Why Are People Fighting Obama’s Policies…

WHEN HIS LEGITIMACY IS THE REAL QUESTION?

by Sharon Rondeau

(May 18, 2013) — In an interview published on Friday, Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo told The Post & Email that if members of Congress had responded to their constituents’  concerns which began years ago over Obama’s legitimacy and claims that his documentation was fraudulent, the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya which killed four Americans “might never have happened.”

After six months of investigation which included interviews with witnesses and experts, document examiners and the acquisition of affidavits, Zullo and Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who had commissioned the posse to launch the probe, gave a press conference during which they declared that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card were “computer-generated forgeries.”

Last July, the posse stated at a second press conference that the long-form birth certificate was “definitely fraudulent” and called for a congressional investigation.

Rather than investigating, Congress did nothing.  The mainstream media vilified the messengers and refused to investigate the posse’s findings.

The Obama regime lied to the public as to the cause of the Benghazi attack, for weeks denying that it involved Islamic terror groups and blaming the violence on a little-known internet video despite the Libyan government’s immediate assessment of a terrorist attack.

Although several departments within the federal government denied issuing a “stand-down” order which halted potential rescue missions that night, testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week firmly established that such an order had, in fact, been given at least twice.

Rep. Ann Wagner stated last week that any such order would have had to come from Obama himself.  Some military veterans agree.

During his interview with The Post & Email, Zullo stated that the fraudulent birth certificate bearing Obama’s name posted on the White House website in April 2011 was “created to be a deception.”  Referring to at least three scandals in the mainstream media at present — the seizure of phone records from Associated Press offices which included home and personal cell phone calls; the IRS’s targeting of “conservative” groups for delays in processing their requests for tax-exempt status now totaling in the hundreds; and the questions over why a rescue mission was not m0unted on September 11, 2012 as the Benghazi compound burned and the ambassador was missing — Zullo remarked, “The lies that you’re hearing now are not an anomaly; they started with this [birth] certificate.”

Zullo further observed that Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate raises questions about his “identification” and “citizenship,” which raises the original question asked in 2008 as to whether or not Obama met the requirements of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

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.

While controversy exists as to the exact intent of the Framers when they included the term “natural born Citizen” in the final draft of the Constitution, it is not disputed that the president and commander-in-chief could not be a citizen of another country.

In an article published in the Chicago Law Review on February 22, 2006, Sarah P. Herlihy, who went on to work in a law firm with connections to Barack Hussein Obama, opined that “the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system” (page 276 [second page of essay]).  Herlihy contends on page 279 that “a person’s place of birth is not an effective means of determining whether he or she will be a good president.”

On page 289, Herlihy cites a “fear of foreigners” on the part of Americans as a reason not to amend the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article II.

Obama’s constitutional eligibility was questioned in 2008 by several attorneys who filed lawsuits in an attempt to compel Obama to produce proof that he was a “natural born Citizen.”  Like Herlihy, most Americans understand the term to mean that the person was born in the United States and nothing more.  Some constitutional scholars and historical precedent indicate that the citizenship of the parents or father was a factor bearing equal or even greater weight than a person’s birth on U.S. soil.

Some of the lawsuits challenged Obama to produce proof that he was born in Hawaii, as he claimed; others challenged his eligibility based on the foreign citizenship of his father, and some included both questions.

At least two lawsuits were filed challenging then-presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s his eligibility given his birth in Panama to two U.S.-citizen parents..

Since 2009, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has struggled to frame Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii as sufficient to qualify him for the office of president, purposely omitting references from court cases which had invoked the U.S. citizenship of the parents to determine a child’s status in situations in which questions arose.

The last in a series of CRS memos discussing Obama’s purported constitutional eligibility has been removed from its place on the internet from 14 months ago but can still be found here.  The memo, written by Jack Maskell on November 14, 2011, states:

“In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to“naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President…”

which clearly contradicts Breckinridge Long, who served as the ambassador to Italy under President Woodrow Wilson and contended in 1916 that Charles Evans Hughes was not eligible to run for president because of his birth on U.S. soil to parents who had not yet become naturalized citizens at the time of the birth.

There is no mention in the Constitution of the term “native born citizen.”

Atty. Leo Donofrio discovered that Chester Arthur, who as vice president, became president after President James A. Garfield was assassinated, knew that he did not meet the accepted definition of “natural born Citizen” because his father was not naturalized at the time of his birth.  Arthur burned his family Bible, where birth records were kept, and was found to have lied about his age so that his father’s eventual naturalization would appear to have been timely for Arthur’s eligibility.

The Fourteenth Amendment, passed to give freed slaves citizenship following the Emancipation Proclamation, stated that anyone born within the United States to parents who did not owe allegiance to any other jurisdiction was a “citizen,” but such individuals were not designated “natural born Citizens.”  In modern times, the Fourteenth Amendment has consistently been misapplied to “anchor babies,” conferring citizenship to children born on U.S. soil despite the parents’ foreign citizenship.

Obama would not have been required to be a “natural born Citizen” to serve as Illinois state senator or U.S. Senator, as the Framers did not place that restriction on those offices.

Since Obama began his occupation of the White House, his pledge made to enthusiastically-cheering audiences to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” is perhaps the only one he has kept.  Unprecedented changes to constitutional and legal protections include but are not limited to:

• Loss of First Amendment rights to anyone protesting government policies on “restricted buildings or grounds” and “…impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;”
• Purposeful targeting of groups by the Internal Revenue Service and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) viewed as oppositional to the Obama regime, including religious and pro-life organizations, Tea Party groups, advocates of traditional marriage, Second Amendment supporters, a radio show host and a private person who had been an outspoken critic of Obama and his life story;
• Failure to enforce existing federal laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), voter intimidation laws as described in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and immigration laws;
• Tapping telephones and possibly email accounts of reporters and researchers into Obama’s history and identity without a search warrant;
• Persecution of Christians and promotion of Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals into areas of national security in violation of Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution
• Threatening, intimidating and silencing the press to prevent the publication of reports seen as derogatory by the regime;
• An orchestrated campaign to eviscerate Second Amendment rights by congressional action and state legislatures;
• Carrying out a gun-running operation which killed at least one American and lying about it;
• Fourth Amendment violations wherein innocent citizens have been arrested and taken into custody without probable cause, resulting in the forced confinement in a psychiatric institution of at least one military veteran;
• The Department of Homeland Security having identified people who oppose abortion and illegal immigration, returning military veterans, and those affected by the economic downturn as potential “right-wing extremists;”
• the “Sovereign Citizen” campaign in which the FBI has been used as a propaganda tool for Obama’s ideology, identifying on its website citizens quoting from the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court cases, or the Bible as “potential domestic terrorists;”
• Garnishing two-thirds of a veteran’s military pension without observing proper protocol;
• Punishing people for what they were allegedly thinking;
• Leaking sensitive national security information, placing all Americans in peril;
• Rendering Congress “irrelevant” by issuing executive orders to change law and policy;
• Disrespecting and misusing U.S. Marines;
• Secretly arming rebels in Syria, involving the U.S. in the affairs of a foreign sovereign country without congressional approval;
• Committing treason against the United States of America by arming Islamic terrorists along with the Syrian rebels;
• Leaving Americans vulnerable to attack by failing to position customary military resources in strategic locations, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea;
• Failing to mount a rescue mission for the Benghazi compound, thereby allowing Americans to die, then intimidating survivors from speaking publicly about what they knew;
• Bowing to leaders of foreign countries who happen to embrace Islam;
• Imposing socialized health care on the American people and thereby nationalizing one-sixth of the economy, with the IRS designated as the enforcer of the “law;”
• Forcing American taxpayers to fund abortion both domestically and overseas;
• Claiming two fraudulent birth certificates as representative of the details of his birth;
• Presenting a changing life narrative to the public;
• Filing lawsuits against states which passed immigration or voter identification laws under the provisions of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
• Employing law-breakers, tax cheats, and communists to carry out his agenda;
• Spending millions of taxpayer dollars, while millions of Americans suffer from unemployment and underemployment, on lavish and sometimes separate vacations for his family;
• Consistently failing to observe established protocol with dignitaries of foreign countries;
• Prohibiting U.S. companies to drill for oil but subsidizing foreign countries to expand their oil production;
• Posing for what appear to be celebratory photo-ops with families allegedly grieving from losing family members in a school shooting;
• Conducting a massive disinformation campaign using government resources, agencies, and possibly private citizens.

Can all of the actions Obama has taken to “fundamentally change” the country be a coincidence?

Given Zullo’s statement that the long-form birth certificate revealed to the public on April 27, 2011 was a tool used to deliberately deceive, what was it intended to hide?

Why has no hospital in the country claimed that Obama was born there?

Could all of the policy issues and current scandals become “irrelevant” if the truth behind Obama’s mask is that he is not a U.S. citizen and has usurped the presidency, as many have claimed?

Would an American citizen do to America what Obama has done, knowingly and purposefully?  Is his occupation of the White House a result of international globalist machinations, with Obama as their chosen emissary?  Are Obama’s actions those of someone with “sole allegiance” to the United States?

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, who became the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote to George Washington, who became the nation’s first president, prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

If Obama’s legitimacy is in question, why are Americans focusing on anything else?

If he is illegitimate, why do people legitimize him?

Was there a conspiracy to put Obama in the White House?