CONSTITUENT EDUCATES SENATOR ON THE MEANING OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
February 9, 2011
Senator Roy Blunt
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Blunt:
I am grateful for your reply to my letter of January 7 regarding eligibility requirements, but I am disappointed in your response for several reasons.
1. You must be an honorable man, but you completely ignored the fact that at the time of his birth, Barack H. Obama II owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed, it is admitted by Obama himself. Thus you failed to respond to the central point of my letter: because Obama’s father was a foreigner, Obama II is not a “natural born Citizen” (nbC), regardless of where he was born, and is therefore ineligible for the presidency. I pointed out that nbC is different from plain citizen, but you write as if the only question is whether Obama was born in Hawaii. It is impossible for someone born with foreign allegiance to be nbC.
2. You quote Article II, Section 1 and then say it is up to the states and the courts to determine eligibility. You completely ignore my argument that Section 3 of the 20th Amendment calls for Congress to act after an unqualified person has been elected to the presidency. No state has the power to in effect override or nullify the MANDATE of Article II, Section 1. Senator Blunt, you solemnly swore to “support and defend the Constitution” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” but now you violate your oath by saying that ensuring eligibility per Artilce II is someone else’s job. That seems unworthy of an honorable man.
3. You deceptively defend your evasion of your duty by saying that “courts have jurisdiction” over eligibility, that “several courts have dismissed cases questioning President Obama’s citizenship,” and that “on December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court turned down an appeal” in this matter. You imply that our courts have duly searched for the truth and examined the evidence, but that implication is false, since the courts have never permitted a trial of truth but have instead denied the plaintiffs “standing,” even going so far as to say it is up to Congress–i.e., YOU, honorable sir–to handle the matter.
4. You, having the honor of representing the “Show-Me State,” have let yourself be fooled into accepting Obama’s online computer-generated COLB as proof of Obama’s Hawaiian birth, although that digital image of a purported secondary document lacks specific verifiable documentation such as hospital and doctor’s name, doctor’s signature, and raised seal of the state. Again, you ignored my statement that there is “abundant and credible evidence that Barack H. Obama II was actually born in Kenya.”
With my previous letter to you dated September 12, which you did not answer, I enclosed a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate with these comments, which I now ask you to consider thoughtfully:
Unlike the purported secondary document from Hawaii, which Hawaii has never verified as authentic, the Kenyan Certificate of Birth is a primary document that bears a certificate number, states a hospital of birth, is signed by the doctor, signed by the supervisor of obstetrics, signed by or for the chief administrator who released the document on Feb. 19, 2009, has the imprint of baby Obama’s foot, and bears an official seal.
It does not take an expert in document authentication to see that the Kenyan birth certificate ranks much higher in face validity than the possibly forged document produced by Obama’s own campaign office in 2008.
If there is any question that our Commander-in-Chief is a foreigner, Congress should immediately investigate the facts and hold open, fair hearings to definitively ascertain the truth.
5. You have been furthered snookered into accepting the Annenberg Public Policy Center as being some sort of legitimate authority on document authentication, whereas the actual source for the pseudo-validation of Obama’s COLB was FactCheck.org, a two-person leftist website that is a political arm of the Annenberg Foundation. This is the same foundation that funded the Chicago Challenge, run by Obama and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, so it can hardly be considered an objective source of truth. I wish you were wise as well as honorable.
6. I appreciate your offer to converse further on Facebook, but as your constituent I am asking you to take action on my behalf. Specifically, I ask that you do whatever is needed to have a congressional committee fully and fairly investigate Obama’s eligibility. If a congressional committee finds that president-elect Obama is not eligible per Article 2, Section 1, I ask you to sponsor a bill or joint resolution saying Obama suffers from a constitutional disability for office in that he does not qualify for the office and that therefore Section 3 of Amendment XX is hereby invoked.
Amend. 20, Section 3 states ” . . . OR [emphasis added because that “or” is key] if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President . . . until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Clearly the Framers of the Constitution foresaw the possibility of removing an unqualified President AFTER he had been elected. And it does not require impeachment and a trial. The common argument that since Obama won the election we have to live with it is false. Congress should hold hearings and determine once and for all two things:
A. Was Barack Obama born a citizen of the United States? (This has never been established as a legal and verifiable fact. Don’t play ostrich. Make Obama show his authentic, long-form, doctor-signed, officially sealed birth certificate. Show me, Senator, that you are not a coward.)
B. Is Barack Obama a natural born Citizen as that term was used in the Constitution? (In answering this Congress might well request an opinion from the Supreme Court, sans those justices appointed by Obama.)
Finally, may I say that as a Senator you are greatly superior to both Claire McCaskill and Robin Carnahan. You are the best Missouri has to offer this country, as I hope you will soon demonstrate by acting honorably in this matter of great consequence to us all.
Sincerely,
Harry Hunter
Editor’s Note: The above letter was sent after Mr. Hunter received the following from Sen. Blunt:
The text of the letter reads:
Thank you for contacting me regarding citizenship and eligibility requirements for public office. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states that “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.”
As you may know, President Obama’s campaign released a copy of his certification of live birth in June of 2008. The Constitution gives power to the states to determine a candidate’s eligibility to run for office and the courts have jurisdiction to oversee this process. Hawaii’s health Department, Registrar of Records and the Univeristy of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center have verified the authenticity of his certification of live birth. Several courts have dismissed cases questioning President Obama’s citizenship and on December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court turned down an appeal asking the court to consider the citizenship status of President Obama.
On July 17, 2009, during my time in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 593 passed with my support. This resolution recognizes and celebrates the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s entry into the Union as the 50th state and honors President Obama’s birth in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (www.blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.
Sincere regards,
Roy Blunt
Read the new book: ‘OBAMA – INELIGIBLE TO SERVE – LIES, CRIMES AND DEADLY AMBITION”. (Amazon) This explains ALL the LEGAL FACTS, in precise detail, that prove Obama is NOT ELIGIBLE to be President. There is no other book that does this.
Blunt@senate.gov
House Resolution 593 is a complete farce in that such a resolution cannot make something a fact that is not a fact. Furthemore,with regard to House Resolution 593,not only is Obama not an NBC but according to another House Resolution signed in 1993 Hawaii is NOT a bona-fides State.
See PL103-150,An Apology made by the USA to Hawaiian Nationals for having illegally overthrown the Sovereign Nation of Hawaii.
Also,let us not forget the provisions of 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381.
Obama is a traitor and is prohibited from serving in “ANY office under the United States”.
All Valid points Robert Laity, thank you; and America had damn well better wake up to the fact that all our politicians, and judges are selling us out for a lousy bowl of pottage. HOW DARE THEY !!!. “THE BLOODY TRAITORS – FOR HAVING GONE THIS FAR, WITH ALL THIS CRAP.
Gargoyle,
Your statement regarding the Kenyan BC should be redacted. How can you make claim that the Kenyan birth doctor does not exist? Everyone is very well aware that the birth doctor James O. W. Ang’awa was a real doctor that worked in Mombasa in 1961. As for signatures, why haven’t any been produced to refute the signatures on the Kenya BC that Lucas obtained? If the Kenyan BC is fake then why hasn’t someone refuted the signatures?
Metro,
In the future, please take the time to read what I wrote before attempting to refute it.
I did not say that Dr. Ang’awa did not exist. He did. That’s something that can be reliably deduced by examining historical records. As to whether or not Ang’awa delivered Obama, all we have is a claim presented by someone who society would generally consider to be an unreliable source. Records indicate that Dr. Ang’awa was probably working in Nairobi in August of 1961.
“why haven’t any been produced to refute the signatures on the Kenya BC that Lucas obtained? If the Kenyan BC is fake then why hasn’t someone refuted the signatures?”
There is no reason to spend time or resources attempting to refute unsubstantiated claims. Your premise would mean that we should accept any and all claims, regardless of source, to be valid unless proven otherwise.
Placing the burden of proof on the claimant isn’t some novel idea.
Gargoyle is twisting logic into knots when he misleadingly replies to Metro, “Your premise would mean that we should accept any and all claims, regardless of source, to be valid unless proven otherwise.” That is just silly. Gargoyle is apparently missing the central point that our whole government has been fooled into accepting a computer-screen image of an unverified secondary document as valid proof of Obama’s citizenship. It is Obama who needs to prove that he is a natural born citizen as he claimed to be when he ran for president. That is the claim that people have been gulled into accepting uncritically.
The Kenyan birth certificate and other evidence provide ample cause for a reasonable and prudent person to doubt Obama’s claim to an American birth. The most powerful evidence of all is the fact that, despite widespread public doubt and numerous lawsuits, Obama has not produced a certified copy of his actual birth certificate–the long form document with a hospital name, doctor’s name, raised seal, and signatures. These reasons for doubt all scream out for investigation now.
To suggest that all must proven before an investigation is undertaken is illogical. Let’s have the investigation and THEN draw final conclusions about the Kenyan birth certificate. We do not have to prove to Gargoyle–and no private person can do so, as Gargoyle must know– that the Kbc is authentic before it is worthy of investigation. That is what the investigation is for. Congress has the authority to investigate presidential eligibility. Congress can subpoena witnesses, consult documentation experts, query the Supreme Court, issue requests to foreign governments, and pay for all the expenses involved. I can’t do all that. If I could, there would be no need for an investigation.
——————-
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Even if the Kenyan BC is fake, I find it remarkable that neither Obama nor anyone on his staff has refuted it and brought up Lucas Smith on charges of forgery. That doesn’t seem to have happened. In my opinion, Congress certailnly should investigate given the preponderance of evidence that Obama does not meet the definition of “natural born Citizen” and is therefore a usurper to the presidency.
Lucas needs to submit his document to forensic analysis. Then let the chips fall where they may. He has already testified (By means of affidavit) under penalty of perjury to how he came by this document. It has an Identifying footprint on it – It has signatures, a seal, I’m sure this document could be validated or debunked by an expert (or experts) relatively quickly.
ELmo
Touche. This is what I have said all along. The courts won’t order its authentication and NO ONE who is in the position to act on it will take it seriously until such authentication takes place.
Smith has not even provided one iota of evidence that he was in Kenya. Why not? Why doesn’t he have a donation link on his website? Surely he could raise the money to have the document authenticated by not one, but two independent document forensic experts. Only then will the document have any probative value.
As for Senator Blunt’s letter:
“President Obama’s campaign released a copy of his certification of live birth in June of 2008.” Since when does the posting of images on the internet qualify as the “release of an official document?” The images have ZERO probative value.
“Hawaii’s health Department, Registrar of Records and the Univeristy of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center have verified the authenticity of his certification of live birth.”
The Department of Heath has NEVER confirmed the authenticity of the online COLB. Ms. Okubo in an interview with Politifact stated: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.” http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ The HDoH has used carefully parsed words to give the ILLUSION that the online COLB is authentic.
Furthermore, FactCheck has never offered the credentials of its staffers that qualifies them as document forensic experts.
When are these people in Congress going to wake up? Surely a good percentage of them know what a hoax this is. They would rather save their political hide than protect and defend the Constitution. What a joke the federal government has become on both sides of the aisle.
At noon Feb. 11 Gargoyle posted some mistaken and unwarranted comments about my representation of the Kenyan birth cert obained by Lucas Smith. Gargoyle said: “I’m sure Mr. Hunter et al are good people. However, they are, for all purposes, trying to impose their faith-based beliefs on others. Their claims may be true, but they are nonetheless currently unsubstantiated. The burden of proving the authenticity is theirs. Only then will they be able to coerce others.”
First, the Kenyan bc does not stand alone but is supported by corroborating evidence from multiple sources that should be considered by an appropriate investigative body, as I suggested when I referred to “abundant and credible evidence that Barack H. Obama II was acutally born in Kenya.”
Second, I did not argue that the Kenyan bc was authentic, only that it was a primary document with specific birth documentation that made it rank “much higher in face validity” than the image of a secondary document on which Obama has staked his presidency. Gargoyle sets up a straw man when he places the “burden of proving the authenticity” on me. I never claimed it was authentic, but it certainly deserves to be considered as relevant evidence.
Third, as I stated, what I desire is that “Congress should immediately investigate the facts and hold open, fair hearings to definitively ascertain the truth.” Gargoyle is entirely unjustified in accusing me et al. of “trying to impose their faith-based beliefs on others” and trying to “coerce others.” The burden of proof is not on me but on Barack Obama, and it is up to an appropriate congressional committee to search out the truth about Obama’s eligibility.
It is Gargoyle, not I, who is unduly dogmatic here.
I agree with you Harry H. I almost posted a defense of your letter to Blunt in response to Gargoyle’s post criticizing it. I should have. Requesting an investigation into, “who is Barack Obama”, by the worthless slugs in Congress is anything but, “faith based”.. considering the mountains of evidence that Obama is ineligible. How much faith does it take to say that Lucas Smith’s Kenyan Obama BC looks a whole lot more like a real BC than does Barry’s online COLB? Isn’t that what, “face validity means?
Keep up the good work Harry.
Bob1943,
“considering the mountains of evidence that Obama is ineligible.”
Why move the goal posts? I’m not talking about Obama’s eligibility, here. I’m talking about the piece of paper known as the alleged Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate for Barack Obama II.
“How much faith does it take to say that Lucas Smith’s Kenyan Obama BC looks a whole lot more like a real BC than does Barry’s online COLB?”
A plastic apple looks much more like a real apple than it does an orange. That doesn’t make it a real apple. My COLB looks a lot like Obama’s alleged COLB. I know my COLB is real, and based on information passed down from my parents; I know the information on my COLB is accurate.
If we accept your premise -that if only a COLB is presented- any (emphasizing ANY) alternative document presented that looks more like what most of us are accustom to calling a “birth certificate” must be accepted as more valid than an officially released abstract, regardless of the source. I could present my COLB, and you could create a document on your computer that looks more like a “birth certificate”, and the fake one that you created, according to you, should be accepted by all as the true and accurate record. Don’t you recognize how silly your premise is?
“Isn’t that what “face validity means”?
Harry H,
[quote]First, the Kenyan bc does not stand alone but is supported by corroborating evidence from multiple sources that should be considered by an appropriate investigative body, as I suggested when I referred to “abundant and credible evidence that Barack H. Obama II was actually[sic] born in Kenya.” [unquote]
I will not argue against investigation. I think an investigation is warranted. However, what you refer to as “abundant” and “credible” leaves much to be desired. Supporting evidence for a Kenyan birth is limited at best, and the credibility of that evidence is questionable.
[quote]”It does not take an expert in document authentication to see that the Kenyan birth certificate ranks much higher in face validity than the possibly forged document produced by Obama’s own campaign office in 2008.”[unquote]
A fake Kenyan birth certificate with fake signatures has no face validity. Your letter and comments ignore that. As I told Bob1943, a plastic apple is not an apple or an orange. How can you tell the difference between a well-crafted plastic apple and a real one? You taste it. The Kenyan birth certificate has never been tasted. All you’re doing is attempting to sell others on the idea that the plastic apple must be the real deal because you don’t like the looks of the orange. (the orange being a COLB) A real orange can provide nourishment, while your plastic apple cannot. No matter how real your plastic apple looks.
PROVENANCE: Does the Kenyan birth certificate come from a trusted source? Do records indicate that Dr. Ang’awa was working in Mombasa in August of 1961? Has the alleged “Supervisor of Obstetrics” ever been documented to have worked at Coast Province General Hospital, or to even be a real person? Has the alleged Kenyan birth certificate ever been compared to any other contemporary birth certificate from the same hospital? The answer to all of the above is NO.
——————
Mrs. Rondeau replies: I recall that WorldNetDaily had posted an article shortly after the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate was made public which compared the document to others which it said were contemporaneous from Kenya. They did not show the entire documents, only portions of them, but they definitely did not look like the Smith document.
“They did not show the entire documents, only portions of them, but they definitely did not look like the Smith document.”
Sharon,
Thanks for weighing in.
Here’s a link to the document: http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/image.KenyaBC2two.jpg
The document presented by WND was an extra-institutional birth report. It was not something that would have been generated by a hospital. It had no place for any hospital staff to sign it.
It was useless for any comparative purposes. Like much of what WND presents; it was a distraction.
Thanks, Gargoyle, for conceding my central point re the Kenyan birth cert, as you just did when you said, “I think an investigation is warranted.” That is what is needed, not an interminable and irresolvable discussion of whether the apple is plastic or real. The appropriate taster in this case is Congress, and all I want is for the apple to actually be tasted instead of thrown out because it MIGHT BE plastic.
Gargoyle, please understand this: I never argued that the Kbc was authentic, but you insist on accusing me of ” attempting to sell others on the idea that the plastic apple must be the real deal.” It is YOU who are rushing to judgment by presuming to judge that the apple is plastic.
But you have already conceded my point, so let the investigation by Congress begin. Neither Lucas Smith nor I have the legal and financial resources and the lawful authority to fully and fairly judge this apple. Let Congress turn the apple in its hands, call on legitimate apple authorites for an opinion, hear testimony from those with knowledge on the question of apple-hood, compare similar apples, and put this apple to your empircal taste test.
This splendid letter prompted me to send yet another email as follows to my representative and House majority whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy:
Dear Congressman McCarthy,
Some time ago I wrote to you regarding my concerns about Barack Obama Jr. not being constitutionally qualified to serve as president. In return I received a form letter from your office that failed to provide the incontrovertible proof needed to convince me otherwise.
I cannot emphasize enough how imperative it is for you to carry out what you solemnly swore to do upon taking office in Congress, which is to defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
Please keep in mind that not all of your constituents — least of all yours truly — are willing to accept whatever intellectually deficient arguments are given to assure us that Obama is anything but a natural-born citizen.
In response to your letter, I wrote that I would write another message to explain the problems with each one of your points that led you and many of your colleagues — unwittingly or otherwise — to create this constitutional crisis.
Another constituent expressed many of my concerns to Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, who responded in a letter quite similar to yours. Like myself, the constituent was quite disappointed that Blunt failed to adequately address the matter (see: http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/02/10/mr-senator-show-me-the-proof/)
As you can see, even Obama himself admitted that he was born a dual citizen. Since when were such dual citizens at birth allowed to constitutionally assume the presidency? Or for that matter, since when has the popular will of the voters superseded the mandates of the Constitution?
Your forthright answers to my concerns as well as those of Harry Hunter in his letter to Sen. Blunt would be greatly appreciated. Know that you will have the support of myself and countless others should you act to resolve this issue that has prompted 11 states — and counting — to take steps to ensure that this debacle does not ever happen again.
Mr. Blunt’s response is pathetic. The whole Congress is pathetic. They have have shown absolutely no willingness to listen to the people on this issue. They all need to be voted out! And Mr. Allen West…you sir, are quite the phony.
to gary w. —- i suspected allen west was a phony and coward all along especially after he did not attend the court martial of lt. col. lakin or offer him any support. he also failed to give lt. cdr. fitzpatrick any support at all. he has turned out to be just another phony politician in washington that is going along to get along.
From Senator Blunt’s response letter and my online reply:
“The Constitution gives power to the states to determine a candidate’s eligibility to run for office and the courts have jurisdiction to oversee this process.”
Really, Roy? Where? Please cite the portion of the U.S. Constitution that you are referring to.
“Hawaii’s health Department, Registrar of Records and the Univeristy of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center have verified the authenticity of his certification of live birth.”
Alvin Onaka, PhD (the Hawaii State Registrar) has made no statement regarding Obama’s “certification”. Dr. Fukino (no longer with the Hawaii DOH) said that she has “seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii” but she NEVER spoke about the source of those records. Finally, FactCheck (who Senator Blunt refers to as University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center) has been caught lying on numerous occasions.
“Several courts have dismissed cases questioning President Obama’s citizenship”.
Yes, Roy, the courts dismissed those cases on standing, not on the merits of the cases.
“December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court turned down an appeal asking the court to consider the citizenship status of President Obama”.
Do you think the Supreme Court should grant cert to cases that were dismissed for lack of standing, Roy? Can you point to the clause in the Constitution or the statute granting jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to hear cases that lacked standing in the lower courts, Roy?
Your response to Mr. Hunter is nothing less than dismissive garbage. You have betrayed your constituents. You didn’t just fail to serve them. You lied to them. That, sir, is unforgivable.
Hey Gargoyle, I posted an antagonistic reply to your earlier comment before reading your latest comment above. It appears that I mistook you for an Obama defender, and if so, I apologize.
You make good points in the above comment.
Do you see what’s happening over in Egypt? The people have risen! Here in America…there is no up rising! Just a bunch of whining and crying from people who wait for someone else to do the up rising for them! The people of America have forfeited their Constitution and Freedom because it’s just easier that way! Don’t want to break a sweat defending themselves from the corruption going on in Washington D.C.!
So, Nutn2say, give us your plan! There is non comparison between the Egyptians (who had nothing to lose) and Americans (who do). So, what is the plan you have?
Those people in Egypt have done something no American is apparently capable of doing…they felt their rights were in jeopardy and they stood up and fought to protect their rights! After the passing of more than two years with an illegal usurper living in my White House. Americans need to stand up and fight for the rights that are being taken away from them by their very own elected officials!
Please allow me to elaborate. It’s an old but true fact about scientific laws of nature …..for every action, there is a reaction! In present day Egypt….the people reacted in such a way to a unlawful action that was being imposed upon them! ACTION REACTION! That is a sign of life! The people of Egypt feel alive today. They accomplished something that makes them feel alive! Americans on the other hand are “BRAIN DEAD” by comparison! EXCUSE ME Mr. REAPER of DEATH…….i have a incoming call on my sell phone!
Both of my senators and representative in AL are lowlifes! They have no spine and will not even agree to a face-to-face meeting with one of their constituents! Hence, I will be working diligently to unseat these guys come 2012 and 2014. All three of them have been in DC too long and need to find another career. One not on my dime!
Show Me works both ways!
Senator Blunt is right to consider the Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate to be nothing more than some sort of religious text that some have chosen to be “the word”.
Unsubstantiated claims like it “is signed by the doctor, signed by the supervisor of obstetrics, signed by or for the chief administrator” should be ignored by the Senator. Where is a signature of the doctor, supervisor of obstetrics, chief administrator (or person alleged to have signing authority) for comparison? They don’t exist! If someone wants to sell a claim that they do; Show Me!
There isn’t a shred of evidence to support the authenticity of any Kenyan Birth Certificate for Obama. Without something to compare it to, it’s nothing more than a document that could have been created by some nefarious individual or group.
What Mr. Hunter and others have done is to choose to believe in something, and because their belief is strong, they expect others to adopt the same belief.
Let’s look at the facts:
The Kenyan Birth Certificate came originated from a source that has a history of making things up (i.e. The Virgin Mary came to him thru his metronome). No one has obtained any other birth certificate from Coast Province General Hospital for comparison. No one has obtained any signature samples for comparison.
I’m sure Mr. Hunter et al are good people. However, they are, for all purposes, trying to impose their faith-based beliefs on others. Their claims may be true, but they are nonetheless currently unsubstantiated. The burden of proving the authenticity is theirs. Only then will they be able to coerce others.
Have you “looked” at these facts:
The term “natural born citizen” was defined in 1758 by Vattel as a person born in the country to citizen parents (plural).
The US Supreme Court has never characterized a natural born citizen as being anything other than a person born in the country to citizen parents, and has on five (5) occasions affirmed that it is a person born in the country to citizen parents.
By his own admission, Obama was born to a non-citizen parent (Obama Senior), and that the 1948 British Nationality Act “governed” the status at birth of Obama Senior’s children.
These are not “faith-based beliefs” nor are they “claims”. These are facts.
Texoma,
Too many people have been stuck focusing on Vattel, and almost all of them have not taken the time to consider where Vattel got the idea. Was it just his idea, or was what he described already in practice?
The answer is; Yes. What Vattel presented in the Law of Nations was already in practice in Rome. Though our state governments were free to adopt whatever laws they wanted regarding state citizenship (and most chose to follow the common law of England), and whomever they considered to be a citizen at birth would be a U.S. native-born citizen, the federal government was never based upon the same thing. England never had citizens. The freedom and participation of citizens (who make up the sovereign) is something that English law had never considered. However, people like John Jay and Thomas Jefferson (worldly people) knew what a citizen was, and they knew that the pure citizen was a natural born citizen. A citizen born on the soil who received the natural education of his parents. By having parents that were free citizens (a member of the free society) the child was ensured to grow up loving the principles of freedom and participation as part of the sovereign.
Obots like to point to Lynch v Clark. That case was decided in the New York Chancery Court. Since New York had adopted not only the common law of England, but England’s statutory law (see New York Constitution of 1777). Therefore, the Judge in Lynch v Clark had no choice but to follow English Law. The only error there was that there had never been such a thing as a natural-born citizen of England…so he made up the term while relying on the usage of natural-born subject.
Gargoyle,
Good point about the history preceding Vattel. It sounds like you are referring to the twelve-volume classic, Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, which was written during the first century AD and popular in Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries. It contained a sentence which was translated by Patsall in 1774 as:
“Therefore, if possible, every word and the very tone of voice, should bespeak the natural born citizen of Rome, that the language may be purely Roman, and not so by a right different from birth and education.”
The interpretation of the above would be that a “natural born citizen” of Rome was someone who was “purely” Roman by “birth and education” – birth and education by citizen parents.
In the Julia Lynch case of 1845 (NY State Court), my understanding is that the court ruled Lynch (born in the US to visiting Irish citizen parents) a citizen, and it was the judge’s dicta which referred to her as a natural born citizen. A later case (1858 Munro v. Merchant) in NY contained a summation which refutes the Lynch judge’s opinion: “A child born in this state of alien parents, during its mother’s temporary sojourn here, is a native born citizen.”
The propagandists are making Obama’s birth certificate a “big joke” in an effort to eliminate the seriousness of the situation. Another popular would-be candidate on the GOP side (Gov of Louisiana?) is also not a natural born Citizen. Could this be the reason for their cowardice–a plan to run Bobby against Obama in 2012?
Yes. Jindal should be discouraged from running for President or VP. He should run for Governor again or run for the US Senate (and serve multiple terms) or serve in a cabinet, etc.
Another potentially ineligible candidate (VP choice) is Marco Rubio. He was born in Florida in 1971 to Cuban exile parents who fled Cuba in 1959. But I am not aware that anyone has ascertained when Rubio’s parents became US citizens, although it appears they had plenty of time to do so by 1971.
Texoma,
It is my opinion that if Rep. Jindal does not invoke his congressional investigative authority to resolve this Constitutional Crisis quickly, fails listen to the people and fails to uphold his Oath of Office Ethics responsibility, then he should never be elected to public office again.
He (Jindal) is a big part of the problem not the solution. Lets take a look at what Jindal (and all others) should be doing….. Take special note to sections (I), (II), (V), (IX) and (X).
PUBLIC LAW 96-303
TITLE 5. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III. EMPLOYEES
Subpart F. Labor-Management and Employee Relations
CHAPTER 73. SUITABILITY, SECURITY, AND CONDUCT
SUBCHAPTER I. REGULATION OF CONDUCT
Section 7301. Presidential regulations
CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE (signed into law on July 3, 1980)
ANY PERSON IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE SHOULD:
I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.
II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
III. Give a full day’s labor for a full day’s pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.
IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors.
VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.
VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of government duties as a means for making private profit.
IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.
ME THINKS, that this is a deadly conversation when someone goes against Obama and the government. Somehow, there is something that does not smell right going on in our government and it’s plain to see when so many Americans are asking questions and not getting the answers. Especially from your own senators and representatives of both parties. Why? Well, I damn sure don`t know, but why is everyone in government afraid of answering these questions? Is our government covering up, also? Hell, I don`t know, but I would like to. So what do we do? I don`t know this answer either, Does anyone know
what is going on????????????????????????????????????????????????
At this point I think it’s a cover-up to protect them as much as it is to protect Obama.
There were many chances to stop the usurper before the 2008 election…neither party did anything in spite of all the indications that something was badly wrong with Obama’s eligibility and his entire life story. To admit they knew this and did nothing would implicate a whole lot of people in the biggest scam/fraud in history.
Self-preservation is maybe the primary reason they are hanging onto the lie, no matter how obvious it has become and/or what it is doing to America?
And the Obama cheerleading media knows they were duped and are a bunch of fools, but they too do not want to come clean and admit they were conned by a Chicago shyster and his enablers.
You are right on the mark here Bob! We will have a lot of government officials to hang high once the truth comes out, and they’re scared, real scared to admit the truth. Keep pushing the issue and I will too. Eventually the truth will win, and we will win our country back.
A big reason (and maybe the biggest reason) for the silence before the election is that the Republicans nominated their own ineligible candidate for President, and so to expose Obama would have meant exposing their own ineligible candidate.
McCain was born to US citizen parents, but he was not born in the sovereign territory of the US. He was born in a US naval station in the Panama Canal Zone. Panama, not the US was the sovereign of the Canal Zone — as evidence by us paying them rent each year. McCain was born under the sovereignty of Panama, and this fact makes him not a natural born citizen (born in the country to citizen parents) and ineligible to be President.
My guess is that people are looking out for themselves, know the media is corrupt and are afraid of being marginalized and mocked at election time, and that is understandable. This is the real world. Our job, IMO, is to make sure they understand that the election-cycle price for inaction is 1000 times worse than going out on a limb.
Ft. Hood happened, as another example among many, because being polite to hired imbeciles that are not qualified for the job sounds good or something. Actually, neither one of these people are dealing with reality. Mr. Blunt needs to be fired instead of being treated with honor for his stupidity. I am still attempting to ‘figure out’ why Mr. Hunter would be grateful for such poor representation and for apparently having Mr. Blunt on payroll. Is this just another form of social advancement whereby we continue to ignore and reward those that fall well below acceptable standards? Time to clean house and hire people with common sense. Enough of this childish nonsense. Missouri, fire that man and send him packing.
Toria, I said I was grateful for Sen. Blunt’s reply to my letter, not for his poor representation. As for Blunt’s being on the payroll, I’d much rather have him than the Democrat he beat in November–or his counterpart Claire McCaskill. Maybe Blunt can still wise up and man up. There is no hope at all for McCaskill, who was deeply complicit in Obama’s election fraud.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong about this but, I can’t recall anyone at the Hawaii Department of Health or Registrar of Records or any Hawaii official who has verified the authenticity of Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth”.
Moreover, even IF it is authentic the Hawaii Department of Home Lands (“DHHL”) would not accept it as a “Primary Documents” — i.e., sole and sufficient documentation of being a native born Hawaiian — not even AFTER the DHHL updated its “Primary Documents” in mid-2009 to included same.
The problem here is that constituents keep asking for a resolution from elected officials who have no interest in listening! This is a matter that constituents must take into their own hands and stop this false belief that there is a savior waiting in the mist! The elected officials must know by now that we are on to them. The facts about Natural Born Citizen exist! They know it! But admitting that Obama is an illegal usurper does not work in their best interest. So ignorance to Constitutional Law prevails and to hell with constituents who ask for Constitutional Justice! AMERICA MUST LIVE A LIE in order to cover the buttocks of ruthless elected officials who which is now known with certainty that they are only interested in serving themselves and not WE THE PEOPLE!
I bet they are shown all the future pension/health care benefits of being in Congress, and if they cause trouble, they will lose them. “Do not make waves, and we will take care of you.” There are few Dr. Lakins in this world. Too few. God is aware of all the plots and plans….let vengeance be His, we are told and I have found His way of handling things is better than anything I could have imagined…..so…….In God We Trust.
This is true but dont forget they dont pay into social security.Watch the provocateur network american dream video.
God gave us appropriate bodies and mind tools to use to counter a corrupt government, and I should think He would expect us to use them, not waste time begging Him to do something when we were blessed with the means to do what lazy Americans expect God to do. Forget what you were taught, vengeance is ours and that takes physical action on our part!
That Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” established that Obama was born of a woman only, something we can plainly see by his presence on this planet. A “Certificate of Live Birth” gives a few more details, but not enough. Furthermore, there’s no such race as “African,” the word posted on Obama’s forged “Certification of Live Birth.” Check out the PassportsUSA inset on my http://einhornpress.com/AndyMartinforPresidentNewsandPictures.aspx page sometime for a few more details.
No Hawaii birth record exist for Barack Obama. but one for Maya Soetoro, his half sister born in Indonesia, does.
This is worth your time:
Page Space being a Premium: Just a couple of words~~RHINO, TRAITOR, CROOK, “IN Contempt of the Constitution!!”
NUFF!!
RIGHT-ON !!! (still saving space)
ON factcheck it so states that it is a political advertisement web site. The website was always legally registered as a political advertisement in all required listing with the government. So everyone is accepting as fact an advertisement where the law so states that in an advertisement the advertisement does not have to be the truth. So again Obama has put out the fake bc with statement that it does not have to be the truth. that is to cover him. Also Obama himself will claim he did not place the advertisement but his people did that. There is nothing to that so called claim that the far left has not used to scam everyone. But still the Senator can not be so stupid.
What?? Isn’t there a truth in advertising law??
There is a law that allows not true statements in political advertising otherwise it would be a jungle. so they allow it. the advertiser does not have to prove his statements are true. This is for political advertising. Of course you get one guess as to who wrote the law and why. haha.
Thanks for the info.
I. for one, didn’t know about the advertisement status of that site. Naturally most of us, I think, always assumed he would say it was his people who did this and that, out of a spirit of wanting to help. But the advertisement status does exactly what you said; while being waaaayyyy too cute by half, it does appear to be designed specifically in that regard to give by-the-law legal plausible denial to allegations of fraud (well, a big maybe, depending on the particulars, but if this ever gets to a jury, they can forget it – no one would believe a fairy tale like Obama being ignorant of the details. Divine detachment only goes so far)
As the details get investigated by determined, bloodhound patriots who know political blood when they smell it, all the very cute, and quite frankly sometimes astoundingly street-punk-amateurish details of what has apparently happened in the usurpation of the presidency are coming to light. And the puzzle coming together appears to be a picture of a swaggering Obama giving his middle finger to the world, because he didn’t recognize a very stupid series of actions before he made them. He may be chuckling because he thinks the deed is a done deal, with him in the white house, the press too timid to cover the issue and an escape route by dropping out of the 2012 election. That’s exactly how a semi-smart and entirely inexperienced guy full of himself would see the situation: much more contained and controllable for him than it even remotely is in fact as the citizens begin to see what has happened and start making loud demands that must be met. But this is how tyrants, for example, get undone by their own arrogant stupidity, it it’s not without a long historical precident.
That picture puzzle slowly being assembled by patriot bloodhounds isn’t complete, though, and my own feeling is that the image of a swaggering, arrogant Obama does not include a background consisting of the white house. At the very least, not after 2012, anyway. With Arizona and the other state laws being likely enacted that demand Obama’s original citizenship records, it seems evermore impossible for Obama to return in 2012. But leave it to Obama to have more b*lls than brains – which is very obviously the case, now – and wind up looking at some serious consequences if he did in fact assume the office – or pretend to – without being qualified to hold it, and knowing he wasn;t qualified, which would be obvious and beyond plausible excuse.
Note to congresspeople assuming they will give Obama a pass if Obama is found to be a usurper, and do so for the sake of “healing the country”. Look to Egypt. People will only take so much from their governments, and as November showed, elections are very real things and can change the world, and in such situations, some people have regrets – it’s how the world works.
2012 is looking to be a turning point in history. The question is, which direction?
Thanks again for the info.
If Obama is thrown out and Biden is made President what is to stop joe biden from giving Obama a presidential pardon? Obama has excellent chances of getting away with everything up to the moment he is gone.
The corruption is so incredibly deep in our government. I wonder if any part is not totally compromised for decades. We the People are already the slaves that pay for the elite via taxes.
”On July 17, 2009, during my time in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 593 passed with my support. This resolution recognizes and celebrates the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s entry into the Union as the 50th state and honors President Obama’s birth in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”.
No documents were provided to The House of Representatives to support the contention that Barack Obama II was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. All of The Representatives relied on the online Certification of Live Birth and also the misleading claims made by Dr Chiyome Fukino of The Dept of Health of Hawai’i.
Therefore, the Senator from ‘The Show Me State’ has been demonstrably, willfully gullible and is a disgrace to his State and Nation. He can’t be a disgrace to Congress, because every member of Congress is a disgrace.
The Spirit of The Founding Fathers, however, is rising up amongst the American Patriots and will prevail against all of the puny self-serving traitors who have hi-jacked The People’s House.
Blount’s response is even worse than the one I received from Trent Franks in Arizona.
They are all pathetic liars, ignorant fools, or even traitors.
o’s lack of eligibility is bigger than we realize. I remember the news in 1961 as Anne Dunham was being interviewed on tv,only because my mom brought my attention to the program. My Mom said (referring to o’s birth— even if he was born in Hawaii Thats one kid that will never be president because Hawaii Still isn’t a state-they are still negoaiting it.) What made my mom think he’d ever want to be president ? When did hawaii become a state? Why did she say when o’s mom was leaving the country that (she’s going over the water to marry her black prince-her baby’s daddy? i remember the news in 1961! i only wish i could remember who interviewed her. and i wish someone would find that news reel!
> When did hawaii become a state?
Does your browser not read Wikipedia?
“August 21, 1959” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii
> What made my mom think he’d ever want to be president ?
No idea. Seems like a strange quote to me anyway. If I read about a baby born in Antarctica, the first thing that comes to mind is not “he’ll never be President”.
Alexander, There was quite a few news articles on Ann Dunham during that time but i can’t find any of her interviews on the internet now. Too bad we didn’t have DVR’s back then.
I remember that interview as well. She also mentioned how the birthing process in Kenya was much more civilized than in the US.
Ann Dunham was interviewed on TV in 1961?
This man will show no spine. He is of the opinion that states and federal courts can override the constitution or even interpret it. Actually he isn’t that dumb, he just knows that if he admits knowing what was done he becomes as guilty as the 111th congress in total and this 112th which is being put to the test. Just remind Mr Blunt that his dodging his responsibility is also keeping a decorated veteran in prison. He should be quite proud of that accomplishment, jailing an innocent man as an example of the power of government. With honor like that who could be called dishonorable?