Thursday, February 26, 2009

Natural Born Citizens, Citizens, and Cowards

By: Larry


February 27, 2009


Did you know that 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.

The Constitutional requirements to become a U.S. Senator or Congressman include having been a U.S. Citizen for a certain number of years. And, in order to be President or Vice President, the Constitution requires that one be a Natural Born Citizen and a resident for a certain number of years.

Now is it possible that the terms Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are synonymous? Were our founding fathers just a bunch of poorly educated, bumbling idiots, who used complicated words just to confuse the masses? Do you really know the difference? Do you care about protecting, defending and upholding the United States Constitution?

Constitutional Requirements

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. 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."

Grandfather provision of Article II, Section I

“…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

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 who had been born as British Citizens before the American Revolution. [In other words, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution no Citizen of the United States could have been a Natural Born Citizen, because their parent’s were not U.S. Citizens at the time of their birth.]

It is generally agreed that these Constitutional provisions mean that 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. It is also agreed that anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of the naturalization process or procedure is not a natural born citizen and is therefore ineligible for those two positions.

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.

Barack Hussein Obama I was a citizen of Great Britain at the time of his son’s birth. The senior Obama never became a Citizen of the United States. Obama II acquired British Citizenship at birth by virtue of this father, and later, Kenyan citizenship by virtue of his father, once Kenya won its independence.

Although Obama II’s mother was a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth, the fact that his father was not created a condition of dual citizenship. Being born with dual citizenship disqualified Obama II from ever being considered to be a natural born citizen.

The Definition and Original Meaning

The drafters of our Constitution read Vattel’s Law of Nations, and incorporated many of its definitions into the text.

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.”

And of Our Constitutional Republic?

In real life, a law must be changed or amended before it may be broken without punishment. What gives Barack Obama II the right to be the President of the United States?

Nothing gives him that right. You know it, I know it, Congress knows it, and the Supreme Court knows it. To date, not one single eligibility case against Obama II has been heard on the merits. That means there has been no hearing, no subpoenas, no production of evidence, nothing. Each case has been thrown out on a technicality without having been tried.

Many Americans assume that this case has been heard, and that Obama II was proven to be a Natural Born Citizen. They are wrong. If you think that the case has been tried, then I would encourage you to search. Search each and every eligibility challenge taken to court, and review the disposition of those cases. You will find that not one single case has ever been tried on the merits. Why you ask? Because as Eric Holder stated, ‘we are a nation of cowards’.

If you know the truth, and are afraid to speak it, then you sir/madam are a coward.


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

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Keyes: Obama owes success to cowardice Holder decries

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

by: Dr. Alan Keyes

Source: www.loyaltoliberty.com

According to Eric Holder (Holder: US is nation of cowards on racial matters) "in things racial we [Americans] have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." I find myself quite unexpectedly agreeing with him, but I couldn't help but see the profound irony of that remark, especially coming from someone in his position. He claims the title of Attorney General of the United States by appointment from a man whose victory in the last election was mainly due to that kind of cowardice; a man whose constitutional eligibility for the office of President remains under a debilitating cloud of suspicion, because of that kind of cowardice; a man whose whole career as a left-wing activist and politician has exploited that kind of cowardice. Though Holder purports to see this cowardice in other Americans, I wonder whether he sees, or would honestly admit, how much it has influenced and determined the outlook and activities of left-wing and liberal blacks like himself and his new boss.

Because it so well served their purposes of self-advancement, the liberal black elite became adept at exploiting the fear of perceived racism so prevalent since the Civil Rights movement's conquest of America's conscience in the 1960s. In the process they actually strengthened and perpetuated negative stereotypes, to such a degree that black Americans fell into the trap of seeing their ethnic identity in almost entirely negative terms. Years ago, in my essay Masters of the Dream, I described the tragically self-defeating nature of the liberal black establishment's negative pre-occupation with racism.

…the belief that the black identity has no positive content means that, in dealing with the problems of the black community, one neglects to think about policies based on the community's internal values, institutions and resources. Instead, one assumes that the solutions must come from without. The passive victims of history become the passive beneficiaries of philanthropy, the passive clients of bureaucracy, the passive subjects of the domineering welfare state. Despite all good intentions to the contrary, this type of liberalism pushes black Americans back toward a condition of endless childhood, servitude and subjection. Liberal hope becomes liberal slavery.

In reaction against racial prejudice the black elite unwittingly embraced race and racism as the defining preoccupation of the black American identity. This leads them to be blind to the development of a distinctly positive black American identity, rooted in the assumption that personal moral and spiritual worth persist despite all the demeaning assaults predicated on racial inferiority. The history of that moral identity reveals an incessant spiritual guerrilla war against the devaluation of their humanity that centered ultimately around a simple and unyielding faith in God as the true standard of human worth, and Christ as the one whose suffering, sacrifice and resurrection validated the Godly dignity of every human being willing to put their faith in Him.

Instead of embracing this moral identity the liberal black elite aped the snobby (and often atheistic) scientific materialism that became increasingly characteristic of the American liberal establishment in the course of the twentieth century. They jumped on the bandwagon of leftist social analyses that defined groups in terms of quantifiable characteristics. Apparently they do not realize how much this implicitly validates the dehumanizing practice of classifying beings by physical characteristics, to which practice all truly racist ideologies owe their repugnant pedigree.

In the introduction to the essay quoted above I allude to the deadly effects of this surrender of moral identity.

Already, generations of black children have grown up without any sense of their true heritage. Consciously or unconsciously, their minds are influenced by those who, for whatever reason, spread the doctrine that racists ripped black Americans from our African roots, stripped us of our values and institutions, and left us with no shred of our own culture or humanity. Leaders like Louis Farrakhan, who claim to be strong enemies of racism, have taken this demeaning doctrine as a major premise of their creed. Ironically, in order to prove the worst in others, it requires that we deny the best in ourselves.

The black American liberal elites celebrate the election of Barak Obama as some kind of breakthrough for black Americans. This is the ultimate and deeply self-abasing fruit of their moral surrender. Except for the physical characteristics derived from his biological heritage, I cannot see what connection Obama has with the positive, moral identity of Black Americans. Black Americans are in fact a physically motley ethnic group. But despite physical differences, a common spirit and heart were refined, forged and tempered in the historic experiences of slavery, "Jim Crow" segregation and the stifling environment of pervasive racial prejudice. Many of the deepest emotional struggles, and the strong spiritual resources arising from the reality of that heritage take root during childhood and adolescence, formative years during which Obama was being raised in contexts devoid of the need to confront and deal with it. Though Holder laments American cowardice with respect to racial matters, Obama is the ultimate concession to that cowardice. Defined in racial terms he is a man whites need not fear- with dark skin but devoid of the spiritual tension characteristic of black Americans- W.E.B. Dubois' "two souls in one body" that pull between resentment and affiliation: the smoldering despair that true justice will ever really be served battling with the undying faith that God's love will ultimately and truly transform the American heart, the human heart, to be open to the race we all have in common.

I agree with Holder that we need to get beyond this cowardice. It will require that we get beyond the idea that Obama's election is the historic breakthrough that carries America out of the shadow of racism. Maybe that's the larger meaning of the doubt as to his identity that hangs over his claim to the Presidency. Even if he ultimately shows proof that he is a natural born citizen, as the Constitution requires, that will still not be enough to prove that he is what he and so many others falsely proclaim him to be. For in the end the burden from racism in America isn't about physical appearances- it's about moral and spiritual realities. It's about trying to do what's right regardless of racial feelings and perceptions. From this perspective, Obama's rejection of the simple premise that all human beings are created equal (including our nascent offspring) means that his election rather reasserts than transcends the ruthless disregard for humanity that made race and racism such potent instruments of evil.

[Re-posted with permission from Dr. Keyes]

The Republicans: A Curious Response

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

By: Dr. Alan Keyes

[Re-posted with his permission]

Check out www.loyaltoliberty.com sign up and keep an open mind.

________________________

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Blaze

Aficionados of the Sherlock Holmes stories know that the dog didn't bark because the supposed culprit in the night was well and favorably known to the pooch. In fact the murderer in the Silver Blaze story wasn't a wrongdoer at all but a horse, who kills its trainer in furious reaction to his attempt to nick its tendon just enough to prevent it from winning an important race the next day.

For all his phony posturing, Obama's actions seem calculated to drive the United States over the cliff of bankruptcy, while leaving us defenseless against our enemies. Just when we thought the race was over, Obama and his cronies come along to make sure we lose forever. We're headed for a day of reckoning alright, and he's been raised up to make sure we show up on time.

As he leads us to the slaughter, here comes the Republican party- the one a lot of people have been feeding with their votes at election time in hopes that it will at least bark loudly when danger threatens. Instead, the only sounds we hear are the typical yaps and whimpers a dreaming watchdog makes in its sleep. Socialism is on the march. Soviet style one-party rule has already turned the corner. The Constitution is being prepared as tomorrow's trash can liner. Yet all we hear in the Republican response are the usual bleats about spending and irresponsibility, along with the quiet acknowledgement that the Republicans have no right to talk. "I guess that'll show those burgerlers."

Of course Obama's media claque would pounce if anyone whispered words like socialism, communism or despotism. No gulag yet, but they'll laugh and ridicule. They'll mention you in the same breath as (God forbid) Alan Keyes, a sure sign that the owners of the two-party system have taken you off the roster and posted you off the premises.

If you had your eye on the Republican nomination in 2012, would you risk that? Leave aside the fact that your cowardice, and that of all the Republicans like you, guarantees that the Republican nomination will be as worthless to liberty in 2012 as it was in 2008. Politics isn't about making choices that are good for the American people, just those that avoid the wrath of their now unchallenged keepers. ("There used to be a home for the brave around here somewhere, but I think it finally went back to the bank. Couldn't make the payments, I guess. Nice folks, but mortgaged way over their heads.")

http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2009/02/republicans-curious-response.html

--

Monday, February 23, 2009

Real Change Step One: Abolish the Income Tax

By: Dr. Alan Keyes

[Re-posted with his permission]

Source: www.loyaltoliberty.com

I saw today that Rep. John Linder (R, GA-7) and 44 Republican co-sponsors have introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to abolish the income tax and replace it with an implementation of the fair tax proposal. As they say, this represents real, positive change. It is a critical element of the agenda that could avert the economic collapse made imminent by our country's long and damaging flirtation with socialism. Unfortunately, with Obama occupying the White House and the Democrats in control of Congress, what we're likely to get at the moment is just the opposite: a short engagement followed by a shotgun wedding that forces America into a Soviet-style marriage of inconvenience, then prolonged depression and a psychotic break.


Obama's Soviet-style communist state is a Tyrannosaurus Rex on parade in the Jurassic Park of dangerous political excursions. For a moment it's exciting to get close-up and touchy-feely with something so old that we thought of as extinct. Then we remember that at feeding time, we're on the menu. Okay! That's no fun. But if the prospect means we're ready to end the vacation and get on with real life, what's to do? Well, it would be nice to make sure we get out of the Park alive. For this, just like the characters in the movie, we need to apply the know-how that made our little excursion possible. We need to remember our home address (that may strike you as a gimme, but don't forget how easily the mind goes blank during a life and death encounter with a resurrected monstrosity.) Once we retrieve the address, we need to remember how to get there. Then, we head for home. We open the place up, air out all the rooms and get back to being ourselves, that is, the first and greatest free people in human history. Now, being ourselves is hard work, but doing it well has been a source of great satisfaction in our lives. Smart people take vacations mainly to remind themselves of that. Unfortunately some people voted absentee in the last election, while their brains were still on vacation. Hence, the Obamasaurus hex.


There's been a noticeable spike in hate mail from the Obama worshippers since I called his communist agenda by its right name. I've also gotten a lot of encouragement and thanks from Americans who want to preserve liberty in this country, and the prosperity that goes with it. Typical is this brief comment from someone reacting to a WND.com story on my remarks: "I read your WND article, and I agree with you regarding stopping this mess, my question is what do you propose for a solution to stopping this? Thanks for all you do, and I think we need to start to pull together and get things turned around in a hurry."


In one remark, I see what I love and admire about Americans, but also what I find so frustrating. When we see a problem, immediately we ask the question- "What's the solution?" Wallowing in the mess is thankfully not the disposition of real Americans. On the other hand, we are, quite frankly, an impatient bunch anxious to get to the action in a hurry. Because of the first trait, we want a solution badly. Because of the second, we'll grab at a bad solution. But for the latter impulse, Obama would not be resident in the White House. During the election, people would have stepped back from his empty rhetoric to ask hard questions about just what kind of change he is proposing. They would have examined it long and hard enough to see that it's not change at all- just the same ugly grab for power and control that has marred every socialist movement in the world, and produced the sort of results that toppled the Soviet Empire and that have taken other countries (like Zimbabwe, for example) from prosperity to starvation.


Anyway, African countries provide at least a bit of evidence for the simple truth that electing a leader with a black skin is no guarantee of progress. (No, really, I'm not kidding.) In fact, in Africa it has occasionally been the harbinger of personality cults, repression and economic ruin. (Okay, now I am kidding.) Racial preoccupations have deeply wounded the American psyche, but the guilt induced delusion that we're putting a little pathetic salve on those old wounds hardly warrants national suicide. We don't need a phony savior. What we need is a reminder that, with God's help, ordinary folks built this great land, with government from time to time as their instrument, not their master. Though the socialist minded tinkerers of the twentieth century concluded that industrialization and urbanization meant doom for the culture of liberty, the technological leaps of the last thirty years have produced just the tools needed to prove them wrong. Government of, by and for the people- based on self-confident individuals, the God-ordained family, and other private associations now has more potency for economic and political success than ever before in human history. One person with a good idea can literally reach out and offer their ingenuity to the world. Maybe that's why the forces of elite tyranny are so anxious to get a stranglehold on our economy and government. These days, people motivated by a common cause can form a national network to advance it overnight. The information needed to substantiate their thinking and inform their actions is at their fingertips. Remembering the old Latin motto, "Festina Lente", let's get busy.


So much for introductions: tomorrow, I'll go more fully into the three revolutionary changes we need to get America on the way back home, starting with the one the Linder bill seeks to implement: ABOLITION (of the income tax, that is.)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Obama Threatens Keyes and other Eligibility Plaintiffs

By: Dr. Alan Keyes

February 14, 2009


As many of you know, I am party to one of the lawsuits seeking evidence that would help to establish, one way or the other, whether Obama in fact meets the U.S. Constitution's eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States. To understand my view of the critical issues involved see the WND articles The End of the Constitutional Republic, and Obama, Oaths and the End of Constitutional Government.) Now Obama's lawyers have filed a motion to quash our effort to obtain the relevant documents (cf. Bob Unruh's WND article Sanctions sought in eligibility case.) I am told that it includes a demand that monetary penalties be assessed against me and the other plaintiffs in the suit. Though not unexpected, this motion confirms Obama's ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires. Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won't accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation. It confirms the common sense suspicion that he won't act forthrightly in this matter because he has something to hide.


As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world's esteem.


To tell you the truth, I expected Obama's ruthlessness, as I expect that it will escalate until his threats extend to liberty and even life itself. Tyrants are like that (yeah, they are.) What I am not so certain of is the disposition of the people of this country, and in particular of those who still avow allegiance to the Constitutional Republic. For all their posturing in opposition to Obama's socialist schemes, Republican Party leaders show no disposition to notice, much less decry, his determination to subvert the Constitution. But does the self-serving reticence of such so-called leadership truly represent the disposition of the people whose sovereignty they seem so ready to abandon? In politics as in war, real leadership does not consist in titles and position, but in those willing to stand in the forefront of the battle, where taunts and wounds and even death await the ones who raise a rallying flag. The fate of that flag depends, however, not on their willingness to brave the dangers, but on the courage and heart of those who, seeing that flag, return with renewed courage to the fight. Though they know not if it will stand or fall, will they decide that either way it should not meet its fate without them?


People who have been watching recent events with any discernment must realize by now that, for all his talk of material salvation for the masses, the Obama faction really means to strengthen only those willing to serve in the army of their domineering ambition. Thanks to the phony stimulus package, they will soon have billions of taxpayer dollars with which to nourish this servile allegiance to his will. Including myself, many of the people willing to articulate and act against his overthrow of Constitutional liberty have nothing in their coffers except the grace from God to see a little truth, and the courage to speak it, drawing upon the example of His Son. But time and again in America's history, a little truth has been sufficient to reach into the reserve of love for God and liberty on tap in the patriot hearts and consciences of those who would be free.


So to my fellow plaintiffs with the courage to stand firm, and to all those who may lose by the price they pay for it, I say keep faith and pray- not so much for yourselves as for the heart and conscience of the good people of your country. Trust that there still burns a candlelight of liberty within them, and a thought for those who would rather be consumed as its wick than surrender to the wickedness that now seeks its destruction.




Sunday, February 1, 2009

OK State Rep to Reintroduce State Sovereignty Bill


Submitted by Phil
on Sat, Jan 31, 2009

George Mason University economics professor and one of Rush Limbaugh’s fill-in radio hosts Dr. Walter E. Williams posted a July 16, 2008 article on a State sovereignty bill introduced by State Rep. Charles Key that passed the State House but got stopped in the State Senate during last year’s Legislative session and is slated to be reintroduced during this session:

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution’s language, in part, reads:
“Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

Key’s resolution passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a 92 to 3 vote, but it reached a bottleneck in the Senate where it languished until adjournment. However, Key plans to reintroduce the measure when the legislature reconvenes.

Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution’s framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”

Both parties and all branches of the federal government have made a mockery of the checks and balances, separation of powers and the republican form of government envisioned by the founders. One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles.

State efforts, such as Oklahoma’s, create a glimmer of hope that one day Americans and their elected representatives will realize that the federal government is the creation of the states. A bit of rebellion by officials in other states will speed that process along.

If there ever was a theme promoted by this site, it would be to begin these kinds of initiatives at the State level in the Legislative branch thereof, and go from there.

A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.
_____________________________________________________
What does this have to do with Obama II's eligibility? A lot. For starters, all of the State Courts, and Secretary's of State who have been passing the buck to the Federal level [while the Federal Courts have been passing it back] have it backwards. The power to challenge a President's eligibility belongs to the people through the States. The Federal government was set up to be an agent of the States. The power really belongs to the States. It's amazing that it has only taken 230 years for the whole foundation of the American system of Government to be forgotten. Time to get back to basics. - Larry
_____________________________________________________