An administrative law judge in Georgia could decide as early as this week whether voters in the state convinced him Barack Obama’s name should be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot because he is not qualified to hold the office.

But win, lose or draw, the fight isn’t going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation, with challenges being raised anew even in Obama’s own adopted political network in Illinois.

The Georgia hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi, and while none of the lawyers who appeared in the proceedings was willing to predict what the decision will be, several did confirm that Malihi had considered simply granting them a default victory, because Obama and his lawyers expressly stated they would not participate in a hearing to provide evidence that he is qualified to be on the ballot.

A default presumably would have meant a recommendation from the judge that Obama’s name be stricken from the ballot, a decision which would head for review immediately by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

He, however, was the one who warned Obama of the “peril” of not participating in the hearing when Obama and his attorney had asked that the event be canceled.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.

Obama isn’t even mentioned by name, but don’t think for a minute that the requested change wouldn’t include his candidacy.

The plaintiff is Sharon Meroni, who long has fought inside the system for a way to challenge the candidacies there. In her new case, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, she is petitioning for a judicial review of the state’s election procedures as they exist now.

Targeted are the state Board of Elections, members of the board, several county clerks and others, including candidates Dan Duffy and Amanda Howland.

Meroni, a registered voter in the 27th Legislative District in the state, said her concern is that “only candidates qualified for office under the Illinois and United States Constitutions appear on the ballot.”

The state’s primary is in March.

The case alleges the candidates did not provide sufficient proof that they are U.S. citizens as required to hold the office being sought “as is required by the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”

State officials refused to remove the names from the ballots, so Meroni has gone to court. Granting ballot access, she said in the complaint, “is contrary to law, against the manifest weight of the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and a denial of the rights of the petitioner.”

Kreep told WND the way the system is established in Illinois it essentially allows political parties to determine who runs for office, and unless voters find out about a filing and can assemble a formal objection within five days, their concerns are dismissed.

And the system has no procedure for verifying the eligibility of candidates, he said.

That particular issue has been in the headlines for the past four years, since before Obama’s 2008 election victory, because of the questions that remain over his eligibility. The U.S. Constitution demands a “natural born citizen” be president and the Founders probably thought that to be the offspring of two citizen parents when they wrote the term.

But Obama’s father never was a citizen. There also are those who contend he was not even born in the United States.

Kreep said the Illinois procedures make it virtually impossible for candidates to be challenged for their eligibility.

He said there likely will be raised in other states concerns similar to those in Illinois, where “barriers now in existence … bar voters from reasonable investigation of the citizenship of a candidate.”

That’s simply a deprivation of the constitutional right to due process, he said. The case seeks a declaration that the political maneuvers are unconstitutional.

There also have been assembled campaigns specifically to encourage voters to file eligibility complaints about candidates with states. One such effort is the Obama Ballot Challenge, which lists contacts for state elections offices across the country.

It is, of course, the states that actually run elections; a national election is just the compilation of the results from the 50 states.

“A candidate that is not legally qualified to be on the ballot, such as Barack Obama, steals votes from other candidates who are legally on the ballot,” the site advises.

WND previously reported that cases already have been begun in New Hampshire, where state officials rejected the claims; Alabama, Tennessee and Arizona.

The newest round of court actions do not try to have a judge determine Obama is not qualified for the Oval Office and remove him from it, they simply challenge his eligibility for the 2012 election.

Many of the cases cite Minor v. Happersett, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1875 that said a “natural born citizen” would be a person whose parents both were citizens.

“This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States,” said one of the filings.

It continued, “Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.

“Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.”

Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, also is working on several of the issues, and has brought the question in court in Arizona.

“We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit,” he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election.

Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.

“The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee Secretary of State. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama’s Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number,” he said.

He said if the cases succeed, the Democrats would not be able to list Obama as their candidate for 2012.

“Neither lawsuit discusses Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” Van Irion’s group said.

WND also has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into concerns Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012.

Other attorneys involved in the Georgia case are J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz.

Hatfield has told WND that the goal is for a court determination on the definition of “natural born citizen,” which then could be applied directly to Obama’s candidacy.

By Joel Richardson

In the world of questionable and sometimes downright silly Bible translations, one would think that it couldn’t get any worse.

After all, we’ve seen the “In da beginnin’ Big Daddy created da heaven an’ da earth” Ebonics Bible, as well as the “Apostle’s Log” Star Trek English paraphrase Bible. In a more serious effort, the New Oxford Annotated Bible was created in part by pro-”gay” and feminist scholars in order to set forth a more “gay” revisionist interpretation of Scripture.

But now there is a major controversy developing as the latest altered Bibles are being created by organizations that most would think of as being more conservative and reasonable. At the forefront of the controversy are the Wycliffe Bible Translators, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Frontiers, all of which are producing Bible translations that remove or modify terms which they have deemed offensive to Muslims.

That’s right: Muslim-friendly Bibles.

Included in the controversial development is the removal of any references to God as “Father,” to Jesus as the “Son” or “the Son of God.” One example of such a change can be seen in an Arabic version of the Gospel of Matthew produced and promoted by Frontiers and SIL. It changes Matthew 28:19 from this:

“baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”

to this:

“cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit.”

A large number of such Muslim-sensitive translations already are published and well-circulated in several Muslim-majority nations such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia.

According to Joshua Lingel of i2 Ministries, “Even more dramatic a change is the Arabic and Bangla (Bangladesh) translations. In Arabic, Bible translations err by translating ‘Father’ as ‘Lord.’ ‘Guardian.’ ‘Most High’ and ‘God.” In Bangla, ‘Son of God’ is mistranslated ‘Messiah of God’ consistent with the Quran’s Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah), which references the merely human Jesus.”

In response to these translations, many within the evangelical missions movement as well as many former Muslim converts and indigenous Christians from countries where these translations are being used, are indignant. After numerous appeals have been rejected, a petition has been launched to call for the end to the translations.

More than 3,000 already have signed up.

While the organizations that are promoting these translations are adamant that replacing such terms as Father with Lord or Master best conveys the inspired meaning of the text, many of the indigenous Christian leaders from the countries where these translations are being promoted are broadly rejecting the translations.

The indigenous believers see the introduction of these American-made translations with which they so strongly disagree as a form of American cultural imperialism or colonialism.

According to Turkish pastor Fikret Böcek, such new translations are, “an all-American idea with absolutely no respect for the sacredness of Scripture, or even of the growing Turkish church.”

According to the testimony of one leader from a church in Bangladesh, one of the most problematic aspects of this development is that it gives fuel to the often-heard Muslim claim that Christians are liars who change their Bibles to deceive Muslims. Once a Bible translation is well established within any country, the introduction of such radically different translations reinforces the Muslim charge and undermines trust in the Christian community.

According to Lingel, who can be contacted at info@i2ministries.org, the crisis in translation methodology is largely due to “a postmodern literary bias” that has crept into some translation circles in recent decades. Such translations would seem to demand that the divine author of the Bible change rather than the Muslim reader.

“But Jesus demanded that many of his listeners change,” says Lingel, explaining that instead of demanding that Muslim readers change their understanding of God, these translations seem to convey that God must accommodate the religious prejudices of Muslims.

“Lingel is also the co-editor of a new book, “Chrislam: How Missionaries Are Promoting an Islamized Gospel,” which represents the first major response against Muslim-sensitive translations as well as the larger movement often referred to as the “Insider Movement” or “Chrislam.”

According to reports, of the roughly 200 translation projects Wycliffe/SIL linguists have undertaken in Muslim contexts, about 30 or 40 remove the terms father and son with reference to God and Jesus.

Lingel’s response is quite direct, “These projects need to be defunded.”

Yet according to a recent Forbes “200 Largest U.S. Charities” report, the Orlando-based Wycliffe Bible Translators USA is the third most well-funded religious charity in the states.

Proponents of the Insider Movement claim that this method of reaching Muslims is bearing great fruit. Opponents, however, point out that the so-called converts within the Insider Movement remain “hidden” within their Muslim culture, continue to attend mosque, pray like a Muslim, acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet, the Quran as inspired, and make the Muslim credal confession, known as the “shahada.”

Some now claim that there are as many as 300,000-1.2 million new “Insider believers” in Bangladesh. But one former Insider who left the movement and speaks out in Lingel’s Chrislam book reports that the number of insiders couldn’t be more than 10,000. According to this source, many of the claims are greatly exaggerated so as to bring in more funding from wealthy American missionary organizations.

“Other former Insiders have reported publicly that many Insiders are really Muslims who will do whatever it takes for the jobs and money they are offered by pro-IM ministries to feed their families,” Lingel says.

Further questioning the funding and support of well-known Christian organizations of this movement, Lingel recounts, “I have consulted with the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention on missions and evangelism among Muslims at various times… [Who] stated that there are tens of thousands of Isa al-masih jamaats, or ‘Jesus congregations,’ in northern Africa. But the members of these jamaats call themselves Muslims, do not believe in the Trinity and believe Muhammad is a prophet of God. Are they Christians or Muslims? Why talk about them in terms of missionary success?”

In response to what many Christians see as a heretical movement based on deception, Lingel’s i2 Ministries is in the process of completing a video-based university called Mission Muslims World University, with 40 of the most experienced professors from around the world teaching courses in Muslim ministries, Islamic Studies, apologetics, evangelism and discipleship.

Watch the entire proceeding on video here: Video Of Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing

Today’s proceedings generally were about the Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution, and more specifically about Obama’s eligibility to be on Georgia’s 2012 Presidential Election state ballot. Three separate challenges were made to said eligibility, including one by “birther” rock star Orly Taitz. It is safe to say that history was made today.

Big shocker: Obama did not even show up today. Guess he was too busy campaigning in Nevada and Colorado for his re-election bid. Heck, he didn’t even bother to send his attorney Mr. Michael Jablonski to deliver the necessary documents to the courthouse. But apparently, a lot of concerned Americans did show up, as the Atlanta courthouse was crowded.

To recap what has happened with this case during the past few weeks, Mr. Jablonski has tried very hard to stop this case one way or another. First he attempted to have the case dismissed, then he said it simply was not relevant to the president, then he argued that as the law stands the states do not actually have the power to determine who appears on their individual ballots (yeah, and the Pope is a Muslim), and finally said that his client was simply too preoccupied with his responsibilities as President to give a damn about the case. In short, he found himself continually having to change the story of his client.

However, the Georgia court rejected every one and all of these excuses. Just yesterday, Mr. Jablonski sent out a letter to the secretary of state in which he declared that the case was simply not to be heard and that he and his client would effectively boycott these proceedings. Hours later, Mr. Brian Kemp, Secretary of the Great State of Georgia, responded by saying that Obama and Jablonski were free to not show up at court but would nevertheless be doing so at their own peril.

Of course, Mr. Kemp is wrong since Obama is the president, right? Shouldn’t he be above the law? I mean, it is pretty likely that someone like you or I would get away with behaving like them if we were subpoenaed to appear in court, right?

Court was in session at 9 am sharp; proceedings began with the judge meeting privately with all attorneys associated with the case (you know, at least those who  showed up) for more than twenty minutes. According to various sources, he told them that since Obama was not present that he would be issuing a default judgment in their favor; he also initially wanted to end the case right then and there. However, the attorneys insisted on holding speedy hearings in which witnesses could testify and evidence would be entered into the court’s records. The judge honored their request.

Much of the evidence presented in court today was obtained with the help of several Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Among evidence entered into the court’s records: Obama’s digital “birth certificate” placed on the whitehouse.gov website, his father’s place of birth (Kenya), a few pages from Obama’s memoir “Dreams From My Father” in which he mentions that his father’s passport had been revoked (and subsequently could not leave Kenya”, and Immigration Services documents about Obama Sr.

Van Irion, one of the attorneys went into more detail about the Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution, citing the decision reached in the 1875 US Supreme Court Minor vs. Happersett. Using visual aids and copies of the Court’s decision, Mr. Irion distinguishes the term “citizen” from “natural born citizen.” It is explained that the 14th Amendment does not change the meaning of a natural born citizen, and that any and all lower court verdicts do not conflict with that specific Supreme Court ruling.

What one should take away from this specific testimony, if not the proceedings in general, is that a natural born citizen has two parents who also citizens of the United States at the time of said citizen’s birth. As Obama Sr. was clearly NOT an American citizen, the case can clearly be made that our president, constitutionally speaking, is not eligible to serve as our president.

Among those who testified was a former law enforcement officer, a state-licensed PI, and an IT/PhotoShop expert. They have concluded that Obama has likely engaged in social security fraud, that his father is NOT an American citizen, and that the official birth certificate released by the Obama Administration in April is fake, beyond a reasonable doubt.

All evidence and testimony has been officially entered into court records. This leaves the door open for similar cases pending or future cases to be brought in other states as well. Also, any appeal (if one is even possible in this case) would have to be based on evidence presented by the lawyers in each case. Plaintiff Carl Swenson said in an e-mail to supporters that both “Van Irion (another plaintiff) and my lawyer Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in these two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with ‘Birther’ Orly Taitz.”

What everyone is awaiting now from the judge is an official publishing of today’s ruling, again a default judgment for the plaintiffs. Swenson says “we won” and that it is now “time for the rest of the States to take my lead and duplicate this effort.”

One question every American should be asking themselves now that these eligbility proceedings in Georgia are over is simply: “who the hell is this guy?”

Although obvious, it is important to note that not even the slightest mention of these proceedings will be heard in the mainstream liberal media. And this is for good reason; they obviously want to protect their guy Obama. When his administration’s lackeys vocally attacked Fox News in 2009, viewership of Fox News did not go down; it skyrocketed. Likewise, if the media tries to attack Orly Taitz, these witnesses, or anyone else associated with these proceedings, the so-called “birther” movement will only get stronger.

In short, the “birthers,” who have been ridiculed if not ignored by the media and much of the American public for the past three years, have officially been vindicated today.

—

A blow by blow of the entire court proceeding was made by Craig Andersen of the The National Patriot. His article is found below. We will be updating this page with a synopsis of what today’s proceedings mean for the entire Obama eligibility movement and what results we might see. In the meantime, read the following blow by blow account:

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

Read more at: http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138. By Craig Andresen.

The mainstream media appears to have been put under a “cone of silence” about the first court proceeding to enter into the record evidence that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president based on the Constitution’s requirement that that office be occupied only by a “natural-born citizen.”

Georgia administrative law judge Michael Malihi on Thursday heard evidence from a variety of witnesses on why the president’s name should not appear on the Georgia state ballot for the 2012 election.

Earlier in the month, the judge had issued a subpoena for the president to appear before his court to answer challenges to his eligibility as a candidate.

Georgia law permits the secretary of state and “any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state to challenge the qualifications of any candidate.

Michael Jablonski, attorney for Obama, attempted to have the subpoena quashed, arguing that taking the time to appear would “interrupt [Obama's] duties as president of the United States.”

While Thursday’s hearing was taking place, Obama was speaking to a group of UPS workers in Las Vegas, one of the states where he hopes to gain a vote advantage in the November election.

Following the judge’s refusal to drop the subpoena, the president’s lawyers stated they would ignore the subpoena and not participate in the proceedings.

Later, appearing on the Rachel Maddow show, Mike Berlon, Georgia Democratic Party chairman, defended the president’s actions, saying the case was much ado about nothing.

“This has been thoroughly and richly litigated for a long time, and every court that has looked at it has determined that the president is a citizen,” he said.

But the facts don’t support Berlon’s statement, as this week’s hearing marks the first time that the evidence against the president’s eligibility has been entered into any court record. The dozens of previous cases that have been brought against the president have been dismissed on technicalities such as “standing.”

It is also the first time arguments have been made that the president is ineligible based on his own statements.

The presidency is unique among all of the constitutionally held offices in that it requires the person holding the position to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a typical citizen of the U.S.

While the Constitution does not define the term “natural-born citizen,” many constitutional experts define it as the offspring of two citizen parents. The argument is supported by a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1875, Minor v. Happersett.

The ruling, which is one of the few cases addressing the issue of natural-born citizenship as opposed to a naturalized citizen, states:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Based on this standard, the birth certificate released by Obama proves he is not eligible as his father was a non-citizen who came from Kenya.

The hearing Thursday produced a wide range of evidence from experts testifying that the president’s birth certificate was a forgery to issues with his Social Security number, which does not match the president’s name in e-verify.

Regardless of political persuasion, a sitting U.S. president openly defying a court subpoena for a hearing at which evidence indicating he’s a usurper is entered into the record is newsworthy.

However, a look at mainstream media websites shows an almost total blackout.

CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC did not run any coverage on Thursday’s hearing, with the exception of some local affiliates in Atlanta. The Fox News Channel’s report was a day later.

WND contacted the news organizations asking for comment on why they did not believe the story was newsworthy, considering the precedents set in the hearing. At the time of this article’s publication, none chose to respond.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution was one of the few newspapers to cover the event; however, its coverage did not discuss the ramifications if the judge were to rule Obama ineligible to appear on the ballot.

The media blackout of the Georgia case is part of a continuing pattern of covering up serious discussion of the birth certificate issue.

During the court martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who refused to obey orders over concerns about the president’s eligibility, the media for the most part refused to cover the issue.

Stars and Stripes, Military.com, WND and a local reporter from Lakin’s home town were at the proceedings, however there was almost no representation by major media outlets.

Many retired officers who come out against the president’s eligibility, such as Maj. Gens. Jerry Curry and Paul Vallely, have also been ignored by media.

Media have also refused to report polls showing many Americans still have doubts about the president’s eligibility.

Just last month, a Democratic polling company’s survey indicated that a majority of Iowa caucus goers still did not believe the president was born in the United States.

Public Polling Policy released the results of a poll conducted Dec. 18, which showed that 52 percent of self-identified caucus goers either did not believe or were not sure the president was born in the U.S.

WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah also has been the subject of a media blackout over the issue.

Farah used to be a frequent guest on cable news shows, however once he made the decision to cover the constitutional issues of a president of the United States possibly being ineligible for the office, he became “persona non grata” on many of the same media outlets.