A TRUE STORY
by David LaRocque
(Sept. 13, 2010) — My doorbell rang this afternoon, and who should I find at my door but a young volunteer sent by Congressman Bilbray seeking my vote in the November election?
I immediately informed this nice young man that I was not pleased with my congressman’s performance. He looked rather surprised, and asked why I felt that way.
I asked him if he was aware of any constitutional requirements relating to eligibility to serve in the presidency. He immediately brightened up, saying that he was a political science major in college, and that he was quite familiar with the United States Constitution. He went on to inform me that the Constitution requires that the president be 45 years old and that he must have been born in the United States.
I informed our young man that there is a recent video on the internet of an interview with Congressman Bilbray on MSNBC in which Rep. Bilbray states that a requirement for a U.S. birth in order to be eligible to serve as president does not exist – that it is “legend.” I wish I could have captured the look of dismay on the young man’s face when he heard this.
Although momentarily speechless, this young volunteer bounced back quickly and changed the subject of our conversation. I changed the subject back to the Constitution, and informed him that the age of eligibility is actually 35, and asked him if there were any other eligibility requirements to serve in the office of president of the United States. He could not think of any.
So I informed him that the Constitution requires that the person elected to the office of president must have been a resident in the United States for fourteen years, and that he must be a “natural born Citizen.”
Then I asked this bright young Bilbray volunteer if he knew what is meant by the term “natural born Citizen” in the U.S. Constitution? He stated that it means that the president must have been born in the U.S. He could think of no other requirement. When I informed him that the eligibility clause in Article II also requires that both parents of the person elected to the office of president must have been U.S. citizens at his or her birth, he quickly nodded agreement.
Then I asked him how Barack Obama could be a legitimate president if he was a dual citizen at birth. His response was that no one else he had encountered had brought these things up.
I then provided this nice young man with a brief exposition on the problems which I felt were being created for our nation by having an illegitimate president in the White House, as well as the abrogation of the rule of law which it represents.
Then I asked him if he believed that Barack Obama was born in the U.S., and if so, what evidence he had of that fact.
Much to my surprise, our young volunteer for the Bilbray campaign did not even attempt to claim that Obama had provided his birth certificate proving that he was born in Hawaii. Instead, he launched vigorously into four key arguments in defense of Congressman Bilbray:
- Are you going to vote for the Democrat (a well-known liberal progressive named Francine Busby who previously held the CA-50 seat)? (Otherwise known as the “lesser of two evils” argument.) I acknowledged that I would not vote for Francine Busby under any circumstances, but that does not absolve Rep. Bilbray of his responsibility to “support and defend the Constitution”.
- All the blame should not rest with Congressman Bilbray – all Republicans are equally responsible for failing to fulfill the duty required by their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. (This one is known as the “everybody does it” defense.) I categorically refused to accept this proposition, using a military analogy relating to LTC Terry Lakin to make my point.
- It is too late to do anything about Obama’s lack of eligibility now – this young Bilbray volunteer actually stated that “the ship has already sailed.” (This is also known as the “the train has already left the station” defense.) I categorically refused to accept this proposition as well, arguing strenuously that the damage being done to this nation by the cascading national debt and the erosions of constitutional restraints on the federal government under Obama are getting worse by the day. I also stated to our Bilbray volunteer that I am extremely concerned about the situation in which out military forces have been placed – conducting combat operations without proper legal authority – which potentially places these forces in extreme legal jeopardy.
- Finally, this nice young man fell back on his “ace in the hole” defense – 69 million people voted for Barack Obama, so he is the president and there is nothing we can do about it. (This defense is otherwise known as the “Judge Carter” defense.) This is where our young constitutional scholar really stepped in it. I quickly educated him on the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that no election fraud conspiracy, no forged documents, no misrepresentation of eligibility, no oath of office sworn under fraudulent circumstances, can override the clear and unequivocal eligibility requirements of the United States Constitution.
At this point our young Bilbray volunteer was completely deflated and defeated. He started backing away, mumbling something about being sorry I felt this way. I told him that if I were him, I would not be working for a person like Brian Bilbray who does not have the common decency to respond to the many letters I have sent to him, and who has utterly failed to fulfill the duty imposed upon him by his oath of office.
He could not get away from my door fast enough.
The issue of eligibility is, in my humble opinion, a HUGE reason why sitting republican incumbents are going to be swept out by tea party candidates this Nov. The refusal to defend the Constitution they swore to uphold is unforgivable. The GOP has been silent. The results of their cowardice is manifested in their having lost many primaries to the tea party.
The silence of the media and the Democrats on this issue is no excuse for the GOP. They wouldn’t be losing seats to the tea party candidates if they had any voice at all on the Obarry’s eligibility.
Quote from Citizen Concerned:
“That is the most uneducated and stupid response ever. They are in effect stating that even anchor babies are natural born citizens.”
Yes, that is exactly what they are saying. In the last e-mail I sent to my worthless Congress people I asked them for a yes or no answer to this question:
If a baby is born in the U.S.A. of parents, one of whom is a Citizen of Saudi Arabia and the other a Citizen of Iran, when the baby meets the article 2 residency and age requirements, will they then be Constitutionally eligible to be president of the U.S.A.?
I ask them to answer yes or no, and if the answer is yes to include the supporting documentation from which they made their conclusion.
To me the proof that the worthless Congress and useless media do not believe their own words is their refusal to openly discuss, demand an investigation and/or a Supreme Court decision, or to do anything other than stonewall, obfuscate, and send out talking points on this issue.
All of them cannot be as dumb as the letters they send out make them sound, so I assume they are intimidated.
Probably I’ll get still another nothing reply.
And, here is the worthless reply I received from Senator Kohl who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee – actually, BOTH my senators sit on that Committee (Sen. Feingold being the other):
Dear _______:
As you may know, Hawaii became a state on August 21st, 1959. President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, making him a United States citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. President Obama’s birth certificate has been made public, and is widely available online. This document has been authenticated by a variety of sources, including the Hawaii Department of Health and the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Additionally, on December 5, 2008, the United States Supreme Court considered Donofrio v. Wells, a case questioning President Obama’s citizenship, in conference. The Justices voted not to hear this case, making it the second case related to President-elect Obama’s citizenship that the Supreme Court refused to hear. The first, Berg v. Obama, was rejected at conference on November 3, 2008.
On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. I am confident that President Obama meets all of the legal requirements to serve as our President.
I hope this information proves useful to you. If I can be of assistance to you in any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Herb Kohl
United States Senator
Your young campaigner obviously lied when he said he had never heard of obama’s eligibility problem, as he stated all of the talking points (except the Birth advertisement in the Hi. newspaper). I have been educating my kids about this, and it is apparent that the knowledge was lost in public schools. Their primer on the Presidential election states that the requirement of POTUS is “a US Citizen that was born in the US”, and their teachers have tried to correct my kids correct definition by saying “oh no, if you were born in the US you are eligible”.
I hope you went personally to that teacher and the superintendent of that school and set them straight.
It would be interesting to know who the title, author and publisher are of that primer these children have in their schools. I wonder what the law says re: educational material printing factual errors. That would be the equavalent of publishing a history textbook that said the Revolutionary War was fought in 1919. I would love to see Sharon interview them. In the meantime the teacher could go into the internet and print out the requirements.
“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.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html
According to an unnamed HI state agency, a “natural born citizen” is anyone who was born in the U.S. irregardless of either parent’s citizenship status.
That is the most uneducated and stupid response ever. They are in effect stating that even anchor babies are natural born citizens.
Osama Bin Laden or someone of his ilk inpregnates a woman and sends her to the States to have the baby. The young lad eventually moves to the Middle East for his primary/secondary education and indoctrination. As a young adult, he returns to the U.S. to attend a prestigious Ivy League school and majors in political science and then attends law school. He immediately starts seeking to secure a political position at the local or state level, then works his way up the political ladder, and eventually runs for President and wins the election. He then proceeds to destroy the U.S. from within.
According to the SoH, the above scenario is perfectly acceptable since the President is after all a “natural born citizen.”
Unbelievable.
Great job. I recently had a similar but different experience. I live in one of the most liberal college towns on the left coast and literally just blocks from a major university. The Republican state senate candidate for my district was going door to door in my neighborhood to introduce himself. I happened to have my front door open and Fox News blaring in the background.
He introduced himself and I returned the introduction that I was a lifelong conservative/Constitutionalist, then commented that it must be tough going door to door, particularly in the most liberal area in the city. He commented that he heard FNC so he knew it was safe to approach the door.
He then said he has surprisingly been wel- received and that the liberals had not chased him off the doorstep or refused to answer the door; that even many of them are tired of the out-of-control spending. My state happens to be CA’s Mini Me. The economically affluent ones (CA state government pensioners, no doubt) come here to retire due to the major cost-of-living difference and they have infected the local and state politics for years.
I asked him what he thought about the eligibility issue. While he did not outright state that he believed that Obummer was ineligible, he did acknowledge that there are more questions than answers and that we deserve to know the truth in the name of transparency.
He asked if I would be willing to place a yard sign, and I replied “Heck, yes.” My sign will probably be the lone one in the entire neighborhood since no good liberal would ever advertise that they are starting to question deficits and budget shortfalls and the subsequent tax increases that follow.
This guy gets my vote just for the simple fact that he acknowledged that Obummer has some ‘splaining to do. That my friends that is what I call progress, at least in my city.
Thanks for the proofreading and corrections, Mrs. Rondeau.
————–
Mrs. Rondeau replies: I guess I can’t help myself!
joseph farah of world net daily has declared obama ineligible by reason of default . says it is time to ratchet up the pressure on him.
Read this from WND:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=202929
No matter how tired you are of pressing the ineligibility and issue getting no apparent result….now is the time to intensify your efforts. More phone calls to our useless Congress. Ask them to answer specific questions about Constitutional requirements for president. Send them certified USPS letters, e-mails and faxes. Ask them if they have received Lucas Smith’s 7 page certified and notarized letter that includes the Kenyan Obama birth certificate, and what action do they intend to take.
Send stuff, call, e-mail, fax Congress members other that yours.
Leave messages at Glenn Beck’s The Blaze tip line:
http://www.theblaze.com/
It’s at the bottom of the page.
Call every day if possible.
Some are saying this issue is almost at critical mass, where something WILL be done….let’s do what’s necessary to help make sure those who say we are almost there are right!!
As a grandparent homeschooling, I can report that the good Christian curriculum we used last year had this wrong. I emailed them, and they did not respond. So I tweeted, which is pretty public, and they said they would look into it. The requirement is “natural born citizen” and they had it “native born.” I checked another older history book, and the regular text which students never read had the correct wording, but the edge margin notes said “native born” again.
Text books are critical. I’ve also found entirely too many references to how evil we were in westward expansion…. No mention of the natives attacking settlers… We cover these things and discuss them very carefully. Also, if the population of blacks is 10-15 percent why do they get 30-40 percent of the history stories in these more recent textbooks? There are now more hispanics resident in the country than blacks, and after a bit, we will be getting what…half hispanic history? From all the central American countries and Mexico? Sheesh. This incessant inclusiveness is driving me nuts.
Next they will feel obliged to include all the separate groups…. No wonder kids only read the margins….
You know, I hear this from a good friend about colleges and universities, you’re only going to learn what they teach inside their little box, which is mostly lies. So in talking to those going to college and wanting to get degrees, he says, just do what you have to do to learn and get your degree, but for the real truth, keep learning Scriptures, along with true science, true history, etc. This is what he teaches. True science is a part of the Scriptures in a big way. Isaac Newton knew this too, and he was one of the greatest scientists ever. Without his writings, we’d be further behind. Nowadays the Intelligent Design issue has come forward, and they are making a huge headway. Time for the real change, huh? Not BO’s so-called change.
Great report Mr. LaRocque!
I had an uncle who was a professor (emeritus) at Harvard (progressive’s progressive). He told me over and over through the years that his main push was to get his students to learn how to learn. He really believed that he was doing this and that society was a better place because of it (henry kissinger was one of his students/graduate assistants). Being on the outside looking in (so to speak), he was actually teaching them critical progressive thought. I can say this because I discerned these things through conversations with him and those in my family that he held sway with. I loved my great uncle but he was a global elitist that believed (as many of his associates also believed) in a socialist new world order (this is not a “rightwingnut” conspiracy). BTW, my mother (his niece) had a German national father and an American mother and everybody in the family knew that she couldn’t become POTUS (dual citizen). So if you ever had any doubts that the progressives (at least those of station) really don’t know that obama is ineligible, they do know and actually it’s part of their plan to “evolve” the Constitution through attrition.
Perhaps we should place more emphasis on the Founding Fathers’ original intent behind the natural born Citizen clause in our discussions with the Obamites? That is to say, singular loyalty and undivided allegiance to one and only one country of which Obama/Soetoro has none. See Vattel’s 1758 legal treatise.
It’s been attempted. The Obots simply bring up English common law, which uses “natural born” where Vattel would have used “native born,” and argue that the Founders, being Brits, would have used the British terminology instead of that of a Frenchman (Vattel). Nevermind that British rule was what they fought to be free of and nevermind that the writers of the Constitution were readers of Vattel and discussed his writings with one another.
At the end of the day, there’s simply no reasoning with Obots.
If you are referring to the British term “natural born subject”, then there are big differences between that term and that of “natural born citizen”. One big difference is that naturalized citizens in Britain were deemed to be natural born subjects. In the US, naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens and thus are ineligible to be President.
The French had a huge influence in our Revolutionary War; the French supported it and fought in it against the British along with us rebels. This was very interesting on PBS last night. LaFayette was only 19 years old when he became one of George Washington’s closest supporters and a military leader. It brought out that LaFayette was a huge influence with Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers in the writing of our Constitution and other pertinent documents.
‘Lafayette: The Lost Hero’ Premiers on PBS » HistoryNet
A new documentary on PBS explores ‘Lafayette: The Lost Hero,’ reminding Americans of the story of a man who played an important role in their War for …
Texoma, we both know that but my comment was a response to MacPUBLIUS’s suggestion of bringing up Vattel when discussing/debating with Obots. You bring up Vattel, they say the Founders were Brits and would have used British common law terminology. You then bring up “subjects” vs “citizens” and they say they’re the same. You tell them why they’re not the same, they holler “Raaacissst!” and then cover their ears and repeat over and over, “I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you. I can’t…”
Death to the king!!……Long live the Republic!!
Article II doesn’t say anything about the status of parents? Where are you getting this info?
——————-
Mrs. Rondeau replies: No, but the Vattel definition, which is believed to be that which was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 1, clause 5, mentions that the parents have to be citizens of the country at the time their child is born in order for that child to be considered a “natural born Citizen.” This would eliminate any potential foreign influence or allegiance in that child.
“This would eliminate any potential foreign influence or allegiance in that child.”
This is exactly what the Founding Fathers were concerned about — foreign influence. John Jay, our first Supreme Court Chief Justice, expressed this concern very clearly in his letter to Washington at the time of the Constitutional Convention:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Our Founding Fathers understood that foreign influence came from a foreign birthplace, foreign birth parent(s), and/or from having lived recently in a foreign country. The natural born citizen requirement is the “strong check” against foreign influence coming by birthplace and by parents.
Requiring that the President having lived the last 14 years in the US is the “strong check” from foreign influence that comes from having lived in a foreign country. Think of these 14 years like a cleansing period — a time to cleanse a future president from the foreign ideas he/she became exposed to.
Obama once stated that he was a “Citizen of the World.” A natural born citizen of the USA, born of the soil and full blood of the nation, would never say something like that.
Indeed, it is the only definition that truly makes sense.
You need to read the extensive writings on this subject by Constitutional scholar and attorney Mario Apuzzo at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
“The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth
…The meaning of a “natural born Citizen” as expressed by Vattel, including that both parents of the child must be citizens at the time of the child’s birth in order to make the child a “natural born Citizen,” was carried forward in American history following the Founding. ”
Also:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html
“Obama – Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a ‘natural born Citizen’ of the United States
“On the other hand, for children born after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, the same Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides, among other things, that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. An Article II “natural born Citizen” is one granted that special status under American common law that has its origins in natural law and the law of nations. With citizenship being a matter of status having international implications, the Framers would have expected its definition to be supplied by public law or the law of nations and not by any municipal or English common law, which the States continued to use to resolve their local problems concerning contracts, torts, property, inheritance, criminal procedure, etc. Under the law of nations, to be a “natural born Citizen,” the child needed to be born in the United States (or what may be deemed its equivalent) to two citizen parents. This definition of a “natural born Citizen” is found in and has been confirmed by the following United States Supreme Court cases and other authorities:
…2. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759): Vattel clearly distinguished between “citizens” (“citoyens” in French) and “naturals” (“naturels” in French). His title for Section 212 is “Des citoyens et naturels” (“Of citizens and naturals” which the English translators called “Of the citizens and natives”). He therefore saw that there is a difference between the two types of citizens. He then explained that difference: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”. In the 1797 English edition, the translator replaced the word “indigenes” with “natural-born citizens.” Hence, it read: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Hence, while the definition of a natural born citizen never changed in Vattel’s texts, the term to express it was changed from “indigenes” to “natural-born citizens.”
There is much, much more on this site.
Attorney Apuzzo is the attorney in the case Kerchner et al v. Obama which is currently at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and which will probably go to the Supreme Court absent an earlier resolution of this matter. His appeal brief in this case is a magnificent and thoroughly researched treatise on Article II of the United States Constitution.
David,
Thank you for giving that kid an education. You taught him truth, which he probably wouldn’t ever get in college. Isn’t that something? He probably doesn’t know anything about it really except what you told him. Now he can go forth and research more. Being as he’s young, he might just do that, hopefully.
Anyway, you did great!
Mrs. Rondeau, thanks for the reply. However, if we are arguing law, shouldn’t we use the law? Since it is not spelled out in US Code or the Constitution, how good of an argument is it? Just a thought.
—————–
Mrs. Rondeau replies: The fact is that the U.S. Supreme Court has never conclusively ruled on the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” There is Vattel, and there are those who say that as long as the person is born on U.S. soil, he or she is “natural born.” But as others have mentioned, why would the Framers of the Constitution have put in the additional words “natural born”? They must have an extra meaning beyond that of “Citizen.” That might be why Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas joked with Rep. Jose Serrano several months ago, saying, “We’re evading that issue.”
It makes no sense to me that the words “natural born” are in the Constitution and the senate committee used them when declaring that Senator McCain was eligible in 2008 but we aren’t going to define it or look at it? That’s ridiculous. Just because it is not spelled out in the Constitution doesn’t mean there isn’t a definite meaning to it. One has to go back to the Founders for the interpretation.
And then there is the very real Senate Resolution (511, I think but not sure) passed in April of 2008 where a committee with Obama on it investigated the natural born status of John McCain and concluded, in written form, that, since he was born of two American citizen parents, and although born outside of the U.S. in the Panama Canal zone (under American authority at the time), he was indeed verified and confirmed by our own Senate in this resolution, that he was indeed a natural born citizen and eligible to be President of the U.S.
Thank you for pointing out that it is the media that have educated or shall I say BSed the public. This is a word of mouth war and we either win it with warm handshakes and smart words or there will be no sense in touching or speaking softly any longer.
I love it! You just never know what your influence upon him will be. He may do some research on his own, or he may relate the story to someone else who will be sparked to find the truth. Well done! (:
Thanks David, that was interesting and I can use his “arguments” when I send my next ineligibility letter to my worthless Congress people:
Here is a copy of an e-mail I received today from Senator Blanche Lincoln.
Unforunately, I did not save the e-mail to her she is basing her reply on…..but, she thanks me for asking about the Constitution so it was no doubt clearly about Obama’s ineligibility.
How about this reply from Lincoln? Makes me feel so good about my Congressional representatives………..NOT!!
From Lincoln:
Thank you for contacting me about the United States Constitution.
When I decided to run for public office, I made a promise to the people of Arkansas to represent them to the best of my ability. Throughout my public service, I have committed myself to studying each issue considered in Congress, and to carefully weigh the potential benefit, or detriment, that it could have to the constituents I represent. The Constitution authorizes members of Congress and the President to propose legislation. As your Senator, I value your input on issues that need to be addressed, or on pending legislation that you feel strongly about. Many of the great ideas that have spawned legislation that I have offered have come from constituents such as you. While it is the Constitutional responsibility of the Congress to write legislation itself, I value the ideas and take into consideration the suggestions of my non-elected constituents. I appreciate your thoughts concerning this matter, and I hope you will continue corresponding with me on issues that are important to you.
Thank you again for contacting me on this important matter. To learn more about my work in Congress, I encourage you to visit my online office and sign up for my e-newsletter at http://www.lincoln.senate.gov. I am proud to serve the citizens of Arkansas in the United States Senate and hope you will not hesitate to contact me whenever I may be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Blanche L. Lincoln
Bla…..bla…bla….what a worthless nothing reply.
I’ll call her office tomorrow and see if I can get the text of my letter she is referencing. I will also read her letter to the phone talker…it’s pretty funny…and sad.
My impression of Blanche Lincoln after meeting her last year is that she is a professional glad hander with the attention span of an Irish Setter in a poppy field filled with butterflies.
… and this accomplished what?
I don’t know – what do you think it could have accomplished?
Perhaps it will get back to the Bilbray campaign, and perhaps some of his staffers will be giving this issue some additional thought, and even discussing it in their staff meetings.
Perhaps, if Rep. Bilbray has any integrity and loyalty left, he will devote some additional reflection on the subject of the true meaning and significance of his oath of office.
Perhaps these articles will finally shame Rep. Bilbray into doing what he should have done many months ago.
Perhaps nothing will change, but Rep. Bilbray will not be able to say that he did not know that there was a usurper in the White House, and that he was one of the people who were responsible for doing something about it.
Funny as heck … and completely justified. Good job!!!
Thank you Mr. LaRocque for this article, and for being a true American, …as odd as it may seem to be “thanked” for being an American, I do sincerely mean it, …a true American-Sovereign Constitutional citizen.
The young man states… “he was quite familiar with the United States Constitution.” Really?
They say… “As California goes, so does the rest of the nation.” His piteous defensive arguments are yet another sign of our times our country is in severe trouble.
You meanie! :-) Now he’ll probably change his major to something worthless like biology or engineering!
Good job. But-
We better check the history and civics books. I’m guessing all the requirements for presidency are not even being taught in the schools. Coincidence, I don’t think so, all part of the brain washing for the N-W-O.
That is a good point, and if anyone knows someone who teaches American history, ask them what the eligibility requirements for being president are.
What a wonderful story. And that young man probably got more education just then than he’ll get in college.