‘President’ Obama’s little problem with legitimacy…

Unless you live under a rock or come from Mars, by now you’ve heard tell of the “birther” movement and allegations that Mr. Obama wasn’t really born in Hawaii, but in Kenya.  There have been a bunch of lawsuits, a bunch of case dismissals and the media (those heros of the truth, bringing us only the ‘news’ we ‘need’ to hear) are either not covering the issue or dismissing it as another “conspiracy theory”.  Finally, we have Mr. Obama himself spending some 1.7 million dollars to ‘fight’ every lawsuit thus far to keep his records secret; gee, call me stupid, but who blows two million bucks to keep an ‘authentic’ birth certificate secret?  Never mind that; the real issue that he can’t get around is the public record relating to his parents. 

The birth certificate nonsense is, I believe, misdirection and obfuscation (a wonderful word simply meaning ‘bullshit’) which is intended to divert public attention.  Leave aside, for a moment, the claims of falsified, forged and inaccurate birth and Selective Service records.  Leave aside the Connecticut Social Security number he uses today issued while he was living and working in Hawaii.  Leave aside that there are people (including his own Grandmother) who claim he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii.  Leave aside his wife publicly stating Kenya is his “home country”.  Mr. Obama’s problem is that our Constitution REQUIRES that a President be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a mere ‘citizen’ which his Hawaiian birth (if true) would convey to him.  His problem, simply, is that his father was NOT a Citizen of the united States. 

The fact is there are a variety of classes of citizenship under our Law.  “Natural Born” according to the Law is simply that one must be born of parents who are US Citizens and born within the united States.  Whereas, a ‘Citizen’ is someone born of one US Citizen and born within the united States while a ‘Native Born Citizen’ is merely someone born in the USA such as a Mexican ‘anchor baby’.   In 2008 during the 110th Congress’ Senate Resolution 511 was passed (allegedly) resolving this very question for candidate McCain.  It was stated and resolved “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”   While Congress’ “resolutions” are meaningless and can not change existing Law or lawfully convey “natural born” status, one can’t help noting the “born to American citizens” phrase which remains key to the “natural born” criteria.  Even Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” requires two (2) legal US citizens.  While Mr. Obama ‘may’ qualify as a Citizen under criteria such as being born in Hawaii (if that’s true) he’s simply NOT a “natural born Citizen” due to his father NOT being a Citizen. 

According to Mr. Obama, the official record and Wikipedia,  Obama senior was a Kenyan senior governmental economist.  He is a central subject in his son’s memoir, Dreams from My Father.  Clearly, he was Kenyan and thus, a Citizen of Great Britain when Mr. Obama was conceived.  Under the “The British Nationality Act of 1948” so was Mr. Obama when he was born.  

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. 

Under this law (that the united States government accepts as valid) one acquires British Citizenship lex sanguinis: by descent if one of the parents is British.  When Kenya broke away from Britain, Mr. Obama became a dual national (Kenyan/US) and, under the Kenyan Constitution, which recognizes dual citizenship for children, it specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.  That said, Mr. Obama was clearly a Kenyan national/citizen until this status expired on Aug. 4th, 1984, regardless of where he was born (perhaps Hawaii).  His father’s status dictates his citizenship which means that Mr. Obama has no lawful, legitimate or rightful claim on the office of the Presidency under the specific criteria required by our Constitution. 

“Natural born” – what is the big deal?  The ‘reason’ the founders specified “natural born” in their criteria for the Presidency is that they did not want the possibility that an individual, having split or dual national loyalties, ever to hold the position of the Presidency.  Singular loyalty to the united States was/is mandatory.  An example might be demonstrated were we looking to elect Mr. Obama’s (former) Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, to the Presidency.  While born in Chicago and clearly a US Citizen, Rahm Emanuel is not a “natural born Citizen”.  His father is an Israeli national, a former member of the Irgun which even Israel classified it as a terrorist organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun#cite_note-SshmidtFCPRIOT-2) in 1948 and also, likely, a later member of one of their intelligence organizations.  Due to his father’s nationality, Rahm himself clearly operates as and is a dual national,  He’s served in the Israeli army and, very probably, Israel’s intelligence service as well.  Rightfully, under these circumstances, most folks would question where his loyalties might lie in a conflict between US & Israeli national policy thus, he could never qualify for the position of President.  This is exactly why there are classes of Citizenship by Law and why the President is required, under our Constitution, to be “natural born”.  Mr. Obama, clearly and simply, fails this criteria.  Based upon this fact, we have a significant problem because regardless of anything that’s currently on the country’s plate, if this issue isn’t put to bed, it could well be, quite literally,  the undoing of our nation.  

What happens when, either during a military court marshal of one of the serving, field grade officers refusing to deploy abroad without proof of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy or some future public disclosure, it’s found that Mr. Obama’s, in fact, ‘not’ “natural born” and thus ‘not’ legally holding office?   

Clearly, from a Constitutional standpoint, when he’s found to be a usurper, a chain of events unfolds that would threaten the fabric of our country.  Any appointment he’s made would be null & void, having no legal ‘effect’ under the law.  As such, ‘Vice President’ Biden and all the Cabinet he appointed, took office illegally so any contest for the office of the Presidency would legally need to by-pass those individuals within the ‘legal’ line-of-succession.  Who then would succeed him in a Constitutional battle for the Presidency?  Applying our Constitution to the issue of a Presidential chain-of-command, removing the Vice President from the mix leaves the country with House Speaker as next-in-line for the Presidency.  Unfortunately, where it can be shown the Speaker knew of the ‘issue’ and conspired with the leadership to suppress facts before and after the election, would the People stand for this appointment?  Would the other ‘accepted’ party stand for it?  If not, then we are on very dangerous ground having our country’s leadership effectively decapitated.  Some might speculate new elections could be called.  Since we’re on ground never trod, were there a call for immediate new elections (which our Constitution does not provide for) would whomever was elected from this questionably ‘legal’ event actually ‘be’ a lawful President since their position would be derived from yet another questionably legal act?  I think not. 

Even more important than the question of which warm body might finish out Mr. Obama’s term of office when he’s found to be a usurper, is the question of how to ‘undo’ everything he’s done since being sworn in as President, which he held under false pretenses.  Every act he’s performed would, simply (from a Constitutional standpoint), be null & void.  Every piece of legislation he’s signed or executive order he’s issued, every appointment he’s made and the acts carried out by those ‘appointments’ (the whole Cabinet and others) would need to be voided, as well as any companies nationalized.  When the ripple effect of negating all of these acts and actions is considered, the Constitutional crisis that would transpire becomes more clear.  

Undoing everything Mr. Obama has done or overseen while holding the office of President would, at the very least, finalize the complete collapse of confidence in the Federal government’s leadership and any implied ‘authority’ over the Citizens of the united States as well as over the already simmering sovereign States of the Union, where local movements are sprouting nationwide to reinvigorate the ‘limited government’ promised the People by our 10th Amendment.  Any semblance of a world leadership role, clung to by our  compromised government, would evaporate overnight, likely resulting in a selloff of US Treasury debt instruments by foreign governments, sealing the fate of the US dollar, virtually with a computer keystroke as nations dump US securities.  The economy, already imploding from the 14 trillion dollar national debt and the secretive (and likely, illegal) activities of the private monied interests know as the Federal Reserve Bank, owned by the very banks it’s pouring trillions of taxpayer funds into, would likely breath its last breath under this Constitutional crisis.  When all those having received bailouts were forced to repay these funds or, be sold off to recover illegally transferred taxpayer funds and the federal leadership decapitated and in disarray, our foreign affairs rudderless, our economy in ruins and the Constitutional crisis (without precedent) promising years of litigation and political wrangling, resulting in a protracted national security situation threatening the fabric and foundation of the country, where might our military stand?  

In a way, our military is the fourth branch of government, made up not of elites appointed or elected, but of common Americans sworn to defend our Constitution.  In this “branch of government” there may still be hope.  ‘Legally’, they take their orders from the ‘Commander in Chief’ but what if there’s an issue with the President actually holding office legally?  By the election of an individual, Constitutionally precluded from holding the office and Washington’s (both parties and the various three branches of government) complicity in covering up the fraud in order to perpetuate their own ends, the results would be a complete lack of public confidence in ‘the government’ run by these two parties?  

Whatever warm body, chosen arbitrarily by those who were, in fact, complicit in the fraud, would probably fracture the nation further and be able to hold power only through draconian measures which will likely be ‘non-Constitutional’.  Would our military simply cave in and support whatever ‘new’ leader was chosen by the very politicians, who’s corrupt practices and disregard of our Law which brought the Republic to its knees or, would they stand with the People, recalling their solemn Oath to “protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic”? 

These are interesting questions.  Were I a college professor in Political Science, I would be encouraging my students to debate the subject and propose solutions for peer review.  This crisis stems from Washington DC’s ongoing and wholesale disregard of our Constitution, our Law and any belief that they are ‘accountable’ to the People.  Continuing to turn a blind eye Mr. Obama’s lack of legal authority to hold office only makes it more damaging and lessens the chances the Republic will bounce back without outright force of arms.  While it’s clear to me that the people holding the reins of power in DC today perpetuated this fraud and therefore are all in violation of their Oaths of office, it remains to be seen if our military’s professed belief in “duty, honor & country” will provide them the strength to honor their Oath they swore to us, to protect our Constitution if it falls upon them to rise to the moment. 

Rather than those who would violate our Laws, We the People are the power in this country.  Our Declaration of Independence states – “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” 

I believe we’re there.

aaa obama

This entry was posted in US Law and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to ‘President’ Obama’s little problem with legitimacy…

  1. The fact is there are a variety of classes of citizenship under our Law. “Natural Born” according to the Law is simply that one must be born of parents who are US Citizens and born within the united States. Whereas, a ‘Citizen’ is someone born of one US Citizen and born within the united States while a ‘Native Born Citizen’ is merely someone born in the USA such as a Mexican ‘anchor baby’.

    Except none of the above is true. There are, and have always been, two varieties of US citizen – natural-born, and naturalized. The first means citizenship achieved at birth, the second means citizenship taken up after birth. Natural-born means native born, and derives from the pre-existing category of natural-born subject in English common law.

    You’ve been misled.

    • mildlypissed says:


      Thanx for the response. By your comment you believe there are but two classes of Citizenship – either one is born here (I guess that equates to Natural Born) and naturalized Citizenship (those who chose to become citizens). In the present case I would respectfully disagree with your belief that there are only two “varieties of US citizen”.

      When analyzing Constitutional ‘intent’ one needs to look at where the lexicon of the day was derived. Understanding and interpreting what was ‘meant’ and intended by the founding fathers in the writing of our Constitution is what the USSC was put in place for. Legal ‘terms-of-art’ are very often used in Law and legislation for example the ‘term’ “firearm” within US Law precludes certain items that we common men might believe would be included under the Law. When most folks look at an 1896 Broomhandle Mauser pistol they think ‘firearm’ however the term “firearm” is a legal ‘term-of-art’ in US Law and thus the Broomhandle is NOT a firearm under Federal Law even though, when I load in the ten or twenty rounds into the magazine and fire them off I seemingly have, what almost anyone would ‘think’ was a firearm in my hands. Alas, this pistol and any other pistol manufactured before 1899 is not a “firearm” and is not subject to the same restrictions as, say, a Glock. As such there are NO Federal requirements for sales of these… In this case, the term “Natural Born” was based upon the 1797 edition of Law of Nations read by the founding fathers wherein deVittel articulated “natural-born citizens” as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

      Interestingly, there are even people carrying US Passports that are not “Citizens” at all but merely “US Nationals” as outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1408. Although most folks would mistakenly think that if someone is carrying a valid US Passport that they ‘must’ be a Citizen they would be wrong.

      I’m curious Mike. On your blog page [mek1980.wordpress.com] I note the Latin quote at the top of your page “Nomen mihi Legio est, quia multi sumus”. My understanding is this refers to an incident in which Jesus meets a man possessed by demons who, when asked what his name is, responds “My name is Legion, for we are many.” That’s a rather ominous biblical reference which, being highlighted on your page, one might infer has special meaning for you. Do you see yourself as the demon on the road or merely that your views reflect the “many”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s