Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Lt. Col Terry Lakin, Due Process, and Case Law that mandates Originalism be followed on the Natural Born Citizen Clause. More of why Obama is a Usurper under Constitutional Case Law.

Perhaps with the military, it is different.  Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is being tried by Court Martial, but it seems that  "due process" in presenting his Obama ineligibility defense plays out differently under the UCMJ Code than it does for civilians.   To the Military...the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen (NBC) clause" just doesn't seem to matter. 

An older video presents Terry Lakin stating his points:

A Utah pro-political video with a "candidate" for political office ad at the end, looks at the Lakin kangarooing situation what might be described as how we have a current decorated hero in need of our moral and outspoken support, one who is an active service member and a Veteran of Foreign Wars who getting screwed for the sake of political correctness and by a pro-Islamic Obama who simply loathes US heroes.

The trial is currently scheduled  for 12/14/2010

 I and many others contend  that Lakin is being stonewalled and kangaroo-ed by a Colonel Denise Lind, and not just by Lind, but by those around and over her who are casting the US Constitution aside.  They do so almost subconsciously, while in the pursuit of contrary (anti-Constitutional Leftist political)  philosophies and/or  loyalties, and while perpetuating the adverse idea that anyone who challenges a Leftist in political office somehow needs to be destroyed.  Never mind that it is those Leftists in both the Media and in political office who are calling for declaring dictatorship, and that dictatorship along with a removing and /or fully altering the US Constitution, as defined in their own minds, somehow go hand in hand.

So what do we need to know, as civilians interested in suing Obama?  If we are sued or prosecuted first by the Government, we get the privileges of due process.  Well, at least allegedly.  Under Obama, we have to allow for the Third World dictator mentality, since his biological father wasn't even a US Citizen, but a Third World Communist who wanted dictatorship...and Obama studied to be more like his father. 

At any rate...

“Due process requires that there be an opportunity to present every available defense, but it need not be before the entry of judgment. York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15. Compare Grant Timber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 236 U. S. 133; Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U. S. 170. See also Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589, 283 U. S. 596-597; Coffin Brothers & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U. S. 29.”

American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156 @ 168 (1932)

But that kind of due process ...the kind that allows the defense the opportunity to present what should be obviously available to any and every US Citizen in civilian life...well that is clearly being denied Lt. Col. Lakin.  In fact, it is clear that Colonel Denise Lind and those of the prosecution have already deemed Lakin as if they had already found him guilty, and conduct themselves in such a manner (it seems to me).  It seems quite obvious by what few media accounts we get on the process, that Lakin is intentionally being ham-stringed to as much as a "zero defense presentation" as the Pentagon approvingly over-looking the trial thinks possible for them to get away with, legal or not.  There has yet to be any clear and factual contradiction to such an assessment as this.

But why should the US Army abide by Due Process or that the US Constitution has a Natural Born Citizen Clause for the requirements of whosoever should be President and Commander-in-Chief of the US Army and all  the Armed Services?  Most politicians, activist judges, and media, in general,  already currently refuse to abide by the US Constitution, except in the format of selective memory and selective passages of convenience. 

Don't they know that the words "Natural Born Citizen" are part of the essential enforcement requirements of US Constitutional Law? 
They fail to adhere to the facts as stated in Case Law that:

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. "  

It must also be remembered that the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the government they were creating and prescribing, in language clear and intelligible...

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in @ 22 U. S. 188, well declared: 

"As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said."

...As said by Mr. Justice Matthews in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478:

"The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

And by MR. JUSTICE GRAY in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 654:

"In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624-625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274."

South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 - 450 (1905)http://supreme.justia.com/us/199/437/case.html

Those that support Obama must go outside Case Law and the proper application of Original Intent in what is or is not Founder's Intent in the phrasing of "natural Born Citizen".  So they reach for and promote (at least as at the University of Chicago online, by example) the editorial opinion of William Rawles...though he was not the only editorial advocate of this position, he seems however to have been clearly explicit more so than by inference so as to possibly or possibly not allow.

The opinion of this one lone Quaker lawyer whose claim to fame that he was once appointed by George Washington to be District Attorney in Pennsylvania in 1791 despite being of a family of Tories during the American Revolution, waiting until when the primary founders were all dead so as to have no voice of dissent to his words, whose opinion was time and time again refuted by Congress in 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, etc....and whom was but specifying that thus and thus regarding Natural Born Citizenship making was only his “view” or editorial opinion (as perhaps what the law "should be" rather than as it really was)...hence his statement was not the view of the NBC clause as it was in the eyes of the Courts (again this being his "view" regarding the US Constitution in his book title) and contrary to US Law and how the US Constitution was defined regarding NBC status... and whose opinion – it must be stressed -- was NOT followed or upheld in anyway by the Supreme Court, because it was necessary that a US Citizen FATHER ever be present in the life of individuals to be in any way able to receive US Natural Born Citizen status  (short of bastardization presumption where the father was not known, and the mother was a US Citizen), once wrote:

“…every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.…”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84--101 1829 (2d ed.)

When viewed in context of how unrespected that opinion was by the Courts and Congress of the period, unless the HISTORY and CASE LAW is known...it is easy for those who wish to be led astray, to be so led or fooled.

But if it was so easy to simply change the language by one argument, so as to make the language as changeable or more changeable than civil law...why would the US Constitution be on such a pedestal as Supreme in language so that Congress, the Military, and Judges must swear an oath to support it?  Case Law points us back to a greater sanctity or holiness, a greater setting apart and a higher standard in using the NBC Clause.  That is why the oath is taken to support enforcing that higher requirement.  The same higher requirement that was dismissed in allowing Barack Obama to run, and like Constitutional requirements bypassed by Obama to appoint a sitting US Senator or to extort a purchase of a service or good in Healthcare, with a threat of up to 5 years imprisonment and tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Threats meant to beat the poor of this nation firstly into zombie compliance and groveling servitude.

When Kenya's own Government ministers go on record and the Government in unison does not challenge, but clearly concur when it is said by them that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (p.31, paragraph 2) in their own Official Transcripts....then Barack Obama needs to stop geting a free pass by those who claim to be neutral and waiting more information.


The Constitution was seen from the Founders as a Supreme document that was to be enforced BECAUSE sacred oaths were taken to protect, preserve and defend its language and original intent.

In  Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) @ 179-180,
both elected officials and judges are to maintain and adhere to the US Constitution as the supreme law that guides and governs their actions, and states:
"...it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?"

GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189   
states: " ...the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction."

The US Constitution, in Article 2, officially ratified on March 4, 1789 -- in part, reads, and IN OUR DAY REQUIRES:
"No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President; .."

Why is it that Congress cannot fathom such a simple declaration?  Perhaps it is because of the confusion in which anyone born in the United States today, regardless of whether or not their parents are legal, can under a claim to the 14th Amendment be declared a US Citizen.  However, the force of that birth to alien parents, parents who are NOT US Citizens, is only as effectual upon the child as if he had "naturalized" apart from the parents.  The child does NOT achieve any kind of "Natural Born Citizen" status...he or she simply achieves a "citizen of the United State" status that dually coincides with that dual nationality of the child's father (under Common and International Law).

But this intuitive understanding of the Law is lost upon those Liberals who are in the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate.  Those such as Senator Feinstein, who claimed in a letter to me in July 2009, that Obama qualifies under the 14th Amendment. To which I say, that's incorrect under Marbury v. Madison, (a landmark case which cites a need to follow the original and historical intent of the ones who wrote the Constitutional Law) as so was applied to cases like

Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1874)

-- “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [i..e., of two parents having the same national citizen identity -- ] who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Of the 14th Amendment, Justice Gray writes:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306."

Notice that there is an absolute that there be NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER stated in this Case law decision, and that simply being a 14th Amendment inclusive citizen, did NOT make one a "natural born citizen"...only that natural born citizens already were further supported by the 14th Amendment also, and that those "naturalized" or on such an equal status by birth.

But just to be clear, let us read a longer passage from

Minor v. Happersett @ 167 -169 :
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,"
and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens [i.e., must include Fathers who are its citizens] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also. 

As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath;  and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who should be married to a citizen of the United States should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. 

From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the [1804 and 1855] legislation upon this subject, alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth."

In other words, anyone not born of a US Citizen Father meets the same equality and the same restraints under the Law as that of naturalized citizens.  They can obtain any political office except those that are in  direct succession to the US Presidency. 

In the Sep/Oct 1884 issue of the American Law Review, just 16 years after the passing of the 14th Amendment, Democratic lawyer George D. Collins (of the Wong Kim Ark fame) 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”".  

Again, as an authority on explaining a Natural Born Citizenship distiction, Collins is that same co-prosecutor for the United States who won the landmark case of  US v. Wong Kim Ark  169 US 649  in 1898,

George D. Collins, as stated before in the American Law Review in 1884 wrote that:
 "Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it 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..."

This was the very same argument that was accepted by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.

Those who wish to cast aside the phrase "natural born citizen" and its Constitutional requirement upon those who wish to be President of the US be born to a US Citizen Father and a US Citizen Mother -- but most certainly a US Citizen Father -- they do a disservice by hypocritically bashing Germans for excusing their leader Adolf Hitler in subverting their Republic, when an alien foreign national's child in the person of Obama wants the very same uncritical worship as he seeks to overturn and overthrow our Republic and our  Constitution.  The hero worship of the Left when compared to the blind religious fervor of that of Nazi Germany knows little difference in their idolatry, and in that specific respect.

They ignore for a flawed individual that the phrase "natural born citizen" as one born of a US Citizen Father, whereas Barack's father was ever the alien / foreign national, when "natural born citizen" IS THE US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, and the word natural was therein placed as more than just that of a "born citizen" for good reason:

In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”
Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840).

Barack Obama claims that he receives the right to issue his orders and exercise his office on that authority granted him by the US Constitution...but as a son of a foreign national, a son of a father who was NOT a citizen of the United States, nor ever at any time applied or intended to be...Obama himself HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY without a Constitutionally required US NBC status via a US Citizen Father.

We already know that "The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself."
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 @ 585 (1952).

From January 21, 2009, Barack Obama has by the use of "executive orders" laid the claim that it is the Constitution that grants him the authority to be President.

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America...
January 21, 2009"

Executive orders that include his claim as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces to authorize alterations to even the Manual for Court-Martial on any future litigants after that of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's.


The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release August 31, 2010

Executive Order-- 2010 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 801-946), and in order to prescribe amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, prescribed by Executive Order 12473 of April 13, 1984, as amended, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Parts II and IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, are amended as described in the Annex attached and made a part of this order.

Sec. 2. These amendments shall take effect 30 days from the date of this order.

(a) Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to make punishable any act done or omitted prior to the effective date of this order that was not punishable when done or omitted.

(b) Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to invalidate any nonjudicial punishment proceedings, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial in which arraignment occurred, or other action begun prior to the effective date of this order, and any such nonjudicial punishment, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial, or other action may proceed in the same manner and with the same effect as if these amendments had not been prescribed.

August 31, 2010.

 Therefore, anyone specifically adversely singled out and affected by executive orders --

"Have the appellants alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions? This is the gist of the question of standing. It is, of course, a question of federal law."
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 @ 204 (1962).

-- and wishing to challenge the Constitutionality of those executive orders, merely needs to tie in Obama's own unqualified status (of NOT being a US Natural Born Citizen) to their challenge of him and the executive order and legal proof of their Article III standing.

However, it seems until there is a concrete threat where I or anyone can prove that an unlawful oppression occurs or is occurring, or in print as current policy and law...there is not a fixed Article III standing until that threat is finalized. 

Those growing vegetables in gardens and who are fined or lose their homes because of an Obama Administration EPA or Department of Agriculture policy introduced only since Obama 
came to usurp the office,   e.g.   http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92002  ,
can sue. 
When the Healthcare Law is finally codified, and I am threatened with the 50,000 dollar fine and up to 5 years imprisonment for being too poor to afford buying a Government Mafia Extortion of  "Protection"...then the law firm which I signed a general interest form with can truly sue on my behalf.  Or so, that is my understanding. 

The Case Law states:

"We need not mince words when we say that the concept of "Art. III standing" has not been defined with complete consistency in all of the various cases decided by this Court which have discussed it, nor when we say that this very fact is probably proof that the concept cannot be reduced to a one-sentence or one-paragraph definition. But of one thing we may be sure: those who do not possess Art. III standing may not litigate as suitors in the courts of the United States."

“…Although respondents claim that the Constitution has been violated, they claim nothing else. They fail to identify any personal injury suffered by them as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error, other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees. That is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in
constitutional terms."
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of  Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 @ 475-76, 485-486 (1982).

Whenever, and wherever we finally get our Article III standing v. Obama the Usurper, the US Supreme Court will then  be OBLIGATED to rule against Obama the Usurper, and strike down any and all executive orders challenged, and even Obama himself.  Why?  Because they are not laws eminating from Congress and are separate and away from Congress (short of a specific Congressional Law by a veto-overriding majority that denounces and repeals any specific executive orders issued by a President...or in this case, a usurper like Barack HUSSEIN Obama). 

"It is not the province of the Court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws.  The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. 

 The duty of the Court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to the true intent and meaning when it was adopted." 
 Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 @ 405
 (decided in 1857, and Case Law until the passing of the 14th Amendment in 1868).

Further, Youngstown also states that any Executive Order must be based upon "specific statutory authority," and cannot be "based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces."

Again, as stated above, the US Constitution, Article 2, officially ratified on March 4, 1789 -- in part, reads, and IN OUR DAY REQUIRES:

"No person except a natural born Citizen…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 1787, the debates of several states in the Constitutional Convention had proposed that the language of the new Constitution should read to the effect that : 'the President of the United States be a citizen thereof for a minimum of 21 years', or a wording to this effect.

Following this, in the Madison Debates, on September 7, 1787, it was then that it was entered that "the President should be a natural- born Citizen," of which he bore no allegiance or citizenship to any other nation than that of the United States of America.

In 1833, in Justice Joseph Story's “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” § 1473, we find this jurisprudential insight from an intelligent and articulate US Supreme Court justice, who wrote:

“It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States… to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.

…But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.”

Whether Rawles is debated on point or not, irregardless, prior to the 14th Amendment, the intent of the "natural born citizen" clause in legal circles clearly meant "sole legience at birth to the United States of America"...a distinction Barack Obama, never had at birth.
"The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”

The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845)


Even in 1863, the Natural Born Citizen clause was deemed so important, that even the Provisional Government for the Southern Confederacy wishing to secede from the Union of the United States demanded its inclusion for anyone who would be its President, were they successful in breaking away.

March 2, 1861, they specifically followed the same formula:

"Article 2.3 No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of one of the States of this Confederacy 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 the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident of one of the States of this Confederacy."

And then, 8 days later, when their Constitution underwent a revision, they -- on March 11, 1861 -- they amended and specified legience and jus soli birth in any one of the “Confederate States” that had broken away, and read as thus:

"Article 2.7 No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist at the time of his election." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

In other words, anyone born in a neutral state or northern state or western territory was NOT QUALIFIED. Anyone not born in a Confederate State and born the son of a Confederate State citizen father was NOT QUALIFIED to lead the South as its President. In effect, LEGIENCE was what was the absolute essential that entails the proper interpretation what a “natural born citizen “ is; but it is enveloped in the inseparability (under law) of the paternal citizenship over the child, sanctifying him or her, and the birth location within those lands (even national) where the father owes his allegience.

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814)
- Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

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 because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

Under Blackstone,
“…all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception.”
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1, Chapter 10

Even under Illinois INS laws, where Obama became Senator, we can cite the need of a US Citizen Father:


United States District and Circuit Courts, Northern District of Illinois,
and Immigration and Naturalization Service
District 9
Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
Record Group 85
Concurred on P. 3, stating that

“Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively.”

Obama is a natural born citizen of the country of his father's citizenship.  If born in the US, his citizenship would simply be an "additional" citizenship, but his natural-born status would forever be Kenyan.  That is why Michelle Obama calls Kenya Barack Obama's homeland...and not the USA.

Again, since a President receives his executive authority “either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).

By refusing to abide by the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, by NOT having a US Citizen Father at the time of his birth so as to abide by the US Constitution in order to take the Presidential Office legally...Obama automatically enters an illegal oath when he was told to swear:

"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."

By refusing that NBC clause, Obama subverted (rather than preserved) the US Constitution.  Obama did so personally attack the US Constitution by his criminal action of usurpation of the Office by fraud and deceit (rather than having protected the Constitution).  And effectually, Obama dismissed as worthless, those portions of the US Constitution he had no use for (rather than having defended the Constitution of the United States of America).

That is why it was essential when Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), stated that a 14th Amendment child legally defined be born of parents (plural) and not a parent (singular):

“[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…”

And what does that 14th Amendment say? Here’s the text:

Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The intent of being born a citizen via parents who are this nation’s citizens, and subject to local State and national jurisdictions, has been lost upon the founding intent of those who wrote the 14th Amendment and of Case Law discernment of that Amendment by those who lived in this period of history.  Obama, by having a multi-national citizenship at birth (to Kenya and Britain) which lasted to age 23, even if he were born in the US, which he has not proven, NEVER HAD A SOLE US ALLEGIANCE, not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, as both the 14th Amendment and Article 2 of the US Constitution by intent and design DEMANDS.

Just look at how Obama acts, and by his corrupt anti-US actions, he is quickly exposed.  Even our tax system, under Obama, is sought to be delegated to foreign powers.  From circa 09/20 to 09/22/2010, we now have Obama and his cronies in a UN draft, calling for the US to be charged a Global tax in which, like a sales tax, every time you buy anything sold in the USA (from the very cheapest to the most expensive item, apparently including making even food as taxable...but the language is not yet finalized), an extra tax is laid upon you and every penny goes to fund corruption and abusers of that same wealth via the United Nations.  I have trouble believing that the corrupt in the UN would even share as great an amount as even 3 cents on every dollar they would take in if such Communist ideals are allowed into practice.

Where is the exception that a President can sign and levy a tax upon the citizens of the USA?  It isn't there.  Nor shall the Court allow it...but only intervening when or if they are presented a case having "standing" apparently.
"The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and, if allowed to flourish, would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our Government. If our foreign commitments become of such nature that the Government can no longer satisfactorily operate within the bounds laid down by the Constitution, that instrument can be amended by the method which it prescribes. But we have no authority, or inclination, to read exceptions into it which are not there. "
Reid. v. Colvert, 354 U.S. 1 @ 14 (1957).

To read Obama "in" as an exception to being legal, when he is NOT a US Natural Born Citizen...the Courts have NO AUTHORITY...TO READ EXCEPTIONS like that into the US Constitution WHICH ARE NOT THERE.

Therefore, I call on all patriotic Americans who are financially able to be among the many to file or seek out the legal counsel of one's own status to file at least once, singularly or in Class Action, as many lawsuits as we can, when we can and where we can, until we have the ear and eyes of the US Supreme Court on the Ineligibility of Barack Obama to issue or sign any laws affecting you personally, and reverse Obama and His entire Administration out of legal existence -- via the Courts -- forever, and revert this nation to a status of laws to at least back to January 19, 2009.

That's my input.

For more reading, and other consideration,  please check these articles:














“Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer” by Stephen Tonchen

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses by Mario Apuzzo


[Additional reading links added and typos deleted on 12/12/2010 by Brianroy]

1 comment:

  1. great round up of the pertinent eligibility facts

    I hope America is not lost to "whomever" is pulling TheWon's puppet strings (soros? zbignew? cia? etc...)

    perhaps more justice will occur when the 2011 congress and house of representatives and those like Issa have more power...

    else we'll have to hold on until 2012

    I would love seeing TheWon + Meeechelle escorted out of the people's W.House in orange jumpsuits... (that is MY hope for change)