The Biggest Cover-up in American History

In: Our Archive

29 Apr 2012
Print Friendly

obama headshot

By: Amil Imani with James H. Hyde

In our previous article, “Exonerating President Obama”, we noted that the only Supreme Court precedent for the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan dissent in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case.  In collaboration with a constitutional attorney, we have examined the subject matter further.

We believe that to understand the complexity of this issue it will be essential to have an understanding of the place that the concepts of “Natural Law” and the book titled Law of Nations had obtained in the run up to the War of Independence with Great Britain. These concepts of natural law were commonly used throughout the colonies to explain, defend and justify the colonists’ contentions in our dispute with Great Britain. Our investigation leaves no doubt that the Founding Fathers of our nation clearly understood the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” and its relation to Natural Law and Law of Nations. When you have finished studying our research you will also understand that these terms were used in the Declaration of Independence as well as in our Constitution and in the constitutions of a large number of states written at the same time as the Constitutional Convention was in session.

This background understanding will clarify why the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention elected to include “natural born Citizen” in the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President of our nation and what it truly means.

In this article we will prove beyond all doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and is thus ineligible to be President of the United States.

Citations following the textual part of this article are not simply to provide you the references that support our assertions. They also provide you citations to reading material that will help you understand the 1770 period in our History. To understand our reasoning, it is important that the reader understands the Colonial people, and especially the Founders with their educational backgrounds, their political fears and the nation’s interrelationship with other nations at the time leading up to the War of Independence. In this short article we could not provide all those dimensions, but we hope the reader will study the references to fully understand the time period during which these things took place. Unfortunately there are citations to books which are not available to download online, so to get the whole picture, the reader will need to find a library to borrow the needed materials.

1. In the time frame of 1740—1790, “Natural Law” had grown from the 17th century studies of the early enlightenment philosophers (Grotius, Pufendorf, Rousseau, Locke, de Wolf) into a reason-based concept that was based on the fact that all humans have inherent animal qualities that contribute to laws worldwide that are essentially the same.

2. Emer de Vattel, a Swiss scholar, published a now world famous work titled Law of Nations in French in 1758.  The Vattel work built upon the earlier philosophy of Natural Law, especially that of de Wolf.  But what made Vattel’s work so famous was his adoption of a more modern and easier-to-understand format, which was written like a scientific thesis. It started out with definitions that were worked into the initial textual material in a manner very different from the heavy, incomprehensible writing style of the earlier philosophers. His work is written like a modern do-it-yourself project where he captured the entire history and essence of Natural Law but mixed it into a means to build a new nation based on a new type of constitution or a way of establishing an acceptable set of rules for running a nation in a common sense manner based on the experience of political science as it developed over the centuries.

3. The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention understood what they were voting on when they voted unanimously on Sept. 7, 1787 to add a clause to Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Eligibility Requirements. They had added an eligibility clause for anyone seeking the Office of the President that requires that they be a “natural born Citizen,” which means that both of his parents had to be citizens of the U.S. on the date of his birth.

4. In the period 1750-1770, the French language had become of growing interest in the world of American politics and had been of major importance to the academic world, especially for American attorneys and in particular how it relates to Natural Law in the time period 1730 and thereafter.

5.  The great majority of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were attorneys and at that time attorneys were primarily men from the upper classes who were typically very well educated at the few colleges and universities of merit in the U.S. For the most part the educational curricula in those schools followed the Classical Education model of Great Britain.

Second shot6. (a) After 1750, many leaders in the U.S. had become aware that the Classical Educational Model was not adequate for the times. This resulted in movements to modernize the curricula of American colleges and universities, in particular to introduce a new emphasis on the teaching of Law in the colleges and universities as opposed to the traditional apprenticeship programs being employed to qualify attorneys. Specifically, for many years prior to 1789, Thomas Jefferson, the then Governor of Virginia, had tried to pass a law in Virginia that would have placed William and Mary, an Anglican facility, in charge of the Virginia State University system and to modernize the curriculum. While his efforts were unsuccessful because of opposition from other church groups, Jefferson was instrumental in abolishing the Greek and Hebrew Professorships at William and Mary and initiating courses in Natural Law and Political Science; likewise, the College of Philadelphia (now Pennsylvania University) had initiated similar changes in the time period 1760-1780 which focused more specifically on legal areas, including Natural Law, to better prepare students to become attorneys. In the time period 1760-1780, the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) was only getting started with the new curriculum and was extremely focused on being a modern, more flexible educational facility compared to universities utilizing the Classical Model. Harvard and Yale were less rapid in modernizing in the time period 1760-1780, except that each had added the study of the French Language to their curricula.

6. (b) John Jay, subsequently the first  Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, had written a letter on July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who was then the President of the Constitutional Convention, which was in session.  In this letter, John Jay expressed a fear for the nation if the office of the President should fall into the hands of a person with an allegiance to a foreign power. To reduce the chance for this from occurring Mr. Jay recommended including the provision in the President’s Eligibility Requirements that the President must be a “natural born Citizen” in addition to the other age eligibility and term of residency requirements that would suffice to adequately protect the nation from a person with a foreign allegiance from ever becoming President.

6. (c) From the floor of the Constitutional  Convention on Sept. 4, 1787, a delegate voiced an objection to the then proposed  language for Article 2, the Presidential Eligibility Requirements, and Article 2 was sent back to the committee for further consideration. On Sept. 7 the Presidential Eligibility Requirements issue of Article 2 was again brought to the floor, was brought to a vote and unanimously approved. It included the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement initially proposed by John Jay.

7.  As noted above, the vast majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were attorneys. They had attended the very best colleges and universities in the U.S., which had modernized their curriculum and that some of the delegate attorneys had attended British universities, which, in the time period-1770, also included the concepts of Natural Law in their Philosophy curricula.

8. Three copies of the 1775 version of the book Law of Nations, written in French by Emer de Vattel in 1758, had been sent to Ben Franklin by its publisher. Mr. Franklin had sent one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia (LCP).  In that same year, Mr. Franklin had sent a letter to the publisher informing him that he had been often loaning his copy to other congressman and they were in admiration of Vattel. The LCP was located on the 2nd floor of the Constitutional Convention building in 1787, and arrangements had been completed to provide library membership rights in the LCP on the second floor to all the Constitutional Convention delegates. The 1775 French version of Law of Nations was in the LCP catalog (titled in French: Les Droit des gens), as well as the Law of Nations, 1760 English version. The catalog was also an  inventory of the books on the shelf in 1789 which encompass the dates of the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

President Obama9. (a) We contend that it is inconceivable that 53 of the most able and highly educated gentleman in the United States, including 33 attorneys educated at the finest universities, as a group would not understand the meaning of the term, “natural born Citizen” before they would have cast a unanimous vote to include the term “natural born Citizen” in the President’s Eligibility Requirements. Further it is our contention that the delegates understood that the term “natural born Citizen” had a connection to Natural Law at the time the convention delegates voted unanimously to include the “natural born Citizen” language in Article 2.

9. (b) The preamble of the Declaration of Independence issued by the majority of the Congressmen of this nation on July 4, 1776 made reference to Natural Law and was based on the Natural Law concepts as set forth by Vattel, Wolf and Pufendorf.

Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Declaration of Independence, had been previously responsible for writing the then new Constitution for the State of Virginia which was also based on the Natural Law principles of those same philosophers. In addition, shortly after the 1787 Constitutional Convention completed its work, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, then President of the College of William and Mary, in 1789 significantly changed that college’s Educational Model by eliminating the Greek and Hebrew requirements and created a new regime involving Natural Law and Political Science as the new curricula elements. James Madison had been the instructor for these courses prior to the 1789 educational regime change.

Thus, the concepts of Natural Law, set out in the Declaration of Independence, in the U.S. Constitution and in the State of Virginia Constitution, had never before in the history of the World been employed in the establishment of a representative republic.  It was the first time that a colony of a ruling power had set forth in a declaration to the sovereign that the sovereign had violated the Natural Rights of the colonists.

10. During the period that followed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 the principles of Liberty and Natural Law, as mentioned in the Preface of said Declaration, were frequently addressed by the American congressmen and that any interpretation of the term “natural born Citizen” at the time of the Signing of the Constitution in 1787 would be the position taken by Justices Fuller and Harlan in their dissent in the Wong Kim Ark  169 U.S. 715 case in which they wrote, “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit, it is unreasonable that …Natural Born Citizen applied to (just) anybody.” These Supreme Court Justices clearly meant that the Court must refer to a meaning under Natural Law because it cannot be that just any child born in the U.S. would become a citizen by birth here because that would not address the danger they then feared of persons with an allegiance to a foreign power could become citizens.

11. (a) On Sept. 4, 1787, during the consideration by the delegates of the Presidential Eligibility Requirements in Article 2, Paragraph 5, there was a very powerful OBJECTION expressed that had to have been heard and understood by the Convention. Specifically, the OBJECTION was: “NO NUMBER OF YEARS (of residence in the U.S.) COULD POSSIBLY PREPARE A FOREIGNER FOR THAT PLACE [the presidency].” Based on the widely felt fear of the damage that a foreigner could unleash on the nation if a foreigner filled the highest position of our government, a change was requested. To address this fear, the committee submitted a change to the Eligibility Requirements for the Office of the President in Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5, specifically that the president must be a “natural born Citizen.”

11. (b)(1) We contend that from the 6th Century B.C., known as the “Classical Period,” Greek and Roman prose literature was the basis for the Educational Model in the colleges in the American colonies during the 1740s, specifically as it related to the study of politics and nations. This field encompassed the “Natural Law”102 philosophy, and Law of Nations evolved under the influence of the Enlightenment.101

11. (b)(2) By 1760 the term “Natural Law” had become widely understood by the learned and that it had permeated to all201.  So suffused203 was a concern for natural law and its intellectual origins at the time of the Revolution that, as noted above, the opening line of the Declaration of Independence makes a direct reference to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God as the initial appeal to mankind for the justness of the American cause. Natural Law was thus the ultimate antidote to British claims of supremacy.204

4th_vattel11. (b)(3) By 1770 Emer de Vattel had become world renowned for his wonderful work Law of Nations and that it was the most influential treatise for the colonists.301 Specifically, he helped them in many areas including partnering302 to the exclusion of the sovereign, defensive unions with weaker states303, formation of perpetual confederation, as well as strategy for growth by association.304

There is absolutely no question but that Vattel was unrivaled in his influence on the American founders306, most all of whom were fluent in French and fully understood the French version of Law of Nations.

11. (b)(4) In view of the widespread publicity and familiarity with Natural Law, it is our contention and belief that the words “natural born,” which are part of the term “natural born Citizen,” were selected by the drafting committee because the words “natural born” indicate to any legally informed person that this is a special type of citizenship which is recognized in the Natural Law and in Vattel’s Law of Nations.

11. (b)(5) Natural Law recognizes the term jus sanguinis as a special form of citizenship in which a child’s nationality is determined by the citizenship of both of the child’s parents. This is a special form of citizenship, which is closely related to the citizenship of a child under section 212 of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

11. (b)(6) Since the term “natural born Citizen” was added to the Article 2 Presidential Eligibility Requirements of the Constitution to address the fear of those with foreign allegiances ascending to the presidency, everyone familiar with Vattel’s Law of Nations would know that Section 212 of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19 was involved because that section defines in French “Les naturels ou indigenes” are those persons born in a country of parents [plural] that are citizens.  The complete sentence, Les naturels ou indigenes,” sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens in French translates to “The natural or native, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

To further establish the relevance of Section 212, the last line of that section specifically makes it clear that this provision is directed to the special emotional relationship to the country if a child is born of parents who are citizens rather than foreigners.  The last sentence states, “…if he is born there of a foreigner it will only be his place of birth, and not his country.” It is not essential to show that there was an English language translation at the date of the 1787 Convention that matches the English words, “natural born Citizen.” The committee carefully chose the English words “natural born Citizen” for the Constitution as John Jay submitted them so that the sentence would have the identical meaning as the 1758 Vattel sentence in French and to make it obvious that the term refers to the Natural Law and to Vattel’s Law of Nations.

11. (c) The fact that the eligibility requirement was passed unanimously is generally powerful evidence that that the vote was the “original intent” of the delegates, which is the usual question that needs to be answered positively when evaluating and construing the enforceability of a constitutional provision.

Conclusion:

12. (a) It is clear that the term “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution which states, “No person except a natural born Citizen …shall be eligible for the Office of the President…”  requires a reference to the history of the United States to understand that term.

12. (b) We believe that in view of the degree of knowledge of the highly educated statesmen, congressmen and delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, this sentence in Article 2 clearly makes reference to the Natural Law and to Vattel’s Law of Nations, in which the term is clearly and unequivocally defined.

12. (c) We are aware of a 1987 article directed to the issue of Eligibility Qualifications of the President.401 The analysis of this paper is based on the Farrand Records of the Constitutional Convention of 1911. Much better records are available today as can be seen in the Madison # 11(a) record and in the Bancroft record in the #11(a) citation. In fact, the Farrand record they relied on failed to show that there was an objection from the floor when the Presidential Eligibility issue was raised.  This objection obviously led to the addition of the term “natural born Citizen.”  For some reason, in complete disregard to the ordinary facts of Conventions, this article suggests there was something strange about the fact that Farrand’s Record showed no debate on this issue.  Everyone knows that there were no official records made of the Convention and that the Farrand records were inherently defective. Further in a convention in a small facility like Carpenter’s Hall where issues are discussed privately and where there is no disagreement that it is very common that there is little or no debate, normally evidenced by the unanimous approval. Even more to the point, the analysis failed to consider external facts, such as the educational background of the delegates, the historical situation of the nation as well as the political fears of the founders as noted by John Jay and approved by George Washington.  This deficiency is best addressed by the words of Mr. Bederman:

fathers“Comparative constitutionalism has something to offer not only for the making of Constitutions but also their interpretation. If originalism is going to be consistently and legally espoused as a means of constitutional construction, then the complete mentalite of the framing generation needs to be observed.  If it matters what the ‘intelligent and informed people’ of the Framing generation understood the Constitution to mean, it would be folly to exclude from the analysis of the crucial element of the educational background, historical sensibilities, and political fears of those people. As I have suggested here, classicism and ancient history were crucial components of those understandings and beliefs, and were as significant as the Framer’s economic interests, their religious values and their confidence in the rule of law and the promise of liberty.402”

12. (d) In our opinion, it is absolutely clear that under Vattel’s Law of Nations, Chapter XIX, Section 212, that Mr. Obama does not comply with the Article 2, Section 1 eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution to hold the Office of the President. This analysis is also based on Mr. Obama’s public admission that his father, a Kenyan, was still a British citizen in 1961 when Barack II was born. For most of this nation, once they understand and appreciate the historical place of the doctrine of Natural Law and the Law of Nations, this conclusion will be accepted, resulting in a sad day, maybe the most sorrowful day ever for our nation. We are good people, Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Each of us will need to come to terms with the fact that Mr. Obama has known for many years that he is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. None of us can hide any longer from this fact and each of us will need to consider the ramifications to our children of the immorality of his actions.

Citations:

#1  URL: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Jus+naturae

#2  URL:  http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/law-of-nations

#3 James Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention Proceedings:

For Sept. 4, 1787: URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0904.html

For Sept. 7, 1787; URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0907.html

  George Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2, D. Appleton&Co.,1882, p.192-3

#4 French Educators in the Northern States during the Eighteenth Century, by  Rodrigue, E.M., The French Review, Vol.14, no.2 (Dec. 1940) p.95-108   URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/380865

      Bederman, David J., The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution, p. 21-25; p.109-110; p.162-163

URL: http://huguenot.netnation.com/general/huguenot.htm

URL: http://huguenot.askdefine.com/    The heritages of John Jay, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

#5 Biography of the Constitutional Delegates, 33 attorneys and 20 non-attorneys

URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates/

#6(a) William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Papers (1892), at  Oct. 1892,  William and Mary College Quarterly

URL: http://files.usgwarchives.org/va/schools/wmmary/pres0000.txt         See Pg. 73

URL: http://www.nlnrac.org/american/colonial-roots

#6(b) Bancroft, George,  History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2, D. Appleton&Co.,1882, p.436

John Jay, handwritten letter dated July 25, 1787 to George Washington and reverse side.

URL: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/exhibitions/constitution/essay.html   (press 10627 re July 25 letter)

URL: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/exhibitions/constitution/essay.html   (press 12782 re July 25 letter reverse)

#6(c)  James Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention Proceedings:

  For Sept. 4, 1787: URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0904.html

  For Sept. 7, 1787; URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0907.html

   Bancroft, George, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2, D. Appleton&Co.,1882, p.192-3

#7  Delegate Listing including Biographical data—33 attorneys and 20 non-attorneys

URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates For listing colleges of delegates see URL: : http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates/education.html

#8  re book copies  URL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/63130788/Ben-Franklin-thanks-Charles-Dumas-for-Copies-of-Vattel-s-Law-of-Nations-or-Principles-of-Natural-Law

 re: Dumas/loaning

Re Library Co in Carpenter’s Hall URL:

 www.librarycompany.org/about/Instance.pdf  See Page 5.

Re 1789 LCP Catalogue           URL: http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogueofbooks01libr/catalogueofbooks01libr_djvu.txt    At this site, you will find the 1789 catalog of the LCP. It is very difficult to navigate the catalog because their cataloging system is a nightmare—it is partially based on the size of the book and the catalog doesn’t indent any subjects.

Under VIII, 228 Law Quarto, no 224, it states Law of Nations or Principles of law of nature applied to affairs of nations and foreigners, English, Translated from the French of M.de Vattel, 2 vol.in one, London 1760.

and Under VI, General Politics, Quarto 177, no. 303 it states, 1775 version, “Le Droit des gens par M.de Vattel. Gift of Mr. Dumas.

# 9(a) No citations

#9(b) Re: connect of nat. Law and Declaration   URL:  http://www.nlnrac.org/american/declaration-of-independence

 Re T. Jefferson   Thomas Jefferson, “Writings”, (Merril Patterson . ed.; Library of Am. Ed., 1984

Re W&M   William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Papers (1892), at Oct 1892 William and Mary College Quarterly

URL:  http://files.usgwarchives.org/va/schools/wmmary/pres0000.txt  See P. 73

Re T. Jefferson and Nat Law:. Bederman, David J., The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution, p, 46-47

#10 Wong Kim Ark  169 U.S. 715

#11(a) James Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention Proceedings:

For Sept. 4, 1787: URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0904.html

For Sept. 7, 1787; URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0907.html

   Bancroft, George, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2, D. Appleton&Co., 1882, p.192-3

11(b)(1) Bederman, David J, “The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution”

(101)  Pg. ix

(102)..Pg. 21; Pg. 26

#11(b)(2)

(201)  Bederman    Pg. 21

(203)  Bederman    Pg. 46

(204)  Bederman    Pg.  46

#11(b)(3)

(301)   Bederman    Pg. 109

(302)   Bederman    Pg. 110

(303)   Bederman    Pg. 110

(304)  Bederman    Pg. 110

(305)  Bederman    Pg. 110

(306)  Bederman    Pg. 273—Footnotes 99—104 Vattel

#11(b)(4) none

#11(b)(5) URL: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jus+sanguinis

#11(b)(6) none

#11(c) URL: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v103/n2/703/lr103n2kay.pdf

#11(d) no citations#

#12(a) none

#12(b) none

#12(c)   (401) Nelson, M, “Constitutional Qualification for President”, Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 17, No.2, (Spring 1987), pp. 383-399

(402) Bederman   Pg. 231

#12(d) none

Amil Imani is the author of Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and Operation Persian Gulf.

118 Responses to “The Biggest Cover-up in American History”

  1. KenyanBornObama says:

    Well it’s about darn time I see MY research starting to take hold!

    I made a video about all this a few years back, but no one would pay any attention:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE

  2. JEANNIEMAC says:

    Bill Clinton has been in China’s pocket since his days in Arkansas. They helped to fund his campaign for governor. He allowed our computer technology to be sold to China. China, Russia, and many European countries are allied in the one world government movement. Our USA is the shining jewel, the last prize they want to own.
    They paid for Obama to get into the White House, and for the media to keep it secret.
    In 1991, David Rockefeller, at a Bilderberg meeting in Germany, thanked the NY Times, the Washington Post and other media, for keeping secret for over forty years, their plans for one world government.
    WE must get all of our friends, relatives and contacts to vote for Romney and Conservatives for Congress. If Obama still gets to stay in Washington,be prepared to “stand your ground”.

  3. Diane says:

    I think everyone in DC should be held accountable for not telling the American people the truth about Obama, but the end result is that which was planned and plotted for years ago. The national divide is upon is, even though it hasn’t been openly discussed with the public. Obama was put in place for a reason,,,,,,and it sure wasn’t what we expected. He will go down in history as the man who brought back segregation and division. There is a method behind the madness.

  4. Leslie says:

    We have Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who thoroughly vetted John McCain by requesting his birth certificate in 2008. There was heated discussion for one week since McCain was born in Panama and it was concluded McCain was constitutionally eligible for president. When Senator Obama was asked for his birth certificate, he refused to give it. Now we know there is one and only one effort we must all join together and do: House Speaker John Boehner needs to vet all the presidential and VP candidates with ORIGINAL birth certificates. I look at Rick Santorum and wonder: is he eligible? His dad was born in Italy. (President Obama’s BC online is not acceptable…it has to be original and put in the hands of John Boehner.) Also, we must uphold the Constitution. This document is what has worked since its inception. We are a nation of laws, people of ingenuity, America.

  5. Schmutzli says:

    Thank you for a rational and logical outline of the issues. Obama’s own words and actions tell us everything we need to know about his legitimacy- he is not legitimate. If there was nothing about his past to hide, everything about his past would not be hidden. Even today, a lot of what goes on in the White House is kept secret. Unfortunately, any attempt to vet Obama will be met with 1- silence from the republican candidate and party, 2- derision in the media, and 3- the call for the accuser to be committed to a mental institution, or at least submitted to intense diversity training. The time to vet Obama was 2008, and McCain and the republican party very publicly refused to do so. Why Hillary and the Clinton machine didn’t is a much bigger mystery…

  6. Holmes says:

    There is something wicked about the cowardice displayed through the failure of Republican legislators to, at the very least, hold hearings about the numerous questions surrounding Obama’s past and character. He is, without doubt, a dual citizen, ineligible to hold the Presidential Office. Where is the outrage at the basis for the ruling by Judge Mahili in Georgia, who trumped Supreme Court precedents and a 2008 Senate Resolution with the opinion of an Indiana moron?

    In addition to all the nice questions one may ask about Obama’s college records, selective service registration fraud, foreign travel using a fraudulent passport, and overt friendships with communist radicals, let’s not forget to inquire into his connection to murders of Donald Young and two other homosexual members of Trinity Church in late 2008, Rev. Wright’s “Down Low Club“, and his leisure activities in the steam rooms of Man’s Country, Chicago‘s preeminent private club for homosexuals.

    The only logical conclusions to why the truth about Obama has not been vigorously pursued are either people’s lives have been threatened or a threat of racial violence has been made. Obama has close ties with the New Black Panther Party, and his best buds control the union thugs. Are extortion and blackmail ever used by the Chicago Crime Syndicate?

    Not one Senator or Representative has stood on either house floor demanding answers. Not one, in four years. All of them are complicit in the accelerating destruction of our Republic. Stand up for America and your constituents, you pathetic bunch of yellow pussies. Put an end to the biggest political fraud ever perpetrated, and restore the Constitutional foundation of this great Country.

    It may already be too late, but it will certainly be too late if this disingenuous, communist fraud is allowed another four years unchallenged to complete his socialist “transformation” into pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-elitist governance. One way or another, Obama and his ilk must be exposed and stopped.

  7. David Farrar: “I am afraid it goes deeper and longer than you suppose.”

    What do you know about what I suppose?

  8. Jerry says:

    This is the best documented of any I’ve read thus far….and, I think, I’ve read most out there on this topic. The only question raised for me is whether an NBC follows ONLY the paternal line, as Vattel clearly states. or we need to refer to Minor v. Happersett where the judge noted “parents” (meaning both). Either way, BHO is clearly ineligible to sit at the Resolute Desk.

    I find it remarkable that seemingly everyone in the DNC, the Congress and the MSM is complicit in this disgrace, either through apathy, ignorance or knowing fraud. Amil seems to blame Obama. I, on the other hand, point to the massive conspiracy which put him in office.

    This is a National catastrophe of epic proportions and there is no simple way forward. Simply defeating him in November is grossly unsatisfactory since the horrors he has burdened us with, such as myriad legislation, over regulation from the EPA and other agencies, Czars up the gazoo and two Socialist Justices of the SCOTUS would remain. Impeachment is out since he is not legally our President. The only reasonable answer, though the fallout would be dramatic, is charging him with treason for refusing to uphold the Constitution – his sworn duty. What a mess that would be. The House could charge him, but the trial is the responsibility of the Senate….and that won’t happen. So, it appears we’ll have to wait until after the election to resolve the issues, when a stronger majority will exist in the House and the balance in the Senate has swung significantly to the right….and, hopefully, with a Republican President.

    The 100 or so responses posted are some of the most intellectual blogs I’ve read anywhere. I hope by November you will all have a greater interest in the electoral process… This is, without question, the most important election of our lives and every vote counts.

    Jerry

    • Jerry: “The only question raised for me is whether an NBC follows ONLY the paternal line, as Vattel clearly states [...]”

      Vattel does not clearly state that, he writes in The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law, book 1, chapter 19, § 212: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

      Jerry: “This is, without question, the most important election [the presidential election of 2012] of our lives and every vote counts.”

      I am afraid this is not correct because the election fraud perpetrated in presidential elections — especially since 1988 when the computer voting systems have been important — is quite obvious. Remember the saying attributed to Josef Stalin: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”

      • I am afraid it goes deeper and longer than you suppose. Mitt Romney may not be a nbC as well. I lack only the resources to gather the necessary documentary evidence to file against him when I file against Obama after they become their party’s nominees later this summer.

        George Romney (Mitt’s father) was born in Mexico to expatriated US citizen parents who gave up their US citizen (via LDS church officials acting as their agent), along with 70,000 other Mormons, to be allowed by Mexican authorities to colonize in Mexico.

        However, under the Third International Conference of American States, held on August 13, 1906, in Rio de Janeiro, a convention between the United States and most of the Latin American countries, including Mexico. It stated that if a naturalized citizen, a native of any of the countries signing the present convention, and naturalized in another, shall again take up his residence in his native country without the intention of returning to the country in which he has been naturalized, he will be considered as having re-assumed his original citizenship, and has having renounced the citizenship acquired by the said naturalization.

        The problem is, when George Romney was born, he was a born of parents who were “perteptual inhanitants of Mexico and not US citizens. When the Romneys returned to US jurisdiction, everyone was again US citizens, with the exception of George Romney, who was a Mexican national by birth.

        I have presented the evidence that is out there, including Mexican Naturalization documents for members of Mitt direct family; the second Mexican Constitution of 1857 that clearly states foreign nationals were not allowed to own land, build dwellings and towns, own water rights, proselytizing a new religion, et cetera, all activities Mexican nationals would have been allowed to do, but not US citizens.

        Although, like Obama, Mitt Romney has reacted to these allegations with complete and utter silence and disdain; but he hasn’t said they are untrue.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Admin says:

        Mitt’s father, George Romney, under US Law was a US citizen by birth, since his father was a US citizens on the date of his birth and since both parents had resided in US before George’s birth. It doesn’t affect this decision that George was born in Mexico.

        George was born prior to 1934, and the best description of US law prior to 1934 is from the Canadian Law Firm Chang AND Boos. Since George and his wife were US citizens and Mitt was born in the US, Mitt, under Vattel section 212, is a Natural Born Citizen as required under US Constitution.

        See the following:

        Date of birth of child
        Parent’s Residence Requirement to Transmit Citizenship Child’s Residence Requirement to Retain Citizenship
        Before 5/24/1934 father is a citizen who resided in the U.S. before the child’s birth None.

        see http://www.greencardlawyers.com/citizenship/citizenbybirth.html

        Peng and Weber Immigration lawyers

        Immigration and Naturalization Act. 8 U.S.C 1401

        INA: ACT 301 – NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

        Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

        (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

        (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

        (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

        (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

        (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

        (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

        (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

        (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

        CHANG AND BOOS’
        CANADA – US IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER

        U.S. Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad
        Written by Henry J. Chang
        Introduction The laws regarding the transmission of United States citizenship to children born outside the United States can be very complex. A distinction is made between legitimate and illegitimate childen for the purposes of citizenship eligibility. In addition, the laws that were in effect at the time of the child’s birth determine whether citizenship is transmitted in a particular case. Finally, depending upon when the child was born, he or she may have been subject to certain conditions subsequent, which were required for retention of citizenship.
        Legitimate Children
        Conditions Precedent — Required Residence of Parent(s)
        Prior to May 24, 1934, children born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were United States citizens, acquired U.S. citizenship at birth unless the father had never “resided” in the United States prior to the child’s birth. In the absence of a specific definition of “resided”, the Immigration and Naturalization Service took the position that even a temporary sojourn by the U.S. citizen parent was sufficient to comply with this requirement.
        Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.
        On or after May 24, 1934, a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother (or both) was a citizen of the United States at the time of the child’s birth, would be considered a United States citizen provided that the U.S. citizen parent had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. The previous interpretation of “resided” continued to apply under the 1934 Statute.
        The 1940 Statute became effective on January 13, 1941. The 1940 Statute defined the meaning of residence as the general place of abode. Although this did not necessarily require the establishment of a domicile or place of permanent residence, it contemplated the establishment of an actual principal dwelling place.
        The 1940 Statute also provided for more stringent requirements for prior residence where, at the time of the child’s birth, one of the parents was a U.S. citizen and the other was an alien. On or after January 13, 1941, in the case of a child born to a U.S. citizen parent and an alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent had to have resided in the United States or its outlying possessions for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after attaining the age of 16 years in order to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
        In 1946, Congress modified the requirement slightly but only for the benefit of U.S. citizens who had served honorably in the U.S. armed forces during World War II. The U.S. parent’s prior residence requirement could be satisfied by residence in the U.S. for 10 years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of 12 years if the U.S. citizen parent had served honorably in the U.S. armed forces after December 7, 1941 but before December 31, 1946.
        On December 24, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the “1952 Statute”) became effective. As under the previous statute, where both parents were U.S. citizens, one parent would have to have resided in the United States prior to the child’s birth in order to transmit U.S. citizenship. The meaning of residence previously applied under the 1940 Statute was essentially the same as under the 1952 Statute.
        In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. “Physical presence” was different from the concept of “residence” which had applied under the previous statute. The physical presence requirement could be satisfied by mere presence in the United States even if the person had not established a legal residence there.
        The physical presence requirement was intended to preclude extended absences from the United States during the required period. However, it was found to be too restrictive. In 1966, Congress passed an amendment which, for children born on or after December 24, 1952, permitted the transmitting U.S. citizen parent to count presence abroad in the following capacities towards the physical presence requirement:
        1. honorable service in the United States Armed Forces;
        2. employment by the United States Government;
        3. employment by an international organization with which the United States is associated; or
        4. physical presence abroad as a dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person employed in one of the above categories.
        The Immigration and Nationality Amendments of November 14, 1986 further liberalized the transmitting U.S. citizen parent’s physical presence requirements. For children born on or after November 14, 1986, a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent would acquire U.S. citizenship if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for at least 5 years, at least 2 of which were after attaining the age of 14 years.
        Conditions Subsequent — Required Residence of the Child
        Prior to May 24, 1934, there were no requirements imposed on the child born abroad as a condition subsequent to retaining U.S. citizenship. However, the 1934 Statute did impose retention requirements on the child unless both parents were U.S. citizens.
        Where only one of the child’s parents was a U.S. citizen, the child would have to reside continuously in the United States for at least 5 years immediately before his 18th birthday and take the Oath of Allegiance within 6 months after his or her 21st birthday. The retention requirements contained in the 1934 statute were repealed by the Nationality Act of 1940 (the “1940 Statute”). Therefore, no one actually lost their citizenship before the retention requirements were repealed. However, the 1940 Statute retroactively applied its new retention requirements to any children born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent on or after May 24, 1934.
        As stated above, the 1940 Statute retroactively applied more liberal retention requirements to children born abroad with one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent on or after May 24, 1934. Such a child had to have resided in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling at least five years between the ages of 13 and 21 in order to retain U.S. citizenship. The child would also lose U.S. citizenship if he or she did not establish residence by the time he or she reached the age of 16 or the child’s continued residence abroad made it impossible to comply with the residence requirements.
        The retention requirement was made specifically inapplicable to a child whose U.S. citizen parent, at the time of the child’s birth, was employed by the United States Government, certain United States organizations, or an international organization with which the United States was associated. However, the 1946 amendment which permitted relaxed prior residence requirements for a U.S. citizen parent who had served honorably in the United States Armed Forces during World War II specified that citizenship retention requirements would apply to the children of such parents.
        The 1952 Statute imposed a revised requirement on any such children to be continuously physically present in the United States for at least 5 years between the ages of 14 and 28 in order to retain citizenship. The retention requirement was retroactively applied to any person born on or after May 24, 1934.
        It was not certain whether or not persons who had already lost citizenship under the 1940 Statute’s retention requirements would be reinstated even if they were able to comply with the 1952 Statute’s retention requirements. However, as persons who have previously lost citizenship for failure to comply with prior retention requirements may now regain their citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance (discussed below), the issue is no longer as significant as it once was.
        The physical presence requirement was found to be too restrictive and it was soon modified in a 1957 amendment. The amendment provided that absences from the United States aggregating less than 12 months would not break the continuity of physical presence for retention of citizenship.
        Recognizing the hardships resulting from the 1952 Statute’s retention requirements, Congress passed an amendment in 1972. The Act of October 27, 1972 (the “1972 Statute”) liberalized the retention requirement so that any person who had acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent was now required to be continuously and physically present in the United States for only 2 years between the ages of 14 and 28. In addition, the 1972 Statute provided that absences from the United States for an aggregate of less than 60 days during the required 2 year period would not break the continuity of physical presence for the purpose of satisfying the retention requirements. Finally, the 1972 Statute provided relief from the normal retention requirements for a child whose alien parent was naturalized as a U.S. citizen before the child reached the age of 18 and the child began residing in the United States before attaining that age.
        The 1972 Statute left unchanged the language in the 1952 Statute which provided that it was applicable to persons born on of after May 24, 1952. It is at least arguable that the liberal retention requirements of the 1972 Statute should apply even to persons born on or after that May 24, 1952 who had already lost their citizenship for failure to comply with previous retention requirements. However, as persons who have previously lost citizenship for failure to comply with prior retention requirements may now regain their citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance, the issue is no longer as significant as it once was.
        Although, taking the Oath of Allegiance reinstates U.S. citizenship only from the date of the oath, unless establishing U.S. citizenship during the period between purported loss of citizenship and the taking of the oath of allegiance is crucial (such as where the individual seeks to transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born during this period), the whether or not the 1972 Statute is retroactively applied will not be relevant.
        On October 10, 1978, the retention requirements were completely repealed. However, Congress did not give this statute retroactive effect. Although any persons who had not yet lost citizenship for failure to satisfy the previous retention requirements were relieved of the requirement to do so, those persons who had lost U.S. citizenship prior to October 10, 1978 were not reinstated.
        Illegitimate Children
        Where the U.S. Citizen is the Mother
        As mentioned above, the statutes prior to 1934 did not permit the transmission of citizenship through a U.S. citizen mother. However, the 1934 Statute permitted either the father or mother to transmit U.S. citizenship. This was construed as also authorizing the transmission of citizenship to an illegitimatechild born abroad on or after May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother. However, the 1934 Statute did not apply retroactively to births prior to May 24, 1934.
        The 1940 Statute was the first to specifically adopt provisions regulating the status of illegitimate children. It provided that, where paternity had not been established before the child reached the age of 21 through legitimation (normally accomplished by the marriage of the child’s parents) or court adjudication, an illegitimate child could acquire U.S. citizenship through its citizen mother as long as the mother had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. .
        The 1940 Statute applied to illegitimate children born either before or after the date of its enactment. While it did not confer U.S. citizenship on an illegitimate child of a U.S. citizen mother who had been legitimated by an alien father prior to the child reaching the age of 21, it did not adversely affect the status of anyone who acquired U.S. citizenship prior to such legitimation. Children born on or after January 13, 1941 could acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under the 1940 Statute and did not lose such status, even they were later legitimated by their alien father. Further, children who were born after May 24, 1934 but before January 13, 1941 could acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under the 1934 Statute and did not lose such status as a result of the 1940 Statute, even if they were later legitimated by their alien father. In other words, an illegitimate child born to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father would only be denied citizenship if he or she:
        1. was born before May 23, 1934;
        2. was legitimated before reaching the age of 21; and
        3. was legitimated before January 13, 1941(the effective date of the 1940 Statute).
        In light of the 1994 amendment (discussed below) which retroactively authorizes the transmission of U.S. citizenship by U.S. citizen mothers to children (legitimate or illegitimate) born prior to May 23, 1934, the issue of legitimation by an alien father is no longer relevant to the transmission of U.S. citizenship by a U.S. citizen mother to an illegitimate child.
        The 1952 Statute provided that an illegitimate child acquired U.S. citizenship from a U.S. citizen mother if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth and had been physicially present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year. This provision did not adversely affect the status of anyone who had previously acquired U.S. citizenship. This provision is still in effect.
        Where the U.S. Citizen Parent is the Father
        Where the U.S. citizen parent is the father or an illegitimate child, the issue of legitimation becomes important. Prior to the 1940 Statute, there was no statutory provision defining the rights of an illegitimate child born to a U.S. citizen father. However, the prior case law had determined that legitimation of an illegitimate child in accordance with the laws of the father’s domicile retroactively conferred U.S. citizenship on the child, provided that the father had resided in the United States prior to the child’s birth. According to these cases, there was no time limit for when legitimation had to occur.
        The 1940 Statute provided that citizenship rights could be transmitted to such children, under the same conditions as a legitimate child, only if the child’s paternity took place while the child was still under the age of 21. Paternity could be established by either legitimation or court adjudication.
        A July 31, 1946 amendment provided that, even if no legitimating acts occurred, illegitimate children of U.S. citizen fathers could still obtain U.S. citizenship at birth but only if:
        1. the father served in the U.S. armed forces during World War II (after December 7, 1941 and before December 31, 1946); and
        2. the father had resided ten years or more in the U.S., at least five years of which were after the age of 12.
        The 1952 Statute slightly modified the conditions for the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by illegitimate children born after its effective date. It authorized the transmission of U.S. citizenship from the father if the transmitting father satisfied the prior residence requirements applicable to legitimate children. The provision for adjudication of paternity was omitted from the 1952 Statute. However, the broad definition of legitimation in the 1952 Statute permitted legitimation in accordance with the law of the father’s residence or domicile or the child’s residence or domicile.
        Amendments contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of November 14, 1986 granted citizenship at birth to illegitimate children born abroad to U.S. citizen fathers provided that the following applied:
        1. the father has U.S. citizenship at the time of the child’s birth;
        2. the blood relationship between the child and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
        3. the father (unless deceased) agrees in writing to provide financial support for the child until the child reaches 18 years of age;
        4. before the child reaches the age of 18, one of the following has occurred:
        1. the child is legitimated under the law of the child’s residence or domicile;
        2. the father acknowledges paternity of the child in writing under oath; or
        3. paternity is established by adjudication in a competen court.
        The 1986 amendments apply only to persons who had not attained the age of 18 on November 14, 1986. Persons born prior to that date were subject to the previous statutory standard. Persons whose paternity had been established by legitimation before November 14, 1986 were also subject to the previous standard. However, a person who was at least 15 but under 18 on November 14, 1986 could choose either standard to qualify for U.S. citizenship.

        Retention Requirements for Illegitimate Children

        The retention requirements applicable to legitimate children are inapplicable where U.S. citizenship is transmitted by a U.S. citizen mother to an illegitimate child. Such a child obtains unconditional U.S. citizenship and is not required to establish residence in the U.S. or to take any other action to retain such citizenship. However, where the U.S. citizen parent is the father, statutes before 1986 place an illegitimate child in the same position as a legitimate child once legitimation has occurred. Such a child is therefore required to establish residence in the United States in the same manner as a legitimate child.

        Recent Amendments
        The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-416, 108 Stat. 4305) (“INTCA”) has given rise to several changes in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) which relate to the transmission, at birth, of U.S. citizenship to children born abroad. The implementation of INTCA has not affected the various residence/physical presence requirements imposed on U.S. citizen parents in previous statutes. In order to determine whether or not the U.S. citizen parent has complied with these requirements, the statute that applied at the time of the child’s birth must be considered.

        However, INA §301(h) now provides that any person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) on May 24, 1934 outside the U.S. to an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who resided in the U.S. is considered to be a U.S. citizen at birth. The provision is to be retroactively applied as though the amendment had been made at the time of the person’s birth, subject to only two exceptions which are outside the scope of this article. Also, any provision of law that provides for a person’s loss of citizenship or nationality if a person failed to come to, or reside or be physically present in the United States shall not apply to a person claiming citizenship under §301(h).
        Prior to INTCA, a considerable number of children born to one alien parent and one U.S. citizen parent lost their citizenship as a result of their failure to satisfy the various retention requirements which were in effect from May 24, 1934 to October 10, 1978. INA §324(d)(1) now provides that a person who was a U.S. citizen at birth who lost citizenship for failing to meet certain physical presence retention requirements in effect before October 10, 1978 will, upon taking the oath of allegiance, once again be considered be a U.S. citizen and have the status of a U.S. citizen by birth. Persons born prior to May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father and persons born on or after May 24, 1934 but before October 10, 1978 to a U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, who lost U.S. citizenship for failure to comply with the retention requirements may now regain citizenship in light of these amendments.

        Copyright (C) Chang and Boos (2011). All rights reserved.

      • @Admin says:
        July 2, 2012 at 5:46 pm

        You see…it’s as if they don’t see what I have written.

        Whomever ‘Admin’ is, the predicate I have established, with altogether more prima facie evidence than you have thus far posted, is that George Romney’s parents, although natural born US Citizens, were not US Citizens at the time of George’s birth in Mexico.

        I say again: George Romney was born in 1907, in Colonia Dublán in Galeana in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, to expatiated parents. Although Gaskel Romney and Anna Pratt were born US citizens; they were not US citizens in 1907. In 1907 both of them were Mexican nationals.

        All you have stated thus far is simply code based on the assumption that Gaskell and Anna did not give up their US citizenship or lost it during their 25-year sojourn in Mexico.

        What I am saying is all the evidence I have tells me they weren’t considered by the Mexican government as US citizens.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Frank says:

        You state in your case summary words, ” What am saying is all the evidence I have tells me they weren’t considered by the the Mexican government as US citizens.”

        The policy of the Mexican Government as to citizenship is not relevant. US law is determinative of US Citizenship irrespective of the Mexican government law as to rights of Mexican Citizenship. Some states even allow dual citizenship, but even this fact is irrelevant.

        The US law has been clear. The only way for a US born citizen to give up US citizenship has been by their clear and unequivocal abandonment, such as by action such as joining the Mexican army voluntarily. Simply because the Mexican Government may have considered a person to be entitled to call themselves a Mexican Citizen is not proof of abandonment of a person’s right to US citizenship.

    • @Frank says:
      July 3, 2012 at 10:23 pm

      “The US law has been clear. The only way for a US born citizen to give up US citizenship has been by their clear and unequivocal abandonment, such as by action such as joining the Mexican army voluntarily. Simply because the Mexican Government may have considered a person to be entitled to call themselves a Mexican Citizen is not proof of abandonment of a person’s right to US citizenship.”

      Not “a person,” Frank: 70,000 people. And, yes; how a foreign country sees its foreign inhabitants living under its jurisdiction is prima facie evidence they have unequivocally abandoned their US citizenship.

      As you pointed out; there was no dual citizenship agreements with Mexico, not then, not now.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  9. Steve Acuff says:

    So what about Rubio???

    • Terry says:

      Vetting Rubio 2: A Waste of Time and Money

      Rene Guerra, June 25, 2012

      “For the umpteenth time elevated to the googolplex* power, dammit, Rubio is not eligible!”…would Aaron Cantor exclaim this time, upping his exasperation.

      Some of you have either written to me or talked with me attempting to rebut the notions and contentions in the column by Cantor Vetting Rubio: A Waste of Time and Money that I sent out a few days ago regarding the subject of “natural-born” citizen as related to Marco Rubio and, logically, to Obama.

      Before getting into my counter-rebuttal, a clarification is necessary here first: The rub is not about citizenship in general, but about a particular case of citizenship, that one of “natural-born” citizenship.

      Upon the nomination of Obama as candidate to the Presidency** by the DemocRat Party and, more intensively so, after fools –leftists and non-leftists, them all alike– got him ensconced in the White House, Obama’s comrades, sympathizers and naively misguided folks have, all, taken it to making all kinds of claims about what “natural-born” citizen is.

      **–The DemocRat Party nominated him as the candidate to becoming the head of only the executive branch of only the federal government, per the enumerated stipulations in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America…and not to become either King of The United States of America or The Dear Leader, as the DemocRats deem him or as what he deems himself: the dictator that he in reality is. A dictator is that government official who arrogates upon himself the power to nullify existing legitimate laws and who, instead of serving as a public servant, rules at will, dictating and emitting edicts as he pleases, making thus the people his subjects. Such characterization fits perfectly Obama; he has morphed to an all-out dictator, and his administration, to an all-out dictatorship, e.g., the amnesty he decreed last week, and the “divorce” he adopted when he decided that ICE will not respond to inquiries from Arizona regarding suspected illegal aliens, despite that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona was entitled to make such inquiries.

      They make most of such claims mingling –maliciously the ones, just innocently but utterly mistakenly the others– Constitution 215 (i.e., Chapter 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States of America), where the “natural-born” requisite is explicitly written (i.e., “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”), with the first sentence in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, where the case of “generic” American citizenship is addressed (i.e., “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”)

      Others come up with convoluted explanations citing this and that, when the case is solved easily by simply referring to Constitution 215 –the supreme law in the United States of America– and The Law of Nations as explained next.

      Hence, and to make it easier for you, I am expanding on the “natural-born” citizenship typification in Constitution 215: When it comes to what the meaning of “natural-born citizen” is, the framers of the Constitution –mainly James Madison (i.e., the disputed “Father of the Constitution” and, on his own right, the true author and “Father of the Bill of Rights”) and a few other statesmen and theoreticians in the Colonies at that time– adhered to the principles of The Law of Nations.

      The Law of Nations is the jurisprudence codex compiled in 1758 by Emerich de Vattel, “…a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy.”

      You can find a copy of The Law of Nations at the website whose URL is http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm.

      The Law of Nations was –at the time the Constitution was framed and ratified– THE norm in terms of jurisprudence related to societal and international relations.

      James Madison and the rest of drafters of the Constitution were, most of them, erudite individuals and, logically, very familiar with and, as customary at the time, adherents to the tenets, contentions, notions and formulations in The Law of Nations.

      In other words, when the framers referred to “natural-born citizen” in the Constitution of the Unites States of America, they referred to it using the juridical acceptation in The Law of Nations, which, at the time, was THE norm.

      And what The Law of Nations says about “natural-born citizen” in Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212, Clause 2 is specifically and explicitly the following: “…natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”.

      Were Obama’s two parents American citizens?

      No! Absolutely and undeniably, not.

      Of the two, only his mother was an American citizen; his father was a British subject born in what now is Kenya…as everyone knows.

      Consequently, the dictator has never been a “natural-born citizen”.

      He may be a plain American citizen, either by jus sanguinis from his mother and/or by jus soli…that, if he was born on American soil; however he is NOT a “natural-born citizen”, because his father was NOT an American citizen at all. That, in addition to the probable fact that he may have been born in Kenya, as many plausibly sustain.

      The high hierarchs of the DemocRat Party (i.e., whose ideological marrow is the very incarnation of the hardcore-Left in America) knew it then, and know it now, but they covered –and keep covering– it up…out of the most heinous sense of anti-Americanism.

      The high hierarchs of the Republican Party knew that too, and know it now, but –most likely, out of sheer cowardice, fretting “offending” blacks and afraid of being labeled “racists” by the DemocRats if they raise the issue– they covered, and keep covering, it up as well.

      And the gist of the matter here is that the same yardstick in The Law of Nations applies to Marco Rubio, and to Nikki Haley and to Bobby Jindal as well, one of whom –particularly Rubio– may result being Romney’s VP ticket-mate.

      In those three cases –Rubio’s, Haley’s and Jindal’s– the situation is more accentuated; their parents –the mothers and the fathers– were NOT American citizens at the time the three were born.

      Those three are not “natural-born citizens”; consequently, they can never occupy the Presidency, therefore, neither of the three should be chosen by Romney as candidate to Vice-President.

      For the umpteenth-plus-one time elevated to the googolplex power, dammit, Rubio is not eligible!

      The high hierarchs of the Republican Party know this as well, but –with the help of pundits such as Hannity, O’Reilly, Levin, Coulter, Gibson and many others — they are covering it up. (By the way, they are among the conservative pundits who –joining Pelosi, Reed, Schumer, Durbin and the rest of hierarchs in the hardcore-Left, including the “mainstream” media– call us “kooks”, us, we grassroots conservatives who want to exercise our inalienable constitutional right and unavoidable civic duty of demanding from Obama unequivocal and unambiguous proof of complete compliance with Constitution 215).

      Why are they doing that?

      Most likely, out of fear of being branded directly racists and, obliquely,”birthers”, by the DemocRats, who –aided by a “mainstream” media maliciously oblivious to the matter of “natural-born” citizenship in Rubio’s case– would like to, in turn, preempt any attempt by non-leftist Americans adherent to the Constitution to –once Obama is out of the White House past noon, January 21, 2013– start a thorough, deep and extensive investigation on how a constitutionally-grossly-unqualified individual –i.e., Obama– came, first, to be nominated by the DemocRats their candidate to the Presidency, and, second, sworn President of the United States of America…by none else than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, John Roberts.

      ObamaSwearingInCeremonyWithCommunists01e.jpg

      If Romney –who, by the way, must solve his dual (i.e., American and Mexican) citizenship problem– gets elected President along with a vice-President that is NOT a “natural-born citizen”, the DemocRats would be gripping him tightly by those male-body parts dangling between the legs that, ouch, hurt a lot if clasped, in this most critical issue. Then, Romney –along with RINOs and establishment-Republicans– would block any such investigation on Obama…out of fear of having their own “natural-born citizen” issue exposed.

      Such an investigation on Obama could definitely result –much to Romney’s glory and, more importantly, to great benefit to America– in decimating politically the entire DemocRat high hierarchy…for, Pelosi, Reed, Schumer, Durbin, Boxer, Levin, Leahy, Feinstein, and hundreds more have participated as accomplices in the criminal usurpation and impersonation Obama has committed.

      Furthermore, such an investigation would probably destroy politically, even, the entire DemocRat Party itself as an institution, and for decades, the same way the collapse of the Soviet Union destroyed politically the Soviet Communist Party, and as, by carom, resulted in destroying as well the Mexican Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI — acronym in Spanish) –the arch-corrupt and venal, leftistoid political party that wrecked Mexico uninterruptedly for more than 70 years. Neither the Communist Party of Russia nor those of the other members of the defunct Soviet Union and Soviet Satellites have recovered from their collapse, and neither has the Mexican PRI. No one ever thought before the phenomenal collapse of the Soviet Union that all those political parties would in effect disappear. The DemocRat Party could follow that fate.

      Thus, Romney would be enormously stupid if he renders himself fangless (more than he already is due to Romneycare) by pairing with someone who is not a “natural-born citizen”, e.g., Rubio.

      But if Romney decides for a VPthat is not a “natural-born citizen”, such as Rubio, Romney will have no alternative but –behaving politically either as a coward or as a consummate weasel– dodge making such investigation…under the excuse that his VP would fall along with the DemocRat falling-dominoes.

      What Romney will do from now to election-day and thereafter will depend on the pressure that grassroots conservatives, particularly through the Tea Party Movement, subject him to.

      You all know of the tepid reaction Romney had to the savaging of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law (and Rubio’s expected silence, for, he essentially opposed SB 1070) with his insipid and dull statement.

      Beware, by the way, that this ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on Arizona’s SB 1070 law could very well be a portentous wraith of what the U.S. Supreme Court will flog us with next Thursday by upholding Obamacare, thus giving the dictator more power to destroy America further.

      If you want to help strengthen America, visit and join

      http://www.USASurvival.org

      http://www.RiseUpAmerica.net

      • They keep bringing up Sen. Rubio and the others because they know the law and you don’t.

        You are right: they are betraying themselves. But can you blame them for following an unconstitutional law?

        They believe Wong says all person born within US borders are Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born Citizens. This is what Obama believes; what Rubio believes and what all the others believe. But they would like to keep this little bit as quiet as possible, so they have their surrogates go out and keep raising the issue.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  10. Marty says:

    Its all spelled out ….. there can not be any more debate about what is and what hasn’t been proven scientifically. The question is when do the so-called Representatives of the PEOPLE take the necessary action. There is of course an action of REDRESS !!!!!!! This is an action the public has had since its inception ….. I must say that it doesn’t have to come to this but there is certainly a lot of TRASH that needs to go out with the rest of the GARBAGE that has been deceiving the American public for sometime. Who in our LEADERSHIP is qualified to assume this role ….. GOD only KNOWS !!!! Because all we have been given is men of mediocrity …. or WORSE in current case at hand.

    I am a loss for words about the current state of affairs in our Congressional branch…..they are either inept or just plain deceptive and liars !!!!!!!

  11. Clarence DeBarrows says:

    This exhaustive analysis and its conclusions represent a commendable exercise in reason. That said, all of the analysis in the world will do nothing to resolve the issue as those in authority are obviously complicit in the wrongdoing.

  12. Marty says:

    Let me just say that history lies before us….We can as an American People do the next RIGHT THING. No longer ignoring this crippling disease of DISUNITY that continues to divide us. “They” have been using this as a device of POWER for way to long !!!!!! Those who have the power KNOW they have the POWER and can do JUSTICE before us ….. IT is THEIR “OATH and RESPONSIBILITY ” to do so. Some take it seriously ….. it is obvious from the current state of affairs that SOME DO NOT.

    All I have to offer is that it is the TRUTH that sets ONE FREE !!!!!!!

    Victoria per Scientiam,

    Marty

  13. Marvin Green says:

    The most cogent and compelling case for impeachment and imprisonment of the usurper I have to date read. To be sure the likes of a Harry Reed or a Nancy Pelosi will dismiss it out of hand without having read it. Would that we could force every Republican member of Congress as well as Mitt Romney to read this. Thank you for posting this.

  14. Judi McLeod says:

    Is Obama making himself ‘legal’ in removing 800,000 illegal immigrants from deportation?
    Judi McLeod, CFP.com

    Excerpt:…………2nd half & conclusion.

    Is legislated Amnesty what Obama had in mind all along? The President Who Never Was, disappears America’s borders and makes it legal to be illegal with an Executive Order?

    Finding work for illegal immigrants when millions of Americas are out of work is a slap in the face to average American citizens.

    Incredibly, Sen. Marco Rubio praised the policy, even while criticizing Obama for end running Congress.

    Politicians are infamous for making strong constituencies out of minorities.

    But what if Obama is doing more than just pandering to the significant Latino/Hispanic vote and creating pools of campaign volunteers months ahead of November’s presidential election?

    On his way to the Fundamental Transformation of America, has Barack Hussein Obama been working an agenda that makes it all but de rigeur to be undocumented?

    Did his progressive creators design Barack Hussein Obama as an undocumented USA president to open the floodgates for undocumented immigrants, guaranteeing progressives in office for the foreseeable future?

    What if Obama went out of his way to deliberately present himself to the American public as America’s first undocumented president in order to portray himself as the classic Underdog of Underdogs?

    In his book Dreams from my Father, Obama went into great deal about a composite girlfriend. Is Obama Without a Birth Certificate the composite he painstakingly created for himself?

    From the get-go Obama has always pretended to be what others wanted him to be, throwing an image of himself on the screen as all things for all people, but not Americans.

    Meanwhile, patriots on the hunt for Obama’s elusive birth certificate should be looking for his DNA, the only irrefutable proof of who and what Barry Soetoro, posing as Obama , really is.

  15. John Hindon: “Magnus, I’m thinking of what the country was before Obama, and frankly, I don’t give a damn what the world thinks of me, if it’s laughing at me or anything else. Look at Europe and tell me they’re in a position to laugh at anyone.”

    No, you shouldn’t be bothered by what others think of you personally but you should in this case be concerned about what the world thinks of your country.

    I am very aware of the fact that political and intellectual corruption is almost everywhere — Sweden is a frightening example — but at least we have a legal head of state.

  16. John Hindon: “Worse perhaps is how we would be viewed by the rest of the world. How could the greatest country in the world allow an interloper to ascend the presidency unvetted? Our credibility would be shot.”

    Would be shot? Your credibility is already shot! And please stop that talk about “the greatest country in the world” — it’s pathetic by now. A lot of the rest of the world is laughing at you.

    • jeanniemac says:

      It is Obama and the Democrats who have made our country a laughingstock. That was their intention from the beginning.
      We have to get Obama out of the White House in November. Even if we defeat him, we will have to be aware he will try a last desperate effort to retain power, before a new president is sworn in, in January, 2013.
      If voter fraud results in a win for Obama, then all gloves will have to come off. We will know that emails, calls, etc. don’t work. The only thing that would work then
      is civil disobedience and a readiness to use our 2nd Amendment rights.
      Keep your powder dry.

      • John Hindon says:

        You’re absolutely right, jeanniemac.

        Magnus, I’m thinking of what the country was before Obama, and frankly, I don’t give a damn what the world thinks of me, if it’s laughing at me or anything else. Look at Europe and tell me they’re in a position to laugh at anyone.

        Think positively. Think pre-Obama.

      • Obama and his enablers have made the situation worse but USA was being laughed at before him. George W Bush was a joke himself. Clinton and Bush senior are pathological liars almost like Obama. If you think it is all the fault of one side of the “Repubmocratic Party”, the Democrats, you are very wrong. You Americans have to get to a pluralistic political landscape and leave the deception you are in of the two big parties that really is one giant monolithic power. John F Kennedy touched upon this in his famous speech “The President and the Press” before the American Newspaper Publishers Association on 27th of April 1961. Listen to that speech again: http://archive.org/details/jfks19610427

  17. jeanniemac says:

    http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/207197/
    Pelosi would not step in to take Obama’s place if he and Biden were removed from office. She was complicit in the illegal placing of him onto the Hawaiian ballot, and can herself be impeached.

    • John Hindon says:

      jeanniemac, GOOD FOR YOU. You are absolutely correct because she filed two different certifications. The one she filed in Hawaii said that Obama and Biden were both constitutionally eligible. The certification she sent to every other state omitted the constitutional eligibility. However, it would be tough to prove—and as I wrote I agree with you—that what she did was illegal. If she should be found to be complicit, we have a huge problem.

      The next in line is the president pro tem of the Senate, who was at the time Robert Byrd. He passed away. That presents us with real problems because next in line after that is the secretary of state. Since Condi Rice was no longer secretary of state because Hillary had been confirmed at that point (I think), technically there was no secretary of state. I imagine the Supreme Court would then have to make some tough decisions. It might well put in the current president pro tem or reinstate Condi Rice as secretary of state and empower her with the presidency.

      Regardless, I think you get my point. The crisis that would ensue would be enormously traumatic. It demonstrates to the world that we’re inexcusably sloppy in terms of vetting our presidents and making certain that they are eligible.

      For that reason, I think the courts are hoping Obama loses. If he doesn’t, the eligibility issue will intensify and this time they’d have to address it or find the population on the cusp of rebellion.

      Because Obama has violated the terms of the Constitution on numerous occasions and refused to enforce laws that the Constitution commands him to enforce (Defense of Marriage Act, etc.) in Article II, Section 3., plus today’s executive order that outrageously changes immigration laws by circumventing them and Congress, it is very likely he’d be impeached and successfully if the Republicans win the House and Senate. That is the likeliest outcome.

      Regardless, it is time for us to use the system the way the left has so effectively and remove this pretender to the throne from it. Hopefully we’ll do that in November and avoid a lot of pain.

      Good for you for being so “on it.”

  18. seesaw says:

    Excellent article but I wish to add that in 1814, The Venus, was the first case that expilicity said the Vattel’s Law of Nations was used to determine NBC.
    The one of the judges on that case was Bushrod Washington, George Washington’s nephew and heir, and I’m sure he was aware of Vattel’s work.

    Justice Livingston wrote the unanimous decision and even quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on page 12 of the ruling:

    “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.”

    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…””

    I haven’t read every comment, so this may have been mentioned already.

  19. Zoltan Jones says:

    What is the basis for the authors’ assertion that there was a “strong objection from the floor” on September 4, 1787, that led to a revision presented on September 7, 1787, of the natural born citizen language and requirement in Article 2? The citations to Madison’s “Notes…” do not support this assertion, and the September 4 citation shows that the exact natural born citizen language was presented on September 4, and that this clause was not discussed on Sept 4, before the session adjourned. The Notes for September 7, 1787 state that the clause was approved on that date without comment or debate. So where does the claim come from? Do you know of any sources regarding the deliberations of the Committee of Eleven, outside the work product presented in Madison’s Notes?

    • John Hindon says:

      Zoltan,

      The objection was NOT a “strong one” nor was it about about “natural born citizen.” The objections was to the eligibility requirements as states here in the article:

      “6. (c) From the floor of the Constitutional Convention on Sept. 4, 1787, a delegate voiced an objection to the then proposed language for Article 2, the Presidential Eligibility Requirements, and Article 2 was sent back to the committee for further consideration. On Sept. 7 the Presidential Eligibility Requirements issue of Article 2 was again brought to the floor, was brought to a vote and unanimously approved. It included the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement initially proposed by John Jay.”

      So the issue was eligibility requirements, not “natural born Citizen.” That that was added and passed without objection clearly satisfied those who sought further definition of eligibility. The source of that is Madison’s handwritten notes a link to which appears in the footnotes.

    • Admin says:

      The comments made by Mr. Jones are based on his failure to carefully study the article and the citations.

      There are three citations relating to paragraph 6(c). The third reference, the Bancroft reference on Pgs. 192-193, addresses the Convention discussions on Aug 22, September 4th and September 7th regarding the eligibility qualifications of the President. Bancroft states “On the fourth of September the committee of states who were charged with all the unfinished business limited the years of residence to fourteen. It was then objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that office.” This Bancroft record was also quoted in our article at #11.

      It is correct that the Madison record of the Sept 4 proceedings did not reference this “Objection” from the floor. We know that John Jay’s letter to George Washington which suggested the Presidential eligibility requirement of “natural-born Citizen” was immediately forwarded by Washington to a named person at the Convention. I don’t recall the name of the person, but it was an army officer whose name is on the reverse side of the Jay letter. See the last citation of #6(b). It is obvious that Madison was aware of the language in both the 7/25/1787 Jay letter and the final language of what subsequently became the Art 2 Presidential eligibility language of the Constitution. Madison must have revised his notes when he later prepared what he denoted as the September 4 proceedings. Jay might have been a member of the committee of states referenced by Bancroft and when he later converted his notes to longhand he revised his notes to reflect the final text which was presented to the body on September 7 for final approval to be included in the Presidential eligibility provisions. This difference between Bancroft’s record and Madison’s record is best explained by a revision of his notes by Madison since this explains all events we are aware of in a reasonable chronological order. It is well known that Madison revised both his notes and his longhand versions of the proceedings before it was published. Longhand changes in his handwriting have been noted to be interlined in the text.

      There are records which we did not cite in our article that discusses the fact that James Madison used a short hand of his own invention to record the Convention proceedings and that he would spend hours converting his shorthand to his longhand records which were many years later published. His notes on the proceedings were published in 1840 and would have been available to Bancroft when he prepared his book which was published in 1884.

      Bancroft’s book on the Constitutional Convention Proceedings were prepared from Convention notes prepared by many of the delegates. Most of his material came from Historical state records turned over to the states by family members of the delegates. He is alleged to have worked on his book for some 20 years and collected the notes of all the delegates who had preserved their notes.

  20. jeanniemac says:

    At least twenty judges have dismissed lawsuits regarding Obama’s eligibility. It may be they were bribed, or feared for their lives.
    Why not send a list of Obama’s concealed documents to all of your contacts, asking them to spread the word. Ask them why Obama would seal all of his records.
    There is no Obama documentation — no records — no paper trail –
    none — this is no accident. It is being done on purpose with Media
    help – but to serve whom & why??

    MISSING-HIDDEN DOCUMENTS:

    Original, vault copy of Certificate of Live Birth in the USA — Not
    Released (1 version hidden in Hawaii, Original found in Kenya)

    Certificate of Live Birth — Released – Proven Counterfeit
    (www.ObamaFiles.com)

    Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released

    Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released

    Soetoro adoption records — Not released

    Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released

    Punahou School records — Not released

    Selective Service Registration — Released – Proven Counterfeit

    Occidental College records — Not released

    Passport (Pakistan) — Not released

    Columbia College records — Not released

    Columbia thesis — Not released

    Harvard College records — Not released

    Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, Not Signed)

    Baptism certificate — None

    Medical records — Not released

    Illinois State Senate records — None (Locked up to prohibit public
    view)

    Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost (All other Illinois state
    senators’ records are intact)

    Law practice client list — Not released

    University of Chicago scholarly articles — None

    WHY DON’T WE SEE ONE WORD OF THIS IN ANY OF THE MEDIA?

    Love him or hate him, we all remember how the press went to great
    lengths to find out every move that President Bush made … finally
    unable to come up with anything factual, so they created it! When
    their accusations were proven empty, they refused to retract one word
    of the fraud they perpetrated on the American people.

    Dan Rather lost his job over fraudulent documents, because common
    people like you & me reached out and ripped CBS to pieces. They
    couldn’t stand the loss of sponsors OR viewers!

    The same Media went to great lengths to scandalize & destroy Sarah
    Palin. She maintains a 91% approval rating among voters from all
    parties, thanks to the Internet and investigative journalists who
    don’t work for the mainstream media.

    NOW ——- The Supreme Court has scheduled a Conference for Dec 5th
    about Obama’s

    U. S. Citizenship. STILL, not a word about any of this from the Media.
    If it were not for the Internet and talk radio, American citizens
    would become the servants of a dishonest & conspiratorial Media.

    THINK ABOUT IT. IT DIDN’T USED TO BE THIS WAY! How much longer are we
    going to sit on our hands & say not a word?

    AND DON’T THINK THE MEDIA SIMPLY DOESN’T KNOW – THEY ARE GETTING
    POUNDED WITH EMAILS ABOUT IT!!!

    Obama could not get a simple security clearance with the information
    the government has on him —- NOBODY COULD!

    NOW he is privy to every top secret America has!

    What is going on??? WHERE ARE THE GOOD PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY – ARE
    YOU OUT THERE???

    • John Hindon says:

      Federal judges won’t touch this because they know that if Obama is ruled ineligible it will create a constitutional crisis that will have implications worldwide.

      He can’t be impeached if he’s not eligible to be president, so he gets tossed immediately by Secret Service and FBI agents who walk him to the White House door and say, “Adios.”

      There are too many questions without answers. Who becomes president, Biden? If the top of the ticket is ineligible, many would take the position the whole ticket is ineligible, and Biden, too, is ineligible.

      Next in line is the speaker of the house, so John Boehner becomes president, right? Nope. It would be the speaker of the house in office on Inauguration Day in 2009, which puts Pelosi in the big chair.

      What of all the legislation Obama has signed, all executive orders? None are legal so what happens to all of the legislation/orders now made law? Everything has to go as if the last three years had no president. Everything would have to go through Congress again for passage and the executive orders would be nullified.

      All of the people he nominated to become part of his administration would be tossed out of office immediately because they were not nominated by an eligible president.

      All regulations ordered by Obama would be without legal standing and thus would have to come off the books.

      Any treaties approved by Obama and confirmed by the Senate would not be considered legally ratified.

      Worse perhaps is how we would be viewed by the rest of the world. How could the greatest country in the world allow an interloper to ascend the presidency unvetted? Our credibility would be shot.

      As much as this article is correct and proves beyond doubt that Obama is ineligible, we need to consider the consequences of ruling him ineligible. They would be catastrophic, not just to our credibility, but what would happen to our financial markets and the global economy?

      In essence, the courts are waiting to see what happens in November. If he’s beaten, everything gets shoved under the rug. If not, then we will have to push the issue because is he’s re-elected, this country and its values are destroyed.

      Today it was announced that he won’t deport illegal alien children brought here by illegal alien parents. That is a violation of the law, and Obama is getting good at ignoring laws, the War Powers Act, the Defense of Marriage Act and now immigrations law. In his oath he swore to uphold all laws when he swore fealty to the Constitution, which specifically provides that the president shall uphold all laws.

      We’re in a real bind here and more states are beginning to stop just rubber stamping his phony credentials. There’s a case underway right now in Florida in which the judge has compelled Obama to provide proof of citizenship if he wants to get on the ballot. If this succeeds, we will face that constitutional crisis because he won’t be able to explain why he can’t prove the facts of his birth to Florida. Every other state will have to go through the same procedure or take him off the ballot.

      In many states, citizens can challenge his name being on the ballot. If you live in one of those states, you have the right to challenge him. But beware the fallout. It won’t be pretty.

  21. Call Me Mom says: June 11, 2012 at 5:29 am
    David,

    Any suggestions?

    having gone that route before, I can tell you if your complaint is basically over the natural born Citizenship (nbC) issue, it will probably get dismissed because of Ankeny.

    If you haven’t paid your 2011 federal income taxes yet, a better course would be to refuse to pay your federal taxes, thereby creating an “injury”(when the IRS fines you) to a specific subset of the population (those who believe Obama is unqualified) thus creating federal standing.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • David,
      My complaint is not in a court, but rather through the state’s Government Accountability Board. This board is charged with overseeing elections in the state, among other duties. My complaint is based on NBC and the fact that the GAB did not verify the candidate’s eligibility prior to placing him on the ballot. It includes an e-mail exchange between myself and a member of that board in 2008 who assured me that it was not the state’s job to verify the eligibility of the candidate. Then this year when I called again to ask, I was told that it was the job of the FEC to verify eligibility and given the FEC’s 800 number. When I called that number I was told “We don’t do that, that’s the state’s job.” So I called the GAB back and informed them of what the FEC said and was directed to the complaint form and told that was all they could do for me unless I filed a complaint, so I did and here I am.

      I must admit that refusing to pay taxes until I am fined does not seem like an ethical way to approach this challenge. I should not have to jeopardize my own reputation and non-existent criminal record to get my state to do their job.

    • My complaint is to (and with) my state’s government accountability board, not in a court. There must be a better way to address the issue than to put my integrity in question by violating the law.

  22. jeanniemac says:

    There are factions pushing to get Marco Rubio in as Romney’s VP candidate. Both of Rubio’s parents were born in Cuba. making him inelgibile for the VP slot.
    If Romney names Rubio, Obama will use it as an excuse to shut up those who question his own eligibility.
    Or is that the point? Are the American people being fooled yet again?

    • Both Romney and Rubio should be standing up for our American birthright, not trying to tear it down.

      It is apparent the Rove Republicans believe they have got their grassroot wing and other tea party supporters so thoroughly frightened of Obama, they will tolerate any moderate corporate-figurehead in the presidency; they don’t need to really do or say anything.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  23. John Hindon June 10, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Here is another way to think of de Vattel’s natural political right of inheritance: only those who are born Patriots of the U.S. can qualify for President. Patriot is derived from the Latin word for father. That is what natural born citizen means in Article II. This is fully supported by Vattel if you just read past the second sentence of section 212, International Law, and U.S. Law, History, and language. Only nature can create a patriot and that is defined by who your father is, not your mother. If it were defined by our mothers it would be Matriot not Patriot.

    This is a silly point; I’ll grant you; but an effective way to show people just how universal de Vattle’s natural political right of inheritance is ingrained in all societies, including our own.

    Another good example of de Vattle’s every day application of his Natural Right of Inheritance can be seen in almost every marriage of today where the bride assumes the husband’s sir name.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • John Hindon says:

      David,

      I don’t think your point is “silly” at all. It ads a new dimension to Vattel’s work. The questions then becomes, of the two (both parents of just the father) applies. In Obama’s case, it doesn’t matter and your explanation is spot on.

      • As you point out, and as Minor did, a person born of two citizen parents within the jurisdiction there is less doubt, but the one rule recognized the world over as being a “natural born citizen,” is that of a person being born a citizen of their father’s citizenship.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  24. Joe V. says:
    June 10, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    “No court has ever supported a distinction between “citizens at birth by statute” and “citizens at birth by natural law.” And there are many cases where “citizen at birth,” “natural born,” and “native born” are used more-or-less interchangeably. This category of “citizen at birth but not natural born” is perhaps a valid philosophical distinction, but it’s not enough to hang a declaration of ineligibility on.”

    There wasn’t as case directly on point that directly declared a “born US citizen subject within the jurisdiction” an Article II natural born Citizen before, other than the minority opinion in Wong.

    What this means is that somehow the plenary authority of government has become the creator of the Ruling Class rather than the “consent of the governed.”

    The Ankeny decision has, in effect, finally achieved what anti-de Vattel forces have been trying to do since shortly after the American revolution, return the unnatural free state of Citizens back into their proper place as merely subjects to the national federal sovereign,.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • John Hindon says:

      Joe V,

      You are correct about the interchangeability aspect of this, but it is a manifestation who fail to understand how “natural born citizen” wound up in the Constitution—they’ve likely never even read the Constitution.

      However, I must respectfully disagree about the courts. The court in “Minor v. Happersett” did hand down a ruling that states: “”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.” Here the court clearly states, “born in a country whose parents [plural] were its citizens [plural].” As you know, Obama’s father was not a citizen. As David Farrar also points out, a further reading of Vattel’s book indicates that the determination of citizenship is based on the citizenship of the father.

      Finally, in Minor v. Happersett, a footnote on the subject reads: “Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. at 167; paraphrasing Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, book I, chapter XIX, section 212 indicating that the court also recognized and relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” when it included this reference in its ruling.

      • Joe V. says:

        John, I’ve heard the Minor argument before, and there are at least 4 big problems with it:

        1. Right after the part you quote, the decision goes on to say that some people also include people born within the country regardless of their parentage. The decision doesn’t say those people are wrong.

        2. Specifically, because it was a voting rights case and not a citizenship case, the court explicitly says it’s not going to decide exactly what makes an NBC. So it would be a mistake to pretend they did.

        3. In any case, all they said was that born in country + citizen parents definitely = NBC. They didn’t say that was the *only* thing that = NBC. It’s the difference between a sufficient and a necessary condition.

        4. The argument from grammar (plural parents) is particularly weak, I think. Children (plural) have parents (plural), regardless of whether each child has only one. I’ve seen another legal decision from the same time period that refers to children following the condition of their fathers; I’m sure it didn’t mean to imply they each had to have two fathers…

  25. Lori 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 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 that 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.” –The Law of Nations, 1758

    I bought the book to verify what I had read elsewhere, and am familiar with the principles of historiography.

  26. Brendon Guiznot says:

    Vattel’s section 214 covers common law countries like England and destroys your long winded argument.

    Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent in Wong Kim Ark explains that based on the majority opinion one born in the United States was a natural born citizen.

    And the word “natural” in 1787 meant “native.”

    Other than that, good try.

    • John Hindon says:

      Brendon, you wrote: “Vattel’s section 214 covers common law countries like England and destroys your long winded argument.”

      With respect, on the contrary. The title of Vattel’s book was “Law of Nations,” not “Law of British Common Law.” What the article points out is simple: The Framers relied on Vattel’s definition of a “natural born citizen” regardless of the legal precepts on which it was based. (If you read the correct translation of the book you’ll see that his philosophy had nothing to do with common law, but rather he discussed how nations—thus the appearance in the title—should choose their leaders. It was not intended for British common law in any way in view of the fact that Vattel was French and wrote the book in his native tongue. Had he been British you may have a long-shot point, regardless, in no way does this vitiate or compromise the integrity of the article. Vattel’s writings were intended for laws of all nations not just common law in any one.

      Regardless, the Framers relied on his book in Section 212, as the article clearly points out. A higher level of citizenship for those seeking the presidency was necessary.

      Why?

      What prompted Jay’s letter was a fear shared by the Framers that someone amongst the European aristocracy would come to this country, become a naturalized citizen, ascend to the presidency and try to overturn the Constitution and make the country a monarchy. In fact, Jay had received word that General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, a Prussian who had fought on our side during the Revolution, and who supported Shays Rebellion, had plans to do just that: he wanted to put a Prussian prince on the “American Throne.”

      Regardless of what body of law Vattel relied upon when he wrote his book, it was Paragraph 212 that spells out what the Framers followed, so your point, I fear, is moot.

      The length of the article is indicative of a great deal of research that provides the underpinnings of the issue of Obama’s birth. Without explaining each step in the process and how “native born citizen” evolved to be included in the Constitution and what it meant, this could not be written responsibly. The authors of this article are hardly Birthers. The obvious goal was to inform and explain what “natural born citizen” meant and how and why it became a constitutional construct and a requirement with which Obama simply does not comply.

  27. John Hindon says:

    “Natural born citizen” goes both ways, which is why I wish people would stop suggesting Marco Rubio for the VP spot. Neither of his parents were American citizens when he was born.

    We can’t on the one hand hold Obama to not being a “natural born citizen” while ignoring the fact that some of our own conservative candidates don’t comply with the requirements.

    Romney needs to cast his net elsewhere. The liberals would have a “birther” field day if Rubio gets the nod.

    • Gary Miller says:

      John, no one will object except a handful of misinformed birthers. No court will ever agree with the essay that is posted above.

      • John Hindon says:

        Gary, your point would be spot on save for one thing: The main stream media will, in an effort to turn the tables on “Birthers” push the notion that Rubio is ineligible. They hypocrisy of the leftist MSM is dedicated to getting Obama re-elected. It will do anything to bring doubt, suspicion and fear to the attention of the uninformed, including playing the Birther card on Rubio.

        Romney doesn’t need to be pressured into selecting a new VP candidate (as happened with the Democrats in ’72 when the VP nominee admitted that he had been hospitalized for severe depression.

        Plus as good as Rubio is, he is very much a newcomer to the political scene on the national level. The last thing we need is another senator who spends two years in the Senate then sits with the Sword of Damocles over his head waiting for something to befall Romney.

        The better pick would be someone like Paul Ryan, the toes of whose shoes have been heavily scuffed by toe-to-toe battles with Democrats, and who fully understands how Washington works.

        Were it not for the MSM and their glaring double standard, you would be correct.

    • Lori says:

      Absolutely agree. The same applies to Bobby Jindal as well, unfortunately. The children of Rubio and Jindal are ‘natural born citizens’.

    • For the record;

      Sen. Marco Rubio as of this date; has never said he would accept such a position if offered.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • TruthWFree says:

        Many politicians have said they will not run, only to run. I do not want to see Rubio or Jindal nominated as VP (or Christy, but that’s another matter). We have enough able candidates (I like Allen West) than to nominate someone that gives Obama an “out”. Obama is not elligible as far as I’m concerned either on the “Natural born” question and also as long as he hides his personal public records from We The People. I can not believe he was born in Hawaii based on what has been released. It is a shame this has gone this far when the real answer that should have been focused on all along was that his father was a citizen of a foreign country and based on Obama’s books, his alligence to his father’s ideas appear to support the concern the Founders had in stating the “natural Born” citizen requirement.

        We need a law that requires a Presidential Candidate or VP selection to open his personal public records to We The People and also confirm that “natural born” means born of two citizen parents.

  28. Conservative Mark says:

    Prior to 2008, I had several friends that warned me of the New World Order. I thought they were kind of nuts.

    In 2009 I came to think Obama is a fraud and I figured it out the first year he was in office. I based my opinion on the fact I had heard him speak at our community college where I heard him promise “transparency in government”.

    Now, after all these years and both sides of the isle doing NOTHING to either investigate him or impeach him, and hearing about the role the UN could play in a revolution as well as these Reaper drones about to be deployed around the U.S., I realize my New World Order friends may not have been the nutty ones.

  29. Charlie says:

    Excellent article!!!!!!!!

  30. What a wonderful article and so many great comments.

    For my two cents, I would like to add that US naturalization and immigration code notes a difference between “native born”( which would cover someone born here, in my opinion) and “natural born”. I think that addresses the objection of birthplace and general citizenship quite nicely.

    Then there is the problem of the courts ruling on the definition of the term “natural born citizen”. In my opinion, the courts should require an official definition from Congress. Oho! And there’s the rub, because the Senate of the 110th Congress voted unanimously to approve non-binding SR 511 to allow Mr. McCain to be eligible to sit as POTUS. Even though the legislation is non-binding, the court may use it to establish what the Congress would do if it were asked to provide a definition. The definition in SR 511 is born of American parents(note the plural) on American soil(the military base abroad.

    Not only is it allowable for the court to use this to establish/confirm a defintion for the term “natural born citizen”, but it was done prior to the 2008 election and even mr. obama voted for it himself-meaning that he knew then and knows now that he is not eligible to serve as POTUS.

    That’s my opinion. Added to the historical facts, SB 511 is the nail in the coffin on this one – assuming that mr. obama’s father really was Mr. Obama Sr., That is.

    • Please ‘Call Me Mom’ (cmm),

      understand that Congress, nor any other plenary authority of government, need to, nor can, legally, “offer an ‘official’ definition of what a natural born Citizen is. Only we, the ‘consent of the governed’ can create the ruling class — our ruling class.

      If, and when, the court or Congress finds a term, or clause, or section, or article of the US Constitution undefined, too confusing, or vague, it “…must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the de Vattel’s Law of Nations. Indeed, it was to accomplish this very task the Judiciary branch of our government was first created –”…to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • David,
        I would love it if our governments understood this. Maybe they do. the plain facts of the matter are that they are not doing their duty to remove Mr. Obama from office and undo all that he has done. I have filed a complaint with my own state’s government accountability board. So far, it has not been dismissed, but I haven’t heard that mr. obama will be excluded from the ballot either.

        I wish I knew how to procede from here, but I have been trying to give them time to consider the matter without publicity – and, I don’t know what the consequences of publishing my complaint are likely to be either.
        Any suggestions?

    • John Hindon says:

      CallMeMom, there is some good news. A federal judge recently declared that this issue and the definition of “natural born citizen” must be resolved. It involves a state case in which including Obama’s name on the ballot is being contested. Hang on. Hopefully judges will stop avoiding this and get with the program.

      What they fear most is the constitutional crisis that will evolve if Obama is not considered a natural born citizen.

      • Thank you for the encouraging words John. What I fear most is the Constitutional crisis that currently exists with this man occupying the oval office for a full term.

  31. Great article.

    However, a closer reading of de Vattel, past section 212 to 215, you will see according to de Vattel’s “Natural Rright of Inheritance: a “natural” born Citizen is a person born a citizen under the cloak of allegiance of the father is all that is required. It’s true the Minor court did use the example of a person born of two citizen-parents within the jurisdiction, but that is simply a common tenent of de Vattel’s Natural right of Inheritance

    There are only two requirments to being natually born: one, you must be a citizen at birth, and of the citizenship of the father (paternal jus sanguinis).

    In 1784 Alexander Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations.

    Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.

    Let me explain: Article II, Section I, Clause 4 — Clause 5 if you are using an old, outdated copy of the US Constitution, according to the Ankeny court — is all about the qualification of the President and Vice-President — the ruling class.

    THE REAL CONSTITUTIONAL DILEMMA FOR “BIRTHERS”

    By natural law, an Article ll ‘natural born’ Citizen is a person born a US citizen under the cloak of allegiance of the father. This is what de Vattel calls: the Natural Political Right Of Inheritance.

    Allowing the courts to decide who is or who isn’t a ‘natural born’ Citizen allows the government to create the ‘ruling class’ rather than the “consent of the governed.”

    One thing is known for certain: if we allow Congress to create the ruling class, they will do so to their own advantage and we will soon lose yet another one of our most cherished, self-evident, unalienable truths: that all men are created equal.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Lori says:

      They have already set themselves up as a ruling class (Congress), being able to hold office for life, and we are required to support them for life, after one term of office, correct? Let us not forget all of the power they accumulate, and the wealth they accumulate through their offices. Congress is a ruling aristocracy, and we are their serfs.

      • Lori,

        You are right, somehow the court and Congress believe Article II natural born Citizen isn’t defined, or is just too vague for anybody to understand what its meaning is. They have forgotten Judge Duane’s instructions to start with de Vattel. This is the real counter-revolution that has been slowly proceeding using English common law without de Vattel as its base.

        Efforts to Eliminate the Natural Born Requirement (2003-2005)

        Proving that the players involved knew the correct definition of natural born citizen borrowed from the Law of Nations by our founders – 1) those born citizens under the cloak of allegiance of their father’s; 2) those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights; 3) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; 4) in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen. – that they knew Barack Hussein Obama II did not meet that definition as a foreign or dual citizen via his father’s British citizenship and that they worked feverishly to find a way around this constitutional requirement for office, as Obama was about to become president…

        The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33 which called for the outright removal of 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.”

        Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33 in 1977 under H.J.R. 38, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.

        Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…

        1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – 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. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment – 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]

        3. On February 25, 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” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

        4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment – 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.

        5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – 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]

        6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment – 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-Sponsor

        7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment – 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]

        8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “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 Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also 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 eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

        In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

        Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511 – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

        S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

        However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”

        The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of a natural born Citizen is clearly defined by de Vattel, and the Natural Political Right of Inheritance. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  32. Grand Birther says:

    Obama is required to be born in the US, and be a Natural born citizen.
    He hasn’t proven birth in the US, and can’t be a Natural born citizen according to the USSC decision in Minor v. Happersett!

    Obama didn’t release an authentic Hawaii DOH issued document!

    No Obama long form birth certificate released contains a raised visible embossed seal of authentication.

    Ann Dunham’s signature on Obama’s fraudulent long form birth certificate is in two separate layers, even though it was allegedly created as a part of a single scan that would only create a single layer document.

    There is no a logical reason for Obama’s long form birth certificate to have a mistake in the Registrar’s stamp, and no other birth certificate stamped by Alvin T Onaka containing that error is known to exist.

    Fukino described Obama’s long form birth certificate as being half handwritten and half typewritten, and the document that Obama released does not match that description.

    A document created as a scan alone contains only one layer, while Obama’s released long form birth certificate has numerous layers, meaning that changes or enhancements were made to the document that could not be present on the original long form birth certificate retained by Hawaii DOH, from which the released copy was allegedly made.

    An investigation by Sheriff Arpaio has found probable cause to believe that the document Obama has released is a fraudulent document.

    Many document experts have determined that Obama’s long form birth certificate is in fact a fraudulent document, and Hawaii DOH employees are not document experts, they are only employees.

    How can Hawaii DOH verify a document that does not contain a raised visible embossed seal of authentication making it an official State of Hawaii issued document?

    What is unreasonable about asking for absolute actual proof of identity from a suspected fraud who claims birth in the US, while also being the very first known person to say that he was born in Kenya?
    Both statements Obama has made cannot possibly be true.

  33. Gary Miller says:

    If the founders indeed wanted the President of the United States of America to be limited to the offspring of American citizens, why didn’t they state this in no uncertain terms?

    The Constitution mentions two subsets of citizen: natural-born and naturalized, and any court in America will see it this way.

    President Obama was born in Hawaii. He is a natural-born American citizen.

    • Although the Constitution does mention two subsets of citizen: natural-born and naturalized. However, if you will broaden your gaze, you will soon discover we can say that being natural-born required no legal act, but being naturalized does.

      Therefore, a more correct statement is that there are only two types of citizenship: one acquired naturally and one acquired by government authority.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • John Hindon says:

        David, as usual you are 100% correct in all of your comments. I would need to look more deeply in de Vattel’s per your suggestion that the citizenship of the father is what rules. It would be great if de Vattel so wrote. All I know is what he wrote and on what the Framers relied: “Les naturals ou indigenes sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens.,” which translates to: “The Naturals or natives are those born in the country, to citizen parents.”

        I like your version better because it makes Obama all the less a natural born citizen. I’ll take a look at “The Law of Nations” and see what I can find about the need for just the father to be a citizen, which Obama, Sr. was not.

        Fantastic comments throughout, David. You are a rare scholar indeed.

    • snafubar says:

      The 14th amendment NEVER mentions the words “natural born citizen”.

      The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

      Therefore, if you are born in the US, you are by statute a a US citizen. If you immigrate to the US and then get naturalized, you are by statute a citizen.

      You can be a citizen, either born here or not, and still not be a “natural born citizen”. That requires 2 citizen parents. That is a law of nature, not of man, i.e., statute.

      • John Hindon says:

        snafubar, The 14th Amendment does not apply to the president of the United States. What is stated in the article is correct. To qualify to become president one must be a “natural born Citizen.” Had that requirement been amended and considered no longer in effect, it would have been mentioned as being amended by the 14th Amendment in that amendment. It does not include the president. For him/her, the Founders held them to a higher standard of citizenship, being born in country to two citizen parents.

        The 14th did not negate, replace or in any way render ineffective the requirement that a president be a natural born citizen.

      • Joe V. says:

        No court has ever supported a distinction between “citizens at birth by statute” and “citizens at birth by natural law.” And there are many cases where “citizen at birth,” “natural born,” and “native born” are used more-or-less interchangeably. This category of “citizen at birth but not natural born” is perhaps a valid philosophical distinction, but it’s not enough to hang a declaration of ineligibility on.

      • snafubar,

        Always remember: A natural born Citizen does not need to be “subject to the jurisdiction” for its citizenship. A natural born Citizen receives its citizenship directly under the cloak of allegiance of the father.

        Whereas, naturalized citizens at birth or afterwards, needs to be “subject to the jurisdiction” for their citizenship. And it is precisely why 14th Amendment citizen, such as Barack Obama, cannot be a natural born Citizen. Plenary authority cannot create the ruling class. Only the “consent of the governed” can create their ruling class.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  34. Stephen says:

    Barack 0bama is proving why our Forefathers insisted that our Presidents be ‘natural born citizens’. He dislikes our Constitution and his ideology is FOREIGN to America. We should enforce our Presidents eligibility requirements EVEN IF THEY’RE BLACK. WE GIVE BLACKS TOO MUCH SLACK AND THIS TIME IT’S KILLING US.

    • Gary Miller says:

      Stephen, many Americans believe that birtherism is rooted in bigotry. Your post leaves no doubt that this belief holds merit.

      • Lori says:

        Gary, he is pointing out that we hold blacks to a lower standard, and THAT is the real bigotry. The soft bigotry of low expectations. We won’t hold Obama to the same standard that we would hold a white man, and that we did hold John McCain to. Why do you oppose holding Barack Obama to the same standard as John McCain, a white man? You must be a bigot.

  35. Joe says:

    There’s an old saying, ‘ If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a sound.

    This is one my greatest annoyance: Here we are grumbling over true facts exposed to the public jumping up and down being unable to do anything except voice opinions that eventually fall off a cliff.
    I’ve come across this topic several times with near same facts only to disappear like smoke in a wind storm. Evidently, if such information reached Congress, it probably got lost under somebody’s seat. I would suspect that our illustrious Chief Justus knows about this but won’t allow his fingerprints be found on the papers.
    There’s many that are frustrated being unable to get things done. Well. in about twenty weeks, will be our only course of action. Then they’ll hear that tree drop.

  36. (This is as previously posted but with a couple of small corrections that I hope will make it easier to read)…
    ————————————–

    An outstanding and clearly scholarly article for which sincere thanks!

    It’s such a shame that the two very different terms “Natural Born” and “Naturalized” sound so similar – making it far easier for devious manipulators of the truth to confuse and fool the American public.

    I notice that, quite rightly, a number of the people commenting here have mentioned the very important, and highly relevant, case of “Minor v. Happersett” (1874). As the title of your article is “The Biggest Cover-Up In American History” I’d like to draw attention to a highly interesting and important related article that appeared in American Thinker a few months ago. It highlighted yet another small piece of the huge jigsaw of lies, corruption, intimidation and deceit perpetuating that cover-up….. the presumed intentional removal (no doubt by friends, supporters and minders of the central puppet in this case; Obama) of references to “Minor v. Happersett” from the Justia.com website.

    Please see;
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html

    It’s all part of the same monstrous cover-up :(

    Thanks again &
    Kind Regards,
    IQ al Rassooli

  37. An outstanding and clearly scholarly article for which sincere thanks!

    It’s such a shame that the two very different terms “Natural Born” and “Naturalized” sound so similar – making it far easier for devious manipulators of the truth to confused and fool the American public.

    I notice that, quite rightly, a number of the people commenting here have mentioned the very important and highly relevant case of Minor v. Happersett (1874). As the title of this article is “The Biggest Cover-Up In American History” I’d to draw attention to a highly interesting and important related article that appeared in American Thinker a few months ago highlighting yet another small piece of the huge jigsaw of lies, corruption, intimidation and deceit perpetuating that cover-up….. the presumed intentional removal (no doubt by friends, supporters and minders of the central puppet in this case; Obama) of references to Minor v. Happersett from the Justia.com website.

    Please see http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html

    It’s all part of the same monstrous cover-up :(

    Thanks again &
    Kind Regards,
    IQ al Rassooli

  38. Glenn says:

    Composite girlfriends, composite birth certificates, composite intellect, composite childhood, composite facts from which a sanitized version of a shadowy life is composed and crafted for public consumption. The compression or adulteration of Mr. Obama’s life is posited as an act of obfuscation……a misdirection from the more troubling aspects of a cipher: a character we know little about and in whom the media organs were borderline criminally culpable in non-vetting—foregoing the ideological proctology exam in obsequious service to their favorite son. So little is verifiable about his character and intellectual resume. Records are hidden away, people have been “talked to” or bought off, and the leading cast of players who could throw an antiseptic light on this Presidential Enigma are languishing conveniently at room temperature. There is a name in the world of men for those who act in such a manner–mendacious. And while the epithet of liar may seem to some tender sensibilities as harsh, one need only think back to the all embracing moderation that this villain espoused prior to his coronation as Philosopher King and contrast that with the current supporting cabal of ideological trickster academics, Marxian hucksters, and traitors antithetical to the spirit of our Constitutional Republic that attend to him in orc-like fealty. An aura of self-importance, hubris, and condescension permeates this Composite President cum Tyrant, and as the cracks begin to form and widen in the greasepaint and the cheap veneer of Hope and Change Rainbows that serve as rhetorical camouflage for an empty suit motivated by tendrils of malevolent intent, we are understanding that behind the composite of truth crouches a stinking lie. In mythological lore, fantastical creatures bearing the marks of compositry were dreamed up by fertile minds: Griffins, Minotaurs, the winged Pegasus, and Centaurs. Whether Mr. Obama’s narrative truth rightfully resides in mythos or in veiled subterfuge must be a topic of our highest concern. We can ill afford to sleep and dream anymore as it has become readily discernible that something quivering and unclean occupies and broods darkly from its temporary lair at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

  39. Pat says:

    An excellent article, but I have just one question: where does the 14th Amendment come into play?
    Obama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship on her son had he been born outside the country, but what if he WAS born in Hawaii?
    We’ve seen courts change their interpretation of the words of the Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed one of its own decisions. Is it possible, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, to interpret natural born as someone who was born on US soil and not naturalized after birth? Some people are saying Marco Rubio isn’t natural born because both of his parents were born outside the country. Are they right? Rubio has been touted as a possible VP candidate and this could sink him.

    • Admin says:

      The 14th Amendment has no bearing on the Art 2 section 1 eligibility issue. Under 14th amendment, anyone born on US soil is a citizen BUT NOT NECESSARILY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. To be a Natural Born Citizen, both his parents need to citizens on date of his birth. Rubio is not eligible for the Presidency.

      • Kristen McFarland says:

        He’s right…and I think that may have been a consideration when Marco Rubio was first thought of as a rising up & coming new guy on the block…these people have been in this little DC clique for so long, they didn’t think anything of trying to get away with this…the go-along to get along mentality…and someone on the Republican side has all the goods on Obama too; so Democrats cannot say anything about Rubio…what needs to happen is everyone gets blasted out of their complacency and term limits would eliminate this network of sleazy politicos…their own tenure has to be limited and it cannot remain a lifetime political career and afterwards becoming lobbyists with access to active Congresspeople…we don’t need people like Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer …and countless others in lifetime positions only punctuated by their continuing campaigns for re-election..I’m sure they know it’s killing the country; and they really don’t care…the power, the control is an overwhelming desire of all these people….and the majority of them forget the people they represent….in the last few decades it has become quite clear this needs to end..and more people need to be involved in the political process instead of fewer…term limits would be the answer and it can only happen if there is a super majority of Republicans to make it happen in both houses…and of course, the repeal of Roe v Wade..that would really start the ball rolling….

      • Pat says:

        The first sentence of the 14th Amendment states:

        “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

        That may have been written after the Civil War but it is a permanent part of our Constitution. It hasn’t changed since it was written. It may have originally been written to guarantee the protection of freed slaves but it still applies today, a century and a half after the war, and it applies to ‘all persons’, not just former slaves. Its wording suggests a difference between those born in the US and those who were naturalized because both words were included.

      • Lori says:

        The 14th Amendment was generally for slaves and their progeny, to make them citizens of the United States. If children born to foreign diplomats on US soil are not citizens of the United States, then why would children born to non-citizens on US soil be citizens of the United States? Where is the logic in creating a situation where children are of different citizenship than their parents?

    • Kristen McFarland says:

      And the XIVth amendment had to do with only one issue and that was how to characterize the children of former slaves after the Civil War…and that alone…the Fourteen Amendment has been used and misused ad nauseum to call those children born of illegal immigrants while they have been here in the United States, citizens…an invalid interpretation and it has been skewed to indicate that is an acceptable position .it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants…and it never did ..illegal immigrants and however many children they have here are not American citizens no matter how it is posed…

      • John Hindon says:

        Good Morning Pat,

        You are correct about the 14th Amendment, however, it does not apply to the President of the United States. When one Amendment supersedes another, it is duly noted, and there is no notation in the 14th Amendment nullifying the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article I, Section 1, Paragraph 5, which remains in full force and effect.

        If you read the article carefully you will note that John Jay’s letter was meant to hold the president to a higher standard of citizenship. The Founders were deeply concerned that someone of considerable influence in Great Britain or other European countries would come here, become a citizen and become president, essentially to rule the country as a monarch. In particular, historians have noted that John Jay was deeply concerned about General von Steuben, a Prussian general who assisted us in the Revolutionary War. Afterwards, however, he was sympathetic to Shay of Shays Rebellion. Von Steuben’s ultimate plan was to have a Prussian prince come here, become a citizen and ascend to the presidency and then bestow upon him the “American Crown.”

        For that reason, it was decided by all the Framers that for anyone to be eligible for president they must be held to a higher standard of citizenship, and they stipulated that anyone wishing to become president MUST BE born in this country to parents [plural] who are BOTH U.S. citizens at the time of his or her birth. In no way did the 14th Amendment change that requirement. To say that anyone born here is a citizen under the 14th Amendment is true, but only for people not wishing to become president. It does not negate the full force and effect of “natural born Citizen.” To believe that it does is erroneous. That clause has been changed in any way. And that’s a problem, as well, for Marco Rubio whose parents were not citizens when he was born.

  40. Jimmy Jim says:

    This article cites the Supreme Court dissenters from the Wong Kim Ark case which were only two of the Justices. You guys do realize that a 6-2 decision means that the concept of jus soli or citizenship based on place of birth was upheld and that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen because he was born on U.S. soil. Citing the opinion of the minority in this case does not prove your point.

    • Kristen McFarland says:

      Actually Jimmy Jim, you’re incorrect..Mr. Obama out of his own mouth had already said he was born in Kenya; his wife says so as well, both on video…so no, Barack, the Messiah was not born on US soil…the point of this article is that he cannot be considered a natural born citizen because his father was a citizen of Kenya, and his mother was under eighteen and could not confer her citizenship to her son. Natural born citizens as defined by the Constitution are those who have both parents born on American soil; since that doesn’t apply to Obama, he isn’t eligible according to the clause…the article was researched by a constitutional attorney, so your statements are inaccurate and incorrect.

      • Gary Miller says:

        Neither the President nor the First Lady has ever said that President Obama was born in Kenya. Never happened.

      • snafubar says:

        Hey Gary, you have seen Obama’s bio since 1991, haven’t you?

        Every year, up until the election, he stated he was born in Kenya. Several edits to his bio were made over the years, but one thing always stayed constant: that he was born in Kenya.

        So was he lying then or is he lying now?

        There were several “freudian slips” of the tongue made by both Obama and Michelle.

    • John Hindon says:

      Actually, an opinion written by the minority of justices on the Supreme Court carries as much weight as a majority opinion with judges in lower courts. In fact, minority opinions are used all the time in support of legal briefs and motions.

      It has not been established that “jus soli” is the final word in this case. This comes from WND and a slew of other sites are reporting the same story: “U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

      If jus soli was the be all end all, then why is this federal judge demanding that the eligibility issue be resolved now? Clearly he is not of the opinion that Obama is or is not a natural born Citizen. If the issue had been decided, he wouldn’t be asking for a definition. Also, read “Minor v. Happersett.” It’s an interesting opinion. This article is the first one to prove that Obama is not a natural born Citizen.

  41. The Biggest Cover-up in American History…

    By Amil Imani ~ In our previous article, “Exonerating President Obama”, we noted that the only Supreme Court precedent for the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan d…

  42. MaryHolloway Love says:

    We knew from the beginning his father was a subject of the British Crown, thereby rendering him CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE for POTUS; THEY KNEW IT TOO AND PERPETRATED a hoax and theft and destruction on this country with malice aforethought. ANYONE in the House or Senate, prior to 2010 mid-terms, ALL CABINET MEMBERS, any appointed judges (At ANY LEVEL) should all be charged with treason during a time of war; theft, misappropriation of public funds, mail fraud, wire fraud, RICO and a host of others I am too tired to list. I have been fighting this since before he became the GOP nominee and NO ONE WOULD LISTEN, cause they already knew….Glad to know that GITMO is still open…..military tribunals for them all, and NO, Eric tHE HORRIBLE Holder, you are NOT entitled to Miranda rights, as you are now an ENEMY COMBATANT, same as your boss!!

  43. KJ says:

    You are spot on with these recent analyses. Keep up the good work, and let the evidence point you further in the direction of the truth. We live in a very strange world where what might seem impossible is therefore unbelievable, but not therefore false.

    If as Hitler’s propagandists pointed out that the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed; then also the more widely believed a well promoted absurdity, the more likely it is to be a well orchestrated deception.

  44. Jimmy says:

    sheriff Joe Arpaio is holding another press conference.. hope it is a doozy!

  45. Pamela says:

    Obama’s own paternal grandmother (or was it his aunt?) claims she “was there” at the hospital on the day he was born. And we all know she is not talking about being in Honolulu!

  46. Pamela says:

    Obama is a former British subject by way of Kenya. He has renounced his citizenship. This is why shortly after moving into the White House, he sent the bust of Winston Churchill (which was a gift from the British people to America after 9/11) back to Great Britain. This is also the reason why neither he nor Michelle were invited to Prince William’s wedding to Katherine Middleton last year.

  47. Pamela says:

    I can still remember the story which aired on ABC News World News Tonight several years ago, before anyone had ever really heard of Barack Obama. Then Senator Obama was making a “trip home” to Kenya. The narrator also introduced Obama as “the son of a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya.” The man is not a US citizen! He should have never became President of the United States of America! Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton as well as the hierarchy of the Democratic Party must have known about Obama’s ineligibility too. Therefore, if Obama someday ends up in federal prison on charges of fraud and conspiracy against the United States of America there ought to be many other familiar faces sharing the same cell block with him!

  48. BILL says:

    MAGNIFICENT JOB ON THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS PIECE WILL BECOME PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY. THESE ARE FACTUAL WORDS. OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE.

  49. Sue says:

    All the Republicans need to read this. Must be mandatory. Please help and send this to everyone in congress.

  50. Pam says:

    FANTASTIC PIECE OF WORK. THIS WAS NEEDED BADLY. No overreach is too far. With the press willingly neutralized only those of us on the internet know the extent of the overreach and corruption of this administration. Gingrich is the only one to handle this IMO.

    Thank you.

  51. Gary says:

    This is perhaps the BEST article has ever written about this important issue. I hope all of our representatives read this and do something about it. Thank you Mr. Imani and Mr. Hyde. There is a solution to the unconstitutional conduct and other malfeasance and misfeasance of America’s politicians. Currently, we allow and rely on our political officials to police themselves which they are, not surprisingly unwilling, to do. –This is the cause of our economic crisis and our failure of government. Does anyone truly believe that the Obama Justice Department would bring charges against Obama for wrongdoing now matter how grievous?

    Part of the solution (in addition to term limits) is to amend the constitution to (1) enable the assembly of Constitutional Citizen Courts, and (2) allow groups of citizens to bring charges against politicians who now hold themselves now above the law. Such Citizen courts would allow Americans to bring charges against Obama for Election fraud. They could also enable us to prosecute politicians for lying, graft, bribery, any other provable offense.

    Obviously there would be logistic issues to hammer out as to how these court would function procedurally and otherwise. But it should be obvious by now that our current lawless government is in dire need of accountability to the people.

  52. Joe says:

    Absolutely brilliant. There are no loose strings here to cause objections. That’s fine in my opinion but we supposedly have over 500 Legislators that are bickering over menial topics where with one sweep of a fly swatter , enforcing the law, will eliminate the terminal cancer sitting in the oval office. There might be a lot of support for Mr. Obama because of ulterior motives, but the ” fly swatter” should be in the hands of the Supreme Court.
    All that’s on the table with the Supereme Court Judges should be pushed aside and might be eliminated if Obama is pulled out of office by them. Come on guys, get off the pot.

  53. “In our previous article, “Exonerating President Obama”, we noted that the only Supreme Court precedent for the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan dissent in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case.”

    This is not true. Other cases are the Venus case, Shanks versus Dupont, Minor versus Happersett and Perkins versus Elg.

    • Duke-Jinx says:

      Magnus… You have preempted my reply with your own. …It is exactly correct.

      The Standard and controlling Law is in fact… Happersette v minor

  54. Hardnox says:

    Amil,

    Excellent essay and research. Sadly, no congressman will touch this and no judge will either. We have gutless cowards in charge aided by a lapdog media supported by a clueless population.

    It was painfully obvious that Obama was not eligible during is Senate run when asked about his father’s nationality. His response was that he was only running for Senate. Clinton brought up the issue early in 2008 and promptly shut-up about it. There are powerful people behind the curtain preventing this issue from ever being aired.

  55. schapps says:

    Actually, BarryO’Deceiver has never pulled-the -wool over our eyes. His actions are plain to see, his words very clear, for anyone who is willing to open their eyes and SEE . Many times he has stated exactly what he intended to do; illegal; unconstitutional; dictatorial; and by-passing all our laws. Problem is AMERICANS are ignorant of their own nations history, laws, and constitution. Until WE educate ourselves and our children, then DECEIVERS of all sorts will continue to manipulate and usurp our nation…

  56. James says:

    Obama’s greatest talent is deceit and deception, disguised as ‘hope and change’. Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama is ‘the big lie’ personified. He has more “missing years” than Lord Jesus. I believe he is an Illegal Alien, with multiple fake SSN’s and a forged birth certificate, until proven otherwise in a court of law.

  57. Tim says:

    Isn’t it obvious by now that the pretense of objectivity of the “mainstream” media is completely gone? Unfortunately, despite all of the “new” media out in the blogosphere, the vast majority of Americans still sleepwalk to the harmonious siren song of the left-controlled propaganda machine known as ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBC. Great and sobering article.

  58. Tim says:

    Excellent article!!!!!!!!Are we a nation of laws now or a nation of tyrants? I’m afraid that the country has crossed a major line here, and to leave it unaddressed would be complicit with the lawbreakers, and create a dangerous precedent.(or maybe just continue a series of dangerous precedents already created.) Is this traitorous president, who has demonstrated total contempt for the concept of a nation of laws above the law? What is the next step here?

Leave a Reply

Comment Form

(required)

(required)


Hits for this article:

132329

cyrus_the_great_white


In Memory of Sarah and Amina Said

Honor Killing Victims 1-1-08



About this blog

My mission is to raise the clarion call about the imminent and present danger of expansionistic theocratic Islam. Having witnessed first-hand the horrors and indignity that Islamofascism visits on people it subjugates, I have taken it upon myself to do my part in defeating this ideology of oppression, hate and violence.



  • Tamara: Exactly, this is a quatrain about the beginning of the Third World War. I tell everyone this when I [...]
  • Pancho: Thank you for your comment Arash. I take your point. But filtrsy, I am not trying to prove any relat [...]
  • sha: First of all if you don't know about something then don't write a blog on it and don't even dare to [...]
  • June: You sure nailed that, Elliott. [...]
  • Sheik: Correct comment George! I think it is craven cowardice on our leaders part that is allowing islam to [...]

Obama meets Ahmadinejad

Visitors since June 2006:

World Clock


Categories

Our Archive

Calendar

November 2014
MTWTFSS
« Aug  
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Links

Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» Alyssa A. Lappen
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Amil Imani
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Armenian Genocide
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Ayaan Hirsi Ali
» Biafra Nation
» Birdbrain
» Blazing Cat Fur
» The Blogmocracy
» B'nai Elim
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Bruce Bawer
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» The Capitalist Report with Howard Hyde
» Caroline Glick
» Chesler Chronicles
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Copts.com
» Counterterrorism Blog
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» DEBKAfile
» Defend Geert Wilders
» Dhimmitude.org
» The Diary of Daedalus
» Divest Terror.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» English Defence League
» Europe News
» Ex-Muslims on Twitter
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» Free Thought Nation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Events
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» Jihadica
» Jihad Watch
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» The Lid
» Little Green Footballs
» Little Green Footballs Discredited
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Muhammad Tube
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» Need to Know Show
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Phyllis Chesler
» Political Islam
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» Right Wing News
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SIOE Stop Islamisation of Europe
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» summer patriot, winter soldier
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Truth Be Known
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Voice of the Copts
» Voice of the Copts
» Walid Shoebat
» Weasel Zippers
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» World Threats
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy