If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Welcome Back!


by John Charlton

The Democratic mascot is not a Jack Ass for no reason: to defend your candidate by saying he is not eligible is incredible!

(Feb. 19, 2010) — Everyone and his uncle, by now, knows that to hold the office of President you have to be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States of America.  It’s written, right there, in the U.S. Constitution:  Article II, section i, clause 5:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Many do not know that a “native” U.S. Citizen is a larger class of citizens who do not necessarily have U.S. Citizen parents but who are born on U.S. soil.  Native citizens are thus not eligible to be president.

But the Democratic National Committee wants you to tell all your friends that Obama is not eligible to be President.  They do this at the website for Organizing for America, which is an official project of the DNC, wherein they proclaim that Obama is a native born citizen:

Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Next time someone talks about Barack’s birth certificate, make sure they see this page.

The Post & Email is doing its part to make sure you see that page.  Here is the link:


For those actually interested in what the Supreme Court of the United States thinks on the subject of what a Natural Born Citizen is, see our article, “4 Supreme Court Cases Defined the term Natural Born Citizen.”

In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has also defined what a native born citizen is.  In the case Rogers vs. Bellei, April 5, 1971, the Court ruled:

3. Apart from the passing reference to the “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution’s Art. II, 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born: “[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States . . . .” This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . .” As has been noted above, the amendment’s “undeniable purpose” was “to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure” and not subject to change by mere statute. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S., at 263 . See H. Flack, Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 88-94 (1908).

Therefore, how can it be that Obama’s own party proclaims that he is ineligible to hold the office of President and yet recognizes him as such?

The only possible conclusion is that they must no longer regard the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land!

Join the Conversation


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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. From Fight the Smears;”Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982″

    The question that automatically comes to mind is; How does that change the circumstances at the time of his birth?

    IOW he was born a “dual citizen” by virtue of his US mother and Kenyan father on US territory. What other country on Earth allows a “dual citizen” to hold the highest executive office?

    Reason dictates a “dual citizen” maybe a native born but most definitely not a “Natural Born Citizen” and not eligible for POTUS.

    1. “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”

      John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)

  2. The Code of Hammurabi

    Law 5;

    If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge’s bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.

    (Code of Hammurabi (~1700 BCE) — Early Mesopotamian legal code laid basis for later Hebraic and European law.)

    (Proof that EVEN the Ancients were aware Judges are not Infallible.)

  3. John,
    I cant help but point out the fact that just below the the fight the smears link that you posted above this can be found.

    [“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.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”]

    By their own admission Hussein Obama was born a Brittish subject. This alone would disqualify one for president.



    Mr. Charlton replies: Yes, the DNC has gone to great lengths not to hide that they admit that he is not eligible, not only by reason of his claim to be native born, rather than natural born, but by the fact that he is a British subject.

    This is the open claim, the refusal to act on it, is the unreported conspiracy in BOTH parties, D.C., the courts, and the Media.

    1. Mr. Charlton, I concur with your conclusions that a refusal to act on any aspect of the usurpation in 2009 of the US Presidency. Every US citizen is entitled to have a President who is a native born citizen as provided in the Constitution, and any usurper should be removed from same without further delay. He has taken costly measures to keep so many facts from the citizens, and should submit to close scrutiny. The citizens deserve a decent legal President who should be supported with others who are committed to support the Constitution.

      Now is the time to give Obama an ultimatum to move out of the White House, vacate the Office of the President and accept the consequences of his usurpation. The Courts must support this action, and any persons acting to prevent, or delay compliance should be similarly cited as conspirators. The current Attorney General should be replaced immediately with a qualified attorney who will support the Constitution and the Case Law
      supporting it. That Office has no business supporting an usurper and should be on the side of the People and the individual States.

      He is acting as if he is on borrowed time and weak ice. The longer it takes to establish a proper government, the harder it will be.

      Any citizen should be entitled to make such a claim and not be punished to raise it.


      Mrs. Rondeau says: You must mean a “natural born Citizen.”

  4. “The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.” This has been substantiated how?!?!??!


    Mr. Charlton replies: While the main point of the article is that the claim that Obama is a native citizen is a claim that he is not eligible, the first part of the claim, that Obama has been born in Hawaii HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN by the disclosure OF ANY real DOCUMENT.

    Even HI officials refused to disclose any document proving that Fukino’s claim that he is born in HI is true.

    So, you are correct, there is another basis for doubting the DNC.

    We are truly living in a Aristocracy, where membes of the political nobility don’t have to prove anything they say!

  5. No kidding! Now, with federal courts blocking the peoples right to redress and the other two branches complicit in his ascension to power there is only one resort. To march on DC and leave no doubt as to the names, addresses and positions of every person aiding in the usurpation. From there the people they work for can deal with them in local venues under local laws. They can’t hide behind the DC police forever.