Archive for 04/30/2010

THE TIPPING POINT FOR LIBERTY’S RETURN

Posted: 04/30/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Land of The Free

NewsWithViews Logo

By Attorney Jonathan Emord
April 26, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

Having fought and won the American Revolution, the first citizens of this country with few exceptions considered individual liberty an inalienable birthright and committed this nation to preserve that liberty at all cost. Now, over two hundred years later, the struggle for freedom has faded into the distant memories of nearly every politican and the desire to be free at all cost has been replaced by the desire to be provided for at all cost.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are remarkable not for their understanding of our nation’s original principles and their commitment to preserve and protect them but for their zeal to expend the nation’s treasure on all manner of entitlements for special interests, transforming a limited government dedicated to liberty into an unlimited one dedicated to control and the divvying up of spoils, rendering all commerce that was once private into commerce so heavily regulated that it is inescapably public. To them, while their own liberty may be precious, they have little respect for everyone else’s; their every public act and their every vote is for measures that to one degree or another sacrifice individual liberty for political control.

To a mind that loves liberty, the prospect of subjecting entire sectors of the economy to federal bureaucratic control (the banking, automobile, and health care sectors) is unacceptable. The appetite of Reid and Pelosi to achieve those ends is, however, insatiable. If you scour all of their public statements, you will not find any that recite basic tenets of the founding generation: the view that political power is evil and corrupting and must be limited; the view that each person who labors is entitled to the fruits of his own labor; the view that just governments are instituted among men to protect the rights of the governed; the view that legislative, executive, and judicial powers may not be combined into single hands without giving rise to tyranny; or the view that legislative power invested in Congress by the Constitution may not be redelegated outside of Congress consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers. Either Reid and Pelosi have not read the great works of the Enlightenment philosophers; the writings of the Federalists and Antifederalists; the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution of the United States; and the major histories of the political, legal, and military movements to establish this country, or they have read them and disapproved of them.

Nothing in their political careers and nothing in their public speeches or writings reflects any commitment to defend America’s Constitution of liberty or advance the founding principles that give it life. To the contrary, one is hard pressed to find in their acts anything but advocacy for the establishment here of federal power over all private initiative. Their ideal involves a regulatory state that knows no bounds to its powers to intrude into commercial affairs and organize them.


Advertisement

If Reid and Pelosi were alone in their views, we might well consider this a sorrowful but temporary dereliction, but they are joined in this anti-constitutional sentiment by almost every Democrat and a considerable number of Republicans. Those who love individual liberty are thus confronted with a takeover of government by those who have little respect for liberty beyond their own (and no respect for liberty that conflicts with their plans for regulating America and spending America’s money).

While this situation is bleak, it includes within it the seeds for dramatic transformation. I am not one who subscribes to the view that the typical American loves regulation more than he or she does his or her own liberty. I believe most Americans appreciate that what makes America unique and that holds out the greatest promise for our future advancement is the extent to which our laws defend individual liberty—the personal quest of each of us to build an empire of greatness free of government coercion and constraint. Unleashed from prior restraints, there is no limit to the power of the individual to excel, achieve, and advance this nation to the greatest heights possible. We have much to fear from those in government who paternalistically believe they can decide for us what is in our own best interest. We have two centuries of proof that when we keep those in government at bay, servants to us and not our masters, we can raise the standard of living of the entire world through the independent actions of millions, each seeking his or her own rewards from innovation, advancement, and achievement. The lesson of world history is that governments never succeed when they endeavor to replace private initiative with state planning, and that, conversely, nations always progress when they eliminate state planning in favor of private initiative.

We are very near to the tipping point, the point at which those in government who presume to know better than we do what is in our own best interest so regulate and tax private initiative as to force the typical American into action. Whether it is this coming election or the one after it, I do not know, but I do believe genuine change in the direction of liberty is coming. There is much anger in the land, and people are anxious for the opportunity to remove arrogant officeholders from power. They are looking for people who will cut government out of their lives and restore individual liberty and the freedom of choice that enabled us to make America great. They are unwilling to accept that we must all be reduced to a common level of mediocrity if government takeovers become permanent fixtures, and they are unafraid to accept the consequences of their own inherently volatile market choices—whether that is success or failure.

The lie of the government promise—to relieve us from all earthly troubles without the need to pay for the federal leviathan that promises to change the earth—is becoming clear, even to those who once believed the promise. People are now asking routinely, how can our nation afford this monstrous government, and who will the tens of trillions actually help? National polls reveal little confidence in Congress, waning support for a President who has little love for the private sector, and the rise of a national political constituency favoring restoration of a Constitution of liberty.

The pendulum appears about to swing back in favor of liberty. The destiny of mankind is tied to that movement. At this critical moment in world history, we will either rise to the occasion and free the genius of American industry or we will fall from our position as a global superpower replaced by others who have learned from us that freedom is not only the birthright of every citizen, it is the indispensable basis for all human progress.

© 2010 Jonathan W. Emord – All Rights Reserved

Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Congressman Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable six times, four times on First Amendment grounds. He is the author of The Rise of Tyranny.

E-Mail: Not Available

Advertisements

Obama Confirmed Ineligible for Office?

Posted: 04/30/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Obmamaaaaa File

By JB Williams  Thursday, April 29, 2010

Were ANY of the Founding Fathers “natural born citizens” of the United States?

No… they were not. Not even one of the Founding Fathers was a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, even though some of them had indeed been (native) born on what would become U.S. soil.

//
//

None of them were “natural born citizens” because all of the Founding Fathers were born prior to the existence of the United States of America. No one could be the “natural born citizen” of a nation that did not yet exist.

America declared its independent status as a sovereign nation on July 4, 1776, breaking away from England and British rule. But the United States of America was not formed until September of 1787, with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders had no choice but to exempt themselves from Article II—Section I—Clause V of the Constitution they wrote and ratified. But there would be no other exemptions or exceptions from that moment forward.

So, how could any of them become President of the United States?

The Founders made this possible with this portion of Article II—Section I—Clause V; – “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution;”

They included a grandfather section in the clause pertaining to constitutional qualifications for the office of President, – A ONE-TIME exemption from the “natural born citizen” requirement for president.

They clearly separate themselves “citizens” from others who had to be “natural born citizens” in order to hold the office of president. Citizens, who were not “citizens” at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, would forever after need to be “natural born citizens” to reside in the Oval Office.

Excluding citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, who shall be eligible for the office of president?

“No person except a natural born Citizen”

We know why they had no choice but to exempt themselves, but why did they exempt only themselves? What was so important about “natural born citizen” status that they made it possible for only a “natural born citizen” to hold the office of president after the adoption of the constitution?

What did the Founders mean by the term “natural born citizen?”

As with all written laws or contracts, they are a collection of carefully chosen written words of known specific meaning or definition. Any time you study documents, you must use definitions of words as they existed at the time the document was written, as words occasionally change definition over time. In the case of a document as important as the U.S. Constitution, it is vital that we have the proper meaning or definition of those words at the time of the writing and ratification of the document, in order to properly interpret the document.

I am using Webster’s 1828 First Edition Dictionary to define the written words, as it is the closest I have access to for the era 1776-1787.

The word BORN is defined by this dictionary as“To be born, is to be produced or brought into life”

This word is simple enough and few people want to debate what the word means.

The word Citizen is defined by the 1828 Dictionary as“The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.”

This word is also widely accepted and seldom debated. However, ONLY as it relates to the current resident of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, there seems to be great confusion over the meaning of the word “natural,” as it relates to whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president of the United States.

Yet the word NATURAL is no more complicated than the words born or citizen.

Clearly, due to the Founders grandfather clause, any “citizen” could hold the office of president at the time of the adoption of the constitution. But after that, “No person except a natural born Citizen” could hold the office of president, or vice president for that matter.

The word NATURAL is defined as follows, in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary“Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. Thus we speak of the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural color; natural beauty. In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired.”

Natural (Pertaining to nature – In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired)

Born (To be born, is to be produced or brought into life)

Citizen (The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides)

As these were likely the actual definitions in play at the time these words were drafted into the U.S. Constitution, this is most likely exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by these words.

In case you have the urge to challenge the 1828 definition of “natural,” the current definition of “natural” is essentially the same—“existing in or formed by nature (as opposed to artificial)”

As a quick aside, for those having trouble with Obama’s alleged birth place, it is only the term “NATIVE” which refers to place of birth.

Native“Conferred by birth; as native rights and privilege – Pertaining to the place of birth; as native soil; native country; native graves – One born in any place is said to be a native of that place, whether country, city or town.”

Is Barack Hussein Obama a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States?

Although NO authenticated evidence has been offered to support the claim, those who claim that Obama was born in Hawaii would be claiming only that Obama is a “native born citizen” of the United States. As “native born citizen” is NOT the requirement for president in the Constitution, this is an argument of no real consequence.

Being born in Hawaii would make Obama a “native born citizen,” but not necessarily a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

Even if we accept the notion that Obama was “native born” to Hawaii, which was a U.S. state at the time of Obama’s alleged birth in August 1961, we would only be accepting the notion that Obama is a “native born” citizen, not a “natural born citizen.”

If Article II—Section I said – “No person except a native born Citizen” shall hold the office of president, an authentic birth certificate from Hawaii would indeed solve the problem, although no such birth certificate has ever been offered by Obama. This terminology would have qualified some of the Founders as well, without the need for a grandfathered exemption.

However, “No person except a natural born Citizen” shall be eligible for the office of president.

As a result, a Hawaiian birth certificate would not be enough to qualify Barack Hussein Obama, II – as eligible for the office he currently holds. Something else would be required…something more.

Obama supporters shouldn’t feel unfairly singled out however, as without the grandfather clause, no Founding Father could have held the office of president either, and they were all white men. In fact, all white men would have to meet the exact same requirements as Obama today. Article II—Section I mentions nothing about color or race.

What is required to be a “natural born citizen?”

In a word, nature… as in, natural law, or as the 1828 Webster’s dictionary puts it—“Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.”

WOW!—“impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.”—“produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth”

In terms of “nature’s effect” on human beings, what we know is the reproductive system and time honored natural laws pertaining to “birthrights.”

Webster’s 1828 definition establishes birthright as—“Any right or privilege, to which a person is entitled by birth, such as an estate descendible by law to an heir, or civil liberty under a free constitution.”

Such as, a child inherits his/her father’s name automatically at birth, as well as heir to his fortune and his citizenship.

No man-made laws are needed. In every civilized nation on earth, the “natural born child” automatically inherits their father’s name and all other related birthrights upon birth, with no statute required.

If Barack Hussein Obama’s father had been a legal citizen of the U.S. at the time of Barack II birth, Barack II would enjoy not only his father’s name, but his citizenship in the United States as well, and no man-made law could block his birthright to status as a “natural born citizen” of the USA.

However, Obama’s father was at no time a citizen of the USA. He was at all known times in his life, a citizen of Kenya, which at the time was still under British rule.

Barack Hussein Obama II father was a legal citizen of Kenya. As the “natural born” son of Barack Hussein Obama I, Barack Obama II is the “natural born citizen” of Kenya, which is why his family, friends and the press referred to him as “Kenyan Born” all the way up until he decided to run for the office of president.

From that moment forward, Obama, his friends and the press has denied that he was a “natural born citizen” of Kenya, and claimed that he was a “natural born citizen” of Hawaii.

But here’s the problem—Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, a “native born” citizen of the United States (which has yet to be proven), he was still the “natural born citizen” of his father, and Kenya.

This would have made Barack Obama II a “dual citizen” of both the USA and Kenya.

And this is why the Natural Born Citizen clause exists in the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama is the poster-child for why the Founding Father’s placed Article II—Section I—Clause V in the U.S. Constitution.

Dual citizenship means dual or divided national loyalties. That’s why the qualification for the highest office in the land is “natural born citizen.” An individual with NO reason for dual or divided national loyalties…

It is on the basis of this research and further research into the history of the term “natural born citizen”—that I wrote The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen and make the claim that DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office.

American citizens had better wake up and take action fast, as there is little time left to right their ship!

An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility  controversy

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

27 April 2010: I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.” But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?

In consideration of the controversy that continues to plague Barack Hussein OBAMA over his citizenship status and his well documented sustained pattern of refusal to provide authenticated documentation of his birth records and numerous other pertinent records, I’ve conducted an in-depth investigation into the matter in an effort to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. My approach was the same I’ve used as an investigator over the last 25 years on behalf of Fortune 100 companies in their selection of corporate executives, conducting due diligence background investigations. In this case, however, I was not afforded direct and unfettered access to the “applicant’s”, or in this case, OBAMA’s original records. Nonetheless, I conducted inquiries and a lengthy investigation researching the information directly or indirectly disclosed by OBAMA, as well as collections of documents, court records, official federal and state documents, verbal statements, utterances and other documents determined to be of authentic provenance.

At issue is whether Barack Hussein OBAMA or any of his representatives have furnished sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that states:

“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.”

Presently, OBAMA occupies the White House as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. As president, he is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and ultimately responsible for the security of the United States. Any person of reasonable sensibilities would logically believe that his eligibility status has long been established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or those in positions of oversight for such matters. But has it?

In order to be as comprehensive as possible, my investigative findings include important background information into the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” as applicable to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This background information is provided to clear up many common misconceptions about the eligibility controversy, and to explain why so many people are confused and easily mislead over this issue. After thoroughly investigating this matter, I have found demonstrable evidence that this confusion is a deliberate and highly effective tactic used to divert attention from a constitutional issue and thus, the rule of law, to the detriment of American citizens.

This report will also provide insight into the reasons for the largely ignored yet unprecedented legal fight by Barack Hussein OBAMA II, his representatives and assigns, against any release of the authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate and a multitude of other relevant historical documents.

Natural Born Citizen Qualification: The Facts

Based on extensive research, there are two separate but equally relevant legal issues that involve the specific eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to legally serve as President of the United States. First is the U.S. Constitution which was adopted into law on 17 September 1787. As noted by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless that person is a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

The second issue is the precise definition of a “natural born citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted on 9 July 1868, furnishes a rather broad definition of who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.” Specifically, who qualifies as a natural born citizen legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution lies at the core of the eligibility argument. For the sake of clarity in advance of potential ancillary arguments, it is noted here that the Twelfth-Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates that Vice-Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents.

Obviously, there is no legitimate controversy over the eligibility status of Barack Hussein OBAMA in terms of his age and length of residency within the U.S. Despite popular belief by many to the contrary, there is, however, an unresolved issue over his status as “a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States.”

While many constitutional scholars hold different beliefs over the intent of the natural born citizen qualifier, I submit that an extraordinarily prescient illustration of logic behind this qualification can be found in a brief letter from John JAY, a founding father of the United States and the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to George WASHINGTON dated 25 July 1787:

——————————————————

Dear Sir,

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

I remain, dear sir,

Your faithful friend and servant,

John Jay.

——————————————————

A study of the Federalist Papers and the writings of our founding fathers clearly indicate a concern for the security of the United States stemming from “threats from within,” or to prevent foreign enemies from becoming commander-in-chief. Given the nature and various enemies we currently face, the brief but ominous note to George WASHINGTON would certainly appear as relevant today, if not more so,  as it was over 200 years ago.

Three years after that note was written, Congress affirmed in 1790 that a person born abroad whose parents are both citizens of the U.S. is, in fact, a U.S. citizen. In the years that followed, there have been many legal arguments to further define a natural born citizen. Based on extensive research, it would appear that the “next best” definition originates from an 1874 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an individual is born in the United States and both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, that individual is, in fact, a natural born citizen. That same Supreme Court decision also addressed the issue of a person born in the United States where one of the parents is not a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth of the child. The ruling noted that in such a case, the child’s natural born citizenship status is “in doubt.”

In any event, subsequent rulings by Congress and enacted by federal statute affirm that children born abroad by parents who are both U.S. citizens are not only U.S. citizens themselves, but are recognized as “natural born citizens.” On the other hand, individuals born in the United States or elsewhere by one or more parents who are not U.S. citizens are not likely to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States absent of federal statute affirming their eligibility. Therein lays the current situation of Barack Hussein OBAMA II and the need to establish his citizenship status through authenticated documents.

Presidential eligibility; historical & current oddities

Since the U.S. Constitution was adopted into law, every elected U.S. president who was born after 1787 was born in the United States of parents who were both U.S. citizens except two: Chester Alan ARTHUR and Barack Hussein OBAMA II. It is interesting to note that when Chester Alan ARTHUR was born, his father, William ARTHUR was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen. There is ample authenticated historical evidence to substantiate that ARTHUR deliberately and publicly misrepresented his family lineage during his campaign and following his election in 1880 as the 21st President, took steps to destroy evidence, including family and birth records.

Barack Hussein OBAMA II has publicly admitted that his father was a Kenyan native and a British citizen who never became a U.S. citizen. Based on that admission and further verification of his father’s nationality, OBAMA’s status as a natural born citizen and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States is questionable at best, at least according to the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happersett. This issue becomes more prescient and ominously nefarious when one investigates the overt and covert behavior of OBAMA as a candidate, his actions following his election, the duplicity of the media, members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal Elections Commission and other factors by those who appear to be working individually or in concert to purposely misdirect the core Constitutional argument.

It is obvious that not all presidential candidates are treated equally in terms of their eligibility, as illustrated during the 2008 election. During the 2008 campaign, a lawsuit was filed petitioning the removal of Presidential candidate John McCAIN from the ballot. Ironically, the suit stemmed from the questions over McCAIN’s constitutional eligibility as his natural-born status was in doubt.  To put to rest any doubt, McCAIN responded by providing an authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and Congress. Despite the early rumblings of controversy over OBAMA’s origins, OBAMA did not.

Although McCain provided his long form birth certificate and took proactive measures to ensure his eligibility to hold office, many political and media pundits remained unsatisfied. Before the term “birther” became synonymous with racist conspiracy theorist, an article published on 28 February, 2008 in The New York Times titled McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out questioned McCAIN’s eligibility.

On that same day, Senator Claire McCASKILL, a Missouri democrat introduced a bill titled Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. Oddly, the bill was co-sponsored by both Senators Barack Hussein OBAMA II and Hillary Rodham CLINTON, both who were running against McCAIN at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the specificity of its title, the bill (SB 2678) was an attempt to change the legal definition of a natural born citizen as referenced by Article II, Section I, clause V of the U.S. Constitution, a move that by default, would arguably and preemptively take away any constitutional challenges against the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

Although the bill failed to progress in the Senate, the same lawmakers introduced a non-binding resolution (Senate Resolution 511) on 10 April 2008 to again ostensibly recognize McCAIN as a “natural born citizen,” the resolution contained broad language that could be applied to OBAMA.

The controversy surrounding the eligibility of John McCAIN to hold office continued, at least in the media. On 11 July 2008, an article was published in The New York Times under the title A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue. The article cited a law professor from the University of Arizona who concluded, in a detailed analysis “that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”  The law professor cited in that article, Gabriel J. Chin, published a sixty-two page discussion paper in August 2008 titled Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship (Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper 08-14).

The status of Barack Hussein OBAMA, however, remained unquestioned by the majority of academia.

Arguments over importance & relevance: “Birthers” are born

Like the layers of an onion, one must peel back the layers of hyperbole, political agendas, accusations of racism, and other types of detractions and distractions to arrive at the very core of the argument, which is simply this: Is Barack Hussein OBAMA in fact legally eligible, under the United States Constitution, to serve as President of the United States?

There are many who claim that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is unimportant and irrelevant, or an unnecessary distraction to the “real” crises facing America, including but not limited to OBAMA’s policies and actions as President. It is an interesting dichotomy that some of the most vocal proponents of the first amendment are the same who appear to disregard the fourteenth amendment, a practice especially virulent among those in the media. There are also those self-proclaimed conservative media pundits who have the collective audience of millions of Americans who flatly refuse to discuss, let alone demand answers to a legitimate legal question as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Others claim the argument is moot, as the President was duly elected by the will of the people. Those people are in need of a history lesson as that argument is technically flawed at the most fundamental level.  Others assert that questioning the eligibility issue is rooted in racism and bigotry, at which point the rule of law is ultimately lost in a flurry of deliberate distractions presented in the form of incendiary accusations.

Perhaps the most calculated and methodical approach in use today to dissuade people from addressing this issue is the labeling of anyone who believes that American citizens deserve to know whether Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements as a “birther.” The negative connotations of this label are vast and incisive, and the evolution of this term has grown to include ancillary questions of OBAMA’s past.

The popular but erroneous perception is that “birthers,” often lumped together with “9/11 truthers” and others who have legitimate questions and concerns about important issues either live in a world where conspiracies dominate their thoughts, or are simply branded as kooks seeking answers to non-existent questions. The fact is that there are indeed legitimate unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 as there are legitimate unanswered questions about the background and overall eligibility of OBAMA. Individuals asking rational, fact based questions about either subject are intentionally combined with others whose questions are obviously well beyond the realm of reason.

In particular, it is not only the absence of authenticated evidence regarding OBAMA’s citizenship status at birth that cause rational people to question his eligibility status under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, but the manner in which OBAMA and those in positions of government oversight have responded to legitimate inquiries. It is also how some members of the media have chosen to report on this issue, misreport or otherwise distort the issue, or not report on it at all.

Whatever arguments are used to understate or even mock the importance of this matter, it cannot be denied that the rule of law is being ignored and as a result, the Constitution of the United States is being trampled. If the fourteenth amendment is permitted to be exploited, ignored or violated, it might not be long before other amendments, along with the entire Constitution, become nothing more than a footnote in American history. As such, questions surrounding this matter must be taken seriously.

The Obama eligibility issue: has it already been answered?

No. It has been a common tactic to refute questions about OBAMA’s eligibility by citing the Internet publication of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB), also known as a “short form birth certificate” purportedly issued by the state of Hawaii. The controversial document was originally posted on the Internet at http://www.dailykos.com, a political website on or about 12 June 2008 as questions about OBAMA’s place of birth and eligibility status began to become a popular Internet topic. As there was no certification of authenticity that accompanied the alleged document, its provenance could not be established.

Subsequent to the document being posted on the aforementioned website, the “Fight the Smears” website reproduced the document here.  While many believe “Fight the Smears” website is an independent organization dedicated to separating fact from fiction, it is actually owned and operated by “Organizing for America,” the successor organization to “Obama for America.” Clearly, it is far from independent.

Yet another website purported to be an independent arbiter of truth is “FactCheck.org,” which claims that the eligibility status of OBAMA has long been satisfied. Like the previous site, it is important to understand who owns or operates the site in order to assess the reliability of the site. The Fact Check website is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation. It is relevant to note that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was a founding member, chairman, and past president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to challenge the neutrality of the information provided by that site.

Since then, the image, including variations of the image, have appeared on the Internet to “prove” that Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

Since its original posting, numerous individuals and websites have sought to disprove the authenticity of the document, which was posted as an image in JPEG format, through analysis of the image or by other means (e.g. sequencing of certificate numbers, absence of state seal, etc.).  Although there appears to be sufficient evidence suggesting the document is not a valid certificate and has been falsely created or the image has been deliberately altered, limiting discussion at this time to the merits of the COLB detracts from a much larger issue: OBAMA’s massive and unprecedented campaign to keep sealed his actual birth certificate (and other relevant records) from public view.

This is not to say that the publication of the COLB document is unimportant. In fact, quite the opposite is true if the matter of legal eligibility is ever properly and thoroughly investigated by a legitimate court of inquiry within the United States. As agents, representatives or the assigns of Barack Hussein OBAMA have publicly asserted that the question of eligibility has been officially answered by the publication of the COLB as listed on officially sanctioned web sites, and it is ultimately proven that the document is deliberately deceptive by any means, an inquiry into violations of the United States Crimes Code, 18 USC Section 1028 encompassing fraud and other related activity involving identification documents might apply.

Since the initial COLB was first published in June 2008, there have been at least two additional incarnations of the document, each containing revisions that bear additional information allegedly “supporting” its authenticity. Accordingly, the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA.  Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.”

Hawaii officials declare Obama eligible

Yet another deception levied against the American people is the assertion that the Hawaiian officials have confirmed Barack Hussein OBAMA’s “eligibility” through a statement issued on 27 July 2009 by Dr. Chiyome FUKINO, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen.” Those who claim that the 2009 press release by Dr. FUKINO must understand that FUKINO has absolutely no statutory authority to make such a statement. Accordingly and based on the rule of law, that statement cannot be considered as evidence or legal documentation either to support or deny OBAMA’s eligibility status.

Hawaii birth announcements: anecdotal evidence of eligibility

Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.

Coming next: Legal Stonewalls & identifying the money & people behind the fight

This report is available for downloading in PDF format: Click here.