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

WHO IS GUILTY, AND WHAT WILL BE DONE ABOUT IT?

by Sharon Rondeau

Aaron Burr was elected vice president in 1800 and tried for treason in 1807. He was acquitted by a grand jury.

(Sept. 7, 2010) — Treason is defined as “Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.”  The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia adds to that definition, “In the U.S., the framers of the Constitution defined treason narrowly — as the levying of war against the U.S. or the giving of aid and comfort to its enemies — in order to lessen the possibility that those in power might falsely or loosely charge their political opponents with treason. See also sedition.”

A second source defines treason as “the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign” or “a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.”

Stated differently, treason is “the crime of betraying a nation or a sovereign by acts considered dangerous to security.”

Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The New World Encylopedia expounds on Treason further:

Treason has always been viewed as the most serious offense, for it is an act against not only an individual but against the society as a whole, embodied in the ruling authority whether individually in the monarch or collectively as government. It is indeed the act or attempt to “murder” one’s nation. While harsh penalties have been used in attempts to deter traitors, the very reason that such acts are considered the worst of crimes are the same ones that drive people to commit them.

Treason in U.S. History

Dr. Benjamin Church, the first U.S. Surgeon General and a delegate from the Massachusetts colony, was accused of corresponding with the British during the Revolutionary War.  Church had defended himself but was convicted of consorting with the enemy.  His punishment was that he be “close confined in some secure jail in the Colony of Connecticut, without use of pen, ink and paper, and that no person be allowed to converse with him except in the presence and hearing of a magistrate of the town or the sheriff of the county where he is confined, and in the English language, until further orders from this or a future Congress.”

He was jailed in Connecticut and later returned to Massachusetts, only to leave the country on a ship that was never found.

In 1807, former Vice President Aaron Burr was tried for treason against the U.S. for allegedly “conspiring to invade the territories of a nation at peace with the United States.”  The question that had to be decided was whether or not Burr was guilty of “levying war” against the U.S. after being accused of attempting to establish a separate government in the region of the Louisiana Purchase.  He also killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel and was indicted for murder but was never brought to trial.

President Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had run on the same ticket as presidential and vice presidential candidates, respectively,  in 1800 (page 26), against incumbent President John Adams and his running mate, Charles C. Pinckney.  The electoral vote count was a tie, and Jefferson and Burr became opponents.  The subsequent election in the House of Representatives rendered Jefferson the victor.

Jefferson reportedly had declared Burr guilty before Burr’s trial had commenced.  During his tenure as U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Marshall had granted the Supreme Court the power to override the executive branch, all lower courts, and rulings by state governments, while Jefferson favored states’ rights.

Marshall, who wrote the opinion in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison,  and Thomas Jefferson feuded over the  Burr case, with Marshall sending Jefferson a subpoena for documents despite the fact that Jefferson had allegedly already supplied them (page 26).   Jefferson had dissented with Marshall’s decision to exclude certain testimony and  stated that Marshall had intended all along to exonerate Burr (page 27).  A grand jury found Burr “not guilty” of treason.

Treason in Modern Times

More recently, those who spread propaganda against U.S. forces during World War II were tried for treason and received jail terms.  Mildred Gillars, also known as “Axis Sally” was convicted on one count of treason for her radio broadcasts from Germany against the Allied Forces, served 13 years in prison.

All members of Congress swear an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

In regard to presidential eligibility, the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, clause 5 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.

On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate passed Senate Resolution 511, which “declared” John McCain to be a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to two U.S.-citizen parents.  However, the resolution failed to address the questionable citizenship of Barack Obama, who himself claimed dual citizenship at birth and appears to have had Indonesian citizenship at least at some point in his life.

There were those who raised the eligibility question of one or both candidates to persons with authority over elections, but no one, not even a state attorney general, would investigate whether or not either major-party candidate met the eligibility requirements for president.

The state Electoral Colleges would not investigate.  The Supreme Court refused to stay the election so that the eligibility question could be answered.

Some say the election was stolen by Obama and his supporters.  Numerous lawsuits have been filed to determine Obama’s eligibility, but despite the promise of a California judge, not one court has heard a case on its merits.

From the National Archives and Records Administration regarding the procedure for certifying the votes from the Electoral College:

The Congress

House and Senate staff come to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) to inspect the Certificates of Vote in late December. Because the statutory procedure prescribes that the Certificates of Vote sent to the President of the Senate be held under seal until Congress opens and counts them in joint session, the Congress depends on the OFR to ensure the facial legal sufficiency of Certificates. If any State’s Certificate fails to reach the President of the Senate, the President of the Senate calls on OFR to deliver duplicate originals in its possession to complete the set held by Congress. After the 1988 general election, the President of the Senate called for nineteen of the Certificates of Vote held by the OFR. For the 1992 election, the OFR supplied the Congress with two missing Certificates of Vote.

The Congress is scheduled to meet in joint session in the House of Representatives at one o’clock January 6, 2001 (this date is subject to change) to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the presiding officer. Two tellers are appointed to open, present and record the votes of the States in alphabetical order. The President of the Senate announces the results of the vote and declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States. The results are entered into the official journals of the House and Senate. The President of the Senate then calls for objections to be made. If any objections are registered, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and Senate. The House and Senate would withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of any objections according the procedure set out under 3 U.S.C. section 15.

U.S. Code is defined as “the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.”  It is published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.

The U.S. Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, states:

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

On January 6, 2001, The New York Times reported that there were objections to the counting of the electoral votes following the 2000 presidential election coming from the House of Representatives, but none from the Senate, and that “Federal law requires a member of both the House and the Senate to question a state’s electoral votes in writing for a formal objection to be considered.”  After “about a dozen black House members paraded out of the chamber in protest,” Al Gore, the president of the Senate and George W. Bush’s former opponent, read the electoral vote count of 271 to 266 in favor of Bush,who had won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote to Gore.

The date of January 6 was changed to January 8 by Congress for the 2009 electoral vote count.  The National Archives and Records Administration’s (NARA) Electoral College page explains the process for counting the electoral votes in Congress:

January 8, 2009

  • Counting Electoral Votes in Congress
    Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it. The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in Congress.

During the joint session of Congress on January 8, 2009, Senate president Dick Cheney failed to call for objections, and despite constituent letters to members of the Senate and House, it appeared that no one had submitted a written objection to attempt to qualify Obama.

The 20th Amendment provides for the case in which a “president elect shall have failed to qualify,” which is “declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”  The amendment was written with the intent of shortening the “lame duck” period between the election in November and the seating of elected officials two months later in January.

Not one member of Congress attempted to ascertain if Obama was qualified to be president.  Are they guilty of treason?

State attorneys general have been asked to investigate Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve but have failed to do so.  Have they committed treason?

On September 2, Lt. Col. Denise Lind stated that compelling Obama to open his records could prove “embarrassing” to him and denied Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin’s access to them to discover whether or not Obama is eligible to hold office.  Is she a traitor as well?

If all of these government officials have failed to uphold their oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, which set of rules are they following?  Without the Constitution, what protections do “we the people” have?  What kind of law is now the law of the land?

People in positions of power within the U.S. government have been tried and convicted of treason before.  So why is Obama still occupying the White House if he cannot prove his eligibility?

Join the Conversation

26 Comments

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. Will not prove eligibility is still an unacceptable as it is not up to Obama to decide either way. As the constitution clearly mandates the qualifications and further gives instruction for the succession if he should “fail to qualify” there only need be that failure to cause succession. So who says he has failed to qualify is the question.

    The failure will be proved in the LTC Laikin trial. He will be convicted by the despicable Col. Lind first and on appeal to the SC will be denied as it has been with their aid since the swearing in that the usurpation has been allowed to run this long.

    The proof will be that an innocent man will be damned to conceal the failure to qualify. We the people have a duty to preserve the law and according to the Declaration of Independence there is an absolute despotism in the works that we are legally and rightfully bound to overthrow that government for another. Once the people understand that having the entire government aid in violating the highest protection of the law is as despotic an event as can occur then there can be no accusation of attemted overthrow for it will be a duty.

    Had any court to date seen fit it could have simply ordered Obama produce the document. SC Justice Marshall set the issue straight in the Burr treason trial. Sect 1:13 – :14 http://www.fjc.gov/history/burr.nsf/page/burr_pdf/$file/BurrTrial%28final%29.pdf

    Being disposed to suffer while sufferable, as per the DoI, is like being disposed to choking oneself. There are many who did not recover from that folly and all are dead. Is liberty that easily lost? Apparently by people misled by a media just as guilty as the political class.

    1. Current SCOTUS THOMAS actually admitted ON RECORD that SCOTUS is “Evadiing that issue”. This calls for the immediate impeachment of those Justices found to be “Evading” it.

  2. I’ve been thinking that all the wrangling about the health care bill’s constitutionality was meaningless if they wouldn’t even make obama prove he’s a nbc.

    But the more i think about it, i think it goes even further than that.
    The constitution was meant to give gov’t limited powers and protect the people from gov’t.
    As we can all see so clearly, it has turned into a gov’t that has all power and seeks to protect itself from the people.

    I know of only one way that this will change and i don’t think it is printable.

  3. Unfortunately, ‘Native Born’ and ‘Natural Born’ in fact are used interchangeably in U.S. case law throughout history….for 250 years, the courts use those words to mean the same thing, born on U.S. soil……….and the law, as of right now, says if you are born on U.S. soil you are Natural Born……if you are a citizen at birth, you are natural born….that is the law……..sorry.

    1. ROFLOL. Who cares about US Case law, and by the way there was no United States prior to 1776, so just about 234 years. The issue here has nothing to do with ‘case law’ it has to do with Constitutional interpretation. Thus, it’s about what the SCOTUS ‘thinks’ the definition was for Natural Born, as it pertains to qualifications of POTUS, was in 1790. Let me tell you why it isn’t native born and give you examples:

      The founding fathers clearly gave themselves, even those born on ‘native soil’ an exemption to be POTUS, by claiming that anyone born AFTER 1790 had to be Natural born. Since George Washington and all of the early POTUS were born on then US soil—Native born, why bother for an exemption? The answer is simple, they weren’t Natural Born; because they were born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain, they were born subjects.

      Most importantly, the Constitution clearly references the “law of nations” which means Vattel’s book ‘the law of nations’ which was accessible by the founding fathers. How do I know that say George Washington read and incorporated Vattel, simple it’s one of the books HE NEVER RETURNED TO THE NEW YORK CITY LIBRARY!

      Your argument is a ‘straw man’ in that it makes a claim about US Case law, which is irrelevant. The question is what is the Constitution ‘meant’ by ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as it refers to special requirement for POTUS. The answer is clearly outlined by the founding fathers, born on native soil, but who felt they needed a special addition to allow themselves to be POTUS, that place of birth wasn’t adequate that it had to include jurisdiction. Finally, a description of Natural Born by Vattel whose book is cited in the pages of the Constitution and was clearly read by George Washington, and I quote: “Born on Native soil of Native Parents”. Finally, even the 14th Amendment, so found of by Obots, states that those “Born under the Jurisdiction of the United States are US Citizens”.
      Now we have covered the history and the language, lets do an Obama check. 1)Born on Native soil—Unknown—Conflicting evidence. 2)Born under the Jurisdiction—Failed, he was born a British Subject and has made that claim himself. 3) Born of Citizen Parents—Failed, his father was British Subject. Basically, there is NO possible way that Obama is NBC since he claimed he was born under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom—and yes he has made this claim publically.

    2. Sorry cicno,
      Anyone aspiring to or entering into the office of POTUS,VICE-POTUS and those others in the line of succession cannot enter into said offices UNLESS:

      Both of their parents are american citizens,naturalized or born here. The parent’s ameriican citizenship MUST be in effect at the time of a child’s birth

      AND

      The President,VP,Speaker MUST have been born IN the mainland of the USA.

    3. Cinco you are dead wrong. Native born and Natural born are not in the least interchangeable for the Presidential qualifications as outlined in Article II. Presidential qualification are quite important, and Article II is very specific. While Obama might be Native born, that is irrelevant he is a dual citizen and that is why Obama is ineligible. Obama’s dual citizenship which he has always admitted and was on his own website is his way of hiding in plain site. Making him SEEM innocent of any wrongdoing.

      If we examine the dual citizenship argument, one of the best one’s that I have found is in Article II itself, the Grandfather Clause. We only need to look to our past history to find the true answer as to whether or not a dual citizen is eligible to be President. Has there ever been any dual citizen Presidents in our past?? The answer is yes, there have been. Many of the Founding Presidents had dual citizenship. The framers of the constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British citizens and that’s why the framers declared that, while they were citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born citizens”. Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in article 2, section 1, clause 5 of the constitution:

      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;

      The framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be president, but they didn’t want future generations to be governed by a Commander in Chief who had split loyalty to another country. The framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of foreign powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the framers and colonists fought so hard in the American revolution to be free of.

      But nobody alive today can claim Presidential eligibility under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted. The framers of the Constitution distinguished between “natural born citizens” and all other “citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th amendment only confers the title of “citizen”, not “natural born citizen”. The framers were citizens, but they weren’t natural born citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born citizens on themselves in the Constitution and added the Grandfather Clause as an exclusion for themselves and Revolutionary citizen patriots. The Grandfather Clause would have no reason to be there at all otherwise. The Grandfather Clause is the only clause that Constitutionally qualifies a “citizen” to be President.

      Since the framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth (dual citizens) then Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States and is ineligible for the office.
      Sorry.

  4. I charge Obama, McCain, HR Clinton, Leahy, Menendez, Coburn and McCaskill of treason for their skullduggery, introduction and support of Senate Resolution 511 which gave cover to both Obama and John McCain.
    Obama and McCain were and are not eligible for the Office of POTUS

  5. As the Constitution states those guilty of treason give aid and comfort to our enemies. What more comfort could be given to our enemies than to destroy the validity and law of the Constitution? We will become a criminal nation, worthless, and without value. Obama and his troops are committing treason at the highest level.

    One only has to look at how Obama has taken over the office of President.

    Obama supporters make the fraudulent assumption that the word “native” can be substituted for the word “natural” in the Constitution’s natural born citizenship requirement of Article II, Section 1, clause 5. They say native-born to perpetuate the fraud that Obama is.

    The two words native and natural have entirely different meanings and are not interchangeable. The definition of “native” is always “born in a particular place or region”. So they change the wording of the Constitution in all the mainstream media, they put on the web what appears to be a fake birth certificate and say Obama is a native-born. In fact , the definition of native though not even close in meaning to natural is almost synonymous to the word “citizen”.

    The word “citizen” is defined as “a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community”. Thus if a person were to substitute the word “native” somewhere in clause 5, it would not be where the word natural appears but where the word citizen appears. Clause 5 would then be written “natural born native”.

    However, the word “natural” means “in accordance with nature, the fundamental characteristics that define the identity of something”. For example, the definition of a natural child is one that is related by blood compared to one who is adopted. Even though they may be adopted on the day of their birth, we still know that they are not a natural child. The characteristics of the natural parents are always there.

    Thus the natural identity for a person is defined by their parents such that it is passed through a process of nature. Though societies may try to deny the nature of the parent – child process, it is much like trying to live without breathing, it cannot be done.

    But as the Constitution states the President must be a natural born citizen. Just like a natural child has both parents that are biologically connected by blood, a natural born citizen has both parents that are connected not only by blood but also via citizenship to the United States at the time of his/her birth. The parents are both citizens and natural parents of the child.

    Natural born is not native born. Get Kenyan usurper fraud out.

    The above definitions were obtained from the following sources:
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
    online Macmillan Dictionary
    Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary (1973)
    contains the Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary

    Wake up America!

  6. The giving of aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States while owing allegiance to the United States is Treason. Furthermore,those who are guilty of such acts are strictly prohibited from holding any office under the United States of America.

    The status of U.S. Senator, is considered a position of trust wherein the duties of such office compel the holder of said office to act in allegiance with the laws of the United States and with it’s constitution.

    The Constitution allows that just two individuals,witness to the same acts of treason,make the charge of treason against the alledged perpetrator. To date this has been done. I am one of those individuals who have made a charge of treason against Barack Obama. (See City of Tonawanda,NY Police Department complaint #10-002-896).

    There are now countless others who have,on due diligence,examined evidence against Mr. Obama regarding these allegations. Indeed,the British Broadcasting Corporation filmed Obama in the act of aiding and comforting Raila Odinga,the current Prime Minister of Kenya by campaigning for him overtly to replace a US ally,President Kabaki,as President of Kenya.

    Odinga’s associations include radical muslim groups who were involved in the bombing of US embassies,one in Tanzania and one in Nairobi. It is interesting to note that upon discussion of this matter with Gordon Duff of “Veterans Today” he stated that:

    “The embassies were a black op covering for a broken arrow recovery…we did it ourselves while hunting for three missing nuclear warheads that landed off the coast of Somalia and were recovered by groups from Zimbabwe and South Africa.It is believed that they had been landed at Mombasa and moved inland” Duff further asserted that “The information” I “have is totally made up”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUaGe63Aqv4

    The text of 18 USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Section 2381 reads:

    “Whoever owing allegiance to the United States…adheres to their enemies,giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere IS GUILTY OF TREASON” [Emphasis added] “…and SHALL suffer death…SHALL be incapable of holding ANY office under the United States”.

    In addition to Obama not being a “Natural-Born” American citizen,Obama is further encumbered from serving as President,by virtue of his treason in Kenya,against the USA.

    It is interesting to note that at the VERY moment that Richard Cheney,President of the Senate,was supposed to ask for any objections,Nancy Pelosi,who was implicated by the American Grand Jury as an accomplice to Obama’s federal election fraud,STARTED to applause and therby distracted the proceedings:

    1. Yes, while Pelosi started to applause a man in the crowd lifted his arm.
      He was standing next to Kuchinich.
      Later he was identified as one Al Green from Texas.
      Not confirmed as far as I know.
      A democrat, black, but that doesn’t mean he had no objections.
      I would still like to know what that was about.

      1. In the YT link given at the end of Robert Laity’s post at about 26.17 or 18, a man with a beard in a gray suit seated as the 2nd person from the center aisle and in the 5th row back suddenly raises his right hand and continues to hold it aloft (waving it at about 27.27 as though he wishes to be heard) until the EC session is gaveled to a close at 27.38 without the man ever being recognized.

        He sits two rows back of the black lady in the bright green coat (which coat is easy to spot) who MAY be Sheila Jackson Lee – not sure. I don’t recognize the man but he appears to be possibly a white man. Perhaps some one can take a screen grab (I’ve taken several to verify what I just wrote) and recognize either the man or those sitting near him.

        It would be interesting to contact this man and see what he wanted – but he may not be willing to ‘fess up after so much water has gone under the bridge.

  7. The last question of Sharon’s article- “So why is Obama still occupying the White House if he cannot prove his eligibility?” is compelling. However, I am of the opinion that the word “cannot” prove his eligibility… is more like
    “will not” prove his eligibility. The proof of his intentions was already disclosed by his first executive order craftily worded prior to his oath taking and signed his first day to seal his records. It is more that he “will not” rather than “cannot”. By the fraudster-in-chief spending the enormous legal expenses to block discovery it more than confirms intentionality of “will not” release rather than “cannot”. He can release records. Yes, he can. He “will not” (up to now). The “will not” is soon to be “you will” because “we will” overcome his obstinacy to submit the proper documentation of his past.

      1. I am sure the end result is he cannot prove his qualifications. The point I make is the “will not” precedes the “cannot”. Take for example, the college records, they exist verses a Hawaiian BC may not. So, therefore, he can release certain records proving aspects of his background, but he will not. That is, until he is forced by the multitude of Americans that day by day are mounting in total defiance of his lies, deceit, and collective agenda. To that I say,
        YES WE CAN and WE will. Everyone should be calling their reps and senators on the registered mail from LDS asking each of them, “what are you going to do to investigate further?”

    1. The facts are undisputed. Obama’s father was a foreigner and Obama cannot be President.
      His place of birth is made irrelevant by the first fact, Obama could have been born in the Lincoln room. However,his parents were NOT BOTH Americans.