Friday, January 30, 2009

So Far Not A Single Obama II Eligibility Case Has Been Heard On The Merits

[Dr. Orly Taitz hits a brick wall in Texas State Court, yet finds light at the end of the tunnel.]


January 22, 2009

Texas Judge, Burt Carnes, allowed me to represent Jody Brockhausen against the Secretary of State of TX. He signed my application to represent her Pro Hac Vice (out of state attorney), yet his decision was that he had no jurisdiction to hear the case in the State Court.

He looked like his mind was made up even before the hearing. He asked the Assistant Attorney General how much time she needed. She stated 15-20 minutes. His response was that he only needed 3 minutes. He didn't even ask the plaintiff if she needed any time. When I protested, he was not willing to let me talk.

When I asked him to allow me to represent her pro hac vice, pro bono since I had made an effort of flying and driving from CA all night long, he stated that he didn't sign pro hac vice applications. When I stated that nothing was preventing him from signing it now, he reluctantly agreed.

I stated that the examples given by the Attorney General related to the Federal Courts and issues prior to Obama's election. That to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in Texas law, or precedents that would prevent a Citizen from having standing to seek verification of the eligibility and legitimacy of the sitting President.

Judge Carnes provided no response, stated that there is no jurisdiction, and told us to go. We certainly did go. We went straight to the U.S. Attorney's office and filed a criminal complaint. My client's civil rights under the 1st, 9th, 10th and 14th amendments had been violated.

If there is no jurisdiction in Federal or State courts, then Citizens have had their civil rights taken away from them de facto, and have been reduced to the level of slaves.

A group of patriots and I had a meeting with Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chris Peele, and the Chief U.S. Attorney for the North-Western District of Texas for Criminal Matters, Richard Durbin. Mr. Durbin agreed to hear the matter and asked for our paperwork. We were shocked to find out how little they knew about the Obama eligibility cases.

Mr. Peele told us that he was under the impression that the case had been heard on the merits. Neither of them had a clue that not one single Obama eligibility case was ever heard on the merits; that not one judicial subpoena was ever issued; and that no one has ever examined Barack Obama's original birth certificate.

We are currently coordinating personal meetings between groups of volunteers and Chief U.S. Attorney's for Criminal Matters in each and every District of the United States. Ken Burr and George Lewis will be in charge of this project.

email: Ken Burr at patriot@tx.rr.com for more information.

by: Orly Taitz, Attorney

[as edited by: larrymwalkerjr]
Saturday, January 24, 2009

BREAKING NEWS! The Shocking Secrets That Could Destroy Obama's Presidency!


January 20, 2009

BREAKING NEWS! The Shocking Secrets That Could Destroy Obama's Presidency!


It's the story every American needs to read! Barack Obama is hiding eight shocking secrets that could destroy his presidency before it even gets off the ground, political insiders say. In a blockbuster Special Report, insiders rip the lid off the scandals about where Obama was REALLY born, his sex life, drug abuse and the mysterious past he's hiding from the world. The new President has artfully dodged some of the most serious questions ever posed to a Commander-in-Chief. But top political leaders are demanding answers NOW - and the mounting pressure could trigger a firestorm that will bring down his administration. Don't miss a single word - only in GLOBE!


The comments are definitely leaning in "ursurper" direction. There are a lot of people who believe that he is NOT qualified!


8 Questions experts say the new President MUST answer!

1. Where were you really born?
2. What is your real name?
3. Are you secretly a Muslim?
4. Why did you have your records at Columbia SEALED?
5. Did you travel to trouble-torn Pakistan on an Indonesian passport at the age of 20?
6. Did you cheat on wife Michelle with both a man and a woman?
7. When did you stop using drugs
8. Are you connected to the shooting death of Donald Young?





Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Berg v. Obama: SCOTUS Denies Stay Application

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2990

Berg v. Obama: SCOTUS Denies Stay Application

According to today’s Supreme Court Orders, the second Conference disposition of Berg v. Obama for injunctive relief has been denied:

08A505

BERG, PHILIP J. V. OBAMA, BARACK, ET AL.

(08-570)

The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

Tomorrow and Friday will bring about events on two additional lawsuits (as I originally covered for this week), Brockhausen v. Andrade and Lightfoot v. Bowen. It should again be noted that Lightfoot will be the first eligibility-based lawsuit reaching the Supreme Court that includes among the Plaintiffs an Electoral College Elector as well as a candidate for the vice presidency. We shall see if this variable is any kind of determining factor that persuades the Justices in any way.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

Update: Ballot-Access.org also covered this case, though I disagree with their analysis: “Phil Berg has been the nation’s most energetic proponent of the idea that the Courts should examine President Obama’s qualifications.” Rather, I think a commenter there is helping to point the publisher in the right direction:

– next case up (Lightfoot) is this Friday. Standing issue should not be available to provide political cover for SCOTUS.
Monday, January 19, 2009

Keyes v. Obama: Legal Action Filed in CA Federal Court Based on Executive Order

Mon, Jan 19, 2009

On Friday, January 16, President George W. Bush’s recent Executive Order on reinvestigating individuals at the federal level. According to RovingPatrol blog, this Order could be another way to approach the President-Elect’s many legal issues. It is also thought that OK State Rep. Mike Ritze may be pushing some things at the State level.

The best part? Activist, agitator of the elites, dentist and attorney Dr. Orly Taitz has today filed suit in the Federal Court of the Central District of California for a writ of Mandamus, declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief on the issue of the President-Elect’s eligibility for the presidency.

Here’s the presser:

For immediate release01.19.09.

Based on the executive order issued by President George w. Bush on the 01.16.09., a legal action is being filed in the Federal Court in the Central District of California. The executive order provides for Reciprocity and Reinvestigation of Individuals in positions of public trust. Section 2 (e), provides for investigation of required level of character and conduct.

On behalf of Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson attorney Orly Taitz has filed a legal action for a writ of Mandamus, declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief on the issue of legitimacy for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Obama aka Barry Soetoro and directing Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Director of FBI Robert Mueller, and director of Personnel Michael Hager to provide all necessary documentation in regards to Mr. Obama’s (Soetoro’s) legitimacy for presidency and US citizenship.

Dr. Orly Taitz Esq

The complete case - Click Here

Source: The Right Side of Life



Sunday, January 18, 2009

Audio: Obama Inauguration Questions

01/18/09


A7 Radio's "Weekend Edition" with Tamar Yonah


Listen Now!


Tamar speaks with Phil Berg and gets an update on the Obama birth certificate issue. Will a man who may not be eligible to be president, be inaugurated nonetheless?



http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/535



Friday, January 16, 2009

PRESS RELEASE: Status of court cases filed challenging Obama's qualifications

For Immediate Release: - 01/15/2009

For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg is ‘outraged’ at Congress as they failed the citizens of the United States by ‘not’ challenging Obama during the Electoral Vote on January 8, 2009 and Demands that Congressional Hearings be held regarding the ‘qualifications’ of Obama as we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ by having an ‘ineligible’ President

Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/15/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending regarding an Application for an Injunction, announced today that he wrote a letter to ‘each’ Member of Congress requesting they call for Congressional Hearings regarding Obama’s lack of qualifications for President due to their failure to question Obama during the Joint Session of Congress for the counting of the Electoral Votes.

[A copy of the letter to Congress is at the end of this Release]

Berg said, "I am disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, our ‘Forefathers’ and for the tens of thousands that have died defending ‘our’ Constitution regarding the recent denial by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am committed to keeping our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out. The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ ever put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.

In addition to the current case in the U.S. Supreme Court, we have or will have:

1. A case filed two [2] months ago captioned Berg vs. Obama, said case ‘under seal’ so I cannot comment further;

2. The case of Hollister vs. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama, filed 12/31/08 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-02254; said case being an ‘Interpleader’ case with the Plaintiff, a retired Colonel from the U.S. Air Force, who is questioning whether to obey or disobey an order if Obama recalls him, based upon whether or not Obama is a ‘qualified’ President;

3. The case that was denied in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Berg vs. Obama, with our Brief due by January 20, 2009; and

4. If Obama is sworn in as President, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as President because he is ‘not qualified.’

Berg states ‘if Soetoro a/k/a Obama is sworn in’ because Obama knows he is ‘not qualified’ and he should hold a Press Conference and Obama should state that I, as a black American, received more votes than anyone else on November 4, 2008 for President and on January 8, 2009 the Joint Session of Congress counted the Electoral College votes and announced that I am President-elect, but because of things in my background, I cannot be sworn in as President. However, Obama is not man enough to state the above!

More and more people are aware of the fact that Obama does not meet the constitutional ‘qualifications’ for President. When the truth finally comes out, individuals including Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, Howard Dean [Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)], other top officials of the DNC, senior campaign staff and some of his new administration should be brought into the criminal justice system, indicted and tried with incarceration for those convicted.

Berg continued, "Obama is setting himself up to be blackmailed and perhaps he is already being blackmailed. He was the candidate for ‘change,’ but look at his cabinet – 70% from President Clinton’s days and how about his Secretary of Defense, Gates. Give me a break!

There is nothing more important than ‘our’ U.S. Constitution and we will fight on!"

Accordingly, I wrote the Members of Congress requesting immediate hearings. The letter I sent follows:

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

January 15, 2009

Dear Member of Congress:

It is your duty, as a duly elected representative of the American people; to regain the respect you have lost by your inaction in not vetting Soetoro a/k/a Obama, by calling for a Congressional Hearing ASAP to determine the truth regarding qualifications of Barry Soetoro, otherwise known as Barack Hussein Obama, to be President of the United States.

My, my, you and the other Members of Congress just showed your true character, that being, no guts, no backbone and only interested in getting re-elected.

I refer to each of you in your lack of action regarding the now President-elect Soetoro/Obama.

As you must be aware, there are many unresolved questions concerning Soetoro/Obama’s status or lack thereof, as a ‘natural born’ American citizen, as required by ‘our’ U.S. Constitution.

On January 8, 2009, you failed your constituencies, your voters, the citizens in your district, as well as all citizens in our nation. Yes, you failed all of us, the ‘We the People,’ yes, the words that begin our U.S. Constitution. Federal Law, 3 U.S.C. 15 provides a method to challenge the counting of the electoral votes in the Joint Session of Congress. If only one [1] Member of the House and one [1] Member of the Senate announced in writing that they were objecting to the Electorial Vote in any/every state, the counting of the votes would stop and the Joint Session would cease until the House and Senate meet, discussed and voted on each States Electorial Votes.

Because of your failure to ‘question’ the eligibility of Soetoro/Obama, we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis.’ Yes, a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ because Soetoro/Obama who appears not to be a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen is ‘ineligible’ under ‘our’ U.S. Constitution to serve as President.

Soetoro/Obama, being ‘ineligible/unqualified’ due to his lack of being ‘natutal born’ means that Obama will be ‘usurping’ the powers of the Office of President of the United States. It will result in every, yes every law that Soetoro/Obama signs, every appointment to an Ambassador or Judgeship, all will be invalid. Soetoro/Obama is setting himself up to be blackmailed, both internally and externally.

There are millions of Americans who believe that Soetoro/Obama does not meet the 3rd qualification pursuant to ‘our’ U.S Constitution, that being ‘natural born.’ Soetoro/Obama satisfies the 1st two [2], that being at least thirty-five [35] years of age and lived in the United States for fourteen [14] years.

The document that Soetoro/Obama’s people keep pushing on the American public is a fraudulent ‘Certification of Live Birth’ and not a ‘Birth Certificate.’ And significant is the fact that in an attempt to quash the rumors that Soetoro/Obama was not ‘natural born,’ in the Soetoro/Obama campaign web site ‘fightthesmears.com’ in June 2008, they put up this fraudulent ‘Certification of Live Birth’ indicating Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii. The fact that Soetoro/Obama has never released his ‘Birth Certificate’ is a very strong indication that he was not born in Hawaii.

There is evidence that:

1. Soetoro/Obama was born in Kenya and because of his mother’s age, he was only naturalized.’

2. Soetoro/Obama was adopted in Indonesia and his legal name became and probably still is ‘Barry Soetoro.’

3. Obama, otherwise known as ‘Barry Soetoro’ became a ‘natural’ citizen of Indonesia.

4. At age ten [10] Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia and:

a. If Soetoro/Obama went through U.S. Immigration he would have been given a ’Certification of Citizenship’ indicating he was ‘naturalized.’

b. If, and it is believed that Soetoro/Obama, or rather Barry Soetoro, did not go through U.S. Immigration, then he is an ‘illegal alien’ – not only not qualified/eligible to be Preseident, but also ineligible to have been a U.S. Senator from Illinois.

5. Soetoro/Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when he was twenty [20] years old on his Indonesia Passport:

a. If Soetoro/Obama was a U.S. citizen in 1981, he did an ‘overt’ act against the U.S. by travelling to a nation, Pakistan that was restricted as Pakistan was a non-travel nation.

Without truthful information concerning Soetoro/Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, ‘We the People’ have been injured. Our fundamental right to cast an informed vote for an eligible Democratic Presidential candidate has been violated. Further, our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association have been violated because we have been robbed of the opportunity to cast our objections through our Representatives to the counting of the Electoral Votes.

To redeem yourself, I implore you to call with your Congressional colleagues for a Congressional Hearing and ask the questions that you failed to do regarding President-elect Soetoro/Obama, even after he tries to hide behind the Office of the Presidency, to resolve the issue without question of the citizenship status and qualifications as set forth in ‘our’ U.S. Constitution. Such a procedure has and is occurring regarding the proposed members of the Cabinet.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Philip J. Berg PJB:jb * * ** * * For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com



Thursday, January 15, 2009

Berg v. Obama: Second Conference Hearing on Friday






Philip Berg, Plaintiff in Berg v. Obama, will have a second Conference this Friday, January 16, concerning his request to either (1) stay the Electoral College vote or (2) stay the certification of same (original docket; new docket; all in “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar).


In my opinion, if Mr. Berg is smart, he will appropriately deal with his Third Circuit case (his brief for the case is due by January 20) prior to this Friday. Of course, even that won’t guarantee that the Supremes will react any differently to this question than his original petition for Certiorari, as the lower court is in no way obligated to “finish up business” prior to this Friday.



We also don’t completely know all of the cards in Philip Berg’s hand. Clearly, he has a sealed Berg v. Obama case currently under consideration in the Judiciary, and he’s already promised to file a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto, should the President-Elect be inaugurated without any orders being handed down.



Even before this week is over, we also already know that next week could entail action from the courts at the State and federal levels as well; I’ll be writing a posting on that later.



In the meantime, be sure to keep yourself up to speed with the current listing of eligibility lawsuits.



Update: Excellent video, “The Embassy,” from TheDailyDigest.com.


Source: January 13, 2009 TheRightSideofLife



Focusing on the issue at hand.

Historical Documents Prove Obama II Ineligible for Presidency

By Jeff West


The Times Examiner


December 10, 2008


... Many people have questioned why the Founding Fathers did not define the phrase “natural born citizen” in the Constitution. The answer is simply that the meaning was commonly understood and there was no reason to define the term. Since Obama’s birth and before, Congress has passed many unconstitutional laws defining the phrase according to their ever-changing whims, with the result that it was consistently liberalized over time. It is a very sad statement about America that Congress cannot understand that the Constitution trumps their laws, hence the need for the Supreme Court to strike down their erroneous, unconstitutional laws.



The Supreme Court reiterated this in their decision of S.C. v. U.S. in 26US Supreme Court 110, 111 (1905) when they wrote: “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now.”



They further confirmed this by quoting Chief Justice John Marshall (Gibbons v. Ogden):
“As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said.”


My discovery of this historical evidence symbolically came to me on Thanksgiving as I was thinking about how God blessed America with a wonderful land and Constitutional form of government. I was reading an article on the Internet discussing various legal attempts to define the phrase “natural born citizen” and I thought, “I know there is some literature or documents contemporaneous with the Founding Fathers that define this phrase as they understood it.” Suddenly I remembered that our Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic “The Law of Nations,” a treatise written by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Written in 1758, this work was read not only by the Founding Fathers, but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the populace.



Thankfully, I found a copy on the Constitution Society’s website and sure enough, in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood. ...





Comment on my AIP Blog - Here




_____
Monday, January 12, 2009

SCOTUS Denies Berg vs. Obama


For Immediate Release: - 01/12/2009

For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Cell (610) 662-3005 U.S. Supreme Court No. 08 - 570
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com

U.S. Supreme Court denies Berg vs. Obama
Berg states he is disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, for our "Forefathers" and for the tens of thousands that have died defending "our" Constitution and we will fight on as Obama is "not qualified" to be President.

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/12/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, in the U.S. Supreme Court announced today that the U.S. Supreme Court has "denied" our Petition For Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment.

Berg said, "I am disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, our ‘Forefathers’ and for the tens of thousands that have died defending ‘our’ Constitution.

I am committed to keep our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out. The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ ever to be put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.

In addition to the current case in the U.S. Supreme Court, we have or will have:

1. A case filed two [2] months ago captioned Berg vs. Obama, said case ‘under
seal’ so I cannot comment further;


2. The case of Hollister vs. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama, filed 12/31/08 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-02254; said case being an ‘Interpleader’ case with the Plaintiff, a retired Colonel from the U.S. Air Force, who is questioning whether to obey or disobey an order if Obama recalls him, based upon whether or not Obama is a ‘qualified’ President;


3. The case that was denied in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Berg vs. Obama, with our Brief due by January 20, 2009; and


4. If Obama is sworn in as President, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as President because he is ‘not qualified.’


Berg states ‘if Obama is sworn in’ because Obama knows he is ‘not qualified’ and he should hold a Press Conference and Obama should state that I, as a black American, received more votes than anyone else on November 4, 2008 for President and on January 8, 2009 the Joint Session of Congress counted the Electoral College votes and announced that I am President-elect, but because of things in my background, I cannot be sworn in as President. However, Obama is not man enough to state the above!

More and more people are aware of the fact that Obama does not meet the ‘qualifications’ for President. When the truth finally comes out, individuals including Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, Howard Dean [Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)], other top officials of the DNC, senior campaign staff and some of his new administration should be brought into the criminal justice system, indicted and tried with incarceration for those convicted."

Berg continued, "Obama is setting himself up to be blackmailed and perhaps he is already being blackmailed. He was the candidate for ‘change,’ but look at his cabinet – 70% from President Clinton’s days and how about his Secretary of Defense, Gates. Give me a break!

There is nothing more important than ‘our’ U.S. Constitution and we will fight on!"

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
Sunday, January 11, 2009

Citizen vs. Natural Born Citizen for Beginners

Barack Obama is Not Qualified to be President

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 II (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.


by: Larry M. Walker, Jr.

Re-posted for those who are new to the Barack Obama II, Natural Born Citizenship saga.


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

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Consequence: The New Natural Born Citizen

According to Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution only a "Natural Born Citizen" may qualify for the office of U.S. President.

In the eyes of the framers, the term natural born citizen meant one whose parents were both U.S. Citizens at the time of birth, and who was born on U.S. soil (Vattel's Law of Nations).

Today, Americans have decided to do away with Article 2, Section 1, by insisting on the inuaguration of Barack Hussein Obama II. So exactly what does this mean? What is Obama II's lineage, and what is the new law?


The Lineage of Barack Hussein Obama II

Barack Hussein Obama II was born to Stanley Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas of English and Irish descent, and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. His parents met in 1960 while attending the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student.


What if Obama Sr. was still living?

If Obama Sr. was still alive, and living in Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, would Obama II have dared to run for POTUS? Would you still insist that Obama II met the qualification of being a natural born citizen? This is highly doubtful. Perhaps our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, saw that if the non-citizen parent(s) were deceased, then there would no longer be a potential conflict of allegiances. However, I find no such reasoning in the writings of Vattel.


The New Natural Born Citizen

So the new 21st Century definition of a natural born citizen must be "one whose non-citizen parent(s) are deceased at the time of his candidacy, and who is presumed to have been born on U.S. soil." And further, that, "the burden of proof is soleley based upon the word of the candidate." And lastly, that, "no citizen shall have standing to challenge whether or not a candidate meets these qualifications."


And of Our Constitutional Republic?

In real life, a law must be changed before it may be broken without punishment, however, in this fairy tale, the Government may simply ignore the law. It will be interesting to see where this story ends, and how many Federal laws will be broken and subsequently ignored. For example, will this illegitimate Government dare go after a Citizen for tax evasion, upholding one section of the Constitution while ignoring another? Will the backing of the U.S. Currency by the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States" be just words? Will the military carry out the orders of an illegitimate Government? Will foreign nations respect the Treaties of this un-Constitutional Republic?


___________________________

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.

___________________________

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.”

Soetoro vs. Soetoro Divorce Papers: Lists 2 Dependent Children

Soetoro_Divorce.pdf


In Broe v. Reed, one of the key questions is: “Was Obama adopted by his Step Father?"

The divorce document states that, "The parties have 1 child below age 18, and 1 child above 18 but still dependent on the parties for education."

What do you think?

Click here to download PDF Copy - Link

And if you missed it: Obama vs. Obama Divorce Decree proves that Obama Sr. is the father, and that his parents were married. http://adjix.com/hrj

Friday, January 9, 2009

Berg v. Obama: Case Update ~ Fight Back Like Never Before

Shipping this out to 20,000 along with today's SCOTUS -- LET'S ROLL on THIS !!!

Berg v. Obama: Case Disposition Likely Monday


According to the Supreme Court’s 2008 Term Court Orders page, the Court’s disposition of Berg v. Obama is likely not to happen until Monday, January 12, as the current Miscellaneous Order contains no reference to it.

Some may attach an entirely negative connotation to today’s absence of a mention of the case, please keep in mind the following from the same Orders page:

The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders. Such an order will, for example, deny a petition for certiorari without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but “miscellaneous” orders may be issued in individual cases at any time. Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on the day of their issuance, while miscellaneous orders are posted on the day of issuance or the next day. [emphasis mine]

Articles in 2008 Election
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?cat=3


FIGHT - Fight Back Like Never Before

A tabloid broke the John Edwards story and apparently it is going to be a tabloid that will get to the truth about the Obama eligibility issue. They just had a second cover come out on the stands about this.

Write them ASAP

If you're convinced BHO is NOT eligible, e-mail Globe at - NoCitizenObama@globefl.com

Results to published - http://www.globemagazine.com

There are those that say there are just a few that feels this way... let the numbers show the facts and stop the brainwashing of our Nation !!!

~ thanks to TS Lyn




www.teamsarah.org
...
Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Lightfoot v. Bowen: Distributed for January 23 Conference

Lightfoot v. Bowen: Distributed for January 23 Conference

Jan 7 2009

The Supreme Court docket (see also “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar) for Dr. Orly Taitz’ (counsel representing) case of Lightfoot v. Bowen now shows the following:

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.

This now puts an eligibility case in front of the Supreme Court Justices for 3 weeks in a row:

This week (Berg v. Obama)

January 16 (Berg v. Obama)

January 23 (Lightfoot v. Bowen)


A current listing of Obama eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

Was Barack II Born to Parents Who Were Citizens?


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.
___________________________

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.”

___________________________

The Lineage of Barack Hussein Obama

Barack Hussein Obama was born to Stanley Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas of English and Irish descent, and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. His parents met in 1960 while attending the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student.



Was Barack Obama II was born to parents who were Citizens? Is this Case closed?
Sunday, January 4, 2009

This Week in the Courts

Submitted by Phil on Sun, Jan 4, 2009


This Week in the Courts

For the Barack Hussein Obama presidential eligibility saga, this week presents a number of important milestones for both the Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government as well as the great State of Washington:


  • Thursday, January 8, 2009: Congress meets in joint session to count the Electoral College votes; from the National Archives: “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.”

  • Thursday, January 8, 2009: James Broe, Plaintiff pro se and one of 13 total Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed (attorney Stephen Pidgeon representing), is scheduled to have his case heard via oral argument at the Washington State Supreme Court.

  • Friday, January 9, 2009: Philip J. Berg, Plaintiff in Berg v. Obama, has his case going to Supreme Court Conference, where they will privately discuss whether or not to grant a writ of Certiorari (”Rule of Four“: 4 of 9 Justices required to grant). Remember the following concerning these writs, per Wikipedia: “the legal effect of the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial ‘imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times.’ Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created, and that the lower court’s decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction.”

Furthermore, regarding the Supreme Court’s private Conference, it is a private meeting (per the link on the Conference). That means nobody knows what the discussions entail except for the Justices and the Supreme Court is not obligated in any way to issue any kind of explanation for why they choose to deny or grant writs on cases.


Source: The Right Side of Life

Friday, January 2, 2009

Focus: Follow up Letter to Senators/Congressmen

HI Press Release Fukino.pdf

U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss
Facsimile Transmission

January 2, 2009

Dear Senator Chambliss,

Re: Barack Obama’s Qualifications: Who Did the Due Diligence?

If you have made up your mind 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, then may I ask, what was the procedure of due diligence?

Have you personally seen and verified Mr. Obama's credentials, or are you relying on rumors? You stated previously that the State of Hawaii has done all the verification necessary. However, when I read the (attached) 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 a popular news article 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.
__________________________________________________________
Ms. Fukino made no statement verifying that Barack Obama was born in HI, nor any other claim other than that his original birth certificate is on record. To do so, would have been a violation of the Law.

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.

With all of that said, the issue is not whether Obama was born in HI. Whether or not 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 of the United States Constitution.

You, sir, have the ability to subpoena the State of Hawaii and Mr. Obama for proof that he is eligible to be President of the United States. You also have the responsibility to object to the results of the Electoral College if upon review of the facts, you determine that he does not qualify. All I am asking is that you perform due diligence by personally requesting and examining the evidence. I pray that you take this matter seriously.

When questions arose regarding whether John McCain qualified as a Natural Born Citizen, under Article II, Section I of the Constitution, the Senate took it upon themselves to pass Senate Resolution 511. The Senate concluded that, “John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American Citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone…” and thus met the qualifications of being a Natural Born Citizen.

Similar questions have arisen regarding Barack Hussein Obama. In fact there have been more than 21 lawsuits two of which have been in conference before the U.S. Supreme Court, and two of which are pending before the SCOTUS. New lawsuits continue to be filed at both the State and Federal Level. As a citizen of the United States, and of the State of Georgia, I respectfully request that as my representative, you apply the same standard to Mr. Obama as was done for Mr. McCain. This should not be taken lightly, for it is the Constitution itself that is at risk.

It is well known that Mr. Obama’s father was a citizen of British controlled Kenya at the time of his birth, and that upon birth Mr. Obama held dual citizenship with both Kenya and the United States. The Framers of our Constitution made it clear that to be President; one must be a Natural Born Citizen, a distinction quite different from the requirements of being a Senator or Congressman. It is also well known that Vattel’s, ‘Law of Nations’, was the document referred to by our founding fathers. The document clearly defines the term Natural Born Citizen as ‘those born in the country, to parents who are citizens’.

I know that you know all of this. I am however, very concerned, that everyone has passed the buck on this question, and that not one of my elected officials has performed the necessary due diligence. I know there are many important issues today with our economy, and foreign affairs, but a breach of our Constitution will make us even more vulnerable in both foreign and domestic affairs.

I therefore request that you take this matter seriously, and do with it as you see fit.

Sincerely,



Larry Walker, Jr.
Attachment (4 pages)

Keep the focus on letters to your representatives and to SCOTUS. This coming week is the key week with the Certification of Electoral Votes on the 8th, and the Berg SCOTUS Conference on the 9th. You have to mail your letters to SCOTUS, but you can google your Representatives and obtain their fax numbers.