OBAMA KNEW HE WASN’T ELIGIBLE FOR POTUS

If one were to look at the activity on Capitol Hill during the campaign, there would be no question in their minds that both McCain and Obama were sweating the “natural born citizen” issue.

How do we arrive at that conclusion? We take McCain’s ingrained, glib advice and “Look at the record, my friends“.

Doing just that, we find that back on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find.

Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II, section 1 and requires clarification. But does it? According to the framers and such drafters as John Bingham, we find the definition to be quite clear:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866

From the days of James Madison to the present, the courts have held that the amendment process be justiciable in accordance with its constitutionality and not self-serving or political. But is that what happened here? Again, we must go to the record.

Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

“With questions – however serious – about whether Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is eligible to run for president since he was born outside U.S. borders on an American Naval base, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. today introduced a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that McCain qualifies as a “natural born Citizen,” as specified in the Constitution and eligible for the highest office in the land.

Co-sponsors include Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois; Leahy said he anticipates it will pass unanimously.”

One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?

One answer is that looking at John McCain’s long-form birth certificate reveals he was not a natural born citizen and Barack Obama hasn’t submitted his long-form at all. John McCain was born in an “unincorporated territory”, held by the courts to be not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Barack Obama has submitted only a Certification of Live Birth, but Hawaii law will certify a live birth using that document for births that occurred even outside of the country. Furthermore, Barack Obama’s father was Kenyan and never an American citizen. Since the status of citizenship occurs at birth, this makes Barack Obama a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen. One must have two citizen parents, at the time of birth, and be born on U.S. soil, to be deemed a natural born citizen and be declared eligible for the presidency. The Senate, for all their trouble, cannot legislate a person’s born status. It happens at birth, according to the law.

While Senate Bill 2678 fell to the wayside, Senate Resolution 511 was passed on April 30, 2008 as a non-binding resolution. However, S.R. 511 is not a law, but rather, a unanimous opinion. Technically, it means absolutely nothing what they’ve written as it’s not a law, nor did the matter reach the House for review. It’s a stepping-stone in the larger scheme of things that haven’t happened yet; the push to change our Constitution.

More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.

“All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,” she said. “There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed.”

Perhaps someone should have informed Obama’s spokeswoman that many of these cases have not been dismissed at all, rather they are mounting, and her statements are in fact, pure “garbage”.

Then perhaps someone may prompt an answer from the Obama spokespeople as to why they were entertaining the thought of fiddling with the United States Constitution back in February and April of THIS YEAR? Perhaps because it was in the best interest of Sen. Obama.

Then what of Sen. Claire McCaskill? What possible interest could she have had in these proceedings and leading the charge with her proposals? Was it a bonafide Constitutional issue of judicial importance, or rather a political one?

Digging further into the record we find that according to Wikki and subsequent footnotes therein:

“In January 2008, Claire McCaskill decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidential elections of 2008, making her one of the first senators to do so. She has been one of the most visible faces for his campaign.[14] McCaskill’s support was crucial to Obama’s narrow victory in the Missouri primary in February, 2008. She had been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice of Senator Obama in the 2008 run for the White House…”

So what we see is a definite political motive being dragged into the Senate for the purposes of legitimizing the 2008 candidates. But if these candidates were legitimate already, there would obviously be no reason for these proceedings.

So political was the motive of McCaskill, even Missouri’s Governor, Matt Blunt revealed that Sen. McCaskill was involved in the “abusive use of Missouri Law Enforcement“. This was dubbed as the “Truth Squad” during the election campaign by the media. The Truth Squad was comprised of Missouri officials and attorneys who set up shop on the streets of Missouri and threatened the public with criminal penalties and lawsuits if they engaged in critical speech against Sen. Obama. The Obama campaign also issued cease and desist letters to media station managers who carried advertisers who were unfriendly towards Barack Obama, namely, the NRA. Citizen outrage prompted this response from Governor Blunt:

“Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.”

Considering these facts and the judicial record, there is every reason to believe that Sen. McCaskill had no interest in resolving Sen. McCain’s eligibility, but Sen. Obama’s long-term. She manipulated the Senate and then threatened the media and the public thereafter, politically motivated at the prospect of becoming Obama’s Vice-Presidential pick. But it didn’t stop there.

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy entered into the Senate record a legal analysis of two high-powered attorneys hired by Sen. McCain – Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe - both of whom are extremely politically active and biased, and attached that opinion to S.R. 511.

So controversial was that legal opinion, that it prompted a rebuttal by Professor Gabriel J. Chin of The University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, in a discussion paper #08-14 entitled, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President. Professor Chin points out clearly where Tribe-Olson sought to draw out implied theories in the law, which in reality, are simply not there and in fact have been decided by the courts already, in opposition to the suggestions offered by Tribe-Olson. Simply put, the attorneys hired by Sen. McCain attempt to fit the law into their agenda with contrived implications. Professor Chin brings the law back into focus, requiring no implied theories.

Legalities aside, in anticipation of the feared “Fairness Doctrine”, the whole of the main stream media has since acquiesced to the intimidation tactics of the Obama campaign and paraded the non-binding resolution known as S.R. 511 to the public with unfactual foolishness. S.R. 511 is neither a constitutional amendment nor legally binding in any way. Yet the media caved to political pressure and reported it to the public as Chairman Leahy dictated, giving the illusion to the pubic that said resolution was binding to the 2008 election. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The public responded, initially by way of lawsuits contesting the eligiblity of not only John McCain, but Barack Obama and Roger Calero as well, citing them all, with equal disqualifying merit, as being constitutionally ineligible to run for President of the United States. Later, netizens of the internet caught wind of the court actions and responded with their own explosion of blogs, forums, websites, chatrooms, emails, etc. In an attempt to quell the discord, the main stream media offered personalities such as Thomas Goldstein which only served to infuriate the public further. The public saw such maneuvers as deceitful and an attempt to embarrass the now educated public.

However, the greater proof is in the activity which originated in the Senate in early 2008 which was hidden from the public, that sought to change what our representatives knew to be unconstitutional from the start. The public really needs to look no further than this activity, for it speaks to the heart of the deals that went on beyond the Senate doors. Rather than trust the preservation model our founding forefathers wrote into our Constitution, these respresentatives, beholden of the public trust, saw fit to manipulate the clauses contained therein, for the sole benefit of their own political self-interests.

Perhaps our representatives, the United States Supreme Court and the main stream media would be interested in reflecting on these records and then start answering truthfully the questions which have so far been ignored. The public has been promised transparency, but to date has only been dealt scoffing, deceitful rhetoric, if they choose to address it at all.

While the public has been patient and eduring, the questions remain and refuse to be dismissed. We expect them to be answered, preferrably prior to January 20, 2009.

Pravious,
I don’t know what your problem is, but perhaps you should consider posting a coherent thought. It makes it that much more interesting to the reader.

Thanks

LOL!

I thought it said Barry Soetoro on his BC.

Coherent thought, eh? How about a copy of this BC you mention?? Now that would cohere!

Actually, BO looks like his commie grandpa

Yes he does. Particularly so in this picture of his maternal grand parents, taken from The Obama File:

This would have likely been taken in 1942. Stanley Dunham had joined the Army in June of that year. In the picture he's still a slick sleeve Buck Private (E-1), so it's likely this was either before he went to basic, or on leave after basic. If he was assigned to one of the several Kansas Basic Training posts, he could easily have visited on his way to advanced training or his unit of assignment. But it can't be too long after basic, and still not have the single stripe of a Private (E-2). Having been born in 1918, he would have been about 24 in the photo. The lighting or film processing makes him look darker, and thus more like his grandson.

I honestly don’t have a clue who the father is. I highly doubt it’s Malcom X. I highly suspect it could be FMD due to the fact that Sr. never had anything to do with Jr. There weren’t may blacks on the island and since Sr. and FMD were both Marxists I assume they knew each other. I can see Sr, getting some sweet deals to take Ann off to have the baby and say it was his.

Actually, BO looks like his commie grandpa

Yes he does. Particularly so in this picture of his maternal grand parents, taken from The Obama File:

Darn, they sure do look a lot a like but I think X was better looking, much better looking, when he was older than zer0 is. Jr. is goofy looking. Look at this picture of him in Africa. Enlarge it and look how painfully thin he is. Keep in mind you photogragh 10 pounds heavier. Look at his arms. He says he works out everyday, but I don't know what he does because he has very little muscle at all.

Like when the framers of the Constitution wrote the Federalist Papers to define their intent to New York and
other states to convince them to join the Union.

So did John Armor Bingham in the Congressional Globe regarding who was an American Citizen and who was Natural Born.

Oh, but IMHO the framer (John Armor Bingham )of who
is an American citizen and the Citizenship Clause
also put who is Natural Born that in context as well.

***

Very True ... thats why I included “amender’s intent” in my post - to include Bingham ...

Too bad a clear definition of natural born citizen never made it into the Constitution ...

The clause:

“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 ...”.

would be better stated:

“No person except a natural born Citizen of two Citizen parents, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ...”

Funny how four words could make ALL the difference ...

Neither Dunham or Sr. has those lines on the side of the nose but Davis does

Grandpa Dunham most certainly did.

I don't know which guy supplied the few African genes, or even if Stanley Ann was really his mother, (without the B/C who can tell?), but it's pretty obvious that "Grandpa" Dunham supplied a passel of his genes.

A territory is not a state, El Gato.

Never said they were, but rather that they were par of the United States, and a in way that the Philippines or American Samoa never were.

So you are maintaining that my former CO, born in the District of Columbia when his father was serving during Ike's administration (at a very low level) was not a "natural born citizen"?

cynwoody,

Thanks for interjecting. My point was; I thought the reason Mr. 0bama refuses to provide a long form BC is because it might show his name as Barry Soetoro. However, it doesn’t really matter if it shows it as Bary Soetoro or Davis because he violated the law by placing the name “Barack Obama” on three ballots.

If you read my initial post you would’ve understood what the point was. Please go back and read it again.

Thanks again for your comment.

Per the British Nationality Act of 1948 (which was the applicable law at the time): (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...

It doesn't matter that British law considered BHO Jr. a citizen, what matters is that his father was not a citizen of the US, and owed allegiance to a foreign power. Which foreign power does not matter and neither does whether that power considers children of it's nationals to also be its nationals.

Where is the evidence of the party they both attended? Do you have pictures or a link? There are so many theories, rumors and innuendos that could be thrown out there by the zer0 team, i want to just concentrate on things that can be proved at this point. If it’s not backed up with evidence, I’m going to disregard it.

Has there ever been a winner of a Presidential election, who was born in Washington, DC? Or, even a candidate? I’m unaware of one, if there has been, and there surely would be controversy and challenges, based upon a strict reading of the Constitution. Words contained within that document do have specific, legal meaning, as do the words in statutory law that is inferior to the Constitution. The clamor for statehood, for Washington, DC has always been about national elections.

It doesn’t matter that British law considered BHO Jr. a citizen, what matters is that his father was not a citizen of the US, and owed allegiance to a foreign power. Which foreign power does not matter and neither does whether that power considers children of it’s nationals to also be its nationals.

***
Quite obviously - look at my post #84 ...

From Wheaton v. Peters (January Term 1834), Minor v. Happersett (March 29, 1875), Smith v. Alabama (January 30, 1886), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898):

SCOTUS has ruled that there IS NO Common Law in the United States, BUT it has ALSO ruled that Common Law ought to be consulted in cases where original intent necessarily needs to be construed.

Blackstone and Vattel are included in post #84 - describing what a natural born subject is and whether a natural born subject can exile himself from his natural allegiance ...

The British Nationality Act of 1948 is also included in post #84 - since Kenya was a protectorate of the UK at the time ...

BUT, it could have been ANY country ...

POINT BEING - a natural born citizen CANNOT owe allegiances to two countries. A dual national IS NOT a natural born citizen of EITHER country ...

hey, take it easy, I just posted some images, you make up your own mind, I’m not saying one way or the other.

And yes, Chief did a lot of excellent research. Only problem, he/she rarely provided links or sources. Guess what that makes it?

Opinion or hearsay. Sorry.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.