Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

To which vetting process is Rep. Tom McClintock referring when he says that Obama's eligbility was determined before the election?

(Jul. 16, 2011) — In response to the letter received by Congressman Tom McClintock and published here, the congressman has received the following two letters:

Hi Tom:

As my former Congressman, I hold you in high esteem and also voted for you for Governor. I am a well-regarded retired businessman.

After reading the letter appearing below this one, purportedly from you, I offer the following thoughts. I’m writing to ask you to reconsider your position on the eligibility issue– please hear me out.

1. There was no vetting process. That has been confirmed at the federal level and for various states, including our own (please research the case against Debra Bowen, Secretary of State). Nancy Pelosi omitted the Constitutional eligibility statement in her 2008 “Obama” candidate certification in 49 states and apparently perjured herself in the 50th (Hawaii). The “media” glossed over the vetting of “Obama” and seemed strangely incurious, relying mostly upon the two somewhat fictional “autobiographies.” “Obama” offered almost no background and substantiation of his past. In fact, he has actively and aggressively covered it up, in an unprecedented manner. If you can point out how and who he was vetted by, we would like to help enlighten the benighted public, who question “Obama’s” legitimacy.

2. It is fairly clear, from the papers of the founding fathers and De Vattel’s Law of Nations, a primary reference used by them in the writing of the Constitution, that they thought of a natural born citizen as someone born in this country of two citizen parents at the time of that person’s birth. SR 511 appears to harbor similar assumptions. This has been repeatedly confirmed by Congress and the Supreme Court. However, CRS wrote a very misleading memo about eligibility, distorting both facts and case law, particularly Minor vs. Happersett. This has been documented in several articles, which we will forward upon request.

3. The withholding of “Obama’s” vital papers and expenditure of possibly up to $2MM to defend him in eligibility legal actions, plus an undetermined amount from DOJ funds, is an outrage. They should have been prosecuting, not defending him.

4. There is documented, indisputable evidence, compiled by multiple independent private investigators (Sankey, Daniels and others), that:
– “Obama” is linked at least 16 stolen Social Security numbers, including 042-68-4425, via name and addresses.
– This was uncovered via commercial databases and other research.
– That led to a finding that his Selective Service registration, linked to the aforementioned Social Security number, is also fraudulent and apparently forged circa 2008.
– At least one of his purported mother’s Social Security numbers appears to be stolen.
– We are told by investigators that this normally happens either when people cannot obtain such documentation legally, or are using it to break the law, usually for financial gain or other felony fraud.

5. There is no record of him ever legally changing his name from Barry Soetoro or Soebarkah to his current AKA. There is also evidence linking him to an alias of Harrison Bounel.

6. The so-called birth certificate was, after over three years of stalling. finally released in digital form by “Obama,” via the White House staff, on 4-27-11, with limited copies made from an undetermined source document. It has been declared a fraud by dozens of document experts, some of them very well-known and respected. In short, it opens up in Adobe Illustrator as a nine-layered document, displaying numerous symptoms known to experts as evidence of alteration.

7. John McCain was submitted to an extensive investigation and humiliating Senate hearing, on his eligibility for the Presidency, in spite of having a very well-documented history and two American citizen parents. His family has served with distinction as military officers for multiple generations. Even though he was born in Panama (NOT the at the time Canal Zone, a U.S. Possession, as many thought), he was declared eligible, because his father was serving his country as a military officer, a special case. No such hearing was ever held for his Democrat opponent, who had far more mysterious circumstances in his past and had already been served for eligibility suits. Some say this was some sort of quid pro quo. Whatever.

8. You didn’t raise the issue in your letter, but the so-called “birth announcements”:
– Are unvetted
– Are not legal documents
– Could have been triggered via relatives in a request, or Certification (NOT Certificate) of Live Birth, obtained with only an affidavit, under Hawaiian law.
– Do not state the name of the child
– Do not state the place of birth
– List a false address, where the parents never lived

Congress and courts have both failed to act on the issues, to date. The Courts claim it’s Congress’ responsibility and Congress vice- versa. You say it’s a non-issue. About half of the public at large surveyed think otherwise.

We do NOT intend to roll over and let this go away. The stakes are way too high. The founders established a high bar for eligibility, precisely to help avoid situations like we have now, with a chief executive whose priorities, loyalties, ideology and revered traditions clearly do not stand with We The People. This and his many impeachable offenses, are far worse than Watergate and Monicagate to the nth power.

We hope and pray that you will have the courage to act, to motivate the House of Reps to investigate this and act accordingly. I also ask you to help motivate the FBI to move on the multiple complaints submitted.

We do not think it is sufficient to wait until January 2013 to solve the problem, particularly because he has been so very dangerous and destructive in office and seems willing to commit massive fraud to get his way, with powerful forces enabling him to do so.


G. Miller


Dear Rep. McLintock,

I read your letter to “redacted” on the Post and Email website and would like to share the following. You said that President Obama was thoroughly vetted and found clean. I don’t think so. You may have forgotten Senate Resolution 511 which vetted Sen. McCain on being a natural born citizen. He was cleared and his nomination accepted by Democrats. But here’s what you and so many others are missing. During one of the hearings on Res. 511 Sen. Patrick Leahy said, “Because he (McCain) was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.” Obviously, “born to American citizens” means that both parents are U.S. citizens, which McCain’s parents were. But by this statement, Sen. Leahy admitted that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Art. 2, Sect. 1, Clause 5 of the constitution. This appeared to be a thoughtless “oops” that went unnoticed. But according to the historical record and Surpeme Court rulings, Leahy is dead on. Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States because his father was Kenyan and never was a U.S. citizen. McCain must have known this, but why didn’t he bring it up? And why didn’t he and Republicans demand that Sen. Obama be vetted for natural born citizenship also? Those questions need to be answered, but try and get one. The real substance of natural born citizenship is citizen parents and Leahy nailed it. So you are wrong, sir, when you say that Barack Obama was thoroughly vetted. He has committed election fraud and is guilty of usurping the presidency, among other things. Check with Senator Leahy and see if he still believes a natural born citizen is born of parents who are BOTH “American citizens.”

Regards, J. Black