This topic is concerned with the legitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama’s claim to the presidency.
At the outset it should be stated that few Americans ever considered the meaning of the words “natural born Citizen” found in the Constitution prior to the election of Barack H. Obama. Over the last 28 months the issue surrounding the meaning of these words and whether Mr. Obama meets the minimum qualifications to become President has become ever more public in nature. Let me begin this discussion with a citation from the Book “the Laws of Nations” by Emerich de Vattel, 1758; which is widely cited as the work the Founders turned to in obtaining the words “natural born Citizen” found in the Constitution.
BOOK I.
OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.
CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
References to Mr. Obama on this page and the presidency relate to the fact that he has not produced a complete birth certificate which is required to be eligible to become President along with reaching the age of 35 by election day and a residency requirement. [Since this post first appeared, a day or two before Mr. Obama produced a doctored birth certificate, a/his “long form” birth certificate has been produced—that continues to raise questions about Mr. Obama's birthplace. But one thing has been confirmed once and for all. The man who claims to be President has only one parent who is American, who had American citizenship at the time of his birth—disqualifying him from being President.]
Barack Hussein Obama has spent at least a million dollars on legal fees fighting court efforts to get his birth certificate on the record. The reductio ad absurdum argument is used to establish that if one thing contradicts another and you can prove the lack of a contradiction to be impossible, then the contradiction must stand. [Mr. Obama now has a birth certificate, of sorts, manipulations of that document notwithstanding, on which to stand. Unfortunately the “long form” Mr. Obama produced raises another reductio ad absurdum argument in place of the one that preceded it. Either you have two American Citizens as parents or you don't. If you do you can be President if you get a majority of the votes cast by the Electoral College following the presidential election. Mr. Obama complied with the latter, but he did not comply with the former. Therefore, it follows, that Mr. Obama is not President because he cannot both have and not have two parents who are US citizens. Assuming the doctoring of the “long form” birth certificate does not lead to his not being born in America, yet another disqualification if that can be established, the fact that he does not have two US citizens as parents at the time of his birth disqualifies him from being President under the “natural born Citizen” Clause.]
“The BaHuObam” cannot have enough intelligence to get elected to the office of President and not be able to distinguish between the ease of producing his birth certificate from Hawaii, if he has one, and spending a million dollars or more needlessly to stop people from pursuing investigations to find his birth certificate, if he doesn’t. But “the BaHuObam” is spending money, real money to you and me, on legal bills rather than producing a document you, I and Donald Trump can get our hands on in a week (by mail) or less. [Well, we got a “long form” didn't we. Which does not prove he was born in Hawaii; because it was tampered with (doctored). So why the delay? Why all the unnecessary expense preventing people from seeing the “long form” birth certificate? If you are born in Hawaii you simply produce the “long form” and be done with the matter. If there is something about the “long form” that prevents you from becoming President, YOU HIDE IT for as long as you can.]
Accordingly, reductio ad absurdum, Mr. Obama cannot both be “a native born Citizen” (under Art. II., Sec. 1., Cl. 5.) and have a birth certificate that proves it. He has chosen to undertake a ridiculously expensive legal defense of his unproven or naked claim that he was born in Hawaii rather than simply turn over a birth certificate that establishes the fact that he was born in Hawaii. [Why? Furthermore, why doctor the “long form” if you have nothing to hide, when you do produce it, as he has, at long last?]
The Hawaiian “Live Birth” document he produced, prior to April 27, 2011, only reinforces the reductio ad absurdum argument against him. It lacks a doctor’s signature and does not name the hospital in Hawaii ‘the man who would be President’ was born in. Which means “the BaHuObam” cannot prove he was born in America, which means” he cannot be and therefore is not President. The Constitution says so and so long as the 1/3 of us who have no reservation in our belief in, understanding of, and adherence to the Founding documents {the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights} uphold the law, the qualifications for the office remain the law of the Land. [On April 27, 2011 Mr. Obama produced a document he claims proves his American citizenship and, as he asserts a more telling claim, that he is President of the United States (POTUS)—and a "natural born Citizen." But in doing so Mr. Obama established the fact that his father is not an American citizen which disqualifies him from ever becoming President. The U.S. Senate appears to have taken up and considered, if it did not pass, a Resolution of the Senate to give it's approval to John McCain's aspirations to becomes President. Sen. McCain, a war hero, was born in the Panama Canal Zone on a military base to two American citizens. The Senate's Resolution confirms the Constitutional mandate that both parents must be American citizens to be eligible to become President. The Senate had every opportunity to make an exception for military service men and women serving their nation abroad by stating that only one parent had to be an American citizen. The Senate did not do this in a document that has surfaced. This presumes, if the Senate did take such an action, it's knowledge of the minimum requirements for the office confirmed the requirement (and any research it undertook supported the same conclusion) that a person must have a father and a mother who are U.S. citizens to qualify to be a President of the United States.]
Why only 1/3? Because it has been reported that only 1/3 of Americans supported the American Revolution in which the best army and navy in the world at the time, belonging to the British, were defeated–with an assist from France. Of the remainder, 1/3 could not make up their minds who to support and the last 1/3 were loyal Tories. Common sense says that this must have been the case. A lot of people have trouble making up their minds when political decisions have to be made. British colonies surely suffered under the weight of loyalists opposed to revolution against England. Yet enough people had to show up for the fight to win it!
America is suffering today from a lack of loyalty to our Constitution and all that goes with it … a firm resolve in the common law, the Bill of Rights, the role that natural rights play in general in our political system. Oh that good 1/3 of us are here waiting to be counted but we’ve been out maneuvered by the third that either cannot stand what the Constitution actually stands for or lack the capacity to figure it out.
Call me a BIRTHER. I proudly assume the name as my own. A nation that dismisses its own law because it only needs to follow what it wants to follow and only wants to follow what is based on love of money on the right or politics (love of self) on the left, is facing its own political mortality. Republics are known to be the most mortal of all forms of government because they lack ”Checks and Balances” on political excesses brought on by “money” and “politics.”
WE FACE THE “THIRD’S ANALYSIS” TODAY. The larger society tends to split into three parts. These three constituencies are inherently unruly which overwhelms the republican government model as on the scale of time of counted in two centuries foreign interests gain an ever larger footprint in and foothold on domestic political affairs. Where might these foreign entanglements come from? The Fed! A bank that has zero loyalty to the United States and the Constitution fanning the flames of political demise in the United States with reckless abandon.
A few of us can make a difference but only if the believers are better organized than the non-believers among us. A small number of us make a big difference for good or ill. At the end of the day, a small number of us in government make the difference between truth and falsehood. But …! The wrong 1/3 happens to control power now and control a government that turns its back on the Constitution so often it does not know which way to turn today. Which explains why the 48% who support this “Pretender to the Thrown” through thick and thin hate those who fight for right in America where right is “obeying the Constitution,” where right is “no man is above the law,” where right is “the minimum requirements for the office,” which includes reaching the age of 35, being a natural born Citizen and living in the country for 14 years.
It took over two years, and we have Donald Trump to thank for it, to break through the media cover up of “the BaHuObam’s” failure to meet the minimum requirements to be President. So they attack Mr. Trump and the Birthers like him who demand that we obey the Constitution. Donald Trump sat down at the poker table and called the guy’s hand. ‘Let’s see your hand’ “the BaHuObam.” ‘Let’s see your hand!’ Follow the rules of the game. If you wouldn’t mind terribly, put your cards down on the table face up, now, please. ”I’m tired of waiting for you to show your hand.” “I’ve waited long enough.” “You know the rules of the game.” “Show your hand before you take the kitty.” ”We both know the kitty holds the presidency?” “All I ask is that you play by the rules and lay your cards down before you pick up the pot on the table.” ” ‘Cause if you don’t show your hand the rules of the game give the pot, i.e. the presidency, to Joe Biden who has the best cards that are showing, not you!
The Founders were Birthers. Why they were Birthers is well documented. They did not want a foreign born citizen to bring a predisposition for a foreign interest to the most powerful office in the Land. This they considered tantamount to Treason and to too great a risk to run in any event. They, not we living under the Constitution today, put the requirement “the BaHuObam’s” followers reject out of hand as arbitrary, frivolous, and capricious, and beneath them, into the Constitution. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE LAW HAS BEEN TESTED BY A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. The first to fail the test has followers who openly dismiss the law as “beneath them.” They haven’t dared to claim the requirement is “beneath the nation.” This would prove their utter political incompetence though one or more members of Congress have pushed for repeal of the constitutional requirement to be ”native born.”
The nation is in the grip of a lawless breed that has forced its way into the corridors of power and by and large taken over the nation’s communication through control of the news media. A relatively small number themselves, the most vocal, insist it is “there way or no way,” the laws be damned if and when they differ with the official line they espouse. And what do they espouse?
“Never mind about his birth certificate. The nation needs to focus its attention on important matters that lie before it.”
This is a new controlling attitude in America. The American people, among the most generous and religious in the world, were never openly lawlessness [in spite of what at least 1/3 might think] before the Civil Rights and Women’s Movements gained critical mass and overwhelmed reason. From that point forward the nation has been in a steady and deepening state of decline. It is the lawlessness of the underlying philosophies of each movement that is tearing the social fabric of America apart (opening the door to truly sinister political developments centered around money and the Fed).
While the New Nation was not a paradise for all, neither was it fundamentally flawed (politically unstable) until events beyond its control made it so. Clearly the institution of slavery was viewed as a threat to the Union early on. Compromises has to be struck to get all the Colonies to accept the Constitution. These compromises were better than doing nothing because they made ratification of the Constitution possible; but they introduced political instability as well. Along with the good came great challenges down the road. Political instability was the price paid for putting America on a duel track that lead to free states and slave states.
African slaves were brought to America as a direct result of the Arab Slave Trade that flourished on the African Continent long before the American Revolution came about and Liberty and Freedom took on new dimensions and new meaning in a New Nation. The Founders struggled with the legacy of Slavery, a political institution they inherited from British Rule. Slavery was nothing new to the Old World Order. It was accepted in many places and at many times. Rather than destroying nations, slavery tended to be a stabilizing force where it was well established. Ancient Egypt produced a long lived civilization which is known [from what I know] to have had operated along side the institution of slavery. Who built the Great Pyramids? Slaves. Bad for slaves but good for the Pharaoh and the ruling class. Slavery worked rather well for Rome, if not for those condemned to the institution of slavery by the state. 1,100 years is a long run for any government.
America had to deal with the contradiction between the natural law rights model the Founders invented (with the aid of the writers of the Enlightenment interpreted and taught by the various Christian denominations in the colonies) and the Rule of law system set up under this model, and the institution of slavery (foisted upon the American Colonies before our breakaway from Great Britain).
Political stability is not based upon “life, liberty and property.” Political systems have done as well as can be expected without any of the guarantees found in the Bill of Rights. Under the Fifth Amendment the federal government was prohibited from supporting the institution of Slavery. However this did not apply directly to the states which were not bound by it under Supreme Court dicta regarding federalism, the political divide between state and federal jurisdiction. The Ninth & Tenth Amendments go farther than the Fifth Amendment. ”The people,” as a class recognized by the Constitution, did we but know the legal meaning of this class, is set apart from all political jurisdictions, federal, state and local. The people, did we but know who they are, the most correct expression of their legal corpus, of their personhood or manifestation under law, are a rule unto themselves, superior to all other rules save one, the principle of the Rule of law, which, it turns out, is the guiding rule by which the people govern; did we but know the rule.
Abe Lincoln tacitly, if not expressly, applied the right of a person to be free [under the Ninth Amendment] against the right of a state for self-determination [under the Tenth Amendment] and came down on the side of the person seeking the right “to be free.” The South was clearly fighting under it’s Tenth Amendment power and the North, claiming the aegis to fight back and maintain the Union minus Slavery (as it turned out), countered with the Ninth and what remained of the Tenth Amendment. On the face of it, this gave the North 1 and 1/2 Articles leaving roughly 1/2 an Article [what remained of the Tenth minus power reserved for the people] to the South. The Constitution is so well constructed that it will always come down on the side of truth if we interpret it correctly. The natural law rights model set up under the Constitution is the very best there is and could ever be.
[Are you aware that Fox Business reported at least a year ago that the man who is not, but serves as, President stuck a 'private army' (his own military force) in the Health Care Law and the power to call up National Guard troops from 50 states against the will of the Governors of those states? Such power was never conferred upon the Executive Branch because the Constitution sets up “a republican form of government” under Art. IV., Sec. 4. Now you know. Look into it. It is the grossest violation of the Bill of Rights Articles 1 – 10 in our history, including acts of war by Japan and Germany that took on real meaning on December 7, 1941. Worse than World War II? Did you ever hear of World War III? Where do you think Big Biz is taking us? That's the course we are set upon. Ever more money in worldwide circulation with fresh water and precious minerals running in short supply now, what do you think the future holds with these criminals in charge and no restrain on the what the federal government does. With or without the latter, no American, and no President, ever took it upon himself to overthrow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the name of law, dare I say “the Rule of law.” The link to the story about a 'private army' in health Care (law?) has been taken down on at least two websites. Cannot find the Fox Business video I say on a Twitter link. Hear is a link to a video that has been removed from Utube. http://visiontoamerica.org/v2a/articles/obamas-private-army-now-law-hidden-in-health-care-bill.html If there is no 'private army' why are all the stories about it being taken down? Anyway the language can be found in the 2000 page, under color of law, document that is still around. Look it up for yourself and pass it on to others. My best explanation of what has taken place is this. >>At best, 6,000 medical personnel will be fully trained receiving the same military training the troops do. Then, under the guise these are medical staff, an order will be given to expand this detachment under the White House's control.<< In a crisis no one will be in a position to question or stop it. It has to be stopped now. No excuses, no 'armed forces personnel,' wherever they come from, for whatever purpose, attached to the White House that are not already available for wartime or warlike contingencies through normal operations of the Defense Department, not the White House. No one has (or can) give a good reason why doctors and nurses serving there fellow citizens in the event of a national disaster need military training to lend them medical services. Beware America, the health care bill passed and signed into law is riddled with bad pieces legislation. Nothing has ever been done before as dangerous to Liberty as this,--a 'private army' for a President, when we get back to having having one. This idea is so far out of line with the Constitution it reaches the level of tyranny, certainly an open ended threat of tyranny. YOU CAN EVEN GO SO FAR AS SAYING THAT IT STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT MR. OBAMA IS SHOWING PREMEDITATION TO COMMIT GREAT CRIMES AGAINST THE PEOPLE TOO HORRENDOUS TO IMAGINE BUT FOR the language he himself got put the health care law (and the logic progression of events that can easily be contemplated once this threshold is breached without opposition at the outset). Democrats appear to be justifying yet another unconstitutional usurpation of protections against Unlimited federal power, and are quite proud of themselves and their achievements. These Democrats are supplying “Aid and Comfort” to Fascists that no doubt put this language in the health care legislation. Will they be surprised! Note or remember this, the only use a head of state has ever had for a private army, Hitler's was called the Waffen SS, is to oppress and murder those who disagree with his absolute rule.]
Picking up where I left off two paragraphs above, political movements raise another type of issue, a contrary issue, a political issue. What attitudes are attached to which political acts and actors and what is the nature, plus or minus, of these attitudes. Having survived the Civil War America and the Union expanded its vast political experiment, but was America better, or more to the point, any safer, as a result of the Civil War? The Fourteenth Amendment is a direct outgrowth of the Civil War; an addition not Framed by the Divine Hand that worked its will through the Founders.
The Fourteenth Amendment makes an additional comment on the natural law model adopted by the Constitution when it says: “nor deny to any person within (their) jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” No state can deny “any person” “equal protection” of “the laws.” Can a state, in this case the sovereign, actually guarantee “equal protection” to “any person” under “the laws”? It is certainly a tall order if the federal government can. And if the federal government cannot how can a state? First of all the principle and proper role of the law is to protect legitimate inequalities, not equalities. Man does not have equal station in life, nor equal natural powers, nor identical drives and instincts. When someone violates a real property right the crime of trespass is committed. Where natural inequalities exist the law has no business equating them. So there are a host of issues, political issues all the more so, in which the law has no say except to say the power of one person to exercise a right is superior to that of another and the Court becomes the arbiter of whose power is greater and what right is recognized under this power. If the natural law model ended here the language of the Fourteenth Amendment cited above would be quite meaningless. It would have to apply the law and law does not, itself, address “equalities.” It addresses “inequalities.” Law has to be extended beyond itself to undertake equity!
The natural law model is not confined or limited solely to law.” Our legal system is based on a “law and equity” model in which the law treats both–when it gets around to it. In combination the ”law and equity” jurispurdence we apply allows for consideration of “equities” but ONLY WITH GREAT CARE. The “equity” part of the Rule of law is much less obvious, clear, and set down in legal precedent.
The Fourteenth Amendment is clearly taken from the Declaration of Independence copyed from the words “all men are created equal.” But are they? Not under law. Only in the sense that law is greater than itself or not limited to itself can the law be extended beyond itself. Equity is that part of the law in which “the law is greater than the law” and such law is untested, unproven, and unsettled given the present state of political science, within which the requisite law science needed to understand and apply such law resides. So while meaning adheres to the language of the Fourteenth Amendment cited here it is highly suspect that any of the nine justices on the Supreme Court can justify in law science their political opinions on “law that is greater than the law.” This requires detailed law models that do not exist.
“Equal protection” quickly becomes a political issue under federal law which is the most difficult subject matter in the law. So much so that several Roman sayings taken from the Roman Civil Law cast doubt upon the role of the judge and his temperament, skill and ability to address the subject. How, for instance, is a judge to know the limits of natural power and apply them from one case to the next. This almost certainly involves a political decision which Courts since at least the time of the Romans considered outside the purview of the judge who focuses upon the laws which, if not confined in some careful manner, are not laws but a judicial license to do whatever is suited to the times and the parties without respect to nature and the timelessness of the laws found in nature. “The laws of nature are unchangeable,” p. 764., Blacks (5th Ed.). This sentiment is embodied in another truism, (on the role of judges) “to declare the law, not to make it”; p. 771., Blacks (5thEd.). Until you understand the nature of things you should not tamper with them, i.e. extend law for a political reason. First study natural powers and make a science out of your studies. Then you will know what political reasoning is about and where it leads you in the law and the law that is greater than the law.
Appropriate today in America with business interests trampling upon the powers of the people is this Blacks (5th Ed.) quote, p. 692. “Laws are made to prevent the stronger from having the power to do everything.” This maxim clearly finds its way into the Second Amendment and it is a placeholder for equity that has not found it rightful place in the law.
Given that the wrong 1/3 of us is the better organized at this point in 21st Century America, it follows that the laws of nature are being applied negatively, in reverse order, from low to high, from top to bottom, producing deleterious results instead of profitable ones. The Fourteenth Amendment does more harm than good so long as it inspires or otherwise directs Courts to act on matters they are not qualified to address; not as much an inevitable situation as it is an existing one.
The ANTI-BIRTHERS represent political ignorance and the view that the law revolves around the person rather than the person around the law. This is the Rule of law STOOD ON ITS HEAD! Obama needs to produce a birth certificate or get out of the White House. This is not the trivial issue the mainstream media is attempting to make it out to be. Meeting the minimum requirements for the office of President of the United States is about as big a deal as anything in the Constitution. The FOUNDERS, the original BIRTHERS, made it quite clear that we should protect ourselves against foreign intrigues and they gave us a great tool to fight them off in Art. II., Sec. 1,. Cl. 5.