Wednesday, December 31, 2008

20 Million Letter Writers Needed ASAP. Are you in?

Pastor Manning is calling for 20 million letters to be written to the U.S. Supreme Court and delivered before January 7th



Please watch this video, and join in by addressing your personal letter to:



Chief Justice Roberts

United States Supreme Court

Defend the Constitution

One First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20543






Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543



January 2, 2009


To: The Honorable Chief Justice Roberts,


Re: The Constitutional Eligibility of the President-elect


Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen as defined by Article II, Section I, of the United States Constitution?

Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article II, Section I:

"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."

As long as the parents gave birth to the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen. Since none of the drafters of the Constitution were US born, the grandfather clause allowed for 'Citizens of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution' to become Presidents. After that no person except a natural born Citizen could become President of the United States.

Barack Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not relevant to the provisions of the Constitution. What is relevant is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never become a natural born citizen.

Since Barack Obama's father was not a United States Citizen at the time of the President-elects birth, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen.

The President-elect has maintained that he was born in the United States. Even this fact has yet to be proven conclusively. It has not been proven to date, because Obama has chosen to spend more than $500,000 in legal fees to avoid turning over a $20 "Certificate of Live Birth". One has to wonder what, if anything, he may be hiding. However this has nothing to do with the ‘Natural Born’ issue.

The real question is not whether Barack Obama was born in the United States, and thus a Citizen of the United States. The real question is does he qualify as a “Natural Born” US Citizen?

Please Defend our Constitution by granting a full hearing to the cases brought before the court on this matter.


Sincerely,



CEO, Larry Walker
Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Electoral College Update

I checked the Official U.S. Electoral College website today to get an idea of the votes that have come in to date. I was prompted to do this after entertaining the following questions on my blog wall from Lisa Karres [as edited].

Here are a few questions for you . . .

Currently, Obama only has received 170 electoral votes. The deadline for submitting the votes was last week. Congress will meet on January 8th. Can Congress over-ride the Delegates if they did not give Obama his minimum required of 270?

I am told this is the first time in history that many Delegates did NOT report in or submit their votes by the deadline. I have been told that Indiana ALL voted "Present" and cast zero votes. Can SCOTUS over-ride the delegates and just make Obama POTUS?

Some say that no one has a right to file a lawsuit until on or after Janaury 8th that is why SCOTUS refused Leo and Cort's cases. Some say SCOTUS planned a strategy assigning Phil Berg's case to January 9th when he does have standing. I believe that the longer SCOTUS waits the more damage will be done.

For example, companies are creating collector coins, stamps and plates. The numerous Inaugural Balls are still being planned. People are donating to these Balls and purchasing flights and hotel reservations, etc. The more time and money spent, the more his supporters are getting comfortable with the idea of him being POTUS. Wouldn't it have been better to nip this back in mid November before so many people invested so much?

If SCOTUS is worried about riots, it is almost like they created that scenario. Surely Obama and his staff know what might happen to them. I heard that it is possible that his entire election and presidential staff could all be brought up on fraud charges. Wouldn't he be responsible for paying back millions of dollars in campaign donations? If it is found he is an illegal alien, would they deport him and if so, to where? Indonesia? Kenya? Just some thoughts. Would love to hear your responses. Thank You - Lisa Karres

My reply was as follows:

archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/

Link above. So far only 24 states are represented but it looks like all of Indiana's votes went for Obama/Biden. Congress cannot override the electoral college. It takes 270 votes to win and they are not officially counted until January 8th.

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

Date of Counting and Certifying the Electoral Votes

Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.

Timeline

After the general election, the Governor of each State prepares seven original Certificates of Ascertainment listing the persons appointed as electors, and sends one original and two certified copies to the Federal Register.

  • On December 15, 2008, the electors meet in their State to select the President and Vice President of the United States. The electors sign, seal and certify packages of electoral votes and immediately send one set of votes to the President of the Senate (Richard B. Cheney) and two sets to the Archivist.

  • December 24, 2008 is the deadline for receipt of electoral votes at NARA.
    The Archivist transmits copies of the Certificates of Ascertainment to Congress by January 3, 2009.
Certificates of Vote

According to NARA, the deadline for receipt of electoral votes is December 24th as stated above. As stated below, the certificates are posted online as soon as they are received. So far, the results of only 24 states are posted. You may click on each State below to see how the votes were cast.
  • What is a Certificate of Vote? - Certificates of Vote are the documents that contain the elector's votes for president and vice president. While Federal law does not govern the general appearance of the Certificates, they must contain two distinct lists – one for President and one for Vice President.

View Certificates of Vote from the 2008 Presidential Election:


Alabama
Arizona
Colorado
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Maine
Michigan
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin


Hope Renewed

Those who are aware that only 24 States have reported are beginning to get a sense of renewed hope that perhaps the electors have done the right thing by contesting Barack Obama’s natural born status. Some are even saying that Sarah Palin still has a shot at being VP, or as one person has stated, perhaps even POTUS.

There are however a couple of hurdles. First of all the official count will not take place until January 8th. So we don’t really know whether only 24 States have participated in the vote. Results can be filed late without penalty.

Secondly, in the event no candidate received the required 270 votes, the matter of who will be President and Vice President will be in the hands of a Democratic controlled Congress and Senate. As quoted in my reply, above:

If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.


Conclusion

While I am enlightened by all of this, I have resolved to not become complacent. I will continue to hold my Congressman, and both Senator’s feet to the fire. I need for them to provide an adequate, well researched, and thorough reply to the correspondence I have sent regarding Obama’s inability to qualify as a natural born citizen under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. I need an answer to my question of ‘whether or not they intend to object on January 8th’. I cannot be more serious than I am today about turning my back, forever, on those who dare to ignore such a grossly obvious constitutional breach.

Source: Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration – Click Here

Monday, December 29, 2008

Links to some of the Obama Eligibility Cases

Broe v. Reed: Response from SOS - Update

Ericson v. Obama: VT Petitioner Seeking Attorney -
Update

Keyes v. Lingle: Case Dismissed; Forensic Examiner Disproves Online COLB -
Update

On Appealing Congress to Validate Obama’s Candidacy -
Update

Connerat v. Browning: FL Election Result Challenge -
Update

Two Hoosiers File Suit; Talk of Other Suits Filed this Month -
Update

PER SENATE RESOLUTION 511 - OBAMA MUST STEP DOWN ON JANUARY 8, 2009

OBAMA MUST STEP DOWN ON JANUARY 8, 2009

When the Senate meets on January 8, 2009 to talk about the results of the Electoral College vote, Mr. Obama will have to step down as he does NOT meet the criteria for being POTUS via the Constitution and Court cases throughout the years which say that only a “natural born citizen” can be POTUS. Even Mr. Obama agrees with this because he co-sponsored and signed Senate Resolution 511 which is the following:


SENATE RESOLUTION 511


Whereas the Constitution of the USA states the qualifications of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;


Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;


Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;


Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;


Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;


Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and


Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:


Now, therefore, be it Resolved,


That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II,Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

“Born to American citizens (mother and father)”.


This Senate Resolution, unanimously (including Mr. Obama) adopted, declares that “natural born” means having two American citizen parents.


This, therefore, disqualifies Mr. Obama since his father was NOT an American but was a British citizen.


The Senate must apply the same standard to all Presidential Candidates.


Dr. Douglas W. Schell


Chair, www.restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org


Retired Professor of Business


336-983-7655


Source: The Right Side of Life


OK State Rep Mike Ritze to Persuade Sen. Inhofe to Challenge Obama


Submitted by Phil on Wed, Dec 24, 2008

OK State Rep Mike Ritze to Persuade Sen. Inhofe to Challenge Obama

Oklahoma State Representative Mike Ritze — the same State Representative who brought forward a bill to have the State validate candidate eligibility — is now seeking to persuade OK Senator James Inhofe to challenge the Electoral College vote certification in Congress.

According to InvestigatingObama:

Related yesterday evening by FReeper, BonRad, below is an email sent by Plains Radio, early Tuesday morning (emphasis by I.O.): …

Last night, Plains Radio made history. We had for the first time one of them to join us. Them? That would be Rep. Mike Ritze of the Oklahoma State house. Dr. Mike will now take our cause to the Senators and Congressman from Oklahoma. He will try and persuade Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma to stand up and challenge Obama Election. …

The email goes on to say that on Friday, 12/26, they are scheduled to interview Obama outistcorrespondent for Pravda’s Web publication (yes, Pravda). The only journalist that I.O. knows of who is reporting about Obama’s ineligibility is Mark S. McGrew and it turns out McGrew was interviewed by Ed Hale of Plains Radio on Monday, 12/22, as well. Also, Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Obama challengers in Washington state.

I see this as a reasonable path to take. After all, it would be significantly harder to get at least 1 US Senator to challenge the Electoral College vote certification than it would be a Representative (for the reason that Senators are significantly more powerful than any one Representative; they represent an entire State of voters as opposed to merely a district). Also, Sen. Inhofe has done a great job of sticking up for common-sense initiatives for the great State of Oklahoma.

Update: InvestigatingObama continues reporting:

In the Monday interview described [above], Dr. Mike Ritze, Oklahoma State Representative states that he is contacting OK Senators James Inhofe (R) and Tom Coburn (R), asking that they challenge the congressional certification of Barack Obama’s election, based upon his not being a natural born Citizen according to the actual definition of that criterion. Rep. Ritze also describes his proposed state legislation to reform election law in that state, including the constitutional definition of natural born Citizen. Alabama’s U.S. Senator, Jeff Sessions was also mentioned.


A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

State-based initiatives for electoral reform can be found here.

Source: The Right Side of Life

Seeing the Big Picture - SCOTUS vs Obama

Reposted from: Talk Wisdom Blog


Didn't really want to discuss the Obama citizenship issue on Christmas Eve, but there have been some developments that might give those of us who are questioning Obama's "natural born citizen" status some hope.


Over at Obama Crimes.com, I was reading through the last few pages of comments (there are over 7,000!!) and wanted to share the following ones so that readers will be up to date on what is happening over at the Supreme Court re: the Berg vs. Obama case. If the commenter is correct in what he has written, we might just see justice in this case, after all!


Ok—Now I see the big picture! Part 1

written by Tom Waite, December 24, 2008

In my previous analysis of the Berg v. Obama Supreme Court case, I said that the Supreme Court Justices were very sly by scheduling a January 9th conference date in order to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari. Because just one day earlier, congress is to open up the Electoral College’s sealed votes from each state, count the votes and declare a presidential winner. But now there is a new development, which seems very perplexing at first but I believe I can shed light on this news and reinterpret it as a sign of political chess.

The new development is that on December 18, 2008 Berg filed an injunction (to stay the congressional electoral vote count on January 8, 2009 until Barack Obama proves his qualifications, i.e. that he was born in U.S.A.) and he submitted it to Justice Antonin Scalia. Now the very perplexing news is that this injunction has been granted a conference date of January 16, 2009! I know—you’re all rubbing your eyes in disbelief and also when you put into context that the inauguration is on the 20th of January, I have no doubt that you’re saying, what the FUCK?

Whenever I try to type a website on my comments, I never get posted on this blog, so I’ll creatively refer you to the following website, type in three ‘W’s’ and then a dot and then type ‘americasright’ then a dot and finally type ‘com’. Read the story ‘Berg’s Application for Injunction Curiously Moves On at Supreme Court’ under Tuesday, December 23, 2008. Jeff Schreiber (the person running this blog), is a law student and he can’t fathom the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to set a date to discuss Berg’s injunction that is well after the time congress will have counted the Electoral College’s votes. In doing so, Jeff feels this conference on January 16, 2009 to discuss Berg’s injunction will be a moot issue.

However, I see it differently, the Justices of the Supreme Court aren’t sequestered in some castle. The Justices know exactly what the issues are and are constantly being bombarded with similar legal applications to be considered regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility for president. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, if the Justices wanted to dismiss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari they could have but they deliberately chose to discuss it 24 hours after congress officially counts the Electoral College’s votes; reason being Berg’s issue of standing will now be valid! Once Obama official wins the national vote (via the counting of Electoral College’s votes), Berg’s issue of harm being done to him by Obama now becomes legally valid it is no longer theoretical; thus Berg does have legal standing!

Now in a political game of chess, the Supreme Court’s manoeuvring of the January 9th date to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari can be seen as a move of check against Obama. Obama is now in a corner but still can move his king chess piece and similarly with the Writ of Certiorari, Obama still could refuse to deliver evidence proving he was born in United States. I understand why the Justices set a date one week later (January 16) to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes, this move can be seen as check and mate! Meaning Obama’s king can’t move in any direction on the chessboard, thus he’s trapped and has lost the game!

Setting a date to discuss the injunction on preventing congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes isn’t a moot issue; in this context any judgement is retroactive! So that even if congress has counted the Electoral College’s votes and have declared Obama the presidential winner; if the Supreme Court finds Obama ineligible to be a presidential candidate, they can retroactively cancel the results of the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!

And that’s why the Supreme Court is allowing for a January 16th conference on Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s vote on January 8th. It’s not a moot issue, it’s a very deliberate political game of entrapment or as in chess it can be seen as a move of checkmate. Because the Supreme Court is basically giving Obama no wiggle room to manoeuvre and escape from the January 9th’s conference of Berg’s Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court is ultimately saying to Obama, if you don’t hand over your evidence to us on January 9th, you will be forced to hand over your evidence to us on January 16th, otherwise we’ll retroactively cancel the results from the Electoral College’s votes that were counted back on January 8th!

Friday, December 26, 2008

How the GOP will lose 200,000+ members in 2009

Barack Obama is Not Qualified to be President

Follow up to My Open Letter to U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate

: Final Notice to GOP

How the GOP will lose 200,000+ members in 2009


The Constitutional requirements to be a U.S. Congressman or U.S. Senator are different than the requirements to be U.S. President or Vice President. The requirements may be found at the following website: click here. In order to become a U.S. Senator or Congressman the Constitution only requires that one be a U.S. Citizen for the required number of years. In order to be President or Vice President, the Constitution requires that one be a natural born citizen. Many GOP Representatives are carelessly ignoring the special requirements to be President as if the requirements are the same as for Congressmen and Senators.

U.S. Congressman
Article I, Section 2, Clause 2
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

U.S. Senator
Article I, Section 3, Clause 3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

U.S. President
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
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.

The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States. Therefore, it is undisputed that children of American citizens born in the U.S. are eligible to hold the office of President upon reaching the required age, and that persons naturalized as U.S. citizens after birth are disqualified from holding that office.

The special term "Natural Born Citizen" is used in particular as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The grandfather provision of the Natural Born Citizen Clause thus covered the first several presidents and vice-presidents, who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but had been born as British citizens before the American Revolution.

It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen” eligible to someday become president or vice-president, whereas anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization "process or procedure" is not a "natural born citizen" and is therefore ineligible for those two positions. In between these extremes lie gray areas, some controversy, and various settled precedents.

Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship and "natural born" status

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically determined the meaning of "natural born Citizen," they have occasionally considered the matter in passing.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court discussed the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: "the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): It was held that a person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen, per the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority also mentioned what the situation was prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, by quoting Emerich de Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." Dissenters in Wong Kim Ark wrote: "it is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not." The majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark did not explicitly disagree with this comment of the dissenters, and instead merely observed that: "The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'"

Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President."

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971): Reviews the history of citizenship legislation and of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

Emmerich de Vattel

For the original definition the term Natural Born Citizen, its meaning at the time our Constitution was written, one need only look to Vattel. Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel's {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel's influence grew. Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.

Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall.

John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, ``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.

In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and ``his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}''

James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.} Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and ``Vattel's {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.'' Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.

The Law of Nations and The Declaration of Independence

Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774.

Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, ``I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ....''

The study of {The Law of Nations} by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions ``of the circumstances of a rising state,'' is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel's arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign.

The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the ``inalienable rights'' of ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,'' and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people. Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people, with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused. Repeated appeals were made to our ``British Brethren,'' but since they ``have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity,'' we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace. Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government, ``to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.''

The inclusion of the central conception of {The Law of Nations,} Vattel's Leibnizian concept of happiness, as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration's Leibnizian character. The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman.

Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration, after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities. The fact, that Jefferson was a strong proponent of the philosophy of John Locke by as early as 1771, is often used as evidence that the Declaration was based on Locke's philosophy. However, Locke had argued, in his {Two Treatises of Government,} that the fundamental right of men is to ``Life, Liberty, and Property.'' The inclusion of ``the pursuit of happiness,'' rather than ``property,'' as an inalienable right, was a crucial statement, that the American Revolution would be a battle for the establishment of a true Republic, rather than merely a dispute between two groups of aristocrats over the division of property.

So in order to understand the term Natural Born Citizen in order to make the proper distinction between the Consitutional requirements to be a U.S. Senator or Congressman (a citizen of the United States), and to be President (a natural born citizen) we must look to Vattel’s definition.


Vattel’s Law of Nations Chapter 19, § 212. Citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

I will repeat some of Vattel’s passages from above for emphasis.

  • ‘The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” [The word parents is plural implying that both parents are US citizens at the time of birth.]

    “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children…” [This is a truth that works both ways. If your father was a citizen of Kenya when you were born, then no matter where you were born, Kenyan (British) citizenship passed to you. Kenya was Barack Obama’s country at birth.]

    “…in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen…” [In order to be of the United States, it is necessary that one is born of a father who is a U.S. Citizen.]

    “…for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country…” [If Barack Obama was born in the United States, then this was mearly the place of his birth, and not his country.]

Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned

While every President and Vice President to date (as of 2008) is widely believed to have been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, or else born in the United States, there have been some presidential candidates who were either born or suspected of having been born outside the U.S. states.[18] This does not necessarily mean that they were ineligible, only that there was some controversy (usually minor) about their eligibility, which may have been resolved in favor of eligibility.[19]

Chester A. Arthur (1829-1886), 21st president of the United States, might have been born in Canada.[20] This was never demonstrated by his political opponents, although they raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign. He was born to a U.S.-citizen mother and a father from Ireland who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.

George Romney (1907-1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus-sanguinis statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers.[21]

Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the Arizona Territory. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's having been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state.[20]

Lowell Weicker (1931-), the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France to parents who were U.S. citizens. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.[22]

Róger Calero (1969-) was born in Nicaragua and ran as the Socialist Worker's Party Presidential Candidate in 2004 and 2008. In 2008, Calero appeared on the ballot in Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Vermont.[23]

John McCain (1936-), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents.[24] In March 2008 McCain was held eligible for Presidency in an opinion paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe.[25] In April 2008 the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural born citizen.[26] In September 2008 a Federal District judge said obiter that it was "highly probable" that McCain was a natural born citizen of the United States owing to the citizenship legislation existing at the time.[27][28] These views have been criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who claims that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403.[29]

Barack Obama (1961-) may have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Kenya who was not a U.S. citizen. Before and after the 2008 presidential election, which Obama won, the argument was made that he was not a natural-born citizen. On June 12, 2008, the Obama presidential campaign launched a website to counter what it described as smears by his opponents, including these challenges to his eligibility. The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the assertion that he was not actually born in Hawaii. At least one lawsuit conceded that he was a citizen by virtue of birth in Hawaii, but argued that he was nevertheless not a natural-born citizen because of his entitlement to dual citizenship (through his father) at birth. As of December 16, 2008 no court has agreed to hear any of these challenges, nor has Barack Obama voluntarily disclosed his original long-form certificate of live birth.

Legislative Certification of Electoral Votes

On January 8, 2009, the U.S. Congress, and U.S. Senate will meet to certify the results of the electoral college.

Under federal law an objection to a state's electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during Congress's counting of electoral votes on January 8th. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.

If members of the GOP refuse to object to the election of Barack Obama, knowing that he may not be constitutionally qualified, then the GOP could stand to lose at least 200,000 of its members. I derive this number from the 196,149 who have to-date signed the World Net Daily Petition (which is only one of several such efforts) duly expressing:

“…concerns that our government is not taking this constitutional question seriously will result in diminished confidence in our system of free and fair elections.”

Should the GOP fail to act in support of the concerns of its constituents, then, the GOP need never ask this citizen for any further support of any kind. In other words notice has been served.

December 26, 2008
Larry M. Walker, Jr.


Sources:

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presrequire.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/previous_questions.html

Monday, December 22, 2008

Open Letter - Request to refile Petition Lightfoot v Bowen with chief Justice John Roberts

Request to refile Petition Lightfoot v Bowen with chief Justice John Roberts

Dear Justice Roberts,

This is an open cover letter and it is being posted on the Internet, you-tube and will be read on a number of radio stations, particularly radio stations around military bases, forwarded to Congress, Senate, Governors of the States and mass media.

This legal action, as 20 other actions filed in the past few months is seeking Judicial intervention due to the fact that Mr. Barack Obama, whose father was a Kenyan- British citizen, is not a Natural Born Citizen and is not eligible to be the President of this country. It also states, that Mr. Obama did not prove his citizenship at all, since the state of Hawaii allows issuance of Hawaiian Birth certificates to foreign born children of Hawaiian residents and there is mounting evidence that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii, whereby he will not be a citizen at all.


The Plaintiffs in this action are a vice-presidential candidate on the ballot, electors and voters. Majority of the plaintiffs have served years of their lives in the US military and risked their lives, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The plaintiffs and other members of the US military are deeply concerned about the fact that none of the cases related to Mr. Obama’s lack of eligibility was heard on the merits.


The plaintiffs are also concerned about the following: You have recorded a program “Conversations with Chief Justice Roberts”. Numerous high schools students were flown in to DC and participated in discussion about the Constitution, law and the Supreme Court with you. This program was fully funded by the Annenberg foundation, is it clearly states on the video released, and it appears that as a Chief Justice of the Supreme court you consider Annenberg to be a reputable organization, supporting the Constitution and you support their efforts. The problem with it, is that Annenberg has been employing on their Annenberg Challenge board William Ayers, a non-repentant terrorist that participated in bombing of police headquarters in 1970, Capitol building in 1971 and Pentagon in 1972. As late as 2001, Mr. Ayers stated in NY times interview: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel I didn’t do enough”. From 1995 the chairman of Annenberg Challenge was none else, but Mr. Barack Obama.


Annenberg has created an offshoot, called Factcheck.org, Annenberg political Fact check, that was supposed to provide unbiased fact checking. In reality Annenberg fact check has actively and intentionally defrauded American public in letting them to believe that Mr. Obama is a Natural born citizen and eligible for US presidency.


Annenberg fact check intentionally omitted the Definition of Law of Nations (Emmerich De Vettel), stating that a natural born citizen is one that is born in the country to parents, that are citizens. They omitted a statement by John A Bingham, framer of the 14th amendment, stating that a natural born citizen is one that was born in the US territory to parents that don’t owe alliance to any other sovereignty. Due to the fact that Mr. Obama’s father was not a US citizen and owed allegiance to Kenya and Great Britain, Mr. Obama did not qualify as a natural born citizen and does not qualify for presidency.


Fact check intentionally omitted Hawaii statue 338, that allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residence to obtain a Hawaiian certification of live birth. It omitted the fact that such certification can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence.


It omitted the fact that there was no corroborating evidence of Mr. Obama’s birth from any hospital, nurse or hospital administrator from Hawaii, while there were numerous statements from Mr. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, a Baptist Bishop and an ambassador of Kenya about Mr. Obama being born there. If that is the case, Mr. Obama is not a US citizen and will need to go back to Kenya to wait for his Green Card.


As of now the American public has only information from Annenberg, a political organization, some of whose members have very questionable moral qualities (to say the least). My clients, as well as 300 million American, including thousands of members of the military, that are asked to give their lives to defend the Constitution of this country, would like to know, if the Supreme Court Justices, particularly chief Justice Roberts, (that needs to swear the President on the bible), are willing to give a few hours of their time to hear the Oral Argument in defense of this Constitution. They want to know if the justices believe in the Constitution on which this country was built, or whether they are prepared to tear it apart in favor of some new world order, conceived by a few billionaires, the Trilateral commission and the Bielderberg Group.

Sincerely,

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Council for the Petitioners

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

YouTube Channel, DrOrlyTV


Link to Source: Click Here

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Obama Born in Hawaii? - Due Diligence?

Due Diligence? Who Did It?


To all the smart and savvy who have made up their minds that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and that he meets the qualification under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution of being a Natural Born Citizen.

Please feel free to comment or reply back to me if you have personally seen and verified Mr. Obama's credentials, because so far all I have heard from various Congressmen and Senators is that the State of Hawaii has done all the verification necessary. However, when I read the following statement made by the director of Hawaii's State Dept. of Health, I don't see anywhere where she stated that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. Ms Fukino's statements follow. The only one who said that this verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii was the author of the story, and not Ms Fukino.

__________________________________________________________

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” said Chiyome Fukino. “State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”

Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

“No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,” Fukino added.

__________________________________________________________

I don't see where Fukino made any statement verifying that Barack Obama was born in HI, or making any other claim other than that his original birth certificate is on record. The only one who added that statement was the author of the story. Click Here

Having the birth certificate on file, does not imply that Obama was born in HI. HI law states that residents of HI may request a HI birth certificate for a child born overseas within the first year after the birth. See the Orly Taitz video.

Even with all of that said, the issue is not whether Obama was born in HI. The issue is whether a US Citizen with a parent who was not a US Citizen at the time of birth is considered to be a Natural Born Citizen as required by Article II, Section I. Please refer to my "
Open Letter" for a definition of Natural Born.


Friday, December 19, 2008

Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?

Question:



Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?



Answer:



The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.



Because the process of qualifying for the election and having a candidate's name put on the ballot varies from state to state, you should contact your state's top election officer for more information. In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for oversight of state elections, including the presidential election. Visit the National Secretaries of State web site to locate contact information and web addresses for the Secretary of State from each state and the District of Columbia.



Under federal law an objection to a state's electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during Congress's counting of electoral votes in January (January 8th). The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.



Link to the above: Click Here

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Orly Taitz Video Message: Why Obama is not Constitutionally Qualified to be POTUS



Orly Taitz Urgent Message - Re: Obama is not Constitutionally qualified and why we must oppose him. Part I






Orly Taitz Urgent Message - Re: Obama is not Constitutionally qualified and why we must oppose him. Part II

John Linder to stand and object Obama at Electoral Count

John Linder to stand and object Obama at Electoral Count
12/17/2008 Autumnraine


Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 12:05:48 PM by autumnraine


I read a post the other day that a Freeper got from Congressman John Linder, Georgia, stating that he would stand and object to Obama if he doesn't show proof of constitutional eligibility.


I emailed Mr. Linder and asked if he did indeed write that email and if he was serious about holding Obama to task on something as serious as this.


A few moments ago I received a phone call from Congressman Linder's office confirming that he intends to do exactly that and he is just as intent as us on verifying Obama's eligibility.


I told his staffer (very nice lady) that I was proud of him and that I appreciated his bravery as I know he is going against the tide with this.


She said that she herself was concerned as she had to show full, long form documentation to even work in the building for a Congressman and we shouldn't be told to just take someone's word for an office as important as POTUS.


Anyway, I just wanted to let everyone know that at least one Congressman is standing up to this, even if the SCOTUS doesn't have the nerve to examine what would seem to be a reasonable question.




Posted 2008-12-17 12:51 PM (#4553) By: EternalVigilance
Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Obama Election Illegal! Hit's cover of Globe Magazine.

Appeard in Dec. 15, 2008 Issue

http://www.globemagazine.com/story/277

Open Letter to U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate



December 13, 2008


Re: The Constitutional Eligibility of the President-elect


Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen as defined by Article II, Section I, of the United States Constitution?


Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article II, Section I:


"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."


As long as the parents gave birth to the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen. Since none of the drafters of the Constitution were US born, the grandfather clause allowed for 'Citizens of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution' to become Presidents. After that no person except a natural born Citizen could become President of the United States.


Barack Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not relevant to the provisions of the Constitution. What is relevant is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never become a natural born citizen.


Since Barack Obama's father was not a United States Citizen at the time of the President-elects birth, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen.


The President-elect has maintained that he was born in the United States. Even this fact has yet to be proven conclusively. It has not been proven to date, because Obama has chosen to spend $500,000 in legal fees to avoid turning over a $20 "Certificate of Live Birth". One has to wonder what, if anything, he may be hiding. However this has nothing to do with the ‘Natural Born’ issue.


The real question is not whether Barack Obama was born in the United States, and thus a Citizen of the United States. The real question is does he qualify as a “Natural Born” US Citizen?


There are three types of US Citizens: Natural Born Citizen, Citizen by Birth, and Naturalized Citizen. Allow me to clarify:


Natural Born Citizens


A Natural Born Citizen is one who was born to parents who were both US Citizens, at the time of the birth, and who was also born on US soil. In support of this I will quote this passage from the book, “The Law of Nations” – Monsieur De Vattel. Our founding fathers most likely formed our Constitution from Vattel’s writings. The following was published in 1758.


§ 212. Citizens and natives.

· The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


Citizens by Birth


· Example 1: If two illegal or non-US citizens come into the US and have a child, that child is born with dual citizenship: US and that of their parent’s country. The child in this case is considered a US Citizen but is not Natural Born due to being born with dual status.


· Example 2: If a child is born in the US to one US citizen parent, and one non-US citizen parent, that child is likewise born with dual citizenship: US by virtue of one parent, and with that of the other parent’s country. The child in this case may be considered a US Citizen, but is not Natural Born due to being born with dual status.


Naturalized Citizens


A Naturalized citizen is one who was not US born or who gave up their citizenship, but later became a US citizen through naturalization.

The Main Point

The main point is that since Barack Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”.


Where did Obama make this admission? On his fightthesmears.com website for one (attachment 1), which references the admission on the factcheck.org website (attachment 2).


Barack Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not relevant to the provisions of the Constitution. What is relevant is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never become a natural born citizen.


Since Barack Obama's father was not a United States Citizen at the time of the President-elects birth, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen.


It's just that simple, yet most Americans have completely missed this point. Some have missed this because they are not familiar with the constitution. Some have been misled by the media. Others have been misled by Obama himself as I will now address.


Why Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate is Prima Facie Evidence


I have attached a copy of my Certificate of Live Birth (attachment 3) which was originally issued by the State of Michigan on Sept. 20, 1960. Please note the following information:


  • Father of Child - Age of Father, Birthplace of Father (State or Foreign country).

  • Mother of Child - Age of Mother, Birthplace of Mother (State or Foreign country).

  • Name of Hospital or Institution

  • Attendant at Birth – MD, Midwife, or Other.

I have also attached a copy of Barack Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (attachment 4). Notice the Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is missing the four items noted above that are on my birth certificate.


Of vital importance is the information regarding the Birthplace of Barack Obama’s Father? American’s who have read Obama’s books, know for a fact that his Father was a Kenyan Citizen, who came to the United States to attend college, and then returned to Kenya. And that Barack Obama’s father never became a citizen of the United States at any time during his life. It is clear from Obama himself that his father was not a US Citizen at the time of the president-elect’s birth.


Those who have not read Obama’s books relied on the Certification of Live birth posted by Obama on his website, which omits this vital information. Many of them have ‘assumed’ that Obama meets the qualification of being ‘Natural Born’. Many simply have assumed that Obama’s father was an immigrant who became a naturalized citizen before the president-elect was born.


Thus, the Long Form, Certificate of Live Birth would be prima facie evidence, and is required in order to prove whether or not Obama is qualified to be President. The Certification of Live Birth posted by Obama on his website is also prima facie evidence of Barack Obama’s intent to deceive the masses and the media into believing that he is qualified. Obama’s deceit is that the Certification he posted as proof, omits the facts necessary to make an informed judgment.


Obama Cannot be President


When the US Constitution is clear on a matter, we are not supposed to re-think "what difference does it make to the future of this country." If we do this re-thinking at every step, we would not need a Constitution; we would merely cogitate on how proposal X will affect our future. In short, no need for a Constitution.


In this case, the Constitution is very clear. Article II, Section 1 states, "no person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President." If the president elect is not natural born, then he cannot be President.


At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father.


Presidential Precedent


Other than the alleged fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see the relevant articles at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were US Citizens. In their wisdom, our forefathers recognized the danger in having people born under the jurisdiction of another country taking the role of commander in chief.


They did this recognizing that multitudes of loyal men wouldn’t be eligible, but they also knew that they couldn’t see into the soul of all possible candidates, so just to be safe, they put a restriction in the Document which is there to protect us from a sneak attack in the oval office by somebody who might have loyalty to another nation. The framers themselves were good men, loyal to this infant nation, but they recognized that people like them had to be excluded from future Presidential eligibility as an order of protection.


Obama’s Admission


Like it or not, rich or poor, great or strong, Democrat or Republican, Obama was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain via Kenya. There is nothing conspiratorial about saying that. Obama has it posted on his own web site. Here’s what it says at Obama’s web portal, Fight The Smears:


  • When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

There it is. Obama is telling you his status was “governed” by a foreign jurisdiction. This is no theory. This is a fact.


The Opposing Argument


The opposing media argument concerns the will of the people in the election and that neither Supreme Court nor any other legislative body should overturn the intent of 65 million voters. It’s an argument that fails - if the candidate is not Constitutionally eligible then the election was a fraud no matter how many voted for Obama.


The people are subservient to the Document and if we don’t keep it that way, we have plenty of historical examples throughout history detailing exactly what will happen to us if the Document is defeated.


Regardless, should the people demand that Constitutional restrictions in Article 2, Section 1, be removed from the Document, they can lobby their political representatives to introduce an amendment, and if such amendment were to be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, then they can have any President they like.


But as long as Article 2, Section 1, is controlling law, it’s those who are trying to attack all review of the law who are the conspiracy theorists.


The 20TH Amendment to the Constitution Is Clear


"If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified ..."


The US Constitution tells us exactly what to do in the current situation. The election is not some kind of deadline. Even the true election by Electors is not the deadline. The deadline is "the time fixed for the beginning of his term." That would be January 20, 2009. We have not yet reached the Constitutional deadline. The Constitution even hints that there is, or should be, some kind of qualification process: "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify."


If we find that Obama is not natural born, then the Constitution says Joe Biden shall be President until the Presidential matter gets sorted out. Everything about that is horrible. Unfortunately, it is exactly what the Constitution says we shall do. It does not "suggest"; it says "shall."


Are we to apply the Constitution only in cases where it is convenient to do so? Failure to act now will set a new precedent for years to come. Failure to act will in itself be an action to undermine the United States Constitution.


I therefore pray that you as honorable members of the United States Senate, and House of Representatives will request the appropriate documentation, make a determination regarding the qualifications of Barack Obama, and settle this matter before the Certification of the Electoral College. I also would request that you refer this matter to other Federal agencies as you see fit in order to bring justice and to ensure that our Constitution is upheld.



Sincerely,



Larry M. Walker Jr.