Obama’s Citizenship Issues
The facts of the current situation with which we are confronted distill down to these:
1. Barack Obama, knowing in advance the Constitutional requirements for the office of the President, ran for and won the election for President.
2. His eligibility for that office has never been established by any Constitutionally assigned authority (which doesn’t even exist), nor by the Supreme Court, nor by Congress. The State of Hawaii declined to certify that Obama was Constitutionally qualified to be President.
3. The Constitution requires of a President: (with the wording rearranged) “NO person shall be eligible to the office of the President EXCEPT…a natural born citizen.”
4. A natural born citizen, while never defined in law, is described as one born to citizen parents in the nation of their citizenship.
5. Barack Obama only fulfills half of that requirement since his father was not an American.
6. Obama is President, not Constitutionally, but officially, having been the undisputed winner of the election, and having been sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and passively accepted by Congress.
7. Obama committed no crime whatsoever in winning and assuming office since there is no law covering the election of one who does not meet the accepted description of what a natural born citizen is.
8. Obama had a virtually non-existent relationship with his father, in every sense, personal, financial, and political. As such there may exists no evidence that his father ever reported the existence of his son to the proper Kenyan or British authorities for citizenship purposes. Therefore he would have never obtained dual-citizenship and would be strictly an American citizen via his mother (but only if born on US soil).
9. While Obama is not Constitutionally serving as President, his attempts to deflate suspicions about where he was actually born led him to release two digital images on the internet that are representations of official Hawaiian documents.
10. Simulations of official government documents is legally known by the term “forgery” since it is a criminal offense to create and present publicly illegitimate counterfeits of such official identity documents.
11. Digital imitations of official government identity documents are not created by state governments since they cannot be signed nor stamped nor physically inspected to ascertain their authenticity.
12. The digital images of birth documents released by the White House are unmistakeable fakes, and have not been, and cannot be certified by anyone to be official Hawaiian government creations. Hence they are forgeries concocted by an unknown person on behalf of President Obama with his foreknowledge that they were not legal creations of the Hawaiian government.
13. Obama has not released a photo or scan of a real Certificate of Live Birth which is normally created at the time of ones birth, even though he would possess the one which he should have inherited from his mother -used to obtain a U.S. passport for traveling to Indonesia.
14. A legally sitting President has committed forgery and fraud-by-deceit against the American public for the purpose of preventing the release of his real birth document which contains (or lacks) information vital to determine where he was or was not born, and/or to whom he was born.
All of the Attorneys General opinions ever written on the subject of NBCs are irrelevant in the face of the SCOTUS determination and definition in Minor v Happersett in which Chief Justice Waite established as binding precedence the description of a natural born citizen as being one born in the U.S. to citizen parents. Case closed. End of story. No new amendment needed. SCOTUS has spoken, even though it was 135 years ago.
Barack Obama by the determination of a Supreme Court ruling and the precedent set in that ruling, is not eligible to be the US President.
Native birth alone is not sufficient. The 14th Amendment is irrelevant to natural born citizenship, which, like the right to vote, is not even mentioned in the Constitution except in regard to the restricted, exclusive eligibility of the President and Commander in Chief of all US military forces.
The delusional reading of Article II is; “NO PERSON…except…well, everybody ever delivered by their mother within the US borders! Yeah! No one is excluded!” Isn’t that just soooo inclusionary! Lets put the nuclear football in just anyone’s hands. Son of Hitler born on US soil? Come on down!! Son of Osama bin Laden born on US soil? We have an Oval Office for you! Everyone is welcome, least anyone feel left out. That would be mean. We don’t want to be mean do we? The founding fathers were soooo open and liberal in their generous choice to allow all of us native-born citizens to rise to the highest pinnacle of power in the world. But they were being a little fussy and anal retentive when they required the President to be an old man of at least 35 years of age. Age discrimination! And what’s with the demand that he have been a US resident for 14 years? 14 Years! That’s like forever! Why not just 4 years? A bunch of stinking conservatives! AN
No Hawaiian official has certified that what his archived birth information reveals is presented in the White House birth document images. Director Fukino of the HDoH stated after inspecting Obama’s birth record that it was half typed and half hand-written. I believe that to be true. The hand-written portion is no doubt an affidavit, written by his mother or grandmother, attesting to his birth in Hawaii. That would mean that, unlike his fraudulent birth certificates that list a Hawaiian hospital as his birth location, he was not born where an official record would have been made, but was born at home, or outside Hawaii (Seattle?) or outside the United States (Vancouver?).
So we have a legal President who committed no crime in running and winning office, even though he was not Constitutionally eligible, who resorted to deceptive and illegal means to shore-up his legitimacy in the face of widespread suspicion regarding his place of birth. In presenting digital birth document images to the public, he quieted the suspicions and now all national entities, governments, courts, and the media have swallowed his representations hook, line, and sinker.
No one can say that the information contained in his birth document images is false except those in Hawaii who have seen whatever it is that is in their archives. But they are not talking because they support Obama completely, and are barred from revealing information of personal records. It has been reported that they searched high and low for Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth but were unable to find one, and neither has any hospital. That would be a logical reason to resort to creating computer manufactured fakes. AN
Tim Adams produced a sworn affidavit of what he was told by Hawaiian election officials, -that no Certificate of Live Birth existed for Obama ; http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/tim-adams-master-thesis-there-is-no-birth-certificate-for-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-61014
Persons born abroad to US citizens could be called natural born citizens, and indeed would be in the most elemental sense, but would not be for purposes of the Art II. application since it is intentionally EXCLUSIVE. “NO PERSON except…”. So the normal definition would have to be referred to, and that definition includes birth to American parents (plural) within American jurisdiction/ or US borders.
That would exclude Obama, but McCain is in a very contestable category since he wasn’t born within the US borders, but was within US jurisdiction. Since that jurisdiction was not foreign, the normal process of recording/verifying his birth in a foreign jurisdiction would not have been the situation affecting his birth and no foreign right of citizenship would have been conferred on him, so the usual need for naturalization would not be applicable. He was born in American controlled territory to American parents in an American hospital with an American records system. The fact that the land was under a long term lease is irrelevant because the US jurisdiction was supreme, not partial nor shared.
“Presidents are not obligated to release a photo or scan of a real Certificate of Live Birth”
True, but candidates with alien fathers and questionable US birth have a very real obligation to the electorate to put forward acceptable evidence that they were at least born in the United States.
“The White House never claimed the reproduction they displayed was an official Hawaiian document and Hawaii does not claim it is a forgery.” Very clever obfuscation. Truth is the White House never claimed it was NOT an official Hawaiian document and Hawaii does not claim it is NOT a forgery.
” ‘White House digital imitations’. ..could never be viably used fraudulently, and so have no conceivable illegal use.” Illegality is not dependent on their use but on their very existence together with their use to pretend they are official legitimate representations of official documents. They are Photoshop frauds so they have no legitimacy. Which proves that Obama ordered the creation and release of counterfeit images pretending to be something they are not. AN
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
Obama cannot be impeached for not fitting the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen because that is not a crime, and its definition is in a perpetual state of ambiguity (as I’ve written much about on my blog at obama–nation.com). Even though he knows he doesn’t meet the requirement since he co-sponsored the McCain resolution that said he is a natural born citizen because he was born to citizen parents, McCain won’t return the favor with a kick in the teeth even though he probably is aware of the ineligibility. He should be.
So the desire and intent of the framers of the Constitution will be ignored, the off-spring of a non-subject alien father will continue to occupy the White House until Jan 20th, 2013…unless he’s impeached for forgery, which is a theoretical possibility, but a practical improbability. Who’s going to accuse him? Eric Holder? The Governor of Hawaii? (his biggest fan and an invitee to the marriage of his parents). No one with authority and standing will ask a single question about the fake internet images. The nation will remain oblivious to the truth of the matter until the truth will no longer matter. AN
For a while I wondered why he couldn’t be considered a British subject to this day, but I read something that convinced me otherwise. It said that he inherited the status of being a Kenyan subject of Britain but after independence, his Kenyan citizenship would only endured if he renounced his American citizenship and became a Naturalize Kenyan citizen. He didn’t do that by the cut-off date of his 23rd birthday so his Kenyan citizenship and his connected status as a subject of the British Commonwealth expired at that point. So his mother’s American citizenship is his only inherited citizenship.
But that fact doesn’t nullify his dual-citizenship at birth -assuming his parents were legally married. AN
The Obamaphiles like to think of his eligibility as a glass half full, while the Constitutionalists think of it as a glass half empty. And both are right. However, the Constitution requires a glass that is full, not half full. Since the Obamaphiles can’t use the argument that he is a natural born citizen by virtue of birth to U.S. citizens, they have to focus all their dishonest thinking on conflating native birth with natural citizenship. They go about that by arguing that the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens, period. (mistake # 1), then they dishonestly make the baseless leap of declaring that anyone who is a citizen (by birth in the U.S.) is by some miracle of logic also a natural born citizen, because some “experts” have conflated the two (native and natural) .
You wrote: “Obama has proven his eligibility to the satisfaction of the necessary officials;”
You pretend to be an objective unbiased observer yet you make such a patently false statement as that, a statement totally in support of the Obama Presidency. But you know that the truth is that so far he has not proven a single thing with the fake COLBs, and worse is the obvious falsehood that there even are any “necessary officials” to prove eligibility to. Please, tell us all who these officials are.
You lost all connection to reality by stating: “…a child born in the United States…is deemed to be a natural
born citizen. Please quote for us all where in judicial history or Congressional legislation that anyone in US history has ever been deemed to be “a natural born citizen”. (and don’t quote the resolution regarding McCain, that wasn’t legislation)
You wrote: “no candidate could satisfy the unreasonable standards of proof dreamed up by political partisan opponents.” What an asinine standard liberal falsehood. The facts are that EVERY candidate can satisfy the standard of simple proof that Obama is incapable of providing. By your gullible and naive attitude (or strongly partisan) you would accept anything and everything that any White House releases, as if people that run for and win the Presidency are completely incapable of deceit. It’s preferable that children be so innocently trusting, but not adults. Your baseless faith in those who sit in high office is wonderful for maintaining the status quo, but with human nature being what it is, it’s dangerous when they are making decisions that will either fix or wreck the future. AN
“The intent of Article II is to exclude those born on foreign soil.” That and more. It was intended to exclude entire classes of native-born persons! That’s why it was ONLY used in regard to the office of President. Every other mention was only “citizen”. Neither judges, nor Congressmen, nor Presidential appointees were required to be natural born citizens because they were allowed to have alien fathers. It wasn’t about where one came from, but who ones father was, i.e. American or alien. Parentage is the only connection to the word “natural” not national borders, though native birth is an element in the description of an NBC. AN
Read more: What did Congress know about ‘natural-born citizen’? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=317705#ixzz1RaoO8NgG
As reported by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, Gallups’ documentary then demonstrates that “..on April 10, 2008, being “unable to alter or remove” the natural-born eligibility requirement for Barack Obama..”, the Senate engaged an active deception by distracting the growing consciousness of Obama’s ineligibility by introducing Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain’s qualifications as a ‘natural-born citizen.’
Overcompensating for their failure to validate Obama, the Senate feigned generosity for McCain in hopes of making his eligibility the target of attention, but not criticism, by declaring him eligible as a “natural born citizen”. Senate leadership desired to avoid making McCain’s eligibility the subject of criticism because they knew that if McCain was not eligible, Barack Obama was certainly not eligible. The weight of scrutiny against a worthier McCain would have caused Obama’s campaign to fail, politically, if not legally.
However, in what can only be described as complete legislative incompetence, SR511 writers and sponsors specifically stated McCain was eligible because he was “…born in a territory under treaty with the U.S.” and, therefore, under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and, most importantly, “because he was the son of TWO U.S. citizen parents.” The language of Resolution 511 actually and explicitly commits McCain to presidential eligibility because of the citizenship of his parentage. Both of McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens. This is a qualification which Barack Obama does not possess.
Shockingly, Obama voted in favor of Resolution 511 knowing he, himself, was not eligible under these same metrics. Barack Obama voted in favor of a formal resolution stating that a presidential candidate was Constitutionally eligible because the candidate was defined as being ‘natural born’ by the fact that the candidate’s birth was, in fact, to TWO U.S. citizen parent. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 at the time of his birth which disqualified transfer of citizenship if the birth occurred outside the U.S
Obama’s qualifications were never reviewed or conferred upon under any similar resolution, nor were his qualifications to be president ever vetted by any federal authority, legislative body or formal inquiry, as were John McCain’s. Not ever.
“His original idea was adverse to the limitation to natural-born citizens, as superfluous; but, as it stood, the terms upon which Louisiana was acquired had rendered a change necessary, for it appeared to him that there was no alternative, but to admit those born in Louisiana as well as those born in the United States to the right of being chosen for President and Vice President.” John Quincy Adams, 11/23/1803, ABRIDGMENT OF THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS, Looks like jus soli to me. </blockquote>
Now that is a classic example of flying by the seat of your pants, having to alter the accepted norms to deal with an unforeseeable situation, one for which there was no guideline. ” there was no alternative”. Normally we want things to be settled, to be clear, to be unambiguous. We’re wired that way. That’s why the conflation of native birth with citizenship by inheritance occurred. Having two principles, both seemingly equally valid, was an ambiguous situation so the mind of man naturally chooses to focus on the simplest one. But even if everyone in the world came to conflate the principle of native-born citizenship with natural born citizenship, it doesn’t follow that they are synonymous.
As for proving whether or not the framers of the Constitution also conflated the two, I’m not knowledgeable on the subject. But I have no reason to believe that they wanted the office of the President to be available to almost anyone, including sons of British loyalists who believed in the divine right of Kings.
How could anyone rationally argue that they wanted to include such native-born persons in their wording of the Article II eligibility clause? After the treachery of Benedict Arnold and that of the loyalists, they viewed the power of the Presidency with great caution, especially since he is also the Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and Marines. If they did wish to throw caution to the wind , then it would start out; “ANY person who is a NATIVE born citizens…”
Rather it is a prohibitive and exclusionary wording;
“NO PERSON…except…a Natural born Citizen…
From the United States State Department website:
“Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.”
While your claim that the country where the person is located has the stronger claim is true, it can not be denied that the second country also has a claim.
“Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law”
Dual citizenship creates conflicts of law. Natural born citizens are free of conflicts of law and competing allegiances.
“The Constitution…provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen. ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)”
The Constitution says nothing about the President being native-born.
That is pure fiction, it springs from a false assumption that since 99.99 percent of native born persons are also natural born citizens that we can therefore just round that figure off to 100%. But alien mothers, even back then, on rare occasions, gave birth in the United States, but that does not meet the description of a natural born citizen.
Repeating an error ad infinitum does not make it true, even if it is 99.99% true. Rat poison is 99.999% pure wholesome food, but you better not call it that.
“Every official necessary to accept his Constitutional eligibility and confirm his legal election, had a standard of proof which Obama met,”
“Every official”? Who would that include, the non-existent officials who never had any jurisdiction to opine on the subject to begin with? You know that no such government officials or validation board or body exists, so why do you keep peddling these lies that claim otherwise? The validation process goes through state officials who didn’t even bother to consider the subject except for the Hawaiian Democratic Party official who rejected any certification of Obama’s eligibility which forced the Democratic party to remove the language from their certification document which stated that their candidate was “Constitutionally eligible”. Even the Democrat Party knows he is not Constitutionally eligible and are unwilling to put their name to an official document that says he is.
“had a standard of proof which Obama met,” They had NO standard of “proof” unless it was to look at his original birth record, and they realized after seeing it that he was not a natural born American citizen.
“and confirm his legal election” His election WAS legal, it was the candidate himself that was NOT “legal”.
“Obama’s status as eligible has therefore been officially accepted as proven by the government.”
Another bald-face lie. Show us the official documentation that you are fallaciously referring to. There is no official recognition that he is a natural born citizen and therefore Art. II eligible, -though there is official recognition that he was legally elected President in an uncontested election victory. It’s like you want to believe that Senate Resolution 522 was about him and not John McCain.
“anybody can claim these aren’t official, but that does not make them false vital record conveyors of Obama’s birth date and state.” But THERE IS NO PROOF! You could say the same thing about counterfeit money! They convey everything perfectly, but their very existence is a crime, as are his imitation official Hawaiian records, short and long form digital images. Where’s the official HARD COPIES???????
Oh, I forgot, you can’t show what doesn’t exist.