Obama is Called to Account
Paul R. Hollrah
January 6, 2012
January 3, 2012 will be long remembered as a historical landmark by true American patriots. It is the day on which The Hon. Michael M. Malihi, Deputy Chief Judge of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, issued a ruling denying Barack Obama’s motion to dismiss four cases alleging that he is not eligible to serve as President of the United States. The headlines screamed, “Obama’s Motion Denied, He Must Prove His Qualifications.”
Since 2008, nearly 90 court cases have been filed, challenging Obama’s qualifications to serve as President of the United States. None have been successful. However, at least one of the cases now proceeding through the Georgia courts...David P. Welden v. Barack Obama...is different in that it challenges Obama at his weakest point, his inability to qualify as a “natural born Citizen.” The case will be heard in Judge Malihi’s court on January 26, 2012.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states as follows:
“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
In his challenge, filed with Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp on November 15, 2011, Welden asserts the following:
“Pursuant to O.C.G.A. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated) §21-2-5, I hereby challenge the eligibility of Barack Obama to appear on the March 6 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot and/or on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot for President of the United States.”
Welden then proceeds to outline five specific allegations against Obama:
1) The official state certified birth certificate proffered by Barack Obama contains a factual inconsistency and other anomalies that calls into question the veracity of the rest of the information contained within said document.
Welden is correct in his assertion that the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) released by Obama on April 27, 2011 contains a “factual inconsistency” and raises more questions than it answers. For example, Obama claims to have been born on August 4, 1961. The COLB released by Obama was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health on August 8, 2011 and contains the registration number 61 10641. However, the mother of the Nordyke twins, Susan and Gretchen, born at the same hospital on August 5, 1961, has produced certificates bearing registration numbers 61 10637 and 61 10638, respectively. The birth certificates of the Nordyke twins were not registered with the Hawaii Department of Health until August 11, 1961, three days after Obama’s COLB was registered.
Numerous forensic experts have evaluated the Obama COLB and have found conclusively that it is nothing more than a poorly-constructed forgery.
2) Barack Obama has not adequately proven that he was born a natural born citizen of the United States.
Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent [Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)] the term “natural born Citizen” is defined as follows: “…(A)ll 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...”
The precedent established under Minor v. Happersett has not been altered or amended in the 137 years since it was handed down. It is established law and it applies to Barack Obama just as it does to every other citizen.
3) Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack Obama, Sr., was never a citizen of the United States and, at the time of his son’s birth, was not a permanent resident of the United States. Consequently, Barack Obama was born to only one parent who was a U.S. citizen or U.S. permanent resident.
In1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
In order for Barack Obama to qualify as a “natural born Citizen,” as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, it is necessary that both parents must have been U.S. citizens, either native born or naturalized, at the time of his birth. Obama’s father returned to his native Kenya in July 1964.
In recent decades, the “natural born Citizen” status of three potential presidential candidates has been questioned. In 1968, former Michigan governor George W. Romney, was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. In November 2003, shortly after becoming Governor of California, famed movie actor Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed an interest in one day seeking the U.S. presidency. Finally, in 2008, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was the Republican candidate for president. The “natural born” status of all three was questioned.
Although Romney was born in Chihuahua State, Mexico, and McCain was born in the Panama
Canal Zone, both men were found to be “natural born” U.S. citizens because, in both instances, both parents were U.S. citizens. However, speculation regarding Schwarzenegger’s ambitions was short-lived. Not only was he born in Austria, both of his parents held Austrian citizenship at the time of his birth. For these reasons he could not meet the “natural born Citizen” standard.
4) By his own admission, and under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and from 1963 until at least 1984 was a citizen of the Republic of Kenya.
Barack Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship by descent from his Kenyan father and his American mother. Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948 reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act (Barack Obama, Jr.) shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father (Obama, Sr.) is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”
Obama lost his dual US-British citizenship on December 12, 1963, the day on which Kenya won its independence from Great Britain. However, Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the new Kenyan Constitution provided as follows: “(1) Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)...shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963... (2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)...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.”
Obama held dual US-Kenyan citizenship from December 12, 1963 until August 4, 1984, his 23rd birthday. However, he became a Kenyan “citizen by birth” on August 4, 2010, the day on which Kenya adopted a revised constitution. Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 constitution provides as follows: “A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen (of Kenya).”
What this tells us is that, since August 4, 2010, as Barack Obama sits in the Oval Office, he has been reinstated as a “citizen by birth” of Kenya, a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.
5) Due to his dual citizenship with the United Kingdom and with Kenya, Barack Obama was born with dual allegiances to foreign nations other than the United States of America.
The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:
“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice...
“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it...because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law...However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries…”
It is incomprehensible that any person who holds, or has held, allegiance to any foreign sovereignty should be allowed to serve as President or Vice President of the United States. It is precisely why the Founding Fathers limited access to the U.S. presidency to those who are “natural born” citizens of the United States.
The Administrative Court in Atlanta has no choice but to find that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States and must remove his name from the March 6, 2012 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot, and from the November 6, 2012 General Election ballot in the State of Georgia.
Since 2008, nearly 90 court cases have been filed, challenging Obama’s qualifications to serve as President of the United States. None have been successful. However, at least one of the cases now proceeding through the Georgia courts...David P. Welden v. Barack Obama...is different in that it challenges Obama at his weakest point, his inability to qualify as a “natural born Citizen.” The case will be heard in Judge Malihi’s court on January 26, 2012.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states as follows:
“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
In his challenge, filed with Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp on November 15, 2011, Welden asserts the following:
“Pursuant to O.C.G.A. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated) §21-2-5, I hereby challenge the eligibility of Barack Obama to appear on the March 6 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot and/or on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot for President of the United States.”
Welden then proceeds to outline five specific allegations against Obama:
1) The official state certified birth certificate proffered by Barack Obama contains a factual inconsistency and other anomalies that calls into question the veracity of the rest of the information contained within said document.
Welden is correct in his assertion that the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) released by Obama on April 27, 2011 contains a “factual inconsistency” and raises more questions than it answers. For example, Obama claims to have been born on August 4, 1961. The COLB released by Obama was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health on August 8, 2011 and contains the registration number 61 10641. However, the mother of the Nordyke twins, Susan and Gretchen, born at the same hospital on August 5, 1961, has produced certificates bearing registration numbers 61 10637 and 61 10638, respectively. The birth certificates of the Nordyke twins were not registered with the Hawaii Department of Health until August 11, 1961, three days after Obama’s COLB was registered.
Numerous forensic experts have evaluated the Obama COLB and have found conclusively that it is nothing more than a poorly-constructed forgery.
2) Barack Obama has not adequately proven that he was born a natural born citizen of the United States.
Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent [Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)] the term “natural born Citizen” is defined as follows: “…(A)ll 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...”
The precedent established under Minor v. Happersett has not been altered or amended in the 137 years since it was handed down. It is established law and it applies to Barack Obama just as it does to every other citizen.
3) Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack Obama, Sr., was never a citizen of the United States and, at the time of his son’s birth, was not a permanent resident of the United States. Consequently, Barack Obama was born to only one parent who was a U.S. citizen or U.S. permanent resident.
In1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
In order for Barack Obama to qualify as a “natural born Citizen,” as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, it is necessary that both parents must have been U.S. citizens, either native born or naturalized, at the time of his birth. Obama’s father returned to his native Kenya in July 1964.
In recent decades, the “natural born Citizen” status of three potential presidential candidates has been questioned. In 1968, former Michigan governor George W. Romney, was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. In November 2003, shortly after becoming Governor of California, famed movie actor Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed an interest in one day seeking the U.S. presidency. Finally, in 2008, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was the Republican candidate for president. The “natural born” status of all three was questioned.
Although Romney was born in Chihuahua State, Mexico, and McCain was born in the Panama
Canal Zone, both men were found to be “natural born” U.S. citizens because, in both instances, both parents were U.S. citizens. However, speculation regarding Schwarzenegger’s ambitions was short-lived. Not only was he born in Austria, both of his parents held Austrian citizenship at the time of his birth. For these reasons he could not meet the “natural born Citizen” standard.
4) By his own admission, and under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and from 1963 until at least 1984 was a citizen of the Republic of Kenya.
Barack Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship by descent from his Kenyan father and his American mother. Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948 reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act (Barack Obama, Jr.) shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father (Obama, Sr.) is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”
Obama lost his dual US-British citizenship on December 12, 1963, the day on which Kenya won its independence from Great Britain. However, Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the new Kenyan Constitution provided as follows: “(1) Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)...shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963... (2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)...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.”
Obama held dual US-Kenyan citizenship from December 12, 1963 until August 4, 1984, his 23rd birthday. However, he became a Kenyan “citizen by birth” on August 4, 2010, the day on which Kenya adopted a revised constitution. Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 constitution provides as follows: “A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen (of Kenya).”
What this tells us is that, since August 4, 2010, as Barack Obama sits in the Oval Office, he has been reinstated as a “citizen by birth” of Kenya, a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.
5) Due to his dual citizenship with the United Kingdom and with Kenya, Barack Obama was born with dual allegiances to foreign nations other than the United States of America.
The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:
“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice...
“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it...because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law...However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries…”
It is incomprehensible that any person who holds, or has held, allegiance to any foreign sovereignty should be allowed to serve as President or Vice President of the United States. It is precisely why the Founding Fathers limited access to the U.S. presidency to those who are “natural born” citizens of the United States.
The Administrative Court in Atlanta has no choice but to find that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States and must remove his name from the March 6, 2012 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot, and from the November 6, 2012 General Election ballot in the State of Georgia.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
I concur with this except John McCain was not born in the Panama Canal Zone. Mr. McCain's BC and the Panama Canal Treaty can be found as admissible evidence in Strunk Vs NY St BOE. Mr. McCain was born in Colon, Panama which was not part of the Panama Canal Zone as written in the Treaty. Mr. McCain, though being born to two US citizens was not born on US Soil, which would have been the construed as part of the Canal Zone and US soil according to the Panama Canal Treaty.
ReplyDelete