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


by Captain Mack, ©2013

Was Barack Hussein Obama allowed to run for the presidency with Congress’s knowledge that he did not qualify as a “natural born Citizen?”

(May 3, 2013) — The birth certificate and other forged documents are certainly a valid concern; however, they fall to the wayside when considering the real issue, which most already know is Obama’s failure to be a natural born Citizen as required by the Constitution stated quite clearly below. The real bottom line is that there is no way he was ever actually eligible in the first place. I might also add that Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are not eligible for the very same reason.

“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.” No man is above the law, and Barack Hussein Obama, because of unconscionable and fearful men, is being placed above the law.  Those who concede to such are placing themselves above the law as well. This is the underlying issue of what our Constitutional Republic faces. If Mr. Obama’s father was indeed Barack Obama Sr., it is a known and irrefutable fact he (Obama’s father) was born in Kenya which was a British colony. Obama Sr. was deported back to Kenya in 1964 after the INS refused to renew his VISA.

We are in the midst of a Constitutional crisis, and the Congress and major media know full well that is exactly what is happening. Ignoring it will not make it go away. Ignoring it is what they have done as Mike Zullo, the Arizona Cold Case Posse Lead Investigator, has shared with the public this fact: “In my meetings with Mr. Bennett on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio, he (Mr. Bennett) was uninterested in reviewing the evidence the Cold Case Posse has accumulated.” This is in reference to the ongoing criminal investigation regarding the individual who has obviously usurped the office of president and has been helped by numerous others who should have prevented this from happening in the first place. This is outrageous!! The fact that there has been an ongoing criminal investigation in Arizona should have alarmed everyone and caused without hesitation the withholding of the name of “Barack Hussein Obama” from all ballots everywhere until forensic authentication was done to verify that Mr. Obama is who he says he is.

In the Records of the Federal Convention in New York of 25 July 1787, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, submitted to George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, what would become one of the Constitutional qualifications for Commander-in-Chief in stating, “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”  Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, circa 1758, Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212: “The natives, or natural born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

The Law of Nations provides the Constitutional definition of a natural born citizen.  Historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and that it was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter. Furthermore, we have U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishing Article II, Section I with the ruling of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. pg. 167-68 (1875). If one U.S. Supreme Court ruling is not sufficient, there are five other rulings on this very matter holding to the fact and the law that one MUST be a natural born Citizen (not just a “citizen”) in order to be POTUS: Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814); Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830); Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857); United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

It will also be necessary to note as part of the historical record from June 2003 to February 2008, Congress made eight attempts to remove from Article II, Section I the “natural born Citizen” clause, both Republicans and Democrats. It is most obvious those in Congress know the meaning of “natural born Citizen;” otherwise, they would not have made such efforts to remove this clause from our U.S. Constitution. These are the Bill numbers, dates and sponsors:

HJR 59 June 11, 2003 Sponsor: Vic Snyder (D);
HJR 67 Sept 2, 2003 Sponsor: John Conyers (D);
SB 2128 Feb 25, 2004 Sponsor: Don Nichols (R);
HJR 104 Sept 15, 2004 Sponsor: Dana Rohrabacher (R);
HJR 42 Jan4, 2005 Sponsor: John Conyers (D);
HJR 15 Feb 1, 2005 Sponsor: Dana Rohrabacher (R);
HJR 42 April 14, 2005 Sponsor: Vic Snyder (D);
SB 2678 Feb 28, 2008: Claire McCaskill (D) Co-Sponsors: Barack Obama (D) Hillary Clinton (D).

Being POTUS requires the individual to be a natural born Citizen. There is a distinction in what separates a natural born citizen from all other types of citizenship relevant in the U.S., such a distinction, in that this qualification is stipulated only for the office of Vice President (12th Amendment) and President of the United States, not for Senator, Congressman or Governor or any other U.S. governmental office. There are still unanswered questions regarding whether or not Mitt Romney was Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS, as his father, George Romney, was born in Chichuahua, Mexico. Whether George was actually naturalized as a U.S. citizen has yet to be proven by Mitt Romney. Furthermore, Marco Rubio’s name has been mentioned as being a possible Presidential candidate, and it is known that his parents did not become U.S. Citizens until Marco Rubio was four years old.

This issue is not about one man, but rather, it is about the U.S. Constitution, our Supreme rule of law. Public servants’ oath of office is to uphold the Constitution and laws of their state and our country, and that oath can only be upheld by following the law. We all look forward to continuing to work on this issue under those parameters. This is all we ask of anyone, but most importantly this is what is required. Failure to do so violates this solemn oath of office and puts anyone at risk of committing a felony and even treason: U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 4; Misprision of Felony: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”. Furthermore, under U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 2381; Treason: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” Please know and be forewarned plausible deniability cannot be used and will not stand.

The issue at hand is one of historical significance. What happens in every state affects each and every person in this Constitutional Republic, and for that matter, the entire world, as the office of president is that powerful and influential. That is one of the reasons that it has been difficult for many who have the responsibility to do what is right and lawful.  However, it should not be impossible, for with God all things are possible.

British Statesman Edmund Burke has been quoted as saying, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. SLCraig, The Law of Nations was in ubiquitous usage in both the British and United States Courts in the 18th Century. Our founders frequently referenced it. After all,they were building a NEW nation. The Constitution IS “US Law”. The Congress gave itself the power to define and punish violations of the “Law of Nations”. It is incorporated,by reference at Article 1,Sec.8. There was,in the Naturalization Act of 1792 a provision making Children born overseas to American citizens,a Natural-Born Citizen. That was repealed in the NA of 1795.Naturalization,by it’s very nature involves a Statutory making of a Citizen, someone who is not. For a Natural-Born Citizen,one need do nothing. The Constitution,by having placed the defining of the “Law of Nations” into the hands of Congress does indeed “say in words what a Natural-Born Citizen”. Acts of Congress are always interpreted with congressional intent in mind.One cannot recognize anyone as a “Natural-Born Citizen” resorting to any interpretation of a Naturalization Act. Statutory Acts do not trump Constitutional provisions which can only be changed,amended or repealed through Constitutional Amendment.A Naturalized Citizen is NOT a “Natural-born Citizen”.This is evident that the status of naturalized and Natural-Born are separate statuses,separately described. The founders dis not say that ALL citizens are eligible to be POTUS.They wanted our highest office filled by 100% Americans. The definition of a Natural-Born Citizen is “One born in a country of parents who are citizens”. The court in Minor said that there was NO doubt that these WERE NBCs. It also said that other classes of citizens,not relying on parentage WERE in doubt. To be a Citizen one must merely be born in the USA (Jus Soli).Still that person must apply for that citizenship. To be President one must ALSO be born of parents who are citizens. (Jus Sanquinis).The highest level of citizen is one who meets BOTH Jus Soli AND 100% Jus Sanquinis. THAT is the level of citizenship that the founders wanted to be the requirement that must be met to be POTUS. In our entire history there are only two people who occupied the Oval office who did not meet that requirement Chester Arthur and Barack Obama.

  2. Captain Mack, Wow! You assessment is 100% ON POINT. Obama is a Muslim Supremacist who has usurped the Presidency during time of War. Obama is not “Lawful civil authority”. That makes him a SPY under the UCMJ at Section 902.Article 102. I have also cited 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381 in the past. Obama is a traitor and cannot HOLD “any office” under the United States.

  3. Capt. Mack,

    I applaud your succinct summary of the question at hand and yet find myself remaining frustrated when seeing that a person has given the subject so much thought STILL relies on ‘foreign sources’ and does not “resort” to the ACTUAL U.S. Laws on the subject.

    Justice Waite, in Minor v Happersett, is partly to blame. Everyone has internalized his passage; … ” the Constitution does not say in words who is a natural born Citizen, for that resort must be made elsewhere ….” and the liberal-progressive ESPECIALLY cling to that statement of fact.

    But at the same time EVERYONE fails to ACKNOWLEDGE that Justice Waite made his determination that Virginia Minor WAS a U.S. natural born Citizen by “resorting” to the 1790 / ’95 Acts of Congress entitled … “an Act to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization…” ( naturalization = conforming an alien into the NATURE of a Citizen which requires acknowledging the nature of a Citizen in the 1st instant).

    Please recognize that the “uniform Rule” which was ESTABLISHED by the 1st Congress and re-affirmed by the 3rd Congress has never been repealed and/or amended. Only those two Acts assert to comply with the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 MANDATE which REQUIRED the Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of naturalization (= citizenship).

    It becomes clearer when you accept that the Constitution WAS a Collective Naturalization Act conforming all those persons who were State Citizens of the adopting States into the nature of a Federal / National Citizen; Citizens of the U.S., a U.S Citizen.

    Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; recently found in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;

    “… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “ [pg 6/7]

    “…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial. [pg 8 id]

    But until we can present a case RESORTING and RELYING only on U.S. Law we marginalize the INTENT of John Jay and the uniqueness of a U.S. natural born Citizen.

    The Founders knew they could NOT be a U.S. natural born Citizen under the definition of circumstances they understood, hence the “Grandfather Clause” that exempted the ENTIRE Founding Generation of NEW National Citizens.

    To suggest that the “uniform Rule” established by the 1st Congress did NOT provide a means of perpetuating the Office of the POTUS in conformity to the nature of the form of Citizenship REQUIRED for the Office is to suggest that all of the Acts of the Congress have been and are folly.