IS OBAMA USING BIRTHERS TO DISTRACT FROM HIS REAL ILLEGALITY AS PRESIDENT?

Written by Dagny D'Anconia and Victor Sayre

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

There was a fraud perpetrated by a President of the United States.  He was not a natural born citizen so he obfuscated his nativity story.  He had all his relevant records destroyed to cover up his fraud, and he and his supporters got away with it. Does this sound like our current occupant of the White House?  Actually, it was another president:  Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President of the United States.  He attained office due to the assassination of President Garfield.  This was in spite of the fact that he was not a natural born citizen, in violation of the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1.  His father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. The fraud was not discovered until long after his death. Only two classes of Citizen are recognized by the US Constitution. The first is a Citizen. Whether by birth or naturalization, all Citizens share the same rights and privileges. The other is a Natural Born Citizen, a separate class defined by different legal conditions and with different privileges, specifically eligibility to the offices of President and Vice President. Wikipedia's page on the subject of Natural Born Citizen claims that this term was never defined in law, that we must divine the Founders' intended meaning by reviewing myriad, conflicting opinions and comments in court cases. This is simply not true. The Founders legislated their definition of that term just two years after the Constitution was ratified, providing clear meaning for a requirement of the highest office of the land. One would expect no less of them: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens" - Naturalization Act 1790 Taking a critical look at this Congressional legislation, we see that "the children of citizens" is an absolute requirement. There are no qualifiers. No exception is made for the child of a non-citizen. The Founders' definition extends to those who may be born outside the limits of the United States as well. They understood that ambassadors such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would spend years abroad in service to their country, possibly with their families, and did not want to disqualify their own children born during such service. The US Constitution, written by the Founders, requires the status of Natural Born Citizen to be eligible for the Presidency. This requirement can only be removed through the Amendment process. While the original 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed and replaced by later legislation redefining the means by which one could become a Citizen, the Founders' intended meaning of Natural Born Citizen still stands.  You can repeal a law, but you can't repeal evidence, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 is unequivocal evidence of exactly what the US Congress meant by "Natural Born Citizen". Some conveniently insist that the 1790 law is no longer in effect or that it does not provide a currently applicable legal definition. Yet, when doubts were raised about the eligibility of John McCain in the 2008 election, the US Senate referenced that law to confirm his status: "...as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen' ...  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." - Senate Resolution 511 Birth to US Citizens was thus recognized, in 2008, as the primary condition for Natural Born Citizen status. The Panama Canal Zone was under US Sovereignty until 1977.  McCain was born under US Jurisdiction as surely as if he had been born in New Jersey. However, he still had to meet the requirement of birth to Citizen parents to qualify.  The definition in the law remains in effect. Whenever posted, the text of the 1790 law is promptly removed from the Wikipedia page, as it is inconvenient to those trying to cloud the issue and confuse the general public.  Furthermore, when this information was posted at a forum owned by a former subsidiary of the New York Times, not only was the posting removed, but perhaps coincidentally, the entire forum was permanently shut down overnight. There has been a concerted effort to keep this information out of the public eye. There have been no fewer than eight Congressional attempts to remove the Natural Born Citizen requirement from the Presidency since 2003, mostly by Democrats.  The only Republican to sponsor them attempted to remove the natural born citizen requirement twice and reduce the citizenship requirement to 20 years. This would in fact nullify the Constitution without the lawful amendments process.  All these attempts failed. We can see that the Founders' primary intent was that neither parent be a foreign national, which makes good sense. This minimizes the likelihood that either parent will pass down foreign loyalties or ideology to the would-be President that would dilute his bond with his countrymen and his nation's principles. Case in point, the fellow illegally in the White House today who demonstrates abundant foreign loyalties and ideologies hostile to America. The birth certificate provided by Barack Obama is an obviously altered document, according to multiple digital forensics experts.  Have you ever wondered why such a blatant forgery was presented?  Were the Obama handlers that incompetent?  Didn't anybody in the White House care that such a shoddy piece of photoshop work was made public? The answer lies within our legal system. Obama and his DNC/Holder Justice lawyers are notorious for using the mechanisms of the system to gain power and abuse it, thwarting the law in the process. This is a part of their strategy. In fact, the ongoing furor over the place of birth is exactly what Obama wants. It is a red herring, a distraction from the fact he cannot legally be a Natural Born Citizen no matter where he was born. Some have argued that Obama is the result of an affair in Hawaii by Ann Dunham with communist agitator Frank Marshall Davis (a US citizen born in Kansas) - see Dreams of My Real Father. If that were true, it would make Obama a natural born citizen.  However, mere illegitimacy would be unlikely to justify the expense and risk Obama has taken to hide his past. Furthermore, the details of the alleged birth certificate presented by Mr. Obama himself, if false, are a poorly chosen lie because they disqualify him from the Presidency. It is Barack Obama's foreign parent - Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. - that disqualifies him. The Democrat-controlled Senate knew this in 2008 when McCain's eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen was legally resolved. They did not do the same for Obama precisely because he could not meet the legal requirements. Barack Obama has gone to great lengths to stir up controversy over his place of birth while preventing legal resolution of his eligibility. He could easily provide court access to his original documents but that would, according to the laws above, work against him. That's why he instead has teams of lawyers scrambling to block any court case seeking access to his original birth documents. Obama's place of birth is an intentional distraction. These antics began in mid-2008, well before the election, when Democrat attorney Philip Berg attempted to determine the eligibility of his own party's candidate. Obama's obstructionist response revealed Obama's own knowledge of his legal problem, though the mainstream news media willfully concealed it from the general public and derided anyone who would bring it up as a "Birther". "Instead of satisfying Plaintiff and the general public's concerns regarding Obama's citizenship status, or lack thereof, Obama and the DNC have chosen to litigate the matters in lieu of providing what should be simple proof. Defendants have filed two [2] Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for a Protective Order instead of simply solving the matters and providing the proof verifying Obama's citizenship status." - Berg v. Obama et al A Judge vetting Obama's eligibility can only rule based on the legal evidence presented to the court. If Obama's true birth certificate is presented, then the Judge can take legal notice that Obama's father was not a US Citizen and disqualify Barack Obama from eligibility for the Presidency. Obama's people understood this well in advance and ensured that the only copies of his birth documents that might be obtained by plaintiffs against him were easily identified as "altered" documents, therefore easily disputed as proof in a court of law. It's a fair bet his own attorneys would dispute their evidentiary value just as they absurdly proclaimed in a Florida court that Obama is not yet the Democrat candidate for 2012 and is therefore immune to lawsuits demanding his eligibility be resolved. A President of the United States illegally took office while violating the Natural Born Citizen requirements.  Not only could it happen; it did happen. Twice.  It is a part of history.  Barack Obama is not the first to perpetrate that fraud but this time the consequences are more dire.  With the news media and cowardly politicians concealing this fact, will the American People be fooled yet a third time?