Home > From Dagny > The Birth Certificate Game

The Birth Certificate Game

There was a fraud perpetrated by a President of the United States.  He was not a natural born citizen so he obfuscated his nativity story.  He had all his relevant records destroyed to cover up his fraud, and he and his supporters got away with it.

Does this sound like our current occupant of the White House?  Actually, it was another president:  Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President of the United States.  He attained office due to the assassination of President Garfield.  This was in spite of the fact that he was not a natural born citizen, in violation of the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1.  His father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. The fraud was not discovered until long after his death.

Only two classes of Citizen are recognized by the US Constitution. The first is a Citizen. Whether by birth or naturalization, all Citizens share the same rights and privileges. The other is a Natural Born Citizen, a separate class defined by different legal conditions and with different privileges, specifically eligibility to the offices of President and Vice President.

Wikipedia’s page on the subject of Natural Born Citizen claims that this term was never defined in law, that we must divine the Founders’ intended meaning by reviewing myriad, conflicting opinions and comments in court cases. This is simply not true. The Founders legislated their definition of that term just two years after the Constitution was ratified, providing clear meaning for a requirement of the highest office of the land. One would expect no less of them:

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens” – Naturalization Act 1790

Taking a critical look at this Congressional legislation, we see that “the children of citizens” is an absolute requirement. There are no qualifiers. No exception is made for the child of a non-citizen. The Founders’ definition extends to those who may be born outside the limits of the United States as well. They understood that ambassadors such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would spend years abroad in service to their country, possibly with their families, and did not want to disqualify their own children born during such service.

The US Constitution, written by the Founders, requires the status of Natural Born Citizen to be eligible for the Presidency. This requirement can only be removed through the Amendment process. While the original 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed and replaced by later legislation redefining the means by which one could become a Citizen, the Founders’ intended meaning of Natural Born Citizen still stands.

You can repeal a law, but you can’t repeal evidence, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 is unequivocal evidence of exactly what the US Congress meant by “Natural Born Citizen”.

Some conveniently insist that the 1790 law is no longer in effect or that it does not provide a currently applicable legal definition. Yet, when doubts were raised about the eligibility of John McCain in the 2008 election, the US Senate referenced that law to confirm his status:

“…as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’ …  Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” – Senate Resolution 511

Birth to US Citizens was thus recognized, in 2008, as the primary condition for Natural Born Citizen status. The Panama Canal Zone was under US Sovereignty until 1977.  McCain was born under US Jurisdiction as surely as if he had been born in New Jersey. However, he still had to meet the requirement of birth to Citizen parents to qualify.  The definition in the law remains in effect.

Whenever posted, the text of the 1790 law is promptly removed from the Wikipedia page, as it is inconvenient to those trying to cloud the issue and confuse the general public.  Furthermore, when this information was posted at a forum owned by a former subsidiary of the New York Times, not only was the posting removed, but perhaps coincidentally, the entire forum was permanently shut down overnight. There has been a concerted effort to keep this information out of the public eye.

There have been no fewer than eight Congressional attempts to remove the Natural Born Citizen requirement from the Presidency since 2003, mostly by Democrats.  The only Republican to sponsor them attempted to remove the natural born citizen requirement twice and reduce the citizenship requirement to 20 years. This would in fact nullify the Constitution without the lawful amendments process.  All these attempts failed.

We can see that the Founders’ primary intent was that neither parent be a foreign national, which makes good sense. This minimizes the likelihood that either parent will pass down foreign loyalties or ideology to the would-be President that would dilute his bond with his countrymen and his nation’s principles. Case in point, the fellow illegally in the White House today who demonstrates abundant foreign loyalties and ideologies hostile to America.

The birth certificate provided by Barack Obama is an obviously altered document, according to multiple digital forensics experts.  Have you ever wondered why such a blatant forgery was presented?  Were the Obama handlers that incompetent?  Didn’t anybody in the White House care that such a shoddy piece of photoshop work was made public?

The answer lies within our legal system. Obama and his DNC/Holder Justice lawyers are notorious for using the mechanisms of the system to gain power and abuse it, thwarting the law in the process. This is a part of their strategy.

In fact, the ongoing furor over the place of birth is exactly what Obama wants. It is a red herring, a distraction from the fact he cannot legally be a Natural Born Citizen no matter where he was born.

Some have argued that Obama is the result of an affair in Hawaii by Ann Dunham with communist agitator Frank Marshall Davis (a US citizen born in Kansas) – see Dreams of My Real Father. If that were true, it would make Obama a natural born citizen.

However, mere illegitimacy would be unlikely to justify the expense and risk Obama has taken to hide his past. Furthermore, the details of the alleged birth certificate presented by Mr. Obama himself, if false, are a poorly chosen lie because they disqualify him from the Presidency.

It is Barack Obama’s foreign parent – Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. – that disqualifies him. The Democrat-controlled Senate knew this in 2008 when McCain’s eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen was legally resolved. They did not do the same for Obama precisely because he could not meet the legal requirements.

Barack Obama has gone to great lengths to stir up controversy over his place of birth while preventing legal resolution of his eligibility. He could easily provide court access to his original documents but that would, according to the laws above, work against him. That’s why he instead has teams of lawyers scrambling to block any court case seeking access to his original birth documents. Obama’s place of birth is an intentional distraction.

These antics began in mid-2008, well before the election, when Democrat attorney Philip Berg attempted to determine the eligibility of his own party’s candidate. Obama’s obstructionist response revealed Obama’s own knowledge of his legal problem, though the mainstream news media willfully concealed it from the general public and derided anyone who would bring it up as a “Birther”.

“Instead of satisfying Plaintiff and the general public’s concerns regarding Obama’s citizenship status, or lack thereof, Obama and the DNC have chosen to litigate the matters in lieu of providing what should be simple proof. Defendants have filed two [2] Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for a Protective Order instead of simply solving the matters and providing the proof verifying Obama’s citizenship status.” – Berg v. Obama et al

A Judge vetting Obama’s eligibility can only rule based on the legal evidence presented to the court. If Obama’s true birth certificate is presented, then the Judge can take legal notice that Obama’s father was not a US Citizen and disqualify Barack Obama from eligibility for the Presidency.

Obama’s people understood this well in advance and ensured that the only copies of his birth documents that might be obtained by plaintiffs against him were easily identified as “altered” documents, therefore easily disputed as proof in a court of law. It’s a fair bet his own attorneys would dispute their evidentiary value just as they absurdly proclaimed in a Florida court that Obama is not yet the Democrat candidate for 2012 and is therefore immune to lawsuits demanding his eligibility be resolved.

A President of the United States illegally took office while violating the Natural Born Citizen requirements.  Not only could it happen; it did happen. Twice.  It is a part of history.  Barack Obama is not the first to perpetrate that fraud but this time the consequences are more dire.  With the news media and cowardly politicians concealing this fact, will the American People be fooled yet a third time?

Victor Sayre is principal author and co-authored this with Dagny.

About these ads
Categories: From Dagny
  1. EllenHancock
    August 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    The Naturalization Act simply ADDED the children of US citizens born abroad to the existing definition of Natural Born, which came from the common law and referred to the place of birth. The term comes from the common law, not from Vattel.

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    And that is what five state courts and one federal court have ruled specifically on Obama. And one, Hollister vs McCain, ruled the same on John McCain.

    All seven courts ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined by the Wong Kim Ark case, which held that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel), and that it refers to the place of birth, not to parents. And that is why when birthers and two-fers had a letter-writing campaign to the 600 or so members of the US Electoral College asking the members to change their votes to vote against Obama, not one elector changed her or his vote.

    For further research:

    ttp://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

    And:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

    And:

    http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/05/24/english-common-law-and-american-law-a-digression/

    And:

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/

    And:

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/05/early-use-of-the-term-natural-born-citizen/

    And, for those who think that this is only recent conclusions and hence revisionist, there is this from 1829:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    Obama has shown his birth certificate from Hawaii twice, the short form and the long form, and the officials in Hawaii of BOTH political parties have repeatedly confirmed the facts on the birth certificates.

    And the facts on Obama’s birth certificate are further confirmed by the Index Data file and by the birth notices sent to the newspapers by the DOH in 1961. At the time only the DOH could send notices to that section of the newspaper (it was called “Health Bureau Statistics”) and in 1961, the DOH only sent out notices for those that it had issued birth certificates to, and at the time it could only issue birth certificates to children born in Hawaii.

    The CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona accepted Hawaii’s most recent confirmation that Obama was born in Hawaii and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Hawaii.

    Oh, and by the way, Mitt Romney has shown only an image of a photostat copy of his short-form birth certificate, which does not even shown the name of the hospital or the doctor.

  2. August 27, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    From Victor replying to Ellen Hancock:

    To determine whether a candidate is in compliance with the legal requirements for the Presidency, we rely upon the written law. That’s what the US Senate did in 2008 when confirming John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen due to his birth to American Citizens.

    Blackstone’s dictionary was a reference for British common law, the very system our own Founders rejected when crafting our Constitution and liberating the American People from the arbitrary power of that system.

    “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason

    The Founders relied upon Vattel’s definition because the Blackstone definition (again, British law, not American) would have allowed a person born in the United States, to a foreign Father, to be under legal claim by a foreign nation. It is that risk of foreign legal claim the Founders wished to eliminate by requiring birth to American Citizens to qualify for the Presidency.

    You completely shoot yourself in the foot with the Wong Kim Ark claim, as have those Judges that relied upon a court case that did NOT resolve the meaning of Natural Born Citizen:

    “All seven courts ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined by the Wong Kim Ark case, which held that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel), and that it refers to the place of birth…”

    The Judge in the Wong Kim Ark case only asserted that a person is a CITIZEN by birth on US soil. At that time, mere birth on US soil did not legally confer Citizenship throughout the United States. That’s why Mr. Ark was in court trying to be ruled a Citizen. The Judge’s side comment about ‘natural born’ indicates that parental citizenship (at that time, the Father’s) is required for Natural Born Citizen status:

    Wong Kim Ark: “and his child … ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’ ”

    Notice – not even that Judge claimed that mere birth on US soil makes one a Constitutional Natural Born Citizen and that case was NOT a legal examination of that status as it relates to Presidential eligibility. Yet, it is cited repeatedly by people citing others’ claim that it somehow resolves an issue that was never examined by that court. That is The Big Lie.

    You link to the Wikipedia page that, as we indicated, is designed to confuse and obfuscate this issue. The text of the original law, cited by the US Senate in 2008 when confirming McCain’s Natural Born Citizen status, is immediately removed from that page whenever posted. Also removed is the actual text of McCain’s Resolution of eligibility – precisely because it references the Founders’ own legal definition of that term.

    You make claims about ‘common law’ but our own Senate appropriately used the written law to decide the legal status of the candidate. That’s why the law was written, by the Founders, to let us know what they meant by that term. It requires birth to American Citizens. The Founders’ definition of Natural Born Citizen status was echoed by the US Supreme Court as well.

    “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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” – Minor v. Happersett

    “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.” – Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment

    “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” –James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, 1790

    Think about Wilson’s quote, written in the same year the Founders legislated the definition of Natural Born Citizen. We need not play guessing games about common law – they gave us a solid, written law upon which to rely.

  3. jejeune@mail.com
    August 27, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    Well done, Dagny! Very good to see this information coming from a different quarter than those I’m used to receiving it from. Shows me that more and more people are now knowing this information.

    Best, Rita

  4. EllenHancock
    August 27, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Re: “The Founders relied upon Vattel’s definition ..”

    IF the writers of the Constitution had relied upon Vattel’s definition, they would have said that they relied on Vattel’s definition. If the writers of the US Constitution had meant to refer to the parents of a candidate and not the place of birth, they would have said the parents, and not used the term that was enormously well-known because it was so very common, the term from the common law.

    Instead, they gave no guidance, thus allowing Tucker and Rawle, and the six justices in the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and Meese, to all say that the meaning came from the common law. Well, it did, Vattel’s word “indignes” was not even translated as Natural Born Citizen until ten years after the Constitution was written.

    Re: Minor vs Happersett: If I said to you that “it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt you would hold your pants up,” does that mean that you are required to wear both suspenders and a belt” Well, that is all that the Minor vs Happersett quotation says. It says that Minor had both birth in the USA and citizen parents and hence it cannot be doubted that she had both of the possible criteria and thus was a Natural Born Citizen. But it did not say that she or anyone else was required to have both criteria in order to be an NBC.

    And to make it REAL SIMPLE, the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER Minor vs Happersett, so if Minor were a ruling (and it wasn’t), then the Wong Kim Ark decision would have overturned it.

    Re Bingham. Bingham also said:

    “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

    It seems that by 1869 he had changed his mind from what he said in 1866.

    More importantly, Bingham was NOT the author of the 14th Amendment. He was the author it the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author if the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Who was the author of the citizenship clause? Senator Lyman Trumball.

    And here is what Lyman Trumball said:

    “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” —Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    Re McCain. An action by one branch of the US Congress, not both, and not signed by a president, is not even a law much less something that affects the US Constitution. More importantly, the Senate resolution was simply an attempt to ADD McCain to Obama—whose eligibility due to his place of birth was already well known.

    Have you heard the word OR before? Well, notice this:

    ““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”

    The Senate resolution concentrated on the part of the definition after the word OR. Obama falls into the original definition, the part before the word OR, the part about the place of birth.

    • August 27, 2012 at 10:21 pm

      From Victor Sayre:

      Your comments are not logical. Let’s have a look:

      QUOTE>> IF the writers of the Constitution had relied upon Vattel’s definition, they would have said that they relied on Vattel’s definition

      They wrote their own definition. Please read it again. I’m astonished at your insistence upon finding meanings written by other people that are not US law. Just remember, the Constitution was written to liberate the Americans from British Common Law.

      When the Senate confirmed John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen, in 2008, they referenced the Founder’s legislated definition of the term, nobody else’s. Once you realize our legal eligibility requirements can only come from American law, then the American law will make more of an impression upon your opinion.

      QUOTE>> Instead, they gave no guidance

      What part of “…as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’” do you fail to comprehend? Again, in 2008, the US Senate referred to the legislated definition provided by our Founders. How can you possibly believe they gave us “no guidance”? It’s right in front of your nose.

      QUOTE>> Vattel’s word “indignes” was not even translated as Natural Born Citizen until ten years after the Constitution was written.

      Again, irrelevant. You are digressing from the written law provided by the Founders. And you seem to not have read Vattel’s actual statement on the matter:

      Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens
      The natural, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country, of parents who are citizens

      But the Founders initially extended that status to persons who “may be” born abroad as well, for reasons stated in the article. They later restricted it to those born under US Jurisdiction to avoid foreign legal entanglements.

      The written American law is what defines eligibility, not Vattel or British law (Blackstone) or anything else.

      QUOTE>> the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER Minor vs Happersett, so if Minor were a ruling (and it wasn’t), then the Wong Kim Ark decision would have overturned it.

      Not at all. NEITHER case was a ruling on Natural Born Citizen status. They are irrelevant to this discussion except to see that various Judges have made comments, sometimes even sloppily worded comments, in cases that have nothing to do with the matter we are discussing. None of them is legal precedent precisely because none of them was about Presidential eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen. They were about that other Constitutionally recognized status, CITIZEN, and the Rights that go with it. The Wikipedia page is a waste of time precisely because it is an effort to bury this subject in all sorts of irrelevancy. It’s an intentional effort to confuse you.

      QUOTE>> Re McCain. An action by one branch of the US Congress, not both, and not signed by a president, is not even a law much less something that affects the US Constitution.

      Correct. It was a Non-binding Resolution, which is a resolution to an internal Senate matter that is NOT NEW LEGISLATION. It made no changes to the Constitution or existing law, therefore it did not require a vote of the House and signature of the President. It was, however, an examination of the Law by the responsible body, the Senate, that has the duty of impeachment as well as eligibility vetting. Examination of the Founder’s legislated definition confirmed that McCain is a Natural Born Citizen. The Democrats in control of the Senate did not apply the legal definition to their own guy precisely because he could not qualify. The fight to get Obama vetted under the law has been going on for years…

      “Instead of satisfying Plaintiff and the general public’s concerns regarding Obama’s citizenship status, or lack thereof, Obama and the DNC have chosen to litigate the matters in lieu of providing what should be simple proof. Defendants have filed two [2] Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for a Protective Order instead of simply solving the matters and providing the proof verifying Obama’s citizenship status.” – Summer, 2008

      Obama is still fighting to prevent that legal vetting.

      All the quotes you are finding are not US Law. They cannot make Obama legally President. I merely provided a few quotes that agree with the written law to show that two can play at that game. It’s entirely irrelevant.

      The law requires “children of Citizens of the United States” to qualify.

      That’s why:

      “…as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’ … Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” – Senate Resolution 511

      The law is what matters. Extraneous opinions do not.

      Obama cannot legally be a Natural Born Citizen no matter where he was born.

    • Speak2Truth
      August 28, 2012 at 1:36 am

      In Addition, this is misleading:

      QUOTE>> ““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”

      The Senate resolution concentrated on the part of the definition after the word OR. Obama falls into the original definition, the part before the word OR, the part about the place of birth.
      <<

      John McCain was born within the jurisdiction of the United States, therefore he clearly falls within the part before the OR. The Panama Canal Zone was under US sovereignty until the Trujillo-Carter Treaty of 1977. That's as good as being born in New Jersey and that's why it is mentioned Resolution 511.

      If he had been born outside of US Jurisdiction, he could not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen AT ALL. The Naturalization Act of 1795 redefined such persons, born outside US Jurisdiction to American Citizens, as mere Citizens. That was to avoid foreign legal claims over the would-be President.

      So, born under US Jurisdiction, McCain also had to meet the primary requirement of Natural Born Citizen status: Birth to American Citizens.

      Barack Obama cannot legally be President and he knows it. That's why his lawyers have been so busy all these years. If he were eligible, like McCain, it would have been easy enough for that Democrat-controlled Senate to confirm his eligibility and be done with it. They couldn't.

  5. August 28, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    “Ellen Hancock” aka smrstrauss must be a paid helper for Obama. I searched her up and saw that she has posted so much totally made up bs so frequently in support of Obama that it is very likely she is directly or indirectly on his payroll.

    Simple formula: Steal the taxpayer’s money and then use it to hire out of work libs to shovel blog bs for you.

    Hey Ellen! How does it feel to be a prostitute for the gang occupying the White House? Kinda dirty maybe? Ewww! You’re never going to wash that stuff out.

    Stuff it Ellen. You are not getting any more air time here.

  6. Speak2Truth
    August 28, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    Ellen seems determined to repeat the same obfuscations that are posted on the Wikipedia page and embellish them. It’s the game the Obots have been playing all along.

    Fact is, if Obama were a Natural Born Citizen, the US Senate could have resolved his eligibility exactly as they did with McCain’s, since both candidates had questionable backgrounds and both candidates were legitimately targeted by demands they be legally vetted.

    The Senate, the one party responsible for ensuring candidates’ eligibility, was solidly under Democrat control and refused to allow Obama’s status to be examined under the very same law applied to ALL Presidents (who were not Citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution). The DNC chose to send teams of lawyers to fight off eligibility verification in Obama’s case and have been doing so for the past four years.

    As the Democrat attorney, Philip Berg, pointed out, it would have been a very simple matter for Obama to be legally vetted and resolved eligible if he was. But it never happened. If it had, Obama’s lawyers could all go home and every court could point to that (theoretical) Resolution 512 and say, “Look, the Senate did its job and verified Obama is eligible, so there’s nothing to do here.” They can’t.

    Ellen would be correct to point out that there has been a massive failure of our electoral system due to massive corruption as well as FEAR. What member of the Electoral college would stand up and holler, “I won’t cast my vote because I think he’s not eligible!” That person faces repercussions and is replaced and the process continues without him. If you don’t believe that, look at the case of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.

    Lakin is a long-term decorated military officer who refused to obey illegal orders. Obama took command of our military without demonstrating he could legally do so. Lakin, obeying his oath to the Constitution, asked the military chain of command to simply show him that Obama could legally hold the job and issue orders. In two years of trying, the chain of command could not show him that Obama was legally holding that job. So, Lakin did what his job required of him and refused illegal orders.

    Here’s where it gets ugly.

    Obama knew of this situation and could have saved his Officer from a nasty court-martial by simply allowing his legal eligibility for the job to be confirmed. But Obama didn’t. He knows he’s not eligible.

    He allowed Lakin to face court-martial and be sent to prison.

    Think about that – Obama sent a decorated military officer to prison rather than spend the fifteen bucks to get the REAL certified copy of his birth document and walk it into a courtroom to have his eligibility under the law verified. Obama thinks it’s worth the past four years of hiring lawyers and scrambling to PREVENT that from happening – rather than take the EASY route and simply allow legal resolution to the matter.

    HAVE YOU FIGURED OUT WHY, ELLEN?

    Lefties like Ellen make whiney noises about how all sorts of people “would have” stood up and stopped Obama from taking office if he wasn’t legal. But look what happened to people like Lakin who DID THAT.

    That’s how far the “consolidation of power” in this communist coup has progressed.

    And those who know what has happened and are not standing up? That’s what happened in every other nation the communists seized. They rely upon people to save their own necks, to just quietly submit so they can keep their jobs, keep the paycheck coming in, protect their families from repercussions. The few who are brave enough to stand up are made an example of, like Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, so the rest will shut up and sit down.

    This is what a communist coup looks like. Now the “fundamental transformation” is underway. After the next election, if the Democrat/Communist Party is still in control, that transformation will accelerate and you will witness the fall of the formerly great United States of America.

    Further Reading:

    ELIGIBILITY STATUS of the PRESIDENTS OF USA

    http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/image/!Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud.pdf

    Naturalization Act of 1790 defines Natural Born Citizen

    http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

    “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens” – Naturalization Act 1790

    Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html

    Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

    Vattel’s Influence on the term Natural Born Citizen
    Blackstone, British common law rejected by Founders

    http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

  7. February 8, 2013 at 4:22 am

    Those born in Panama like McCain– Canal Zone or Republic of– are addressed in federal law and regular citizens the same as if they were born in the U.S. proper. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

    • Speak2Truth
      February 9, 2013 at 12:59 am

      It’s a fair comment. The Congress realized that lots of Americans were being born under US Jurisdiction in the Canal Zone were not legally Citizens, by birth. 8 USC § 1403 was written in 1953 to retroactively grant Citizenship to all children of one or more American Citizens born there. They extended that citizenship by birth to births outside of the Canal Zone proper because lots of Americans were giving birth in hospitals outside the canal zone.

      The oversight allowed someone like John McCain to be born a Natural Born Citizen, according to the legal definition, but to not have legal Citizenship status.

      The Congress corrected that error.

      • February 9, 2013 at 1:15 am

        Thank you! Not everyone is so convinced. I appreciate your insight.

  8. smrstrauss
    October 10, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    Nearly two years have passed since this was published, and Obama is still the President of the United States—and there have not even been hearings on the subject of his eligibility in the Congress, and there are early signs that Rubio and Jindal, neither of whose parents were citizens at the time that they were born, (and even Cruz, who was born in Canada) are getting ready to run for president.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers

%d bloggers like this: