Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Obama Was Hand-Picked, Was NOT a Natural Born Citizen, Congress Knew It, and Tried to Protect Him

by Dean Garrison
obama fraudThe further I travel down this rabbit hole, the more I feel divorced from the good conservative people that I choose to call my own. I hold some stories back from our readers. My thought is that people have a hard enough time embracing the basic fact that our government is corrupt on both sides of the aisle. If you knew how corrupt I thought these people really were, I feel like you’d rush to the phone and soon bad men would show up to haul me off in a straight jacket.
Do they still do that?
Regardless, today I want to show you something that might leave you questioning everything around you.
Welcome to my world.
In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the “natural born citizen” constitutional requirement to become President.
Why is that important?
Because it was not until almost 30 years later that the issue would be addressed again. And it was not addressed only once, but multiple times. This is all part of congressional record.
Remarkably, it just so happened to coincide with the meteoric rise of a man named Barack Obama who currently sits in the People’s House.
I am about to share with you a brilliant piece of research from the Article II Political Action Committee. After reading it the foremost question on my mind is, “If the natural born citizen definition only requires one citizen parent then why did they seemingly try so hard to change the law for Barack Obama?”
There are multiple links to official congressional documents throughout, contained in the research below, so I would urge you to draw your own conclusions.
But from my point of view this research either strongly, or at least partly, validates the following conclusions:
  1. Barack Obama was hand-picked to be President.
  2. Some members of Congress, on both sides, understood that Obama was not “natural born” and tried to pass laws to pave the way for his arrival.
  3. In the end they used a deflection tactic to shine light on John McCain’s eligibility status, hoping that Obama’s own status would not be brought into question.
It appears to have worked.
Below is a lengthy excerpt from “Article II Facts” hosted on the site of the Article II Political Action Committee. If you like what you read, I would encourage you to consider a donation to their cause.
Let’s take a trip back through recent history:
Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment underH.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…
1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].
2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]
4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”  – No co-sponsors.
5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor
7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.
In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.
Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]
S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)
However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.
Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.
The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.
The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]
There you have it. Make of this what you will.
It brings about many questions for me.
Would people like Claire McCaskill and Hillary Clinton really come to John McCain’s aid if they did not have an ulterior motive?
Why were people like Inhofe, Issa, and Rohrabacher either sponsoring or co-sponsoring these pieces of legislation? After all, these men have been three of Obama’s biggest critics. We have heard lots of threats and promises from them but have seen no results. Could it be that these men are just more shining examples of “all bark and no bite”? (See Definition of “Smoke and Mirrors“)
If it is true that the definition of “natural born citizen” only involves having one citizen parent then why all the fuss?
Obama, questionable Hawaii birth certificate and all, met the requirement of one American citizen parent. Maybe the truth is that it takes more than that and Congress knows it.
So why was nothing ever done?
Keep searching and settle for nothing less than the truth.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

The Founders’ Worst Fears Coming True

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico who served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. It comes several months after another piece raised hackles among conservatives, in part, because of it’s headline, Ted, Bobby, Marco and Rick Share Something in Common. Even if you disagree with Paul, this piece will make you think long and hard.
INELIGIBLE: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).
Click on image above to read Paul R. Hollrah’s previous piece on four prominent GOP hopefuls who are ineligible to serve as president of the United States.
As the Founding Fathers met at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1778, producing word-for-word the greatest governing document in all of recorded history, they were haunted by a number of major concerns. Among their most critical concerns was the long-term sustainability of the constitutional republic they were creating. How could they prevent it from being subverted?
General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, read a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It was just five years and eleven months since Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown and Jay was concerned that the administration of our federal government might one day fall into the hands of a man who might find it difficult… because of divided loyalties… to always do what was in the best interests of the country. He was especially concerned over what might happen if command of our Army and Navy should ever fall into the hands of such a man.
In his letter, Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint whether it would 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 commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”
John Jay, National Portrait Gallery.
John Jay, National Portrait Gallery.
In Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton expressed the prevailing concern of foreign influence in the affairs of government. He wrote, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the Chief Magistracy of the Union?”
Taking into account the concerns expressed by Jay and Madison, it is easy to understand why the Founders produced a constitution under which only two of the 145,400,000 jobs in the United States… public sector and private sector combined… require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens. Those two jobs are president and vice president of the United States.
So, precisely what was it that the Founders found so worrisome about future presidents… so worrisome that they placed tight restrictions on access to the position?
The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct. Accordingly, what the Founders feared most and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born” was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment in which he would learn to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Although they were not alive to see it, their worst fears were realized 221 years later when a usurper named Barack Hussein Obama occupied the White House.
Barack Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States. However, under the tutelage of her liberal parents she grew up to be a radical leftist, while his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a devout Kenyan-born socialist. Obama spent most of his formative years as a citizen of Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation on Earth, where his name was changed to Barry Soetoro and his school records list his religious preference as Islamic. Then, upon returning to Hawaii at age 10, he was mentored during his teen years by a card-carrying member of the Communist Party,USA, Frank Marshall Davis. It was not the sort of environment conducive to the political and intellectual development of a man who would one day follow in the footsteps of patriots such as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.
Obama went into office promising the most transparent administration in history, and that he would bring an end to the revolving door of lobbyists moving into and out of the White House. Instead, the revolving door at the White House has been set spinning with lobbyists coming and going, while even the most liberal media outlets insist that his is the least transparent, the most secretive, and the least responsive administration in history.
He went into office promising to depolarize American politics and government and to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans. Instead, he pokes his thumb into the eyes of Republicans at every opportunity, and what has always been a healthy mistrust between the major parties now approaches bitter animosity.
He went into office promising to reduce unemployment and to spur economic growth. Instead, he has steadily shrunk the size of the U.S. workforce, increased the ranks of the unemployed, and, with little understanding how the U.S. economy works, he has stymied economic growth.
He promised to provide healthcare insurance for some 30 million uninsured, while improving the quality of healthcare and reducing the cost of healthcare for everyone… and all of that without increasing the number of doctors, nurses, and hospitals. Instead, many workers have lost their insurance, doctors are giving up their practices, and employers are reducing the working hours of employees so as to avoid paying the burgeoning cost of healthcare benefits.
He went into office promising to close the budget deficit and reduce the national debt. Instead, in the six years he’s been in office, he has not produced a single balanced budget and the national debt has increased from $9 trillion to $18 trillion… more than all previous presidents combined.
By David Donar
By David Donar
He went into office promising to reduce poverty and to shrink the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Instead, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has gradually increased, nearly 50 million Americans are on food stamps, and the wage gap between the rich and the poor has steadily widened.
He went into office promising to heal the scars of racism in America and to bring our people together. Instead, he has played the race card at every opportunity and race relations are now more tenuous than at any time since the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan.
He went into office promising to solve the illegal immigration problem by first securing our borders. Instead, millions upon millions of illegals from Mexico and Central America stream across our borders, while he uses every conceivable device to insure that the invaders can stay in the U.S. and that they will one day become reliable Democratic voters.
He went into office promising to improve relations with the Russians; to bring peace to the Middle East; to draw “red lines” in Libya and Syria that radical Islamists would not dare cross; to promote friendship and cooperation throughout the Arab world; and to heal any rifts that may have developed between us and our allies. Instead, relations between the U.S. and Russia are at an all-time low; every nation in the Middle East is either at war or about to be at war; “red lines” were crossed but Obama failed to respond as threatened; our enemies throughout the Middle East are emboldened; the most dangerous purveyor of state-sponsored terror is just weeks or months away from having a nuclear weapon; our Arab allies no longer trust us; and our long-time allies in Israel and in Europe must now face a dangerous world without our leadership.
In short, Barack Obama is precisely what the Founders feared most when they wrote Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, limiting access to the presidency only to those who are natural born citizens. In just six short years he has become the poster boy for national suicide.
Unfortunately, the intellectually lazy in both major parties, representing the entire ideological spectrum, have failed to satisfy themselves of Obama’s fitness for the presidency. Those on the left were so anxious to recapture the White House, especially with a young attractive black man as their standard bearer, that they paid no attention whatsoever to warnings that he was lacking in qualifications. While on the right, it is all but impossible to find a conservative commentator or a political leader with the courage to challenge the bona fides of a black Democrat… fearing that they may be forced to defend themselves against charges of racism.
What they have done, in fact, is to create a de facto amendment to the U.S. Constitution without going to the trouble of consulting the provisions of Article 1, Section 3; Article II, Section 1; or Article V of the Constitution.
Now, because of the duplicity of the left and the cowardice of the right, we are confronted with a potential constitutional crisis involving the candidacies of Sen. Ted Cruz (D-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)… all prominently mentioned as potential Republican presidential nominees in 2016, but none of whom are eligible for that office because they fail to meet the “natural born” requirement of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Will Democrats, knowing that they supported and elected a usurper in 2008 and again in 2012, allow Republicans to do the same in 2016? Are we to simply accept that two wrongs make a right? Anyone who believes that Democrats are not so duplicitous as to glorify Obama’s illegal presidency while crucifying a Republican candidate guilty of the same offense, simply does not know Democrats. The wisest course would be for Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio to do what is best for their party and their country by removing themselves from consideration. The worst fears of the Founders has been realized in Barack Obama. Republicans should not repeat the outrage.

The Obama Eligibility Question Revisited Again

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico who served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Originally published May 5, 2010, it comes several months after another piece raised hackles among conservatives, in part, because of it’s headline, Ted, Bobby, Marco and Rick Share Something in Common. Even if you disagree with Paul, this piece will make you think long and hard.
President Barack Obama delivers a health care address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., Sept. 9, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
President Barack Obama delivers a health care address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., Sept. 9, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Never in American history has a national leader served under a darker cloud of suspicion than Barack Hussein Obama. Was he born in Hawaii or in Kenya? Did he become an Indonesian citizen in 1967? If so, when did he repatriate? Where did he spend the summer of 1981? Did he actually attend classes at Columbia? Did he write Dreams from My Father? These are all interesting questions, but not the most critical ones. The most critical question relates to his eligibility. Is he eligible to serve as President of the United States, or is he a usurper? Let’s analyze only what Obama tells us about his background and origins.
First, we have the absolute and unequivocal requirements of Article II. Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that, 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.”
We know that Obama was not alive at the time the Constitution was adopted, we know that he admits to being at least 35 years of age when he took office in January 2009, and we have sufficient eyewitness evidence that he has been a U.S. resident for at least fourteen years. But is he a “natural born” U.S. citizen? What is a “natural born” Citizen, and how do we prevent an individual who is not a natural born citizen from ever becoming president or vice president?
To answer these questions we must first examine how our political leaders, from the Founding Fathers through the present day, have defined the term “natural born;” we must understand U.S. government policy on dual citizenship; we must examine the circumstances of Obama’s birth and citizenship; and finally, we must examine the vetting process that was designed to prevent an ineligible or otherwise corrupt person from ascending to the presidency or the vice presidency.
What is a “Natural Born” Citizen?
In drafting the U.S. Constitution, the Founders relied heavily on the work of Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel. In his 1758 legal treatise, The Law of Nations, Book One, Chapter 19, in a section titled “Of the citizens and natives,” Vattel defines the term “natural born Citizen” as follows:
“… The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizensThe country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. 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 (emphasis added).
When the Founders met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives. So is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – e.g. an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy? Not likely. It is a preposterous notion on its face. To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.
In a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the United States, addressed to George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, Jay expressed his concern over the prospect of allowing an individual with any form of foreign allegiance to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy. He wrote: “Permit me to hint whether it would 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 commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”
Further expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, and as an expression of the fear of foreign influence that motivated and inspired the Founders, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development. Accordingly, what the Founders feared most and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born” was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment in which he would come to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
Taking into account the concerns expressed by Jay and Madison, it is easy to understand why the Founders produced a draft Constitution under which only two jobs in the entire United States… public sector and private sector combined… require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens. Those two jobs are president and vice president of the United States.
Accordingly, support for Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States begs the question: precisely what is it that differentiates a “citizen” from a “natural born” citizen? Those who agree that the two terms are mutually exclusive, not synonymous, but who also argue that Obama is “natural born,” are obligated to support their argument with facts and reason.
What is likely, even probable, is that the Founders drafted Article II, Section 1 so as to reflect Vattel’s definition of a “natural born” citizen. That is precisely why the Framers found it necessary to include in Article II, Section 1 the often overlooked and little understood words, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”
At the time the Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788, there were three types of citizens: 1) The former British subjects who… having renounced all foreign allegiances and having pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor… became citizens of a sovereign American nation when the Declaration of Independence was signed July 4, 1776; 2) The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens July 4, 1776, the first “natural born” citizens of the United States, and all less than twelve years old at the time the Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788; and 3) A class of citizens comprised of those who were naturalized after July 4, 1776, having taken a loyalty oath and having renounced all foreign allegiances.
To fully understand the importance of the words, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…,” it is necessary to recognize three significant dates. Those dates are: 1) July 4, 1776, the date on which the Declaration of Independence was signed, making all citizens of the thirteen colonies citizens of the United States; 2) June 21, 1788, the date on which ratification by the State of New Hampshire made the Constitution the official law of the land; and 3) July 4, 1811, the date after which the first “natural born” citizens… those born to U.S. citizens after the signing of the Declaration July 4, 1776… became 35 years of age.
The Constitution requires that, in addition to being a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least 35 years of age. However, the only “natural born” citizens available June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age. To solve that problem, the Framers added a “grandfather clause,” making it possible for newly-minted US citizens… all residents of the United States for at least fourteen years and all at least 35 years of age, but none of them “natural born” because they were born to parents who were not U.S. citizens on the day the Declaration of Independence was signed… to serve as president. This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to US citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence, reached age 35.
George Washington, our first president, was born at Wakefield, Va., Feb. 22, 1732, 44 years before the Declaration of Independence. He was a “citizen,” but not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.
John Adams, our second president, was born at Braintree, Mass., Oct. 30, 1735, 41 years before the Declaration of Independence. He was a “citizen” because he was born in Massachusetts, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth and owed their allegiance to the British crown.
Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was born at Shadwell, Va., April 13, 1743, 33 years before the Declaration of Independence. He was a “citizen” because he was born in Virginia, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.
James Madison, our fourth president, born in Virginia March 16, 1751, 25 years before the Declaration of Independence; James Monroe, our fifth president, born in Virginia April 28, 1758, 18 years before the Declaration of Independence; John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, born in Massachusetts July 11, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; and Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, born in South Carolina March 15, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; were all “citizens” because they were born in what came to be the United States of America, but they were not “natural born” citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth.
However, Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, N.Y., Dec. 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence. Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least 35 years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
A great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americans refuse to accept the fact that, while the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old “natural born” citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation’s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776. All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”
Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation. It is for this reason that the Constitution limits candidates for president and vice president to those who are “natural born” citizens and to those who were citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted. There can be no exceptions.
In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
In subsequent years, as modern transportation systems were developed and international travel became commonplace, the term “natural born citizen” evolved to include those who were born to American parents outside the continental limits of the United States… as was the case with former Michigan Governor George W. Romney (born in Mexico to American parents) and Senator John McCain (born in Panama to American parents.)
Today, many thousands of babies are born each year to U.S. citizens on foreign soil. In cases where both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of the birth, those children are “natural born” citizens under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Conversely, many thousands of children are born each year on American soil to parents, both of whom are not U.S. citizens. Under the 14th Amendment, those children become U.S. “citizens” at birth, but they can never consider themselves to be “natural born.”
Clearly, those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments knew what it meant to be a “natural born” citizen, but what of our political leaders of today?
In the early months of 2008, at a time when Hillary Rodham Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and few observers were taking Barack Obama seriously, a number of lawsuits were filed questioning whether Sen. John McCain, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, was a natural born U.S. citizen.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, were assigned the task of researching the issue. In a March 19, 2008, memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, “Based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”
Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008, statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”
This was followed by an April 30, 2008, Senate resolution, approved by a vote of 99-0 (Senator John McCain abstaining). The resolution declared: “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) voted in favor of the resolution.
It is important to note that all four references… the 1866 Bingham statement, the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution… all utilize the plural terms “parents” or “American citizens,” strongly suggesting that the “natural born” question rests principally on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.
While the Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born Citizen,” the legal precedent referred to in the Olson-Tribe memorandum cited above is taken from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162(1875), the only defining precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court concluded in Minor that, “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
It is also important to note that, during the past decade, a number of resolutions have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives aimed at amending Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, completely altering the traditional interpretation of the term “natural born Citizen.” For example, in support of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stated presidential ambitions, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), introduced H.J.R. 104 Sept. 15, 2004. The resolution proposed to amend Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution by adding the following language:
“A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years, and who is otherwise eligible to hold the Office of the President, is not ineligible to hold that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.”
H.J.R. 104 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, where it remained through the end of the 108th Congress. Then, early in the 109th Congress, Feb. 1, 2005, Representative Rohrabacher made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 15, which contained essentially the same language as the failed H.J.R. 104 of the previous Congress. And while it is understandable that Representative Rohrabacher would attempt to amend the Constitution to make it possible for his own governor, a naturalized citizen, to seek the presidency, similar attempts by Democrats during the same decade are not so easily understood or explained.
For example, on June 11, 2003, during the 108th Congress, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59 which would have totally eliminated the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article II, Section 1 by substituting the following language:
“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years shall be eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
The Snyder proposal was followed by H.J.R. 67, introduced Sept. 3, 2003, by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). The Conyers proposal would have added the following substitute language to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.”
On Jan. 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, Representative Conyers made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 2, proposing the same language as contained in H.J.R. 67 of the 108th Congress. And on April 14, 2005, Rep. Vic Snyder made yet another attempt, introducing H.J.R. 42, containing amendatory language identical to his H.J.R. 59 of the 108th Congress.
All of the above resolutions, proposing to send constitutional amendments to the states for ratification, suffered the same fate. All died in committee without being acted upon.
Any member of Congress is free to introduce a resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, what distinguishes Representative Rohrabacher’s resolutions from those of his Democratic colleagues is that his motive was clear; he was interested in making it possible for his governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to seek the presidency. The motivations of his Democrat colleagues, on the other hand, are a complete mystery; they only serve to raise major questions.
In other words, if the “natural born Citizen” requirement had not represented a major problem at any time in U.S. history, why were Democrats suddenly concerned about it in 2003, 2004, and 2005 when a young black man, the son of an American mother and an African father, born with dual US-British citizenship, was emerging as a rising star in the Democratic Party?
So the question arises, what did Representatives Snyder and Conyers know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives? More specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, and when did they know it?
U.S. Government Policy on Dual Citizenship
The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:
“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice…
“U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship…
“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it… because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law… However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries(emphasis added).”  
It is inconceivable to think that any person who holds citizenship in a foreign nation… such as Barack Obama, who currently holds dual US-Kenyan citizenship… should be allowed to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.
Barack Obama’s Citizenship Status
Barack Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii August 4, 1961, to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., of Kenya, a British crown colony.
Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, the controlling legal authority on who is British and who is not, reads, in part, as follows: 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…”
Obama’s father, a Kenyan citizen, was a British subject at the time of his birth. Therefore, under British law, it is indisputable that Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother. However, following Kenya’s independence from Great Britain Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya’s newly-adopted Constitution went into effect.
Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the Kenyan Constitution provided as follows:
(1) Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963. Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya. [FYI: Both of Obama’s paternal grandparents were born in Kenya.]
(2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
In other words, on Dec. 12, 1963, through automatic operation of Kenyan law, Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship, presumably giving him at least temporarily, dual US-British and dual US-Kenyan citizenship. Obama did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenship; they were his by “automatic operation” of British and Kenyan law and “by descent” from his father. And since there is no known evidence that Obama ever took steps to renounce his American citizenship, he automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship under provisions of Chapter VI, Section 97(1) of the Kenyan Constitution Aug. 4, 1984, his 23rd birthday.
However, to further complicate matters, the revised constitution adopted by the people of Kenya Aug. 4, 2010, brought Obama back into the fold by creating a category of Kenyan citizenship called “citizen by birth.”
During fiscal year 2010, the Obama administration spent some $24 million in USAID funds in Kenya in support of a “yes” vote on a new Kenyan Constitution. Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 constitution provides as follows: A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen (of Kenya).” The constitution was adopted Aug. 4, 2010 (Obama’s 49th birthday), reinstating Obama, a U.S. citizen, as also a citizen of Kenya “by birth,” a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.
To properly evaluate Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy, and to more completely understand the motivations of the Founding Fathers, it might be instructive to compare Barack Obama’s qualifications with those of a known individual whom the American people would be certain to reject as president.
For example, if it is true, as some Obama apologists claim, that his dual US-British and dual US-Kenyan citizenship should not disqualify him from serving as president of the United States, then the burden of proof is upon them to also show how the radical al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, killed in Yemen Sept. 30, 2011, by an American drone strike, was not also eligible to serve as president of the United States.
Like Obama, al-Awlaki was a native-born U.S. citizen. He was born at Las Cruces, N.M., to Yemini parents April 21, 1971. He was at least 35 years of age at the time of his death and he had resided in the United States for 17 years. In other words, Anwar Al-Awlaki, a central figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; the man who recruited Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bomber of Northwest Airlines Flight 253; and the spiritual mentor of Fort Hood assassin, Major Nidal Malik Hasan; had precisely the same qualifications for President of the United States as Barack Obama.
The only discernible difference between Obama and Al-Awlaki’s qualifications for the U.S. presidency is the fact that Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born. However, that lone distinction is not sufficient to alter the fact that both men were born with dual citizenship “by descent” from one or both of their non-U.S. citizen parents.
The Vetting Process for President and Vice President
The process established for the selection of a president and vice president provides three vetting opportunities. The first occurs immediately following the nominating conventions when the parties certify their candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed.
All of the documents provided to the fifty state election boards by the Republican National Committee in 2008 contained, verbatim, the following affirmation:
We do hereby certify that (at) a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the Unites States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;”
The documents contained the names and home addresses of John McCain and Sarah Palin and were signed by John A. Boehner and Jean A. Inman, chairman and secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and notarized by Sheila A. Motzko.
However, certifications provided to the state election boards by the Democratic National Committee were not uniform. The certification provided exclusively to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, contained the following affirmation:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”
Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The documents were signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson.
The phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was purposely omitted. Other than that, all of the documents were absolutely identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.
This tragic anomaly of American political history was first reported by writer J.B. Williams in a Sept. 10, 2009 article, titled, The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie. Immediately upon publication of Williams’ article, Obama-doubters across the country began contacting their state election boards, requesting copies of the Democrat and Republican Party candidate certifications, and the full scale of the Democrats’ deception was exposed.
So why would the Democrats eliminate the language certifying that Obama and Biden were both eligible to serve “under provisions of the U.S. Constitution?” Is it not reasonable to assume that they knew when they nominated him that Obama was ineligible to serve by virtue of the fact that he is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen? So the question arises, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?
However, apparently operating under the assumption that his first four years in the White House has legitimized him, the officers of the 2012 Democratic National Convention included eligibility language in the certifications sent to the state election boards. The 2012 certification, dated Sept. 6, 2012, reads as follows:
“As Chair and Secretary respectively of the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, having assembled in Charlotte, North Carolina on September 4 through 6, 2012, WE DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the following are the nominees of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively, and that the following are legally qualified to serve as President and Vice President of the United States respectively under the applicable provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The certification then lists the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The documents are signed by Antonio Villaraigosa and Alice Travis Germond, the Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Monica C. Cole. Both Villaraigosa and Germond were advised prior to signing the certifications that they would be swearing to a fraud if they signed the certification documents. The certifications represent a second consecutive failure by the delegates to the Democratic National Convention to properly vet their candidates for president and vice president.
It should also be noted that, in his Declaration of Candidacy for President of the United States, filed with the Oklahoma State Board of Elections… and presumably 49 other state election boards… Barack Obama swore the following under penalty of perjury:
“I, the undersigned, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that the abovementioned facts (his name and home address) are true and correct and that I am fully qualified to become a candidate for the office of President of the United States and that I will be fully qualified to hold said office, if elected. I further swear or affirm that I have filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and have raised and expended not less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for said office.”
The document is signed by Barack Obama and is notarized under date of Nov. 9, 2011. By signing that document, Obama is guilty of the crime of perjury, and perhaps other offenses.      
The second vetting opportunity occurs on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December when the Electoral College meets to elect a president and vice president. Between Nov. 4, 2008, the date of the General Election, and Dec. 15, 2008, the date on which the Electoral College met to cast their votes, most Democratic electors were made aware of serious questions relating to Obama’s eligibility. However, none of the Democratic electors raised a serious question about Obama’s eligibility prior to casting their electoral ballots… a violation of their oath of office and a complete and total subversion of the very purpose of the Electoral College.
The third and final vetting opportunity occurs in early January following each election when the Congress meets in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College. As the final failsafe step in the electoral process, the members of Congress have the duty to insure themselves of the qualifications of the candidates selected by the Electoral College.
So if, in fact, the Democratic National Committee knowingly certified a candidate for the November ballot who was ineligible to serve, the Democrat members of the Electoral College failed to vet the men they elected, and no member of Congress questioned his qualifications, what are the possible alternatives? Is it possible, as some suggest, that we simply ignore the Constitutional requirements of Article II, Section 1 when considering Obama’s eligibility?
In a Dec. 8, 2008, discussion of the congressional certification process, Edwin Viera Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues that, “… the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient.
“Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be ‘a natural born citizen,’ by simply assuming that he is such, or by accepting what lawyers refer to as the ‘best available evidence,’ (Obama’s published certificate of live birth, versus a certified Hawaiian birth certificate).”
But what if the members of Congress fail in their responsibility? Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen… the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a ‘constitutional sufficiency’(emphasis added), because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement.
When members of Congress are sworn into office they solemnly swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” So, one might ask, why have members of Congress not questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve as president when they were obligated to do so and when he clearly does not meet the “natural born” standard?
In the days following the joint session of Congress Jan. 8, 2009, when not a single member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, chose to honor their oath of office, the members were inundated with demands by constituents that they justify that dereliction. A great many members sought guidance from the Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress. Jack Maskell, a CRS attorney, drew the “short straw” and was assigned the task of drafting a response. His April 3, 2009, memorandum, provided to all members of Congress, read, in part, as follows:
“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.”
It is that memorandum, the now infamous Maskell Memorandum, that members of Congress have been hiding behind since April 3, 2009. In conducting his legal research for preparation of his opinion, Haskell failed to consult the March 19, 2008, legal research conducted by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, regarding Senator John McCain’s status as a natural born citizen.
In their March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, “Based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution (emphasis added).”
Conclusion
What Dr. Viera asserts, and what any schoolchild would understand, is that it is not within the power of Congress to waive the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 by simply ignoring them… as they have attempted to do since Jan. 8, 2009, the Maskell Memorandum notwithstanding.   Nor is it within the power of the people, the states, or the courts to waive the eligibility requirements… short of a constitutional amendment.
That being the case, and assuming that Obama could not be convinced to voluntarily evacuate the White House, what are the alternatives? Is it possible to impeach a usurper president or vice president when the impeachment process is designed to apply only to individuals who are fully qualified, legally elected, and officially inaugurated? And if the House of Representatives did proceed to impeach him, would that action automatically provide legitimacy to all acts and appointments of his illegitimate presidency?
The most likely answer lies in the Nixon model, in which leaders of his own party went to the White House to demand his resignation. In Obama’s case… he being less of a gentleman and less of a patriot than Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon… that is unlikely to occur until a substantial majority of Americans become convinced that he is a usurper and his approval rating drops below 20 percent. Then, and only then, can we expect Democrats, in the interest of salvaging their own political careers, to demand that he leave.
With each passing day, the damage that Obama does makes the future of our constitutional republic more and more problematic. What cannot wait for the judgment of history are answers to the following questions:
1. Since no Democratic presidential candidate in history has ever been in danger of failing to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, why did congressional Democrats make four attempts to eliminate that requirement from the U.S. Constitution… twice while Obama was in his second term in the Illinois state senate and twice during his first 14 weeks in the U.S. Senate?
2. Since the Chairman and Secretary of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, purposely dropped language from certifications sent to 49 of the 50 states, certifying that Barack Obama was eligible to serve under provisions of the U.S. Constitution, when was Pelosi first made aware that Obama was ineligible to serve, how widely was that known within the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, and who participated in the conspiracy?
Since the foregoing questions are critically important, is there a direct relationship between them? And, if so, what is the connection and who are the co-conspirators? The American people deserve to know. A great fraud was perpetrated on the American people in 2008. That fraud must be corrected in 2012.
The U.S. Electoral College is scheduled to meet Monday, Dec. 17, 2012, to elect a president and vice president of the United States. It is unlikely that the Democratic members of the Electoral College will have the courage to fulfill their constitutional obligations by properly vetting Barack Hussein Obama. Consequently, it will become the duty of Republican members of the Congress to address the question of Obama’s eligibility to serve. Let us pray that they will have the courage to do what must be done.
UPDATE 3/27/2015 at 6:55 a.m. Central:  Although they were not alive to see it, their worst fears were realized 221 years later when a usurper named Barack Hussein Obama occupied the White House.
SEE ALSO: The Founders’ Worst Fears Coming True.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Summary Of The Bush Crime Family* History

Reply by kathyet yesterday

Summary Of The Bush Crime Family* History

For any civilized endeavor to maintain its civility, there must be enforceable laws and/or rules; without which, there is anarchy. So, as we find ourselves struggling to regain our lost freedoms, perhaps we should take a strategic review of how we arrived at this alarming state, honestly apprise our current status, and as we depart from yet another major election, cast about for viable options for now as well as the foreseeable future.
Any objective observer with the barest awareness of contemporary history should be able to readily trace the rise of this powerful movement that has taken control of the reins of power in the United States. The most blatant initial historical record is when Grandpa Prescott Bush and some of his cronies tried to entice General Smedley Butler to muster enough World War I veterans to take over the Presidency of The United States in 1933. Then again, in 1942 (a year after the U.S. joined World War II), Prescott Bush and this same cabal -- in their drive toward fascism -- were finally forced by the "Trading With the Enemy Act" to terminate their extensive business dealings with Hitler.
After WWII, this American branch of the Nazis didn't lose the war, they just transformed the battleground. They expanded their "connections" with Hitler's intelligence networks from The War into the formation of our own CIA. It is also this same group that President Eisenhower opaquely identified as the "Military Industrial Complex," in his dark farewell speech to us. Later, it was Poppy George H.W. Bush who sat on a boat (named Barbara) off-shore and directed the Cuban Bay Of Pigs fiasco. As a direct consequence of that largely unsolicited action, John Kennedy banished him and his CIA brothers from his administration, albeit only temporarily, as George H.W. Bush, then an active CIA agent, was later photographed in Dealey Plaza that sunny November day in 1963.
From FDR to today, the Bush Crime Family and their fixated core of corporate fascists have, using unbridled corporate power, been tightening their grip on the throats of the American political, legal, economic and media systems -- as the following excerpt from the Democratic Underground so well outlines:
"A Pocket History of the Bush Organized Crime Family Crime Line
Hitler's "Angel" -- Prescott Bush and his Wall Street cronies helped finance and arm the Third Reich.* Some continued trading with the enemy even after Germany declared war on America.
Bay of Pigs -- Bush the Oilman and his Cuban and Mafia friends raise hell in Miami, New Orleans and Houston. Nice fellahs. LBJ called their organization "A regular Murder Inc in the Caribbean."
22 November 1963, Dallas* -- George DeMohrenschildt the "White Russian geologist" is friends with both Lee Harvey Oswald and George Herbert Walker Bush. Small world, as the coincidences get bigger. Almost 40 years later, FBI memos surface that detail how George Herbert Walker Bush fingered a young conservative the day of the assassination and "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" cleared the anti-Castro Cubans in Miami days later.
Vietnam -- OK for poor kids to fight an illegal war started over the phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident, just as long as "W," the drunken coke-whore dim son, "destined" to become preznit some day, or the rest of his rich frat brothers don't have to go. Meanwhile Poppy's rich friends became very, very, very rich.
Watergate -- Nixon was willing to throw anyone and everyone to the wolves -- except George Herbert Walker Bush and "The Texans" because "They'll do anything for our side." Gee. Would "murder" qualify as "anything." Think so, especially seeing how Nixon got the ziggy and Bush ended up in the clear.
October Surprise -- Carter probably would've beat Reagan, but Bush and his buddies in INTEL and the military-industrial complex cut a deal with the Ayatollah to hold the hostages clear through the election. On inauguration day, they got to leave Tehran. A couple of weeks later, Israel starts sending US-supplied weapons. It proves so "profitable," that Ollie North cuts out the Israelis and decides to sell them US-direct.
Reagan survives assassination attempt --Just a couple of months after Reagan is sworn in, Reagan is ALMOST taken out and Bush stood ready to take charge. His son Neil was ready to have dinner that night with John Hinckley's brother, Scott. Odd how these "One Degree of Separation" coincidences always happen to Poppy.
INSLAW/Promis -- The turd Ed Meese and cronies stole software that enabled the Justice Department to track criminal prosecutions, had their INTEL buddies add a trap door, and then sold it around the world, making it possible to track what every BFEE-connected dictator or friend from Saddam to d'Aubission is up to -- in FreedomÂȘ's name.
Iraq-gate / Banca Nazionale del Lavoro arms -- Just how do you think Iraq managed to run its war against Iran for all those years? Saddam had to be getting juice from somebody, so they found a low-level banker in Miami to take the fall. US taxpayers floated Saddam $5 billion in loans. Meanwhile the Iran-Iraq war is prolonged by years and several hundreds of thousands of lives are lost.
BCCI International Money Laundering for Terrorists & Intelligence Community -- The terrorists' favorite bank, used by among others Abu Nidhal, Osama bin Laden, Ollie North, CIA, SIS and KGB. The Reagan and Bush administrations and friends on both sides of the aisle in Congress did all they could to keep it open. John Kerry got it shut down.
Savings & Loan Scandal -- Legalized robbery in the form of "loans" made to the politically connected, Mafia and INTEL-huggers. Odd how even Neil Bush, who made millions while Silverado, the S&L he helped direct, lost billions in bad loans to Bush cronies, never spent a day in jail. Kid from Detroit steals a pair of shoes from the mall and it's OK to shoot him dead. Meanwhile, after the bailout "fixes" everything, Poppy's very, very, very rich friends become ultra-rich.
Iran-Contra -- Neo-con Michael Ledeen, Munacher Ghorbanifar and Adnan Khashoggi bend over backward to sell arms the Ayatollah and use the profits to arm the terrorist Contras. Most of the players should be in prison, but, thanks to Poppy's pardon, remain free to roam the streets, let alone corridors of power, and continue the terror.
Arbusto, HARKEN, Spectrum-7, Aloha -- Every company the crazy monkey's ever touched, he's run into the ground. Yet Poppy's family and friends, including James R Bath, the bin Mahfouz and bin Ladens, always help him out. No wonder the dim bulb went off thinking of ENRON, Kenny Boy and all the possibilities.
Gulf War I -- Poppy Bush gives April Glaspie the signal to greenlight Saddam's "border dispute" and push into Kuwait. No wonder Saddam felt betrayed when Cheney ordered the extermination of tens of thousands of fleeing Iraqi conscripts heading north on the "Highway of Death." Meanwhile, Poppy's ultra-rich friends become ultra-ultra-ultra rich.
Selection 2000 Shreds US Constitution -- After fixing things up so that 70,000 likely Democratic votes and voters are turned away or disenfranchised, the 2000 Florida Presidential "election" results in a "tie." Associate Justice Antonin Scalia gets the idea that maybe the GOP-packed Supreme Court should grant petitioner George W Bush's request for taking the Oval Office, anyway. Someone on DU wrote: "You don't steal elections to do good things." Prophetic words, those.
ENRON Energy Policy -- Sneering Dick Cheney meets with Kenny Boy Lay to discuss ways of helping ENRON rip-off California and the rest of America. There were others there, like Chevron and EXXON, because they need oil, too. Besides, the ultra-, ultra-, ultra-rich can never have enough.
9-11 -- After ignoring the warnings of outgoing President Bill Clinton, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, anti-Terror Chief Richard Clarke, and Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, George W Bush ignores a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." A month later, 3,000 innocent people are murdered. Two ways of looking at this one: 1.) Criminal Negligence, at best; 2.) Treason, most likely.
Gulf War II -- George W Bush, Sneer, and most of "the bureaucracy" make a case for going to war in Iraq, stating there are clear-cut connections between 9-11* and Saddam Hussein, who planned to use his arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons on America. (So far, the only bioweapon used on America was Anthrax that came from a US Army lab grown from a batch of the University of Iowa Strain.) Anwyay, it's not really odd to see how attacking Iraq was the Administration's number 1 priority, according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and anti-Terror Chief Richard Clarke, from January 2001. The reason? There's money to be made there and power to be gained at home."(end of excerpt)
* links added to text by T.F.

--
So much for a historical perspective; where do we currently stand? Well, our political, legal, governmental, military and medical systems as well as our unions have all been thoroughly compromised. Financially, since we are deeply in debt (mostly to China) "they" are selling off our corporate and country assets and now simply "appropriating" cash to pay off their bad gambling debt to the tune of over $850 billion in a "Bailout," our tax system and the Federal Reserve Banking system are beyond any controls, the demoralized and frightened middle class is being rapidly dissolved, our worldwide reputation is sullied more than at any time in our history and the value of the dollar continues to fall. Our infrastructure and environment are deteriorating while corporate and political corruption are rampant, bigotry and racism -- while receding -- still covertly abound, our traditional news sources have become cheering profit centers for the administration and our voting processes are, at best, unreliable. Not the healthy picture of progress and hope that used to be the norm, prior to the sixties -- before someone started killing off the Kennedy brothers and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
--
This may sound like a broken record, but the recent election is truly going to be critical to the survival of our democratic way of life -- and thus the world. Perhaps we should begin to think of the individuals that supported the Bush administration as bloated, self-absorbed and out-of-control addicts, in need of intervention. Now, in an intervention, the first thing that has to happen is that the addict must be subjected to the facts of reality until their wall of denial is first exposed and then accepted. The initial indication that that has occurred is when the addict admits that there is a problem and then becomes actively motivated to do something about it. It appears that the 2008 election demonstrated that a growing majority of Americans think things are broken and want a change. Now, is the time to educate and motivate our fellow citizens to seek out and regain their lost sense of morality.
The next step -- and this is at the heart of the matter -- is what can/should be done to correct our dire situation. It is going to take some very strong, passionate, wise, emotional and motivating leadership. Emphasis here should be on "motivating," because our next leader(s) must circumvent the biased media outlets while resisting the temptation to allow older, more corrupt influences, to regain control.
Elaborating on a phrase from the beginning of this statement, "... there must be enforceable laws and/or rules ..." ESPECIALLY in our electoral and financial systems. Even though Rove and his ilk may seem to have left Washington, we mustn't let our guard down. They are still practicing their nefarious deeds, somewhere. Keep in mind that the thing about laws and rules is that they are usually created, modified and put into effect AFTER the fact. Also, be aware that it is VERY difficult to resist control when you don't have the money to buy food, shelter, or clothing -- much less the weapons of resistance. If Obama is able to follow through with just a bare majority of his campaign promises, perhaps we can still miss taking a bullet, this time. However, let this be a major lesson -- fascism and democracy don't mix ... so we had better RAPIDLY fix our democracy/Congress while we, hopefully, still can!
Finally, should we work our way out of this madness, one of our first imperatives, as we repair the damage done, should be to prosecute ALL of the criminal acts that this ruthless group of international thugs has committed. This statement is not made with a sense of vengeance, but with an eye toward setting such a strong example with these individuals that they, and their minions, will forever give up on any future attempts to corrupt this, our enlightened struggle for universal, renewable, human freedom.

Monday, March 23, 2015

Impeach them all

By Monty Pelerin


The US Government continues actions that will result in its own demise. That might seem fitting, except that its failure will seriously harm the citizenry.
Government decisions and actions have assured an economic collapse that will result in another depression. Federal debts and promises are too large to be honored, a conclusion based not on economics but on simple arithmetic.
The government collapse will likely trigger the economic collapse, although the order could be reversed. Arguably, we are already in a depression which has been disguised by juicing GDP via excessive government spending. This spending has been  funded increased government debt in magnitudes never seen before. To put matters into perspective, by the end of President Obama's first four years, he will have added more to the federal debt than all 43 Presidents who preceded him.
The economic collapse, as a result of this borrowing and stimulus, will be terrifying and worse than it needed be. Whether it is preceded by hyperinflation or goes directly into a deflationary collapse is moot and immaterial regarding an ultimate depression. Resulting conditions will be worse than those experienced during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
As frightening as the economic event will be, it will be superseded by the political damage. Given the state of our economy and the state of our government, there is a high probability that we lose our form of government. The confluence of the horrific economic events coupled with what H. L. Mencken foresaw long ago brings the very survival of freedom and liberty into question:
As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright moron.
Mencken's "great and glorious day" is upon us. We have found our "moron," not that he is the first or only one. His intent "to transform America" suggests that his actions will not be limited to methods considered appropriate by his predecessors.
In a recent article on American Thinker Steve McCann expressed his concerns that Obama is following in the footsteps of Twentieth Century despots:
... Barack Obama is the most corrupt, dictatorial, and ideologically driven president in American history?  That his entire being and psyche are devoted to transforming the country not only into a socialist utopia, but into a nation permanently governed by a radical oligarchy?
Other observers share McCann's opinion, and many do so in less complimentary terms.
What Made This Country Great?
America became great not because it consisted of great men (even though there were many).  Our system of governance encouraged laissez-faire capitalism and the freedom and opportunity that allowed ordinary men to do great things. Greatness did not come from electing great leaders. They may have helped, but they were neither necessary nor sufficient for the country to succeed.
The Founding Fathers provide a framework and an "operating system" which allowed the country to prosper. These hearty men were wise, courageous and noble. They understood the nature of man and the danger of power. They established a system designed to protect people from both. They designed a form of governance to accommodate imperfect and less than honorable men. Their primary focus was on limiting the role and power of the federal government.
Under such an arrangement the energy and creativity of people pursuing their own self-interests quickly transformed America into a dynamo unlike anything seen before.  In less than a century, the US grew from a backwoods society to one of the most powerful, prosperous nations in the world. Along the way the country elected its share of idiots and morons, perhaps not in a clinical sense but in terms of the gap between their abilities and the abilities required for their offices. The limited role of government restricted the damage that could be imposed on the citizenry. Imperfect men were constrained by a nearly perfect Constitution.
What Happened?
Sadly, the citizenry is no longer protected by the institutional constraints established by the Founders. Over time, continued attacks on the Constitution by the power hungry elite weakened the document. Today, it is more an interesting historical artifact than the basis of law and government limitations for which it was created. That is the problem, not the current occupant of the White House. The deterioration in government constraints enabled fools, hucksters and charlatans to exploit the country. The decline of the Constitution led to the decline of America.
Where We Are Now?
The government has now grown to Leviathan proportions. It is into everything from light bulbs to toilets and every other aspect of our lives. No business is immune from inane and arbitrary bureaucratic regulations, most of which make no economic, environmental or occupational sense. Faceless bureaucrats now run your life and your business, believing they are more knowledgeable and trustworthy than you. Via force they have slowly crippled the productivity of American workers and companies. In doing so, they raise the cost of living for all citizens. Their hubris and ideology supersedes any need for cost-benefit analyses. When they "know" something is "right," they will make you conform.
This country is approaching the fascist state which ran the economy of Nazi Germany. Government has removed decisions from the board room and delegated them to the mindless bureaucracy. As a result, productivity has declined and uncertainty has increased. Investment has declined and much of it has been driven to more welcoming places overseas. Human capital is fleeing and the rate of outflow will likely accelerate if conditions continue to be unfavorable. Jobs are scarce and educational results are disgraceful. Everything the government has run is either bankrupt or soon to be. In short, we are in one big economic mess, all of which can be traced back to the relaxation/elimination of constitutional constraints.  When government broke its chains, we began our descent into toward the dustbin of history.
Much of the emasculation of the Constitution happened surreptitiously and slowly over many years. No amendments were added or overruled. An implicit agreement among the political class seems to have been struck. Both parties apparently considered their work too important to be constrained by some old document. Court decisions soon reflected this political attitude. The judiciary, while a separate branch of the government by law, has always been de facto cognizant of and bent with the political winds. The notion that justice is blind or even consistent is questionable when judges are appointed based on political and legal ideology. Republican law says the Constitution is fixed and to be interpreted by original intent. Democrat law says the Constitution is a living document, subject to change to meet the needs of a changing society.
Blame for the destruction of much of the Constitutional constraints is bi-partisan. Both political parties had incentives to increase their power, only achievable by relaxing the legal limitations on government. Both chose to ignore or violate the Constitution when it served their purposes. After a century of this behavior, the Constitution is a shell of its original self. Unfortunately, that thin piece of parchment is all that stands between us and tyranny. It has been the difference between the development of the United States and the rest of the world. Now it is gone.
What Can Be Done?
Let us return to the beginning, or at least the McCann quote:
... Barack Obama is the most corrupt, dictatorial, and ideologically driven president in American history?  That his entire being and psyche are devoted to transforming the country not only into a socialist utopia, but into a nation permanently governed by a radical oligarchy?
Read that quote again, slowly. Now read the second half of it again. I am not offended by the characterization of Obama or even its accuracy. What galls me is the presumption that one man, Democrat or Republican, believes he has the authority to change the governance model of this country. That notion is antithetical to everything this country was based upon and everything that enabled it to become so prosperous. It conflicts with all of our traditions, customs and laws. The mere thought implies that we are no longer a country subject to the Rule of Law but subject to the whims of whoever the current ruler might be. This is the governing principle of countries like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and the old Soviet Union. If this is acceptable, then we are truly doomed as a country.
Do the masses believe that a president has such power? Have they become so dumbed-down that they don't understand the consequences? Has our country fallen this far so fast?  If so, totalitarianism is just a matter of time. If Obama doesn't achieve his objectives, then some successor will. America is over if mob rule (democracy) has replaced the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
Democrats in favor of what is happening should realize the implications. Just because your man is assuming these extra Constitutional powers today doesn't mean the next in that office will be so pleasing. Remember how you felt about George Bush when you saw some of his actions as unconstitutional? How would you feel if he came back to office with expanded power?  Or, how about a reincarnation of Richard Nixon? How would you feel about Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or whomever your worst nightmare might be in office with virtually unlimited power? Hopefully, you understand the danger. It is not the man, it is the power. No man can be trusted with excessive power!
I see no reason for optimism regarding any solution to this problem. We no longer have politicians with conscience or integrity. Why have Democrats and Republicans not stepped forward to admonish Obama for his extra-Constitutional acts? Why has someone not issued a cease and desist order backed up by the threat of impeachment hearings? Why do these elected fools stand by and watch the destruction of their country? Does no one have courage? Do principles not matter?
Sadly, I think the answers to most of these questions are obvious. Both political parties participated in the destruction of the Constitution because they believed it to be in their personal self-interest. Strengthening government strengthens themselves. If both parties didn't willingly participate in this destruction, we could never have moved so far off course.
Now we are close to going over a cliff from which there is no return. That would result in a substantial loss of our remaining freedoms, our prosperity and our country. The siren song of our Socialist in Chief does not explain this problem. We know how socialism works -- it doesn't! It steals freedom, impoverishes people (except the ruling elite) and ultimately results in the collapse of governments, economies and civilizations. The data on these claims are irrefutable. Socialism, even in theory, does not work. In practice it is worse; it is death, destruction and suffering. 
The Outrage
I do not blame Obama for seeking to increase his power, control or even the pursuit of a dictatorship.  Blaming him is like blaming a shark because it preys on other creatures. It is in the nature of sharks and politicians. That is what they do.
What I am outraged over is that he can so blatantly commit transgressions without a meaningful peep from either political party. That is clear indication of how corrupt our political system is. The 500 plus elected peacocks that strut around looking for TV cameras to impress us with how smart, important and necessary they are, are the problem. Republicans and Democrats alike ignore this blatant violation of the law and the anger of the public.
Obama is a problem on many levels. But he is merely a product of the corrupt system. Both parties have lost their will to do what is right and what they are legally obligated to do. They are different wings of the same predatory bird. Their behavior is indistinguishable from that two organized crime syndicates who have cut a deal. Rather than act on principles, they agreed not to fight other than at the ballot box. So long as neither party exposes the other, the plunder and pillage of the population can continue. The two mob bosses apparently have seen cooperation as a better solution than fighting. Some years the Bloods will be in charge and other years the Crips. No matter who is in charge, there is plenty of loot to divvy up. Better to share the scam than to jeopardize its continuance.
Congress is clearly in violation of their oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution. Impeachment proceedings should be brought against this president. They will not be and our country will be lost. The selfishness and greed of the political class is best served in such a fashion.
Unless meaning is put back into the Constitution, it will not matter who wins or loses the next election. Elections no longer matter! We think we are voting for change and can achieve such by changing horses. That is exactly what they want you to believe. If you were to recognize that you no longer have any control over what is happening, then the myth of government has been exploded.
I have no solution to this problem other than to Impeach Them All. That is the correct solution, but not a practical one.
Thus we are left waiting for the collapse. Perhaps in rebuilding from the ashes a Constitutional Republic that worked and we wasted, can be re-instituted. But a collapse of the economy, the government and much of society is very dangerous and opens the door for a demagogue to assume power. That was the recipe used by Hitler.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/02/impeach_them_all.html#ixzz3VG6yZaLZ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook