Paul R. Hollrah, O.E.
The Obama Eligibility Question Lives On
March 2, 2010

Beyond surviving the current political madness in Washington, the American people have no greater task ahead than to insure themselves that another Barack Hussein Obama can never again hold political power in our country.

When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to sign the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives. So is it even remotely conceivable that just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties - e.g., an individual with dual US-British citizenship - to serve as president or vice president of the United States? It is not, and they did not.

In order to forestall that eventuality the Framers included a provision...Article II, Section 4...requiring that candidates for president and vice president be at least thirty five years of age, that they have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and that they be natural born U.S. citizens, owing allegiance to no foreign power because of the circumstances of birth.

Expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers,

"These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?"

In recent columns we have discussed the controlling legal authority, under U.S., British, and Kenyan law, necessary to determine Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

If we can agree that Obama's father, a citizen of Kenya, then a British colony, was a British subject at the time of his birth, a fact that Obama himself has attested to on numerous occasions, it is evident that, under Part 2, Section 5[1] of the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was born with automatic British citizenship "by decent" from his father. Thus, it is an inescapable fact that Obama held dual US-British citizenship from the date of his birth, August 4, 1961, until December 12, 1963, the day that Kenya won its independence from Great Britain.

However, Article VI, Section 87[3](2) of the Kenyan Constitution states that "Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Obama Jr.), or a British protected person, shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963."

Therefore, setting aside the possibility that Obama may have acquired Indonesian citizenship when his mother married Indonesian Lolo Soetoro and moved to Jakarta in 1967, it is clear that Obama held dual US-Kenyan citizenship from December 12, 1963, the date of Kenyan independence, until at least his 21st birthday on August 4, 1982, when he claims to have been a student at Columbia University in New York.

In either event, Barack Obama is clearly not a "natural born" U.S. citizens and is, therefore, ineligible to serve in the office he occupies. So how did we manage to get ourselves into this mess? Three successive systemic failures combined to provide us with a usurper president.

The first failure occurred in Denver, Colorado during the last week of August 2008 when Democrats met to nominate candidates for president and vice president. The delegates to that convention had an obligation to put before the American people fully qualified candidates for our nation's two highest offices. They did not live up to that responsibility. Instead, they certified to the states a candidate for president who was, and is, ineligible to serve in that office.

The second failure occurred on December 15, 2008 when the Electoral College met to elect a president and vice president. In Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton referred to the "investigation" necessary to the selection of a president and vice president. In describing the duties of the Electoral College, he said, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation."

Although the Democratic members of the 2008 Electoral College were forewarned that Obama may not possess the necessary qualifications, they were apparently so anxious to regain control of the White House that they simply ignored their constitutional obligation to select a candidate who was fully qualified to serve.

The third and final failure occurred on January 8, 2009 when the Congress met in joint session to certify the vote of the Electoral College. As the final and failsafe step in the electoral process, the Congress had the duty to insure themselves of the qualifications of Barack Obama and Joe Biden...which they failed to do.

So where does this leave us? Obama Kool-Ade drinkers, and Democrats in general, are blithely dismissive. Their view is that the people have spoken; they went to the polls and voted, so that's it...leave it alone. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution be damned. But that cannot be the case.

In a December 8, 2008 discussion of the congressional certification process, Dr. Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues that, "...the question of Obama's eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient.

"Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be 'a natural born Citizen,' by simply assuming that he is such, or by accepting something other than what lawyers call 'the best evidence.' " (e.g. Obama's published certificate of live birth, versus a certified Hawaiian birth certificate)

Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen (in which case an Elector cannot constitutionally vote for him)...the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a "constitutional sufficiency (emphasis added)," because Congress has no power to simply waive the Constitution's eligibility requirement...

This leaves us with the question, if the Congress acts irresponsibly, indifferently, or not at all, is the issue foreclosed forever? Not at all. Instead, Dr. Viera suggests that the time will come when the Justice Department will attempt to enforce, through criminal prosecutions, some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign into law. Then, "as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity," a class of litigants with absolute standing will come into existence.

With Obama occupying the Oval Office, that day has already arrived. We need only to await the courageous individual(s) who will stand on principle, demanding that the laws they are required to obey were signed into law by a president eligible to do so...that they are, in fact, the law of the land.

Above all, the American people must understand what it means to simply ignore Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution...for no better reason than that it would be incredibly messy to remove Obama at this late date. For one to take that position, one must then also be willing to cavalierly set aside other provisions of the Constitution, such as the 1st Amendment rights to religious freedom, free speech, a free press, and the freedom of assembly; the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms; the 4th Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure; the 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination; and the 7th Amendment right to trial by jury.

Are we to question citizenship rights for African Americans under the 14th Amendment, black voting rights under the 15th Amendment, women's voting rights under the 19th Amendment, or the eighteen-year-old vote under the 26th Amendment? And how about presidential election voting rights for District of Columbia residents, guaranteed under the 23rd Amendment?

It is safe to assume that, among these latter groups...blacks, women, 18-20 year-olds, and DC residents...there are a substantial number of Obama voters. Are they truly serious about simply ignoring Article II, Section 4, while demanding that we hold fast to everything else in the Constitution? Would they have their cake and eat it too?

The United States Constitution means exactly what it says...nothing more, nothing less...and if we expect to reap the benefits of its many rights and freedoms we cannot allow the document to be selectively enforced. Stay tuned, America.

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/29/obamas-clean-hands-claim-on-cornhusker-kickback-contradicted-by-rahm-emanuel/

Hours before his embattled boss gave his first State of the Union address, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel contradicted President Barack Obama's claim made just two days before that he had nothing to do with the much maligned deal to get the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) for the Senate's healthcare bill just before Christmas.

Speaking to ABC News' World News Tonight anchor Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview on Monday, Obama denied being involved in what has come to be known as the "Cornhusker Kickback"

SAWYER: A lot of people think you must say at the end of the day, this is not who I was in 2008, these deals with Nebraska, with Florida...

OBAMA: Let's hold on a second, Diane. I mean, I think that this gets into a big mush. So let's just clarify. I didn't make a bunch of deals. There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked. So that's point number one.

In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric on Wednesday, [White House chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel flatly stated that he and the Obama administration were heavily involved in the Cornhusker Kickback as well as the other deals that provoked outrage from the public and helped Republican Scott Brown win the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Couric: As you know, people were pretty disgusted by deals that were made up on Capitol Hill like the one given to Ben Nelson to win his support. If the White House was so involved, was this done with your blessing? But...

Emanuel: Look, we were involved in the legislation all the way through.
Couric: Were you involved in that?Emanuel: Yeah. I'm not gonna go through all of it...Couric: But in the Ben Nelson deal?

Emanuel: We were helpful in getting the bill off the Senate floor. And in retrospect the things - as I said to you just earlier, things you woulda done different.

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc_-L4fyLUo 

COURT FILING | Defense wants early look at 'notes, transcripts'

As a highly regarded young detective, Neil Sankey was once seconded to elite Scotland Yard units hunting down IRA bombers, dangerous anarchists and organised crime barons.

Today, however, almost 30 years after quitting Hampshire constabulary to become a private investigator in California, he is wrestling with an inquiry that is as controversial as it is complex; one that makes that his former police work seem mundane by comparison.

Now aged 64, and semi-retired, Mr Sankey is attempting to prove that Barack Obama is guilty of the most audacious act of fraud in U.S political history, having become President when he was not even eligible to run for office

ONE SIMPLE QUESTION.  PASS IT ON AND ON AND ON.

In this Youtube video, we have countless admissions by Obama himself, of being a Muslim. Since his personal records are sealed, we have no proof he's a Christian, other than his own words. Decide for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28 

From TheObamaFile.com 

Where's The Emergency?
NaturalNews.com reports that according to the CDC, swine flu infections have already peaked, and the pandemic is on its way out. Peak infection time was the middle of October, where one in five U.S. children experienced the flu, says the CDC. Out of nearly 14,000 suspected flu cases tested during the week ending on October 10, 2009, 99.6% of those were influenza A, and the vast majority of those were confirmed as H1N1 swine flu infections.

Even though the H1N1 pandemic appears to have peaked out, Barack Obama has now declared a national emergency over swine flu infections.  The reasoning behind such a declaration?  According to the White House, it's designed to "allow hospitals to better handle the surge in patients" by allowing them to bypass certain federal laws.

That's the public explanation for this, but the real agenda behind this declaration may be far more sinister.  Did you know that emergency powers trump the Bill of Rights?

Declaring a national emergency immediately gives federal authorities dangerous new powers that can now be enforced at gunpoint, including:
   

   
None of this means that federal agents are going to march door to door arresting people at gunpoint if they refuse the vaccine, but they could if they wanted to.  Your rights as an American are no longer recognized under this national emergency declaration.

The declaration of this national emergency seems suspicious from the start.  Where's the emergency?  The number of people killed by swine flu in the United States is far smaller than the number of people killed each year from seasonal flu, according to CDC statistics.  People obviously aren't dropping dead by the millions from H1N1 influenza.  Most people are just getting mild flu symptoms and a few days later they're fine.

So where's the emergency?

The only emergency I can see is the emergency fabricated by Big Pharma to sell more vaccines.  By declaring a national emergency over the H1N1 pandemic, Obama is playing right into their hands.

I find the timing of all this curious.  Two days ago, New York gave up on its efforts to require mandatory vaccinations of health care workers.  This was designed to defuse a large number of planned protests from health freedom-conscious people who don't want government-mandated chemicals pumped into their veins.