WILL THESE “PUBLIC SERVANTS” EVER DO THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY?
January 25, 2011
Dear Editor:
The following letter was sent to Rep. Elton Gallegly of California’s 24th Congressional District on January 23, 2011:
Dear Congressman Gallegly,
I am shocked and deeply concerned. How Congressman Cantor, one of your colleagues, could display such incredible ignorance on a subject which has consumed this Country for so long? They all claim to love this Country and its Constitution, and yet have clearly not bothered to read what the fuss is all about in relation to Mr. Obama, only days ago, Speaker Boehner made the same display of total ignorance on the same subject, eligibility. Despite all the mailings we have done and the many, many letters we have collectively and individually sent to each and every member of Congress. Not ONCE but many times. We have been ignored, we do not deserve this.
I am writing to you because I do not want you to fall in the same trap.
It is essential and absolutely crucial that you rectify this situation immediately. I am an ex- New Scotland Yard Officer from the British Police. I have been a Citizen here for the past twenty five years or so. Throughout my Police Service I studied and was involved in the fight against, primarily Marxism and the Communist efforts to infiltrate and overrun Europe. I know what I am talking about; there is much I could tell you. You MUST acquaint yourself regarding Obama’s background, upbringing and his real Politics. It is a dangerous situation. You must not remain as blissfully ignorant as others appear to be. I can recommend various reading material.
For a start, and quite simplistically, I have covered the “Eligibility” matter below. Please read it, we are not “Birther Nuts” This MUST be faced and dealt with. I hope you understand, Sir, there is a very real possibility that this country is currently being run (and ruined) by a man who is not only a fraud, but an Alinsky-Marxist, who is, quite possibly not even eligible to be in this country! Are you prepared to allow this to continue? We are NOT. Please get up to date.
With regard to “Eligibility” it really is quite simple, and once the facts that matter sink in, there is no alternative conclusion.
According to the law enacted by the 1st Congress, session II, Ch. 4, whether he was born in the State of Hawaii or not, he is ineligible to run for, or be elected to, the office of President of the United States because the law stated” “…the children of citizens (both parents) of the United States, shall be considered natural born citizens; provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any State, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of that State in which such a person was proscribed. (a) Approved, March 26, 1790.” What does that mean? It means the father must be a citizen to transmit citizenship to a child of his seed who was born in this country. If he is a natural born citizen, he will transmit that right to his offspring. If he is a naturalized citizen, he transmits that right. He cannot transmit a right he does not possess. Thus, if he is not a citizen of the United States, he cannot transmit citizenship rights of any type to his offspring since he has none to bequeath. Which means any illegal alien cannot transmit US citizenship rights to an illegal offspring since they lack citizenship. The parents, and their US-born offspring are legally subject to deportation.
It is probable that Barack Hussein Obama’s father was born in Kenya and was never a citizen of the United States, thus he could not transmit citizenship rights to his son—except Kenyan citizenship rights, which he did. England claims Barack Obama is a citizen of Kenya. He is also a citizen of Indonesia since his step father, Lolo Soetero, who legally changed Obama’s name to Barry Soetoro, renounced both any claim Obama had to US citizenship through his mother, or Kenyan citizenship through his father. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport which suggests the international community viewed him not as an American but an Indonesian. As did Occidental College which, it now appears, gave him a foreign exchange student scholarship.
While Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was a naturalized citizen, under federal law she would have had to be 19-years of age when she gave birth to be able to transmit citizenship rights to a foreign-born son. She was 18-years, 8-months and 5-days old when her son was born on August 4, 1961. Because his father was not a natural citizen of the United States he could only transmit the type of citizenship he possessed. Since he was not a US citizen, he could not even transmit naturalized citizen status. And, since his mother was 3-months and 25-days shy of being able to transmit natural birth status to her first born son, any legal status is in question even if Obama was born in Hawaii—which the effort, and money being spent by Obama to conceal his birth records, together with statements by Kenyan Minister of Lands, James Orengo and Kenyan Minister Bonny Khalwale who claim Obama is native born In Kenya, suggests that the only actual, legitimate long form, birth doctor-affirmed birth certificate Obama has is Kenyan. And thus, even though US law was changed in 1986, he would at least have had a citizenship argument even though he could still not have gotten around the lack of standing of his father to qualify as a natural born citizen. The law was further diluted in 1994, 33 years after his birth. But, once again, too little, too late for him.
So, hopefully, you can see there is a problem. I have very briefly covered the subject, but it is accurate, there is no doubt. The Birth Certificate does not matter at all, it was always a red-herring. The FACT is, his father was never a Citizen of the USA, so Obama Jnr could never be a Natural Born Citizen. He was never eligible to run. He cannot be a legitimate President. He MAY not even be a Citizen! And he is running the Country.
I would like to arrange a meeting with you when you are next in California; I would like to know why there is such reluctance to deal with this matter, which, after all, you guys got us into by failing to investigate this properly in the Certification stage.
Sincerely Yours
Neil SANKEY
————————–
The following letter was sent to the Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner:
Why are we wasting all this time and money in this Country?
The man is illegal, he is NOT Natural Born, and his father was a British Colonial protected Citizen. HE cannot possibly qualify to be ELIGIBLE to be President. Everything he has done is invalid.
Authorities need to do their job and remove him and his illegal regime!
It would be an honor to come and personally explain the intricacies of this situation to you, if you so require.
But, PLEASE take notice.
My Best wishes to you Sir,
Neil SANKEY
I simply repeated what is in the WND article. I have been assured by one who lives in Arizona and who was instrumental in in getting this legislation proposed that all the bases are covered. I only know what i have read and what I have been told. I agree the devil is in the details! Let’s hope they do it right!
GaryW and ELmo, (Easy does it guys- we’re all on the same side :-)
I have received the following reply to my e-mail to JBurges (see below) and
have sent the follow -up request for specific language. I will post if I get a reply.
Jan 27, 2011 08:43:04 PM, jburges@azleg.gov wrote:
Sam: Thank you for looking at the bill so closely. A line that should have been on the bill was inadvertently left off and so much be added in a committee hearing. Thank you for your kind words of support. Judy
Dear Representative Burges,
Could you please email me the proposed text of the language to be added
that will address the documentation of parental Citizenship.
I would assume the language would require attachments of some kind
proving parental Citizenship.
I understand that the exact language might be changed in committee.
Also please confirm that I have the bill number (HB 2544) correct.
Thank you for your patient consideration
Samuel R Brown
Follow-up to my earlier posted comment re: Arizona eligibility legislation. The information below from WND confirms my prior understanding.
…from World Net Daily:
The Arizona proposal is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama’s occupancy of the White House. It says:
Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
“I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements,” she told WND.
The Arizona bill also requires attachments, “which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury,” including “an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.”
It also requires testimony that the candidate “has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America.”
“If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state,” the plan explains.
I hope that everyone will take the time to go to my blog and see my proposed questions for Bill O’Reilly to ask Obama on Super Bowl Sunday. Obviously he will avoid the issue like the plague, but I want to underscore his failure to investigate and report on this constitutional crisis. If we get these questions out in the blogosphere he will be on notice and we can shame him for failure to do his job!
giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com
GaryW,
There is no mention in the WND article (or in HB 2544) of an “attachment” to document “Citizenship of the parents”. It is left very vague and the devil (as you know) is in the details.
There are many out there who believe that Birth in the USA is enough to establish Natural Born Citizenship. If the only requirement is to document place of birth, that bill is worse than no bill. We could easily find Obama was born in Hawaii, but as I (and from what I’ve read here), most on this site seem to believe – That ain’t enough Charlie! Jus Solis, Jus Sanguinis, you’ve got to have both.
Please tell me where you see the parental requirement in that paragragh or in HB 2544 because if it is not there, I think Arizona passing this bill will be making a huge mistake.
ELmo
> If the only requirement is to document place of birth, that bill is worse than no bill.
I disagree. “No bill” means the situation will stay the same, with no checks in place whatsoever as to at least the birthplace of the candidates. And who knows if Obama/Soetoro can actually prove his birthplace to be Hawaii (or somewhere else in the US).
As for the parental citizenship, the bill would have to be changed significantly anyway. First it does not require proof; second it remains unclear how such proof would look like, given that it may not be easy for a candidate to prove the citizenship of his parents at the time of his birth. A candidate who is 70 years old would have to prove his parents’ status from back in 1941. Doesn’t sound all that simple to me.
> Please tell me where you see the parental requirement
The parental requirement seems to be there per se, but there is no proof required, just a sworn statement, so nothing substantial from the candidate needs to be provided.
(I’ve read on Dr Taitz’ site that other states plan bills that take care of that matter, requiring proof of natural born citizenship via parental citizenship, though not all of them in the optimal way.)
THE USURPER REMAINS IN POSSESSION OF A FORM OF BRITISH CITIZENSHIP, TO THIS DAY*
NO RECORD OF HIM HAVING RENOUNCED HIS INHERITANCE, HAS EVER SURFACED
SEEMS B.O. Jr , IS EVEN MORE BRAZEN THAN MOST WHO THINK THEY ARE ON TO HIM COULD EVER HAVE IMAGINED
* based upon the official disclosure & admission of the nativity story
> REMAINS IN POSSESSION OF A FORM OF BRITISH CITIZENSHIP
Would you care to elaborate? Either he is (still) a British citizen or he is not; there is no “form of citizenship”, just like you can’t be “a little pregnant”.
However that does not matter anyway as the only relevant issue is whether he was a British citizen at birth and whether that disqualifies him from being natural born.
If he is not natural born due to his British citizenship at birth, his current citizenship status is irrelevant since he is not eligible anyway.
If, arguendo, he were natural born despite being a British citizen at birth, he would be eligible as there are no provisions in the Constitution relating to anything but birth status.
Thank you so much, Mr. Sankey. Excellent letters!!! I am so very embarrassed to say that those who are bravely standing up for this great nation are those who have come here (from other countries) within the last couple of generations, with a few exceptions. Those of our military (mostly retired), and journalists like those in this site and others are also heros as far as I’m concerned. We, who know there is a usurpation re: POTUS, number in the millions, yet the mainstream media calls us a ‘fringe’ group. We are hardly that, and the ‘truth’ will win out in the end. Thanks again Mr. Sankey for all your efforts.
“The Emperor has no clothes”
> number in the millions
If that were true, we’d have had our own Million Man March towards Washington already. The sad part is that the vast majority is still uneducated about Obummer and our rallies tally only a couple hundred people.
Thank you Mr Sankey. Hope is all we have at this point and that is rapidly losing any rational investment. It appears there is no intention to stop the usurper. The 112th has sat down and begun to work as if all is normal. One must wonder if they are just buying time to avoid the appearance of a power vacum or they are simply just as despicable. Time is wasting in either case as we become further indebted and shackled by a government gone berserk with power.
The Following email RE: Arizona HB 2544, has been sent to its sponsor Arizona State Representative Judy Burges:
Dear Representative Burges,
My name is Samuel R Brown and I live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I have two sisters and my Mother residing in Tucson and I try to keep up with the
news from that part of the world.
I have been following with prayerful interest the progress of Subject Bill (HB 2544).
I have noticed though, that there seems to be no provision in HB 2544 to document
the Citizenship of Candidates’ parents.
Since a “Natural Born Citizen” is:
1). A Child born on the Soil of the United States
2). Born of Parents who are themselves Citizens
It would seem that absent a requirement to document parental Citizenship, subject bill (HB 2544) falls short of its intended goal of ensuring Candidates for POTUS meet US Constitutional requirements.
Passing a law that would “water down” Constitutional requirements would be a mistake (IMO) since other states are “Modeling” after Arizona’s HB 5524.
Do you not think it wise to amend the bill at this time to include language that addresses the total requirements of “Natural Born Citizenship”
(that is: to include language that “Candidate document parental US Citizenship”)?
I am very pleased (and I know I speak the sentiments of many fellow Citizens) to see headway made on an issue that should have been set in stone a long time ago.
I wish you success in your endeavour and would appreciate a reply to this inquiry.
This letter and your reply (if you should choose to reply) will be posted (with the consent of publisher) in the Online newspaper Post and EMail at http://www.thepostemail.com.
Thank You
Samuel R Brown
The information circulating on conservative websites regarding the slush fund accounts in the Vatican Bank belonging to those in the highest levels of gov’t (hundreds of accounts) – funds coming from the US Treasury, if true, explains why Boehner, Chief Justice Robert, BO’s entire family including mother in law, Bush’s etc. etc. are ignoring or blocking all attempts to expose Obama. To do so reveals corruption and conspiracy of the highest order.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/154751
Thank you, Neil SANKEY for never giving up and for everything you are doing.
Even if this is true it will get stamped out before it goes anywhere.
Will the main steam media, FOX included, touch this…or Congress?
Not if they think Barry’s ineligibility will be exposed.
I hope I am wrong and the corruption and conspiracy is soon revealed.
Thank you, Miki, you may have something here.
Thank you all for your positive and encouraging comments. I am trying to be accurate without getting too technical, because I am more interested in encouraging others to take some positive action to persuade their elected representatives that ACTION needs to be taken. They must not ignore “We The People” anymore.
To ignore this subject and allow a possible total fraud to run this great country is criminal. To see that it is being run on Alinsky/Cloward & Piven – Marxist principles is even worse!
So Obama gives AZ a photoshopped BC and other documents.
Regan said VERIFY.
AZ must have a provision that allows the state to get any and all documents to verify all signed statements. That means college records, parents citizenship etc. EVERYTHING & ANYTHING that the state may want to get to verify and fully vett the candidate. And it should include at any time before and after the election. etc.
Where’s the Beef?
Give the bill some BEEF
VERIFY EVERYTHING.
> AZ must have a provision that allows the state to get any and all documents to verify all signed statements.
Then AZ would have to secede as this would be against the Full Faith And Credit Clause of the Constitution. Does AZ want to overrule the Constitution? I don’t hope so.
Obama’s speech last night was that of a liar, con-man and fraud. He addressed himself to “fellow Americans” when he is a foreigner; he praised the military when he himself is responsible for the false imprisonment of Lt. Col. Lakin; he bragged about making the military sanction, sponsor, and pay for open homosexuality while calling upon all schools and colleges to open themselves to recruitment for ROTC and enlistment; he paised the rights guaranteed by our Constitution while denying us a legitimate president and gulling the very U.S. Congress that was supposed to vet him per the 20th Amendment; he championed illegal immigrant students who say the Pledge of Allegiance, suggesting they are as good as citizens for joining in the Pledge with their teacher and fellow students; and he joked about smoking salmon, by which he meant other smoking material.
Most telling of all, our illegal leader twisted the American dream into a self-serving mockery of the rule of law by saying that “no matter who you are or where you come from, anything is possible”–no, not when the game has any rules. But that is just his point: there are no rules, and my standing before you tonight to address the nation proves my point. America is in the toilet, folks.
Just a little nitpicking, because the letter contains a few errors (though they’re not important for the message that it wants to get across):
> If he is a natural born citizen, he will transmit that right to his offspring. If he is a naturalized citizen, he transmits that right.
That is not correct. The US-born child of two naturalized US citizens is a natural born citizen, even though neither of its parents was.
> He cannot transmit a right he does not possess.
“Natural born” or “naturalized” is not a right that can be transferred (or “transmitted”, as you put it) at all, neither through birth nor any other legal or physical process.
You are confusing this with a “right” in the context of civil law (such as “the right to own this car”) where a transfer (both in the sense of “passing it on” and “sharing it”) can indeed be effected.
However you cannot “pass on” or “share” your citizenship status with anyone, unless specifically codified in law (such as in “if you’re a citizen father and your wife is a citizen mother, your US-born child becomes a natural born citizen”).
This just to clarify the issue, otherwise you would have effectively stated that only natural born citizens can have natural born citizen children, which is incorrect.
Hey Folks! Isn’t it supposed to be that in a letter to George Washington from John Jay, John Jay raised the issue of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN? And isn’t it supposed to be that because of that letter George Washington was influential in seeing that NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was included into ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 of the Constitution? In the past I have pointed out that if this is true then John Jay as the very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America ought to be then considered the father of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as it pertains to the U.S. Constitution! But what about George Washington? If George Washington had something to do with getting NATURAL BORN CITIZEN written has being the Supreme Law of the Land…wouldn’t that make George Washington a “BIRTHER” too. Can it be said that George Washington is the father of the “BIRTHER” movement? If this is the case and I think it is. Then when ever a Bill O’Reilly, or a Sean Hannity and all the rest of those propaganda pundits refer to citizens who question Obama’s legality by using the word “BIRTHER” ….AREN’T THEY CALLING GEORGE WASHINGTON, THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF AMERICA, A FOUNDING FATHER OF AMERICA….A “BIRTHER” TOO! I don’t know for sure, but if you are a “BIRTHER” then you are in good company it seems to me! And let us not forget SCOTUS Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite. I guess he is a “BIRTHER” too!
As I understand it, a “birther” (at least as coined by the mass media) is someone who doubts Obama/Soetoro’s eligiblity based on his birth history (either on his birthplace or his parents) that makes him either not a citizen at all or at least not a natural born citizen.
This is seperate from whether someone thinks that the President *should always be* a natural born citizen (such as the Founders), i.e. if someone thinks this provision of the Constitution should never be changed by an Amendment. Let’s call this the “NBC-yay/no” property.
These two lines of thought can apply to a person’s beliefs in any combination.
1. Birther + NBC-yay: someone who thinks the Constitution should always require a President to be NBC and that Obama/Soetoro does not comply with that requirement
2. Birther + NBC-no: someone who thinks the Constitution doesn’t for all eternity have to require a President to be NBC, but that Obama/Soetoro does not comply with the current requirement
3. Non-birther + NBC-yay: someone who thinks the Constitution should always require a President to be NBC but that Obama/Soetoro may or may not be an NBC
4. Non-birther + NBC-no: someone who thinks the Constitution doesn’t for all eternity have to require a President to be NBC and that Obama/Soetoro may or may not be an NBC
Most people commonly referred to as “birthers” will be #1 (though there may be some that are #2).
Washington would be #3 (as he cannot possibly have had any opinion as to the citizenship of someone who wasn’t born back then).
Don’t let the “Name Calling” intimidate you Citizen. I have a friend, whose father told him, you cannot be shamed, offended, insulted or embarrassed unless you give your permission.
Sure they can ridicule you – but you know what the truth is. The original writers of “Federalist” took that name because it was being used derisively in the colonies at the time against people who took to defend the proposed “amended” (meaning scrapped) Articles of Confederation. By adopting the name “Federalist” they took the wind out of the sails of those who wanted to use that term derisively – If you’re a “Birther” – wear it proudly and let your light shine Citizen- you will be vindicated (it is happening as we read and write these notes).
ELmo
Everyone in congress is aware that the usurper is illegal! It appears they ALL took a BIG BRIBE to ignore it and play 300,000,000 citizens for fools. In all future correspondence, please REMIND THEM we the people intend to prosecute their crimes of treason, misprision, etc and look forward to putting them in PRISON for the remainder of their lives!!!!!! Interesting how 3 great constitutionalist tea partiers (Palin , Rand and Bachman) wanting to run for President, won’t dare mention the constitutional crisis and the severe ramifications due to the illegal USURPER!!! None of them are PATRIOTS and certainly cannot be trusted same as ALL employees and guests on Fox—–because they are controlled by Rupert Murdock. He is listed on the internet as a Bilderberg– (New World Order) Same goal as Soros and his puppet–Obama! —DESTROY AMERICA!!! EVERY congressman who did not speak up about Obummer MUST be voted out in 2012!!——-Appears to be ALL of them!
Dont forget tides foundation,http://cafr1.com/WebView/3/B/HealthandFreedomConference2010.html Get Rid Of The FED. Why is it that senators and congressman dont pay into social security?
Don’t even get me started on Rupert Murdock. I’ve been told Julian Assange has some dirt on this guy and said he’ll release it if he ever feels threatened by Fox and their henchmen. Julian knows how to play ball! I’d personally hire a private investigator new york city and see what these congressmen have hiding in their closets.
It is my understanding that the Arizona eligibility initiative requires Constitutional compliance under Article II, Section I, (i.e., natural born citizen requirement) in addition to providing supporting documentation as to birth, age and residency requirements and a sworn affidavit.
Which begs the question, now that we know there is no Hawaiian BC (we knew that all along)..What documents did Obama provide the DNC to establish his eligibility?
I know the answer…….. NONE! The whole process was fraudulent and constitutes the greatest crime ever against the American people. It’s called capital treason. Congress it’s time to get off your butts and investigate, prosecute and punish.
BTW…did Barry mention this development in his “I Messed Up the Union Speech” tonight?…
It should be clear by now what needs to be done. Sadly, few of us with the needed
passion for justice and love of country and freedom have the resources to make
ourselves heard. In our first battle for freedom we had a free press that would fight for
freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is an anathema to all media now.It is a privilege,
only for those who bow to the fraud.
I am open and receptive to anyone with resources and ideas for a constructive course of
action. Be advised,no one is going to act if not we the people.
—————–
Mrs. Rondeau replies: The Patriots Union is putting together a plan in conjunction with others (www.patriotsunion.org). I would urge everyone here to take a look.
Sharon, I have not (yet) joined the Patriots Union because I fear they will, (or already have) pushed Obama’s eligibility to the back burner.
Could you give me a direct link to what their “plan” is on, (sorry to be a one-issue person), on Barry’s eligibility. I went to their website and it looked like a lot of others…general information about loss of freedom and a way to join/donate with nothing specific about the usurpation. Do you have to join to see the information I am looking for?
—————–
Mrs. Rondeau replies: No, you do not have to join to see the list of initiatives: http://www.patriotsunion.org/prime-initiatives.htm
SIR: my sincere Thank You for Standing Up for America!! You most certainly are MORE AMERICAN than the Majority of your Compatriots!
Your British forthright comments are Direct, Truthful and Sincere~your appreciation for the Constitution is refreshing, many, I believe cannot read; otherwise America would NOT be in this “Constitutional Crisis”
Congratulations on your Fortitude!
Arizona is currently debating (or is about to debate) a bill (Rep. Judy Burges) that requires documentation proving Constitutional eligibility in order to get on the State ballot. Has anyone seen the language in that bill?
From the descriptions that I’ve read, it sounds like the only documentation that will actually be required, is proof that you were born in the USA. There is no provision (as far as I know – I have not seen the actual bill) that the Candidate provide documentation of Mother’s and / or Father’s citizenship. This could actually make a bad situation worse (we won’t get two bites of the apple).
What have you heard? Anyone?
ELmo
EL
This part is what I like:
snip
“shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen,” prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
I snipped the three paragraphs below from WND. It appears that the birth certificate is but one of the documents (attachments) needed, and so I suppose that can be interpreted to mean that there needs to be documentation regarding the citizenship of the parents. The last paragraph says that the candidate must not have had dual citizenships, but this based on the candidate’s testimony and not necessarily on documentation.
Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
The Arizona bill also requires attachments, “which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury,” including “an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.”
It also requires testimony that the candidate “has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America.”
Thanks Texoma – That’s where I originally got my info. What concerns me is: there is no mention in that article of the proposed bill requiring proof of Citizenship of the parents. If a law is passed without both: 1). Proof of US Birth and 2). Proof of Citizenship of the parents – The law will have effectively amended the Constitution and we will have another battle to fight (also there are other States copying Arizona’s law). Passing a law without at least providing for 1). Proof of US Birth and 2). Proof of Citizenship of the Parents will actually make the situation worse than if no law was passed at all (IMO).
ELmo
You are probably referring to this one:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2544p.pdf
> it sounds like the only documentation that will actually be required, is proof that you were born in the USA
The requirements listed are, among others:
“AN ORIGINAL LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT INCLUDES THE DATE AND
PLACE OF BIRTH, THE NAMES OF THE HOSPITAL AND THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AND SIGNATURES OF THE WITNESSES IN ATTENDANCE”
The problem with that is that it exceeds the requirements of the Constitution (you do not need to have been born in a hospital and/or the attendance of a physician to qualify as natural born citizen).
This could be rectified by adding “IF APPLICABLE” before “THE NAMES OF…”.
“A SWORN STATEMENT ATTESTING THAT THE CANDIDATE HAS NOT HELD DUAL OR
MULTIPLE CITIZENSHIP AND THAT THE CANDIDATE’S ALLEGIANCE IS SOLELY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”
This is probably meant to address the parental citizenship issue. However, as ELmo already conjectured, it does not require proof but simply a sworn statement.
“A SWORN STATEMENT OR FORM THAT IDENTIFIES THE CANDIDATE’S PLACES OF
RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PRECEDING FOURTEEN YEARS”
The problem with that is that it exceeds the requirements of the Constitution (you do not need to have been a US resident for the 14 years preceding the placement on the ballot).
So, summing up, I think this bill needs some reworking to be both constitutional and sufficiently strict on the NBC issue, but it points in the right direction.
Thanks for the reply Daniel. As I pointed out in my reply to Texoma (below), the devil is in the details and it may all indeed be covered by what the actual requirements turn out to be on the ground. However, if the law is passed without addressing the Jus Sanguinis (Parents) issue (IMO), It will be better to not pass this law and wait to make sure all the bases are covered.
There are other states modeling after the Arizona proposed bill apparently.
ELmo
BRAVO BRAVO and thank you!
Thanks Neil. Great letter.
“While Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was a naturalized citizen”
Not sure what this means
Wasn’t Stanley Ann was born in Kansas to 2 citizen parents?
Or was she born and educated in Lebanon?
Naturalized?
Unless I am mistaken, the idea is that S. A. Dunham assumed Indonesian citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro. Yes?
——————-
Mrs. Rondeau replies: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/05/native-indonesian-soebarkah-most-likely-name-given-to-obama-upon-adoption-by-indonesian-stepfather/
Even if that were the case, it would not have removed her US citizenship unless she had officially renounced it. It would only have made her a dual citizen.
Now comes the twist: what happens if a natural born citizen also becomes a citizen of another country?
There’s only three options – either he remains a natural born citizen or he becomes a naturalized citizen or he loses his citizenship altogether.
#1: He doesn’t lose his citizenship as there is no general provision in US law that nullifies your US citizenship as soon as you become a citizen of another country. (It is irrelevant whether the other country does not permit dual citizenship as it is not within that other country’s power to take away US citizenship against US law.)
#2: He does not become a naturalized citizen. First, this would logically assume he wasn’t a US citizen to begin with (why would you “naturalize” if you already are a citizen?), contradicting #1 and the fact he was an NBC when he became a dual citizen. Second, there is no act of naturalization, neither formal nor implicit (besides there is no such thing as implicit naturalization).
So the only remaining option is the person is still a natural born citizen despite his dual citizenship.
(It might be interesting to think about whether you can lose your “natural born” status if you renounce your US citizenship and then again become a US citizen later in life, but that’s too much for this posting. ;))
Note that the case with Obama/Soetoro is different since he never was a natural born citizen to begin with.
————————-
Mrs. Rondeau replies: It appeared to me after I interviewed Sam, who was born and grew up in Indonesia, that most likely Stanley Ann became an Indonesian citizen but retained her U.S. passport to travel back into the U.S. Whether or not that was legal is a question. Regarding her alleged son, Obama, we do not know if the stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, simply put down “Indonesian” on the school registration to get him into school easily, or if Obama actually had legally become a citizen of Indonesia.
I am in the process of drafting my own letter to Mr. Gallegly, who is also my congressman. It won’t be pretty. His staff blew me off 7 or 8 months ago when I tried to arrange a meeting to discuss eligibility. I am sick and tired of these so-called “representatives.” Mr. Gallegly just toes the party line and tries to stay out of trouble. He’s in a safe district and it is obvious to me that he is a career politician who enjoys the power, perks and prestige of his position. Gallegly is typical of most of the politicians in Washington. Time to clean house!
The letters by Mr. Sankey were terrifically spot-on. They prompted me to send the following message to my congressional representative, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy:
Dear Congressman McCarthy,
As I fully expected would happen, the questions over the constitutional eligibility of Barack H. Obama Jr. aka Barry Soetoro have not abated since my previous messages to you. If anything, the matter has heated up since Hawaii’s new governor failed to live up to his vow to clear up the controversy once and for all due to his concerns that this issue could hurt Obama’s re-election chances. Rather, he revealed to a reporter that there is no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii or proof that he was born there. See: obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/hawaii-hollywood-reporter-mike-evans.html
This revelation vindicates the former Hawaiian election clerk who had stated that it was an “open secret” at his department Obama has no birth certificate on file in Hawaii. The ex-clerk even went so far as to recently sign an affidavit that his statement was true. See: wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=254401
Furthermore, I implore you to read the letters sent to your colleagues by a private investigator who has concluded that Obama clearly doesn’t not meet the natural-born citizenship required to constitutionally serve as president, regardless of whether he indeed was born in Hawaii. thepostemail.com/2011/01/25/private-investigator-sees-through-congressmens-smoke/
Needless to say, it is quite discouraging — even alarming — that this investigator, a British transplant of all people, has a greater understanding of and appreciation for the Constitution than my congressional representatives.
Therefore, I demand that you and your colleagues take this matter seriously and do what you have sworn to do upon taking office, which is to defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
P.S. If you still have doubts that the so-called “birthers” have gained any respect, do read on here: wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255201
Dear CB,
You are not alone. Sadly, I was born in California but no longer live there. I need your research help! The California Constitution says ” No Governor may serve more than 2 terms” HOW IS IT SO THAT Jerry Brown CAN SERVE A THIRD TERM?
> I need your research help!
Nothing complicated to research here.
Wikipedia says this about CA governors:
“Governors are elected by popular ballot and serve terms of four years, with a term limit of two terms, if served after November 6, 1990.”
Brown served his first two terms long before 1990.
Dear Dan,
The California Constitution clearly says “No Governor may serve more than 2 terms”, it doesn’t matter what wikipedia says. The California Constitution does not say “with the exception” of governors before 1990. But again just like with Natural Born Citizen there is a question that is in need of an answer.
That should get their attention – No mincing words there – Good letters.
ELmo
Excellent letters-commentaries! All concerned citizens should use similar explanations in contacting their own representatives as well as Boehner and Cantor (who recently refused (on “Meet the Press” to acknowledge the eligibility factor).
Thank you for your persistence, Mr. Sankey. Many of us have contacted our representatives and senators with little or no response, but we will continue in spite of their ignorance or refusal to acknowledge this national issue. You have provided the incentive.
Fine letters both, Neil … and right en pointe (balanced on the extreme tip of the toe).
Trouble is none of the Oligarchs have the courage – or sufficient insight as to what jhappened in Nazi Germany – to rise to the occasion. Instead they act as does Boehner; complete cowardice and incomprehension.