A PATRIOT RESPONDS TO CONGRESSMAN FRANKS REPLY LETTER RE: ELIGIBILITY...

January 22, 2011

Dear Congressman Franks:

Thank you for your reply letter to me dated January 21, 2011.  I do very much appreciate that it was not a form letter and that it did attempt to address some of the issues I raised in my letter of January 14, 2011.                           .

One important issue it did not address however and which still begs for an answer is the question of whether you had ever read the 17 pages and 38 points/items of requested evidence that I did submit to you previously found at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html.  Since you did not affirm having reviewed any of this catalog of evidence, I can only assume that you most likely did not.  Anyway, you stated in your Jan 21st letter that the “evidence suggesting that the President was not a natural born citizen was not sufficient to overcome the evidence suggesting that he in fact was a natural born citizen: specifically, legal certification by Hawaiian authorities declaring that Mr. Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, coupled with corroborating birth announcements in the Hawaiian newspapers at the time of his birth.”  Congressman Franks, I submit to you that the 38 points of evidence found in Apuzzo’s catalog of evidence clearly outweigh the two that you cited. Ten (10) of the 38 items of evidence listed specifically refer to the questionable and contradictory statements and actions of the Hawaiian authorities and item {22} specifically deals with the two birth announcements you reference.  It follows that any elected member of Congress would have to agree that a lopsided “score” of 38-2 should at the very least warrant a full investigation by the United States Congress.

You proceed to further state that “to overcome the legal certification provided by Hawaiian authorities, one would have to provide compelling evidence to me that the authorities were either relying on false information, or lying. I have seen no such evidence, and still have no reason to believe that such evidence exists.”                                             Congressman Franks, items {9,10,11,12,17,20,21,22,28,and 33 in the catalog of evidence all relate to believability of the Hawaiian authorities. Item {33} relates to a former Hawaii Elections Clerk named Tim Adams, currently a college professor in the US, stating that there is no long form birth certificate for Barack Obama in existence and that such is well know within that department. I’m sure that you may be aware also that just this week Hawaii’s new Governor Neil Abercrombie announced that he was going to do everything possible to produce it in order to end the controversy but then subsequently announced having difficulty finding it followed by not that they had found it but that the Attorney General will not allow releasing it due to privacy laws. Item{26}specifically demonstrates how Hawaiian authorities WERE relying on false, or at the very least conflicting information because Nancy Pelosi gave them a Certification Form in 2008 stating that “the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (referring to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, respectively) are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”  However, in an act constituting election fraud, it is an indisputable fact that that Ms. Pelosi also provided the same form on the same date to the other 49 states wherein she removed the language stating that the candidates were constitutionally qualified and merely stated that they were “duly nominated.” This document itself is attached for you. What are the American citizens supposed to deduct from the fact that Mr. Obama’s own Democratic National Committee was unwilling to state to 49 states that their candidate was qualified?  I therefore use the word “demand” and not “suggest” that the United States House of Representatives in a public hearing question Ms. Pelosi as to why she and the Democratic National Committee did this.

And now to the next critical issue, that of natural born citizen.  I suspect from your statements that you and so many other elected officials incorrectly believe that a birth in Hawaii or in any other part of the United States is sufficient to constitute natural born citizenship. That is not so as place of birth constitutes only part of the necessary qualification(s). You state in your letter to me that “there is no legal remedy in current law to require him to publicize his long form birth certificate”.  Again this is not true and here is why.  The fundamental law of our country is of course, the Constitution and it states in Article II, Section I that 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. Therefore, to partially satisfy this requirement to determine natural born citizen status, it follows from this clause that a long form birth certificate has to be supplied, if not to the entire public, to a sufficient number of reliable and trustworthy elected and/or authoritative officials from both political parties in an honest vetting process. John McCain reportedly did this in 2008 but to date there is NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE PERSON IN THIS ENTIRE COUNTRY WILLING TO SWEAR UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THEY HAVE SEEN SUCH FROM BARACK OBAMA.  However, in Obama’s case the real birth certificate technically is not even needed to determine that he is not a natural born citizen as explained in the next paragraph.

And now to the rest of the natural born story.  The italicized portion of the natural born clause above is known as the “grandfather clause”.  The founders inserted that phrase in order to do two things.  First, this clause clearly establishes that a “citizen” is different from a “natural born citizen” and that therefore not all citizens are natural born (i.e., naturalized citizens)  Secondly, it exempts the Founders themselves from the requirement that only a natural born citizen can serve as President ….but why did they exclude themselves if in fact they clearly wanted Presidents to be born of citizen parents?  They exempted themselves because having been born of British parents and therefore being British subjects, the founders were first generation Americans who could not meet a test of being born of Americans but yet someone had to serve as President until there were second generation Americans with citizens as parents. This begs the question Congressman Franks of how can Barack Obama, being admittedly born of a British subject (his Kenyan father) can be a natural born citizen?  Mr. Obama reportedly may have also held Kenyan and Indonesian citizenships during his childhood which would also disqualify him from being a natural born citizen, which thru the requirement to be born of two citizen parents produces faith and allegiance to one country that of the United States.

One could attempt to argue that no definition of natural born citizen is  provided in the Constitution and that therefore no requirement to be born of two American parents exists.

One could also argue however that the definition is right there in front of our eyes in the grandfather clause by induction from the fact that by exempting only themselves just that very one time for the reason already explained, they were requiring that after them, a President had to be not only a citizen (with non-citizen parents) but a natural born citizen meaning they were born of two citizen parents.

Furthermore, this interpretation, or definition, clearly comes from the Law of Nations, written 30 years prior by Emerich DeVattel and was widely cited in the writings of the Founders to each other just prior to the Constitutional convention.  Referring back to supporting documents is the accepted practice of constitutional scholars when questions such as this arise.  Just as importantly, a very recent affirmation of this definition appeared in Senate Resolution 511, dated April 30, 2008, affirming John McCain to be a natural born citizen and signed by six members of the U.S. Senate very mysteriously including Barack Obama!  By signing on to the two citizen parent provision contained in this document, did Barack Obama not admit that he cannot possibly be a natural born citizen?

In conclusion, consider the prophetic genius of the Founding fathers by their inclusion of this natural born requirement of having two citizen parents. Without it, someone such as Khalik Sheik Mohammed (or Osama Ben Laden or any terrorist hater……) could come to the U.S. to study – as Mohammed in fact did ----- impregnate an American woman, and have that child be eligible to become the President.  Let us not fail to understand the wonderful foresight they displayed and thereby fail our country. 

Sincerely,

Jeff Lichter

Surprise, Arizona

PS.  I did not readdress the Terry Lakin matter simply because I have gone on long enough above.  Let it suffice to reiterate however, that LTC Lakin was denied his due process rights to defend himself (right to produce affidavits, witnesses etc.) in a court martial with the United States by a judge who openly declared that to allow Lakin these rights might be “embarrassing to the President”.  You should be outraged by that but I will allow others to carry on that fight for now.