. Since the testimony of the witnesses, at least the ones that did appear in your court, stated under oath, that Obama has been using a Social Security number that failed a government security check, and that the birth certificate Obama put on the White House web site was a forgery, if you don't believe them, why have you not brought criminal charges against them for perjury?

9. Part of your ruling stated that since Obama was born in Hawaii, he is therefore a "Natural Born Citizen" and you don't believe the plaintiff's testimony equates to perjury, and if where Obama was born guided the impetus of your decision, why did you rule on this case without further investigation into those two very important criteria?

10. Judge Malihi, since you believe that our Founding Fathers were so stupid as to not want to protect America from both ends of possible threat, by allowing only one parent to be a citizen, your ruling today would appear to suppose that the King of England, back in the day,  could be the father of the next President.  Is this what you believe?

11. Supposing you are not as dull witted as you appear to presume our Founding Fathers were, if you were in charge of a bank, would you set up regulations that only require one of the two doors to be locked at closing time?

12. Since you had the opportunity to help America begin to restore, respect and once again protect the US Constitution, can you say you are proud of what you have done?

In closing, only you know the answer to the first question.  Either way, you have let the American people down and have failed to live up to your oath to protect and defend our land.  Shame on you, Sir.

Regards,
Dwight Kehoe
www.tpath.org