The U.S. Constitution: The ORIGINAL 'Birther' Document Of The United States

The U.S. Constitution:

The ORIGINAL 'Birther' Document Of The United States

What did the ORIGINAL 'Birther' document words

'natural born Citizen' and 'Citizen' in

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5

mean to the Founders?

Maybe a conversation ‘prairie fire’ can be lit to motivate BIG TALKER and BIG BLOGGER 'thought leaders' to

WAKE UP – Look UP – Sit UP – Stand UP – Speak UP

Talk Talk Talk

Write Write Write

PROTECT & DEFEND

the

ORIGINAL INTENT

of the

ORIGINAL WORDS

of the

ORIGINAL 'Birther' DOCUMENT

of the

UNITED STATES

the

U.S. CONSTITUTION

specifically

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5

~ ~ ~

The Conversation

This is a conversation about

“The U.S. Constitution: The ORIGINAL 'Birther' Document Of The United States”

This quick study was written by a “normal person” for “we the people” with common sense.

I am NOT a lawyer.

I have normal person questions such as “what does THAT mean?”

I have normal person conclusions that are so obvious to this non-lawyer.

As a quick preface, let us consider 11 easy questions, no tricks. Well, except, for the uninformed, maybe #10 and #11, the two questions for extra credit.

1-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. "Citizen" parents?

Yes?
No?

2-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. "Citizen" parent and ONE non-U.S. "Citizen" parent?

Yes?
No?

… what if the papa is NOT known as the result of rape?

… what if the papa is NOT known as the result of rape and the child is adopted?

… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are heterosexual male and female?

… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual female and female?

… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual male and male?

… what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and unknown donor citizenship documents are not available?

… what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and the surrogate mother is not a U.S. “Citizen?”

3-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. "Citizen" parents?

Yes?
No?

2… 1… 0… bingo.

Some people have written to me in various forums that the answer is ‘yes’ to questions 1, 2 and 3.

If that is your ‘anti-birther’ conclusion, well, you definitely have another think coming.

So, if the answer is not obvious with the first 3 questions, here’s more.

4-
Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

5-
Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1868 14th Amendment "Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

6-

Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1868 14^th Amendment “Citizen?”

Yes?
No?

7-

Does a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. "Citizen" parents qualify to be POTUS?

Yes?
No?

8-
Does a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. "Citizen" parent and ONE non-U.S. "Citizen" parent qualify to be POTUS?

Yes?
No?

Does a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. “Citizen” parents qualify to be POTUS?

Yes?

No?

2 more questions for extra credit -

10-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

11-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1795 Naturalization Act "Citizen?"

Yes?

No?

Scroll down to read The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 with yellow highlight on the clarifying words.

~ ~ ~

I started this quick study March 2, 2012 with the understanding that the Founders wrote the U.S. Constitution to be understood by ‘we the people’, specifically the words "natural born Citizen" and “Citizen” in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ with original intent, in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

The Founders did NOT write "natural born Citizen" for “birther” lawyers of 1787 in the 18^th century.

The Founders definitely did NOT write "natural born Citizen" for “anti-birther” lawyers of 2012 in the 21^st century

The Founders, who knew the meanings of words, wrote the U.S. Constitution so that “we the people” would ALWAYS know what a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” is and to whom it applies, from generation to generation, from election to election, from POTUS to POTUS.

Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” was written to protect the United States from illegal or legal aliens who would try to “OCCUPY” the Oval Office as POTUS.

To maintain our freedom as an individualist Constitutional Republic and NOT a serfs paradise, aka an collectivist Commune Democracy, aka a progressive Marxist “workers of the world, UNITE and throw off your chains of inequality” paradise… and lose your individual freedom in the commune, an Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” MUST be a child of two “Citizen” parents with perpetual relevance, to

protect and defend the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic,

whether or not they are a “Citizen” who may try to illegally “OCCUPY” the Oval Office as POTUS.

This quick study was not written for lawyers with case law references but for very busy common sense “normal” people who ask “what does THAT mean” and simply want to know what the "birther" issue is and how to understand what a "birther" is so they can clearly and easily share it with other busy common sense conservative “normal” people.

For that reason, some historical writings, law terms and SCOTUS decisions referenced by lawyers when discussing citizenship and naturalization will not be used in this quick study, and will only be mentioned in this intro section. These include the two law terms that distinguish birth parents and birth place, the two major SCOTUS decisions, and history books favored by the Founders concerning what a “natural born Citizen” is.

This is written in a table-talk conversational style, not in a text book style with tons of "truth proof" references and foot notes, and things of that sort that must be in a text book.

~ ~ ~

For those that want the lawyer talk with references, foot notes and current events info, here are five sources.

(1) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

(http://puzo1.blogspot.com/)

A lawyer’s happy hunting ground about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” definition as it pertains to putative President BHObama today so that in future vetting of candidates for POTUS, ONLY a child born on U.S. soil with 2 U.S. “Citizen” parents will be recognized as an 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and legally “… eligible to the Office of President…” as stated in Clause 5.

September 8, 2009 –

The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth, a primer with references to the major SCOTUS case law findings.

April 25, 2012 –

A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Barack Obama Was Born in Hawaii, very long with many internal links.

November 10, 2012
Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”, eleven parts.

Part 1 –

In Part I, I will discuss the rules of constitutional interpretation and construction.

Part 2 –

In Part II, I will analyze the text of the Constitution and specifically the “natural born Citizen” clause.

Part 3 –

In Part III, we will explore the Founders’ and Framers’ purpose for requiring that future presidents be “natural born Citizens.”

Part 4 –

Part IV will include a discussion of both English and American “common-law,” with a presentation on the critical differences between the two as they relate to how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” under the law of nations which was incorporated into the laws of the United States as national American common law.

Part 5 –

In Part V, I will discuss the early naturalization acts and how they reveal how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.”

Part 6 –

I will discuss the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in Part VI

Part 7 –

and the Fourteenth Amendment in Part VII, showing how the amendment does not define a “natural born Citizen,” but rather a “citizen of the United States.”

Part 8 –

In Part VIII, I will explain the importance of Minor v. Happersett and show how it confirmed the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of the country when the child was born.

Part 9 –

In Part IX, I will show how U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark only defined a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and that it did not change the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Part 10 –

In Part X, I will show why two U.S. “citizen” parents are needed to have a “natural born Citizen.”

Part 11 –

Finally, I will present my conclusion in Part XI which is that the plain text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 shows that the only person that is eligible to be President is a “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”

This means that today a "citizen of the United States" is not eligible to be President and only a "natural born Citizen" is.

If Obama were born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, being born to a non-U.S. “citizen” father, he would not be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but he would be a "citizen of the United States" as of 1961 under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Since Obama is neither a “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” his is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

(2) BirtherReport.com

(http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/ ) Current events and videos posted daily.

(3) TheObamaFile.com

(http://www.theobamafile.com/ )

(http://www.theobamafile.com/indexArchive.html ) Categories Archive

(http://www.theobamafile.com/SiteMap.htm ) Contents Site Map

(4) Obama-Nation.com

(http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ )

-providing insights into Presidential eligibility and verification~
an amalgam of original essays and comments by a.r. nash and others, from many web sources, covering the Constitution, history, philosophy, the law, and the birth certificates.

(5) Steven Tonchen

(http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm ) The Tonchen Primer appeared on the Internet in June 2009.

~ ~ ~

Two reasons why "natural born Citizen" has eternal relevance.

(1) BOTH verifiable original genesis heterosexual parents, male and female, must be a verifiable “Citizen” prior to the birth of the child on U.S. soil.

(2) BOTH verifiable original genesis heterosexual parents, male and female, must be a verifiable “Citizen” prior to the birth of the child on U.S. soil, even if homosexual parents raise the child.

In future court litigation about “natural born Citizen,” the issue will include ‘equal justice’ exclusively by nature, aka birth, aka ‘original genesis’ heterosexual propagation of the species by a male and a female, and the putsch to include ‘social justice’ inclusively by law, aka, choice, homosexual adoption for the homosexual 3%.

Nature and Nurture

An additional implication, if not obvious yet, concerns nature and nurture.

Nature refers to heterosexual original genesis of a child, natural or in vitro.

Nurture refers to the day-to-day raising of the child, whether by adoption by a heterosexual male/female couple, or by adoption by a homosexual male/male couple or female/female couple.

The child will still need to be recognized as an 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and be “… eligible to the Office of President …” because the child was born on U.S. soil with TWO ‘original genesis’, aka ‘nature’, U.S. “Citizen” parents…

… whether or not the nature original genesis parents are an in vitro donor male ‘parent’ or an in vitro female surrogate ‘parent’ for either the ‘nurture’ heterosexual adoptive parents or the ‘nurture’ homosexual adoptive parents.

… whether or not the day-to-day parents are the original genesis parents or adoptive parents

… whether or not the day-to-day adoptive parents are heterosexual or homosexual

In 1787, the Founders and writers of the words“natural born Citizen” in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 were definitely NOT referring to heterosexual parentage and homosexual parentage, which, by the ‘original genesis’ law of nature, is not possible for the homosexual.

However, homosexual adoption is possible by the law of men, who sometimes legislate against the law of nature, i.e., pass laws contrary to ‘original genesis’ law, aka ‘nature’.

This is a conversation about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our American Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

This is a conversation to inform putative President BHObama "anti-birthers," who do NOT CARE what the U.S. Constitution says, that the U.S. Constitution does NOT CARE that they do not care.

This is a conversation to ALSO inform the anybody-BUT-Obama "I-don-wanna-talk-about-the-birth-certificate" national BIG Talker and BIG Blogger "thought leaders," Conservative OR Progressive, who seem to be in ridicule free “stay-away-from-the-birther-issue” deep-sleep silence and will NOT even TALK, just TALK... about the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

Why don’t they just TALK about the U.S. Constitution which expects them to DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

If not you, who?

If not now, when"

~ ~ ~

The “prairie fire” reference is to the Weather Underground manifesto of Bill Ayers and his fellow Marxist “transformers” in the 1960s, “Prairie Fire: the Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism,” about a national insurrection against the United States, capitalism and the U.S. Constitution.

Scroll down to PrairieFire.org or click here (http://www.prairiefire.org/about.shtml?History ) for a quick look on the “About” page and their intent for their struggle, their jihad, and what “we the people” are up against.

~ ~ ~

Questions for the "thought leaders" who are our "we the people" friends.

If the "thought leaders" on Radio - TV - Print - Online do not want to talk about the "birther" issue, well then, this conversation can start right now with our "we the people "thought leader" friends with these two questions.

(1) WHY don't they just get the “birther issue” out of the way, if it is possible, and just TALK about WHY they do NOT want to TALK about "IT"... the "birther" issue?

Why?

So we, their "we the people" friends, will know WHY they are SILENT and will NOT even TALK about the concomitant Constitutional implications of ignoring the 1787 Clause 5 words (a) "natural born Citizen," (b) "... or … time ... Adoption ..." and (c) "Citizen."

Why not just simply TALK about the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic in the context of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 if they “don’t-wanna-talk-about-the-birth-certificate” and BHObama, who has managed to “OCCUPY” the Oval Office without a valid birth certificate?

Staying deep-sleep SILENT is what MOST of “we the people” are doing.

This includes MOST, can we say 99%?, of the “thought leaders” on Radio – TV – Print – Online, including the common sense conservative news blogs and the GOPe online and print news blogs.

Do you hear the birds chirp, chirp, chirp?

The common sense conservative "thought leaders" are ALSO ignoring an important legal issue by NOT even ONE TIME giving a short comment... NOT even a SHORT comment... about the probable cause legal implications of the March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse news conference by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Why?

(2) WHY not, then, JUST simply TALK TALK TALK about the U.S. Constitution itself, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, in context, to inform and educate the progressive and conservative “anti-birthers” who may have graduated from Harvard, and educate them the way that Hillsdale College does with the entire Constitution in it's free online course, Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution.

Why?

~ ~ ~

Parent and Place

These are the two law terms that refer to "parent–by blood (sanguinis)" and to "place–by soil (soli)"

(1) jus sanguinis for birth parents – the child is a born citizen with the reference to blood, aka parent.

(2) jus soli for birth place – the child is born with citizenship acquired from the soil on which one is born, aka place.

These are the two major SCOTUS decisions.

(1) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

(2) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

One of the books used by the Founders was Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).

These are the three founding historical writings that will be part of this quick study:

(1) The 1787 U.S. Constitution

(2) The 1795 Naturalization Act

(3) The 1868 14^th Amendment

(1) The 1787 U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787 and ratified by the states in 1788, specifically Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5, with a focus on the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words (a) “natural born Citizen,” and how the ORIGINAL words (b) “... or ... time ... Adoption...” are relevant ONLY to the ORIGINAL word (c) “Citizen.”

(2) The 1795 Naturalization Act

The 1795 Naturalization Act of the President George Washington administration limited “natural born Citizen” ONLY to children born on the soil of our American Republic AFTER the 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed because it DID designate children born on foreign soil as a "natural born Citizen" of the American Republic.

The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 confirm that being a “Citizen” does not mean the same thing as a “natural born Citizen.”

Scroll down to The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 for a brief description of the 1790 Naturalization Act and 1795 Naturalization Act that repealed it. It is located after the Sheriff Joe Arpaio March 31, 2012 Press Conference transcript.

(3) The 1868 14^th Amendment

The 14^th Amendment, adopted and ratified in 1868, limited a born “Citizen” and a naturalized "Citizen" to the soil of the American Republic.

Born In The USA?

Rethinking Birthright Citizenship In The Wake Of 911

By John C. Eastman

Scribd.com – the quote is on page 12

>> (http://www.scribd.com/doc/19541868/Born-in-the-USA-Rethinking-Birthright-Citizenship-in-the-Wake-of-911 )

“The notion that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, when seeking to guarantee the right of citizenship to the former slaves, also sought to guarantee citizenship to the children of enemies of the United States who were in our territory illegally, is simply too absurd to be a credible interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.”

– John C. Eastman, Ph.D., is Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. This memorandum stems from an amicus brief filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of respondents in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

By John C. Eastman March 30, 2006

Heritage.org

>> (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship )

“It is today routinely believed that under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain U.S. citizenship. However strong this commonly believed interpretation might appear, it is incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause (particularly as informed by the debate surrounding its adoption), but also with the political theory of the American Founding.”

Repeat… Repeat… Repeat.

Since repetition works, you will find a “whole lotta” repetition of certain words and phrases until the words and phrases become so familiar that they roll off the tongue fluidly until the eternal relevance of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 sinks into the subconscious.

When THAT happens, those who DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of America, UNITE, throw off your chains, STOP feeling intimidated by putative President BHObama “birthers”, aka “anti-birthers” who do NOT care what Clause 5 says OR means, either to the Founders or “original intent” common sense conservative thinkers today.

The phrase "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!" has been updated by putative President BHObama "anti-birthers" to "Birth certificate? We don't need no stinkin' birth certificate!"

Respond to the “anti-birthers” with confidence and informed firm conviction that the Founders were RIGHT.

The Founders were RIGHT.

The Founders of 1787 in the 18^th century who wrote the ORIGINAL “birther” document were RIGHT… and so are “we the people” RIGHT in 2012 in the 21^st century when we DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

(1) In 1787, the Founders were RIGHT when they wrote Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

to protect OUR Republic, NOT aliens, illegal OR legal.

(2) In 1795, President George Washington was RIGHT when the 1795 Naturalization Act repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act

to protect OUR Republic, NOT aliens, illegal OR legal.

(3) In 1868, the 14^th Amendment was RIGHT

to protect OUR Republic, NOT aliens, illegal OR legal.

Yes!

From my Christian friends, as they say from the pulpit, “Can I get a witness?”

Yes… Yes… Yes…

~ ~ ~

For Those Who Want To Know What The Difference Is Between

A “Natural Born Citizen” and A “Citizen”

At The “Time” Of The “Adoption” Of The U.S. Constitution In 1787

>> Clause 5: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen … .”<<

Consider this.

Both “natural born Citizen” AND “Citizen” are contrasted in the SAME Clause 5 and in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word "or" with original intent meaning.

Why?

Archives.gov

(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html )

U.S. Constitution text

(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html )

Clause 5:

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.

Exactly What Is A Natural Born Citizen? (8 minutes - http://youtu.be/QEnaAZrYqQI )

To be eligible to the office of POTUS at the time of “Adoption” in 1787 –

Part 1 –

… a “natural born Citizen”

… a “Citizen”

… time of adoption of the Constitution

Part 2 –

… 35 years of age

… 14 year resident

… within the United States

“No person except

a “natural born Citizen,”

or… or… OR…

a “Citizen” of the United States,

at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

shall be eligible to the Office of President; … .”

So.

What did "OR" and "Adoption" mean to the founders in the 18^th century in the year 1787, “... or … at the time of the Adoption… .?”

What did "OR" and "Adoption" mean later in the 19^th century in 1841, when John Tyler, President #10, became the FIRST 1787 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" to be elected POTUS?

What did "OR" and "Adoption" mean later in the 19^th century in 1849 when Zachary Taylor, President #12, became the LAST 1787 Clause 5 "Citizen" to be elected POTUS?

What did “OR” and “Adoption” mean for another 19 years after 1849, until 1868, when the 14^th Amendment was adopted and ratified?

THAT is what “OR” and “Adoption” mean today in 2012 and the 21st century.

Hint… President #12, Zachary Taylor, was the LAST “… time of adoption…” of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 “Citizen” to occupy the office of POUTS.

It’s obvious.

Both “OR” and “Adoption” mean the SAME thing today as they did then.

When?

When was the “Adoption” of the Constitution?

The new Constitution was "adopted" in 1787 by the Constitutional Convention BEFORE it was "ratified" in 1788 by the States BEFORE the new government began in 1789.

Constitutional Convention

1. The United States of America began as an independent nation with the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, governed until March 4, 1789 under the Articles of Confederation, without an executive branch.

2. On February 21, 1787, the Articles Congress called a convention of state delegates at Philadelphia to propose a plan of government to strengthen the Articles of Confederation.

3. The Constitutional Convention began deliberations on May 25, 1787. After debate, a new constitution was proposed, adopted and sent to the states to be ratified.

4. The Convention met on Monday, September 17, 1787, for its final session.

5. Transmitted to the Articles Congress then sitting in New York City, the Constitution was forwarded to the states by Congress recommending the ratification process outlined in the new Constitution.

6. Each state legislature was to call elections for a “Federal Convention” to ratify the Constitution.

7. Eleven of the thirteen ratified to begin. Ratification by the thirteen original 1776 states began with Delaware on December 7, 1787 and ended with Rhode Island on May 29, 1790.

8. The Articles Congress certified eleven states beginning the new government, and called the states to hold elections to begin operation.

9. Article Seven of the constitution of the United States describes the process by which the entire document was to become effective.

10. It required that conventions of nine of the thirteen original States ratify the constitution.

11. Once word was received that the ninth state had ratified the constitution, New Hampshire, June 21, 1788, a timetable was set for the start of operations under the Constitution.

12. The Articles Congress dissolved itself without incident on the day the first session of the First Congress began on March 4, 1789 when the new Constitution became the basis for the United States federal government with an executive branch.

13. George Washington was inaugurated as President almost two months later on April 30, 1789.

~ ~ ~

What Clause 5 Does NOT Mean

Part 1 –

What Clause 5 does NOT mean.

It is obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that ONLY those who were a “natural born Citizen” at the TIME of the 1787 ADOPTION of the Constitution will FOR EVER be the ONLY ones eligible to occupy the office of POTUS.

Why?

No one who was a “natural born Citizen” alive in 1787 is still alive now.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that ONLY those who were a “Citizen” at the TIME of the 1787 ADOPTION of the Constitution will FOR EVER be the ONLY ones eligible to occupy the office of POTUS.

Why?

No one who was a “Citizen” alive in 1787 is still alive now.

It is obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that a “natural born Citizen” will CEASE to be a FUTURE requirement for eligibility to be POTUS after the “adoption” of the Constitution in 1787.

Why?

Because people were being born in 1787, even as the Constitution was being "adopted" by the Constitutional Convention in September of 1787.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that a 1787 “Citizen” can BE a future requirement for eligibility to be POTUS after the “adoption” of the Constitution in 1787.

Why?

Because all who were called a “Citizen” in 1787 are not alive now.

It is obvious.

An Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” was an 1787 “… time of adoption…” requirement AND a CONTINUOUS requirement for future citizens who would want to occupy the office of POTUS.

Why?

People were born at the time of "adoption" of the Constitution in 1787 AND they continue to be born now in 2012.

An Clause 5 “Citizen” was an 1787 “… time of adoption…” requirement ONLY… NOT as people were born AFTER the “… time of adoption…” in 1787.

Why?

A person can NOT “BE” a "Citizen" AT the "… TIME of adoption…" of the Constitution in 1787 and “BECOME” a "Citizen" AT the “… TIME of adoption…” AFTER the "adoption" of the Constitution in 1787.

THAT previous sentence is spelled out intentionally for the benefit of the pro-Obama “anti-birther” lawyers AND the any-one-but-Obama “anti-birther” lawyers who tend to obfuscate with many multi-syllable words.

It is obvious.

What is the “OR” there for in “…a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen … at the time of Adoption… ” in 1787?

What is being distinguished by “OR”?

It is obvious.

The distinction was between a perpetual eligibility requirement and an eligibility requirement that could ONLY be fulfilled in 1787.

1 - A “… time of adoption…” in 1787 “natural born Citizen” that was perpetual because people were being born in 1787 and since then

2 - A “… time of adoption…” in 1787 “Citizen” that was NOT perpetual because they would not live forever.

It is obvious.

It was ONLY a one time “… time of adoption...” in 1787 contrast between a "natural born Citizen" OR a "Citizen" and not a perpetual contrast.

Why?

1 - The Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement would continue beyond 1787... forever.

2 - The Clause 5 "Citizen" eligibility requirement would cease after ALL of the people who were a Clause 5 "... time of adoption…" in 1787 "Citizen" would no longer be alive.

It is obvious.

If... "IF"... an Clause 5 “… time of adoption...” in 1787 “Citizen” was perpetual as is a Clause 5 “… time of adoption..." in 1787 “natural born Citizen” and those people born in the future, the 14^th Amendment would not have been needed to clarify what a “Citizen” is, THEN, at the time that the 14th Amendment was ratified, or NOW.

Why?

An Clause 5 "... time of adoption..." in 1787 “Citizen” would have been referenced as the source definition of a “Citizen” in contrast to a "natural born Citizen."

However.

A Clause 5 "... time of adoption..." in 1787 "Citizen" has NOT been referenced as a PERPETUAL definition of a "Citizen" by SCOTUS for those seeking the office of POTUS at any time BEFORE the 14^th Amendment.

A Clause 5 "... time of adoption..." in 1787 "Citizen" has NEVER been considered superior to the 1868 ratification of the 14^th Amendment definition of a “Citizen” by SCOTUS in court decisions AFTER the 14^th Amendment was ratified by the States.

Why?

Because NO Clause 5 "... time of adoption..." in 1787 "Citizen" is still alive.

It is obvious.

Part 2 –

What Clause 5 does NOT mean.

It is obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that in 2012 a “natural born Citizen” who is a 14 year resident but is only 34 years of age IS eligible to hold the office of POTUS.

Clause 5 does NOT meant that in 2012 a “Citizen” who is a 14 year resident but is only 34 years of age IS eligible to hold the office of POTUS.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that in 2012 a “natural born Citizen” who is 35 years of age but is only a 13 year resident IS eligible.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that a “Citizen” in 2012 who is 35 years of age but is only a 13 year resident IS eligible.

Part 1 and Part 2 –

They do NOT mean the same thing and they are NOT in conflict with each other because they do NOT restrict each other.

It is obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that the eligibility requirement of being 35 years of age is the SAME as being a 14 year resident “within” the United States… they are different…

… some things are just SO obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that 35 years of age and 14 year residency are in CONFLICT with each other and they do NOT contradict each other…

… some things are just SO obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen” mean the SAME thing… they are different…

… some things are just SO obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen” CONFLICT with each other or RESTRICT each other since they are INDEPENDENT of each other… as people continuing to be born proves…

… some things are just SO obvious.

It is obvious.

THAT is what Clause 5 does NOT mean.

~ ~ ~

What Clause 5 DOES Mean

So.

What does Clause 5 mean?

Clause 5 means that in 1789, the first President of the NEW Republic, that was called the United States in Clause 5, George Washington, was simply a “Citizen” of the United States and NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States when the U.S. Constitution was “adopted” in 1787.

Clause 5 means that Presidents #1 - #9 and #12 were ALL “Citizens” and NOT “natural born Citizens” of the NEW Republic, the United States.

1. George Washington – born 1732 – President April, 30 1789 to March 3, 1797

Mother, Mary Ball Washington, born in Lively, Virginia (Lancaster County) in 1708

Father, Augustine Washington, born in Westmoreland, Virginia, in 1694

2. John Adams – born 1735 – President 1797 to 1801

3. Thomas Jefferson – born 1743 – President 1801 to 1809

4. James Madison– born 1751 – President 1809 to 1817

5. James Monroe – born 1758 – President 1817 to 1825

6. John Quincy Adams – born 1767 – President 1825 to 1829

7. Andrew Jackson – born 1767 – President 1829 to 1837

8. Martin Van Buren – born 1782 – President 1837 to 1841

9. William Henry Harrison – born 1773 – President 1841 (died)

10. John Tyler – born 1790 – President 1841 to 1845

11. James K. Polk – born 1795 – President 1845 to 1849

12. Zachary Taylor – born 1784 – President 1849 to 1850

Clause 5 means that in 1841 John Tyler, President #10, was the FIRST Clause 5 at the "... time of adoption..." of the Constitution in 1787 "natural born Citizen” to be elected President.

Clause 5 means that in 1849 Zachary Taylor, President #12, was the LAST Clause 5 “Citizen” at the "... time of the adoption...” of the Constitution in 1787 to occupy the office of POTUS… because NO Clause 5 “Citizen” is still alive.

Clause 5 means that after #12, Zachary Taylor, ALL Presidents must… MUST… be a "natural born Citizen" and not simply a Clause 5 "Citizen" at the "... time of the adoption...” of the Constitution in 1787... because NO Clause 5 "Citizen" at the "... time of the adoption..." of the Constitution in 1787 CAN be born today.

Clause 5 means ONLY a Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" can be eligible to occupy the office of President ... because ONLY people who are being born can fulfill the eligibility requirement of being a "natural born Citizen" today and tomorrow and as long as the Republic exists as a Constitutional Republic.

Clause 5 means since #12, President Zachary Taylor in 1849, only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be POTUS… if they are born to two parents who are each a “Citizen” by birth or by naturalization, or if one parent is a “Citizen” by birth and one parent is a “Citizen” by naturalization.

Clause 5 means a 14^th Amendment “Citizen” is NOT superior to a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement for the SAME reason that an Clause 5 “Citizen” at the "... time of the adoption..." of the Constitution in 1787 was NOT superior then to the Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement which continues today... because children continue to be born to two parents who are (1) each ALREADY and BEFORE a child is born, a "Citizen" by birth, or (2) who are each a "Citizen" by naturalization, or (3a) one parent is a "Citizen" by birth and (3b) one parent is a "Citizen" by naturalization.

Clause 5 means since there is no Clause 5 “Citizen” alive today who was alive “… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” ONLY a “natural born Citizen” is now and will continue to be eligible to be POTUS.

Clause 5 means that John Tyler, born in the NEW Republic of the United States in the State of Virginia in 1790, became the tenth President in 1841 as the first “natural born Citizen” to become President of the United States.

Clause 5 means BOTH of John Tyler’s parents were each a “Citizen” of the NEW Republic, the United States, at the date the Constitution was “adopted” in 1787, BEFORE John Tyler was born in 1790 as a “natural born Citizen” with the Constitutional right to be POTUS.

Repeat and Repeat and Repeat and Repeat… until it sinks in.

Clause 5 means that John Tyler, who was born AFTER the Constitution was “adopted” in 1787, was a “natural born Citizen” BECAUSE both of his parents… yes, BOTH of his parents… were ALREADY “Citizens” in 1787 according to Clause 5… before… before… yes, say it again… BEFORE… John Tyler was born in 1790.

What about putative President BHObama?

Well, let’s consider (1) 1787, (2) 1795, (3) 1868.

Clause 5 means that Putative President BHObama is NOT a 1787 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" and so is NOT eligible to be POTUS… because BOTH of his parents were NOT “Citizens” of the Republic BEFORE he was born… somewhere… anywhere... or when... it also does NOT matter when in the 20^th century.

Clause 5 means (1) that putative President BHObama is NOT a 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" with two "Citizen" parents who were each a “Citizen” BEFORE his birth.

Clause 5 means (2) that putative President BHObama could ONLY be a 1795 Naturalization Act “Citizen” of the American Republic “IF” he was born on the soil of another country and ONLY if BOTH of his parents were each simply a “Citizen” requiring that BOTH of his parents be either a “Citzen” by birth OR a “Citizen” by naturalization, or a combination of the two. Barach Obama, Sr. was neither, and there is doubt about his putative mother Stanley Ann Dunham.

Clause 5 means (3) that putative President BHObama, “IF” he truly is a 14^th Amendment “Citizen,” NOT by naturalization, which has never been adduced as a possibility, but by birth on American soil with ONLY one parent, could NOT be a “Citizen” as stated in Clause 5, “… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution …” because he was NOT born before 1787 and neither were his parents... whoever they are or were or turn out to be.

What does THAT mean?

Ok, here is a hypothetical, aka based on nuthin’ but a what if… so don’t go conspiratorial with this… unless it turns out that it really happened. With BHObama, only the Shadow knows, whoever that is.

What IF.

What if putative President BHObama had the same mama and a different papa?

Scroll down to What If… What Does THAT Mean to read more.

~ ~ ~

Who else is not eligible to occupy the Office of POTUS?

Clause 5 means there is ALSO a question about the Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" and the 14th Amendment "Citizen" eligibility status to be POTUS of some Republican Senators and Governors.

Current Senator Marco Rubio of Florida

Clause 5 means that Florida Senator Marco Rubio, whose parents were naturalized AFTER their son Marco was born, is NOT an Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” but he definitely IS an 14^th Amendment “Citizen” of the Republic and so is not eligible to the office of President.

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if Senator Rubio were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther document of our Republic, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14^th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania

Clause 5 means that former Pennsylvania Senator and 2012 candidate for POTUS Rick Santorum, because it is not clear if his parents were naturalized BEFORE his birth, so it is possible that Senator Santorum is NOT an Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” but he definitely IS an 14^th Amendment “Citizen” of the Republic.

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if Senator Santorum were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther document of our Republic, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14^th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

While Senator Santorum does not think that the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement applies to him since it is obvious that he is a “Citizen” of the Republic, at least according to the 14^th Amendment, or he could NOT have been elected Senator of Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum continues to insist that it is not necessary to reply to inquiries about the naturalization status of his grandparents and whether or not his parents were naturalized BEFORE he, Rick, was born.

UPDATE: April, 10, 2012

Rick Santorum has officially suspended his campaign for President.

The "natural born Citizen" eligibility to legally occupy the office of President still stands.

Current Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana

Clause 5 means that Louisana Governor Bobby Jindal is not a “natural born Citizens” because his parents were NOT naturalized BEFORE he was born, so Gov. Jindal is not eligible to occupy the office of President.

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if Governor Jindal were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther document of our Republic, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14^th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Future Aspirants to the Office of President of the United States

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if ALL “Future Aspirants” to the office of POTUS were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther documentof our Republic, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14^th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

It is obvious.

THAT is what Clause 5 DOES mean.

~ ~ ~

Three “Change the Conversation” Questions for “Thought Leaders”

Ok, here are three clarifying question for ALL of the anybody-but-Obama BIG Talker and BIG Blogger and BIG Writer “thought leaders” who “comment” for pay on TV – Radio – Internet – Print – and the rest of us who listen to the “thought leaders”and share our thoughts while simply talking with neighbors over the backyard fence or in the office at work.

(1) Do you KNOW what Clause 5 of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic is?

(2) Do you UNDERSTAND (a) why “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen” are in the same Clause 5 sentence of the ORIGINAL “birther” document and (b) what that means?

(3) Do you DEFEND Clause 5 of the ORIGINAL “birther” document against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic?

If you do know… understand… defend… Clause 5, do you get UP and speak about Clause 5 when current events call for comment?

Why?

If you do know… understand… defend… Clause 5, do you NOT get UP and speak about Clause 5 when current events call for a comment?

Why not?

Even IF the BHObama eligibility issue was bogus, which it is not, why do BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Writer not simply Talk Talk Talk and Write Write Write about what "natural born Citizen" means to them to at least educate their “we the people” listeners, viewers and readers, and do double duty and ALSO protect AND defend the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Why not?

For non-lawyers, here are two short Youtube videos to watch.

1- Natural Born Citizen For Dummies (11 minutes - http://youtu.be/EGJdN2KPf0g ) is a quick look at the essence of the difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen” according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and the 14^th Amendment definition of a citizen of the United States.

2- What Is A Natural Born Citizen? (6 minutes - http://youtu.be/bp2kKNTjH70 ) has a succinct and clear explanation of WHY the 1790 Washington administration Naturalization Act, which DID designate as a “natural born Citizen” a child born on the soil of another country, was emended by the 1795 Washington administration Naturalization Act to NOT designate as a “natural born Citizen” a child born on the soil of another country, even IF the child was born to TWO U.S. citizens, BUT the child WOULD be designated a “Citizen” of the Republic, the United States.

Why?

So the child would NOT qualify to be eligible to the office of POTUS… period… done deal.

Why?

To prevent a dual citizen child, with divided loyalty to another country, from being eligible to the office of POTUS.

This means that a child, born on the soil of another country, who would have dual citizenship loyalty, would STILL have the rights of a “citizen” of the United States, but NOT the Clause 5 right of a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President of the United States, EVEN if BOTH parents were each a “Citizen” of the United States BEFORE the child was born.

For those who are not up to speed on the nuances of “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen” as well as the 1795 Naturalization Act of the Washington administration that repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act, here are two sources to consider.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ) is the highly recommended place to start to become informed about Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and relevant SCOTUS decisions.

Stephen Tonchen (http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm ) The Tonchen Primer appeared on the Internet in June 2009.

Without mentioning the name of putative President BHObama, why do some “thought leaders” listed below NOT simply… yes, SIMPLY… define and defend the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Why NOT just TALK about the obvious meaning of Clause 5 EVERY time the opportunity arises in the news, WITHOUT mentioning ANY name… JUST the MEANING of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document?

Hey, even Roger Ailes at FOX would give the green light to talk about the U.S. Constitution and Clause 5, right?

Right?

Why NOT take the opportunity to define and defend and educate your radio listeners and TV viewers with online videos and with Facebook posts and with books?

Why NOT just TALK about the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic and NOT a person… at least… JUST talk about the WORDS of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic and not a party or an agenda other than the truth?

Where are you "thought leaders" of America?

Why are you silent?

Where are you?

Where?

Hey, this “normal person” is just askin’ ‘cause if another “Citizen” ignores the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement AGAIN and tries to “OCCUPY” (isn’t THAT an appropriate word, huh?) the office of POTUS again, well, it IS important to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, isn’t it?

Isn’t it”

WHY is it important?

It COULD happen AGAIN, couldn’t it?

So, why NOT, “thought leaders,”…

… why NOT just get UP and just TALK TALK TALK and WRITE WRITE WRITE and start to educate the people… ‘cause the ORIGINAL “Birther” document is important to you too… isn’t it?

Isn’t it?

- Diana West – yes, it is

(http://dianawest.net/ )

"Born in Kenya": The Media Doth Protest Too Much, Pt. 2 – May 18, 2012

(http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2126/-Born-in-Kenya-The-Media-Doth-Protest-Too-Much-Pt-2.aspx )

“Given that the "born in Kenya" bio …

Breitbart isn't just "inferring" …

Breitbart is choosing.

It is choosing a narrative into which to plug this new fact.

This isn't journalism.

It's politics.”

Forgery-Gate – WND.com April 19, 2012

(http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/is-obama-disowning-online-birth-certificate/ )

A Fraud So Immense – April 19, 2012

(http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2098/George-W-Ford-A-Fraud-So-Immense.aspx )

- Ann Barnhardt – yes, it is

(http://barnhardt.biz/ )

- Sarah Palin – no comment, yet

- columnists on Conservatives4Palin/.com – yes some – why not all

- Rush Limbaugh – no comment, yet

- Mark Levin – no comment, yet. Well, no substantive comment, other than saying that Marco Rubio is a “natural born United States citizen,” so Mark doesn’t want ‘Birther crap’ posted on his social sites.

- Sean Hannity – no comment, yet.However, Hannity did say on Fox that the birther eligibility issue about Senator Marco Rubio is “dumb”

- Jerome Corsi – yes, it is

(http://www.wnd.com/author/jcorsi/ )

Scroll down to Jerome Corsi for more speeches and interviews

- Sheriff Joe Arpaio – yes, it is

(http://www.mcso.org/Default.aspx )

Scroll down to Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a description of the discovery by the State of Arizonas' Maricopa County Sheriffs Office Cold Case Posse of fraud and forgery.

- Joseph Farah – yes, it is

(http://www.wnd.com/ )

- columnists on WND/.com – yes some – why not all

- Alan Keyes – yes, it is

(http://loyaltoliberty.com/ )

- Pat Buchanan – no comment, yet

- Bay Buchanan – no comment, yet

- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. – yes, it is

(http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ )

Scroll down to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. to read more.

- Leo Donofrio – yes, it is

(http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ )

- CDR Kerchner – yes, it is

(http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/ )

(http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm )

- BirtherReport/.com – yes, it is

(http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/ )

- Article II Super PAC – yes, it is

(http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html )

From the Article II Super PAC link above, here is Alexander Hamilton’s 1787 Constitutional Convention presidential eligibility clause suggestion while it was still being debated, which includes the Founder's grandfather-in words "be now":

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.

TheObamaFile.com

(http://www.theobamafile.com/ )

(http://www.theobamafile.com/LibraryOfCongress.html ) Scroll down to TheObamaFile.com, or use the link to read the Library of Congress letter requesting permission “… for inclusion in its historic collections of Internet materials related to the Presidential Transition during a Time of Crises.”

- Mark Steyn – no comment, yet

- Glenn Beck – March 2, 2012 on the radio, shallow ridicule and mockery without substance about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse investigation news conference

- columnists on TheBlaze/.com – yes some – why not all

- Pat Gray – March 2, 2012 on the radio, shallow ridicule and mockery without substance about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse investigation news conference

- Stu Burguiere – March 2, 2012 on the radio, shallow ridicule and mockery without substance about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse investigation news conference

- Scott Baker – no comment, yet

- Amy Holmes – no comment, yet

- SE Cupp – no comment, yet

- Will Cain – no comment, yet

- Buck Sexton – no comment, yet

- David Barton – no comment, yet

- Pamela Geller – yes, it is

(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/ )

July 20, 2008

Atlas Exclusive: Final Report on Obama Birth Certificate Forgery

Change You Can Believe In

(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html )

Saturday, April 30, 2011

An Illegitimate Child, An Illegitimate President:

Despite Multiple Attempts, "No Comment" from the White House

(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/04/an-illegitimate-presidency-1.html )

May 17, 2012

Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:

'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'

(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/05/obamas-literary-agent-in-1991-booklet-born-in-kenya-and-raised-in-indonesia-and-hawaii.html )

- Robert Spencer – no comment, yet

- Erick Erickson – no comment, yet

- columnists on RetState/.com – yes some – why not all

- Ed Morrisey – no comment, yet

- columnists on HotAir/.com – yes some – why not all

- columnists on Townhall/.com – yes some – why not all

- columnists on Newsbusters/.org – yes some – why not all

- columnists on FrontPageMag.com – yes some – why not all

- columnists on Forbes/.com – yes some – why not all

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Forbes Scrubs Article Questioning Obama's Birth Certificate and Calling Obama Imposter

- NationalReview.com – no comment – yet… about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

(http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors )

Scroll down to NationalReview.com read the March 7, 2012 “By The Editors” editorial, “Conspiracy Again,” about what they call the “birthers’ flim-flam.”

- columnists on NatrionalReview/.com – yes some (but they are hiding for now) – why not all

- Ben Shapiro – no comment, yet

- columnists on Breitbart/.com – yes some – why not all

- HumanEvents.com – no comment, yet

(http://www.humanevents.com/ )

Scroll down to HumanEvents.com to read about a "human event" NOT reported.

- columnists on HumanEvents/.com – yes some – why not all

- Michelle Malkin – no comment, yet

- Ann Coulter – one… only 1 … "that's all she wrote" comment in only 1 article on August 5, 2009

(http://www.anncoulter.com/archives.html )

“Inasmuch as the "birther" movement was hatched in the station wagon of MSNBC's favorite left-wing fantasist, Larry Johnson, maybe the mainstream media can stop acting as if it's a creation of the Republican National Committee.”

Even IF the BHObama eligibility issue was bogus, which it is not, why does BIG Writer Ann, who has writefully earned her national attention and recognition, not simply Write Write Write about what "natural born Citizen" means to her to at least educate her “we the people” readers, and also to protect AND defend the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Why not?

Scroll down to AnnCoulter.com to read more about Ann's "that's all she wrote" article.

- Laura Ingraham – no comment, yet

- Newt Gingrich – no comment, yet

- Herman Cain – no comment, yet

- Rick Santorum – no comment, yet

- Ron Paul – no comment, yet

- Mitt Romney – no comment, yet

- Marco Rubio – no comment, yet

- Bobby Jindal – no comment, yet

- Allen West – no comment, yet

AmericanThinker.com – yes, it is

(http://www.americanthinker.com/ )

Scroll down to AmericanThinker.com to read three recent, April 2012, articles on AmericanThinker that hit the bullseye about the fraud and forgery of the birth certificate and the SSN card.

- colmunists on AmericanThinker/.com – yes some , why not all

- Matt Drudge – no comment, yet… well, sorta, kinda, almost

(http://www.drudgereport.com/ )

Remember, the Cold Case Posse news conference was on March 1, 2012.

Scroll down to Matt Drudge to see the April 13, 2012 “Search Drudge” results… THAT is a blackout.

- Penbrook Johansson (Editor, The Daily Pen) – yes, it is

Obama’s Ineligibility Makes Policies Irrelevant…Not Evidence of Forgery

(http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/04/obamas-ineligibility-makes-policies.html )

Eligibility and Justice are Blind Regarding Obama….and Rubio

(http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/04/eligibility-and-justice-are-blind-for.html#comment-form )

- Dan Crosby (from The Daily Pen) – yes, it is

I.N.S. Doc Found: U.S. Certificate Issued to onw East African Born Child of U.S. Citizen in 1961!

(http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/03/ins-doc-found-us-certificate-issued-to.html )

- J.B. Williams – yes, it is

(http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williamsA.htm )

Legal Eagles say Anchor Babies are Natural Born Citizens Too

(http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams200.htm )

“… eight attempts were made by congress to alter or abolish the Natural Born Citizen clause prior to the election of Barack Hussein Obama … .”

Evidence Broadens Obama Natural Born Conspiracy

(http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams150.htm )

“… in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record.”

Library of Congress

(http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=natural%20born%20citizen&fa=digitized:true )

~ ~ ~

How about the articulate Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 anti-birthers?

Here are three voluble “anti-birther” misunderstanders of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, and specifically the eternal relevance of ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

- Obama Birth Book - John Woodman

(http://www.obamabirthbook.com/the-latest/ )

Scroll down to John Woodman to read the OTHER side, aka the “anti-birther” flim-flam point of view to counter the ORIGINAL “birther” document point of view which is viewed by the NationalReview.com editors as the “birthers’ flim-flam.”

- Obama Conspiracy - Dr. Conspiracy - Obama Conspiracy Theories

(http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/ )

The Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories – Dr. Conspiracy

(http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/ )

- The Birther Think Tank – Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
(http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/ )

The Do It Yourself Birther Involuntary Civil Commitment Form

>> PDF (http://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/do-it-yourself.pdf )

“Have YOU ever wished that YOU could get rid of that annoying Birther in YOUR life in a safe and humane fashion???

“Or at least shut him or her up from their incessant babbling???

“Well, WISH NO MORE!!!

“Now, with our handy Do It Yourself Birther Involuntary Civil Commitment Form, you can have your annoying Birther(s) whisked away to a local Mental Hospital!!!

“Regain your own Sanity, and once again enjoy quiet and rational evenings at home, or other location, free from the Birther rant and cant.”

The Do It Yourself gag form by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter is very clever. See my brief comment here

>> (http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/a-little-diy-for-the-sane-among-us/#comment-3151 ).

Scroll down to Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter – Do It Yourself for an html version ready to transform from the PDF ‘Birther’ gag form to an ‘Anti-Birther’ gag form.

Change the words from ‘Birther’ to ‘Anti-Birther’ and tweak it for originality and then post your own public domain gag form about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’document titled Do It Yourself ‘Anti-Birther’ Involuntary Civil Commitment Form.

Thanks Squeeky, you are very talented and creative. And, as the man said to Jodi Foster in the movie Contact, ‘clever girl’.

~ ~ ~

So, here is the question again to the "thought leaders" on Radio - TV - Print - Online.

ALL forum commentators and columnists anywhere not listed here with the “anybody-but-Obama” common sense conservative point of view, OR even the GOP Establishment, the GOPe, point of view…

… do you DEFEND Clause 5 of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the American Republic?

If you ARE an ORIGINAL “birther” document birther, do you speak UP?

If you are NOT an ORIGINAL “birther” document birther, why not?

Why?

The "birther" appellation and the concomitant “I am a birther” appellation is a reference to the honorable, yes, HONORABLE response to the uninformed “anti-birther” to PROTECT and DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, the ONLY place in ALL of the founding documents where the contrast is made between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen" in the SAME clause and in the SAME sentence.

- Maybe you are intimidated by the “birther” appellation.

- Maybe you do not know what the "birther" appellation means and so you might not know what a "birther" is.

- Maybe you do not even think about how to best DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Adapted from my post on WND.com … 04-18-2012

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/the-old-its-just-a-distraction-canard/#comment-500825462

Dittos - "It's time..."

In the last sentence –

"It’s time to recognize the real distractions from the real issues."

Yes, Mr. Farah, it's time...

... to begin the national education process about the ONLY location in all of the founding documents where "natural born Citizen" is mentioned, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

How about billboards across America which ask the simple question,

The U.S. Constitution

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

A “natural born Citizen”

What is it?

What does it mean?

www.a2s1c5 [.] com

Maybe a “prairie fire” can be lit that will get the thoughtful attention of the national "thought leader" BIG Talkers on Radio and TV and BIG Writers in Print and BIG Bloggers Online.

We MUST try with a very vigorous nudge on the supine shoulder and with a truthful shout of, speaking politically, “to arms, to arms, the Republic is in danger," to get the thoughtful attention of the “thought leaders” who are in deep sleep to

WAKE UP…

Look UP…

Sit UP…

Stand UP…

Speak UP…

and just TALK TALK TALK... about

the ORIGINAL intent of

the ORIGINAL words of

the ORIGINAL "birther" document of

our Republic, the U.S. Constitution,

and specifically about the eternal relevance of

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

When the BIG Talker "thought leaders" on radio or tv talk about the Constitution and the meaning of an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" in a generic sense, without reference to the OCCUPIER-in-Chief BHObama, that is an opportunity to cause a fumble and pick up the ball and run with it.

So, here goes, one small step for "we the people" and a common sense foundational understanding about

- the 1787 Constitutional Convention "adoption" of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and "natural born Citizen...

- BEFORE it was "ratified" in 1788...

- BEFORE the new U.S. Government "began" in 1789

- and General George Washington was elected President two months later... in compliance with the Constitution "adopted" in 1787.

Just 9 easy questions, no tricks (well, except, for the uninformed, maybe #10 and #11, the two questions for extra credit), for BIG Talker… BIG Writer… BIG Blogger… "thought leaders" on radio and tv, print and on the web -

1-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. "Citizen" parents?