Tea Party speaker, Joe Farah, blasts Obama's violating US Constitution Article 2 Requirements 02/05/2010

CEO and editor in chief of World Net Daily, Joe Farah, gave a very solid speech to the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party movement. For the first time on National Television, there was an unashamed (but unofficial and informal) Quo Warranto petition for Barack Obama to prove a United States Natural Born Citizenship, or even produce a hospital location with physician and birth witnesses "birth certificate" to even show that he was even born in the USA. AMEN!!!












Only days before, at the Prayer Breakfast, the apostate and pseudo-Christian, and de facto Shia Muslim Obama stated, in the below provided video link, at seconds 15-25:
"Surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith,
or for that matter,
my citizenship."



The answer is, you possess neither a faith in Jesus Christ as the only way to Heaven or Salvation, making you a non-Christian; and you have never been properly vetted as a United States Natural Born Citizen because your father was a Kenyan National, making it impossible for you to be US Constitutionally qualified...and neither was your background checked prior to 1992 under Federal National Security Background Checks. So I not only question, but I personally have cited reasonable doubt through case law, US and Indonesian journalist and other investigations and background checks, international claims to your birth being on Kenyan Soil by African journalists and governments, conflicting testimonies by you and your sibling and friends to have you born simultaneously in 4 locations in 3 different countries, your refusal to release a legitimate long form birth certificate listing even your freakin' birth weight along with witnesses to the birth and a legitimate birth certificate number (because yours was out of sequence with genuine Long Form birth numbers from those born hours later than you), and on and on.

Hillary Clinton’s unconstitutionality to the Office of The Secretary of State,
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/25/is-hillary-clinton-unconstitutional/

...though based in Law,
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2:

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased [sic] during such time…”

is best addressed by taking on and removing the illegal authority who placed her there. Hence, Farah is on the right track as an editor and journalist. The Birth Certificate issue is all about the Constitution and about the rule of Law in the United States, and how the Media has failed or in large part betrayed its moral obligation to use the "power of the press" to demand a holding to the rule of Law and abiding by the words found in the US Constitution...and I mean all of it.


-------------------------------

OBAMA HIMSELF DEMANDED WE HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE

On May 21, 2009 Obama solemnly declared before the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, almost as if pledging after the manner of a legally binding utterance. Therefore, his words should be used against him in unsealing the Court records.

http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/21/HP/A/18855/Pres+Obama+Speech+on+National+Security.aspx
1) "I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.”
@ 37:10-37:23 on the C-Span video link

2) “…whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.” @ 37:54-38:07 on the C-Span link

3) “…in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.”
@ 38:28 – 38:39 on the C-span link

4) “I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why." @ 40:44 - 41:01 on the C-span link
It’s time to take all the information, and submit it as a reasonable cause FOIA release of the Long Form BC, and other relevant papers or documentation (such as passports, US school and college transcripts regarding declared citizenship and financial status).
------------------------------------------


US CONSTITUTION, Article 2, Section 1.

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows...

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

...Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation

:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
------------------------------------------

US Constitutional terms:

1. Citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution (archaic, moot)

2. Citizen of the US (three co-equal forms): Born to at least 1 US Citizen legal parent or born in the USA or Naturalized.

Re: 14th Amendment, Section 1. (Second class citizen, one who is NOT able to aspire to be US President. Senator Feinstein of California, illegally and egregiously cited the 14th Amendment in her 07/09/2009 letter to me as justification for Barack Obama's usurpation. A 14th Amendment “Citizen of the US” is simply inclusive of Anchor birth, such as Obama (since his mother was not of legal age. That is, Barack falls under being born to a maternal citizen / transient alien and foreign national parent only birth (since Barack Sr. was a dual Kenyan/British national at the time of Barack Jr.'s birth and until his death). Also in this category should be listed - the "derivation of Citizenship" by a minor child through his/her US Naturalized guardian/custodial parent(s).

3. Born Citizen as it relates to the 14th Amendment, Section 1 (Second class citizen, NOT able to aspire to be US President).

4. Naturalized, not born in USA who by Federal Statutes obtains Citizenship, renounces oaths of allegiances to foreign powers, and falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment, Section 1. (Second class citizen, NOT able to aspire to be US President).

5. Natural Born Citizen, born in the USA to a father or both parents who are US citizens of any type at the time of the child's birth. (First class citizen, acquisition of an imprimis status of US citizenship, able to aspire to be US President. The natural born status in the US is paternal based, but in running for the Presidency, tradition required both parents to be some type of US citizen).
RE:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

Natural Born Citizen visual aids:
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-usurper-related-videos.html

There is no issue about race or ethnicity. There is no issue about party affiliation or religious beliefs. The issue is straight forward. America has been hijacked by allowing Barry Soetoro, aka. Barack Hussein Obama II, a clearly ineligible candidate, to run for and obtain the Presidential Office of the United States of America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A LETTER FROM SENATE JUDICIARY MEMBER: SENATOR FEINSTEIN

In a letter dated July 9, 2009, California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein stated to me that the 14th Amendment qualifies Barack Obama to the Office. In it, Mrs. Feinstein writes:
“Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years.

President Obama meets these constitutional requirements. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old US citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible for President.”

Senator Feinstein either fallaciously assumes that any 14th Amendment Citizen has the originalism to mean that such a one is automatically “natural born”, or she simply and intentionally skirted the vast differences that were later part of the debates in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) and Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927), which clarified and interpreted the 1898 case of US v. Wong.

But even before that, the same 14th Amendment argument that Feinstein rationalizes with, was neutralized as far back as the Sep/Oct 1884 issue of the American Law Review, just 16 years after the passing of the 14th Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------

FIRST 14th AMENDMENT AUTHORITY I WILL CITE

The ALR issue of Sep/Oct 1884 was the same one in which Democratic lawyer George D. Collins stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”.

George D. Collins is the first authority to which I point concerning the 14th Amendment. He asked the question: “are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of birth were aliens, citizens thereof?”

Collins cited Vattell in probing for the answer:
"The native or natural citizens are born in the country of PARENTS who are citizens" [emphasis mine].
"As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights."
"The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."


His answer at the end of the article: “Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins


This differed from Senator Bayard's letter just 3 years earlier.
In January 10, 1881 Democratic Senator Bayard of Delaware (in a letter) made an erroneous affirmation of Chester A. Arthur’s right to be President of the United States because Chester’s father naturalized as a US Citizen prior to Chester’s 21st birthday.
A free copy is found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States

Constitutional Amendment ARTICLE XII., SUB-DIVISION 3.
" But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of
President, shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States."
New York, January 7th, 1881.

Hon. THOS. F. BAYARD, U. S. Senator.
DEAR SIR: - What is the construction of Article II., ~ I,
Clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States-that
.. No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc., shall be
eligible, etc." * * *
Yours respectfully,
A. P. HINMAN.
--------------
Senate of the United States.
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
A. P. HINMAN, Esq., New York.
DEAR SIR:-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term" natural-born citizen," as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor. Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD

Just 14 years after the 1884 American Law Review clarification on Natural Born Citizen v. the 14th Amendment, Collins was co-chief prosecutor who sought to deny Wong Kim Ark citizenship, and won.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/13135/United-States-v-Wong-Kim-Ark.html

Barack’s father lived and died as a Kenyan national with dual British citizenship and only traveled in the United States as a transient alien and foreign national. Because Barack Sr. was a transient alien foreign national here on a student visa and was NEVER a US Citizen, and NEVER even made application to be one...it is IMPOSSIBLE to declare Barack Obama Jr. a UNITED STATES Natural Born Citizen.

Brooklyn Eagle June 2, 1884 p.4
In the Interest of Blaine
The circulation of a Book Concerning Arthur’s Birthplace.
[Special to the Eagle.]
Chicago, June 2.
Many hundred volumes of a book entitled “How a British Subject Became President of the United States,” reached here this morning, for distribution among the delegates to-morrow. The author is Arthur P. Hinman, a Brooklyn lawyer. The book opens with an extract from the Constitution of the United States providing that “no person except a natural born citizen” shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States. The author then states that when Chester A. Arthur was nominated for the vice presidency he was at first unable to name his birth-place and that, when the party managers insisted that he should name a spot before he wrote his letter of acceptance, he went off on an alleged fishing excursion with Robert G. Dun, the real object being to secure time to search the records in the province of Quebec, Canada, to see whether anything existed to show that he was born a British subject.


The main charge in the book is that William Chester Alan Arthur was born at Dunham Flats, Canada, on March, 1828, and that he represented himself to have been born at North Fairfield, Vermont, the birthplace of a younger brother, Chester Abell Arthur, who was born in 1830, and died a year later. It is stated that in 1834 when another son was born he received the name of William Arthur, Jr., and then the name William was dropped by William Chester Alan Arthur, and he was thenceforth known as Chester Alan Arthur. The records, copies of which are given, show that in 1845 Chester Alan Arthur entered Union College, stating his age to be 16.
Several letters and copies of records are included in the book, going to substantiate the statement that President Arthur is a British subject, but there is nothing so far as the general reader can discover, that could establish the allegation in any competent court. Still, there is sufficient to raise a doubt in the minds of those who read the numerous letters from various aged persons who knew the Arthur family as to President Arthur’s being a natural born citizen of the United States.
The principal facts were printed in the newspapers some time ago. It is supposed that the book is circulated in the interest of Blaine. P.D. -----------------------------------------------------------------
My comments:

In regard to Blaine:
[The reporter refers to former Secretary of State James G. Blaine of Maine, who was successfully making his bid to be the Republican nominee for President in 1884. He was paired up with Senator John A. Logan of Illinois.]

In regard to Arthur's "fishing excursions" for records in Quebec, Canada.

[Question: Did Obama do the same kind of fishing when he took Robert Gibbs (now White House Press Secretary) and J. Scott Gration (now a Czar to Sudan and de facto Kenya) to Kenya with him in 2006, campaigning for Odinga, and seeing birth records sealed from light of day if they do exist there?

Question, was Gration paid off by appointment, and promises?

Czar of Sudan, J. Scott Gration
His assigned role is to help prevent massacres in Sudan Africa and provide aid to those in need. It is a United Nations role, because of the social and humanitarian nature. But for someone born to missionaries in the Republic of Congo and reared in Africa, his agenda appears more in line for Obama family history and birth challenges "damage control". J. Scott Gration is fluent in Swahili

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE52H0A220090318 .

He traveled with and advised Barack Obama in 2006 on tour of Africa to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti and Chad (including Obama’s campaigning two days for Odinga, a relative, in Kenya).

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/08/taxpayers_campaign_fund_obamas.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1386901/scott_gration_to_be_nasa_administrator.htmlhttp://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977482246

In 2008 Gration switched from Republican to the DNC party. Since his duties in Sudan have him extensively communicate with Kenya, Scott Gration is more of an Ambassador to Kenya without Portfolio, than a Czar to Sudan relief efforts. Media information suppression on any Obama related data is likely tracked back to this Czar, whose efforts on behalf of the United States are yet to be disclosed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECOND 14th AMENDMENT AUTHORITY

Concerning the 14th Amendment by a second authority, Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), who states:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

Barack's Kenyan father, owing allegiances to both Kenya and Britain, disqualified Barack Jr. from a "natural born US status", not a second class status of an anchor birth. Only the Presidency would be beyond his reach...unless he broke the Law to get it, that is.

----------------------------------------

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/274/657/case.html

Page 274 U. S. 664

in the citizenship of the second generation of children of citizens of the United States born abroad, and nothing in this article was directed to the question of the meaning of the words contained in the Act of 1802, "provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States."

The Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 ...read as follows:

"That persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States."


Page 274 U. S. 670

to the language of Mr. Justice Gray in delivering the majority opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. The majority in that case, as already said, held that the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to nationality was birth within the [father's] allegiance of the government, and that one born in the United States, although of a race and of a parentage denied naturalization under the law, was nevertheless, under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the amendment. The attitude of Chief Justice Fulley and Mr. Justice Harlan was that, at common law, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this government, and that, to that extent, the jus sanguinis obtained here; that the Fourteenth Amendment did not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located here who might themselves become citizens, nor, on the other hand, did it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of adults who, according to the will of their native government and of this government, are and must remain aliens.

-------------------------------------------------

1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.

"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."

Because Barack Obama's father was a transient alien and a visiting foreign national from Kenya, US Law expects Barack to have taken an oath of allegiance, that of an equivalence to a "naturalization" to the United States of America, no later than with 6 months of his 21st birthday.

This Barack never did, and if he did, the admission demonstrates he is not a "natural born citizen" of the US anyway.

1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961), the US Supreme court ruled within 3 months of Barack's alleged birth date, that a child born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, to an American citizen mother did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father.

Until May 24, 1934, throughout United States history, the “Natural Born” status legally followed the father, the paternal lineage in US Law, NOT the mother.

Since May 24, 1934, in US Law, the “Natural Born” status cannot apply unless the child receiving such status is born to both a US Citizen father and a US Citizen mother.

The only exception is when the child’s father is “presumed” to be a US Citizen, but is unknown; and in that case, the citizenship of the mother is intact, with the baby born on either US soil or in a recognized US Sovereign territory.


Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), includes that conduct that intends to relinquish claim to US Citizenship. The corroboration to this will be if Barack obtained an Indonesian Passport after the age of 18 years old, and then used the same to visit Pakistan, India, Britain, or Kenya at any time past his 18th birthday, having obtained the same past his 18th birthday...though some would argue it would need to be reissued last at or past his 21st birthday. Even so, Obama hides all his documentaion, including all his passports (that he might hide his true alien citizenship, it seems to me).
-------------------------------------------------------


CURRENT IMMIGRATION DISTINCTION

In looking at the Immigration Laws, we observe three essential recognitions: Anchor, Natural Born, Naturalized.
• Anchor birth in the United States or its territories
• Natural born birth to two U.S. citizen parents (through the citizens of father and mother, called "acquisition" of citizenship.)
• Naturalization (obtaining citizenship after an application and exam), or
• Naturalization of a minor though through one's parents (called "derivation" of citizenship).
http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-did-you-know.html

By the definition given us by US Immigration Laws, in the very best case scenario, Barack Obama would have obtained a derivation of citizenship by the mother in the category of a Naturalization by anchor birth. He did NOT obtain a NATIVE or Natural Born Status, because his father was a foreign national, subject to the Laws of a Nation by which we were bound by Treaty to: Great Britain (via Obama Sr.’s Commonwealth citizenship to that nation).
----------------------------------------------

Treaty Obligations:

In 1946, even with two citizen parents, the NY Times stated that FDR Jr. was investigated and ruled that he could “never can carry that great name back into the White House”, because he was born in Canada, despite being born to two natural-born US Citizens themselves. This FDR Jr. was the second so named, born in 1914. Because of a Treaty with Canada, FDR Jr. was never to have anything near a "natural born" status, no matter how liberals abuse and manipulated the wordings of naturalized with native-born ( NY Times, May 26, 1946).

Because of Treaties with Great Britain, there must be a legal distinction made in regard to Barack Obama's multi-national status. He was born a natural born citizen of Kenya in 1961, with an "anchor birth" second class US citizen status IF: 1) his mother was of age 19 under 1961 US Law (which she wasn't); and, 2) no foreign power could lay claim sole nationality upon him.

A Partial Listing of Relevant Material Involved in stating the Illegality of Obama, focusing on the Natural Born Status and related material including historicity, interpretation, and quo warranto…a listing of the Supreme Court Cases that would be cited:

1. THE UNITED STATES v. VILLATO, 2 U.S. 370 (1797)
2. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
3. Jackson ex Dem. People of State of New York v. Clarke 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 1 (1818)
4. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
5. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830)
6. Dred Scott 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 (1856)
7. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
8. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
9. Rector, etc. of HolyTrinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
10. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
11. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
12. Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
13. Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)
14. Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
15. Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944)
16. Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946)
17. Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948)
18. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)
19. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
20. Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958)
21. Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)
22. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
23. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)
24. School Dist. of Abington TP. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963)
25. Kennedy v .Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)
26. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
27. Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
28. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969), dissent
29. Rogers v. Bellei 401 US 815, 826 (1971)
30. Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
31. Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981)
32. Steel Co. v. Citizens, 523 US 83 (1998)
33. Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001)
34. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
35. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

District Case
1. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al. (1992) 14th Amendment

Documents that would be cited:
1. Charter of Georgia: 1732
2. Resolutions of the Continental Congress October 19, 1765
3. Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress OCTOBER 14, 1774
4. Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777
5. Letter of John Jay to George Washington July 25, 1787
6. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
7. 113 Congressional Record 15,880 (1967) (Brief of the Hon. Pinckney G. McElwee): note 15
8. DoD 5220.22-M, "National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual," 2/28/2006
9. Dunham /Obama divorce decree (missing Barack's Birth Certificate on p.11)


Acts and Codes:
1. US Constitution, Article 2
2. US Constitution Article 5
3. US Constitution, Article 14
4. The Logan Act (est. 1799)
5. Hawaiian Act 96 (effective 1911-1972)
6. The Act of May 24, 1934, ch. 344, 48 Stat. 797
7. 11CFR 9036, Campaign laws
8. 2 USC 437, Campaign laws
9. 2 USC 438, Campaign laws
10. 8 USC 1401(a)(7) {repealed in1972}
11. 8 USC 1401 (a)(1)
12. 8 USC 1481(a)(2)
13. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 @ 301

In other words, there are serious legal issues here, and the challenge to Barack Obama over the birth certificate has so much correct US Law behind it

The various laws governing Immigration Status as it affects Citizenship Laws are currently confined to their respective time periods:
• prior to May 24, 1934
• May 25, 1934 to January 12, 1941 (under which McCain fell)
• January 13, 1941 to December 23, 1952
• December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986, (under which Obama falls)
• November 14, 1986 to present.

-------------------------------------------------

THE ONLY CASE THAT THE OBAMA TEAM CAN REFER IS NOT A LEGITIMATE USE TO THE SUPREME COURT OR IN 50 STATES

In the defense of Barack Obama, his defense team and the Federal Government can only genuinely hook their wagon to one DC District Court case : Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 - US: Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 1961, (June 29, 1961) that the US Supreme Court in the years after had basically thrown under the bus as not persuasive, bad, or in a that which was to be ignored category in their Natural Born Citizen considerations.

Notice that in regard to the Natural Born Citizen issue, legal journals do NOT rely on it, and neither did relevant post-1961 US Supreme Court Cases such as:
Kennedy v .Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969), dissent
Rogers v. Bellei 401 US 815, 826 (1971)
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)

So when even the Law School Review works on the NBC issue -- note this especially --even when they wouldn't give all or any serious weight to the DC Circuit's Liacakos v. Kennedy, the resulting answer must be that it is because it was not a sustainable decision, nor was it based on any legal standing, even though they cited Perkins v. Elg as justification. If the anti-birthers aren't yet scared, they should be.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------







Do we have reason via the Federal National Security Check? Yes: a review.

http://www.opm.gov/Forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf
On the "Questionnaire for National Security Positions", "Standard Form 86 revised July 2008", On page 1 question 3, Obama was required to disclose the city, county, state and country of birth. They did not require him to name a hospital or clinic. At question 5, Obama was required to disclose if he had ever used any other names, and the month/year to month/year he used them.
On p. 2, question 10, Obama would have lied on the question "Do you now hold or have you EVER held multiple citizenships?"
Page 11, question 18 - identify "each relative and give their full name and other requested information...for each of your relatives, living and deceased, specified below.
1-Mother, 2-Father, 3-Stepmother, 4-Stepfather, 5-Foster parent, 6-Child (incl. adopted and foster), 7-Stepchild, 8-Brother, 9-Sister, 10-Stepbrother, 11-Stepsister, 12-Half-brother, 13-Half-sister, 14-Father-in-law, 15-Mother-in-law, 16-Guardian.

Code, Full Name, Deceased box, Date of birth, Place of birth, Country(ies) of citizenship, Current address (Street, City, and State, include Country if outside the U.S.), If relative was born outside the U.S. indicate documentation that he or she possesses...(FS 240 or 245, Citizenship certificate, DS 1350, Naturalization certificate, Alien registration, US Passport, other / Document number)."
http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1143998528&catid=556&a=1
All Barack's siblings, except for the one living in a Kenyan shack, are living in either Great Britain or the US. Obama's step-mother Kezia Aoko, lives in Bracknell UK.

To date, Bracknell appears to be an undiscovered past in Barack's layovers to London in 1987 and 1992. Clearly, Barack has siblings who are both British and Kenyan nationals, beside his sister Maya, who may or may not be a naturalized US Citizen serving in the White House through nepotism.

The writers of the Nairobi’s News Media are convinced, along with momma Sara (Barack’s Step-grandmother) and the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States that Barack was born in Kenya, and is a jus soli jus sanguinis (native son birth on Kenyan soil) Natural Born Citizen of Kenya. They are upset that advantage over his -- Barack Obama Jr.'s -- birth site isn’t made for a tourist attraction.

On page 12, question 19, "Foreign Contacts" for the last 7 years, including associates. Did Obama list the foreign nationals he had either a business or personal contact with? Did he fail to list ex-PLO Terrorist Rashid Khalidi, or that of his cousin Odinga in Kenya whom he campaigned for in 2006?

On pp.12-13, Question 20, Obama was required to disclose any foreign assets and under 20B, "Foreign Business, Professional Activities, and Foreign Government Contacts". Did he disclose these associations? I doubt it. What about where 20B in sub-question 6 asks "Have you EVER held or do you now hold a passport that was issued by a foreign government?"
"If "Yes," provide the name(s) in which your foreign passport(s) was issued, the issuing country(ies), the passport number(s), the date(s)issued, the expiration date(s), and the status of each."


Security Directive 63http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/nsd63.html
The security check only extended backwards for 10 years from his announcing to run, to 1997.
They check his bank and criminal records, they ask the neighbors if the subject has behaved or said anything of note in the last 5 years to them, they check the medical records and 4 submitted references who are going to say nothing but good for the subject anyway, the employment record in the last 10 years, and whatever the LAST collegiate or university record states. In other words, they would have checked the University of Chicago, talked to two or three Obama selected people, and stopped.

http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/fin06-02.pdf
The March 16, 2006 directive from the United States Office of Personnel Management, Notice No. 06-02, states that if a Birth Certificate is stamped "delayed", that essentially, it is no big deal, and one can accept it at face value and move on. By the wording, if Obama simply produced the same birth certification that was forged for him, a sympathetic investigator would simply note that a birth document was present, accept the forgery at face value, and move on.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12968.html

As per Executive Order of 08/04/1995 12868- 1.2(e) 1a,b,c only relevant financial institution records and consumer reporting records would be checked, as well as only those travel records maintained by employers to that employee traveling on company business to locations outside the USA (but only if that company was a US Commercial entity within the USA).
(A) relevant financial records that are maintained by a financial institution as defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a) or by a holding company as defined in section 1101(6) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3401);
(B) consumer reports pertaining to the employee under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a); and
(C) records maintained by commercial entities within the United States pertaining to any travel by the employee outside the United States.
------------------------------------------

ASK THE QUESTIONS

CNN’s Lou Dobbs reported on 07/15/2009 to his viewers of the fact that there is NO VETTING OF CITIZENSHIP in running for Illinois State Representative or State Senator, or Federal Representative or Federal Senator in Illinois. The Federal Elections Commission does NOT vet for citizenship by candidates running for President of the USA. That is left up as an option for the states. Illinois chose NOT to do so.



Obama did not receive matching FEC monies, because under 11CFR 9036, 2 USC 437 & 438 Campaign laws, he then would have had to produce his Long Form birth certificate in return for taxpayer dollars. (CF. 2 USC 431-455; 26 USC 9001-9013, 26 USC 9031-9042). That means, he and his advisors knew before-hand that he did NOT qualify.

Nancy Pelosi's vetted Obama for the DNC Convention, and signed photocopies of her vetting is posted by WorldNetDaily at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=109363

Yet, never once has House Speaker Pelosi appeared with any lawyers or others, and made the statement that she personally viewed Barack's Long Form Birth Certificate, has a personal knowledge of what they contain and that the father and mother on the birth certificate with witnesses is under law proof that Obama qualifies as a United States Natural Born Citizen. Pelosi viewed NO documentation validating Obama, she assumed others, such as the FEC or the Department of Treasury would have done that.


In South Carolina, the Democratic Party’s own Carol Fowler broad brushed that: “The South Carolina Democratic Party certifies that each candidate meets, OR WILL MEET BY THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he/she has filed.” (emphasis mine -- see page 2 of the pdf, dated August 14, 2008, and received 11:43 AM by the South Carolina Election Commission on August 15, 2008.)
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-south-carolina-sec-of-state-respons.pdf

Fowler, it seems to me, went on promises and lies from Democratic Party Leaders and top Obama Campaign handlers, instead of having before her a de facto legal documentation. The "we'll have it for you later" excuse. To me, that either equals fraud or the possible intent to defraud.

Connecticut’s Secretary of State, Susan Bysicwicz, claimed they had NO right to even ask Obama for verification to prove he was eligible to run!
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-sec-of-state-connecticuit-fax-name-removed.pdf

"As Secretary of the State of Connecticut, I do not have the statutory authority to remove a candidate from the ballot unless that candidate officially withdraws...Likewise, neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate's eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States." Secretary of State, Susan Bysicwicz (Connecticut).

She further went on to say that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal presented the Connecticut State Supreme Court Justice, Chase T. Rogers, that he made a phone call to Hawaii's Department of Health and was told to the effect, "Yeah, we got A birth certificate on Barack Obama".

When asked if Obama was born there, the answer was to the effect of "Yeah". No details as to where. Both Obama and his sister originally stated Barack was born at Queens hospital until 2006, and flip-flopped between Queens and Kapi'olani as late as 2008, Kapi'olani 1.6 miles away from Queens and a totally separate hospital and Healthcare network.

The Attorney General never asked if or not Barack was a "Natural Born Citizen", nor inquired to his parents, and if any Treaty with another nation had claim on Barack.

How do we know Barack was born in Hawaii...by official documentation? No. The hearsay of what someone in Connecticut said another person on the phone told him.

This is legally inadmissible in the context it was presented as, and the Chief Justice of Connecticut accepted the here-say contrary to the rules of admissibility and evidence as the prima facie for what can or cannot throw out a case.

The Court received no photo-copy of the original, and hence, there were NO documents that could be requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

For the Election of 2008, the fact of the matter is, Barack never submitted any crucial proof citizen documents for review, even to the Courts, in order to run for President.

-----------------------------------

A MATTER OF CITIZENSHIP

1) The controversial Hawaiian newspaper announcement carried an address of a friend of the family, an educator at the University of Hawaii, which was not lived at by either of Barack’s parents at or near the time of his birth, nor afterwards.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107337
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104678

Michelle Obama in July of 2008, publicly and specifically declared Obama as being born by a single parent. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114259

So Barack's parents did not live at the Hawaii announced address, where were they? Apparently, Ann was on her own, and Barack's father wanted almost nothing to do with him, other than the minimal commitments he was obligated to do. But that family stuff is his private business...his citizenship status, because of the office he now holds and has usurped, is NOT a private affair.

2) Was Barack Jr. a de facto British Commonwealth or de facto Kenyan Born Citizen?

At: http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1143998528&catid=556&a=1
The Weekly Standard reported: “Barack Obama Snr fathered six other sons and a daughter [besides Barack]. All but one live in Britain or the US.”
A) Barack’s Kenyan grandmother insisted that Barack was born in Kenya, at
Mombosa, and is therefore a son of her village and of the soil (of Kenya).
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107524

B) 6 African Media outlets have allegedly stated publicly to their readers
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7449
that there is no doubt to them of the fact that then US Senator Barack
Obama was born in Kenya.

(1) The Nairobi Kenyan Eastern Standard is the primary one of
concern. It states clearly in the headline that Senator Barack Obama is Kenyan born...hence, born in Kenya. http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

On 03/11/2008, 10 month's before Barack published his open letter to Kenya, the Weekly Standard lamented:
“On the road from Kisumu to Busia, there isn’t a single sign indicating the real hometown of Senator Obama. Yet billions of shillings are reportedly spent every year by bigwigs pretending to promote tourism!” http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1143998423&catid=501&a=1

Mind you, we must remember, that Barack accepts the authenticity of this Nairobi Media, and in his open letter to Kenya, appearing in the 01/18/2009 issue
http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1144004348&catid=4&a=1


(2) Followed by Uganda's "all africa" reaffirming then Senator Barack's birth in Kenya. http://allafrica.com/stories/200802180051.html

C) Obama hinted at it in his book:
"...but for me that only underscored my own uneasy status: a Westerner not entirely at home in the West, an African
on his way to a land full of strangers." Barack Obama, Dreams of My Father, Pg 301.

Barack, himself, labels "Barack Obama" as an "African" as if "African-born and Kenyan National". There is nothing wrong with that, as we have many fine and law-abiding patriotic Africans who have legally naturalized to the USA...again, there is nothing wrong with being an "African-born and Kenyan National", UNLESS you wish to attain the office of POTUS (President of the United States). The phrasing of "African", and "not being entirely at home in the West" speaks NOT to home sickness only...but identity and allegiance.

According to Kenya's own embassy in Brussels, Kenya recognizes only the Kenyan Citizen father as having the exclusive right to pass on “Natural Born Citizenship”. And this would apply not only to Brussels, but with any country to which it does not hold a treaty with to say otherwise. From Kenya’s point of view, in its official document for public consumption…the nationality of the child must follow the nationality of the child’s FATHER, even if the mother were Kenyan. http://www.kenyabrussels.com/docs/nationality_of_child_born_abroad.pdf

The US has no treaty with Kenya to say that Obama Sr. (Obama I) did NOT make Obama Jr. (Obama II) a “Kenyan Natural Born Citizen” at birth, regardless where Barack Obama II was born. By obligation to Great Britain, as with the example of FDR JR. cited earlier, we are bound to deny Barack Hussein Obama II a United Staes Natural Born Citizenship because of his father's Natural Born Commonwealth Status with Britain.

Matthew Bacon in 1736 defined the English Common Law from 1736 ff. on the "natural born" status as:
"All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions." Bacon, Mathew: A New Abridgement of the Law, By a Gentleman of the Middle Temple, Vol 1, p.77 [On the 48 MB pdf, p. 77 is at 105.]
http://www.archive.org/details/newabridgementof01baco

But..."The common law of England is not the common law of these states". says George Mason, one of the authors of the USA's "Bill of Rights."

3) Then we have Obama's boast to his friend that he was born in Indonesia.

On Sunday, January 8, 2006, in "Duckworth working to win", we find that Honolulu Advertiser staff writer Will Hoover reported:
“ Illinois Army National Guard Maj. L. Tammy Duckworth …is happy to point out that she and Hawai'i-raised Punahou graduate Obama have 'a kama'aina connection.' Both were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand — and graduated from high school in Honolulu — Punahou and McKinley, respectively.”
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/08/ln/FP601080334.html

Why would Barack have seemingly told Duckworth that he was born in Indonesia, and not just reared for a few years there? There is no repudiation to the birthplace claims of Barack as being foreign born, either from Senator Barack or Robert Gibbs; for Gibbs in 2006 was in the employ of Senator Barack in some form of a Press Information Control capacity, and accompanied Barack in his visit to Kenya in 2006.

On Wednesday April 22, 2009, that “kama'aina connection” was confirmed in the Congressional records of the Senate Daily Digest in the Senate Confirmation of her on page D426.
“Nomination Confirmed: Senate confirmed the following nomination: Ladda Tammy Duckworth, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Public and Intergovernmental Affairs).”
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/digest2009/d22AP091.html


4) On 9-28-2005, at a Harvard University Q&A: US Supreme Court Justice Breyer described the Supreme Court’s role as “100 percent law interpretation” and “much more mechanical than you might think.” http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=508682

In the majority opinion of 2001’s Nguyen et al. v. INS http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/ , one of the criteria of proving one's birth location and birth citizenship is through the 100% mechanical means of hospital records and witnesses. 533 US 53, NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS. (2001)
@ 54 :“The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.” And
@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”

Supreme Court Law therfore states that the disclosure of witnesses “TO THE BIRTH” must also demonstrate the veracity to the birth certificate or hospital records. A claim by the DoH health director is NOT legally sufficient under Nguyen.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court, took to itself the task of offering a careful and detailed support as to interpreting a US Constitutional provision based on original intent and original public meaning. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in DC v. Heller, heavily documenting justifications toward an “originalist” view.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/slip/554/07-290/opinion.pdf

In June 2008, the then Illegal Candidate for President, Barack Obama, was quoted even by multiple lap-dog media sources stating that he was then supporting the DC v. Heller decision:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms…the Supreme Court has now endorsed that view… Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. … We can work together to enact common-sense laws … Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."
For example, see:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/26/1169956.aspx
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/06/page/3/

In other words, a clear and distinctive legal analysis of a Constitutional Article is “much needed guidance” , even according to illegal “Candidate” Barack Obama. What his views are now, are expected to be in contrariness, as he fights through both Perkinscoie and now chief White House counsel (on tax-payer's dime) Robert Bauer and the US Attorney’s Office to hold onto what he has gained by fraud, deceit, and felonious activities.

In Originalism: The Lesser Evil, Justice Antonin Scalia writes that despite a myriad of legal opinions given to the contrary of the “originalist” view, Scalia examines the historical context of a separate part of Article 2.1 of the Constitution than we discuss and debate upon, and examines why an original intent is the more proper view.
http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/lesserevil.asp

In the instance of the legal definition of who and what is a “natural born citizen” qualified to run for the Presidency, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts – - as in the example of DC v. Heller -- can give an “Originalist” and long cited response to justify, once and for all, who and what a natural born citizen is. Since Barack was all for Heller’s “first clear statement” and “much needed guidance” on another Amendment issue, why not also the same standard for Article 2.1.5. and the “natural Born Citizen” clause?. I say, prove Obama is illegal, lame duck his administration and dump every law passed by Congress since January 20, 2009 to whenever Biden temporarily takes over, have the Courts install the only other legal major party US “natural born” candidate – Sarah Palin – as VP to Biden; and call for a special Presidential Election for the remainder of the term and done in 6 months or less.


Yet, in spite that the Originalist view of Supreme Court Law that tells us that the FATHER passes on the national "Natural BORN" citizenship to the child, Obama still refuses to acknowledge the rule of law. He pretends it evolves to whatever rule he -- not the courts --seeks to define it as.

Hence, Barack Obama Jr. illegally occupies the office of President of the United States and needs to be legally and peacefully removed from office (or resign) immediately.

----------------------
Finally,

THANK YOU JOE FARAH for having the guts to ask the question, uphold the US Constitution, and hold to the truth. G-D Bless You for doing that.

That's my input.