Who is Barack Obama?

ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT HAVE FAILED US BY REFUSING TO ANSWER  THIS VERY SIMPLE QUESTION

by Kathleen Gotto

Is Obama a natural born American citizen if he was born with British citizenship?

(Mar. 26, 2010) — It is astounding that more than a year into Obama’s presidency such a question is still without an answer. The specific issue that has been largely kept under wraps by the mainstream media concerns the question, “Is Barack Obama constitutionally qualified to serve as our president?” In other words, irrespective of the fact that Obama is the de facto U.S. president, the question still looms large whether or not he is a de jure or legal president. Such determination can be resolved only by the courts and may ultimately have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, states the requirements for a person to be eligible for the office of President:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen [emphasis added], 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.”

We can reasonably assume that Barack Obama meets the last two constitutional requirements. It is beyond dispute that he is a resident of the U.S. He lives here and is obviously over thirty-five years old. Beyond that, Americans have no assurance he is even a U.S. 14th Amendment citizen, let alone a natural born Citizen. The Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born citizen”; however, from various legal blogs which have argued this issue extensively over the internet, the consensus appears to be that our founding fathers relied heavily upon renowned Swiss jurist, Emmerich De Vattel, and specifically his book, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) for their understanding of a NBC being a child born of two citizen parents. Their reliance on De Vattel is not surprising since his book was published during the time our founding fathers were grappling with the issues of sovereignty, law, rights and obligations for the new republic. While there are various ways for one to attain citizenship in the United States, the president of this country “shall” be a natural born citizen. If one somehow attains the presidency but is ineligible to do so under the Constitution, he is in fact as Dr. Edwin Vieira so starkly stated, a usurper.

On October 29, 2008, Dr. Vieira wrote an article, “Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down” which is a very powerful essay on the constitutional crisis that America will face if a man not constitutionally qualified is elected. But America was seduced by vapid promises of hope and change and invited the Trojan horse inside the gates. Dr. Vieira will likely prove to have been prescient in his stark warning to America.

So, is Barack Obama a usurper? You be the judge. Until we can find a competent and courageous judge who would be willing to suffer the wrath of Obama’s thugs to finally adjudicate this issue and allow for full discovery, we will not know for sure. Obama was not vetted by the media, the Democrat party, or anyone else. There had to have been either a dismissal of any questions surrounding his eligibility or a concerted effort to cover up Obama’s constitutional problem to obtain the support and nomination of the Democrat Party. With all the obfuscation, stonewalling, and attacks made against Obama’s detractors, it certainly appears that leaders in the Democrat Party were aware of Obama’s little problem. It will take court-ordered, full discovery to do the job that should have been done by proper vetting. And it will likely take the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a definition of what a natural born Citizen is before this issue is finally resolved.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed on Obama’s eligibility in the courts at both the state and federal levels. While there are cases still pending, most have been dismissed primarily on the grounds that the litigant has no “standing.” The judges have incredibly ruled that the litigants didn’t have standing because they were injured no more than the rest of the citizenry. Hello! What kind of tortured logic or legal justification is that upon which to issue a decision with such momentous importance for a nation?

Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo have done an outstanding job in explaining what constitutes a natural born Citizen. While Donofrio’s blog has been temporarily suspended on the NBC issue as he prepares litigation on behalf of Chrysler dealers and the loss of their livelihood at the hand of the federal government, Apuzzo’s Kerchner v. Obama case is still going through the courts. In his legal analyses, legal briefs, and his articles, all of which are posted on his website Apuzzo has done an excellent job in educating the public on the issues. The summation of his arguments, concluding that a natural born citizen must be the child of two U.S. citizens, comports with De Vattel and the conclusion reached by Donofrio and other attorneys who either have had or still have pending lawsuits on this matter.

What is curious about the NBC issue is that Barack Obama had already acceded the fact of his born allegiance to the British crown and citizenship of that country through his father. He openly acknowledged his British citizenship in his memoir, Dreams from My Father:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961 (where he was born has never been verified) 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.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (assuming his mother met the citizenship age requirement at the time to pass her citizenship on to her son) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. The status of his birth, therefore, begs the question: how can a man born subject to the British crown through his father be a natural born American citizen?

As already stated, prior to the 2008 election, Obama eligibility lawsuits were entered and dismissed on lack of standing grounds. Lawsuits continued to be filed even after the election with the same results. Unfortunately, the constitutional requirement to be a NBC got buried under the brouhaha surrounding Obama’s birth certificate. The copy that had been posted on the internet has been denounced as a fake. Indeed, if it had been genuine, it would have been made readily available for forensic examination months ago. That never happened.

Even the state of Hawaii became involved in the birth certificate issue. Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii State Health Department Director, issued her second statement on Obama’s birth status on July 27, 2009, hoping to stem the tide of requests to her office for releasable information under Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) and stated:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii 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,” Fukino said, in hopes of ending the controversy surrounding Obama’s citizenship.

It is interesting to note that no judge has yet adjudicated the definition of NBC, but a bureaucrat in Hawaii has declared Barack Obama to be a “natural-born American citizen.” On what basis does Fukino make her astounding statement? Obviously just because she said so. Fukino is no attorney, let alone a judge, so whether her vital statistics department actually has a native-born Hawaiian birth certificate or an original certificate of live birth from a foreign country on file for Obama is immaterial. Whether Obama was born in Hawaii or elsewhere in the States is not the question that needs to be adjudicated in a court of law. The only question that needs to be answered is whether he is a natural born citizen and thus meets the first eligibility requirement under the Constitution to serve as president. Again, the haunting question remains: how can a man born subject to the British crown and having allegiance thereto be a natural born American citizen?

There are other allegations that swirl around Barack Obama that will likely be made public beyond the internet once this issue is taken up by the courts. Those allegations are serious. But for now, the only question that we need to have answered to avoid a constitutional crisis and to avert the destruction of our republic is whether or not Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. My money says he is not.

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Editorials

59 Responses to Who is Barack Obama?

  1. marlio

    Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 12:55 AM

    Sounds like Obamas Pedigree is very tulmultuous, and rank with stormy, illict incidents, concerning his mom. I feel he may be hiding his true parentage, socialist education, racist friends and muslim connections, instead of where he was born, although he still would not be a legitimate president http://www.reformation.org/frank-marshall-davis-obama.html

  2. Durus

    Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 9:39 AM

    Glenn Beck admits ignorance…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C14eTXqdCpk

  3. CDR Kerchner

    Monday, March 29, 2010 at 1:42 PM

    I wrote a letter to Gov Bobby Jindal 15 months ago and asked for his assistance and to speak out about Obama’s lack of natural born Citizenship for the good of the country. He never answered me. Just like the dozens of others in the RNC leadership. They are as much a part of this ignoring of the natural born Citizenship clause in Article II as are the DNC leadership. The fix was in by both national political parties in 2008 to run the candidate of their choice, the Constitution be damned in their power hungry minds. Both political parties are still led and controlled by Progressives … one party group is hard core and the other progressive lite.

    CDR Kerchner
    http://www.protectourliberty.org

  4. Mo

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 10:14 PM

    NPR scrubbed “Kenyan-born” from its text today.

    view-source:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95550177

  5. Mo

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 10:06 PM

    Jeff Kuhner WTNT radio 570 in D.C.

  6. Bob1943

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 8:10 PM

    If the discussion is, “does it matter where Obama was born for him to be ineligible considering his father was never a US citizen”, the answer is no.

    If you want to uncover the biggest scam in the history of America…..and prove Obama ineligible, you pursue the locked-up records and the hidden long form birth certificate. In my opinion there is a place for both. I’m happy that WND is putting up signs saying, “Where’s the Birth Certificate”. As for public opinion, most people I know believe that Obama is eligible if he was born in Hawaii as he says. However, if it could be proven he was born in Kenya they would intuitively believe he would not be eligible. To get them to listen to arguments about the Constitution, and it’s meaning of natural born citizen, would be harder than getting them to miss one night of American Idol.

    Both issues need to be pursued, breaking the conspiracy is not an unimportant thing to me.

  7. btw

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 7:11 PM

    To Moderator:

    Correction.

    The second link in my last post

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/26/who-is-barack-obama/comment-page-2/#comment-6726

    doesn’t work properly because a symbol “)” was tied to that link at the end. The correct link has to be

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/26/who-is-barack-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-6701

    May I ask you to fix it just in that post (please insert a space between the link and the symbol “)” at the end)?

    Otherwise please publish this correction.

    Thanks.

  8. btw

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 5:31 PM

    ONE MORE TIME: It doesn’t matter where Obama was born.

    Look at “The ultimate proof of Obama’s Ineligibility to be President Of The United States (POTUS) according Constitution”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/26/who-is-barack-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-6687

    where everyone can see that the Constitutional requerements to be a citizen at birth (or, in other words, Natural Born Citizen /NBC/) (“… (1) born… in the United States, and (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”) are equivalent to the classical Vattel’s definition of NBC (“those (1) born in the country, (2) of parents [plural] who are citizens”).

    So: 1) if Obama was born abroad, he didn’t meet BOTH conditions for being NBC (his official legend is being born in Hawaii (US). If in reality he was born abroad, this legend is a criminal act and a subject for Department Of Justice /DOJ/; but if you believe that DOJ will consider this matter, you are the greatest optimist in the world); 2) If Obama was born in Hawaii (as he alleges), he didn’t meet the 2nd condition of being NBC: “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” (or “…born… of parents [plural] who are citizens”).

    Again: There is NO NEED TO GET OBAMA’s BC (Birth Certificate) in order to proof his Ineligibility to be POTUS according Constitution! Having a foreigner father (British) Obama had a dual allegiance at birth; thus he isn’t a citizen at birth (Natural Born Citizen) according Constitution and not eligible to be POTUS. So says THE LAW! (I’m satisfied that DCBikerJohn keeps the same position about the discussed matter:
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/26/who-is-barack-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-6701).

    We see that the problem is not the proof of Obama’s Ineligibility to be President Of The United States (POTUS) according Constitution – it’s done.
    It doesn’t make a practical sense to continue to waste huge efforts, energy, and money for requesting his Birth Certificate (like Josef Farah’s WND “WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?” Campaign) or searching his real place of birth. It’s just a distraction from the real task – let know (despite media) American Citizens about this current Constitutional problem of Obama’s Ineligibility to be POTUS according Constitution in order to begin to solve this problem already during Elections 2010. One can say – it’s impossible to realize. And it’s perfectly right if we continue not to ACT but just talk and discuss this matter, and do… NOTHING.

    Still there is a saying: “The IMPOSSIBLE is often UNTRIED” Being simply an optimist (not “the greatest optimist in the world”) I still hope that this task will be solved by WE THE PEOPLE. Why? Because “… WE MUST TAKE ACTION, NO ONE WILL DO IT FOR US.”

  9. Mike

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 4:02 PM

    I believe two things may keep the wall of silence and denial in place.

    One – If a coordinated effort was in effect the personal damage to the Republicans would be disasterious at a personal level. Not only politically disasterous but, worst case, also personally criminally disasterous. Anyone who was in office in 2008 may be involved if there was a deal.

    Two – The Republicans have no power at all right now. They can not even compel witnesses to appear via the congressional “power of subpoena”. If they take control of one or both of the houses in November they could then control the Congressional agenda. In turn they could turn up on the political heat on the issue. But again, anyone in office in 2008 will likely not want to push the issue.

    The main media will not touch this until or unless it picks up political steam. As we have seen, anyone who mentions the nbC or BC/COLB issue is ridiculed or dismissed by both parties. We are all sitting here looking at a naked King (or in this case POTUS) on this issue since “father not a citizen” issue is independent of the BC/COLB as many have pointed out. But both parties and the MSM keep telling us how well dressed he is and that we must be racist for even broaching the issue.

  10. Chester

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 1:54 PM

    Attn.: Mike,

    RE: “I believe a plausible scenerio is that a deal was done during the election season to not only avoid the eligbility issues of both candidates but to complete disregard them and deny them at every step. Somewhat of a “mutually assured destruction” pact. And that pact continues … ”

    You are maybe right. That seems to be the logical explanation. If that is true, the GOP were supporting instead of attacking their oponenent. As Michael Savage said once: “McCain’s job was to throw the election.” Exeggeration, but point well made.

    But if such deal was made in 2008, what holds the GOP back now? Dont tell me that politicians honor their deals forever.

  11. DixHistory

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 11:04 AM

    I tried to comment on his post but it was blank in the reply button. I wanted to say I have a copy of McCains BC and it states he was born in Colon Panama but then what I have in hand is no better or worse that what our stupid courts have used to say obama is a citizen. Note that most will seldom use the term “Natural Born Citizen.”

    Wonder why that is?

    TexomaEd says:
    Furthermore, even if McCain had been born in the Canal Zone, he would still not be eligible. The Panama Canal Treaty gave the US jurisdisction over the Canal Zone “as if” we were sovereign — but we weren’t — Panama retained sovereignty. And Panama’s constitution declares all persons born within its sovereign territory to be Panamanian citizens at birth.

    The GOP remains silent because they have a rising star who could be a future Presidential nominee, possibly in 2012 or later. That person is Governor Bobby Jindal, who is not a natural born citizen. He was born in Louisiana to parents who were not yet citizens — they were legal immigrants and citizens of India at the time of Jindal’s birth.

  12. Bob1943

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 10:21 AM

    I’m sorry the 2 photobucket saved references didn’t work–one more try.

    http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll1/BecJul/BBC_NEWS_Kenyan_Born_Obama.jpg?t=1259875484

    Maybe that one will work now….anyway, as you can see, there were many news articles from various sources referring to Obama as Kenya born. Many were from around the time when Obama was running for U.S. Senator, some all the way up to 09. Those articles published before it was known he would run for president certainly had no reason to be untrue.

    I don’t believe Obama tried to hide his Kenyan birth until he decided to run for president in 2007. At that time the internet scrubbing began, the fake COLB was prepared and the sham began. I remember one time late in the presidential compaign Hillary saying about Obama, “he’s not even an American”…and then she shut up about this and never mentioned it again.

    There is no question about Obama being ineligible, just how long can they keep the truth from becoming main stream?

    http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll1/BecJul/Go_Obama_Ghanaian_Times2.jpg?t=1255731958

  13. DCBikerJohn

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 10:14 AM

    Bob, I appreciate the ends you seek – they’re the same ends I seek: Rid ourselves of British-born Obama as soon as possible. But, whether it’s in Hawaii or in Mombasa or in Buckingham Palace or in Indonesia, the elusive evidence that British-born Obama was born outside the Untied States will remain under lock and key until Obama is no longer useful to whoever controls the information.

    I fear that the born-elsewhere approach, a conspiracy theory which requires discovery, obfuscates the question of law, which requires no discovery: Can a British-born or Irish-born or Kenyan-born person, even if born in the Untied States, be a natural born citizen of the United States. There is much evidence that the answer to this question is no: Jay’s letter to Washington during the Constitutional Convention; Naturalization Act of 1790; Minor v. Happerset; Chester Arthur; Zachary Taylor; United States v. Wong Kim Ark. There is very little, if any, evidence that suggests the answer to this question is yes.

    It is indisputable that Barack Obama, II is British-born, just like George Washington. Both require the exemption from the NBC requirement. Unlike Washington, Obama does not benefit from it because he was born after the adoption of the Constitution.

    Obama is repeating the the successful plays of Chester Arthur: perpetuate the tantalizing doubt about place of birth because people are blinded by a conspiracy theory. Group all those who doubt your eligibility into the conspiracy theory crowd, thus evading the question of law.

    When Obama was born he was British – no matter the place of birth. If Barack Obama, Jr.’s birth certificate said “Unknown” for Father, this would be a non-issue. But because his mother chose a British and Kenyan father for her son, he gained a status at birth that places him outside the natural born citizen category, even if he was born in Honolulu.

  14. Bob1943

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 8:50 AM

  15. Bob1943

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 8:44 AM

    Yes, it matters a lot if Obama was born in Kenya:

    THE NIGERIAN OBSERVER:

    http://oilforimmigration.org/images/screencapt3.jpg

    THE GHANAIAN TIMES:

    http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll1/BecJul/Go_Obama_Ghanaian_Times2.j

    Kenyan born U.S. Senator “exploring ways” of helping home province:

    http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll1/BecJul/BBC_NEWS_Kenyan_Born_Obama

  16. Bob1943

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 8:28 AM

    Here are 3 references to Obama being born is Kenya which, as of a couple of days ago, have not been scrubbed. The auto spam filter on posting here is keeping me from posting them all. If this works I will post the others in my next post.

    KENYAN BORN OBAMA ALL SET FOR SENATE former article:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news2

    SECURITY CONCERNS FOR TOURISM AS SENATOR OBAMA JETS INTO KENYA
    As Kenyan born US Senator Barack Obama…(13th headline down)
    http://www.africa-ata.org/ug_newsletter.htm

    NPR …STORIES OUT OF AFRICA:
    http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/images/kenyan-born-npr-page.jpg

  17. Mike

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 8:17 AM

    Chester,

    I believe a plausible scenerio is that a deal was done during the election season to not only avoid the eligbility issues of both candidates but to complete disregard them and deny them at every step. Somewhat of a “mutually assured destruction” pact. And that pact continues as part of the deal. Everyone, both democratic and republican that were in office in 2008 was possibly in on it. Hence you will not get the bottom of the situation until those in office in 2008 are all removed from office. This may explain the rash of resignations this year. All of this speculative but it seems to fit the pattern of behavior.

  18. DCBikerJohn

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 7:07 AM

    It doesn’t matter where Obama was born because it will not change the fact that he was born British.

    Proving or disproving the conspiracy theory gets in the way of the basic question of law: can a person who is born British (such as George Washington or Barack Obama) be a natural born citizen of the United States?

    The WHERE question is Obama’s bait for you. The bait leads you down a path that he controls completely. Don’t take the bait. Focus on the question of law and demand answers from our national government.

  19. Chester

    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 4:51 AM

    Attn.: Mike & TexomaEd

    RE: “The rationale of the GOP was that John McCain was not eligible either…..”

    I understand what you are saying but by Jan 2009 McCain was history. Are you assuming that if Cheney had asked the question and a member and a Senator delivered a signed objection and the issue had ended up at SCOTUS – and SCOTUS had ruled that BHO is not eligible, McCain would be the prez, except the Panama thing would prevent that?

    However, the law says that the Vice President would be a temporary president, in this case Joe Biden, until Congress decides what to do. They could decide a new election or a number of things, not necessarily that McCain takes the job. Furthermore it was clear to the GOP as well as to anyone that McCain is an incompetent campaigner and Hillary or anyone could beat him. So at a new election McCain would not get the nomination.
    So in January 2009 the GOP could not loose more, they could only gain. For example, by embarrassing the Dems proving that they committed fraud would have resulted in a political advantage. So this is still a mystery to me.

    RE: “The GOP remains silent because they have a rising star who could be a future Presidential nominee, possibly in 2012 or later. That person is Governor Bobby Jindal, who is not a natural born citizen…”

    2012 was in Jan 2009, and still is, very far in terms of election. You may have a point, but I doubt that the GOP decision makers would give up the possibility of a Republican White House (not McCain – in case a new election in 2009) for the vague speculation of a relatively unknown “rising star”.

    So this is still a mystery to me. But thanks for the answers.

  20. Bob1943

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 11:11 PM

    I tried to post some important web sites referring to Obama as Kenyan born and got an automatic warning about being “spammy”.

    Nothing spammy about what I was trying to do, just good information of interest to the folks here.

    It’s 6 web addresses referring to Obama as as “Kenyan born”, from 2004 to 2008.

    Can you help me post the web addresses?
    ———————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Whatever happened must have been automatically generated, as I didn’t see anything that seemed to be spam. Try it again.

  21. TexomaEd

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 10:10 PM

    You are correct that Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen, but your facts are incorrect. Arthur was ineligible because his father was an Irish citizen at the time of Chester’s birth. Arthur Senior became naturalized when Chester was 14 years old. Chester’s mother was a US citizen.

    Chester Arthur’s ineligibility is not a precedent because no one at that time knew about his father’s citizenship issue. That information was discovered some 20 years ago.

    However, what is ironic, is that during the campaign (Arthur was the VP candidate — he became President when Garfield was assassinated) there was a reporter who claimed that Chester was born in Canada and was thus ineligible to be VP. Chester knew that he was born in Vermont, but he told lies about his father in order to hide the fact of his father’s Irish citizenship status at the time of his (Chester’s) birth.

  22. btw

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 9:59 PM

    The ultimate proof of Obama’s Ineligibility to be President Of The United States (POTUS) according Constitution

    It doesn’t matter where Obama was born.

    There is NO NEED TO GET OBAMA’s BC (Birth Certificate) in order to proof his Ineligibility to be POTUS (President Of The US) according Constitution!

    We all know that according Constitution among other requirements it’s necessary to be a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) in order to be eligible to take the office of POTUS.

    There are only 2 groups of citizens according Constitution (14th Amendment): 1) citizens at birth – all persons “… born… in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”; 2) naturalied citizens – all persons “…naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Natural Born Citizens (NBC) mentioned in the Article II-1-5 of Constitution (as one of requirements for being POTUS) belong to one of those groups. Obviously they belong to the group #1.

    Even if Obama was born in Hawaii (US) /as he alleges/, it’s not enough to be a citizen at birth according Constitution. It’s absoulutely necessary to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (US).

    Framers of 14th Amendment clearly determined “What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means”
    http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
    By P.A. Madison on September 22, 2007 Updated 8/10/09
    “…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 ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. …” (the last 2 sentences are bold and underlined in the article – btw).

    Such a requirement (“not owing allegiance to anybody else” for persons born in the US) is performed ONLY for “those born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens” (according the classical Vattel’s definition of NBC).

    So there is NO NEED TO GET OBAMA’s BC (Birth Certificate) in order to proof his Ineligibility to be POTUS according Constitution!

    Having a foreigner father (British) Obama had a dual allegiance at birth. Thus he isn’t NBC according Constitution and not eligible to be POTUS.
    =============================
    Another way to get the same inference about Obama’s Ineligibility to be POTUS according Constitution.

    A requirement to have only one Allegiance (to the US) is performed also for citizens of the 2nd group mentioned in the 14th Amendment – Naturalized citizens. Persons wishing to be Naturalized US citizens have to take The Oath of Allegiance to the US, renounce and abjure any foreign allegiance and thus be subject to ONLY the US jurisdiction. These words – renounce and abjure any foreign allegiance – are THE KEY. It means that ONLY one jurisdiction is allowed for Naturalized Citizens – ONLY the US jurisdiction.

    But according Constitution citizens of both groups are equal (except for being able to become POTUS). Thus NBC, exactly as Naturalized Citizens, have to be subject ONLY to the US jurisdiction. This requirement is automatically performed ONLY for persons born to 2 US citizens – so there is no need to take The Oath of Allegiance; if such babies also born in the US, they become US citizens at birth – NBC. Again we see that the classical Vattel’s definition of NBC (“those born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens”) is equivalent to the definition of citizens at birth (or, in orther words, NBC) according Constitution: “… born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”

    All it means that ONLY one jurisdiction is allowed for US Citizens according Constitution – ONLY the US jurisdiction (it was a clear intention of framers – not to have any foreign influence on US citizens);

    So again according Constitution (and according the Vattel’s definition) Obama isn’t NBC (because having a foreigner father he had a dual allegiance at birth) and thus isn’t eligible to be POTUS.

    Babies born in the US to parents who are both US citizens have ONLY one allegiance (to the US) and accordingly are citizens at birth (or, in orther words, NBC). Babies born in the US to parents among whom one isn’t the US citizen have double allegiance; according Constitution such persons cannot be citizens at birth (or, in orther words, NBC).

    It can be said that there are laws accepted by Congress during the history of the US that recognize different circumstances of getting citizenship – e.g., recognizing citizenship at birth for babies born abroad to 2 parents who are citizens. It only means that those laws contradict Constitution (as it is for now) and have to be corrected (or Constitution has to be amended). The same statement pertains to some practice of tolerance to the dual citizenship – this practice contradicts Constitution.

    For those who wants to follow what Constitution (as it is for now) prescribes about the discussed matter there is ONLY one inference – having a foreigner father (British) Obama had a dual allegiance at birth; thus he isn’t a citizen at birth (Natural Born Citizen) according Constitution and not eligible to be POTUS (according Constitution he maybe isn’t a citizen at all – we almost may be sure that he didn’t apply for naturalization).
    ————————————————————–
    Constitution has been broken at elections 2008 (voters voted for an ineligible candidate); thus, despite results of elections, the won candidate holds a post of POTUS illegally as elections were illegal. WE THE PEOPLE need to Restore The Constitutional Republic!

    Many attempts were made to fix this Constitutional problem – all was in vain. Petitions were ignored. Electors failed us; media, Congress , courts failed us.
    Now only WE THE PEOPLE can begin to resolve this Constitutional problem through a wide awareness (despite media) about Obama’s Ineligibility and proper voting in 2010 (only for those who do admit the existence of this problem and have guts enough to begin to resolve it). “BUT WE MUST TAKE ACTION, NO ONE WILL DO IT FOR US.”

    Or if we can’t, we well deserve our future…

    You can’t expect anything good from something that began with such a huge deception. THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

  23. TexomaEd

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM

    Furthermore, even if McCain had been born in the Canal Zone, he would still not be eligible. The Panama Canal Treaty gave the US jurisdisction over the Canal Zone “as if” we were sovereign — but we weren’t — Panama retained sovereignty. And Panama’s constitution declares all persons born within its sovereign territory to be Panamanian citizens at birth.

    The GOP remains silent because they have a rising star who could be a future Presidential nominee, possibly in 2012 or later. That person is Governor Bobby Jindal, who is not a natural born citizen. He was born in Louisiana to parents who were not yet citizens — they were legal immigrants and citizens of India at the time of Jindal’s birth.

  24. Mike

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 9:15 PM

    From this it is quite clear that Arthur was also a usurper and like Obama he lied through his teeth to become VP and subsequently President.
    ===================================
    I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur. Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had until Obama. And he got away with it through his lies. But the light has a way of finding the darkness.

    It’s no precedent to follow.

    Leo C. Donofrio

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/04/leo-addresses-the-chester-arthur-presidential-eligibility-issue/

  25. scott

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 9:03 PM

    I question if Obama is even a legal citizen of the U.S.

    Why is he using the Social Security Number issued in CT to someone born in 1890 ?

    Obama does not have a SSN issued to him ! hmmmm wonder why Obama wants AMNEST SO BAD ! he wants to be made a citizen

  26. DCBikerJohn

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 9:01 PM

    Bobby Jindal is not a natural born citizen of the United States, even though he was born a citizen of the Untied States in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

    Bobby Jindal has standing to ask a court to evaluate his Constitutional eligibility for the presidency. WRITE TO BOBBY JINDAL and ask him to seek the court’s opinion.

  27. scott

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 8:57 PM

    You are clueless about the facts surrounding Chester Arthur. CHESTER ARTHUR “LIED” about the date his father became a naturalized citizen. He changed the date to before he was born.

    Remember this was back in the 1800′s there were no computers or internet, everything was filed away by hand. To investigate anything from 40+ years earlier would be impossible. Arthurs ineligibility was not discovered until around 2008.

    We have the ability to confirm within minutes that Obama is INELIGIBLE. Obama has spent 2 million dollars to keep his birth record sealed why ? what is he hiding ? The answer is that Obama has NO long form birth certificate. All he has is a certification of live birth that has been “filed” with the registrar and not “accepted” by the registrar.
    What this means is that Obamas mother filed for a birth certificate and provided the registrar with certain info, however the registrar never accepted the info but simply placed it on “file”.

    You are ignoring the fact that HI birth certificates couls be obtained for children of HI residents born outside of the U.S. A COLB is meaningless, Obama must release his entire birth record.

    Regardless of where he was born, Obama is still ineligible as he is not “NATURAL BORN”

    OBAMA IS A FRAUD ! and should be hung in public on the White House lawn for TREASON

  28. Bill Cutting

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 8:20 PM

    It was not known at the time that CA was actually born a British Subject, when he was elected VP.

  29. nosf41

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 6:35 PM

    According to your logic, if one person is successful in robing a bank and not getting caught, it is OK when another one tries to do the same.

  30. Kathy

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 5:27 PM

    You must have read Donofrio’s blog. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Glad to see obots visiting here, though. You just might learn something.

  31. Bob1943

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 4:19 PM

    How silly can you get? One fraud makes another, ever bigger one OK? Talk about an Obamazombie……

    From http://www.theobamafile.com

    “Chester Arthur
    Chester A. Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843, but Arthur was born in 1829 — 14 years before. Therefore, Arthur was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

    He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.

    We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.”

    It was not proven that Authur was, as is Barry, also a usurper, until December 6, 2008.

    Supreme Court filing and how it relates to Barack Obama here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/8830185/Wrotnowski-v-Bysiewicz-Supplemental-Brief

  32. Bob1943

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 2:55 PM

    Would you reference the Supreme Court cases for us please?

    Let me take a stab at why. If what you say is true, the cases where turned down because of “lack of standing”. That is an all-purpose way of protecting Obama from “discovery” in any lawsuit. It has, up to now, prevented the evidence from being looked at in any eligibility lawsuit. If just one judge, (or the Supreme Court), allows discovery, and for all the evidence to be presented by both sides, Obama will no longer be pretending to be president and his enablers in the charade will be gone with him.

  33. Kathy

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 10:41 AM

    Hey Willy, your question has already been answered. Standing. Duh.

  34. willberey

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 10:20 AM

    you know, we’ve had at least one other President whose parents were not both citizens….was he illegal too…..his name was Chester A. Arthur……….there is clear precedent that this is OK.

  35. willberey

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 10:17 AM

    i know what happened to him, he submitted an affidavit to the court saying Orly Taitz asked him to lie about what he knew….she then called him a liar and convicted forger(he is). Recently he said he was going to run for office in California but then realized with a felony conviction for forgery it may be tough. His name is Lucas Smith.

  36. willberey

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 10:15 AM

    Can anyone explain why the Supreme Court has already turned down 7 cases regarding Obama’s elligibility? Thats right, suprised people? They’ve turned down 7 cases already. I can tell you the answer why but you wont be happy.

  37. Mike

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 10:11 AM

    The rationale of the GOP was that John McCain was not eligible either. Had he been elected, the debate on “natural born Citizen” would be going on. It would be driven by Democrats, though. McCain was born in the Colon hospital, not in the Canal Zone. Senate Resolution 511 originally declared him and other presidential candidates as natural born Citizens before it was changed to only address John McCain. That resolution was brought forward by….Democrats – including….Barack Hussein Obama.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/legislation-int.html

    Comment in article above:

    Posted by: Shakeme | Apr 11, 2008 9:29:38 AM
    “John McCain born in Panama is not a U.S. Citizen.
    John McCain best days are behind.
    Obama all the way!”

    Additional background showing why even if McCain was born “in the Canal Zone” he was STILL not an nbC:

    http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/chin.pdf

  38. Kathy

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 9:41 AM

    I don’t know the page number. I took the info from factcheck.org, a project of, and funded by, the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Obama has strong connections to that organization, so I figured if I didn’t have the book, their quote was good enough. I think the fools at Annenberg may have figured they were trying to head off at the pass any questions about Obama’s eligibility by trying to make it look like oh yeah, he DID had British allegiance years ago, but hey, he isn’t British anymore because it expired, blah blah blah. Obviously, the Annenbergers did not get what it means to be a natural born citizen.

  39. Kathy

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 9:29 AM

    Er, except we don’t REALLY know if he was born in Hawaii……it is only an unverified assumption right now.

  40. Kathy

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 9:28 AM

    Bingo. Good job!

  41. 12thGenerationAMERICAN

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 9:01 AM

    “Anyone remember his name?”

    Lucas Smith

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109113

  42. nosf41

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 2:17 AM

    Do you know anyone who had registered with Selective Service in Hawaii in 1980?
    A highly suspicious Obama’s registration form has been obtained through the Freedom of Information request and it has been published on Debbie Schlussel’s web site.

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

    It would be very interesting compare Obama’s registration form with a genuine one to see if there is any difference.
    —————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The Post & Email covered the Obama Selective Service registration here: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/08/are-there-multiple-records-of-obamas-selective-service-registration/ We quoted from Debbie Schlussel as well as other sources with additional and newer information.

  43. Chester

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM

    RE: This article by Kathleen Gotto

    A very good work and clear reflects clear thinking.

    RE: CDR Kerchner: (Friday, March 26, 2010 at 11:43 AM)“…..But what is less well known is that the DNC and the RNC both participated in the great cover up in the 2008 election. …I Believe The Fix Was In for the 2008 Election and The Cover Up is Still Going Strong! The Perfect Storm for a Constitutional Crisis!”

    You may be right about the first part. Hillary said during the campaign that her opponent “has no American roots”. So that supports your theory that the DNC knew about it. Cheney did not ask for objection at the elector confirmation joint session of Congress, in Jan 2009. That supports your theory that the GOP participated in the cover up. However, what was (or what is) the rational of the GOP? What could the GOP possibly gain from supporting a Dem prez?

    To create a constitutional crisis, as motivation, is difficult to comprehend. McCain’s incompetence? Maybe, that partially explains it, except by January 2009 McCain was history.

    This is the mystery of the century.

  44. TexomaEd

    Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 12:19 AM

    If being born in the US was all that mattered to our Founding Fathers, then they would have used the term “native-born” citizen (“native-born” means “of a specified place by birth”). But they did not. They used the term “natural born citizen” because they wanted Presidents who were born of the soil and full blood (two citizen parents) of the nation.

  45. Bob1943

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 11:45 PM

    As much as I believe that Obama is not eilgible, it’s hard to believe that one person, somewhere, will not come forth with the truth and break the conspiracy wide open.

    Does anyone know what happened to the guy with the Barry’s supposed Kenyan birth certificate? He was present and prepared to testify in a California case which was, of course, dismissed due to lack of “standing”. He was putting his freedom on the line if he knew he had a bogus copy of what he was saying was a legitimate birth certficate. Since that time I have heard nothing else about him.

    Anyone remember his name?

  46. TexomaEd

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 10:02 PM

    And the cover up continues because the Republicans have a rising star (Governor Bobby Jindal) in mind for 2012 or later who is not a natural born citizen. Jindal was born in Louisiana to legal immigrant parents who were citizens of India. His parents later became naturalized, but it is Jindal’s status at birth that matters. Like Obama and McCain, Jindal was a dual citizen at birth.

  47. dotdotcom

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 9:35 PM

    We are doing a faxing/emailing/mailing campaign around this issue. We have posted pre-written letters you can use as well as a lot of contact info. Check it out at http://www.stamppeeve.com and hit the link at the top for “Presidential Eligibility”. Come join us in this fight to demand action on this issue and spread the word!

  48. Krist

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 7:06 PM

    We cant let the DNC and the RNC choose our candidates.
    Why dont these Communist leave our country and go to a country that has communism already?

  49. Krist

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 7:02 PM

    I do not believe that obama meets 2 out of the 3 requirements. Personally I do NOT believe he is a “citizen” “legal resident” of the U.S. for 14 years.

  50. DCBikerJohn

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 6:46 PM

    When Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu he was British. He cannot be a natural born citizen of the Untied States.

    Conventional wisdom tells us that being born in the United States makes one a natural born citizen of the United States. But consider Zachary Taylor, born in Virginia in 1784 after Great Britain recognized the United States as an independent and sovereign nation. If Taylor were a natural born citizen of the United States, why did the Constitution provide him with the exemption from the requirement? If there were natural born citizens of the United States before the ratification of the Constitution, why doesn’t the exemption from the NBC requirement expire at the time when natural born citizens begin to be born? The answer is, there were no natural born citizens of the Untied States until after the adoption of the Constitution in 1788.

    Taylor was born under the Articles of Confederation, which created the Congress of the Confederation, the first government of the United States of America. The framers recognized that people born before the adoption of the Constitution, EVEN IF THEY WERE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, were not natural born citizens of the Untied States, and required the exemption.

    This example refutes the conventional wisdom that those born in the United States are natural born citizens of the United States. The framers of the Constitution knew that some people who were born in the United States were not natural born citizens, and the evidence is in Zachary Taylor.

  51. jtx

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    CDR Kerchner is “right on” (I think that’s a Navy term; if not please pardon …) in the facts of not only Pelosi and the DNC knowing that Obama was not eligible, but also McCain and the Republicans. Talk about a “deal with the Devil!!! They have sold their country to a Communist Dictator-wannabe and only something like the Kerchner et al suit, if heard on merit, will halt this tragedy. The case is currently awaiting a decision from the Federal Appeals Court on the “standing” issue (as presented by those nice folks in the DOJ using the Obama CliffsNotes on “standing”).

    The defense is relying on the definition of standing obtained from the opinion in Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife written by – of all folks – Justice Scalia, one of the most-hated (by libs) of those in SCOTUS. The decision was correct in that case but does not apply to a Constitutional issue such as the Kerchner action since Lujan was about the Plaintiff trying to get standing on a matter of legislative/executive actions (i.e., statutes passed or regulations put into effect).

    None of that is present in the Kerchner case but only the Constitutional responsibility of eligibility according with the black letter law of our land. Hearing on merit would mean that discovery would take place tio uncover some of the mis- and dis-information out there to set aside the massive works of fiction.

    Actually, Obama’s whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    If you’d like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data – more than we’ve seen from Obama.

    In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like “Our Boy” and really strikes a chord.

    Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC – but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:

    Three Little Words

    Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

  52. susie thomas

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 3:17 PM

    I am truly impressed by all the information about BHO’s eligibility that I glean from this web sight (I visit daily), and at first I was so hopeful that somehow, sometime soon, it would go viral, and that this nightmare we are all living in would be over, (or at least be visible). I ‘m beginning to lose hope. When the Obamacide bill passed… I was so disheartened. Is there ANY semi-MSM journalist that still seeks the truth? (Or even one that might want to win a Pulitzer)? I suppose, whoever that might be, would be truly brave. I am truly in a funk.

  53. Miki Booth

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

    Not that it would do any good to call our congresspeople but if you wanted to the number is real easy to remember: Capitol Switchboard 877-SOB-USOB.
    I swear!

  54. Tony

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

    I have no substantiation for this, but ya wanna hear something really, really wild and freaky? Think about what a good writer could produce out of this.

    Put all the puzzle pieces in one place, I mean ALL the puzzle pieces, and then view ALL the pieces through this prism: Frank Marshall Davis is his real father.

    Think it’s too crazy? Look up the UK Telegraph article of August 2008, then look at the pictures- you tell me what is too far-fetched to contemplate.

    Think of ALL the things that don’t make sense, and you tell me if it doesn’t ALL come together with that one puzzle piece. I await your reply.

    PS – He can never admit that any more than He could admit His ineligibility- which is why we need to force this and NEVER let up

  55. Bob1943

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 1:24 PM

    Great article. There are at least three different ways Obama may not be eligible to be president. If the discussion was about anyone but Obama it would be in the main stream media 24/7 until the truth was finally revealed. Instead…..silence and ridicule of those who want to see real proof of Barry’s eligibility.

    This is the biggest scam in history and there are many who are complicent in the deception.

    Not only is my money on Barry not being eligible, I’d put the probabilty at 100%

  56. Durus

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 1:16 PM

    What page of “Dreams of My Father” would the quote cited by FactCheck.org and FighttheSmears.com be on?

    Looks like perhaps 417, from searching the limited preview of that book at Google Books.

  57. tminu

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 12:39 PM

    Yes, the Constitution differentiates NBC from statutory Citizen, and Minor v. Happersett holds that no 14th amendment statutory citizen can be a natural born citizen, and Obama is (if born in Hawaii) only a statutory citizen.
    It’s right there in 215, 14th, and 1401. Already done. (article II section 1 clause 5, 14th amendment, us code 1401)
    Obama is still a British citizen to this day by the BNA of 1981, which effected this status prior to the expiration of the KIA of 1963.

  58. 12thGenerationAMERICAN

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM

    Should not the the burden of proof be on Obama to prove that he IS a natural born citizen and not on We the People to prove he is NOT!?!?! Not a single judge to date has allowed discovery and therefore requiring Obama to make public his records proving his eligibility; and that is assuming that he CAN produce such evidence! Not a single member of Congress has pursued the eligibility question to any degree of sincerity much less to an end result?!?
    EVERY member of Congress certified Obama in the Electoral College without properly vetting him, so we can deduct they are either afraid of being charged with misconduct; or they approve of this apparent violation of the U.S. Constitution?!?!!

  59. CDR Kerchner

    Friday, March 26, 2010 at 11:43 AM

    Absolutely the Nancy Pelosi and the DNC knew about Obama’s citizenship issues. They purposely obfuscated about it and covered it up. And their friends in the Main Stream Media helped them to do it. But what is less well known is that the DNC and the RNC both participated in the great cover up in the 2008 election.

    I Believe The Fix Was In for the 2008 Election and The Cover Up is Still Going Strong! The Perfect Storm for a Constitutional Crisis!
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-believe-fix-was-in-for-2008-election.html

    CDR Kerchner

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>