Dereliction of duty by the judicial and legislative branches of government to investigate and challenge Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility, his citizenship status and his resume of credentials to serve as President of the United States.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority – Benjamin Franklin
The United States of America was designed to be a nation under the ‘Rule of Law’ with the highest authority defined by the Constitution. To have a president sworn to “preserve, protect and defend” this authority boldly attack it over and over again with illegal actions is bad enough; Certainly, Barack Obama is not the first president to do so. However, by the very illegitimacy of his unconstitutional status his record of assault is like none other before him. That he has been allowed to get away with such deception, is outrageous! Questionable elements of Obama’s background unchallenged by Congress and dismissed by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) have led us from being a nation of civic minded citizens who once “questioned authority” and demanded answers, to one whose people are expected to blindly accept and submit to the ‘word’ of authority. If this nation is to survive, we must return to the responsibility of scrutinizing our elected officials and hold them accountable. This duty assures proper responsibility from all branches of government, as well as the press. Collusion in high places is certainly a factor for the success of how Barack Obama became the illegal President of the United States (POTUS).
A nation designed to function in the best interests of all its citizens and dispense justice impartially, with no respecter of persons, truly was a revolutionary concept. It was built on the precedent that even a king can be executed for crimes against his people. The idea of ‘Divine Right’ had passed away a century before our nation was born, another gift from the British, God bless them. The United States of America was the next step in Western intellectual and social evolution. It was the offspring of English social advance, French intellectual foreplay and sound German ethic in following through with what had to be done. The theory that leaders of government were to come from among the people and that they were to be ‘servants’ of the people was a noble concept that could only have been heavenly inspired and it encouraged humanity to reach for the stars.
This article is a follow up to “Barack Obama, The Mystery President”, which was largely about the failure of the press to investigate the deep potholes of Barack Obama’s personal background, in particular the on going drama of the legitimacy of his birth certificate and the alarming facts of his social and political affiliations. Most distressing are continuing efforts by the media to ridicule and silence those who speak out. This article is about the failure of Congress and the courts, especially the US Supreme Court to address the very serious issue of an unconstitutional presidential candidate for the 2008 election, who now has become a president in his second term. Such a person unqualified and unvetted by the news media is unacceptable, but when the courts and Congress can’t be trusted to protect us by upholding the law as defined by the Constitution, then tyranny is already upon us.
Fraudulent documentation or no documentation at all has been an ongoing issue with this president, yet dismissed by all but one court so far, the Alabama Supreme Court. As of Oct. 2013, the date remains to be set, but the judge to rule on the case is Roy Moore. This judge is known as a Constitutionalist and he is the same judge who in 2003, refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building despite orders to do so from a federal judge. As a consequence, on November 13, 2003, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary removed him from his post, but nine years later in November 2012, Moore was reelected to the office of Alabama Chief Justice. In 2010, he gave an interview to WND on the Terry Lakin case which was in session at the time and he stated,
Lt.Col. Lakin has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the Commander in Chief. He’s not only the Commander in Chief, he dictates the whole war effort, as shown by the recent firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
Lakin not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty to do so and if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen and in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful. Roy Moore, 4 Sept. 2010, WND
Furthermore, as reported on 20 July 2013 in The Western Center For Journalism, forensic document expert Reed Hayes will be testifying. Hayes works for Perkins Coie, which is the same law firm that has represented Barack Obama in virtually every single eligibility court challenge so far. So they can hardly discredit a forensic document expert that their own law firm has extensively relied on without discrediting all the other cases they have won for Obama in the past. Not to give up without a fight, Obama’s lawyers have presented yet another birth certificate, but it is different from the one placed on the White House website in April 2011. To expose the president as a fraud is at minimum, a serious carear risk for those who try and I suggest that is the real reason that so many others have turned down the opportunity. Already, Obama’s minions are trying to silence this man. The Obama drama just goes on and on.
So what if the Alabama Supreme Court rules against Barack Obama; it is only a state supreme court, right? True, but whatever ruling comes down could trigger an appeal that would finally be addressed by SCOTUS. Such are the hopes and expectations of those who demand the truth about Barack Obama’s citizenship status and eligibility under the Constitution to serve as president. However, I must point out that a state supreme court is essentially an appellate court. Certainly, such courts are the highest court of appeals in that state, but for the most part they do not conduct trials, hear testimony or review evidence, their purpose is to review decisions of intermediate courts and to decide questions of law.
Yet, appellate courts nationwide can operate by varying rules. These courts are usually restricted to the review of arguments based on matters that were originally brought before the lower courts but remain in dispute. Since, in every case brought against Barack Obama so far, a complete dismissal of all evidence no matter how credible, has been standard operating procedure, it is possible that this case before judge Moore may be different. However, that SCOTUS would take on a case they have repeatedly refused to touch in the past is nothing that I would count on. I caution those who expect a ruling that could expose and impeach an illegal president, to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. The only outcome that those who believe Barack Obama to be an unlawful president can hope to expect from judge Moore’s ruling is that when the record of history is told, at least one judge applied the ‘Rule of Law’ without ‘respecter of persons’ and stood up for the Constitution. Anything more than this would be overly optimistic, but they are right to never give up! Of course, public education is also on the progressive list for “fundamental transformation,” so unless this Ship of State is turned around, we are all gulag bound and history will be conveniently rewritten.
For an update about the Alabama Supreme Court Ruling, click here.
Oh but I am not about to let Congress off the hook either. In this article, I will provide information about no less than 9 congressional attempts to change the constitutional eligibility requirements for presidential and vice presidential candidates. Interestingly enough, 8 of those 9 attempts were within just 5 years of the 2008 election.
As to the constitutional eligibility requirements that currently exist for presidential and vice presidential candidates, many people are unclear of the facts and much misinformation has been published in the last few years to confuse everyone. To do this right we must begin with what was presented by the Obama campaign during the 2008 election and measure that information against what the Constitution says. This is where the US Supreme Court should first have stepped in to do their duty, but refused.
In recent years much focus has been centered on the meaning of the term “natural born citizen”, not only because of the status of Barack Obama’s father, a Kenyan national, at the time of his birth, but also because no credible documentation can be found that Barack Obama was actually born in the state of Hawaii as he and so many others have claimed. Then there is the undisputed fact that for a period of time Obama had been adopted as a child by his Indonesian step father and his name was given as Barry Soetoro, which made him an Indonesian citizen, but at one point the name Barack Hussein Soebarkah also pops up. When did young Barry regain his U.S. citizenship status and officially change his name to Barack Obama? If Barack Obama is nothing more than a preferred alias and his Indonesian citizenship status still stands with no documentation to show updated corrections, then every document that this president has ever signed is illegal and we have a foreigner, a usurper in the White House. Therefore, the first question that needs to be answered here is the citizenship status and legal name of this president, period. However, to keep all arguments in proper order shall we begin with a quick review of some basic facts concerning the constitutional requirements of presidential eligibility:
The ‘Natural Born Citizen Clause’
It is a well established that Barack Obama’s mother was an American citizen from Hawaii and that she was eighteen years old when he was born. Whether or not his father actually was Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. is another argument, but it really doesn’t matter, because Obama Sr. a citizen of Kenya, is identified as the President’s father on the first fake short form birth certificate that was published online for the 2008 election. So we know at birth Obama was born a dual national, this fact alone makes Barack Obama ineligible to be president and the case should have been closed.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence. However, arguments have arisen that the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ was never really defined by the Founding Fathers. Not true! At the time of this nation’s founding the description of natural-born citizen was derived from Emer de Vattel’s work published in 1758, Law of Nations.
212. Of the Citizens and Natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Others argue that Sir William Blackstone was the voice those who framed the Constitution heeded. However, such credit is easily dismissed as the Founding Fathers recognized Blackstone as a proponent of arbitrary power and they rejected the notion that the United States should identify with English Common Law. For an even better explanation of why Vattel rather than Blackstone should be recognized as the source of legitimate origin to the meaning and intent of the ‘Natural Born Citizen Clause’ read Hillary Clinton’s Press Statement, issued 29 July 2011 to congratulate Switzerland on 720 years of its Republic.
Some people like to cite the SCOTUS decision of The Venus, 1814, where Chief Justice Marshall defines ‘natural-born citizen’ using Vattel’s work:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Yet, it must be noted that in discharge of his duties as a statesman to France it was determined by some (critics/snobs) of the new French Republic, that even though John Marshall spoke their language very well, he may have suffered from an understanding a bit weak on the diplomatic level, or so some will try to argue. After all, more than one non native speaker minus a doctorate in the language has felt intimidated with their French language skills against native speakers. If such is the case, then those who search through every nook and cranny to try and find some way to bend any light away from Barack Obama, may dispute Marshall’s influence here with some tiny degree of success. However, I bring this ruling up to show that a precedent was established with regard to the legitimacy of this term and it’s trajectory. After all, some of the original Founders were starting to die off, which meant new generations would be subject to these strict standards. Therefore, Vattel certainly had to be a key source considered by them in their development of presidential and vice presidential requirements. Yet curiously, just prior to the release of Obama’s long form birth certificate in 2011, his influence was suddenly discovered missing in the Wikipedia entry of the ‘Natural Born Citizen Clause’ section, all the more reason to disclose this information as worthy. World Net Daily, 1 May 2011
Forward John Bingham, House of Representatives 1862, gave the definition that has never been challenged to this day.
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words “natural-born citizen of the United States” occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth – natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion say more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions becomes naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens.
John Bingham, 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862 The above quote is in column 1, paragraph 3. Some have pointed out that it might be a good idea to print this out before it too mysteriously disappears.
This is birth rite by ‘jus sanguinis’ or (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having instead one or both parents who are citizens of the state or more generally by having state citizenship or membership to a nation determined or conferred by ethnic, cultural or other- descent or origin. Merrium-webster.com
‘Jus soli’ (Latin: right of the soil), is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship. merriam-webster.com.
So the Constitution is clear that for the offices of president and vice president both ‘jus sanguinis’ and ‘jus soli’ apply, with exception to children born to citizen parents living abroad often in the discharge of official government duties, who were covered by the Naturalization Act of 1790:
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.
Essentially this should have covered John McCain over the technical questions that arose concerning his status during the 2008 election, since he was born on a U.S. Navy base in the Panama Canal Zone, but the Democrats found it useful. I suggest the dust of doubt was thrown in the air to create a distraction away from the eligibility of Barack Obama by focusing on John McCain.
As reported in the Politics Daily at the time:
Legal and Constitutional scholars have said that there is little chance that McCain would be declared anything other than a natural-born citizen. The Supreme Court has held that the children of military and Foreign Service personnel stationed abroad are considered natural-born. 1 May 2008, Politics Daily
So with unanimous consent the Senate passed a resolution that declared John McCain a natural-born citizen. It was written and submitted by Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and co sponsored by both Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). What is interesting is how the article pointed out that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:
Did not have to put their names on the Senate Resolution but did so as a gesture of respect, and maybe a bit of good sportsmanship with a touch of good politics thrown in, for McCain’s rivals to acknowledge his legitimacy to run in opposition to them.
I suggest that “good sportsmanship” had nothing to do with Barack Obama’s participation. Again, this was a useful distraction that further hindered McCain from challenging Obama to also present a valid birth certificate. So in this case being a gentleman worked against McCain. Furthermore, the press failed to push Obama for any credentials what so ever. After all, everything we the American people had a right to know about Barack Obama was in his books Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance and The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, right?
Bottom line – Both the president and vice president must be born of two citizen parents, who hold no allegiance to any other nation at the time of their birth. So that would definitely exclude parents with dual citizenship and children born to illegal/undocumented parents on American soil. Such children may be American citizens, but they do not meet the eligibility requirements for President of the United States. Yet, I could find nothing to suggest that both parents also had to be ‘natural born citizens’. Therefore, I must conclude that ‘naturalized’ citizen parents are fine, which allows the second generation to go for the gold.
At the time that this provision was set in place, travel was no easy matter and immigration was to what many thought of as the ‘Promised Land’.
In those days, to leave one’s homeland was a risky adventure. It was a decision of resolve often driven by some form of persecution or lack of opportunity based on remnants of an outdated feudal system. Naturalized citizen parents were welcomed as people who were committed to the health and welfare of this nation, so their loyalties could be confidently established here. That Barack Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya, is only one red flag among many of detailed and documented evidence compiled with numerous complaints presented to the courts since the election of 2008, yet dismissed from judicial consideration on all levels for the most ridiculous of reasons, why? Consider the following:
Berg v. Obama
On August 21, 2008, Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, a Democrat and former deputy state attorney general, filed a complaint alleging that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was therefore a citizen of Kenya or possibly Indonesia, where he lived as a child. He alleged that the “Certification of Live Birth” on Obama’s website to be a forgery.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the complaint in October 2008, finding that Berg lacked standing to present the case and that his attempts to gain standing to pursue his claims were
Berg then skipped the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in the United States Supreme Court. On December 10, 2008, the Supreme Court denied his request for an injunction against the seating of the Electoral College, scheduled for December 15. On December 15, 2008, the petitioner refiled the application for injunction. Two days later, Berg’s appeal was denied without comment by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Then a previously denied request for an injunction was refiled with Justice Antonin Scalia on December 18, 2008. On January 12, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court was also summarily denied on January 21, 2009. On November 12, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Philip Berg lacked standing.
So from 21 Aug. 2008 until 12 Nov. 2009, a time span that ranged before the 2008 Nov, election until well after Barack Obama had been sworn into office, Philip Berg started with the District Court then moved on to the United States Supreme Court where for all his respectful efforts was ‘kicked in the teeth’ so to speak and his complaints either dismissed as “frivolous” and “not worthy of discussion”, “denied without comment” or “lacked standing”.
This constant “lack of standing” excuse is used so often by the courts, it begs the question, just who does have “standing”? How about a soldier ordered to deploy to a war zone by a Commander in Chief who may not be legit? Just show a valid birth certificate, Mr President. Sorry, been there done that! Lt.Col. Terry Lakin found out the hard way that even he did not have standing. So what about the rest of us, the American people who pay for Obama’s lavish lifestyle, in which he indulges to his heart’s delight while the economy gets worse and our national debt soars? Ok, we move on.
By January 2009, dozens of lawsuits had been filed about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president. Philip Berg has pushed hard to get to the truth of the matter, but another dedicated professional is a lawyer from California, Orly Taiz. As if the practice of law is not enough to keep her busy, Taiz is also a dentist, so if someone wants to sue her for malpractice she is certainly qualified to represent herself. Both Berg and Taiz are obviously high achievers, but what makes this lady even more interesting is that she was born and raised in Moldova, Russia, which was then a communist country. So it is safe to assume that she has more experience than most of us in recognizing propaganda and Marxist tactics when she sees them. Jewish and born to parents who were both scientists, she first immigrated to Israel where she obtained a dentistry degree at Hebrew University and from there to the United States where she became a naturalized citizen in 1992. She earned a law degree from Taft Law School and has been licensed to practice law in the state of California since December 2002. Those who protect Obama have worked hard to malign this lady and discredit her efforts for judicial review on the status and identity of Barack Obama. However, Taiz is no fool, she speaks five languages: English, Hebrew, Romanian, Russian and Spanish. She has a family, works hard and is passionate about the truth and love for this country, we the American people, are fortunate to have her on our side.
On 14 January 2009, Barack Obama and Joe Biden met with eight out of nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices for a little preinaugural chit chat. The meeting was from an invitation extended to Obama and Biden by Chief Justice John Roberts and was held in the ceremonial West Conference Room of the Supreme Court. Only Justice Alito was absent and the Associated Press (AP) cast a mean spirit of speculation on the possible reasons for his failure to attend.
In previous years other newly elected presidents and vice presidents had also received such invitations from the court. However, what made this meeting different and extremely objectionable from the other gatherings, is that it was private and closed to the press and at the time the court had a number of cases before it concerning Obama’s constitutional eligibility, several of which were presented by Taiz and Berg. Is this proper professional behavior that we should expect and tolerate from a court of justices with pending complaints before them concerning a particular individual whom they have been asked to consider for judicial review? Is it proper that they privately entertain a potential defendant, without the opposing party represented? I don’t think so, something stinks here!
On 23 Jan. Taiz’s case was denied a hearing “on its merits”, very much like previous cases brought forward by Philip Berg and Cort Wrotnowski and so many others who tried to get to the truth of just who and what Barack Obama really is. Others who tried in vain to get the courts interested were:
On The Federal Level
Kerchner v. Obama Barnett v. Obama Hollister v. Soetoro Cook v. Good Rhodes v. Macdonald Taitz v. Obama Taitz v. Astrue Taitz v. Ruemmler Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party
Martin v. Lingle – In some small defense of ex governor Linda Lingle, who I personally rate as a very good governor in her eight years of service, she did campaign for John McCain and Sarah Palin. Lingle warned the voters that Barack Obama had no experience in balancing a budget or much of anything else for that matter in comparison to Palin and McCain.
Donofrio v. Wells Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz Keyes v. Bowen Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana Taitz v. Fuddy 2012 New Hampshire primary challenge
Walter Fitzpatrick III and Darren Huff
Lieutenant Colonel Lakin – Lt.Col. Lakin really deserves a thank you for standing up for the truth and the oath that he took to “preserve and protect” the Constitution. Though he was court martialed, convicted and sentenced to Fort Leavenworth for six months, I am convinced more now then ever that just like Billy Mitchel, Lakin will one day be vindicated.
Theresa Cao – On January 6, 2011, the United States Constitution was read on the floor of the House of Representatives. As the section regarding the president’s qualifications was being read, Theresa Cao shouted from the gallery, “Except Obama, except Obama. Help us Jesus.” Cao was arrested for disrupting Congress.
Indictment attempts using “citizen grand juries”
In all dozens and dozens of cases have been filed on the federal and state levels but to this date all were dismissed by the courts, to include the SCOTUS.
On the subject of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility lets not waste anymore time with the anemic and corrupt mainstream news networks. Either the topic is too radio active for them or they are on board with the progressive game plan. After three generations of American youth processed through universities that were long ago infested with Marxist radicals, the press, as well as many other professions, has reached critical mass with members that disdain our heritage and regard any political and social positions that oppose it as virtuous. We know for a fact that Barack Obama is not ‘jus sanguinis’ but neither is he ‘jus soli’. This is the whole point of the birth certificate scandal in Honolulu. In fact, his birth certificate in Kenya has far more merit than the one posted on the White House website. If only the Constitution could have been changed in time to accommodate Obama, many tried but alas…
So now I want to bring up some interesting congressional attempts to amend the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution.
1975 – Believe it or not the first attempt to redefine or amend the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution began in 1975 with Jonathan Brewster Bingham (April 24, 1914 — July 3, 1986). Certainly that name is well known in Hawaii and I recognized it immediately. Jonathan Brewster Bingham was a descendant of Hiram Bingham I (1789–1869), leader of the first group of American Protestant missionaries to the Hawaiian islands. His great grandfather Hiram helped translate the Bible into the Hawaiian language.
H.J.R. 33: – Constitutional Amendment introduced by Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, (D-NY), to remove the “natural-born” requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a “Natural Born Citizen”.
Though his first attempt failed, he tried again in the same time period with H.J.R. 33., but again no success.
1977 – Not to be discouraged, yet again he tried with H.J.R. 38, but like the other attempts it also failed to gain support from members of Congress.
That Bingham entered into diplomatic service, as a U.S. representative on the United Nations Trusteeship Council with rank of Minister in 1961 and president in 1962, may have had something to do with his efforts to amend the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the Constitution. It is also noteworthy to point out that during this period, Bingham was a principal adviser to the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. on colonial and trusteeship questions. From 1963 to 1964 he was a U.S. representative on the United Nations Economic and Social Council with the rank of Ambassador. In addition, he also served as an alternate representative to the 15th and 18th United Nations General Assemblies. I bring these facets of his career up not because I see any evidence of possible connection to Barack Obama, who would have been just a boy at the time, but rather to suggest that such experience is more likely to develop a globalist viewpoint that would encourage efforts to adjust the U.S. Constitution in order to make it more accommodating to U.N. goals. Johnathan Brewster Bingham, Wikipedia
Yet, regardless of Bingham’s efforts nothing more was done for 26 years. Then starting in 2003, just one year before Barack Obama became the rock star of the Democrat National Convention (DNC) in 2004, 8 more attempts were made to redefine or amend the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution.
1. 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress –
Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.
Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. (MI-14) Rep Delahunt, William D. (MA-10); Rep Frank, Barney (MA-4); Rep Issa Darrell E. (CA-49); Rep LaHood, Ray (IL-18); Rep Shays, Christopher (CT-4)
2. 2003 Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced an amendment that would have allowed anyone who has been a U.S. citizen for twenty years to seek office of President and Vice President of the United States. This proposal was widely seen as an attempt to make California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (born in Austria and naturalized in 1983) eligible for the presidency and was referred to by some as the “Arnold” bill. It was called the “Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment,” It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings were held on 5 October 2004, two months before the end of the second session of the 108th United States Congress, but no further action was taken.
3. 2003 Rep. John Conyers (MI) introduced H.J.R. 67:
Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.
Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad (CA-27)
4. 2004 Republican Senator Don Nickles (OK) attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128:
Natural Born Citizen Act
Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President – but some argued that he got the definition of natural born citizen wrong.
Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. (OK); Sen Landrieu, Mary L. (LA)
5. 2004 Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new hope of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) introduced H.J.R. 104:
Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.
No co-sponsors (Now that is interesting!)
6. 2005 Rep John Conyers (MI) introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress
Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.
Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad (CA-27)
7. 2005 Rep Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) with H.J.R. 15:
Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years old and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.
Again no co-sponsors? Perhaps Dana Rohrabacher should take the Dale Carnegie course:
“How to Win Friends and Influence People”
8. 2005 Rep Vic Snyder (AR-2) tries yet again with H.J.R. 42:
Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.
Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher (CT-4)
9. 2008 – All of these efforts failed in committee, but with the 2008 presidential election looming and an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, (MO) tried to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678:
Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act
Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham (NY); DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack (IL); Sen Menendez, Robert (NJ); Sen Tom Coburn (OK) – This was an effort to assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been 8 different congressional attempts to alter (Article II – Section I – Clause V) Natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, but all of them failed in committee. In only one attempt out of nine was a specific candidate identified (Arnold Schwarzenegger), which made that particular attempt the most open and honest. McCain’s legal recognition was really just a formality, no one ever really questioned his right to seek the White House. That these challenges to the “Natural Born Citizen” clause were mostly initiated by Democrats and took place during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceded the November 2008 presidential election has not been lost on the astute.
So by the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”, as ‘jus sanguinis’ and clearly accepted and understood since 1862, means that Barack Obama was never constitutionally eligible to be president. At least this part of his story was not hidden from the American people. Surely there must have been many in Congress who had not tried to amend the Constitution’s ‘Natural Born Citizen’ clause who were well aware of Obama’s illegitimate status, why did they not speak out? To be sure whenever a member of Congress has objected to any action taken by this President, Obama and other members of Congress, along with a biased news media have always been quick to throw up the ‘partisan smokescreen’ or the ‘race card’. If that doesn’t work, their character is assassinated. Politics ‘Chicago style’ have never been dirtier then with Barack Obama, his is the most opaque presidential administration in American history. ‘Natural Born Citizen’ clause, where was the Supreme Court to challenge this irregularity? Unlike members of Congress, the Supreme Court Justices do not have to face reelection worries. They are set for life, so I find their negligence on this matter the most worrisome of all. Comfortably out of sight and out of mind most of the time, perhaps we esteem them more highly than they deserve. We should demand accountability from them as well! By 2008, Obama’s Kenyan father was really the least of arguments gathering wind concerning this man’s right and suitability to serve as president.
In a nation where justice is supposed to be fair to everyone, “no respecter of persons”, why is Barack Obama allowed to remain unchallenged about his questionable background? Why are his records even allowed to be sealed? The American people must now suffer our emails, bank accounts, phone calls, medical records, etc. to be viewed by whomever for whatever excuse the feds want to use to justify their violation of our privacy, but Barack Obama cannot be bothered? Is this man a president or a dictator? What little that we know of him is essentially propaganda and those of us who push for answers are marginalized as fools, for now. We already know that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president but is he even a U.S. citizen? Who is really in charge? Why is this even important? As I stated earlier, it is important because the eligibility requirements as outlined by the U.S. Constitution were set in place to assure that those who aspire to become POTUS and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces have loyalties to none other than the Republic. Barack Obama has shown time and time again that his loyalties should be questioned. Consider just a few of the following facts:
1. Appointment of a “shadow government” of some 35+ individuals termed “czars” who are not confirmed by the Senate and respond only to the president, yet have overarching regulatory powers – a clear violation of the separation of powers concept. Obama bypassed the Senate with many of his appointments of over 35 czars. For the Supreme Court to stay silent about this is consent.
2. Obama is responsible for Operation Fast and Furious, which caused hundreds of Mexican nationals and border agent Brian Terry to be murdered.
3. Over regulating many industries to deliberately put them out of business. One such industry is coal, which we have in abundance and the Chinese want. Coal is the main reason that electricity has always been so affordable in this country. However, Obama promised that under his plan the cost of electricity would sky rocket. This is one time our Kenyan born Marxist president has actually told the truth to the American people.
4. Signed an Executive Order on March 16, 2012 giving himself and the Executive branch extraordinary powers to control and allocate resources such as food, water, energy and health care resources etc. in the interest of vaguely defined national defense issues. It would amount to a complete government takeover of the U.S. economy.
5. Signied an Executive Order on July 6, 2012 giving himself and the Executive branch the power to control all methods of communications in the United States based on a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.
6. Amended portions of the Affordable Healthcare Act and other laws passed by Congress without congressional approval as required by Article 1 of the Constitution. Obama does what he wants to do.
7. Failure to take the steps necessary to secure our borders and stem the flow of illegal immigration, termed as “repel invasions” in our United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 and Article 4, Section 4. Our border with Mexico is a nightmare and many people who live in that region now fear for their lives. This president is putting our national security at risk.
8. As Commander in Chief this president has issued rules of engagement that put out troops at unnecessary risk and favors the enemy. If this policy does not kill or cripple their bodies, it destroys their morale. Just whose side is Barack Obama on? What kind of Commander in Chief orders his troops to fight an enemy and then gives advantage to the enemy? Furthermore, citing sequestration and budget cuts Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno told Fox News this week that the military’s ability to train its troops has been seriously affected and as a result just two Army brigades are combat-ready. Though this particular responsibility is definitely in the arena of Congress, it should be first and foremost the concern of a president whose most basic duty is our national security and has ordered American soldiers to fight in Afghanistan. Barack Obama, just who is this man?
I could go on and on, but you get the point.
Are American citizens really expected to take a candidate’s word for what they want us to know about them and not scrutinize their history of achievement or lack thereof? Obviously some have been so dumbed down or are just too lazy to ask and will do just that. However, others of us are not satisfied, because we recognize propaganda and lies when we see them. The failure of the courts to even consider evidence on the issue of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president, let alone his very status as an American citizen or even the legality of the name that he uses is outrageous! Certainly a deep infrastructure must have been set in place over a long period of time to facilitate such an unconstitutional and unqualified president, whose mission is to “transform” our precious Republic into the world’s leading gulag. After all, global Marxism would be easier to achieve if the United States falls first.
With five years of Barack Obama we now face a national debt that continues to soar and under his watch and some say encouragement, members of the Muslim Brotherhood have infiltrated law enforcement and security agencies on all levels across the country. On 1 Sept. 2013, a major newspaper in Cairo blasted a headline that failed to get any attention from CNN, Fox or much of any other mainstream news network,
The source of the accusation is Khairat El-Shater, the number two man in the Muslim Brotherhood hierarchy. El Shater is now in custody by the Egyptian military and he says that he has evidence that will put Obama is prison. Furthermore, the newspaper also claims that President Obama’s half-brother Malik is allegedly an Al Qaeda activist. Could this be a vital missing part of the story of Benghazi? It certainly explains why Obama gave Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood $1.5 billion without Congress approval, soon after Morsi became the new president and why he cut aid to Egypt when Morsi was overthrown.
Is any of it true, I don’t know and that is the whole point of this article. Five years in office now and we still know nothing about Barack Obama because his records are sealed. What we do know is that this country is much worse off for his time in office and that a police state is on the rise. What Obama is doing to the military is shameful and also threatens our national security. Furthermore, the Democrats want to return the draft, so everyone needs to wake up! If we want to remain a free people we must know what is going on because we cannot trust the mainstream media. Moreover, if the judicial and legislative branches had done their duty to protect and defend the Constitution in the first place, then Barack Obama would never have been a presidential candidate. As it is, when history is written, Barack Obama will not be remembered as the first Black President, because that honor will be assigned to another, but rather he will be remembered as the first and hopefully last, Illegal President of the United States.
Five months preceding the 2012 election in an online edition of the Russian publication of Pravda, Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and author of Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership had this to say about Barack Obama.
American politicians and the media are lying to the American people. They do so because they hope that their complicity in the greatest fraud in U.S. history will be overtaken by events, that is, the 2012 election. It is the Big Stall to cover up the Big Lie.
Furthermore, Dr. Sellin brings home my original argument about Barack Obama’s constitutional ineligibility to hold office as president.
According to his own autobiography “Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is an illegal president. Every law that he has signed and every appointment that he has made is invalid.
In the Russian language there is a term called “vranyo.” It is loosely defined as telling a white lie or a semi-truth. It may contain fantasy or involve the suppression of unpleasant parts of the truth.
In regard to Obama’s ineligibility and his alleged felonies, politicians and the media expect the American people to respond in this way:
“You know that you are lying, I know that you are lying, and you know that I know that you are lying, but we both smile and nod in agreement.”
Michelle Obama Admits that her husband’s home country is Kenya.
Ambassador of Kenya admitted that Barack Obama’s home country is Kenya.
Note – I have resided in Hawaii for 30 years and I can assure my fellow Americans that very nice, decent people live here. Furthermore, I do not know and have never met Obama’s half sister but I believe that she is a fine person and that her father Lolo Soetoro was a good man. It is unfortunate that any influence he might have had on young Barack was so brief. Obama’s issues of birth, identity, affiliations and citizenship status have nothing to do with his sister, Maya. Having said that, Shariff Arpaio’s accusations of false documentation with regard to Barack Obama’s birth certificate in Honolulu is credible and needs to be addressed. However, please let me say that many people in Hawaii are very surprised and disappointed by this revelation. They trusted someone they knew as a boy with a family that had lived here for many years. The people of this state are quick to embrace others and they want to leave a positive mark on the world, so they are hurt when their Aloha is abused. The state motto of Hawaii is:
Ua Mau ke Ea o ka Aina i ka Pono
The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.
Of course this is not the Birth Certificate that Barack Obama’s lawyers are referring to, this one is for laughs and giggles only. Aloha!
I am interested in what you have to say, but only comments that are relevant to the article and I think would be interesting to other readers will be posted. Anything you wish to say that is personal in nature please visit my Facebook Page – Liberty Grace Humanity – or contact me at: