IF NOT, WHY IS HE IN CONGRESS?
contributed by constituents of Rep. Chris Gibson (NY-20)
(Sep. 21, 2011) — Col. Chris Gibson (Ret.) is serving his first term in the U.S. House of Representatives from the 20th District of New York, which encompasses ten counties in the eastern/central region of New York State. Gibson campaigned against then-incumbent Scott Murphy (D) on a platform of fiscal discipline, opposition to socialized health care, and reviving the sagging U.S. economy.
As a result of the 2010 census and redistricting, New York will lose two seats in the House effective in 2013. New Jersey and Pennsylvania each lost one seat as a result of the census.
Rep. Gibson retired from the U.S. Army as a colonel in 2010 after having served four combat tours in Iraq and on deployments to Haiti and Kosovo. He has been a lifelong resident of the town of Kinderhook, which was settled by the Dutch in 1750 and established as a town in 1788. It was named after Mahican Indian children who were seen on the shores of the river by Henry Hudson, after whom the river was later named. Hudson was an English explorer whose trip was financed by the Dutch East India Company.
Gibson serves on the Agriculture Committee and the Armed Services Committee.
A constituent sent an email about Obama’s eligibility to Gibson with two links to articles published at The Post & Email that he had written:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/28/ignorantly-preposterous/
and received the following reply:
to which the constituent replied:
Only through the PERVERSION of the 14TH Amendment “born on U.S. soil” children of aliens and foreigners unconstitutionally become U.S. [c]itizens. Perversion of the law is not law!
14TH Amendment U.S. Constitution reads:
” All persons born or naturalized in the United States, [[[[ AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF]]]], are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…”
History proves “born on U.S. soil” was intended for the children of slaves.
One of the chief architects of the 14th Amendment John A. Bingham wrote:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY IS, IN THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR CONSTITUTION ITSELF, A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and [[ NOT OWING A FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE]], is not and shall not be a [c]itizen of the United States.” , (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873): “The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to EXCLUDE from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Congressman Chris Gibson of N.Y. addressed this matter in a letter Dated May 19, 2011.( attached )
” The original intent of The Fourteenth Amendment was to guarantee citizenship to all free slaves after the Civil war in 1868. The aim was never to impart automatic birthright citizenship to people with no lawful connection to our nation.”
Congressman Chris Gibson Knowing full well that the U.S. government is not abiding by the Constitution is allowing the perversion of The United States Constitution to continue. Why is he allowing an unconstitutional opinion of the law to be law?
Mr. Gibson, have you not heard of these Supreme Court decisions:
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
” An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton Vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
Honor your Oath “Congressman” and Stop being a complacent coward letting the Constitution erode into hell.
Weakness in The Constitution will cripple the People.
Creg Maroney
—————————–
Another constituent who had written to Rep. Gibson about the Obama eligibility question in July received the following letter from Gibson dated August 8, 2011:
Editor’s Note: The letter was converted to PDF format for use in this article.
to which the constituent replied:
Thank you so much and I DO APPRECIATE your response!
I would like to point out that Atty Orly Taitz, who is representing Amb Dr Alan Keyes, is in Hawaii at this very moment with a Subpoena from Judge Lamberth in DC to view the paper document! There are various affidavits on file that the ONLINE B/C is a forgery. That being said, Obama’s FATHER was NEVER an American citizen which would make Mr Obama, at the VERY MOST, a “NATIVE BORN” citizen. He was born with MORE than American Citizenship. You and I are NATURAL BORN, as our parents were American and we were born on American Soil.
The truth is coming out and I DO URGE YOU, albeit PLEAD with you, to contact Col. Lawrence Sellin whose information I have sent to you.
We shall see what happens, but there is a lot of “Taqiyyah” associated with this (putative) president.
I don’t trust him for a minute from my own intuition, and I reject him as NATURAL BORN based on my understanding of the Constitution, no matter his place of birth.
God bless you and my humble thanks for your personal reply!
————————
Editor’s Note: The constituent’s response above was composed on August 8, 2011, the deadline for Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta Fuddy to allow inspection to Atty. Orly Taitz of Barack Hussein Obama’s original birth certificate subpoenaed by the U.S. District Court in Honolulu. Fuddy and her attorneys refused to comply with the subpoena.
An unnamed source has reported that a forgery of a birth certificate was created and placed in the vault at the Hawaii Department of Health. On April 27, 2011, Obama released what he claimed was a certified copy of his Hawaii birth certificate, but many analysts almost immediately deemed it a forgery.