Tuesday, April 3, 2012


I haven't weighed in very much on the so-called "Birther" issue, especially since 2008. Lately though it is weighing on my mind again because of the upcoming 2012 election. Someone mentioned Rubio the other day to me as some great enticement on the Romney ticket. To which I replied, I don't think Rubio qualifies under the Constitution any more than Obama does. My reply was greeted with astonishment. Everyone loves Rubio, right?

Well, he seems like a nice enough guy. But the U.S. Constitution, Article II, is more specific on the requirements for president than you have been led to believe. And after that conversation, I went looking for information to back up my claim. (I had heard the facts before, but wanted to verify my thinking.)

So here is the deal: Article II of the U.S. Constitution is not the same thing as the 14th Amendment which allows citizenship by birth on American soil. In fact, IF they were both saying the same thing, why would the 14th Amendment even exist? Article II was written 78 years before the 14th Amendment and applies only to the office of the Presidency. When I started looking into this again the past few days, all of sudden Obama's obfuscation on his documentation made even more sense. If, indeed, he were fully qualified and eligible to hold the office of the Presidency, why would his documentation not be opened and be perfectly vetted by the public at large? Instead, what we have is a (photoshop) fake birth certificate, a fraudulent social security number, and college records that are locked up somewhere for no public scrutiny. There is a reason for this. He doesn't have the required qualifications. We, who respect the U.S. Constitution, all know it. Some don't care. Some are too ignorant to know it.

You see, there are no ifs, ands, or buts. It isn't vague. It isn't subject to interpretation. There is no doubt of the meaning of Article II.

You can find the historical information of this at this Blog And this page And this page

The discussion at the blog cited above puts the definition into the context of the time and minds of the framers of the Constitution. The guiding thought of the day was from E. Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives. This was the source for the Founders to use when writing Article II. There was no reason to further define "natural born citizen" beyond that, because everyone knew what that meant.

"The first thing that we have to understand about what Vattel wrote is that he made a distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” A citizen is simply a member of the civil society who is bound to the society by certain duties and subject to its authority. “Citizens” also participate equally in all the advantages the society has to offer. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” means much more than just “citizen.” Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural born citizen,” or what he called in French in his 1758 first edition of The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, les naturels, ou indigenes (the “natives or indigines”-The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814)), the child must be born in the country to both parents who are also citizens of the same country."

So maybe this is old hat by now to those who have been watching this issue. People have landed in three directions: #1. Don't care #2. He is legit. #3. The guy is a fraud, plain and simple. I am in the third camp.

Now back to Rubio. He was born in 1971 to parents who did not become U.S. citizens until 1975. That means he is not a "natural born citizen" as Article II requires.

Rubio's Not So Compelling Family History

What to do about all of this is the question. I have no answers except to say that I am really not happy that there are so many people in this country so quick and ready to just throw the United States Constitution into the trash bin of history. And that there are so many American people so ignorant of our Constitution that the politically ambitious are getting away with this travesty. Surely Marco Rubio knows very well he isn't eligible. But who will stand up to speak truth to power? Will Marco Rubio man up and own up?

So far no one has had the courage, or lived long enough, to nail Obama on his fraud. (Giving Sheriff Joe Arpaio for actually trying...and several others who have been on the case since day one, but never getting the job done.) Rubio has a test to take. Does he know Article II? And does he care?
What do you think?


  1. I have toyed with the thought of wading into the fray. I must say, Sheriff Arpaio should at least have some of his reports more readily available for the objective mind to look at. There is something more out there. To what extent we will not know until the whole thing sees sunlight.

  2. You are right when you say "natural born citizen" and "citizen" are two entirely different things. America ignored the constitution to get their first black president. I suspect they will ignore it for Rubio as well. I, for one, would like to see the Republicans make a big deal about this by saying something to the effect: "We think Marco Rubio would make a great Vice President and President if necessary; but, we can not put him on the ticket because he is not a natural born citizen as required by the constitution. America ignored the constitution in the case of Barack Obama but we Republicans believe in the constitution". I don't expect the Republicans to do that but if they want to be the Party of the constitution, they should.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Hi Bunker and Jim...
    By going to this issue, I think it goes to the heart of the beginning of the Constitutional crises we are suffering since Obama was elected. I don't even like to think about it because I am certain nothing will ever be done. I almost published another comment by an anonymous dissenter, but it was so off from the point that the presidential requirements are different from the 14th Amendment qualifications for citizen...I couldn't even address it. I deleted it. Not worth my time. And when it is anonymous you know it is someone who is ashamed to say who they are.

    Bunker, I hope the Sheriff keeps going after it and will shed a whole lot of sunlight on this. I love that fact that he is searching out the truth. Even then, who will actually do something?

    And Jim, I've just about lost the idealistic idea that the Republican Party is retrievable. I may have argued to the contrary previously, but if our local Republican Party can be looked upon as a microcosm of the Party across the board, it is pathetic. Just conversing this afternoon with one of our friends who happens to be a County Commissioner (R) and the shenanigans he describes going on for the sake of power blocs disregarding anything Constitutional...good thing you weren't here. It makes me sick. Outrageous. You are right about what they SHOULD do...but at this point, I'm not betting anyone will do the right thing. Alas.

  6. There have now been three state court cases (Indiana, Georgia and Arizona) and one federal court case that all have ruled specifically that Obama is a Natural Born US citizen based on the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case. And there were also several lower court cases that stated that the US-born children of foreign citizens were Natural Born US Citizens.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President...."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    For further research:








  7. Anonymous, Since you would not let this go and came back a second time...I published your comment though I vehemently disagree. You are using nomenclature to describe citizenship, but not the qualifications for the POTUS. And the cases you are citing are only using the criteria of jus soli, where the requirement for POTUS includes both parents' citizenship AND jus soli for a POTUS to be eligible. There are many reasons to know this, but I am just going to cite one article for you so you may understand this better. http://stopobamanowsd.wordpress.com/obama-eligibility/

    While contemplating this, I would like you to ask yourself some questions regarding Obama's eligibility. The first executive order Obama signed was to seal all of his personal documentation so no one could know the truth. Why? The birth certificate he has presented as "real" has been photoshopped. Why? His social security number has been proven to be a fraudulent co-opt of a dead woman. Why? His college transcripts are sealed. Why? It is well known that his father was a British citizen under the protectorate of Kenya. That precludes him from qualifying under the two parent rule of citizenship for POTUS. But in order to allow John McCain qualification, that two parent rule was applied to him. Why? And Obama was left out of that investigation at the time. Why? Here is further citation of that: "In the Resolution declaring McCain’s eligibility, the Senate cited this statute below of the First Congress that defines the term “Natural Born Citizen.” It is clear from the text of the Senate’s own reference that the term requires both parents to be citizens of the United States. If the children of an American citizen married to a foreign citizen were intended to be natural born citizens, they could have explicitly stated that, but they did not. It was not intended that the children of foreign citizens would be eligible to become president."

    Leaders of Congress at the time knew very well that Obama did not qualify to be POTUS. I believe that most people in power in DC know that Obama is not eligible to hold that office. Romney's qualifications are suspect as well as Rubio's. Even Santorum's father's citizenship is in question. Both parties have colluded to corrupt the Constitution and ignore the requirements for POTUS.

    It is my deepest concern that the U.S. Constitution is being ripped up and discarded for the convenience of power brokers, both internal and global. Please rethink your assertions and realize our nation is under attack and our Constitution is being shredded.

  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  9. I'm only taking the time to answer your last comment.....You are not paying attention. Obama's father was never a citizen of the U.S. and therefore, Obama does not qualify for POTUS, no matter where he was born. You are willingly ignoring the requirements for POTUS to suit your own agenda. The arguments you post in my comments sections are "red herrings." They simply don't apply to POTUS. The intent of the Founders is very clear. The term "Natural Born Citizen" to qualify for POTUS means the children of citizens of the U.S.

    Here is the quote from the Senate in 2008 allowing McCain to be eligible:
    "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"

    They did no such thing for Barack Obama. As you can see, the Senate used the criteria of being born to American citizen parents. If that were not necessary, why would they do that for McCain? At the time, the Panama Canal Zone was American territory, so there would be no reason to cite his parentage.

  10. Please pay attention. The qualifications / requirements for POTUS are not the same thing as anchor babies...i.e. citizen by being born on American soil. In other words, an anchor baby is not qualified to be POTUS. Even if that were the case, Obama's birth certificate is a photoshopped fraud. And he has hidden all other evidence of his past that would put this question to rest. He is most likely an Indonesian citizen due to his mother's second marriage, but I would not even bet on that.

  11. Last time, anonymous. I have given you all the information you need to know and you refuse to see or understand.

  12. Further info on the executive order to seal records:
    On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.

    Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records

    When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.”

    In short, that order gave Obama the privilege of keeping any and all of his records out of public view.

  13. Re: "The privilege of keeping any and all of his records out of public view."

    That refers only to federal presidential records. It does NOT refer to birth certificate records, college records, medical records, corporate records, law firm records, passport records, etc--all of which were already covered under state and federal privacy laws that have gone back decades.

    Moreover, you need to study your Constitution again. A presidential executive order cannot "seal" college records or state records etc because, duh, it is not a law. An executive order is an order to the executive branch, over which the president has authority. It is not a law and hence cannot apply to private organizations or states (even if it were a law, it might not apply to states which, under the principle of federalism, still have rights).

    And yet you believe that the executive order "sealed" college records, etc.

  14. Still Anonymous...
    You are missing two critical points here. Quoting from above..."the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.” That statement would alone give him the authority to seal anything he would like to seal. He could claim that anything "may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.”

    Even if you were right on that point, on "privacy laws," you fail to see the deliberate concealment of college / school records as a problem for legitimacy. Since he would be able to release any of these records at will, you again fail to address the question,"Why?" Why would he not? What would he have to lose? No other president has sealed these records. Why does Obama hide these?

    His birth document, social security number, and his Select Service Card have all proven to be tampered and created fraudulently when investigated. You are foolish to think this man has a shred of legitimacy holding the office of POTUS.

    You would be wise to take a look at this site and actually think critically, instead of repeating the continual side-step of Obama's obfuscations. You simple can't answer all the questions. The answers are sealed, hidden scrubbed, photoshopped, and you don't wonder why???? http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/

    Your excuses for your hero are not convincing.