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


by Lester Kincaid

Why did Obama readily admit that his father had British citizenship before the election? Many say that Obama has lied "about everything." Is this one of those things? Is his father actually someone else?

(Dec. 15, 2010) — Mrs. Rondeau’s view of a corrupted military is certainly correct. Dr. Lakin’s actions were always suspect, though it isn’t clear who, if anyone, was guiding him. Dr. Lakin was backed by a shadowy 501(c)3 with little record of direct activism. Dr. Lakin, voicing concern about the natural born Citizen clause, referred to statute – citizenship law – rather than the dozens of statements confirming the natural law definition of a natural born Citizen, “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Birth certificates are irrelevant when a child is born of a non-citizen parent. It was all about allegiance. When the Constitution was written, the citizenship of the father became that of the wife. A child’s allegiance can be influenced by either parent. The large majority of U.S. citizens were natural born after about 1800. Obama never hid his father’s citizenship – British – or his own at birth – British.

For Dr. Lakin to apparently put his future at risk but not understand the Constitution raised doubts about his motives. The Marxists running our government have raised the level of cynicism about our government, perhaps by design. For the JAG to not have allowed discovery sounds challengeable, but with the major issue being avoided by the Supreme Court, that is, the definition of natural born Citizen, justice is now about politics. The Constitution has become Obama’s “artifact.” It will remain to be seen whether the refusal to recuse themselves constitutes “Good Behavior” on the part of the new justices. They can be removed by the Senate, and I hope most of us will not forget the Kerchner certiorari review.

CDR Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo proved that corruption now dominates the Supreme Court. The two Obama appointees, who would have lost their jobs if the Kerchner case had been reviewed, refused to recuse themselves. It is common-law and common sense that a fiduciary interest in a decision by a judge requires recusal. Three justices are clearly originalists (I suspect that Roberts, who knew Obama was illigitimate, and had the responsibility to ask the question, was the defector), and could have granted certiorari if only seven justices were part of the review.

We will probably never know Dr. Lakin’s motives, but the publicity he generated, supporting the misdirection around a birth certificate, could have been subterfuge. Obama was born a British subject. Would our framers have been so stupid as to allow a born British subject to command our military? They explicitly forbade it. Even if Obama had been born of a natural born father and a non-citizen mother, he would still not be naturally born, i.e., require no legal qualifiation. A subtle partition, explained by Mario Apuzzo, and stated to much confusion by Earl Cheit, the retired Dean of Hastings, U.C. Berkeley’s law school: Citizens are either naturally born or naturalized.

Obama’s cadre has permeated our government. His documents have been concealed, just as Chester Arthur hid his birth certificate to keep the suspicion focused on his birth, and not his father’s British citizenship, when he was born.

Dr. Lakin’s lawyers’ claims required that Obama release his records. As disgusting as it is that our judicial branch allows the concealment of the background of our most important public official, that is currently the situation. But Obama’s father’s and his own citizenship at birth are not concealed and are in violation of the Constitution. For Dr. Lakin to challenge the executive on jus soli – born on the soil – without proof, when the jus sanguinis requirement – citizen parents – was already admitted, was a guarantee of failure. As “jtx” pointed out, when SCOTUS refused to hear Kerchner, the fix was in. Our only path is through the legislature, Tea Parties, and a few honest legislators. Every legislator in Congress when Obama was elected except Nathan Deal, who did request proof of eligibility and was answered with ethics charges, is complicit. Don’t expect any of them to speak up. They only want the issue to go away.

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. What we must all work toward is having Obama prove his eligibility in 2012, if he runs. Bring it up at every opportunity. Don’t approach it from the birth certificate angle, but from his dual citizenship and loyalty. Question his anti-colonialism and why he returned the bust of Winston Churchill to Great Britain, clearly a slap in the face to them. Push to have legislation that forces all candidates to prove eligibility and loyalty to America. Candidates who support a New World Order are not loyal Americans–at least not by my definition. You cannot support world governance and our American republic. The two are opposites, and people must choose one or the other. A world without borders is nothing more than a utopian scheme doomed to failure. We lose our freedoms in the process to oligarchs.

  2. “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” – Benjamin Franklin

    Kindly, be reminded, these are the very same military “brass” that repeatidly promoted the Ft.Hood killer Hasan; and these are the very same “rank & file” that went along [knowing Hasan to be a real and present danger] and did absolutely nothing in advance of his killing rampage.

  3. I sent the following email to Governor Jindal’s office today. It is the 3rd or 4th time I have submitted it. I have received no response.

    Begins here:
    This is either the third or fourth time I have written about this subject. It says on the web site that I will receive a response to my concern, but I have not been so fortunate.

    My concern: President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA, but apparently no one in the world has standing to challenge that. Not being a natural born citizen, he is not eligible to be the president.
    I would like to ensure that we never encounter that situation again, especially in 2012 when he attempts to run for re-election. I would like for Louisiana to pass a law that requires that any person has to prove his constitutional eligibility before their name can appear on a ballot in Louisiana. Had this been in effect in 2008, Obama would not have been on the ballot.

    Now, I clearly understand why Governor Jindal might not want this law enacted, as it will prevent him from being on the ballot. But, we either have a constitution or we do not. I prefer that we do and that we live by it.

    I hope you do not remain silent on this issue, but I’m afraid you will.

    I hope to hear from you on this subject.
    Ed D

  4. Obama knew that once he moved past the “president-elect” phase, after the Electoral College, and the swearing in, that it would be hard to unseat him, due to the political question doctrine, and the legal fiction of “standing.” The Electoral College was fixed, w/Dick Cheney being as culpable as anyone (he is despicable), and the swearing in was fixed beforehand by the agreement that Roberts would publicly flub the oath, only to supposedly do it again in private (no public record of it). Roberts probably balked, but knew that he had no role at that point.
    Leo Donofrio is right. The only way to disgorge Obama from office is the Quo Warranto statute of the DC District, as laid out by the 25th Amendment, and the DC District Code. Like he said, ALL efforts outside of that will fail. That is why the Solicitor General had no response to the Kerchner suit, he knew that there would be no standing. Marbury v. Madison is dead, w/ respect to SCOTUS Constitutional review. The rule of law has been eroded to the point where the Constitution means very little at this point. Witness the “Are you kidding?” response to the question poses to Pelosi about where the Constitution allows the insurance mandate. Also witness the fact that neither Kegan nor Sotomayor recused themselves.
    The disenfranchised Chrysler dealers have the best standing at this point, and the new congress certainly helps, although they will still circle the wagons to protect their treason. Do the newly elected Tea Party members have the intestinal fortitude to publicize the true violation of Dual allegiance at birth? I don’t know, but this is what needs to be hammered into the public conciousness, not the BC issue.
    Obama’s illegal use of TARP to gift Chrysler to Fiat, and disenfranchise the Chrysler dealers went against the legal use of TARP for the Distressed banking sector. The PTB are trying to slow him down and run out the clock, so that they may set the precedent for the Usurpation. The judiciary is hopelessly politicized and corrupt. The Chrysler dealers have standing once they have exhausted all legal avenues, and TPTB know that. Congress must ultimately unseat Obama after a QW verdict is attained. THERE IS NO OTHER constitutional avenue before the next election. ALL of these other cases were doomed to fail, just like Donofrio said. It is time to move forward. If QW is not attained prior to the next election, there are laws, like here in Fla., that allow a registered voter TAXPAYER to have standing to contest the eligibility of a candidate within 10 days of an election. You all need to review the statutes in your states, and oppose Obama’s eligibility, as well as Jindal’s, if he runs.

    Here is a review of TARP and it’s use to disenfranchise Chrysler dealers:


    There is no other avenue, Donofrio is right.

    1. > there are laws, like here in Fla., that allow a registered voter TAXPAYER to have standing to contest the eligibility of a candidate within 10 days of an election

      Yes, but I can already predict how this will work out. The court would ask Hawaii for the birth certificate, Hawaii would produce another COLB and, by the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, the court would have to accept it as proof.

      There will be no court investigators sent out to seize the original Hawaiian records and put them on the court’s table. That’s not how the law works.

      There is simply no way you will get Hawaii to produce the original records.

      1. We should see the original records, but we don’t need to see them in order to show that Obama is ineligible. When Hawaii produces a COLB, in response to a court request, that COLB will show a Hawaiian birth and a foreign-citizen father named Obama Senior. The court will be forced to rule on the fact of Obama’s non-citizen father and the fact that Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Being born subject to a foreign power is the same reason why naturalized citizens are ineligible to be President.

      2. Texoma, but for that we need no specific ruling from a court since it’s already known, apparent and uncontested that Obama has a British citizen father and is thus not eligible.

        Besides, technically, we have no idea what a real birth certificate will say about the father.

        In the worst case, it will point to a US citizen father *and* Obama will be able to spin it as “oh, darn, I had *no* idea” and you can’t even get him for fraud because he will simply claim he “faithfully relied” on everything his mother told him (after all, none of us knows first-hand if his parents really are his parents, and if our papers are forged and our purported parents lie, we will have no way of knowing otherwise).
        Then he will be an NBC and we can’t do anything about it.

        In the best case, he can’t produce anything because he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

        But we really can’t be sure where this will end.

  5. And now that I have “vented” to Jedi Pauly, I will offer my humble apologies to both Jedi and all others here. I’m just so sick and tired of all the BS surrounding the bogus POTUS that I guess I sound a little irrational. Again, apologies. SallyAl

  6. My heart is broken over the events occurring in the military court martial of Lt. Col. Lakin. Events that disavow the heart and soul of the U. S. Constitution.

    That the military has anointed itself to be separate from and above the U. S. Constitution and, therefore, can unilaterally — without recourse and without any process of appeal to a higher authority — deny an active member of our armed services the basic legal protections of the U. S. Constitution, which are inviolate ‘supposedly’ to ALL CITIZENS in this country — AND TERRORISTS AS WELL — makes a mockery of the oath all members of the military swear at the moment they commit their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

    That Lt. Col. Lakin could be denied — anywhere in the judicial system of this country — the right to discovery, and the right to present a defense to a charge against him means we don’t have a Constitution any longer and are at the mercy of those who are determined to control every aspect of our lives, liberties and the pursuits of happiness which used to be guaranteed under the U. S. Constitution; before it was trampled to death.

    Lord help us all in this desperate hour of our need.

  7. Sorry but I cannot agree with much of what Lester Kincaid writes. The Courts have used a legal “out” in dismissing these bogus cases that have been improperly brought without correct standing, as far as I can tell. The courts are derelict because they are involved in a cover up, no doubt, but it is the attorneys that are incompetent. I would have to agree that the Supreme Court is up to their eyebrows in Treason. It is not the courts job however, to give an advisory opinion on the meaning of Article II “natural born Citizen” when the meaning is already understood. It is not the courts fault that these attorneys, and most everyone else, cannot see reality or understand the obvious meaning and all believe that there is some room for disagreement or confusion on the meaning. You all harbor false beliefs that are your own created illusions/delusions.

    Article II “natural born Citizen” has nothing at all to do with a mother’s citizenship or with the place of your birth. It is already defined under a Natural Law jurisdiction to mean one who is born as a native Sovereign of the county which only requires a sovereign citizen father. It is outside of the Jurisdiction of the court to define, or redefine, or set a precedent on the meaning of Article II “natural born Citizen”. They are just supposed to take recognition of its meaning which is already understood and I have just explained it to you. If the cases were properly brought, say as a Title 42 section 1983, then you might get somewhere. Or you could just petition the court to appoint a special prosecutor since Holder is in a conflict of interest and he is not a legitimate entity since he was appointed by an illegitimate President and he refuses to enforce the Constitution.

    This bogus concept that it requires BOTH parents to be citizens is due to a misreading and misunderstanding of the first sentence of Vattel’s treatise in section 212 of Chapter 19, book 1, that is taken entirely out of context and then is interpreted as a requirement in Article II, which can only be achieved by ignoring the rest of section 212 and the rest of Vattel as well as ignoring natural reality, logic, reason and by ignoring the 14 year rule of Article II, and by failing to realize that that one sentence taken out of context from Vattel is not controlling over the Declaration of Independence which the rest of Vattel supports. The Declaration of Independence is the correct historical and legal precedent that provides the correct legal framework and context for Article II “natural born Citizen”. I am sorry, but Mario’s arguments, Orly’s, etc. are nothing but evidence of ignorance, or incompetence, or conspiracy. Their stated positions fail to convince a rational mind and are rather outrageous.

    It only requires a sovereign citizen father so that the child will inherit a natural sovereign political right to be President of his fathers country according to Natural Law principles. Any conflicts in loyalty due to foreign soil or a foreign mother are taken care of by the 14 year rule of Article II which requires one to repatriate (means return to the land of your father “patrios”) and live as a U.S. citizen within the U.S. for 14 years in order to sever any foreign loyalties and reestablish your allegiance and loyalty to the U.S. It could not be more simple and obvious. People put to much stock in attorneys who are creatures of the State and will overcomplicate and screw up the law and reality every time that you deal with them.

    1. Have you seen ANY evidence the BO has severed his foreign loyalties. No not to the Brtitish but to the Muslims he grew up with? Have you not noticed that he and his wrecking crew are doing EVERYTHING in their power (and outside their power but who cares about rules) to bring America to her knees? This MUST be dealt with!
      Jedi, I mostly just read the posts here and seldom post myself. So I have read most of your explanations. Not sure if I agree or disagree. I am not an attorney. But if you have it right and nobody else does, please find a way to get this handled. I am sure that everyone that posts here and at other “birther” sites would be more than happy to assit you in any way we can. Otherwise why not just quit telling us how you are right and everybody else is wrong? Put up or shut up.

      1. I have figured it out. It is very simple. I cannot understand why others do not realize their own sovereign political status. How do you explain that people do not believe that they are sovereign citizens? Until people realize the true nature of reality that they are born to be sovereign citizens as long as they have a sovereign citizen father to inherit their sovereign political status from, then we can all get somewhere. It is clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence that sovereign political rights are Natural Rights that are Inherited from a sovereign citizen father according to the Laws of Nature. It is declared to be a self evident truth and fact of nature. Why people will not accept or realize this reality is beyond outrageous.

        I have not found that people will help. I have published my e-mail and I have been teaching this reality for two years and only a hand full of people have even acknowledged that they agree and understand. No one has offered to help me do anything about it. The answer, in my estimation, is a Title 42 section 1983 civil suit. I am not made of money and I can not do it by myself. I need help. Whenever you talk to an attorney they look at you like you are crazy for even saying that Obama does not qualify. Even Mario Apuzzo will not accept reality as I have described it and believes there is a matter for the courts to opine the meaning of “natural born Citizen” because he believes that the soil and your mother matter when in fact they don’t and are not even part of Article II. Who do you think is going to help me?

      2. Constitional Reset begins with a vote petition for redress of grievous felony to your govenor.The petition must be tuned to your state constitution,code,andFOI laws.You can lawfully obligate your govenor to make a timely responsive reply by asking for a copy of that paticlur duty ,authorized of public law,to sworn officer. Tenth amendment center

    2. It should be obvious no one has any intention of addressing this issue no matter how well
      or properly presented. The only thing preventing it from going forward is their cowardice
      or collusion.

  8. The following letter to the editor was submitted to the San Diego Union-Tribune early yesterday in response to a report of the Lakin court martial:

    Dear Editor,

    Re: Army Birther pleads guilty

    So there you have it. A certificate of live birth now counts as an official birth certificate. That’s a beaut! No matter that COLBs routinely are issued to people born elsewhere. No matter that on obama’s COLB, the COLB number has been redacted. No matter that the COLB clearly right on its face states that any alteration invalidates the document – which invalidates a COLB with a redacted number. No matter that a second COLB was produced shortly after the first one or that it too was full of errors, including no attending physician, time of delivery, etc. No matter that an ‘original’ COLB was printed on a laser printing device which was not invented until eight years following obama’s birth. So now there are two COLBs put out by the obama election campaign both claiming to be original birth certificates (which COLBs are not): They cannot both be original no matter how you slice it. So which one is the forgery? When obama was born (wherever that may have occurred), he was, by birth, a British Subject by virtue of his father being a British Subject and according to the British Nationality Act of 1948. We fought the Revolutionary War to prevent British Subjects from being our President. No matter what lies obama tells, no matter how much he spends covering up his birth certificates and other documents, no matter how many congressional resolutions are passed, and no matter how ‘birthers’ are ridiculed, an honest examination of the facts reveals that there is NO way he can be eligible to be our president. In fact, his and his accomplices’ attempts to cover up his ineligibility do nothing but make him and them prosecutable for crimes of treason, fraud, conspiracy, to name a few. Americans must face facts. The truth will come out, no matter what that truth turns out to be.

    1. I would not accept the title of “Birther”. It is in fact those that support Obama who are the “Birthers” because they argue that being born on U.S. soil is what qualifies one for the office of President. That makes them “Birthers”. We are Constitutionalists and “Truthers” not “Birthers”. I suggest turning the tables on the Obots and exposing their communist smear tactics for what they are.

      1. I refer to Obama’s believers as ‘faithers’ since they rely on blind faith that his nativity and eligibility claims are legitimate, even though he’s not. For myself, I prefer the term ‘skeptic.’

  9. I agree with Ms.Rondeau. Regardless of whom his father (OR MOTHER) turn out to be, Obama is either ineligible because of Jus Solis/Jus Sanguinis or he is an Out and Out Fraud – You can decide which is the more egregious sin. In either case he should never have been elected (and never would have been – IMO – if the facts were on the table).

  10. I will speculate at this point that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is an alias and not his legal name, and that his biological father was an an American citizen (Frank Marshall Davis or Malcom X). Let’s see, he has almost spent $2 million in legal fees to keep all of his records from becoming public. And why? Apparently because the information would prove EMBARRASING to the President, according to his lawyers and the judges that have thus far ruled that no one has standing to have access to these records. What can be so embarrasing to him other than to prove that his life narrative (from which he has benefited financially) is a complete fraud. The question will be, have any felonies been committed along the way of which he can be prosecuted.

    1. Social security number issued in CT and all 38 others indicate racketeering and his Selective Service card is a fraud too. You know all the rest.-Working the enemies.

  11. It is now crystal clear that the powers in control will not or refuse to uncover the truth about obama’s eligibility issue… ONLY thing left to do is make sure everyone in all states contact their rep’s & demand they introduce bills to make sure with absolute PROOF the canidates are 100% eligible to run… & not have it behind closed doors. Meaning that only long form birth certificates & passports which are validated by a congressional committee…….. NO EXCEPTIONS. Also MUST address the main question & that is that ALL canidates are 100% “Natural Born Citizens” required per the US Constitution. THIS WILL PROVE ONCE-N-FOR ALL THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!!

    I am hoping that someone starts a Brand NEW party for congress…. it should be called the “Constitutional Party”… only people who would be allowed to join is ones who go strictly by the US Constitution…. IT IS TIME TO STAND FAST!! Replace any politican who goes against it… IMHO

  12. Dear Sharon-I know that there are those who make much of the COLB which is actually a PAID POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT paid for by the Obama campaign, Gibbs so proud of trying to pass the COLB as a birth certificate (only a computer image). If the COLB was an internet image of a check in the amount of $10,000.00 I have to see the bank that would cash it for you. This is in the style of the Nigerian oil scams which many people fell for much to their sorrow.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Agreed; the COLB is a complete forgery. I wonder what the sentence for forgery is at the federal level in addition to all of the other crimes that have been committed?

  13. May I second CH’s comments and analysis? It is quite obvious to those who love the Constitution that “politics” may NOT trump Constitutional Order and Law.

    Lakin may have “Lost” at one level, but his “loss” has actually brought a strange triumph to eligibility seekers.

    As CH has so correctly maintained, the press is NOW all over this and it is a topic squarely in the arena of public debate. It had been marginalized by the press and pundits until now, and the fact that LTC LAKIN’s trial did not resolve it, ironically STILL exacerbates the issue for Obama.

    If anything it is a major nibble at Obama’s Achilles Heel.

    Mirroring so many of Obama’s lies, perhaps his REAL FATHER is NOT Barack Sr.
    Nonetheless, the British Subject and then later, Kenyan citizen, accepted paternity for Barry Jr.

    It may not be universally recognized or yet acknowledged, but this ASSAULT on the CONSTITUTION means the eventual end of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY which will split into various factions and cease to be a national force in American Politics.

    They have been unveiled and national awareness just needs to catch up. It will….very swiftly.

  14. Why would the Republicans be complicit in this cover-up? Congress has worked on bills to remove Natural Born Citizen requirement many times over the years.

    The biggest reason may be JINDAL!! Republicans and Gov. Jindal need to know, we will NOT vote for Jindal or any other candidate for President or VP, who is not a Natural Born Citizen. Fox News has been touting Gov. Jindal and Rubio for the top of the ticket. We need to make sure the Republican party knows in advance, It’s NOT going to happen.

    How many republican House and Senate members need to be replaced in 2012??? Every member who does not step up and protect our Constitution!! The Supreme court says this is the responsibility of the House and Senate. If you are not going to do your job in DC…STEP DOWN or we will do it for you. God Bless America

    1. I notified Bret Baier in regard to Jindal. He or his staff replied to my e-mail, by stating that I was wrong. You’re right-we need to advise the GOP big wigs that we will not support anyone who is not a “natural born citizen”.

    2. I think you are very right about Jindal being a big reason for silence among the Republicans. Another reason had to do with McCain’s ineligibility (citizen at birth by statute).

      You mentioned Marco Rubio. Do we know when his parents became citizens, following their departure from Cuba in 1959? Rubio was born in 1971 (in Florida) and so there was plenty of time. But, I have yet to find out when they became citizens.

      Here is an interesting question. If Rubio’s parents were not yet citizens in 1971 but also no longer citizens of Cuba (because they were exiles), could Rubio be considered to be a natural born citizen based upon his not being born subject to a foreign power (which is the case when a child is born in the US to citizen parents)?

  15. Why did Alito and Thomas not write dissents to Apuzzo’s case? They had an opportunity to make history by calling Obama a fraud and failed to do so.

    1. Alito, Thomas, nor any other Justice had any opportunity to write a dissent since the case was declined by SCOTUS – meaning it was a non-case in their collective “august” view.

      The Kerchner case would have to have been heard on merit for there to be any opinions – dissents or otherwise. As it is, all we have is a Supreme Court presided over by John Roberts (who most lkely sides with the Oligarchs, BTW, thinking Barry is “OK” and being too cowardly to act).

      Such a Court as this one should be known for all time as NOT the Roberts Court, but the Treason Court – so noted by Chief Justice John Marshall in his opinion in Cohens v. Virginia in 1821 where he described the non-action of SCOTUS in a case involving the Constitution as “Treason to the Constitution”. It is most certainly that – and to the American people as well!!!

  16. “When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” — Thomas Jefferson

    Obama has succeeded in fundamentally transforming the United States of America from the former into the latter.

  17. This is as simple as it can get. The facts are in their face,but they choose to ignore
    the truth, the Constitution, and the People.

    It could not be more clear,this is a challenge to the People. Accept this Fraud or Else!

  18. “But Obama’s father’s and his own citizenship at birth are not concealed and are in violation of the Constitution.”

    Please, tell us how you know who his father is.

    “For Dr. Lakin to challenge the executive on jus soli – born on the soil – without proof, when the jus sanguinis requirement – citizen parents – was already admitted, was a guarantee of failure.”

    No. It was proof that, when it comes to this man and his ineligibility to hold the office of the POTUS, there is no recourse and there will be no justice, not in the justice system or the military courts, not by arguing that his alleged father was a Brit when he was born nor by arguing that he’s not proven where he was born or to whom.

    1. AuntieMadder,
      How we know who his father is? You guys believe his online COLB which says BHO sr. is his father – that is how you know who his father is – even if it is a lie. Obama claims to be son of BHO sr and that is it. We can only go by his claims since he refuses to show his genuine bc. He actually calls himself BHO jr, for crying out loud! The whole world thinks he is BHO jr, so stop being so outrageous as to ask how do you know who his father is!!!

      Based on what he claims, he is a dual citizen (Brit or Kenyan and perhaps USA), with divided loyalty, so he has proven himself ineligible. Is that so hard to understand?

    2. It does not make any difference as to the real parentage of Obama, because Obama Senior claimed him as a product of the marriage. In the time of our Founding Fathers, all that was necessary was for the father of record to claim he was the father in actuality, which Obama Senior did in the divorce papers. In the time of our Founding Fathers there was no way to test (such as with DNA) for paternity. If a man claimed to be the father of a son, then that was good enough for all legal purposes of identity, passing on of inheritance, land grants, and especially citizenship.

  19. Excellent summary and conclusions. By “implicit” I take it you mean Traitor. All those who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, and are in public office, are now in fact Traitors to the Constitution if not actively seeking redress and remedy of the usurpation of the Office of President. This of course includes all the commissioned officers of the Military as well as the Congress (Deal perhaps excepted).

    Action now seems to fall upon the shoulders of state legislatures and Secretaries of State. Entanglement here by requiring FULL Disclosure and proof of Eligibility as per the Constitution, will put an end to this venal and corrupt scheme.

  20. Last I checked, in order to conclusively prove who one’s birth parents are, a long-form or hospital generated birth certificate must be viewed/verified, by some sort of legal authority…

    Most of us know that Obama would be ineligible if his parents are who he claims them to be, but, many still don’t know that fact…

    What if his birth parents are not who he claims them to be?
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I highly suspect that to be the case. His “mother” spent almost no time with him as he was growing up; she “returned” to school supposedly just weeks after having a baby in 1961 (the University of WA verified that it was September, not August, but that still would have been barely six weeks), and he bears a striking resemblance to Stanley Armour Dunham. Perhaps Barack Obama Sr. was a surrogate parent who was easy to put down as the father on a fake COLB because he’s dead. However, if that proves to be the case, and the truth will undoubtedly come out some day, it would prove that he’s a complete fraud. Who wants that kind of person in the White House?

    1. Best (?) case for BO is that he is a dual citizen. Thus ineligible. Worst case for BO, he has hidden who his parents really are and that makes him a fraud. Thus a criminal.
      We HAVE to find a way to force SCOTUS to make a ruling on dual citizenship because this issue WILL come up again. Guaranteed.

      1. Best (?) case for BO is being a dual citizen, thus ineligible and subject to removal from office.
        Good (?) case for BO is having different parents, thus a fraud and subject to imprisonment.
        Worst (?) case for BO is having violated the Logan Act, thus a traitor and subject to the death penalty.

    2. My suspicions exactly, Sharon. Indeed, Mr. Dunham may have had an illicit affair with a black woman that produced little Barry, whom he passed off to his daughter and Barack Obama Sr. to cover up his deeds. Frank Marshall Davis being Barry’s father is just as plausible. Perhaps Barry could very well meet the natural born citizen requirement but may end up being impeached for being a criminal fraud.

      Anyway, the $2 million in retirement and pay that Lakin will lose barring a successful appeal will match the amount Barry has spent to keep his records sealed, making for quite the high-stakes poker battle. I expect Lakin to come out on top in the end.
      Mrs. Rondeau replies: I do, too, because the truth has a way of always coming out.

  21. You need to see a birth certificate to build the next step about place of birth of parents. Dr. Lakin knows Obama is hiding the truth about who he is. It is running in national newspapers. My own Oregon paper which has avoided any truth, from some odd reason ran this article. They may be all playing games at the top to have the new Republican Congress handle it. I think the defense of Obama plays the game that it is a “political question” with “political motives.” They play this lie so often, like the Alinsky tactic, if you lie often enough, people will start to believe it. The crime has definitel happened in the political arena, but it is not a political question and motives are not political. It is a constitutional question and a legal question. Somebody has got to learn to learn judo law, and flip these Alinsky guys to the carpet! If the Obama Alinsky crowd can play this out long enough, they will have made it to the end run, and Obama’s term will be over, and all their illegal laws will be in place and their illegal Supreme Court judges sitting safely chained to their seats. It is pretty obviously this is a game being playing one way publicly and another very different way privately. God bless America….He knows what is going on, and has warned about “plotting.” It will come to no good for those who undermine Truth.