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
2017
-- 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.


Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.









Saturday, August 23, 2014

The Family Of James Foley Has Article III Standing To Sue Obama Out Of Office And Void Out His Illegally Placed Administration



Reporter James Foley,  who was a hostage of Al Qaeda (and then the same Obama materially aided and abetted / traitorously sponsored people of Al Qaeda turned ISIS) since his capture on November 22, 2012 at the Turkish border,  was executed by Obama funded and materially supplied terrorists ISIS, who were apparently upset that for politics Obama first supported and then briefly (allegedly) had them bombed to cover his real Muslim agenda back in the United States.



The family of James Foley, being citizens of the United States,   now have the Article III standing to charge (in the venue of a U.S. Court of Law) that Obama is unConstitutional and NOT a  U.S. Constitution required United States Natural Born Citizen, having the full ability not only to successfully sue Obama out of Office, but with the ability to void out his illegal Presidency and all laws and acts he signed or were implemented under his illegally ensconced administration.    


It is time for those who are legal victims of Obama to say "F*ck you, you foreign usurper and freak, I'm suing your ass outta here!"  And it is my hope that the Foley family, among others, say exactly that in words reflecting a legal parlance IN COURT.






foley-beheading

Joseph Farah of World Net Daily reports:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/isis-preparing-for-move-against-u-s/


WASHINGTON – A video released by the Islamic State, or ISIS, showing the beheading of missing American journalist James Wright Foley in retaliation for U.S. airstrikes has underscored concern of new information indicating ISIS has declared war on the United States.

The Islamic supremacist group also is training jihadists to attack targets in the United States and Europe, according to U.S. intelligence sources.

The sources told WND the al-Qaida splinter group is comprised of thousands of European and American jihadists who fought in the Syrian civil war and came to Iraq to train and fighting, first on behalf of various jihadist groups and now ISIS.

ISIS has declared the establishment of a caliphate that includes portions of northeastern Syria and western and central Iraq. It has threatened to expand throughout the Levant, which includes Syria, southern Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
ISIS could join forces with other al-Qaida groups such as Al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula, or AQAP, and Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, approximating all of the land Muslims conquered after the death of Muhammad in A.D. 632.


Even though on every blog page I post sufficient starter material about this, let's review the material case that the family of James Foley can make.

At times I will repeat material and be somewhat redundant, so I apologize in advance for that.  -- Brianroy





OBAMA HIMSELF DEMANDED WE HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE

On May 21, 2009 Obama made his pitch and challenge while standing before the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and declared: 

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.”

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.”

3) “…in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.”

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."


All 4 times Obama lied.

Those in the Organized Media refuse to fairly investigate Obama's Birthplace Fraud, Social Security Number Identity Fraud, his auto-biographical and/or biographical history fraud, his radical Islamist ties and core beliefs.  his goal of unilaterally totally disarming the United States of its nukes (as the START Treaty he signed lists submarines, aircraft, and launchers -- though machinery -- to be counted in the U.S. Arsenal as if they were nuclear warheads in place of the real ones), etc. 

I believe the best strategy is to reach out to those directly affected by Obama when he oversteps the Constitutional bounds on the U.S. Presidency, even though he illegally occupies it as NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen, and to nail him in Court for getting somebody killed or serious and concretely injured using

Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653 (respecting Presidential claim to Constitutional authority)
"The burden of establishing a delegation of power
 to the United States,
or the prohibition of power to the States,
is upon those making the claim."

and

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) @ 560 (Discussing Article III standing to sue, where  it is)

“an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”
 and at 573-574 where it says

“‘[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government--claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest IN PROPER APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large--does not state an Article III case or controversy.’”



"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).
http://supreme.justia.com/us/369/186/case.html



In effect, when someone is killed or seriously injured as a direct consequence of going outside Constitutional authority as pertaining to the office of the Presidency of the United States, such with Obama materially supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS and getting reporter James Foley killed as a consequence to his manpad smuggling operations through Turkey  into Syria and the Turkish-Syrian border (where James Foley went), or Obama's gun running U.S. guns into Mexico (via Attorney General Eric Holder's) getting Border Agent Brian Terry killed in the Fast and Furious scandal in Obama's nutty yet viciously treacherous attempt to suspend or strip the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, only then (short of the 1 Senator and 1 U.S. Representative personally and jointly challenging election certification in the House of Representatives in early January 2013  within a 15 minute time-frame) can we use the Court to challenge and oust Obama with Article III standing assisting the family of the victim with information that proves Obama is NOT a Natural Born citizen of the United States, and has no legal U.S. Constitutional authority based upon Marbury v. Madison. 

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)@180

“a law repugnant to the constitution IS VOID. . . .”
and
“in declaring what shall be the SUPREME law of the land,
the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned;
and not the laws of the United States generally,
but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution,
have that rank.”

 And people, as per Marbury v. Madison at page 180, through the family of James Foley, the iron is hot and that opportunity to void out Obama's entire time in office and all laws, rules, and regulations appertaining thereto on back to January 20, 2009  is HERE and NOW!

"No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President...." 
US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5


The Original Constitutional Intent of a Natural Born Citizen at the time and era it was written is defined in this: that a child is born to a US CITIZEN Father at the Time of Birth, on US Soil or exclusive US Sovereignty, (this includes those born upon a US Flagship on direct water passage in International Waters IF it is so done between soil of the United States to soil of the United States); and that the child has NO OTHER CITIZENSHIP(S) OR ALLEGIANCE(S) FROM BIRTH TO AGE 21.

The Founders utilized John Locke for this definition: 
“This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.”
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of 
Paternal Power’ §. 59



"...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), p. 414


Under Constitutional Intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Article 2.1.5, the successful US Government Attorney of later Wong Kim Ark fame shows us that the Paternal Link (that through the Father's Status) is essential in determining who is or is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen:
“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.”

“…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was ...a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.”
(link and quote since removed by them after they apparently realized it is an admission of conspiracy with Obama).

John Jay’s letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 states:
“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.


It is clear that a “natural born citizen” in John Jay’s intent is someone WITHOUT dual or multiple nationalities, but has only one since birth: that of the US by both parents and geography, and NO OTHER.

In 1874, the US Supreme Court ruled that as it regards Common Law, that if we follow that model, not only did a US Citizen Father have to be present to make one a US Natural Born Citizen, but a US Citizen Mother also. And that formula of Common Law is also operative vice versa in the phrase: “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens “, that without a US Citizen Father, you could NOT be defined as a United States Natural Born Citizen, PERIOD!!!

“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.”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167


Prior to the discovery of the Obama Bio where Barack himself published he was born in Kenya, and left ti that way for well over a decade, the Nairobi Kenya Eastern Standard was the first source of the Birther Movement's concerns that Obama was born outside the United States, and its claims were substantiated by other African Media and Kenya’s own Government Officials in Public Statement of fact in Transcript. Of primary concern is the Nairobi Kenya Eastern Standard dated as Sunday, June 27, 2004. Its headline reads:
“Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate”

The first line reads:“Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.”

De facto, the Nairobi Kenya Eastern Standard 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

There are no other living witnesses besides Barack's step-grandmother, who says she saw him birthed, and she says THAT was in Kenya! http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107524 and that claim was vetted twice by Kenya's Parliament, one of which in March of 2010!!!“

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT
Thursday, 25th March, 2010
The House met at 2.30 p.m.

 p. 31 ...2nd paragraph
[Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking]:
 "...how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American,become the President of America?It is because they did away with exclusion."

 That claim of "exclusion" refers to the Natural Born Citizen Clause requirement in the United States Constitution.  There was never a "doing away" with it by amending the Constitution, requiring 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the States ratifying such an exclusion.  No.  It was a full breach of Constitutional Law by both major parties and major office holders in all three branches of the Federal Government.  States have the right to recall or call for the impeachment of their own members of Congress, but so rarely is that used, it would take a nuke going off on U.S. soil before most realize they have the option and suddenly take such a route.

In 1991, Obama wrote his own auto-biography for Book Publishers Acton & Dystel.  The releases about this discovery were in May of 2012 --
-- but instead of being picked up and used by the Republican Party, or the majority of the Media, the story lay virtually dormant outside a variety of Conservative bloggers and Conservative alternative news sites

Breitbart reporter Joel B. Pollak, at the above link,  states:
The booklet, which is thirty-six pages long, is printed in blue ink (and, on the cover, silver/grey ink), using offset lithography. It purports to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of Acton & Dystel, which was founded in 1976.

 And according to the Wayback Machine, the archives of the Internet, would the Mainstream Media really be serious that we should believe that  Acton &  Dystel remained uncorrected by Obama for 16 years in promoting their client as born in Kenya, including over a month after he announced running for the United States Presidency?

On the pictorial, where Obama's face and brief auto-bio appears, followed by Mark Olshaker, and Thomas P. O'Neill, the wording submitted as written personally by Barack Hussein Obama, reads:
"Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."

The Wayback Machine listed the Obama auto-biography as still posted by Acton & Dystel at least as of:
19:00:01 Apr 3, 2007

In the Client list, the Obama biography reads:
BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.

 As with any other Literary Agency, and this is Industry Standard,  the biography was to be submitted personally by the author to the Literary Agency with a sample of the book he wanted to promote, and an explanation of what it was about, the audience he wanted to reach, etc.

 These Agencies have no time nor inclination to manufacture biographies for first time authors with them (like Barack's in 1991), and for others to suggest the Literary Agency manufactured Obama's biography is ludicrous and contrary to Acton & Dystel policy at the time, which was maintained on up that same way to May 2012 with the same company now run as Dystel.

After Obama was already in the U.S. Presidency as a Foreign Usurper and putative United States President, he sent U.S. Ambassador to Kenya to officially recognize the place of his birth as being that of Kenya.   

In 2009, the nation of Kenya dedicated what amounts to a national shrine in Kogelo, Kenya  to what they call "the birthplace of President Barack Obama"  (NOT that of his late father's, but that of President Barack Obama)?

http://www.wnd.com/files/110525nsisbulletin.pdf          It reads in part:

Subject:
Obama Family Updates

Compiled by:
Agwanda, J.O., ASDD

Comissioncd by:
Machage, T. I l . , SDD

File No., :
#9056/ 2009/ 05
NSIS Bu1letin #9056/2009/05 -

The ministry of national heritage this
month hosted a cultural festival in Kogelo

and commissioned a cultural museum on a
plot donated by a member of the Kogelo
community. The cultural festival  was
attended by
minister for national heritage,
William ole Ntimama and 

US ambassador, Michael Ranneberger.

This was to honour

 the birthplace of President Barack Obama
 and re-dedicate the tomb of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., 
the president's late father. But the project
had been delayed because of ownership
wrangles surrounding the plot.

As stated before, the Kenyan Eastern Standard on June 27, 2004, proclaimed then newly elected Senator of Illinois, Barack Obama, as being born in Kenya.

And on May 04, 2010, Obama's step-grandmother Sarah clearly states that she mid-wifed Ann Dunham-Obama and that Barack passed through her hands

Except for a trip to Saudi Arabia after Barack Obama usurped the Presidency, it is her testimony and that of near relatives that she had never before left the nation of Kenya.  Which means, her claim is Obama's mother (whomever she really was) birthed him in Kenya.

The Kenyan embassy in Brussels, Belgium, issued what they considered as what made a child of a Kenyan national as one of their own and what was not:

We already know from the Annenburg Funded "Factcheck.org" that they stipulated that Barack Obama had a United Kingdom and Colonies (UKC) citizenship at birth, by virtue of his Kenyan (and at the time UKC) father.  On December 18, 2007, Chris Matthews of CNBC had absolutely NO PROBLEM with the narrative that someone who he thought was born in Indonesia to a foreign national father from Kenya and his minor wife (who was a year too young to confer U.S. Citizenship on the child when born abroad) was running for the U.S. Presidency conrary to the United States Constitution.  Again, MSNBC's own major media star Chris Matthews had no problem that an unConstitutional and Foreign National for the first 23 years of his life, should run for President of the United States, even though born in Indonesia  (he thought).

All this information and reporting is relevant to creating reasonable doubt as to any claim by faith Obama or his lawyers require that we blindly believe his new version of the birth narrative, that he was magically born in the United States, not based on birth records or eyewitness testimony of those present at his birth, but by a couple newspaper announcements that he was born somewhere in the world on August 4, 1961, to two parents who were alleged to be living together in Hawaii, when the investigative evidence shows they never lived there, nor together as man and wife anywhere in 1961.


Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948)  @653
"The burden of establishing a delegation of power
 to the United States,
or the prohibition of power to the States,
is upon those making the claim."
 
What would be proof?  Proof that is admissible to a Court of Law must first be submitted into the Court records in order to be considered as an offer of proof in the eyes of the Court.

That means it is upon Obama and/or his lawyers to produce Court admissible documents establishing his birth identity with location and witnesses to the birth.

We find that follows the requirements set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62

@ 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.
@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.”

In December 2010, Governor-elect Abercrombie of Hawaii boasted how he was going to release Obama's Hawaii Birth Certificate whether he liked it or not.  

But when January 2011 came, his new Director of Health Neal Palafox revealed that Obama does NOT have a Birth Certificate or Certification of Live Birth on file in Hawaii.  This was reported at the time.

This actually affirmed the claim made by Tim Adams, contracted temporary Chief Elections Clerk in Honolulu during the November 2008 Presidential Election, who stated that the records of Hawaii SHOWED that Barack Obama was NOT born in Hawaii AND notes also that there were relevant records of interest stolen in or around the time period after this discovery.

Worldnetdaily reported Adams as saying:
"There is no birth certificate," said Tim Adams... "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this."
"I was the one overseeing the work of the people doing the balloting."

"In my professional opinion, [Obama] definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there."

But that's NOT what Chiyome Fukino, the former Department of Health Director, adamantly said.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

She followed this above statement up in  July 2009,
““I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaiʻi State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaiʻi and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.


So what really happened? She lied.  When she was approached by CNN in April 2011, what was the Birth Certificate she is alleged to have given the CNN producers to post as Barack Obama's?   You can view it for yourself at the highest resolution on your screen at:


and freeze frame it at 1:22, 1:23,  and carefully view the document for yourself.

Obama claims a 151-61-10641 number.  These numbers are NOT the same as CNN claimed on this CNN video piece.

 The CNN video piece below shows a Birth Certificate # 151-60-05000  possibly #151-60-05009 (the last digit having a defect to the inner left.  Gary Tuchman of CNN specifically says that this specific microfilm replica IS BARACK OBAMA's.  The implication or reasonable inference is "as supplied or vetted by Dr. Fukino".

On THIS CNN Presented Birth Certificate, the Attending Physician is Dr. Herbert Tanaka.
--Not Dr. West as the Obama narrative claimed until April 27, 2011.
--Not Dr. David A. Sinclair as the Obama fictional narrative now declares,
 but a Dr. Herbert Tanaka.  

The document was certified on April 21, 1960.  This copy was reproduced on April 25, 1965.

CNN presented an April 1960 birth certificate of Keith Suganuma as that of Barack Obama's

Really.  CNN and Dr. Chiyome Fukino attempted to pass off a proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii using someone born in the wrong year (1960) who was fathered by a 42 year old Japanese American Police Officer (Francis Suganuma), and born to a 20 year old Japanese  American mother.   So, legally, in Court, we can literally rip her and those of CNN involved with this "news piece"  to shreds on the stand as unreliable, without trust-worthiness, tainted, and make it stick in the minds of the Judge(s)...especially as it regards prior public testimony in attempting to affirm the fictional narrative of an Obama Hawaiian birth. 

So Governor Abercrombie sends his Director of Health to pull Obama's birth records in January 2011 and what happens?


Ooops, it's not there.  But it's written down.  Er, well maybe not written down, the answer was to the effect of "we think that sometime in the mid-1980s someone typed a new entry" which reads:
"Obama II, Barack Hussein, Male...." and screwed up the forgery by only entering it into the Index Data.
And that entry was based on a hand-written scrawl to the same effect...not a birth certificate or certification of Live Birth, but a scrap of paper or something as untrustworthy, in total violation of protocol, and clearly fraudulent as a claim to being a legal source.

So who witnessed Barack Obama being born or present on United States soil at any time in 1961?  The earliest claim to Barack even being on U.S. soil comes from  Barack Obama's Jr.'s first baby-sitter, who only remembers baby Barry as present in the USA in Washington State from February 1962 onward.

No one can place Obama in the United States any earlier than 1962. If Obama was born in August 4 of 1961...why is it that no one can account for him at all in 1961 in Hawaii or anywhere in the USA in 1961? Why? Unless he was foreign born and allowed to remain outside the US?

This goes back to Barack Hussein Obama II's  own personal claim to Daniel Ortega and friends that he was born 3 months before the Bay of Pigs, stating effectually he was born in January 1961.


Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller of ABC News,  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-ob-20.html
and Major Garrett of Foxnews
 -- both reported on April 17, 2009 -- and that of Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor reporting 2 days after the fact on April 19, 2009, that Obama claimed an entire different birthdate than the official 1984 Newsspeak narrative:
"…Obama responded disarmingly to an hour-long opening speech by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, in which the former leftist revolutionary reviewed US action against Cuba including the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. “I’m grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old, he told chuckling leaders."

The Bay of Pigs incident happened on April 17, 1961, when 1400 C.I.A. initially supported Cuban exiles launched what became a botched invasion on the south coast of Cuba.

So Obama was then clearly saying he was born in January 1961.    So let us say...what if he was?  What do we know of Ann Dunham's enrollment of the period?

WND reported:
"...Dunham took two classes: Anthropology 100, beginning on Aug. 19, 1961 and ending on Dec. 11, 1961; and Political Science 201, beginning on Aug. 19, 1961 and ending on Dec. 12, 1961.   ...In the winter term 1962, Dunham took two additional courses: History 478, beginning on Dec. 27, 1961, and ending on March 30, 1962; and Philosophy 120, beginning on Dec. 27, 1961, and ending on March 20, 1962. All four of these classes are listed in the transcript as University of Washington extension courses."
But that is information that only ff. the presumptive August 4, 1961 story-line of Obama. Not a period prior now needing investigating. 


But as I stated before, the burden of proof is upon Obama to prove he is Constitutionally qualified to the Presidency, it is not upon me to prove, it is upon Obama IN COURT under penalty of perjury and cross-examination challenge to the satisfaction of the Court to prove.  He must, when correctly challenged by those recognized as having Article III standing, be able to prove he is what article 2.1.5. of the Constitution says is a natural born citizen of the United States.  He must prove he was born on U.S. soil .  All credible legal experts concur with that.  But in the intent of the Constitution, it can be proven that the intent of the Law is that in order to be a United States Natural Born Citizen, he must born having a U.S. Citizen Father and a U.S. Citizen Mother at the time of his birth with both documentation and witnesses to the birth in person or present in the documentation itself.

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.”

That is a guide for any who would seek to further this issue to its successful conclusion, with Obama exposed and ousted (and hopefully sentenced also) through the Court System, should the opportunity present itself.   We need to be instant in and out of season, or as the Scout motto goes: "Be Prepared", if you will.

 In Court, with 333 US 640 (1948) @ 653 and 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54 and 62, Obama cannot meet the minimum threshold to occupy the US Presidency, nor can he even prove he is a legal citizen of this country and not an illegal alien presumed a Citizen of the United States, it seems to me.  That is why almost EVERY politician (particularly including most every Republican leader I am aware of) who proclaims and accepts Obama as a citizen of the United States almost always clarifies they do so by a matter of faith, never evidence, but a proclamation of naive trust that Barack Obama would never "lie" to them.  Never lie? Good grief.  


On August 13, 1968, under documented oath before a sworn officer at the U.S. Department of State at our embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, Ann (Dunham-Obama-) Soetoro formally denounced her son’s United States Citizenship on form FS-277, writing and striking his name out. 

The immediate form following the opening letter has the mother sign under oath on the back page of  Form FS-299 of 7-64.

Following the instructions:
"I have not (and no other person included or to be included in the passport or documentation has), since acquiring United States citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state, taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state;… made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; ever sought or claimed the benefits of the nationality of any foreign state….

{If any of the above-mentioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, or to any other person included in the passport or documentation, the portion of which applies should be struck out , and a supplementary explanatory statement  under oath (or affirmation) by the person to whom the portion is applicable should be attached and made a part of this application.}


Ann Dunham - Obama - Soetoro wrote Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) and struck his name out to indicate that he was legally to no longer be a United States Citizen, denouncing his claim to U.S. Citizenship.   

 The legal fact is that Obama was indeed a naturalized citizen of Indonesia in 1968 through his step-father Lolo Soetoro, and listed as a Muslim for his school records there.

In fact, it may be even worse than that.  It is possible that Obama was not only birthed in Kenya, but that his real mother is Indonesian.  

At this point, Barack would have been removed from his mother’s passport, and would have been taken through the process of being issued an Indonesian Passport.  

 --          On February 27, 2014, Western Journalism pulled up a video from Michael Shrimpton which is quite significant in regard to the Obama birth narrative.  The sub-headline reads:
 "British Intelligence Advisor Barrister Michael Shrimpton reported Obama's purported mom was not pregnant in 1961 and that Obama was born in Kenya in 1960."
 
Now what is especially significant is that Michael Shrimpton appears to be indicating that a fully not pregnant or definitely not appearing to even be second trimester, let alone third trimester Stanley Ann Dunham-Obama was photographed for sure in the month of July 1961, which shows she was NOT pregnant as of July 1961.  What is worse, in the accompanying video clip, we learn that the Central Intelligence Agency ran Obama's DNA against his claimed father of Barack Hussein Obama I, and his claimed maternal grandmother of Madelyn Dunham.  Obama came up as an exact match to his foreign citizen paternity, and was NOT A DNA MATCH to his U.S. Citizenship maternity claim.  


In other words, for all we know, Barack Hussein Obama II is 100% a foreign citizen at birth, born in a foreign land, Kenya, to an Indoesian mother and a Kenyan father   [[see video below]]
and was informally and illegally adopted by Stanley Ann Dunham as if he were born here in the United States.  This perhaps explains the extra income that Madelyn Dunham apparently had throughout her life as an apparently undeclared slush fund to take luxurious ocean voyages as well as to see Barack go to Punahou Private School in Hawaii and have the money to fly in and out of the United States when Stanley Ann needed to make an annual trip between Indonesia and Hawaii, sometimes taking an active role either with or in place of Stanley Ann enrolling Barack in Punahou for a few weeks of the year.     --  


      Now once Ann denounced Barack, Barack would have had to keep his Indonesian Passport as a primary means of travel into his teenage years at least until the age of 18, but it does not preclude him from having a British Passport during the same time period through his Father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.  However, petition for his British Passport information has not yet (to my knowledge) been made by any lawyer yet suing him over his ineligibility issue.  The presumption at this time, is that when Barack moved to Hawaii in 1971 at the alleged age of 10, he would have had flown in under an Indonesian passport because of his mother's formal denunciation of him.  He likely renewed his Indonesian passport at least once more before the age of 18, and if he did, and so used it as part of his foreign exchange student status and Fulbright scholarship grant, the passport number, nationality, and expiration date should be recorded as part of the Occidental finance records regarding him.   


I believe it was on this Indonesian Passport that Barack Obama applied as a Foreign Exchange student at Occidental College, seeking and obtaining a Fulbright partial scholarship, where he was given a dorm room with other Foreign Nationals (at least two Pakistani Muslims and one Muslim from India, all Shiites, the same as he was in Indonesia) with one United States student chaperon.  However, confirmation needs to be made with a successful subpoena for Obama's College records for affirmation as to identity documents and the Fulbright Scholarship confirmation, which in the late 1970s (before it was scrubbed from the web in early 2009, or thereabout) included a sponsorship of undergraduate foreign exchange students.  The data, along with all Internet data, remains unscrubbed in the NSA Archives.

Therefore, those with the appropriate authority and subpoenas, can order an extract of all unscrubbed information on, about, or related to Barack Obama's personal records (especially financials and anything that is in any way placed on the internet, even without intent for release or loss of privacy), and bring this into trial (such as an impeachment trial) as evidence, the same way he is -- in my opinion --  very likely using the NSA information to blackmail or coerce members of Congress to bow to his abuse of power, it seems to me.


Again, Ann Dunham - Obama - Soetoro wrote Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) and struck his name out to indicate that he was legally to no longer be a United States Citizen, denouncing his claim to U.S. Citizenship, 

 writing Soebarkah (a name indicating he was a direct descendant of the leader of the Subud cult) as the reason why.  This makes sense if we know in advance there is a claim that Obama's real mother was Indonesian, and Ann Dunham was merely his illegal and informal adoptive mother receiving a stipend who eventually reconnected little Barry with his maternal roots and married an Indonesian for the sake of that small income and some pro-Communist infiltration related activity, which morphed somehow with nutty liberal religious philosophical dedication such as to the Subud cult.  But more information needs to come out on this.  Since  Barry was Indonesian by nationality, it is likely he received funds to attend college in the United States while on an Indonesian Passport, at least until the age of 20 or 21.  He also may have traveled using a United Kingdom and Colonies Passport during the same time, and any use of a foreign passport as its citizen above the age of 18, is ground for the United States to reject any claim upon citizenship to the United States...and most certainly if (and he likely was) using such passports above the age of 21, such as when he attended Harvard as a foreign national born in Kenya as he was approaching the age of 30.


 

In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 199 (1796)
we find how that we are supposed to read the US Constitution, in its literal context.
@240
"When we collect the intention from the words only, as they lie in the writing before us, it is a literal interpretation, and indeed if the words and the construction of a writing are clear and precise, we can scarce call it interpretation to collect the intention of the writer from thence. The principal rule to be observed in literal interpretation is to follow that sense, in respect both of the words and the construction which is agreeable to common use."
@245
"…This principle is recognized by the Constitution...."

In Article 6 of the US Constitution, we are told that:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof...shall be made the supreme Law of the Land...."

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?"

I understand that we have gotten away from Originalism to such a point that the Constitutional Government of the Constitution is more and more slipping more into a surface appearance of what is, while the mountain that lies beneath having the real power and operation of governance is become an alien thing no one is really sure as to what it is anymore.  Including those in CIA, NSA, DIA, and in the Legislative Branch as well.   But the Supreme Court generally still operates on the presumption of the Constitution and the rights given us by the Bill of Rights, even if some of these Justices (like John Roberts with the Healthcare Bill and the illegal appointments of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor) have proven themselves tainted.  And that probably by the same underlying behemoth of power of unprosecutable clandestine figures and secret committees who call themselves the Sentinels and Watchers of this nation, summoning certain State Governors (e.g., former Governor Jesse Ventura ff. his election) and U.S. Senators into neo-Star Chambers of "national security panel review" to see if the elected are worthy, or to send them a message that they are not the ones in control.  But these same unelected and self-appointed internal groups affecting our Republic, have lost track that they have allowed Obama to turn the United States into a de facto lawless State Sponsor of Terrorism (supporting and enabling Al Qaeda in Libya and now Syria, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood - the parent organization of Hamas, and ISIS which is Al Qaeda on steroids), while also giving the Muslim Brotherhood still employed by him in the Executive Branch of Government  free access and so many top secret ultra-classified positions, that it is the same as if we were to have given 300 KGB moles free access in the height of the Cold War and say "we trust you". 

   While Obama declares he was born in Hawaii http://www.scribd.com/doc/56732637/Obama-Declares-He-Was-Born-in-Hawaii
neither Obama, nor his lawyers, nor the US Attorneys have ever produced one shred of solid identifying evidence of the man's identity into Court Evidence UNDER THE ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE OR CHALLENGE in a Court of Law. They refuse to enter his Birth Certificate or Certification of Live Birth, whether long or short, to be vetted in Court under any kind of chain of custody and source challenge because both are forgeries. Even though under 333 US 640, Bute v. Illinois (1948) @ 653 and 533 US 53, Nguyen v. INS (2001) @ 54,62 they are so required to produce into Court's Evidence under the ability of an opposing party to challenge before the Court, submitting them as authentic under penalty of perjury to the Courts with the ability to back it up with witnesses to document authenticity claims after it was NON-EXISTENT according to Obama in 1991, 1994, 2007 and according to the Government of Kenya in 2004, 2010; and non-existent according to Obama's own step-grandmother repeatedly because he "passed" through her hands in Kenya as she mid-wife delivered him there, according to her. As fr the challenge NOT under kangaroo court conditions, operating under rules of even a Simon Greenleaf standard, well  IT NEVER HAPPENED because the Obama attorneys were knowingly passing along fraudulent documents if they ever should enter the document, to which by example with the Georgia case Farrar v. Obama, Valerie Jarrett directly interfered with and visited and intimidated that judge, speaking with him in his native Farsi to throw the case in later mid-January 2012.  


Obama can therefore be required by Law to produce an authentic US Hospital Birth Certificate into Court Evidence UNDER CHALLENGE FOR AUTHENTICITY that will require an enforcement of penalty of perjury charges , something he has NEVER done, nor have in lawyers remotely done (other than perhaps a suppressed use in Farrar v. Obama where the Muslim judge was intimidated by Obama's own White House overseer Valerie Jarrett into submissive compliance and to issue a ruling, not on the Law but on "feelings") most always doing the same as in the one reference they made to pro-Obama blogs in Hollister v. Soetoro Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR

Quote from Hollister v. Soetoro, Footnote 1: 1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” See “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. See The Washington Post v. Robinson,935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

What is it that Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie offered the Court the one time he even referred to substantiation in Hollister v. Soetoro Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR? Legal FRAUD upon the Court.

“Fraud on the Court is conduct:
1) on the part of an officer of the Court;
2) that is directed to the judicial machinery itself;
3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;
4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under duty to disclose;
5) that deceives the Court.”
Workman v. Bell, 245 F.3d 849 (6th Circuit 2001) @ 852

Obama's own lead Perkins Coie (et al.) Attorney Bauer referred to an organization under the Annenburg Fund, the same Annenburg that once employed Obama (where he held the purse-strings for $50,000,000 to dispense) as if it were a legitimate untainted source, which it is not.  And he quoted a claim to newspaper announcements that do NOT list the place where the children of Hawaii residents were born, but only the addresses of the parents.  In fact, Bauer refused to enter copies of the original page of the newspaper as copied from Micro-fiche under subpoena or what have you, and he refused to enter actual birth certificates or certifications of live birth (long or short) into the Court record.

Obama and his lawyers CANNOT and will NOT produce a valid Birth Certificate into evidence in a Court of Law because both released long and short copies ARE FORGERIES.  And when ordered by the Court to produce the same, the lawyers for Obama in Farrar v. Obama in a Georgia Court under Iranian ethnic Judge Michael Malihi simply walked out and refused to attend, saying it was up to Judge Malihi to make them, and instead of penalizing Obama's lawyers, after a personalized visit from Valerie Jarrett, Malihi effectually dismissed the case on "feelings" that he was not convinced rather than on points of Law. 

“[T]he inestimable heritage of citizenship is not to be conceded to those who seek to avail themselves of it under pressure of a particular exigency....
CHIN BAK KAN V. UNITED STATES, 186 U.S. 193 (1902) @ 200

We do not need a Presidential candidate or President so badly, that we have to go outside the Natural Born Citizen" pool - that of two U.S. citizen parents having given birth on US Soil for he or she whom would be our President, regardless of the candidate's ethnicity.



The leading  Founding Fathers were mostly multi-lingual, many of which were well versed in the Greek and Latin Classics.  They actually looked to the ancient Greeks and Romans on what worked and what did not work in what was previously conceived as Republics in political antiquity.  Therefore,  in order to know Founder’s Intent at the time the Constitution was ratified, it helps to understand what they could glean from and antiquity to their times as what defined a “Natural Born Citizen” in their eyes and understanding at the time, so we may proper interpret the meaning of the United States Constitution regarding this phrase in our own day with minimal controversy and have the Court concur with us, whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Herodotus, in his "Histories", uses autochthon in the sense of both original and ancient. Hence, one who is native and of long standing in the land...often in the sense of ages and many centuries before others came and attached themselves or pushed out those that preceded them.  By using aboriginal rather than “natural born citizen” as the Founding Fathers would have interpreted autochthon, the English translation carries over an obfuscation in the original intent of the passage, and is lost on most readers from the early 20th century onward. 

Herodotus, The Histories, 1.171.5
A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920, translates as:
“…the Carians themselves do not subscribe to it, but believe that they are aboriginal inhabitants of the mainland and always bore the name which they bear now.”

The relevant Greek text reads ατόχθονας for the English translation of aboriginal. Later in the same translation of Herodotus, The Histories, 4.197.2, the Greek text reads:
ατόχθονα and ατόχθονες for the below translations as aboriginal

[2] I have this much further to say of this country: four nations and no more, as far as we know, inhabit it, two of which are aboriginal and two not; the Libyans in the north and the Ethiopians in the south of Libya are aboriginal; the Phoenicians and Greeks are later settlers.

Liddell, Henry George ; Robert Scott; A Greek-English Lexicon, (Revised by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie) Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940...defines the ancient Greek word autochthon     ατό-χθων as:
"Sprung from the land itself" and as the adjective "indigenous, native".

When looking to Plato for advice, we see that he places the emphasis on a plural of fathers (2 forefather generations or more) that are required to be born in the land as well as the one born, or 3 generations born on the soil, to be called indigenous or "natural born" stock. It is a nuance most people miss in the first reading.

Plato, Menexenus 237b - 237c, states:
[237b]: "… thereafter we shall exhibit the character of their exploits, how nobly and worthily they wrought them. Now as regards nobility of birth, their first claim thereto is this -- that the forefathers of these men were not of immigrant stock, nor were these their sons declared by their origin to be strangers in the land sprung from immigrants, but natives sprung from the soil living and dwelling in their own true fatherland; and nurtured also by no stepmother, like other folk, but by that mother-country [237c] wherein they dwelt, which bare them and reared them and now at their death receives them again to rest in their own abodes.

W.R.M. Lamb translates autochthon as a native sprung up from the soil in 1925. The immediate above passage comes from: Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1925.

The SAME translation was consistently done in the following year with Demosthenes, when the equally credentialed team of C.A. Vince and J.H. Vince translated the Greek of
μόνοι γρ πάντων ατόχθονες μες στε κκενοι
as:
"for you and they are the only indigenous peoples in Greece—“

The passage comes from Demosthenes, On the False Embassy, 19.261; but it is in 19.260 that we learn that it is the "men of Athens" who are the only indigenous people...not in the specifically mentioned Land of Greece...but in the place or region in which they found themselves at. Hence, the translators infer Greece by the context of the speakers words of implication and apparent intent.

Perhaps it would have better been read to something after this effect:
“…men of Athens…for alone sprung up from the land itself you are in the manner and place of this region [Greece].”
(Demosthenes, English translation by C. A. Vince, M. A. and J. H. Vince, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1926).

In his Funeral Speech, 60.4,7 Demosthenes in the English translation from Norman W. DeWitt, Ph.D., and Norman J. DeWitt, Ph.D. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1949, states:

4] The nobility of birth of these men has been acknowledged from time immemorial by all mankind. For it is possible for them and for each one of their remote ancestors man by man to trace back their being, not only to a physical father, but also to this land of theirs as a whole, a common possession, of which they are acknowledged to be the indigenous children.

For alone of all mankind they settled the very land from which they were born and handed it down to their descendants, so that justly one may assume that those who came as migrants into their cities and are denominated citizens of the same are comparable to adopted children; but these men are citizens of their native land by right of legitimate birth.

7] For the ancestors of this present generation, both their fathers and those who bore the names of these men in time past, by which they are recognized by those of our race, never at any time wronged any man, whether Greek or barbarian, but it was their pride, in addition to all their other good qualities, to be true gentlemen and supremely just, and in defending themselves they accomplished a long list of noble deeds.

Note the pattern:
It is the father, the lineage through the father, and the name of the father that determines one's indigenous or "natural born identity", in conjunction to the land from which they and their father spring from. If the son is not born in the land of his father, he is a foreigner of the land of his foreign father, even when born in a foreign land.

In regard to Barack Hussein Obama, the ancient Greeks, were they hypothetically brought into our day briefly to rule on the matter, would rule that it is impossible for Barack Hussein Obama II to be anything other than an indigenous or natural born KENYAN, and that this is proven by the nationality and location of his forefathers.

Again, Plato seems to place an indigenous stock to that of great-grandchildren born in the land...so that if a third generation is born to the soil, only then can we apply the term native, indigenous, natural born, autochthon.

 Is there some validation in the Greek for that? Yes.

παλαίχθων     palaichthon has also found use in ancient Greek to help us identify and define what a "natural born citizen" is, or at least was, in the mind and interpretations of the Greeks.

παλαίχθων     palaichthon means to the effect of: "an ancient or long-standing inhabitant of a country or place", inferring that indigenous is multi or many generations in the nature of the word.

Hence, "natural born" in the sense of how it was understood are able to MULTI-GENERATIONALLY trace such a lineage in the soil through the father...something that is intended by the Founding Fathers for the Presidency of the United States, and something Barack Obama is incapable of doing. 

Even the Minor Attic writer, Hyperides, offers a solution for when a society is multi-cultural:
[7] To do so would, I think, be foolish. Granted, if one is praising men of a different stamp, such as have gathered from diverse places into the city which they inhabit, each contributing his lineage to the common stock, then one must trace their separate ancestry.

But from one who speaks of Athenians, born of their own country and sharing a lineage of unrivalled purity, a eulogy of the descent of each must surely be superfluous.

(Hyperides, Funeral Oration, 6.7;
Minor Attic Orators, vol. 2
English translation by J. O. Burtt, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1962).

In Latin, a like term as Autochthon (Ατόχθων) is "terrigena": "born of and sprung from the earth" implies a permanency of residence from birth to a single soil and a single people.

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus infers this in regard to discussing who were the indigenes of Britain:

"Who were the original inhabitants of Britain, whether they were indigenous or foreign, is, as usual among barbarians, little known."
(Cornelius Tacitus, The Life of Cnæus Julius Agricola, 11).

The Latin reads:
Ceterum Britanniam qui mortales initio coluerint, indigenae an advecti, ut inter barbaros, parum compertum.

Natural Born Citizenship is the highest form of National Citizenship to a society, and it must extend to be even greater than that Citizenship created or listed by the 14th Amendment. 

 The Congressional Globe, 1st session,   May 30, 1866  
The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment 

[Emphasis in bold and underlined: mine]

Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) authored a "subject to the jurisdiction" clause into the 14th Amendment.  Upon his introduction, the ff. are his remarks.

Part 4  (column 2), page 2890

Mr Howard:  The first amendment is to section one, declaring "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside."   ...This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.  This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,   who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895 

Mr. Howard:  I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word "jurisdiction" as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States...that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred:
Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893

Mr. Trumbull:  The provision is, "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens."  That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"...  What do we mean by  "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"?  Not owing alliance to anybody else.  That is what it means.

...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."   

...It is only those persons who completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.



In regard to Obama, born with a United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship at birth, regardless of where in the world he was born, it is obvious and mandatory that he does NOT qualify to having been subject completely and solely and only to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth.  This is in matter of fact, de jure, stipulated to.

 “…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was ...a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.”
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html   The very authority Obama's Attorney Robert Bauer cited in Hollister v. Soetoro, when used and cited properly, cuts more against Obama than it does for him.


The issue of what is or is not a Natural Born Citizen has been avoided by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Would that they would heed Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821) which states:
"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."



Thomas Jefferson wrote in May 1779, in  A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens Of This Commonwealth  [of Virginia]
          Virginia Papers 2:476–78
“…all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth…shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth… all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.” 

 In 1779, as far as the Commonwealth of Virginia was concerned, Thomas Jefferson argues paternal jus sanguinis determined the child's citizenship, not jus soli.  Jus soli (to the soil) birth in a 1779 Virginia was irrelevant in the Commonwealth of Virginia as it pertained to a Commonwealth of Virginia citizenship by birth during the time the United States was a Confederacy of States united. 

In 1787, the United States Constitution was formulated, and stated:

"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."
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 2, section 1, Clause 5

The Natural Born Citizen Clause came about as a means to exclude children of foreign citizen fathers.   Its introduction into the United States Constitution began with John Jay’s letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 states:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

A little over 6 weeks later, this specific rewording and new defense against foreign intrusion into the highest office of the proposed Executive Branch made its way into the Madison Debates, on September 7, 1787, when 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 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 (1840) @ 570-71



In this Article 2.1.5 clause of the US Constitution, the person eligible to be President was to be either a US Citizen at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution or a natural born citizen -- one who was  reared from his US Birth within the United States into a US citizen by his US Citizen Father (and presumably US Citizen mother by virtue of marriage and union with the US Citizen Father) -- and his 14 year residency requirements in the clause was officially recognized as required to be that starting at the age of 21 years old.

Since at the age of 35 he was required to dwell WITHIN the United States for 14 years since his 21st birthday, this a a Constitutional Obligatory presumption that has been extremely often entirely missed in discussing this clause, and deals with the concept of affirmation of sole allegiance to the United States alone.

While the prospective Presidential hopeful and actual office holder was given a mandatory residency requirement of living WITHIN the United States the entire 14 years he was alive IF he aspired to the Presidency at age 35, he only needed a combined total residency within the United States of 14 years if he was older.  For example, if he aspired to the Presidency at age 45, he could have wandered outside the nation another 10 years as a merchant, but was still needing a mandatory residency/dwelling WITHIN the United States...not just being based there, but actually dwelling within the US...for at least 14 years since his 21st birthday.   You will see this residency aspect return in the discussion of the parameters of the Constitution later on. So please keep it in mind.

15 years prior to 1787, the United States was at that time "British America".  It was composed of 13 colonies which were transmuted into the designation and nomenclature of "States" on July 4, 1776.  Therefore, if a person were a natural born citizen of one of the 13 Colonies that became a State of the United States, by accepting and declaring allegiance to State and Country after the War as a Citizen of the United States, the Natural Born Citizenship for only that time in our nation's history, was transmuted or carried over into the Confederacy and then the Republic of the United States of America.

Again, the TRANSMUTATION of natural-born citizenship to the United States was relegated to those who were born in any one of the 13 United American Colonies before July 4, 1776, as well as those born before the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789. It applies only to those in that period of history that were citizens by jus soli and jus sanguinis before the Revolution, who also made the transitional allegiance to the New Government that would be the United States AFTER the war was over.

The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural born citizen".  In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified it was to be "a free white person" who was repeatedly a "he", who was "of  the age of twenty one years", and specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli  (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law.  But still adapting some of the English Legal ruling of Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of
"Nemo potest exuere Patriam" :



"No one has the power / ability / authority
  to leave / reject / disown himself
  from the Father's Land." 
 
   [Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.]

From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old.  If he was not at least 21, technically (under constitutionally set parameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be Vice-President. 

As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired the right to vote.  The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971, needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism.  For exceptions to this, we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification not measuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by any party having legal standing to sue.

To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens" as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where in the world the child is born.  This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only 1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.

Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough.

The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.

That "natural born citizens of the United States" were:
1) Only born to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth that had only one nationality and allegiance at the time of the child's birth;
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other allegiance than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave. 

But is that really just a presumption regarding the intent of defining natural born citizen in the Act of January 29, 1795?  My answer is: No.  Let's review why. 

In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."


 This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".   He was also to be "a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."

In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".

In other words, the father "of a US Natural Born Citizen defined son" was never to be a foreign national, as Obama's father was.  

 Obama's father was an alien national Citizen of Kenya, under the Colonial Commonwealth Protectorate of Great Britain. He was NEVER a US Citizen, nor even had any expressed desire to be (not that such would have helped...it wouldn't have).

 And never in the child's life was that child to be a de facto or de jure citizen of a foreign nation as Obama was in Indonesia so adopted and legally made a citizen minor under guardianship in that foreign society out of Jakarta, and attending Menteng 1 as a naturalized Indonesian Citizen, forsaking his U.S. Nationality by adoption and being denounced as a Foreign National by his own mother as of August 13, 1968.




The Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat.155) stated that:
"children of persons who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof . . . ."

From 1802 to 1855, through certain vagaries in the Law, there were those who wondered what the definitive law of Natural Born Citizenship in this time period was.  But while we may debate the issue, sole allegiance and sole citizenship to the United States was a definite requirement in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.

"...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), p. 414

Further, that the Father be a United States Citizen at the time of the child's birth was viewed then by the Court to be an absolute in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290
- 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."
So while we see that the term “parents” is used, the “rights” and “condition” of Citizenship is passed on through the Citizen Father (or the presumption of one, in case of bastardization when he is presumed a US Citizen in absentia from the Citizen Mother).

And with the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604), the operation of Law still required the Father alone to confirm a child's citizenship.   This in turn was clarified again as Revised Statute 1993 which stated:
        "All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose FATHERS were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

When in 1881, Senator Bayard was petitioned about a father naturalizing and giving his child Natural Born Citizen status during the period covered by the Act of 1802 to 1855 (regarding President Chester A. Arthur), Senator Bayard of the Judiciary Committee stated that as long as the Father became a United States Citizen before the child's 21st birthday, he would concur with its operation as a foreigner to a U.S. Citizen as giving his child a United States Natural Born Status (as opposed to what we might label as just a "born citizen", which include anchor babies in our day, not eligible to run for President).  [Note: Keep in mind that Obama's Father was NEVER a citizen of the United States at any time.]

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

In other words:
1) Children born to a US Citizen father outside the US = US Citizen
2) Children born to a US Citizen Father inside the limits of the US = US Natural Born Citizen
3) The presumption of the US Citizen Father is that he is age 21 or older at the time of the child's birth.
    In 1802 and until 1855, while it was still a requirement that a child have a US Citizen Father, and under the specific language of the statute, the employing of the plural "persons" in the natural and literal sense of a child's birth, is inclusive of the necessity of a US citizen Mother as well as that of the Father at the time of birth in order that the child born outside the jurisdiction of the United States also be considered a US citizen as well, and not be stateless.   The naturalization of the father automatically naturalized the mother as well at the moment the oath of naturalization was officially taken in a legal proceeding.  With the codification of the Revised Statute 1993, the necessity of a US Citizen mother was either removed or left obscure, and the US Citizen Father once again became all that was required for a child born outside the limits of the United States to become a US Citizen for the next 13 years.  But that was rectified by an Amendment to the US Constitution.

On July 28, 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the natural born citizen requirement of a US Citizen became clarified and founded upon the inclusion of that birth which was  in a State of the United States, and that the 14th Amendment minimum was that the person also be a citizen in the State where they reside, and be subject to the laws of both the national jurisdiction of the United States and that of the local State wherein they reside. The action implies a continuous present tense formulation in its legal phrase: a lifetime US residency and citizenship, not subject to withdrawal by the participant citizen without risk to a withdrawal of 14th Amendment Citizen standing.

In other words, in the strict literal sense, the 14th Amendment disowns those who cease to be citizens of any jurisdiction of the United States.  The dis-ownership of the United States by its former citizens who choose to go overseas and not maintain a home state address and State Citizenship, but do not swear allegiance to another, thereby rendering them Stateless, is prevented in language elsewhere and outside the US Constitution in the codifications of the US Code.

But as it regards Natural Born Citizenship, and the requirements of that Status in order to legally and Constitutionally be a President or Vice-President of the United States, the academic argument over the intent of the 14th Amendment and the ability to rescind a citizenship of a non-resident citizen who chooses to neither live in the United States nor be subject to its laws, is a discussion for another day.

Prior to the 14th Amendment we know that  "Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law…” stated United States v. Rhodes (1866).

  (Notice that Barack II was born with a British Citizenship of the Colony of Kenya via his father, hence a British allegiance which encompassed both a separate Kenyan and British Citizenship with Kenya's Independence in 1963 , and clearly Barack Jr. is forever unqualified to be called a United States "natural born citizen" under the US Constitution etc.).

And even after the 14th Amendment, we read  in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102
where the Court said,
"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was...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."


With the 14th Amendment, in order to be a US Natural Born Citizen:
1) Children must be born to a US Citizen Father
2) Be born in  the United States.
3) Reside perpetually in the United States to age 21.
4) Never at any time owe any allegiance to any alien power.

If one aspired to be President at age 35, the perpetual residency requirement is to age 35.  If they aspire to be President of the United States at age 45, they need a perpetual residency to age 21, a combined de facto and de jure dwelling within the United States for at least 14 years since the age of 21.  In effect, those who join the US Military and serve outside the United States under the age of 21 were not perceived in the intent of the 14th Amendment, but with the 1971 26th Amendment, the age requirement reduces to age 18 perpetual residency, and still a formula of perpetual residency to age 35 if they run at age 35, as the intent of the clause was a perpetual residency for 35 years in the United States if one were to run at age 35, even with a drop in the age of when a person becomes a voting citizen is Amended into the US Constitution without redressing Article 2.1.5.

Further, as of June 22, 1874, six years after the 14th Amendment was passed:
"The United States have not recognized a double allegiance.  By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government."
US House of Representatives Report No.784, June 22, 1874 

Dual Citizenship at birth denies one the claim of being a 14th Amendment Citizen AND that of being a United States Natural Born Citizen.

Concerning the 14th Amendment by the authority of the author of the first clause insertion of having no allegiance to any foreign power at birth, Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), 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…”


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.”

But as we have seen, Senator Feinstein is clearly inept on this subject, and likely relies on a misinformed representation given her of and/or an egregious reading of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) without even the necessary clarification of Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)@ 660-666, and the various material or references I am herewith supplying you.


As it regards the Constitution and the obligatory intent of the Natural Born Citizen clause, there evolved one more requirement, that of a US Citizen Mother (as well as that of a US Citizen Father) at the time of birth.

With the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution on August 26, 1920, stating,
"the right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."  increased the obligatory Constitutional Requirements on those aspiring to be President of the United States, as defined by the parameters set forth by the United States Constitution.

With the 1920 ratified 19th Amendment, in order to be qualify as a "natural born citizen" in order to be President, a person within the defining parameters of the US Constitution (Article 2.1.5, the 14th and 19th Amendments) needs to:

1) Be born to a 21 year old or older US Citizen Father
2) Be born to a 21 year old or older US Citizen Mother
3) Be born on United States soil within a US State
4) Maintain a permanent sole legience to the United States absent of any dual or multi-citizen nationalities and /or allegiances.
5) Maintain a lifetime residency to a State or States within the United States to age 35;
 or to age 21 plus a minimum total of 14 additional years physical presence residency within the States if older than 35.

Again, in 1971, with the 26th Amendment, the age of the citizen parent, in the Constitutional requirement, was dropped to 18.  Thus, a child born to a 17 year old on US soil to those who would otherwise be identified as US Citizen Minors, would not be eligible to one day run for President under the obligatory Constitutional Requirements found in the natural and literal sense of that document.

In 1961:
1) Barack Hussein Obama II was born to an alien national father of foreign citizenship and himself  having foreign allegiances.
2) Barack Hussein Obama II was born to a minor mother age 18, not yet legal under either codified lesser standards to grant U.S. citizenship to any child born outside of U.S. jurisdiction  -- Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,  ch. 477, Title III, ch. 1, §§ 301(a)(7), 309(a), 66 Stat. 163, 235-38 (1952)  --nor the Constitutionally required age of voting (age 21).
3) There is no hospital or location birth record with witnesses to the birth for Barack (per 333 US 640 (1948) @ 653 that he prove his alleged US birth with witnesses to the birth per 533 US 53 2001) @ 54,62)  to prove any 1961 US birth origin to even confirm a birth citizenship was acquired by him. 

All Barack Obama can offer is hearsay and speculation...NO EVIDENCE of birth citizenship, let alone a Natural Born Citizenship, especially in a Court of Law under penalty of perjury.  It is quite obvious that he is illegally occupying the Presidency of the United States under the rule of Law, the Supreme Law of this nation, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Was Obama ever vetted as U.S. Constitution Article 2.1.5 qualified?   No.  He was neither properly vetted by any Secretary of State who was supposed to look out for the voters of their State from fraudulent candidates, nor was Obama properly vetted by existing National Security Background checks regarding his past.  They did not do more than scratch the surface, and none went back more than 10 years or required specific long-form birth certificate documentation.

Regarding the 2008 Presidential Campaign and Election the first time around, the Secretary of the State of Connecticut said regarding asking if or not a Presidential Candidate was Constitutionally qualified to run: "we haven't the right to ask that of a Presidential Candidate", or words to this effect.
Connecticut’s Secretary of State, claimed they had NO right to even ask Obama for verification to prove he was eligible to run!



"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.

Clearly, it was a Barack Obama some other person who did a post March 1, 1982 walk in claim in which a clerk entered "Obama II, Barack Hussein, Male....", which had never before existed and was now required by Hawaii to be entered by a law in place as of only that year on March 1, 1982.  

The Attorney General never asked if or not Barack was a "Natural Born Citizen", nor inquired as to the nationality status and ages of Barack's his parents, and if any Treaty with another nation had claim on Barack. How did the State of Connecticut claim to know Barack was born in Hawaii...by official documentation? No. It was hearsay of what someone in Connecticut said another person on the phone told him. This is supposed to be legally inadmissible in the context it was presented as, and the Chief Justice of Connecticut accepted the hear-say contrary to the rules of admissibility and evidence .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.

In South Carolina, the Democratic Party’s Carol Fowler in 2008 did pretty much the same thing.  She stated 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.)

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, either equals fraud or the intent to defraud.   The State of South Carolina and the Presidential Candidate Obama NEVER produced the evidence “later” come election time November 2008 or even by the inaugural of January 2009 …they simply ignored the law and gambled that no one had standing to force them.  Had John McCain or Sarah Palin sued over the 2008 Presidential Election, Obama’s votes would have been tossed out, which is why the Media so viciously went after Sarah Palin long after she lost the election.

Not one Secretary of State in the 2008 Presidential Election cycle has ever come forth in the Birth Certificate controversy and ever said..."we have seen his Birth Certificate.  In that 2008 election cycle, Nancy Pelosi personally vouched for Barack Obama
and to the Media and others, it was if that was all it takes? 


Obama’s National Security background Check was easily tricked

There are several National Security Background Checks that Obama would have gone through as a U.S Presidential Candidate in 2007, if one had not been done prior to that in 1994. 
Security Directive 63

If followed, Security Directive 63 (1991)’s single scope background check of Obama merely also would have established only that someone was told that Obama was alleged to have been born in Hawaii by a mere phone call, as was done by the State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of the Connecticut.   It would not have established his eligibility to run for President…simply that someone on the other end of the line stated that there was a certification of birth on file and that they said (whether truthfully or lying) that Barack Obama was born in the United States.   If Obama had this declaration within the office of the Director of Health in Hawaii in either 2004 (for a U.S. Senate candidate background check) or in 2007 (for a Presidential candidate  background check), all that was needed was a few well-placed Communist-Socialist or Liberal Democrat ideologues in the Clerical position expecting a phone call, answering it accordingly, and receiving a fat envelope by messenger of untraceable cash for a job well done.  For a Democratic Party majority Hawaii, it would be quite easy to accomplish. 

The security check only extended backwards for 10 years from his announcing to run, to 1997; and is more focused on checking his bank and criminal records.  The F.B.I. will send two field agents who will ask specific 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: the University of Chicago.  The F.B.I. certainly would not have looked at any attendance or financials or citizen status claimed (such as foreign student on scholarship as a foreign national) that Barack Obama had BEFORE Harvard University. 

The financials are done in conjunction with  Executive Order of 08/04/1995 12868- 1.2(e) 1a,b,c
which states that the 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.
Again,  the primary concern we should have is that the  Birth Certificate check for Barack Obama under  Security Directive 63 would have ONLY been a phone call to the Hawaiian Department of Health Services, which was the behavior of the Attorney General for the State of Connecticut in 2008. In other words, just one or two executive Communist-Socialist conspirator(s) inside the DHS, could have run interference for Obama with Obama knowing that his "cadre members" were so "in place". No photocopy, microfiche, or any birth document would have been attached to the file like we would have either assumed or expected decades ago.

Then there are questions as to what did Barack Obama answer in accordance to the "Questionnaire for National Security Positions", "Standard Form 86 revised July 2008"

As it states on page ii:
"Penalties for Inaccurate or False Statements: The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 101) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to 5 years imprisonment. In addition, Federal agencies generally fire, do not grant a security clearance, or disqualify individuals who have materially and deliberately falsified these forms, and this remains a part of the permanent record for future placements. Your prospects of placement or security clearance are better if you answer all questions truthfully and completely. You will have adequate opportunity to explain any information you give to us on this form and to make your comments part of the record."

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. If he answered no, that's a 5 year felony count against him for not disclosing he was legally Barry Soetoro and used that name in Indonesia. What did he answer?  America has the right to know.

On page 2 question 9, the citizenship box combines born citizens of any type in the US into a one lump check box. He would have checked this off to divert from red flags. The other options: US Citizen born outside US; naturalized US citizen, and NOT a US Citizen. There is no qualification of a two US Citizen parent passed on NBC status from that of an illegal alien simply born on US soil in the checkbox Obama would have checked off.

On p. 2, question 10, Obama would have lied on the question "Do you now hold or have you EVER held multiple citizenships?" A felony of 5 years for not disclosing Indonesian citizenship, a felony of 5 years for not disclosing Kenyan citizenship, a felony of 5 years for not disclosing a British Commonwealth citizenship awaits Obama. We are now up to at least 4 felonies v. Obama.

On p. 2, question 11, the question asked is "where you have lived" for the past 7 years (only).

On p. 4, question 12 asks "where you went to school" in the last 7 or 10 years. If no school was attended, list your most recent degree and where and when it was received. Columbia, Occidental, Punahou, the Muslim Dictator's family attended public school in Indonesia...all off limits.

On page 5, question 13, your employment for the last 7 or 10 years. In 2007, the US Senate, the State of Illinois. The working with Communist-Socialists, being employed by Acorn, and other employment even further back that could have raised red flags...all off limits.

On page 9, question 16, list 3 "people who know you well" over the last 7 years...anyone prior to January 2000, even if an agent wanted to check out, all were off limits. The 3 people on this application would have been the very best Obama could come up with, not someone he knew would be red flagged as Security Risks. 

Page 11, question 18 gets interesting. It asks you to 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)."

What did Obama answer?  America has the right to know.
We can figure a likely 4 to 6 more felony counts that can be added here, including that regarding relatives in Bracknell of the United Kingdom, the half-brothers in Kenya and China, not counting disclosure about Lolo Soetoro and Obama's biological father.   


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."

On page 17, question 29, the use of the word "force" to overthrow the US Gov't is Obama's out in his associations, because the Democratic Socialists of America and the various Socialist-Communists which he associated with, sought to overwhelm and overthrow the US Government by peaceful and legislative means, not by "force" as the question was phrased.

The only extra space on the form for more info, pertains to one little box on page 17 regarding more info on where you lived, worked or went to school in the last 7 or 10 years.





THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HELD PRE-2008 RECORDS OF OBAMA WERE STOLEN OUT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE?
The Department of State was rocked by a scandal in the first 3 months of 2008. Instead of just "looking at" the "passport data" of Barack Obama only, the files regarding Barack Obama allegedly went missing in March of 2008, and there has been a virtual blackout on the news data since.

We know the factual data that pro-Obama private contractors under John Brennan's Analysis Corporation employ breached State Department security on January 9, February 21 and March 14 of 2008,
before a final theft of all Obama’s documents was “alleged” to have happened by pro-Obama supporters on March 21 or March 26, 2008. The CEO of Analysis Corp., the primary Passport breaching firm was John Brennan

"the three contract employees worked in three offices in the Washington area. One office does consular work and visas on evenings, holidays, weekends and overnights; another office issues passports; the third office scans and files materials." The likely suspect of the theft of the Obama Department of State files and passports, was the Analysis Corp. employee, "who has "extensive" experience"..and has always worked under a State Department contract."


In at least the appearances of a Quid Pro Quo for stealing the Obama documents, was made chief counter-terrorism expert at the White House and given an ethics waiver.

One of the other two who breached Department of State security, and was aware of what was in the Obama documents that were on file, worked for Stanley Inc.; and was not long after shot dead in 2008 while allegedly “cooperating with authorities” over this very issue.

John Brennan was appointed to Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism on January 20, 2009...the same day Obama Usurped the US Presidency.    That appointment, I personally believe, was Quid Pro Quo.  Had Brennan kept his Analysis Corp. job, there would be no problem subpoenaing Brennan....but now what is needed is a Special Prosecutor team, all top secret and above clearance, in order to have the right to search Brennan's physical and electronic records, his home, office, safe deposit boxes, etc.  Which is why he got the job, in part, to make the bar so high on the National Security buffer, that no one should have a right to know what Obama's stolen State Department Passports and other document information says, especially if Brennan is in possession of it in an undisclosed location.  It's covered under the catch all: "You can't see it.  National Security".


On March 31, 2012, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Maricopa County Arizona's Cold Case posse announced at a lengthy news conference that it concluded that Obama's Birth Certificate
 is very likely a criminal fraud.







On March 1, 2012, there was a Preliminary Findings Report that became part of what Sheriff Arpaio was willing to legally commit to saying about the Obama Birth Certificate as released by the White House on April 27, 2011.

The Washington Times reported at 4:05 p.m. on Thursday, March 1, 2012 that  Sheriff Arpaio officially said:
“Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic,” … “My investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in paper format as claimed by the White House.”

Video aids were presented at the March 1 Conference.

1)   Introduction: What a Long Form Birth Certificate should have looked like when xeroxed (unlike Obama's fraud). (Length: 1m38s)

2)   Obama Fraudulent Long Form Birth Certificate, inconsistent noise, layers and movable parts, such as alleged authenticating stamps. (Length: 2m28s)

3)   Optical Character Recognition (OCR) Software was NOT Present in the Obama Long Form Birth Certificate Forgery  (Length: 3m16s)

4)   In Addressing Optimization, reducing a file size for massive download, the many anomalies in Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate assure it as a Manufactured or Fraudulent Electronic File not of an Original.  (Length: 4m52s)

5) Wherever Obama's Date and Authentication Stamps are Fraudulent, the Entire Document Is Fraudulent

6) Even Barack Obama’s Selective Service Card was of recent manufacture and fraudulent.

In my own research, at NO TIME in a Court of Law, has the Obama defense team EVER introduced into evidence a United States Certification of Live Birth or Birth Certificate. 

The much acclaimed quote of Obama spending about $3 million to cover the issue up comes in relation to his financial disclosures within the time-frame of October 2008 to March 2011, when legal expenses to the law firm of Perkins Coie cost Obama for America over 2.8 million dollars.  These are:

4th Quarter 2008    (amended figure) $205,323.00
April Quarterly, 2009                        $314,018.06
July Quarterly 2009,                         $270,754.18
October Quarterly, 2009                  $688,316.42
 1st Quarter, 2010                           $261,206.69
2nd Quarter, 2010                           $248,483.94
3rd Quarter, 2010                            $234,284.82
4th Quarter, 2010                            $241,422.79
1st Quarter, 2011                            $165,008.20

Totals in cost of Obama Campaign or Political Action Funds to defend against required introduction of Obama Identity into Court Evidence from October 2008 to March 2011, before shifting expense to the US Taxpayers,  was $2,628,817.80

Why spend the money?  Unless...Obama and his closest Campaign and White House supporters know for a fact that Obama is guilty, and the greatest arch-criminal ever in US History, stealing and illegally occupying a US Presidency.

In the 1st Quarter 2011, the formerly posted financial information stated that “Layered Technologies” was  paid $2,027 by Obama and/or Obama For America.


Would they somehow be involved in the fraud?  It seems only a Congress impeaching Obama or a subpoena for records by someone with Article III standing and finances to investigate might find out, one way or the other.  It is just a possibility that may or may not pan out, but should be followed up upon.

Dr. Ron Polland posted informational videos on Youtube that shows you step by step what was done to create the Obama Long Form forgery.  Done in 4 parts and lasting about an hour.  It is well worth the review for those who state it can't be done.
Part 1:  http://youtu.be/bFf6qmDVfbw   (Length: 14m45s)
Part 2:  http://youtu.be/sP1jcAy7cHU     (Length: 14m02s)
Part 3:   http://youtu.be/vePLrQbzM8Q  (Length: 14m32s)
Part 4:  http://youtu.be/jZyNb09cluY   (Length: 13m22s)

Those wishing to refer primarily to the initial June 2008 released Short Form Certification of Live Birth Fraud of Obama's (1), and also  Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugs related articles (2), can do so at: 

You can also access the WND archive on this issue since 2008 at: 

The Second Press Conference by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, was held on July 17, 2012. 



The video aids were:
(1) A  Recap (2m33s) http://youtu.be/yuSvFoPNLA0
(2) Dealing with the manual Coding on Obama's Long Form BC (2m45s) http://youtu.be/yft0kz_fbnA
(3) Circumstantial Proof that Hawaii issues Birth Certificates to those born Outside Hawaii  (2m45s) http://youtu.be/lLrWI3vQ7Kc
(4) Hawaii Officials so scared of exposure they called cops on Cold Case Posse cops in Hawaii (2m13s) http://youtu.be/UH4BHau2EV8
(5) Numerical sequence proof that Obama's Birth Certificates are frauds (2m27s) http://youtu.be/35rnliYemWU

At that July 17, 2012 Conference you will find the ff., that: 
Sheriff Arpaio stated that the investigation into the Barack Obama Long Form Birth Document was intended “to clear the President.”

Sheriff Arpaio stated that in the last Press Conference on this issue, March 1, 2012,  he released that his Cold Case Posse found “probable cause” that this and the Selective Service Form of Barack Obama were fraudulent and manufactured. 

Mike Zullo stated to the effect that:
Two Independent experts were hired to do 600 forensic tests each, independent of each other.  These 600 tests each were done on the ink of the Obama long form birth certificate document and neither could in any way authenticate or justify the inconsistencies, nor come close.  The Sheriff Investigation will hold up in a Court of Law under judicial scrutiny, while the Obama document “could not survive judicial scrutiny,” or words to this effect.

Starting in 1960, the Bureau of vital statistics required an embedded coding for their references.  The Cold Case Posse found and talked to a 95 year old Verna Lee, known on the document as U.K. Lee.  She walked Mike Zullo by phone in a recorded conversation through the steps exactly as outlined by a Mr. Bennett who wrote out the State’s legal procedures, and stated that the document was coded by hand for the exclusive use of the Government, and rechecked and then signed.  The numbers at the top of the form were placed in order and chronologically appeared according to batch, first by geography, then by hospital, clinic, or what have you in required chronological order. 

The order of numbers of the Nordykes
who were chronologically born after the time alleged for Barack Obama proves in order for the document to be genuine, it would have to have listed another location other than Kapiolani.  The numbers and time and date of birth are consistent with a birth at another outlying location, not at Kapiolani.

The embedded Bureau of Statistics number 9 on the Obama document where the race and profession of the father are designates that in order for a document to pass another authentication, it must leave these boxes blank with NO DATA typed into the boxes.  For a box to have data in it as Obama’s does, means it is an “altered document”, which according to the Verification Manual available at the Hawaiian Supreme Court Library states must be stamped as “Amended”.  This means it cannot ever hereafter be legally relied upon ever as a means of identification or verification. 

There was a Delivery Room Door log that recorded who came in to Kapiolani that was supposed to be accessible to inquiry.  Kapiolani removed the logbook from access, and Mike Zullo stated that had he seen the log and Ann Dunham’s name been there, the investigation would have concluded.  Instead, the Hospital removed the log book from access in the Library Archives of the Kapiolani Medical Records probably because Ann Dunham is NOT in the log. 

Under Hawaii Law initiated March 1, 1982, Barack Obama himself could have gone to Hawaii at any time after that and at any time post March 1, 1982, and then claimed he was born in Hawaii, and have his own birth declared.  It is only a possible legal scenario Zullo was presenting here, NOT that this happened. The Law of March 1, 1982 made it possible for anyone, even a foreigner born in another country, to do this; as long as he or she was some time before that day of entering one of 5 satellite offices or the main office of registry in person as a witness, and simply able to prove that they were an Hawaiian resident who paid taxes and able to prove those two things, that is all Hawaii Law required for him to submit data to newly claim that he was born in Hawaii even though such a birth was never previously recorded.  And by the use of the word “resident”, that means an Hawaiian Birth Certificate could be issued to just about anyone who could prove mere residency, such as paying rent, in Hawaii…even to foreign nationals now taking a skate or short cut path to United States Citizenship around United States Immigration laws.  Hawaii law mandates these birth certificates be allowed because the statutory language uses the words “shall issue”

[My comment here is that it is impossible for a person to say they witnessed their own birth and knew where they were born, which Hawaii Law allows for.]

The label of African for a race preference was not used by the Government until 1989.  Yet that designation appears on a document alleged to have been typed in 1961. 

Zullo stated in the question and answer period:
“I can’t find, for lack of a better word, anything to clear this thing.” Or words to this effect.
He also stated, or in words to the same effect of:
  “This document is fictitious…this is not politically motivated.”
“None of us can validate where we are born.”
“Mr. Obama might have been told his whole life he was born in Hawaii.”
“We want the person who made the…forgery brought to justice.  That’s all.”

In the Question and Answer Period, Sheriff Arpaio suggested that a Congressional Investigation, even if just into the Immigration and National Security problems of Birth Certificate Fraud, is warranted.
 He also stated, or in words to the same effect:
“What I said on March 1…show us the microfilm, show us the microfilm and we’ll go back home.  Is it in Hawaii?  Somewhere else?  What’s the big secret?!
“We are not accusing the President of any crime.”
 “It’s time for someone else to take this investigation over.”

But rather than those in Congress or in the leadership of the Republican Party or the major Media coming forward and doing a fair and honest examination into the issue, we have to wonder if the apathy is all about corruption of moral principles, disdain for the rule of Law, and the fear of personal financial creature comforts if anything is said about the issue.  Further, there have been rumors of threats of IRS audits and FCC license revocations if the issue is brought up by the Media, but no whistle blowers as yet confirming such as yet unsourced allegations.

Sheriff Arpaio and his lead Investigator Mike Zullo has submitted their affidavits on this investigation,
and these two affidavits have been submitted in various Court Actions in several states thus far.  They carry the weight of sworn affidavits in evidence when submitted to the Courts. 



On October 29, 2008, Edwin Viera stated:

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948).

And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals.

Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

…[T]he Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1).

… Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.



Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States….

Edwin Viera makes other good points in the article, but to my knowledge he has not personally sued Obama over this issue as yet.  There are those who overemphasize Obama's Short Form Certification of Live Birth and now his miraculous (albeit manufactured) Long Form Birth Certificate as being the proof of Obama's birth identity.  That's not the standard the Clinton Administration (a Democratic Party run Administration)  held. 

The Clinton Administration in September of 2000 stated that Birth Certificates alone are NOT conclusive or reliable proof of identity. 
 The Department of Health and Human Services,

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL,
 JUNE GIBBS BROWN Inspector General.
 SEPTEMBER 2000.
 0EI-07-99-00570
BIRTH CERTIFICATE FRAUD
on page iii  states:
"Birth Certificates Alone do not Provide Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity"

In 2012,  when Barack Obama’s U.S. Constitutional ineligibility to serve and be on the ballot of Tennessee as President or the Presidential nominee was made in Court, the Attorneys for the defendants of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Tennessee Democratic Party de facto admitted on technicality and  effectually CONFIRMED that Barack Obama was ineligible by arguing they have the right to nominate for Presidential Candidate “someone who is NOT qualified for office” as their candidate. 

The only reason the case did not proceed was for lack of standing with specificity of proof of standing to sue on the part of the Plaintiffs  (which would be the Article III standing of a concrete and personal injury, not just a general injury to the public at large only, but you specifically). 

That case was:

LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION,
JOHN DUMMETT,
LEONARD VOLODARSKY, and
CREG MARONEY,

Plaintiffs,



v. ) No. 12-2143-STA

NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY
of the USA, Inc., DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
TENNESSEE DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ,
CHIP FORRESTER,
Defendants.

Page 2:
                                                         BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Chancery Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, on
October 26, 2011.3

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “intend[] to send documents to the Tennessee Secretary of State announcing that [President Barack] Obama is [their] Presidential nominee for the 2012 general election and representing that he is qualified to hold the office of President.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiffs further allege that these representations are false because President Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” as Article II of the United States Constitution requires for any one who would hold the office of President of the United States. (Id. ¶¶ 9–19.)

Based on these alleged misrepresentations to the Tennessee Secretary of State, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants are liable for negligent misrepresentation and fraud/intentional misrepresentation and that the Court should enjoin them from filing papers which will place President Obama’s name on the ballot in Tennessee
for the November general election.

Page 3:                     Defendants assert that the Tennessee Democratic Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not

Page 4:  qualified for the office.

Page 12:  Accepting the allegations of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as true, the Court holds that Plaintiffs have failed to plead the elements of standing with specificity.

 


President George Washington, at his Farewell Address, stated in 1796:
“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.



Reid. v. Colvert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) @ 14 says:
"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. "


Some will argue, like Senator Feinstein did to me, that Obama is somehow ["poof!"]  a 14th Amendment Citizen, and therefore....   But not so, said the author of the 14th Amendment.

Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, The Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, on page 1639, states:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”



Then in 1866, Representative Bingham also stated on the House floor:

“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.” So states Representative Bingham in the Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 1st Session of the 39th Congress, March 9, 1866

So "poof!" Senator Feinstein, YOU'RE WRONG!

There are those who, like me, wish to make this discussion simply about the Law and the Constitution.   Obama's Father was NEVER a United States Citizen.  In fact, in 1961, he was under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.   We have a Treaty with the U.K. that places Obama's birth, even were he born in the United States (though not one Legal document has ever been produced in Court to prove it), as subject to the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United Kingdom...his mother being a minor married to a U.K. Colonies Citizen who was over the age of 21. 

On June 6, 1951, President Truman signed the 1951 British Treaty between the United States of America and the United Kingdom / Great Britain. This Treaty, ratified by the United States Senate, took effect on September 7, 1952. This Treaty authorizes the British Consulate to register the birth of British Subjects born in the United States of America, establishing a British jurisdiction over US Born Citizens of a British Citizen parent or parents. The British consulate of the jurisdiction of the United States where they were found, including the territory and later state of Hawaii, and were thus authorized to give British passports to those like Barack Hussein Obama II as a British subject and United Kingdom and Colonies Citizen at the petition of a British Citizen parent, like Barack Hussein Obama I's request (Obama's father).
 (See also 8 USC 1101 (a) (15) (F) (i) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/ )

This issue of Barack's ineligibility demands our day in Court before the U.S. Supreme Court, to the required exclusion of Obama's appointee's Sotomayor (the defender of FALN terrorists) and Kagan (the advocate of Obamacare off and on the bench).  And if or when that day arrives, we have more than enough to more than conclusively win our case, because the Law places the burden of proof upon Obama via Bute v. Illinois 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653  right at the start.



Judicial Santa Clausing of Obama in Florida on December 20, 2012

In December of 2012,  in Florida, another judge dismissed the challenge to Barack Obama based on more "feelings" rather than the Law...but this time he resort to the "Santa Claus" excuse.  It came out to the legal effect as IF he said  that his excuse was: "Because Santa Claus is real, therefore Barack Obama is a real President." 

Excuse me?  Because a fictional movie declared a fictional character to be Santa Claus, Judge Carroll says we can use the Law to apply the same to Barack Obama?  Yup.  That's what resort they are reduced to now.  Cartoon character excuses in applying decisions of jurisprudence will likely come next for Judge Carroll.


“As the matter has come before the Court at this time of the year it seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the fictional Judge Henry X. Harper from New York in open court in the classic holiday film Miracle on 34th St.  ‘ Since the United States Government declares this man to be the President, this Court will not dispute it.  Case dismissed.’
…the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
….DONE AND ORDERED the 10th day of December, 2012.
Kevin J. Carroll, Circuit Judge”

In the movie, the fictional Judge declared Kris Kringle to be Santa Claus, NOT "President."  Judge Carroll, though resorting to FICTION to justify his rulings, could not even get that point of order correct.  Good grief!



 This leads us to
7 Legal Questions Those with Article III Standing Should Pose to the United States Supreme Court to Win Against Obama and Force the Issue That May Very Well Remove Him Out Of Office as a Usurper
 



1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by Bute v. Illinois  333 US 640 (1948) @ 653, a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law or not?


2. Is the requirement of presenting an identification of person, and proof of birth to follow Nguyen v. INS  533 US 53 (2001) @ 54, 62  in which both hospital records of where born and witnesses to the birth, be a partial fulfillment of Bute v. Illinois  333 US 640 (1948) @ 653 , in which the Court would recognize such certification as rising to the level of a jus soli claim for High Federal Office?


3. Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article  2.1.5 in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole allegiance to the United States at birth, holding at least to the minimum standard of sole allegiance and sole nationality of the child to the United States at birth in the 14th Amendment section 1’s original intent as declared by Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102, 103 or not?

4. Does a Natural Born allegiance follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child's father at birth or not?

5. Is the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)  @ 448 - 450 , Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel -- even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290 -on the definitions of the framers in using "natural born citizen" in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel?

6. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540  (1840) @ 570-71; and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where "every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force" active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.5’s  "natural born citizen" clause or not?

7.  If, as Justice Ginsburg stated in the Oral Arguments of Nguyen v. INS  533 US 53 (2001) that before 1934 “everything was determined by the father’s citizenship”, “that’s the way it used to be”, and we include that to mean the Natural Born Citizen Status in the Laws of the United States relates to the intent of a jus sanguinis connection to a United States Citizen Father, by what right would the Court have to interpret that Natural Born Citizen means anything to the exclusion of what the Constitution and U.S. Law for its first 143 to 147 years (from the time of its writing in 1787 to the time of its ratification in 1791) intended to imply: that any United States Natural Born Citizen MUST have a United States Citizen for his biological father?   The Constitution, and the the required inclusion of a United States Citizen Father to deem a child a United States Natural Born Citizen,  is not to be dismissed as if now a Congressional Statute allowing under-inclusion of the mother   Welsh v. United States, 398 US 333 (1970) @ 361  now trumps  any necessity of having a United States Citizen Father at birth.  To fully exclude the father from the transference of use of that Citizenship which is natural upon the birth of his child, is to also remove the word "Natural" in the Natural Born Citizenship, because the seed of the child follows the genus of the father in nature, so is its application in "natural law", where as the mother was for 143 years considered merely the soil in which the seed grew.  Without the seed, there is no genus...and if the genus is alien, so is the seed, except by operation of other law that states to the contrary.  And since Barack Obama II was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States alone from birth to age 23, and even naturalized to Indonesia at age 7, and because he has absolutely no documentary proof entered into evidence under penalty of perjury that he was born in the United States in this or any other Court in this nation, he can neither be ruled a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, nor can he maintain that he even  had a 14th Amendment Section 1 birth status of being subject only to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth.  Is this not so?



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

Legal References cited:

U.S. Constitution  Amendment 14, 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.


Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102, 103
"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was...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."

"It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992."


Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @653
"The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States,
or the prohibition of power to the States,
is upon those making the claim."


Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62
@ 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.”
@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.

U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5
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.



South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905) @ 448 - 450
"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."

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 Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290

- 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."

Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)@ 570-571
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 …

Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) Oral Arguments (excerpt):
Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.
That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.
       I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so.

Mr. Kneedler: It would be subject to judicial review, and under the facially legitimate bona fide standard of Kleindienst v. Mandel and Fiallo, it would be necessary to ask what Congress was up to in a situation like that, so we are not suggesting that there is...

Justice Ginsburg: Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our Nation's history, that the father's citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother's?

Mr. Kneedler: Given the developments of equal protection under the law in this country, this Court might well conclude that it would not be facially legitimate for Congress simply to decide to go back to as you described it, the bad old days where all rights were thought to derive from the father or the husband. So we are not suggesting that.
The transcript and tape is available at:


Welsh v. United States, 398 US 333 (1970) @ 361
“Where a statute is defective because of under-inclusion there exist two remedial alternatives:
a court may either declare it a nullity
and order that its benefits not extend to the class the legislation was intended to benefit,
or
it may extend the coverage of the statute to include those who are aggrieved by exclusion.” 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------





In 1762, Sir Michael Foster stated in his authoritative “Discourse on High Treason”, that: “With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places."


We see that Justice Scalia used this very quote in his dissent, in HAMDI V. RUMSFELD (03-6696) 542 U.S. 507 (2004).

A reading of the opinion of Justice Scalia sees him reach even to the 1300s in regard to English Law and the Writ of habeas corpus.

Edward J. Erler gave a speech at the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on February 12, 2008, in Phoenix, Arizona, and made some interesting comments regarding the issue of Birthright Citizenship in the late 1700s America.  His speech was later published in July 2008  through Imprimis at:  http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/archives

"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP—the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship—is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply not true.

The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,” never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a “debt of gratitude.” According to Blackstone, this debt is “intrinsic” and “cannot be forefeited, cancelled, or altered.” Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.

America’s Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that “the good People of these Colonies. . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.” According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as “high treason.” So the common law—the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance—could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain!

James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked:
“Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects.”

The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution. Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed—not the accident of birth.
“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

However, the argument of automatic birth rights to being that of an equal to a Natural Born CITIZEN is often done by a misuse of section 1 of the 14th Amendment and a deferring to English Common Law such as summarized in Sir Michael Foster's 1762  "Discourse on High Treason", where Mr. Foster states:

-- Introduction, Section 1:
"The Duty of Allegiance, whether Natural or Local, is founded in the Relation the Person standeth in to the Crown, and in the Privileges He deriveth from that Relation.

Local Allegiance is founded in the Protection a Foreigner enjoyeth for his Person, his Family or Effects during his Residence here; and it Ceaseth whenever He withdraweth with his Family and Effects.

Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member; and on the peculiar Privileges He deriveth from that Relation, which are with great Propriety called his Birthright.

This Birthright nothing but his own Demerit can deprive Him of; it is Indefeasible and perpetual. And consequently the Duty of Allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is inseperably Connected with it, is in Consideration of Law likewise Unalienable and Perpetual.

. . . With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places. This is what We call Natural Allegiance, in Contradistinction to that which is Local.


. . .There have been Writers who have carried the Notion of Natural, Perpetual, Unalienable Allegiance much farther than the Subject of this Discourse will lead Me. They say, very truly, that it is due to the Person of the King; and from thence have drawn Consequences, which do not fall within the Compass of the present Inquiry, and shall therefore be passed over. It is undoubtedly due to the Person of the King; but in that respect Natural Allegiance differeth nothing from that we call Local. For Allegiance considered in every Light is alike Due to the Person of the King; and is paid, and in the Nature of Things must constantly be paid, to that Prince who for the time being is in the Actual and Full Possession of the Regal Dignity.

The well-known Maxim which the Writers upon our Law have adopted and applied to this Case, Nemo potest exuere Patriam, comprehendeth the whole Doctrine of Natural Allegiance, and expresseth My Sense of it."


Nemo potest exuere Patriam... [expanded and reiterated by me, is translated in that context as]: "No one has the power / ability / authority to leave / reject / disown himself from the Father's Land."

The question of natural born birthright is through the Father and whether the child is recognized through the Government on the Father's soil. When the alien father visit's a land not under his country's dominion, he falls under the protection of local allegiance. By marriage, Ann attaches herself to Kenya via Barack Sr., and even the child, if born in the United States is so born, his Natural Allegiance is ever to Kenya because it is his "Father's Land". If he is not born into the society where his FATHER is a citizen, he cannot be a natural member, but is rather a Local member, whose citizenship is subject to withdrawal.  That is how it was understood at the Founding. 

Case in point, the Laws of the State of Connecticut in 1795.

Zephaniah Swift  - "A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut" (Volume 1, 1795 print).

The relevant section is found as "Chapter Ninth OF THE PEOPLE CONSIDERED AS FOREIGNERS AND NATIVES"

At first glance, it seems as if Zephaniah Swift advocated Birth Citizenship, stating:

[Page 163]
"THE people are considered:
as aliens  -   born in some foreign country;
as inhabitants -  of some neighbouring state in the union;  or
natural born subjects
[note the use of subject, and the absence of the word 'citizen']
born within the state.
 [Page 165]
All nations under greater or lesser restrictions have admitted of the principle of naturalization When a foreigner becomes naturalized he owes to the country which has adopted him the same allegiance as a natural born subject
[Note here Zephaniah Swift's obsession with the use of the word "subject" over that of citizen. ]
and at the same time is not discharged of the allegiance he owes to his native country The consequence is that a man who has been naturalized may owe allegiance to two countries ...
[Also notice that Swift does not accept a notion of multiple nationalities except through naturalization, which was in error even for 1795]

[page 167]
The children of ambassadors tho born abroad in a foreign country are considered as natural born subjects because their parents are not supposed to owe a natural allegiance to the government to whom they re sent but that which sends them and of course their children must owe allegiance to the same power.

The children of aliens born in this state
[note this important distinction, "born in THIS state", which is written as one would underline a Minority opinion and practice of Law as compared to the majority.  But this may also appear to be founded in bastard children impregnated by Connecticut Citizens by presumption into indentured slaves, single alien women afraid to name the father of their child, et cetera. See emphasized in page 169 below.]
are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.

I shall proceed to consider the mode by which persons may gain settlement in towns and the method of proceeding against and removing persons who are not legal inhabitants.
Our law
[Statutes 383] considers persons residing here in a threefold light:
-- foreigners who are born in some foreign dominion
-- those who are inhabitants of some other state in the union
-- amid those who are inhabitants of this state.

[Notice the de facto Naturalization Proviso which follows]
No foreigner can gain a legal settlement in any town in this state unless he be
-- admitted by the major vote of the inhabitants of such town or
--  by the consent of the civil authority and selectmen or
-- shall be appointed to and execute some public office.
 In any of these ways our law authorises foreigners to obtain legal settlements

... [Page 169]

I shall next consider the settlements of infants and married women.



   An infant can never acquire a settlement but he belongs to the place of his father's settlement unless in the cafe of a bastard
[Canaan vs Salisbury, S.C. 1790]
and then his settlement is the same with his mother



If a woman be delivered of a bastard child in a town where she does not belong her place of settlement will be that of her child.  [Town of Sanbury v. Fairfield, S.C. 1789] 

An apprentice being a minor, gains no settlement by residence with guardian or master.



If a woman marries a man who has a settlement in any other of the United States she shall follow the settlement of her husband tho she has never been there .



A wife during her marriage can gain no settlement separate and distinct from her husband.  [Law of Women, 99]

If a woman having a settlement marries a man that is a foreigner and [he] has none, her settlement is suspended during coverture and his continuance with her ."


In these times, the idea of a foreign father being able to give a child any kind of a birth citizenship, he had to undergo either a local town or State Allegiance test, and have a residency attachment such as:  [page 167] ...be
-- admitted by the major vote of the inhabitants of such town or
--  by the consent of the civil authority and selectmen or
-- shall be appointed to and execute some public office.

The United States from July 4, 1776 to March 4, 1789 was a Confederacy of United but equally Independent States acting in Union.  But even in the ensuing years when we were the United States of America (and well into the 1800s prior to the 1861-1865 U.S. Civil War), the status of the father’s citizenship and sole allegiance to Community and to the State (and hence, the United States) was the make or break issue at the time. If the father would not recognize federal cohesion in his allegiance, solely, the question arose as to whether or not he intended sole allegiance to his community and state while forsaking all other allegiances. See - THE UNITED STATES v. VILLATO, 2 U.S. 370 (1797), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830) {cf. Gardner v. Ward, reported in Kilham v. Ward (2 Mass. 236, 244n.a 1806)}.

Barack Obama's father was simply a student passing through in Hawaii.  They would NOT have accepted the notion of "anchor-birth" as it applies today, but attached a naturalization proviso in which they alien father had to pass in order to pass on status of citizenship to his son.  Otherwise, the father's home city or town, wherever in the world it was, was what the child's origin would be considered as, regardless of where he was born. 

…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

…No one can suppose that the parent intended, that WHILE HE WAS A PERMANENT CITIZEN OF THE STATE, his children should not partake of the same rights, enjoy the same liberty, and be protected by the same government.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84--101     1829 (2d ed.)

But notice that the clause that William Rawles attaches to the creating of Natural Born Citizenship is that the Father be a PERMANENT CITIZEN of the State of the United States in order to pass along Natural Born Citizen status to the child.  Barack Obama's father was an alien student on a green card, a temporary resident on his way back to Kenya when his schooling was done.  Even by the most basic minimums, Barack Obama is illegally in the Presidency of the United States, NOT being a United States Natural Born Citizen, but rather something alien / something else. 

The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758)
Par M. De Vattel   
Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212 (1797 ff. English Translation editions)
Le Droit Des Gens. Ou Principes De La Loi Naturelle
 states:
 "The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."


Ex Parte Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894) states:
In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since…”    In effect, the Court has stated that there is a necessitous prerequisite of the FATHER being a CITIZEN in order to pass along citizenship, as much so BEFORE the adoption of the 14th Amendment as since. 

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167 says:
“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.”

Or as Zephaniah Swift says on page 169 of his Laws of the State of  Connecticut,
   An infant can never acquire a settlement but he belongs to the place of his father's settlement...



A wife during her marriage can gain no settlement separate and distinct from her husband.  [Law of Women, 99]

 If a woman having a settlement marries a man that is a foreigner and [he] has none, her settlement is suspended during coverture and his continuance with her .


Under Originalism, Obama fails to measure up to the intent of the Founders as to who could be deemed a Natural Born Citizen of the United States by NOT having a United States Citizen Father, whether viewed on a State Level, or viewed at the appropriate national Level through National Legislation and the Decisions of the United States Supreme Court.   It is for us an operation of Law that he can never meet the requirement for, and he needs to be ousted as an alien usurper acting in the illegal capacity of a putative President, a thief of the office he has no Constitutionally legal right to hold.  As we repeatedly hear, "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse."  That applies to Congress, the Courts, and the Executive Branch as well.



But regardless, again in regard to the July 17, 2012, Phoenix Arizona held  Maricopa County of Arizona Cold Case Posse Press Conference,





 Sheriff Arpaio and his lead investigator Mike Zullo issued the following information highlights of that Press Conference. 

 Sheriff Arpaio stated that the investigation into the Barack Obama Long Form Birth Document was intended “to clear the President.”

Sheriff Arpaio stated that in the last Press Conference on this issue, March 1, 2012,  he released that his Cold Case Posse found “probable cause” that this Long Form Birth Certificate (on electronic file regarding Obama's birth) and the Selective Service Form of Barack Obama were fraudulent and manufactured.

Mike Zullo stated to the effect that:
Two Independent experts were hired to do 600 forensic tests each, independent of each other.  These 600 tests each were done on the ink of the Obama long form birth certificate document and neither could in any way authenticate or justify the inconsistencies, nor come close.  The Sheriff Investigation will hold up in a Court of Law under judicial scrutiny, while the Obama document “could not survive judicial scrutiny,” or words to this effect.

Starting in 1960, the Bureau of vital statistics required an embedded coding for their references.  The Cold Case Posse found and talked to a 95 year old Verna Lee, known on the document as U.K. Lee.  She walked Mike Zullo by phone in a recorded conversation through the steps exactly as outlined by a Mr. Bennett who wrote out the State’s legal procedures, and stated that the document was coded by hand for the exclusive use of the Government, and rechecked and then signed.  The numbers at the top of the form were placed in order and chronologically appeared according to batch, first by geography, then by hospital, clinic, or what have you in required chronological order.

The order of numbers of the Nordykes who were chronologically born after the time alleged for Barack Obama proves in order for the document to be genuine, it would have to have listed another location other than Kapiolani.  The numbers and time and date of birth are consistent with a birth at another outlying location, not at Kapiolani.

The imbedded Bureau of Statistics number 9 on the Obama document where the race and profession  of the father are designates that in order for a document to pass another authentication, it must leave these boxes blank with NO DATA typed into the boxes.  For a box to have data in it as Obama’s does, means it is an “altered document”, which according to the Verification Manual available at the Hawaiian Supreme Court Library states must be stamped as “Amended”.  This means it cannot ever hereafter be legally relied upon ever as a means of identification or verification. 

There was a Delivery Room Door log that recorded who came in to Kapiolani that was supposed to be accessible to inquiry.  Kapiolani removed the logbook from access, and Mike Zullo stated that had he seen the log and Ann Dunham’s name been there, the investigation would have concluded.  Instead, the Hospital removed the log book from access in the Library Archives of the Kapiolani Medical Records probably because Ann Dunham is NOT in the log.

 Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 states:
Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”

Under Hawaii Law initiated March 1, 1982, Barack Obama himself could have gone to Hawaii at any time after that, and at any time post March 1, 1982, claim he was born in Hawaii, and have his own birth declared.  It is only a possible legal scenario Zullo was presenting here, NOT that this happened. The Law of March 1, 1982 made it possible for anyone, even a foreigner born in another country, to do this; as long as he or she was some time before that day of entering one of 5 satellite offices or the main office of registry in person as a witness, and simply able to prove that they were an Hawaiian resident who paid taxes and able to prove those two things, that is all Hawaii Law required for him to submit data to newly claim that he was born in Hawaii even though such a birth was never previously recorded.  And by the use of the word “resident”, that means an Hawaiian Birth Certificate could be issued to just about anyone who could prove mere residency, such as paying rent, in Hawaii…even to foreign nationals now taking a skate or short cut path to United States Citizenship around United States Immigration laws.  Hawaii law mandates these birth certificates be allowed because the statutory language uses the words “shall issue”.  [It is impossible for a person to say they witnessed their own birth and knew where they were born, which Hawaii Law allows for.]


The label of African for a race preference was not used by the Government until 1989. Yet that designation appears on a document alleged to have been typed in 1961.

Zullo stated in the question and answer period:
“I can’t find, for lack of a better word, anything to clear this thing.” Or words to this effect.
He also stated, or in words to the same effect of:
  “This document is fictitious…this is not politically motivated.”
“None of us can validate where we are born.”
“Mr. Obama might have been told his whole life he was born in Hawaii.”
“We want the person who made the…forgery brought to justice.  That’s all.”

In the Question and Answer Period, Sheriff Arpaio suggested that a Congressional Investigation, even if just into the Immigration and National Security problems of Birth Certificate Fraud, is warranted.
 He also stated, or in words to the same effect:
“What I said on March 1…show us the microfilm, show us the microfilm and we’ll go back home.  Is it in Hawaii?  Somewhere else?  What’s the big secret?!
“We are not accusing the President of any crime.”
 “It’s time for someone else to take this investigation over.”

Sheriff Arpaio also stated to the effect that he was willing to hand over all collected materials to such an Official Congressional Investigation / Committee Investigating this National Security and Immigration issue. 
 

Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:
"When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."

It was understood in Congress within only 33 years after the creation of the Constitution, that a man who resided in the United States, but refused to become a citizen (as Barack Obama's father did), did not bear children who were citizens of the United States.   As we have seen with Zephaniah Swift and his writing on the Laws of the state of Connecticut in 1795, there was an expectancy of an alien father to naturalize to the town (and state) to which he resided, in order to grant his children a recognized birth citizenship in the United States.  This knowledge is essential in recognizing what the Constitution did or did not recognize in its intent and use of the words "natural born citizen" in the requirements that a President of the United States must be one (a natural born citizen of the United States, that is). 

There would be a challenge to the local naturalization that I earlier covered with Zephaniah Swift (1795) regarding the Laws of Connecticut.  This would come in another 2 years through The United States v. Villato, 2 U.S. 370 (1797), in which some aliens (such as traveling merchants and seamen) at the time thought, as defendant Villato did, that all they needed to do is swear a local allegiance (such as the city of Philadelphia).  That local allegiance, according to the decision regarding Villato, tells us that there was a practice where such aliens took for granted that local allegiance to a port or town or city would perhaps only extend at most to that State, NOT any National Government of the Country in which they took citizenship in.  Hence, it was apparently their perception, that those like Villato perceived that they were primarily naturalizing only as citizens of that port they temporarily attached themselves to as residents, granted its rights with protections and privileges of law without having to lose their nationality while yet residing there for up to extended periods of time.   

  The States and the Government of the United States did not agree with that view, (even though it may have been a practice of many nations for their port cities in place in Europe and among Western European colonies for more than several centuries).  What we can take away from this, is that The United States v. Villato, 2 U.S. 370 (1797)  tells us in our day, in regard to this issue, that whether it is anchor babies or any child born in the United States without a U.S. Citizen Father (especially if that alien national father never swears allegiance to the United States and naturalizes to become its citizen), is faced with an insurmountable obstacle of a claim to Natural Citizenship acquisition in the United States as it was known from the time of the writing of the Constitution.  The child born without a U.S. Citizen father was, at the time of the U.S. Constitution's drafting and ratification, and for many decades thereafeter, recognized as obtaining the citizenship of the father in the home country and citizenship of the father, even though he were born in the United States (at least in the years prior to and during the U.S. Civil War of 1861-1865). 

  The Government of the nation of Kenya and the Annenburg (former Obama employer) funded FactCheck.org are already on record that Barack Obama had acquired Kenyan Citizenship at Birth.  


As quoted before, FactCheck.org  announced (after an internet debate squabble with Leo Donofrio, esquire, in which FactCheck couldn’t get their facts straight and then had to be corrected and concur to the correction) and verified that indeed, it is factually true that Barack Obama never renounced his United Kingdom and Colonies (UKC) and Kenyan citizenship acquired through birth to a UKC father from Kenya, and held both UKC citizenship at least until expiration at age 23, well past the age of 21.  

 If the child has to be accepted by operation of law as a citizen of the United States due to NOT having a United States Citizen Father, it is NOT a Natural Citizenship by birth.   An operation of law that imposes a legal exception removes the state of something being "natural" and makes it "statutory" as a legally IMPOSED requirement.  And how can a child who grows up to be age 21, accept the claim to nationalities of FOUR nations (the United Kingdom, Kenya, Indonesia, and the United States) and claim to be a natural citizen of the United States in transition from immaturity to the age of maturity?  There is nothing “natural” about Obama claiming United States Citizenship, even though he maintained a state of permanent residency, when he was already naturalized as an Indonesian, having his citizenship denounced and not having a place on a U.S. passport, nor any kind of a United States Passport until well after his United Kingdom and Colonies Passport expired in 1984.

Without a U.S. Citizen Father at the time of his birth, Barack Obama is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.  The "natural born citizenship" status is to be present from the time of birth,  REQUIRED AND HAVING NO EXCEPTIONS,  of being born to a United States Citizen Father or the presumption of one. 
OBAMA fails the Constitutional requirement, and is illegally holding, or more correctly "usurping", the office of the Presidency of the United States.

 Following the pattern of the Immigration Act of 1940, the age of the parent of the child at the time of the child's birth, in order to confer citizenship abroad, of which 5 years of residency must have been fulfilled in total inside the United States was changed from after that of 16 years old to 5 years after that of 14 years old by the Immigration and Nationality Act, ch. 477, Title III, ch. 1, § 301(a)(7), 66 Stat. 235-236 (1952).   This was to amend the Nationality Act of 1940, ch. 876, §§ 201(g), 205, 54 Stat. 1138-1139.   Obama's mother was age 18 at the time of Barack's alleged birth.

Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
 (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten  years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

In 1986, the language was amended -  EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1986 AMENDMENT Section 23(d) of Pub. L. 99-653, as added by Pub. L. 100-525, Sec. 8(r), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2619, provided that: "The amendment made by section 12 [amending this section] shall apply to persons born on or after November 14, 1986."

 1986 - Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99-653 substituted "five years, at least two" for "ten years, at least five".


For those born on or after November 14, 1986 8 USC 1401 (g) now reads
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Barack Obama falls into this clause of Section 1401 that was in effect in 1961, when his mother needed to be 19 to confer citizenship outside the United States, if he was so born there.  And if she could not confer citizenship to the child OUTSIDE the United States at birth, there is no expectancy of a natural citizenship as given by the Constitution, because only that birth which is conferring citizenship wherever in the world the child is born by natural citizenship and by an operation of law, can confer that which is a natural born citizenship, except where prohibited by Treaty not violating the U.S. Constitution.  Since Obama's mother was not even of age to vote in 1961, age 21, let alone that of 19 under INA 1952, we are again seeing that only by statutory exception, rather than natural citizenship, would he gain birth IF...that is IF he was born on United States soil, something he and his attorneys are INCAPABLE of proving in Court and/or submitting into the Court record as if horrified and in great fear every time they are asked or demanded.  One only is horrified for as many millions of dollars in legal resistance as Obama and his attorneys have, when one has committed a felony and fraud upon the Court. 

Again, of the 1952 Immigration and Nationalization Act,  it was recorded in the 2nd Session of the 82nd Congress that: “This provision establishing the child’s nationality as that of the mother regardless of the legitimation or establishment of paternity is new. It insures that the child shall have a nationality at birth.” S. Rep. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 39 (1952).

In other words, a new definition of citizenship was granted not recognized as a Natural Born Citizenship, but a birth citizenship by operation of law IF other preconditions were met.  One of those preconditions was an age of 19 for the mother.  Obama's alleged mother Ann Dunham didn't make the cut.  She was 18. 



As quoted before, FactCheck.org  announced (after an internet debate squabble with Leo Donofrio, esquire, in which FactCheck couldn’t get their facts straight and then had to be corrected and concur to the correction) and verified that indeed, it is factually true that Barack Obama never renounced his United Kingdom and Colonies (UKC) and Kenyan citizenship acquired through birth to a UKC father from Kenya, and held both UKC citizenship at least until expiration at age 23, well past the age of 21.  

 If the child has to be accepted by operation of law as a citizen of the United States due to NOT having a United States Citizen Father, it is NOT a Natural Citizenship by birth.   An operation of law that imposes a legal exception removes the state of something being "natural" and makes it "statutory" as a legally IMPOSED requirement.  And how can a child who grows up to be age 21, accept the claim to nationalities of FOUR nations (the United Kingdom, Kenya, Indonesia, and the United States) and claim to be a natural citizen of the United States in transition from immaturity to the age of maturity?  There is nothing “natural” about Obama claiming United States Citizenship, even though he maintained a state of permanent residency, when he was already naturalized as an Indonesian, having his citizenship denounced and not having a place on a U.S. passport, nor any kind of a United States Passport until well after his United Kingdom and Colonies Passport expired in 1984.

Without a U.S. Citizen Father at the time of his birth, Barack Obama is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.  The "natural born citizenship" status is to be present from the time of birth,  REQUIRED AND HAVING NO EXCEPTIONS,  of being born to a United States Citizen Father or the presumption of one. 
OBAMA fails the Constitutional requirement, and is illegally holding, or more correctly "usurping", the office of the Presidency of the United States.

 
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) @174 
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect....




Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @272
It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution.

And as to this last quote, no Act of Congress can be cited as authorizing or legitimizing a violation of the Constitution, is that of including someone who is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen to the Presidency: Barack Hussein Obama II.








Western Journalism introduced a good video piece reminding us that the Obama passport issue is NOT over.






Ever since early 2008, the Media and Constitutional Attorneys all over this nation should have been sounding the cry of alarm that there is a fraud among us running for the Presidency.  Instead, most of them chose to be intellectually lazy fat-asses  or co-conspirators to ignore the law if they could hope that they be left alone and get theirs, whatever they dreamed "theirs" was defined as, and dopily believed anyway. 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE PRE-2008 RECORDS OF OBAMA WENT  MISSING HAVE BEEN SUSPICIOUSLY QUID PRO QUO LINKED TO WHITE HOUSE CHIEF COUNTER-TERRORISM LIAISON, JOHN BRENNAN

The Department of State was rocked by a scandal in the first 3 months of 2008. Instead of just "looking at" the "passport data" of Barack Obama only, the files regarding Barack Obama allegedly went missing in March of 2008, and there has been a virtual blackout on the news data since.

We know the factual data that pro-Obama private contractors breached State Department security on January 9, February 21 and March 14 of 2008,



before a final theft of all Obama’s documents was “alleged” to have happened by pro-Obama supporters on a date of either March 21, or March 26, 2008. The CEO of Analysis Corp., the primary Passport breaching firm was John Brennan.

CNN reported:


"the three contract employees worked in three offices in the Washington area. One office does consular work and visas on evenings, holidays, weekends and overnights; another office issues passports; the third office scans and files materials." The likely suspect of the theft of the Obama Department of State files and passports, was the Analysis Corp. employee, "who has "extensive" experience..and has always worked under a State Department contract."


In a flagrantlt apparent Quid Pro Quo for stealing the Obama documents, the pro-Muslim Brennan
was made chief counter-terrorism expert at the White House and given an ethics waiver.

One of the other two who breached Department of State security, and was aware of what was in the Obama documents that were on file, was a 24 year old male who worked for Stanley Inc.; and was not long after shot dead in 2008 while allegedly “cooperating with authorities” over this very issue, and the telling of what data was in the lost files that someone else had allegedly taken.


World Net Daily reported that:
Obama's files reportedly contained copies of passport applications, birth date, basic biographical information, records of passport renewal and possibly citizenship information.


If you will carefully pay attention to the dating of Obama's post 2008 passport which Obama supporters are tricked to fawn over




 you will notice based on the time-stamps on his passport in the video above, that Obama will have been issued a new Presidential Passport in late February 2009.

This approximately late February 2009 issue, about 1 month after his usurpation of the Presidency on January 20, 2009, would replace whatever U.S. issue based on lies was issued Obama in 2008 only, following this State Department theft . That passport would have been issued no later than April or May 2008.

Notice the cut and paste zoom and zip tactics used in the video, used by those wishing to alter evidence, rather than laying out the book, doing a slow substantiated zoom in and out, and the patient turning of each page.  So much for honesty and transparency on their part.


Then we have Barry Soetoro, Obama's legal Indonesian Citizenship name, as a registered voter in Washington, D.C., allowing him as Barry Soetoro Indonesian Citizen to vote for himself as Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election against challenger Mitt Romney (and others). 



Voter Registration Status



Voter Information Search Results
.
Registration Status   
    Registered Voter    YES
    Voter ID Number   120051658
    Date Registered   10/15/2012

Personal Information    
    Full Name    BARRY  SOETORO
    Party Affiliation   DEMOCRATIC

Address Information   
    Street Number, Street Name, Quadrant   1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW
    City, State, Zip    WASHINGTON, DC 20500

Polling Place Information    





The District of Columbia Board of Elections does thus with Barack Obama's info:

Voter Registration Status

The Board of Elections and Ethics does not have a record matching the information you supplied.
Please review the following input data for errors.
First Name   BARACK
Last Name   OBAMA
Date of Birth   8/4/1961
Zip Code   20500

For more information, please contact the DC Board of Elections and Ethics at the address below.

D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics
Attn: e-Government Division
441 4th Street, NW, Suite 250 North
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: (202) 727-2525


 Either he isn't legally registered under the name of Barack Obama, or he is AND he is also registered to vote as Barry Soetoro in Washington D.C., allowing himself to absentee vote for himself in Cook County Illinois AND in person in Washington, D.C. last Presidential election cycle. 


Question:  Why is Obama voting for himself in 2012 only as Barry Soetoro, but FOR Barack Obama? 

Question:  Can you legally vote yourself under one registered name for high office no longer legally viable, while under another name alleged to be legally viable without undergoing some legal name change in a Court of Law? 

 Every vote for Obama technically might not exist if he NOW is only legally recognized as Barry Soetoro as of several weeks before the last election cycle.

A search of the Cook County Public Records  reveals NO Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro registered there under his name, birth-date and stolen SS# in which he files taxes with (from a person born in 1890).  http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/elections/voterprofile/Pages/default.aspx

 For anyone who bothers to truly vet Obama's identity and  biographical narrative, there are many problems that arise. 

 
However, the point is, is that Obama IS on legally on file as registered to vote under the name of Barry Soetoro in Washington D.C. 

[See screen capture at: Expose Obama
and J. Christian Adams


The location the District of Columbia  Board of Elections lists that he is supposed to vote as of the last Presidential Election, as Barry Soetoro, NOT Barack Obama, is listed as:

Voter Registration Status


Voter Information Search Results
.
Registration Status   
    Registered Voter    YES
    Voter ID Number   120051658
    Date Registered   10/15/2012

Personal Information    
    Full Name    BARRY  SOETORO
    Party Affiliation   DEMOCRATIC

Address Information   
    Street Number, Street Name, Quadrant   1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW
    City, State, Zip    WASHINGTON, DC 20500

Polling Place Information    



[Then link followed to separate page info below] 

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



Polling Place Locator

Polling Place Details

Ward Number    2
Precinct Number    2

School District    2
ANC/SMD    2A01




Polling Place Name, Address, and Accessibility Information
Polling Place Name    THE SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS
Address    2130 G ST NW

Washington DC


So what are the legal ramifications of Obama signing all bills as Barack Obama, when he is legally registered as Barry Soetoro?
Is it enough to nullify everything he has signed?  Or will it only be enough to annul all orders and bills he signed as of October 15, 2012, when he registered to vote as Barry Soetoro in Washington D.C.?  So what is the legal name NOW, as of right now, of the profane one   occupying the Presidency of the United States?  The citizens of the United States of America have a right to know, and I believe it is a legal right to know.

Is knowing Obama signs under one name but legally claims another name as of October 15, 2012 enough, as well as his birth Identification Document Fraud, his stolen Social Security Number Identity and tax frauds, and all the other felonies he has committed over the years, even in his illegal occupation of the Presidency of the United States, to end his unConstitutional occupation of the U.S. Presidency when he clearly was never a United States Natural Born Citizen, nor can he introduce into a U.S. Court of Law legal documents to authenticate his birth identity and nationality or parentage because all he has are fakes?  

 The Barry Soetoro Registration Name Of Obama at the White House address was likely first reported at:

(I personally confirmed this in July 2013 at http://www.dcboee.org/home.asp as an accurate record and reporting of same). 

Question:  Why are you registered to vote as an Indonesian Citizen, Barry Soetoro, and then voted for yourself as Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election?

Question: Have you ever formally renounced your Indonesian Citizenship?  If so, when?

Question:  What is your legal name, and if you have multiple legal names, what are they and the circumstances regarding them?





Chief Justice Marshall, in
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264  (1821) @ 404
 stated that:
“Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty.”

But in the words immediately preceding this, he also stated the solution inside of the problem.

“The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” 

Obama has regularly stated that if Congress does not legislatively act on an issue that helps him subvert or abridge or remove certain Constitutional rights of U.S. Citizens, he will merely do a legislative end-run around them and create an Executive Order or simply put an action into motion as part of his Executive Policy anyway.  He has even stated this threat before the U.S. Supreme Court Justices attending front and center at the State of the Union Speech in which he has also reiterated such threats.



Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1925) @177
“…MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting.
… The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power.”


He is to act within the confines of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, because the Constitution is a law, not a guide of recommendations.  The Constitution lists a Bill of Rights he must uphold, but Obama is apathetic to any admonition to this regard and the legal counsel. 



Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97 (1887) @101-102
 “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it binds no one, and protects no one.”



Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) @442
 “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”




Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885)  @ 290
"...the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place in our system of government, yet it is also true, in respect to the state itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government, and not to the state, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which therefore is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the state, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. "    

 By declaring you have powers and authority outside that granted by the Constitution and acting on that claim, you act and speak falsely in the name of the Government and under color of authority.

That means that Obama is prosecutable without statute of limitations and without protection for being a usurper, not being a Constitutionally qualified office holder without a U.S. Natural Born Citizenship (even as he votes as Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia, for himself in the 2012 election with a White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address, etc.); and that Chief Justice Roberts may also one day concurrently join him in prison as well, it seems to me.  





Ex Parte Milligan , 71 U. S. 2 (1866) @121

http://supreme.justia.com/us/71/2/case.html

“…the President…is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction."

But when Obama isn't self absorbed on promoting divisive black racism, or Islam, or certain social agendas, or taking a vacation and blaming Republicans for his laziness to create solutions instead of crises, he is looking to recreate law based on his immorality or perverse anti-Biblical morality, ignoring law to enfore Progressive Agendas and destroy the Constitution, rather than looking to legal purism and an obligation to have laws that do not impair it as the only one signed in the Presidency.  


Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 (1827) @ 322, 337-338
http://supreme.justia.com/us/25/213/case.html

@332

The single question for consideration is whether the act ...is consistent with or repugnant to the Constitution of the United States?

@337

"The original obligation, whatever that may be, must be preserved by the Constitution. Any law which lessens must impair it.

All admit that the Constitution refers to and preserves the legal, not the moral, obligation of a contract. Obligations


Page 25 U. S. 338

purely moral, are to be enforced by the operation of internal and invisible agents, not by the agency of human laws. The restraints imposed on states by the Constitution are intended for those objects which would, if not restrained, be the subject of state legislation. What, then, was the original legal obligation of the contract now under the consideration of the Court?"

  If James Foley were my son or my kid brother, I would exercise my legal standing and sue Obama out of the Presidency he has usurped, and demand a billion dollar settlement from the Government along with legislation to prevent other foreign usurpers from running for the U.S. Presidency ever again in any of the 50 states of this Republic.  That is what I encourage James Foley's parents to do in legal and peaceful justified retribution, while doing this nation a favor in casting out a foreign traitor from the highest office in the Land.  At least, that's my input regarding this.  Peace. 
[This posting was last edited on 8/24/2014 at 4;59 am Pacific.     Thanks.    -- Respectfully,   Brianroy]

No comments:

Post a Comment