Obama is completely ruining our country and the tragic thing about it is he’s not even eligible to be President. Obama is not eligible because he is not a Natural born US Citizen as is required by the Constitution. The good thing about this is that any legislation with his name on it, including his court appointments are all NULL & VOID. The bad thing is that the mainstream media and Congress are ignoring the facts and we need to find a way to make them listen.

Before you call me crazy or a right wing nut job, I suggest you go through my evidence and follow the sources. You will see that it proves beyond doubt that my claims are completely legitimate. Below you will find all the facts and evidence needed to prove that Barack Hussein Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah is not a Natural Born citizen and is a COMPLETE FRAUD. He needs to be arrested!

Below this evidence you will find dozens of images from news outlets around the world that refer to Obama as “Kenyan-Born”. Can they ALL be wrong!

Please sign my petition advising Maryland Court of Appeals Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera that Presidential Eligibility is in fact in the public interest.

(Click court order below to sign petition)

COA Denial Letter

IT’S TIME FOR

USURPER OBAMA

TO LEAVE OUR COUNTRY!!

America: A nation in distress

The issue with Obama is NOT where he was born, but whether or not he is an Article 2, Section 1 Natural Born Citizen, as is required by the US Constitution, EVEN IF HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. Regardless of where Obama was born, he is still not and never can be a natural born citizen (explained below), because his father was never a US citizen.

We’ve done the research, now millions of Americans know the truth. More and more people are waking up, because they’ve finally taken the time to LOOK at the EVIDENCE! A US Natural Born Citizen is a “citizen by nature” or a citizen “according to Natural Law” which is defined as someone born to TWO citizen parents and is confirmed in the Supreme Court cases of Minor v. Happersett & Elk v. Wilkins, which I address below.

ALL facts, evidence and cites are from Government Documents!

DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN ACCORDING TO THE FOUNDERS/FRAMERS
The earliest mention found on “Natural Born Citizen” is in the Constitutional Drafts of 1787, given by John Jay, in a letter he wrote to George Washington. The timeline of these letters and Washington’s reply are below.
Natural Born Citizen in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 – The “Original” Draft of the Constitution suggests in Article IX, Section 1 that: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
(Works of Alexander Hamilton: Miscellanies, 1774-1789, page 407).

July 25, 1787 (5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention) saying: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] LXVIII, page 61. John Jay to George Washington)

September 2nd, 1787 (5 weeks later) George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
(Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] page 76.)

September 4th, 1787 (6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
(Madison’s notes of the Convention – September 4th, 1787)

The next instance of “natural born citizen” is from the Cong. Records in 1862 and is given by Representative John Bingham (author of the 14th amendment) in which he states:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
(Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)

The Declaration of Independence tells us that the Founders adopted the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” as stated in the first sentence:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”.

Vattel’s Law of Nations was written on Natural Law (described below how Ben Franklin got it to the Colonies). Vattel took many of the great Natural Law Scholars’ works (Grotius, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui) and modernized them by combining them into 4 separate books, this is why the Founders found him so refreshing and labeled him the authority on Natural Law. (Proven Below)

The Index of the Congressional Records of the the 29th Congress, 2nd Session clearly states under the term “ALLEGIANCE” to look to Vattel

(Supreme Court cases supporting Vattel definition of NBC are listed below)

The West Virginia Supreme Court tells us to “Look to Vattel on Citizenship” (pg 191)

Test of Citizenship. 1 Kent, 82, 83, 86. Vattell, 101, 212, 213, 214
The cite for Vattel from the link above, is page 101, section 212 of his “Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns” and precisely reflects the Civil Rights Act & Rep. Bingham, which clearly states the text above from Vattel’s Law of Nations.

§212. Citizens and natives:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Sec. 1992 of the United States Revised statutes of 1877 defines “Who are Citizens”

The Annotated Statutes of Wisconsin (1889) (AFTER the 14th amendment) clearly states “Who are Citizens” and uses the same exact phrase from the Civil Rights Act too!

Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 clearly defines who are citizens:
”all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”

“By nature” or according to natural law, Obama was a British Subject at birth, because his father was a British subject (explained later). This means that Obama was “subject to a foreign power” and was ”by law” not eligible to be a US citizen at birth per the CRA.

Because the Civil Rights Act was not amended to the Constitution, Congress worried that future lawmakers or the courts would try to change or appeal it, so they found a way to incorporate it into the Constitution by way of the 14th amendment (also ratified in 1868).
Many think the 14th amendment replaced the definition of the Civil Rights Act definition of citizen, however the Revised Statutes of 1873 enacted 5 years after the 14th amdt uses the Civil Rights Act definition and not the 14th amendment’s definition of citizen.

SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT ON NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino 376 U.S. 398 (1964)
As early as 1793, Chief Justice Jay stated in Chisholm v. Georgia that, “Prior . . . to that period [the date of the Constitution], the United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the law of nations.” 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 419 at 2 U. S. 474. And, in 1796, Justice Wilson stated in Ware v. Hylton:
“When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” 3 U. S. 3 Dall. 199 at 3 U. S. 281.
Chief Justice Marshall was even more explicit in The Nereide when he said:
“If it be the will of the Government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the Government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations, which is a part of the law of the land.” 13 U. S. 9 Cranch 388 at 13 U. S. 423.
As to the effect such an Act of Congress would have on international law, the Court has ruled that an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. MacLeod v. United States, 229 U. S. 416, 229 U. S. 434 (1913)

As you can see, the judge is citing Vattel, author of THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE for his definition of natural born citizen, which is exactly where our Founder’s got their definition.

Many that support Obama try to say that the Founders did not follow Vattel and that the definition did not come from his writings. However I have proof that Vattel was held to the highest authority, by many of the Founders and his Law of Nations was used in writing the Founding Documents. In 1775, you have letters from Benjamin Franklin himself, thanking Charles Dumas for the 3 copies of Vattel that he sent and the letter states:
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations.” Click here for Congressional Records of Actual Letter

This letter PROVES beyond doubt that the Founders consulted Vattel’s Law of Nations, while writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (a rising state)!

Then you have Congressional records proving that they again, in 1794 ordered more copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations as shown here: “Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone’s Commentaries, and Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.”

Also, remember hearing the story about George Washington and the overdue library book that he failed to return, which racked up $300,000 in fines? Wanna try and guess the name of the book? You got it…VATTEL’S “LAW OF NATIONS!”, COINCIDENCE?
CLICK HERE FOR THE STORY Click here for Direct Proof from the Library

Plus, in 1772, the rector of William & Mary College asked Thomas Jefferson to add an addition, which was halted by the Revolutionary War. Later, as the Governor of Virginia and a member of the William & Mary Board of Visitors, Jefferson drafted reforms of the curriculum and governance of the College and chairs of Medicine, Law and Modern Languages were introduced. The law book that was used for the law course was Vattel’s ”Law of Nations”. SOURCE FROM WILLIAM & MARY

Supreme Court Precedent that proves that the Law of Nations, is the Law of the Land, along with the Constitution, because it is a Treaty!

The Nereide – 13 U.S. 388 (1815)
“It is not for us to depart from the beaten track prescribed for us, and to tread the devious and intricate path of politics. Even in the case of salvage, a case peculiarly within the discretion of courts because no fixed rule is prescribed by the law of nations, Congress has not left it to this department to say whether the rule of foreign nations shall be applied to them, but has by law applied that rule. If it be the will of the government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations which is a part of the law of the land.”

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino 376 U.S. 398 (1964)
As early as 1793, Chief Justice Jay stated in Chisholm v. Georgia that, “Prior . . . to that period [the date of the Constitution], the United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the law of nations.” 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 419 at 2 U. S. 474. And, in 1796, Justice Wilson stated in Ware v. Hylton:
“When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” 3 U. S. 3 Dall. 199 at 3 U. S. 281.
Chief Justice Marshall was even more explicit in The Nereide when he said:
“If it be the will of the Government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the Government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations, which is a part of the law of the land.” 13 U. S. 9 Cranch 388 at 13 U. S. 423.
As to the effect such an Act of Congress would have on international law, the Court has ruled that an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. MacLeod v. US, 229 U. S. 416, 229 U. S. 434 (1913)

Natural Born Citizen in the Congressional Debates
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was an act to end slavery in the U.S. and make the freed slaves, citizens. The discussion of these debates actually having been quoted by Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649:
“During the debates in the senate in January and February, 1866, upon the civil rights bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read: ‘All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.’ Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked ‘whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country? ‘ Mr. Trumbull answered, ‘Undoubtedly;’ (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session p. 498, 573, 57)

When the Civil Rights Act went over to the House, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, father of the future 14th amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866 and addressing Trumbull’s amendment to the bill (Civil Rights Act):
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen” (1866 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 1291)

The 14th amendment was introduced to render the Civil Rights act constitutional and amend it to the Constitution. It passed in the House, but failed in the Senate until Senator Jacob Howard’s amendment to the bill (the citizenship clause) was introduced. In 1866 while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

The law he was referring to was the Civil Rights Act which just recently passed and states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;” Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27.

After the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had been enacted into law over President Andrew Johnson’s veto, some members of Congress voted for the 14th amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act. Thus, the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment parallels citizenship language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and likewise the Equal Protection Clause parallels non discrimination language in the 1866 Act.

When Obama was born his father was subject to a foreign power and was a British subject. His father was governed under the British Nationality Act of 1948 when Obama was born, which also confirmed/made Obama a British Subject at birth and one cannot become a natural born citizen, after the fact: British Nationality Act of 1948

Part II ~ Citizenship by birth or descent:
5.(1) 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.

Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, in the 14th amendment, which is why the law/amendment went astray. The Congressional records of the 14th amendment debates, give us Trumbull’s exact definition of the intent of his Citizenship Clause amendment to the bill. Who would know the intent of the Citizenship Clause better than anyone, than the person who wrote the clause himself? Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause into the 14th amendment along with it’s author Jacob Howard, states on the record:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. ‘ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. ‘What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893)

Trumbull’s words prove without a doubt that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the exact same thing as “not owing allegiance to any foreign power. We must listen to our Founder, John Adams, when he stated in his diary on Dec. 27, 1765 (He’s even citing Vattel)

“In unforeseen Cases, i.e. when the State of things is found such as the Author of the Disposition has not foreseen, and could not have thought of, we should rather follow his Intention than his Words, and interpret the Act as he himself would have interpreted it, had he been present, or conformably to what he would have done if he had foreseen the Things that happened. This Rule is of great Use to Judges. Vattel. Page 230. B. 2. C. 17. §. 297. If a Case be presented, in which one cannot absolutely apply the well known Reason of a Law or a Promise, this Case ought to be excepted. B. 2. C. 17. §. 292. Every Interpretation that leads to an Absurdity, ought to be rejected. Page 222 B. 2. C. 17. §. 282. Every Impossibility, physical and moral is an Absurdity.”

Further supporting my claims is the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America which states: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” 8 USC § 1448 – Oath of renunciation and allegiance.

Why would immigrants not born here and becoming citizens, be required to renounce all allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, but people born here to immigrants are not held to that same allegiance requirement? That makes no sense whatsoever. Full allegiance is required for citizenship and the Naturalization Oath and Civil Rights Act prove that the Founders did not recognize dual citizenship and required full allegiance in return for citizenship.

 

usurper

Dozens of articles from all over the world claiming Barack Obama is “Kenyan-Born” How could they ALL make this mistake?

You can see from the following link that the image below has been edited to the image under it, removing the sentence about Obama.

http://www.world-guides.com/africa/east-africa/kenya/kenya_districts.html

Kenyan Born Articles

 

kenya changed

 

Bilenmeyenler

NPR

Indonesia Matters

Sunday Standard

Nigerian Observer

Africa-ata

Audacity of Hypocrisy

Jillosophy

Archive

The Monitor

All Africa

African Press

This video is from Obama to his followers (the obots)

4,832 total views, 3 views today

ShareShare on Google+1Tweet about this on Twitter129Pin on Pinterest0Share on Facebook154

24 thoughts on “Usurper Obama

  1. Thank you very much for this very powerful information ….. I will share this info to everyone…… This is a big help and good lesson to all of us about citizenship… Thanks again….

  2. The amendment to the constitution, 1961 Immigration and Nationality, states to be a Natural born citizen, a parent must be a US citizen and lived in the United States for at least 10 years of which 5 years after the age of 14. Barrack H. Obama’s mother would have to be 19 years old when he was born for him to be considered a Natural Born citizen. The Judicial Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch know this but all branches of the United States Government chose to ignore. The US Constitution is being trampled upon!

    • “The amendment to the constitution, 1961 Immigration and Nationality…”

      That’s not part of the constitution, genius, and doesn’t apply to births within the US.

  3. I recently watched a video from a British Intelligence Officer who stated Brittan knows Obama was not born in America. Obama sealed his records here in America, but he was not able to seal his records in England (and other nations) who are watching him and have dossiers on him.

    Many of our politicians know the truth about his birth, but they don’t do anything about it, why? It is a massive cover up!

  4. Lynch v. Clarke: “Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.”

    The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898),which similarly held that the child born in the United States of two Chinese parents was a birthright US citizen, and that decision also used the phrase “natural born”.

    • Try Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=88&invol=162

      “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

      Or

      Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=112&invol=94

      The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

    • Not to mention, we have the authors of the 14th amendment, who clearly state what a natural born citizen is:

      Representative John Bingham (author of the 14th amendment) in which he states:
      “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
      (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)

      AND

      Senator Lyman Trumbull, author of the 13th amendment and the one who inserted the citizenship clause into the 14th amendment along with it’s author Jacob Howard, states on the record:
      “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. ‘ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. ‘What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893)

      No better evidence then from the horses mouth!!!

    • What you don’t understand is to be in the allegiance of the US, you must not have any other allegiances and Obama was born with British allegiance because his father was a British subject, which clearly makes Obama a British Subject according to Obama Sr.s OWN laws:
      British Nationality Act of 1948: http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

      Part II ~ Citizenship by birth or descent:
      5.(1) 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.

  5. Robert C. Laity

    Robert C. Laity v State of New York is now at the U.S. Supreme Court. It is seeking the removal of Barack Obama from Office and the invalidation of the New York State Presidential Ballots for 2008 and 2012, on the grounds that Obama has usurped the Presidency, by fraud, during time of war. The case is Docketed at 13-875 and is scheduled for conference on March 28,2014.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

PETITION: Help advise Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera that Presidential Eligibility is in fact in the public interest and must be heard!

CLICK HERE TO SIGN MY PETITION