Over and over, these Obots repeat the lie that Obama has released his
birth certificate (08:40)
Obama Presidential Eligibility Primer
Despite the mainstream news media's silence regarding this matter, an
increasing number of Americans are concerned that Barack Obama might not
be eligible, under the Constitution, to serve as President.
According to the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot
legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless he or she is a
"natural born citizen" of the United States.
Among members of
Congress and the mainstream news media, the consensus of opinion is that
anyone born in the United States is a "natural born citizen."
However, when we researched this issue a bit more carefully, we found
that the consensus opinion is not consistent with American history.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you
were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S.
citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural
born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that,
if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a
U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in
doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt
because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.
With
only two exceptions, every American President, who was born after 1787,
was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens.
The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When
Chester Arthur ran for office, the public did not know about his
eligibility problem. Only recently did historians learn that, when
Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008
election was the first time in history that the United States knowingly
elected a President who was born after 1787 and whose parents were not
both U.S. citizens.
Barack Obama publicly admits that his father
was not a U.S. citizen. According to Minor v. Happersett, there is
unresolved doubt as to whether the child of a non-citizen parent is a
natural born citizen. This doubt is not based on the imaginings of
some tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists on the lunatic fringe of
society. This doubt comes from what the Supreme Court has actually
said, as well as a variety of other historical and legal sources which
are presented and discussed here.
This Primer introduces and
explains the Obama Eligibility Controversy, in question-and-answer
format, for a non-technical general audience. We've double-checked
the facts presented here, and we've cited the sources of each fact.
This is a news item that concerns our Supreme Court's fourth chance
to address the Obama birth certificate issue. I wrote most of you
in January, at a prior turning point. Because you are a concerned
citizen, you have to know about this, and I hope you'll share it with
your friends and family and pastor. This is not a request for
donation.
I have filed a supplementary brief in the Supreme Court
of the United States in Case No. 08-9797 objecting to the failure of
Barack Obama to file an answer, and requesting that the Supreme Court
enable newer evidence in the Obama birth issue. The Supreme Court
has set this case for a conference on June 18th.
I filed the
appeal on April 6, 2009, asking reversal of denial of my petition for
injunction filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in December of 2008.
That petition requested a delay of the tally by the Pennsylvania
electoral college, because the ballots of the Pennsylvania electors had
been unlawfully finalized despite the Secretary of the Commonwealth's
erroneous and fraudulent certifying of the ballot to all County
officials, without any examination, nor investigation, of the
eligibility and qualification of Barack Obama for the office of
President of the United States.
Why are all the cases in this
issue filed by concerned citizens, rather than organizations? To
my belief, many firms believe it to be futile, and most of the others
have been warned against it -- see the article following this
letter. The fact that only citizens have sued does not mean
that a Court, at some time or other, could decide to address this issue.
In my suit I am demanding that the Secretary of the Commonwealth
perform his duty, as was required, by requiring Obama to prove that he
is a natural born citizen. I claim that the Secretary had ample
time to demand proofs from Obama in December, before the vote was
certified and delivered to the Electoral College.
I also am
objecting that the Pennsylvania election law makes the Office of the
President of the United States exempt from the requirement that
candidates file an affidavit swearing that they are eligible for office.
I've asked the Justices to declare that this 2006 amendment is arbitrary
and unconstitutional. (Anyone so inclined -- please check your
state's election law for this type of amendment and email me any
findings).
The claim made by Obama that 46 million "Americans" lack health
insurance is false because that number includes almost 10 million people
who are not "Americans" but in fact citizens of foreign countries who
happen to be present in the United States ILLEGALLY, according to data
from the U.S. Census Bureau.
The claim was made repeatedly in a
report published by the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)
on June 2 and again in an op-ed published the same day by Christina
Romer, the chair of CEA.
The claim that there are 46 million
uninsured "Americans" has also been used by members of Congress and news
organizations.
At a townhall meeting in Green Bay, Wis., last
Thursday, President Obama twice referred to "46 million" people who lack
health insurance, although in neither case did he describe those "46
million" as "Americans" -- in one instance referring to them as "46
million people who don't have health insurance" and in another instance
as "46 million uninsured."
On June 2, the White House released
"The Economic Case for Health Care Reform," a report by the president's
Council of Economic Advisers. In making the case for Obama's
health-care reform plan, this report repeatedly asserted that there are
46 million uninsured "Americans."
Obama wants
you to give up your insurance plan so he can insure criminals. He
wants those 10,00,000 voters too -- Democratic Party control
forever.
That's the reason that Rep. José Serrano [D NY] filed,
in the current session of the U. S. Congresss,
H.J.Res. 5.
Serrano's resolution is a Constitutional amendment to remove the
limit on the number of terms one may serve as President. It
effectively would repeal the 22nd Amendment, which was approved by
Congress in 1947 and ratified by the states in 1951. Several
Democratic Party members of Congress have introduced similar
legislation.
