Georgia Judge Places Politics Above The Law: Constitution and Res Ipsa Loquitur Trashed In The Process

A Georgia federal district court judge, Clay Land, in United States District Court once again turned down a valid challenge by a U.S. citizen with respect to the eligibillity challenges which have been undertaken by several different groups previously calling for production of Barack Obama's birth certificate as confirmation of his lawful natural born citizen status per the express terms of the U.S. Constitution with respect to any individual holding the highest office under it.

It appears that this particular judge no longer holds the common law, and codified law of the United States of "Res Ipsa Loquitur" (the thing as it speaks ) with respect to Constitutional interpretation.

And ignoring such a clear legal duty and provision with respect to the judiciary to make a clear and judicious review of such documentation for both legitimacy and legality is clearly in order here. Especially since this nation is still involved in a "global" war on terror, and now domestic spying program post 9/11.

Of course, while our own borders still remain unsecured, and the Bush Administration then also afforded over 43 countries free pass Visa waivers with 48 hour turnaround security checks prior to his leaving office.

I think most individuals would agree, that such a provision was made for obvious reasons by the founders.

So that no other allegiance or loyalty to any other country, or their interests, would precede the president's duties and obligations to this country and its citizens in the carrying out of his official duties and functions. Especially as Commander in Chief of the military.

And this particular case was brought by a soldier who owes allegiance to both this country and its Commander in Chief while on active duty.

And considering Mr. Obama's rather unusual upbringing, much of which was clearly outside the United States which he fully admits, and as a lawyer himself would appear would see the clear need for such provision.

Since political parties themselves were also not at all included as "legal" parties to the Constitution at the outset. Since those federalists and anti-federalists actually settled their differences upon the ratification process, and agreement and later enactment of Patrick Henry's Bill of Rights in order to protect the "people" from abuses of both their federal and state government with respect to the "unalienable" rights stated thereunder.
The judge clearly showed his bias, and actually disdain for the Constitution in his further comments, calling such requests and measures from LEGAL U.S. citizens in this country, "frivolous."

And yet the federal government under the stimulus enacted legislation calls for the creation of a National Health Care Database containing all Americans very private medical records through their now obvious "state actors," the health insurance industry and their associated organizations ala the East India Tea Company and their "favored status" with the British sovereign at the time of the original revolution?

And are continuing on legislation with respect to this health care deform which is and has been clearly disputed as outside their also legal authority, and Constitutional duties and functions other than to regulate those industries more significantly in order to reduce those costs, since it has been the costs, not the availability, that has been the major problem for most of those that still remain uninsured.
Or denials in honoring most of the representations of many of those agents which sold them to the American public now progressively, in even renegotiating and changing the provisions unilaterally in many instances without any notice, or negotiation of the insureds paying those horrendous premiums.

While closed door meetings were held with the industries on these measures, and it appears will also be so convoluted again with hundreds of pages of legalese involved in order to further give the lawyers in this country and the ACLU another stimulus at the public's expense, the federal courts are now denying proof of the clear eligibility of a publicly paid employee that is facilitating now "fining" citizens in order to once again increase Washington's bottom lines and the insurer's and their stockholder's profit margins and capital gains?

The judge also stated that such a matter was not a "duty" of the court, and went so far as to state that if he so ordered proof, that this would open the door in the event a potential candidate lied about his age in order to gain office.

This just goes to show why Washington said that political parties in and of themselves could destroy this nation from within, if foreign interests didn't do so from without. And it appears that both the political parties and their "foreign" interests are doing just that "progressively."

And since this off-the-wall ruling that flies in the face of all manner of law and the hundreds years precedent of res ipsa loquitor that precedes it with respect to Constitutional interpretation (which few judges have followed also in the past which also has lead to where we are today, an "unrepresentative" government on every level), I wonder if the district court judge involved just so happened to go to Harvard also.

Which apparently is also either teaching more and more British based "precedents" in this country as law, or is also even at those six figure per semester tuition rates, another of our failing schools.

I bet this one comes up when or if Arnold Schwartenegger decides to take a run for the roses.

But as with our liberally cluesless media, if that is the case and another such movement should occur, I doubt that those individuals will be called "birthers," as has been the spin placed by the Obama worshippers come hell or high water (and hell is looking pretty good to some of us at this point after these first eight months in the levels of back door taxation and property thefts of the citizenry are concerned for Mr. Obama's global agendas ala Bush).

They will simply be called Americans.

And any judge that would in any such event so rule as Mr. Land has in this case, Benedict Arnold.

My only problem with this entire matter is that insofar as my beliefs, Mr. Obama clearly does not fulfill the "intent" of the founders also with respect to the entire provision, and the background from which it came and reasons therefor. And why this particular case was brought in that federal district is beyond me, when it is not really one of the most Constitution honoring jurisdictions to begin with historically in some of their renderings in the past, along the lines of the 9th Circuit in wacko California, so liberal that it also doesn't recognize the Constitution in any manner whatsoever as of late.

And due to the hijacking of our entire government by two mainstream political parties at this juncture without any also Constitutional basis in fact, not "duly elected" per the judges also stated reasons for his refusal in that the "people had chosen" the president (right, and just what were the choices, your honor, since the two political parties have an inside track on the entire process and accept even campaign donations and/or sponsorship from foreigners at this point, and were illegally elected even to Congress in the first place,
having accepted "foreign" campaign donations and sponsorship and thus not "representatives" of the citizeny of their respective districts in any manner whatsoever and thus in violation and "pretenders" in violation of the entire basis for the election of candidates for the representatives government written within the clear terms of the Constitution itself.

Not at all "representatives" solely of the districts in which the were elected and not national and global lobbying organizations, or even foreign countries lobbyists at this point and their interests).

But just look at what the alternatives are in any event also.

Joe Biden, with Nancy Pelosi second in line?

Hell doesn't even begin to describe that pairing, and the additional havoc they would pile on top of the already crushing burden on the middle and lower income classes and "average" Americans.

And the other branch doesn't clearly know the meaning of the term "conservative" at this point, but simply another branch of the Global Socialist Party but with different and in some instances in vary degrees, even overlapping global corporate benefactors, that's all.
Hail Britainnia. It appears that Congress and those on the Hill are selecting more and more "British trained" globally focused "global socialist" also judges for high federal office in order to protect also their job security, and power trip moves.

Such as those educated at Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, and those East Coast "ivy league" schools whose law school programs clearly have been teaching the British style of government with the "government as sovereign" mindset.

And appears clearly are not at all teaching the "intent" of those founders behind much of the provisions of both the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself. Nor clear distinctions between the "limits" of and their obligations with respect to their function and their true powers and duties.

And this one was clearly their function and duty, without any "rights of refusal" whatsoever included within the document which actually provides for Mr. Land's lofty salary, and that of his staff.