Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Arpaio's Obama probe finds 'national security threat'
Hawaii found to be bogus birth-certificate factory

Published: July 17, 2012, at about 7 pm MDT



PHOENIX – After determining earlier this year there is probable cause to suspect the document released by the White House as Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said today he believes his Cold Case Posse’s investigation should be advanced to the federal government, based on further information released today at a press conference under way now in Phoenix that is being live-streamed by WND.

Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo said the new information confirms the document presented to the American public in April 2011 is undoubtedly fraudulent.

The Obama campaign declined to comment on Arpaio’s allegations.

Arpaio told WND he intends to move the investigation and the new information to a higher authority within the federal government because of what he calls an imminent threat to national security and U.S. immigration laws. The threat is posed by a flaw in Hawaii’s law discovered by his investigators that allows a foreigner to obtain a Hawaii birth certificate.

“Although I am having a difficult time deciding who to forward this information to given the fact that the obvious choices report directly to the president, I cannot stand by and hold on to information that threatens to weaken national security,” Arpaio said.

Arpaio said he intends on keeping a case file open if more information surfaces or if federal authorities decide to ignore the case.

Zullo explained that along with new information discovered regarding the birth certificate since the posse’s March 1 press conference, his team has discovered Hawaii provides easy access to a birth certificate, even if the child wasn’t born in the state.

Join with Sheriff Arpaio in his work to uncover the truth by donating to the Cold Case Posse expenses, or contribute to a fund that supports investigations by both WND and the sheriff.

Under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8, a person only has to be an established resident of Hawaii, not necessarily a U.S. citizen, and pay taxes there for one year to be able to register an out-of-state or foreign-born person with an official Hawaii birth certificate.

“If a nation’s security is only as strong as its weakest link, then America may be in serious trouble,” Arpaio said in a statement. “Hawaii may be our weakest link and could have a serious impact on our nation’s immigration policy.”

Among the new findings presented by lead Cold Case Posse investigator Mike Zullo:

• The sheriff’s investigators have learned of a birth certificate coding system that indicates the White House document has been altered.
• An interview with the Hawaii official who allegedly signed the Obama document in 1961, Verna K.L. Lee, provided further confirmation of the coding anomalies.
• Investigators were troubled to find key information missing on the verification document Hawaii provided to Arizona’s secretary of state in May.
• Hawaii’s deputy attorney general, Jill T. Nagamine, confirm the state has a birth document on file for Obama. But she would not confirm on the record that the White House document matched what was on file with the Hawaii Department of Health.
• The sheriff’s investigators interviewed three persons of interest who have provided additional information in the case.

In prepared opening remarks, Arpaio chastised the media for the way it has handled the investigation.

“You have demeaned this investigation at every turn as silly and wasteful,” he said. “Your contempt about the subject and me for pursuing it has been duly noted.”

He urged media members to listen to Zullo’s presentation of the new evidence.

“Keep an open mind if you can,” he said. “Put away all you pre conceived ideas. Keep your eye on the ball.”

Arpaio’s investigation was initiated last October when 250 Maricopa County citizens approached him for help because they believed the electronic document presented by the White House to the American public was a forgery. Arpaio said he went ahead with the probe with the intent of being able to clear the president and put the matter to rest. But he explained the investigation found too many inconsistencies on the birth certificate.

“We also looked into the president’s selective service registration card and found that it, too, appeared to be fraudulent,” Arpaio said.

Investigators since then have traveled to Hawaii and have interviewed more witnesses, the sheriff said.

Addressing the coding issue, Zullo explained that the Hawaii Department of Health, which categorized vital information issued at the time of the president’s birth, used specific number codes that were written in pencil to transfer information from a paper birth certificate to a database file.


Hand written codes on Obama birth document

The codes seen on the document issued by the White House are not consistent with the information entered into the various fields, indicating the document has been altered or amended.

In the coding system, the number 9 indicates the information is not stated, meaning there should not be any information in the box in which the number is written.

However, the number 9 can be seen written in pencil next to the fields for “Usual Occupation,” “Kind of Business or Industry” and “Race of Father” on Obama’s document. Each of those fields are filled with information.

“This proves the document has been tampered with and information has been placed on it,” Zullo said.

Sheriff’s investigators tracked down the registrar who allegedly signed the White House’s birth document, [V].K. Lee, who is now 95. She provided information that posed further inconsistencies with the story of Obama’s birth at the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in 1961.

The investigators also analyzed the Hawaii Department of Health’s response to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s request that Obama’s birth information be verified.

They interviewed in person the Hawaii assistant attorney general to verify that the document presented by the White House was the same document on file with the Department of Health.

Investigators said they were troubled to find key information missing on the verification document, including the president’s date of birth.

They said they were equally troubled that the deputy attorney general would not confirm on record that the White House document matched what was on file with the health department.

The national security concerns raised by the investigation are based on Hawaii Revised Statute 338.17.8. which states:

338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of state.

Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

Arpaio and his investigators said they have deep concerns that the Hawaii Revised Statute is a loophole that makes it possible for foreign born children to illegally establish U.S. citizenship.

They said the concern is also relevant given the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling concerning Arizona’s proposed state immigration law, SB 1070, in which the federal court ruled state laws cannot be in contradiction or in conflict with federal law.

Zullo noted that, normally, when it’s necessary to prove a person is a U.S. Citizen, the main form of documentation is a state certificate of birth.

“It appears that in the case of Hawaii law, any person can obtain a birth certificate if any adult or their parents can prove that they resided in Hawaii for one year and paid taxes,” he said. “There is no requirement to show that the child itself was actually born in Hawaii or on U.S. soil.”

More to come …

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/arpaio-obama-probe-finds-national-security-threat/

It has become clearly evident that NO amount of evidence of a crime committed by Obama and his enablers will be given it's day in court. Sickening doesn't adequately describe this feeling. He MUST be removed in November by the voters or otherwise. Keep your powder dry.

THE CONSTITUTION, VATTEL, AND "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"

By Publius Huldah
July 18, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

We have been visited recently with several very silly articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1789), and hence is qualified to be President:

Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress can define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.

Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.

Human Events claims that anyone born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.

Jake Walker at Red State purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present. After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House, Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”:

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…” [emphasis mine]

“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” [emphasis mine]

But “subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to Citizens of a Republic!

The four writers don’t know what they are talking about. But I will tell you the Truth and prove it. We first address Word Definitions.Word Definitions:

Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”. Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.

So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.

So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?

What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?

Article II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution, requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen”.

The meaning of this term is not set forth in The Constitution or in The Federalist Papers; and I found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention or in Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.

What does this tell us? That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around defining “pizza,” because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is.

Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles[1] already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.

And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work. I’ll prove it.

How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:

During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.

Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]

Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”

Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.[2] Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:

“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.” (page xxx) [emphasis added]

In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:

“… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: "Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks."

This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters' Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone's throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]

So! Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787.[3]

Vattel on “natural born citizens,” “inhabitants,” and “naturalized citizens.”

From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.[1] [READ this footnote!] We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens - it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens - they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen - this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office - this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens.” By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

Do you see? The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”. But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.

How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:

The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787. John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:

"…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen..."[4]

According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:

“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.” [boldface added]

In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.[5]

Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States - not merely born here (as were our Founders), but born as citizens.

And do not forget that the children born here of slaves did not become “citizens” by virtue of being born here. Their parents were slaves; hence (succeeding to the condition of their parents) they were born as slaves. Black people born here did not become citizens until 1868 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

So! Do you see? If Our Framers understood that merely being born here were sufficient to confer status as a “natural born citizen”; it would not have been necessary to grandfather in our first generation of Presidents; and all the slaves born here would have been “natural born citizens”. But they were born as non-citizen slaves, because their parents were non-citizen slaves. David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship

David Ramsay was an historian, Founding Father, and member of the Continental Congress [REMEMBER: This is where they “pounced” on Vattel], whose Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring The Character And Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States was published in 1789, just after ratification of our Constitution and the Year the new Government began.

It is an interesting dissertation and only 8 pages long. At the bottom of his page 6, Ramsay states:

“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” [modernized spelling & emphasis are mine]

Do you see? Ramsay’s Dissertation sets forth the understanding of the Time, formally stated by Vattel and incorporated by our Framers, that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of citizens. And we had no “citizens” until July 4, 1776. Now, let us look at the First Congress.

How the First Congress followed Vattel and our Framers:

Article I, §8, cl. 4 delegates to Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.[6] Pursuant to that power, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790. Here is the text, which you can find at 1 Stat. at Large, 103:

“SECTION1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States.

And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States … APPROVED, March 26, 1790.”[7]

So! This Act of the First Congress implements the Principles set forth in Vattel, embraced by our Framers, and enshrined in Art. II, §1, cl. 5, that:

• A “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of parents who are citizens.

• Minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized. Thus, they are not “natural born” citizens.

Our Framers rejected the anti-republican and feudal notion that mere location of birth within a Country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.[8]

The distinction written into Our Constitution and implemented by the Naturalization Act of 1790 is between someone who is born a citizen, by being born of parents who are already Citizens, and someone who becomes a citizen after birth by naturalization. Only the former are eligible to be President.

So! Original Intent? Or Whatever the People with the Power want it to Mean?

I have proved the original intent of “natural born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 – it is one who is born of parents who are citizens. We may not lawfully change that definition except by Amendment to the Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment does not change the definition because the 14th Amendment defines “citizens” of the United States (which includes naturalized citizens) and not “natural born Citizen.”

Some Democrats no longer pretend that the glib, handsome & black Obama (who, following the condition of his putative father, was born a subject of the British Crown) is “a natural born Citizen”. They now assert that the Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever they choose to run for president, including someone who is not qualified for the office. [See pages 3 & 4 of the linked Court Order.]

The school-girlish Establishment Republicans who swoon over the glib, handsome & Hispanic Marco Rubio (who is not a “natural born Citizen”, but only a naturalized citizen) will ultimately destroy our sovereignity. Once we accept that our President need not be a “natural born Citizen”, we will have made a major step towards submission to global government. Because then, anybody can be President.

© 2012 Publius Huldah - All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

1. Monarchies have subjects. Republics are formed by citizens. We broke from a monarchy under which we were subjects; and with our War for Independence, were transformed into citizens!

The common law of England recognizes only subjects of the Crown. England has never had citizens. Her feudal doctrine of “natural born subjects” is set forth in Book I, Ch. 10, of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (I modernized the spelling):

“THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the … allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie … which binds the subject to the king …” [emphasis mine]

Under feudalism, people are possessions who belong to the Land in which they were born. So they are “naturally” subject to whoever owns the Land. They were born as subjects to the owner of the land [ultimately, the King] on which they were born.

With our War for Independence, We repudiated the notion of natural born subjects. As Citizens, We ordained and established Our Constitution wherein We created a federal government which was subject to us!

Jake Walker doesn’t seem to know the difference between being “a subject of a King” and “a citizen of a Republic”, as he equates the feudal concept of “natural born subject” with the Republican concept of “natural born Citizen”.

Chet Arthur and Human Events tell us the “original intent” of “natural born Citizen” at Art. II, §1, cl. 5 is given by an Amendment defining “citizen” [not “natural born citizen”] ratified 80 years later!

And Bret Baier seems unaware that the methods for amending the Constitution are set forth in Article V; and that Congress may not amend the Constitution by making a law which redefines terms set forth in the Constitution!

These four amateurs would do well to study Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny, by Professor Edward J. Erler. Erler addresses the distinctions between “citizenship” and “subjectship”; and the concept of “citizenship” at §1 of the 14th Amendment. He proves that not everyone born here is a “citizen”:

Only those whose parents are “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” are citizens. Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” – they are invaders whose allegiance is to the Country they left. Foreign diplomats stationed here are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. Thus, children born here of these aliens are not citizens!

2. The 1916 ed. of Law of Nations with Lapradelle’s introduction is a Google digitized book. If you download it, you get an easily readable text.

3. Many thanks to my friend, David J. Edwards, who provided me with Evidence of Vattel’s profound influence on our Founders & Framers.

4. The hyperlink contains another link where you can see Jay’s handwritten letter!

5. Note that Art. I, §2, cl. 2, permits naturalized citizens to serve as Representatives; and Art. I, §3, cl. 3, permits them to serve as Senators.

6. “Naturalization” is the process, established by law, by which foreigners become citizens.

7. Note that in §§ 215, 216 & 217, Vattel says that children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. He goes on to say that by the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

But he doesn’t expressly say they are “natural born citizens”. The italicized words at the end of the 1790 Act correct that and make it clear that children of citizens of the United States are “natural born citizens” wherever they are born.

8. The 14th Amendment doesn’t change this one whit! READ Prof. Erler’s paper, linked above.

NOTICE! To all who strain to find something I “failed to mention”: I didn’t quote Minor v. Happersett because Minor merely paraphrases, in dicta, a portion of the Naturalization Act of 1790, the text of which is set forth above.

And I didn’t show why John McCain & Mitt Romney ARE natural born Citizens; and why Marco Rubio & Obama are NOT natural born Citizens. J.B. Williams has already done an excellent job in applying the Republican Principles set forth by Vattel, and which were embraced by our Founders, Framers, and the First Congress, in his recent paper, Romney, Rubio, McCain And Natural Born Citizen.

Publius Huldah is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs. h

E-Mail: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Publius Huldah -- The Constitution, Vattel, and "Natural Born Citizen"

Another doctored image deepens Obama mystery

It's just a family photograph ... a 12-year-old Barack Obama Jr., his little sister, his white mother and white grandfather.

It's on President Obama's Facebook page ... Mom's standing behind her son as moms often do in these kinds of pictures, her hand just above her son's waist ...

Wait a minute! That hand is black! And her arm is white!

Click here to read the full article.

RIGHT-WING MEDIA PROMOTING UNCONSTITUTIONAL VP CANDIDATES

By J.B. Williams
July 17, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Almost four years into the search for Obama’s real identity, every answer brings even more questions. The truth is, besides a communist, we don’t know who Barack Hussein Obama really is. We only know that he isn’t who he says he is…and that enormous resources are in play to keep the full answer under wraps.

Since Obama came on the national scene in 2004 at the DNC Convention, thousands of citizens have been trying to figure out who he is, where he came from and how a literal nobody was able to outplay the most powerful political machine in U.S. history, defeating Hillary Clinton for the Democrat Nomination and winning the White House in 2008 with a totally blank résumé.

Four years later, not a single press room in the country has made any attempt at all to vet Barack Obama, which isn’t all that surprising since the main stream press room has been in the bag for international socialism since Carter.

What is shocking though is that with very rare exception, alleged “constitutional” Tea Partiers and right-wing media outlets have also been missing in action concerning the proper vetting of Barack Obama.

Now, these so-called right-wing constitutionalists are promoting their own unconstitutional candidates for VP in Rubio and Jindal. Why? Is this why they chose to avoid vetting Obama?

They had unconstitutional candidates of their own in the wings?

Constitutional Tea Partiers?

Anyone involved in fully investigating Obama over the last four years has received hate mail from both Obot’s and Tea Partiers, who have claimed that holding the fraudulent Marxist-in-Chief accountable for the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on America is a losing game. These folks have been no more interested in finding out whom and what Barack Obama really is than left-wing news rooms.

Now we see these folks promoting their own unconstitutional candidates in Cuban Marco Rubio and Indian Bobby Jindal, both of whom were born in America to parents who were citizens of foreign nations at the time. They were born dual-citizens via the 14th Amendment, and cannot therefore, be Natural Born Citizens.

I have stated many times over the last four years that anyone not concerned with Article II of the U.S. Constitution, is not concerned with any part of the U.S. Constitution. Being a constitutionalist is an all or nothing game. You either care about everything the Founders created, or none of it.

Those who pretend to care about the Constitution without any concern for Article II are pretenders, plain and simple. What we don’t know is their motives for pretending to be something they are not. But you can bet that it has something to do with political power.

The Right-wing Media Agenda

In the good ole days, it was easy to tell friend from foe. Today, our friends are often foes, operating inside the impotent resistance like a fifth column for our enemies.

Many of these enemy agents present themselves as online right-wing media outlets. But where are they on the most important issues of the day? Are they really on the right side of our most pressing issues?

According to a current poll running at Drudge, Marco Rubio is by far the most preferred VP running mate for Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race with support from 41.5% of Drudge readers. Rice is a distant second choice at 30.5%. But Rubio is every bit as unconstitutional as Barack Obama. So, why does his name even appear in the poll?

Bobby Jindal also appears on the Drudge poll, and he too is ineligible for the offices of President and Vice President. Why do these two names appear on the Drudge poll? Jindal is the Natural Born son of two Indian citizens. Rubio is the Natural Born son of two Cuban citizens. Neither is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

Newsmax has been promoting Rubio for President or Vice President for months, including publishing his Obama-style autobiography titled “An American Son” – which should have been titled “An American Anchor Baby from Cuba.”

American Thinker is also promoting Rubio the ineligible. Hiding behind the pen name Chet Arthur, aptly borrowed from America’s first unconstitutional White House resident Chester Arthur, who stole and even murdered his way into the Oval Office in 1881, American Thinker writer Chet Arthur relies upon a Heritage Foundation report to falsely proclaim that any anchor baby, including Rubio, is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States eligible for the highest offices in our land.

The story is blatantly false, as is the report it is based on titled The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, issued by the once trusted Heritage Foundation. Did Chet Arthur twist the Heritage report, or is Heritage Foundation involved in left-wing unconstitutional propaganda too?

Based upon other blatantly false constitutional interpretations issued by Heritage, both factors could be in play.

Other so-called right-wing media outlets like Canada Free Press and The Weekly Standard have engaged in the promotion of unconstitutional Rubio too.

Republican TV operatives like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Megan Kelly and Glenn Beck, just to name a few, have been covering up Obama’s ineligibility for office for years now. So it should surprise no one that they are now engaged in promoting ineligible candidates of their own.Why are all of these alleged right-wing constitutionally conscious media outlets promoting candidates that are obviously just as unconstitutional as Obama?

Who Can We Trust?

Trust the Founders and yourself…. Sadly, the information age is also the disinformation age.

There is a ton of information available at our finger-tips, but most of it is garbage.

Those truly seeking truth can find it on the Internet, but it isn’t easy. You have to be able to discern truth from agenda driven propaganda, no matter which online sources you use today.

The best source is always the first source, the point of origin. Relying upon the opinions of others is a very dangerous business. When it comes to matters of the constitution and our founding principles, values and formula for freedom, you can only rely upon the Founders themselves, not the so-called “experts” who want to interpret the Founders for you.

Fortunately, our Founders wrote and ratified the Charters of Freedom in plain simple English, so that anyone with a third-grade reading and comprehension skill can properly read and interpret the Founding Documents for themselves. We don’t need any “expert” to explain to us what the Founders made very simple and clear.

Those seeking to promote a particular agenda can also find what they are looking for online, an opinion to support their agenda. Our nation is divided between the soldiers of right and wrong, not left and right and right now, wrong is winning.

In the years leading up to the Obama Conspiracy, congress tried no less than eight times to alter or abolish the Article II Natural Born Citizen requirement for the offices of President and Vice President. Now the courts, the Congressional Research Center, left-wing and right-wing organizations are working to accomplish this goal via false propaganda and amendment by way of public opinion and court precedent.

Many who appear to be our friends in the right-wing media are involved in that effort.

If you figure out why, let me know.

In the meantime, watch your enemies close and your so-called friends even closer.

© 2012 JB Williams - All Rights Reserved

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of Freedom Force USA and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the power to the right people in America.

Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org

E-Mail:JB.USPU@gmail.com

JB Williams -- Right-wing Media Promoting Unconstitutional VP Candidates?

At or around 6 am EDT on July 19, 2012, the story, "Arpaio: Obama birth record definitely forged," was No. 2 on CBS.com.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57474406/arpaio-obama-birth-record-definitely-forged/

It has since been fixed, so that the story no longer appears on the "Most Popular News Stories and Blogs" list. It has been replaced by:

5. Trayvon Martin's parents: This wasn't "God's plan"

6. Poll: John Roberts more popular among liberals

7. Take a moment to relax with some chill music

8. 10-year-old girl fights off kidnapper in Philly

10. 600-year-old linen bras found in Austrian castle

12. 'Finding Nemo 2' finds its director

It's reassuring to know that CBS.com and their readers have their priorities in the right place.

[Ed. - I do not know whether the following is true. But I have never known
Pen Johannson to publish anything unreliable. - MinutemanCDC_SC]

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

OBAMA’S KENYAN BIRTH RECORDS DISCOVERED IN BRITISH NATIONAL ARCHIVES

WHERE LIES GO TO DIE – Evidence discovered shows British Protectorate of East Africa recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963 and sent returns of those events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch of British National Archives.

(Editor's note: The records alluded to in this story were discovered through a May, 2012, search through BMD [birth-marriage-death] Registers, a BNA [British National Archives] partner site, using the search term "Obama". Corroborating evidence through public sources only implicates the identity of those involved but does not explicitly prove their identity in the absence of the availability of original documents.)

By Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

KEW, SURREY, GB – The last place anyone would think to look for a birth record of someone claiming to be a “natural born” U.S. citizen is Great Britain. The very inclusion of the Article II eligibility mandate in the U.S. Constitution was explicitly intended by the founding fathers of America to prevent a then British-born enemy usurper from attaining the office of the U.S. presidency and thereby undermining the sovereignty of the newly formed nation.

In the absence of honor, courage and justice on the part of those serving in the U.S. Congress and Federal Judiciary, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case investigative group has concluded the only law enforcement analysis of the image of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” posted to a government website in April, 2011, and found it to be the product of criminal fraud and document forgery.

The seeming endless evidence against Obama has now taken investigators to the foreign archives of Great Britain wherein it has been discovered that vital events occurring under the jurisdiction of the British Colony in the Protectorate of East Africa prior to 1965 were recorded and held in the main office of the British Registrar in England until 1995 before being archived in the BNA.

It now appears the worst fears of the U.S. Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including the birth of two sons before 1963.

Recall, investigative journalists working for Breitbart.com have already discovered biographical information published by Barack Obama’s literary agent in which he claimed he was born in Kenya. Prior to Obama’s ensconcement to the White House, many international stories also stated that Obama was Kenyan-born as did members of Kenya’s legislative assembly. Since then information on Obama’s ties has been curtailed by government officials as the Obama administration has coincidently paid nearly $4 billion dollars for capital projects in Kenya.

Also, the presence of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, cannot be accounted for from February, 1961, the alleged month of her marriage to Obama, until three weeks after the birth of Obama II in August, 1961, when she allegedly applied for college courses at the University of Washington. Theories about her whereabouts have included that she participated in the Air Lift America project as an exchange student and traveled to Nairobi as one of many recent high school graduates (see AASF Report 1959-1961).

The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s birth.

The books containing hand written line records of vital events attributed to Obama are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA. The hand written line records, first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”), beginning in 1953, and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954, and a birth in 1961. Barack Obama [Sr.] is said to have died in 1982 and had married at least once more in Kenya and had at least one more child in 1968, but no record of these were found in the BNA because, according to the Archives’ desk reference, the events occurred after Kenya achieved independence from British colonial rule in 1963.

To date, Barack Obama II is the only known alleged son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before the independence of Kenya became official in 1963.

A request for information from the BNA on the specification of birth information contained in the series of thousands of logs indicates that only vital events registered in Kenya’s Ministry of Health offices were recorded in the registration returns and were placed in the National Archives care before they reached 30 years old (the law was amended to 20 years after creation in 2010).

The line records do not specify the identity or names of the children, only gender. However, the line records are associated with index numbers of actual microfilm copies of certificates, licenses and registration applications filed in the archives. According to researchers, Obama’s line records were discovered in Series RG36, reference books. Not surprisingly, when researchers specifically requested access to the relevant microfilm for the Obama birth registrations, they were told that the records were currently held under an outdated “privileged access” status, meaning researchers were denied access under Chapter 52, Sections 3 and 5 of the British Public Records Act of 1958.

However, evidence shows these records were available for public access before August of 2009, the approximate date of arrival of Hillary Clinton in Great Britain during her trip to Africa that year.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/d...ic-records.pdf

Several sources show that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a sudden visit to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British agency which oversees Public Records Archives from colonial protectorates, to speak with the Chief Executive of the Archives in early August of 2009. African news agency expressed surprise at Clinton's arrival since she did not announce her intentions of stopping in Great Britain before embarking on her two week trip to Africa.

OBAMA’S FATHER FAILED TO INCLUDE BIRTH OF “SON” ON INS APPLICATION

For someone who wanted to remain in America, it’s difficult to imagine any reason why Barack Obama (II)’s alleged father, Barack the elder, would omit the birth of an “anchor baby” son on an application to extend his visa, just days after the birth occurred, unless…

The American people were told by Barack Obama, unequivocally, that his father was a former goat herder from Kenya. However, INS documents filed in the very same month after Obama’s birth suggest the goat herding elder Obama didn’t “get the memo” that he was a daddy.

On August 31st, 1961, just weeks after Obama’s birth was allegedly registered in a regional office of the Hawaiian Health Department, Obama the elder neglected to name his newborn son on an application for extension of his temporary visa to stay in the U.S..

Obama’s omission of the birth is astonishing and illogical given the fact that the acknowledgement of the birth would have fortified Obama’s application for an extension. The INS has long been more willing to extend the visa of a foreign parent of children born in the U.S., especially when the other parent is an American citizen.

Despite the recent release of a documentary film, “Dreams From My Real Father,” presenting evidence that Barack Hussein Obama[, Sr.,] is not the biological father of the younger Obama, the elder Obama is the man named as the father on the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” which was posted to the Internet by the administration in April of 2011. The document image has since been forensically examined by law enforcement investigators and determined to be a digitally fabricated forgery using Adobe software.

THE UGLY TRUTH

However, the sad and pathetic truth about Obama’s covert natal history and his illegitimacy lies at the bottom of a sordid pit of lies surrounding the paternity of his birth. Doubts about his identity, his eligibility, his intentions, his honesty and his honorability as a man stem from what appears to be an ugly truth about his mother’s probable sexual involvement with multiple men associated with the radical socialist movement in 1960’s Hawaii.

Obama and his horde of abettors defend an improbable narrative about his identity. The veracity of this narrative has been damaged under the weight of a steady stream of crushing evidence demonstrating more than 180 disparities and contradictions to Obama’s claims of natal legitimacy as president.

If Obama’s cause as a usurper of power is to avenge his father’s culture, he made the worst possible error in lying about who he is. Vintage America is on to him. Their instincts are slowly turning Obama’s fantasy of a socialist utopia for those he believes are humanity’s offended into a laughingstock. By building his vision for America on clay feet of lies about who he is, he has undermined any intention of doing something good and right. He is not to be trusted.

Moreover, Obama is learning the painful lesson that a message of “Hope and Change” means something vastly different to vintage America, the most powerful and affluent culture in human history, when that message has been proven to come from someone as audaciously dishonest and deceptively calculating as this son of otherness.

Recall, in 2011, it was reported by The Daily Pen after an investigation of the State of Hawaii’s birth statistics collection protocols and vital records history that birth certificates are often amended after the birth, while the original paper document is sealed under strict confidentiality rules, when the identity of the father is either determined after birth or when the father named on the new version of the certificate has adopted or assumed paternal responsibility for the child.

In the latter case, the original birth record may not contain the biological father’s name because the mother does not provide it, or it may list paternity as “unknown”, but this version is kept confidential under HRS 571. In some cases, the biological father may not even know he is the father if the mother has had more than one sexual partner prior to the pregnancy. There was no DNA test in 1961; however, the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report shows there were more than 1000 such “illegitimate” births reported in the state of Hawaii during that year, about 1 in 17.

Therefore, the paternity of the child at the actual time of the birth is not disclosed, while the new amended certificate is upheld as the original version, displaying the name of the newly identified or adoptive father as indistinguishable if different from the biological father. This law is meant to protect the child from stigmas resulting from illegitimacy, rape, incest or adultery. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to know the paternal status of a child at birth unless the original birth record is made accessible by [to?] authorized persons under Hawaiian law.

However, notations indicating that a certificate contains updated paternal information would be typed or printed in the lower margin of the new certificate, below the signature section. This lower margin of the image of Obama’s certificate has been shown by computer experts to be concealed by forgers using a “clipping mask”. A clipping mask is a feature available in Adobe software which limits the viewable area on a document image through which only selected information can be seen. In the case of Obama’s forged certificate, the information we have been allowed to see within the frame of the clipping mask may merely reflect an amended birth record while concealing notations of the amendments which exist in the lower margin outside the frame of the clipping mask.

Regardless of any level of truth about any individual piece of information in the image, overall, the final image is the product of criminals and liars.

If Obama is not the biological father, or if paternal information is listed on the original certificate as “unknown”, the state of Hawaii keeps this information secret until a court orders the documents to be released for discovery purposes in determining Obama’s eligibility. Thus far, courts have lacked courage to uphold the Constitution, thereby propagating the greatest political fraud in American history. Judges are simply washing their hands of the issue by refusing to even consider actual evidence against Obama, denying citizens of justice and their Constitutional right to a redress of grievances, because they simply do not have the courage to face the legal crisis such a revelation would cause.

Cowardly judges refuse to allow any exposure of Obama’s actual natural born identity [as a Kenyan British Protected Citizen] and, in their dereliction, have conjured a legal fantasy filled with pressurized wrath in which a candidate’s eligibility for president is not only declared legally [i]ncontestable but is also automatically preeminent. In allowing this, judges have allowed a dangerous precedent in which any foreign invader can covertly usurp the power of the U.S. government simply by lying about their citizenship status and hiding documentation with the help of the American media and a complicit legal system.

THE MARRIAGE SHAM

On his application, when asked the name and address of his spouse, it appears Obama may have first written [Kezia,] the name of his actual wife in Kenya, before blacking it out and writing “Ann S. Dunham”.

Despite evidence indicating that Obama was simultaneously married to a woman in Kenya, it is suspected that he claimed to be married to Dunham in order to use the marriage as leverage to remain in the U.S. There is no evidence or testimony that Obama ever loved Dunham or that the two had ever been engaged. The two did not live together before or after being married, and there were no letters, no ring, no announcement [and], most importantly, no legal marriage registration with the State of Hawaii.

Despite a complete void of documented proof of the marriage, it appears Dunham was granted a statutory divorce from Obama in 1964. However, images posted of the court documents from the decree contain no original documented proof of a marriage or legal documents showing that Obama was the father of Dunham’s child. A review of the court documents shows that at least one document, perhaps an original birth certificate for baby Obama, was missing from the numbering sequence.

THE INS’ PERSPECTIVE

Being legitimately married to a U.S. citizen would be a benefit toward allowing a foreign spouse to remain the U.S. However, no marriage license application or public announcement has ever been found to indicate that Obama and Dunham were ever married or that Obama had even divorced his Kenyan wife prior to an alleged wedding with Dunham. This fact supports the contents of memos from college and INS officials who expressed doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s relationship with Dunham, even questioning the motive of such a union between a teenage woman and a foreign student facing visa expiration just days after the birth of her child.

From the perspective of an INS agent, the circumstances surrounding Obama’s relationship with Dunham would have raised suspicions. Immigration fraud was rampant during Hawaii’s foreign birth accommodation era in the 1960’s.

Since Obama was a foreigner wanting to extend his temporary visa, the INS certainly understood that by claiming a marriage to Dunham, it would promote INS approval of an extension, but in Dunham’s case there was an added risk to the relationship for Obama… she was pregnant.

It appears, from the contents of documents in Obama’s INS file, when pressed by INS agents and school officials on the actual validity of his relationship to Dunham and baby Obama, having certainly been advised of legal ramifications for lying, he refused to name Obama (II) as his child but maintained that he was married to Dunham. This indicates that Obama (Sr.) was either not certain if he was the biological father, or that he knew he wasn’t.

Under child protection laws in many states, including Hawaii, when the biological father is deceased or unidentified by the mother, the man who is married to the mother at the time she gives birth automatically becomes the father named on the official birth certificate until it is proven in court that he is not the biological father. “Mandatory Legitimacy” applies even if the birth is the result of adultery, when the mother is married at the time of birth, until paternity is successfully contested. Today, DNA testing allows for conclusive determinations about paternity, but in 1961, it was more difficult to determine paternity. Hawaii’s child welfare statutes indicate the “statutory” father’s name on the certificate may be removed by court order, if paternity is successfully contested, after a judge has decided the case in the interest of the child’s welfare. This law is intended to protect the child if the mother dies.

DELUSIONS OF LEGITIMACY

Government officials in Hawaii, including Governor Neil Abercrombie, Lt. Governor Brian Schatz, and former Hawaiian elections official, Tim Adams, have all indicated that they could find no original record of Obama’s alleged birth in any hospital in Hawaii in the course of their duties to verify his eligibility. The absence of verifiable birth documentation was so apparent that Schatz, serving as the chairman of the Democrat Party of Hawaii in 2008, refused to certify that Obama was indeed constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president when he submitted the Official Certification of Nomination of Obama. Schatz deferred the responsibility to Nancy Pelosi and DNC, and then Chair of the Hawaiian Elections Commission, Kevin Cronin. Cronin resigned suddenly after controversy surrounding his decision began to strain his relationship with the commission.

Ignorance, lies, and lack of understanding about the difference between a medically verified birth and a legal registration of birth have confused the public about Obama’s natal history and eligibility.

Liars and abettors in media and government, drudging on behalf of the Obama administration, have anchored their Alinsky-style ridicule of those questioning Obama’s eligibility in a delusion that he must be legitimate because his birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers.

The elder Obama’s name appears as the father of a newborn son in images of two birth announcements appearing in two Honolulu newspapers on August 13th and 14th, 1961. Birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 were published automatically from a birth registration list provided directly to the papers by the Hawaiian Department of Health. The notifications of births provided to the Health Department, however, were not [the] only product of information provided by hospitals and doctors, alone.

The distinction between the information used by the hospital to create a “Certificate of Live Birth” and the information used by the Department of Health to create a birth registration is that information used to create birth registrations were allowed to be submitted from anyone possessing credible information about the birth, including family members, witnesses or attendants, regardless of the actual location of the birth.

Contrarily, the information on a “Live Birth” record must be verified and attested by a licensed medical doctor qualified to determine the characteristics of a live birth event. This is important in cases when a distinction was needed between a “still birth” and a baby that may have been born alive but then died upon delivery. In the latter case, both a birth certificate and a death certificate are required while a still birth requires only a death certificate because of the definition of a live birth under HRS 338-1.

Hawaii has a long history of allocating [assigning] foreign births to the mother’s claimed Hawaiian residence regardless of the actual location of the birth, which was in compliance with guidelines established by the National Center for Health Statistics in order to accurately attribute data from births with decadal Census figures.

Unfortunately, these vital statistics reporting guidelines are not conducive with determining the natural born status of the child.

For example, the Bureau of Census in 1961 counted all residents by county regardless of their temporary absence at the time of the Census, when the Census worker was able to identify residents of a county through the information provided by others. This applies even today.

Therefore, beginning in as early as 1933, it was determined that births must be accounted [for] the same way for all usual residents, regardless of the mother’s location at the time of the event, when that resident mother intended to return to that county. In Hawaii, if a child did not have an official certificate prior to the mother’s return, the local Health Department was obligated to provide one under the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942, Section 8 of Hawaii’s Public Health Regulations, and HRS 338.

The impact of population figures on Hawaii’s economy and agency resources was very significant in 1961. The accuracy of the Census takes precedence over the accuracy and veracity of vital statistics in the U.S.. Vital statistics are reported annually, but the Census only occurs every ten years, which means there is a large volume of population which goes untracked between Census years. If births and deaths were not allocated [assigned] to the residents of each county, regardless of the location of the vital event, the results would cause large disparities when compared with the Census data.

THE DAILY PEN: OBAMA’S KENYAN BIRTH RECORDS DISCOVERED IN BRITISH NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Was Obama married before he married Michelle?

Was Barack Obama married when he attended college ... before he married Michelle? If not, then why do photographs of him at Occidental College and in New York City in the years when he was supposed to have attended Columbia University show him wearing a ring on the ring finger of his left hand? Click here to read the full article.

Originally Posted by Michelle Malkin

This week, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report on the airline security agency's "process for ensuring (that) foreign flight students do not pose a security risk." . . . the documented lapses are part of the same old, same old refusal to profile foreign flight risks for fear of offending and inconveniencing politically correct special interests.

In November 2010, my column spotlighted a shady flight school outside Boston that had provided single-engine pilot lessons to more than two dozen illegal immigrants from Brazil. Clear counter-terror rules banned illegal aliens from enrolling in U.S. flight schools. Clear counter-terror regulations required TSA to run foreign flight students' names against a plethora of terrorism, criminal and immigration databases. Yet dozens of these illegal alien students eluded our homeland security radar screen.

. . . Need a reminder? The Nationwide Visa Overstayers Club includes dozens of jihadists, including Mohamed Atta and four other 9/11 hijackers; 1997 New York subway bomber Lafi Khalil; four of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; 1993 New York landmark-bombing conspirator Fadil Abdelgani; convicted Times Square bomb plotter Faisal Shahzad; and U.S. Capitol bomb plotter Amine El Khalifi, whose visa expired in 1999 and escaped homeland security notice for 12 years before he was arrested this February just blocks from the Capitol building donning what he thought was a suicide bomb vest.

For the willfully dense: The salient homeland security point here isn't that every overstayer is a jihadi. The point is that the nation's massive, untouched illegal alien overstayer population allows nefarious malefactors from all over the world to blend in and operate with impunity.

TSA: Training Sky-bound Illegal Aliens | CNSNews.com

We would be closer to a solution or a resolution of this Constitutional crisis
if we would just recognize Mr. Obama as:

• - an ENEMY COMBATANT to be ousted from the office he seized unconstitutionally and fraudulently, by stealth, deception, international intrigue, and coercion through the implied threat of race riots and racial violence, burning and looting, beatings and shootings, chaos and anarchy.
• - an agent of Marxist communism, Stalinist totalitarianism, Maoist redistribution of the means of production, Ché Guevara-style radical revolutionary violence, and the purges of dissidents that necessarily accompany the oligarchy of the politburo seizing control and authority from the owners of wealth and property.
• - a communist atheist who wages jihad against Western (Christian) Civilization by aligning with Dar al Is|am, the global Nation or House of Is|am; the beast from the Land and the false prophet (Revelation 13); Shari'a law for the subjected and Is|amist terror for the infidels; and the Mus|im Brotherhood et al as its agents of Change (or die).
• - an enemy, at once foreign and domestic. of the U.S. Constitution and all things American, including America herself, with sovereign STATES which empower the federation, and the UNION which wields power and authority in a world which is largely hostile to us. Those hostile ideologies and dominions would enslave, rape and pillage, and then resettle the subjugated serfs in the gulags and labor camps, while killing and destroying those who resist or dissent... which may well be the anticipated agenda of "Ope 'n Change" under this communist dictator in charge.
• - a foreign plant, a Kenyan-born British Protected Citizen who was not a U.S. citizen at birth (because his father of record was never a U.S. citizen, and his mother was 117 days too young to confer her U.S. citizenship to her foreign born child with an alien). He may not even be a U.S. citizen now, unless he has naturalized since he returned to Hawaii in 1971 from Indonesia, where he was an official, Kartu Tanda Penduduk carrying Indonesian citizen, religion: Is|am.
• - an outlaw, fraud, impostor, and usurper who defied the Constitution, though he knew it well, and violated one of its basic tenets: that control of the armed forces and the authority of the President should not devolve upon a foreigner or one with foreign loyalties, but only upon a natural born Citizen of the U.S.. (A natural born Citizen is one born in the country of parents who were citizens, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous.decision in Minor v. Happersett {1875}, which was quoted verbatim in Wong Kim Ark {1898}, in both the opinion and the dissent.)
  

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, and for 110 years thereafter, birth on U.S. soil alone did not confer citizenship, except to foundlings. So birth on U.S. soil by itself, which did not even make one a citizen, could not have made one a member of the more restricted subset, "natural born Citizens." When the Framers of the Constitution wrote "a natural born Citizen" in Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5, they had no thought of mere birth on U.S. soil creating a natural born Citizen. Until Wong Kim Ark, birth on U.S. soil by itself did nothing for a child of non-U.S. citizens except to put him closer to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office.

Until we can focus on removing the ENEMY COMBATANT from the Oval Office, our outcries against the many offenses in Mr. Obama's "train of abuses" are just so much whine, and sour whine at that.

But people who think that the November elections will fix everything have no idea of how an election by the people can remove a communist dictator. (Hint: it can't, and it never has. Not once. Not ever. No communist dictator has ever been removed by an election.) On the other hand, it might take little more than a major Is|amist terrorist attack on U.S. soil to unite the country behind Mr. Obama as a wartime president.

Related: http://www.alipac.us/f19/reason-hate...-roots-261282/