While the nation was focused on the SEC investigation into Goldman-Sachs and other major stories, a little-noticed incident occurred which may have far-reaching implications for the 2012 Presidential election.
The Arizona House of Representatives voted to require Barack Obama to produce and show his birth certificate in order to be placed on the ballot in the state for his reelection bid in 2012.
Similar bills have been introduced in Oklahoma and Missouri, although the measures failed to become law due to one of the two branches of the legislatures failing to approve.
The issue will not go away, however.
A birth certificate alone is not enough to prove ‘natural born citizenship’ according to the understanding of the Framers of the Constitution.
A group of citizens and elected officials, and even some within the legal community, continue to express doubt as to whether or not Barack Obama passes the Constitutional muster for a ‘natural born citizen.’
According to the U.S. Constitution, Presidential candidates must be natural born citizens, that is, persons who are born within the United States with parents who are U.S. citizens. Persons who become citizens through immigration and naturalization are not ‘natural born citizens.’
At issue, however, is whether or not the children of non-U.S. citizens but who are born on American soil are to be considered ‘natural born citizens.’ According to modern law, such persons are citizens, but neither the Constitution nor the Courts have clarified if they qualify as ‘natural born citizens’ according to the understanding of the Framers of the Constitution.
The common misconception among the mainstream media and others in the U.S. today is that anyone born on U.S. soil is a ‘natural born citizen.’ But such a notion is patently false:
Members of the mainstream news media generally believe that all persons born in the United States are “natural born citizens”, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. But this belief, though widely held, is not consistent with what the Supreme Court has said over the past 136 years, nor it is consistent with American and English history .
According to the Heritage Foundation, the belief that birthplace alone is sufficient to confer U.S. citizenship (in the Constitutional sense) is “historically and legally inaccurate”:
The popular concept of “birthright citizenship” — that anyone born while in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen — is historically and legally inaccurate. Only a complete jurisdiction of the kind that brings with it an exclusive allegiance [at birth] is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship [under the Constitution]. (Heritage Foundation: Immigration Reform)
Thus, even if it could be established beyond doubt that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, that in itself is not enough to make him a ‘natural born citizen.’
With only two exceptions, every U.S. president who was born after 1787, was born in the United States, of parents who were both U.S. citizens. The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When Chester Arthur ran for office in 1880, he lied to newspaper reporters about his family history (and later burned most of his family records), thereby obscuring the fact that, at the time of his (Chester’s) birth, his father (William Arthur) was British subject, not a U.S. citizen (Historical Breakthrough – Chester Arthur).
President Obama publicly admits that his father was a Kenyan native who never became a U.S. citizen. At birth, President Obama acquired British/Kenyan citizenship by descent from his father. Thus, the 2008 election was the first time in history that the United Statesknowingly elected a post-1787-born president whose parents were not both U.S. citizens. Moreover, 2008 was the first time that the U.S. knowingly elected a post-1787-born president who was a foreign citizen (in addition to being a U.S. citizen) at birth.
Thus, the issue of Presidential eligibility is a serious legal matter regardless of the knee-jerk reactions of Obama apologists who insist that such speculation is the stuff of ‘tin foil hat kooks.’
In addition, the Reverend Doctor James Manning of Harlem, New York will proceed with a trial of Barack Obama, complete with federal judges and lawyers, that will examine the various fraudulent claims of Obama concerning his background.
While some of Manning’s allegations appear to be outlandish (he asserts Obama was a CIA operative), the Pastor will present the evidence at the trial, which will be attended by the American Grand Jury.
While Obama’s background is certainly not the central issue in the present frontal assault on American values, principles, and Constitutional law, if it can be established there is a pattern of deceit going back years into Obama’s history it would serve to bring into clearer focus the ‘end game’ of this regime’s plans to ‘fundamentally change America.’
- Obama Law Tab Hits $2,800,000.00: Contempt Of Court, Contempt Of Congress, Contempt Of Constitution! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- First It Was The Democrat’s Edwards Adultery : Now Its Barry Soetoro / Obama Treason : New Evidence Obama Eligibility (agirlwhoknowsherownmind.wordpress.com)
- Did You Know Anwar al-Awlaki Was Eligible To Run For President? You Know, The 20th. Hijacker Of 9/11 (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Citizens Urged To Demand Congressional Investigation Of Obama: Time For The Charade To Stop! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- O.C. poll: 65% of GOP question Obama citizenship (totalbuzz.ocregister.com)
- The birther manifesto – Tea Party Nation (gds44.wordpress.com)
- Federal Judge Henry Hudson: Obama Was Never President Of The USA (politicalvelcraft.org)
- What’s Keeping Romney From Asking, Nay-Demanding The Following Questions? (themadjewess.com)
- Arpaio calls for federal inquiry into Obama’s birth certificate (rawstory.com)
- Whether or not this birth certificate is valid he does not have constitutional authority to be the President. Obama, Congress, John Roberts, other justices, and judges are conspiring against the rule of law! (ofthehighest.wordpress.com)