John McCain and Congressional Republicans Notified Obama Ineligible

. . . but they did nothing.

Here is a real lawsuit. Sue John McCain and the Republican National Committee.

Prior to the election, and prior to the Congressional Certification of Electoral Votes, McCain and 76 congressmen were faxed and e-mailed, and therefore informed that Barack Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen, and what to do about it.

John McCain was nominated to win the election, not play ‘nicety-nice’ . . . especially when a question of constitutional eligibility was involved.

Following is the second notice I faxed and e-mailed over seventy congressmen, including John McCain.

Update 12-22-2009         I am preparing another fax broadcast to congress. This one will be brief, and rely upon my analysis of Article II in my ‘Diagramming Article II’ blog article. Article II describes two types of citizens eligible to be president; the first clause describes those born to U.S. citizens, the other are native born British subjects naturalized as our first U.S. citizens at the time of adoption of the constitution.

Obama was a native born (or so he claims) citizen at birth, but a British subject as well. He was not naturalized at the “time of adoption” but through Alien and Immigration laws, which finally de-alienaged his British, Kenyan, and Indonesian nationalities at age 19. (See my blog, ‘Barack Hussein Obama — A Natural Born British Subject.’)

 

LEGAL MEMORANDUM

  • Confusion over ‘Native-Born’ versus ‘Natural-Born’
  • Congressional Certification of Electoral Votes – 3 U.S.C. § 15

The Definition of ‘Natural Born’

The chief framer of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, John A. Bingham, stated, “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Cf. Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), and U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

However, the only fact on Obama’s Certification of Live Birth pertinent to Obama’s ‘natural-born’ status is Obama’s father’s race being listed as ‘African.’ It is common knowledge that Obama, Sr. was a Kenyan national.

If born in a Hawaiian hospital, Obama is ‘native‘ born. But a ‘natural born’ citizen must have two U.S. citizen parents.

Barack Obama Birth Certificate ‘created’ under Hawaiian Rev. Stat. § 338-5?

With Honolulu as the place of birth on Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, the average American assumes that President-elect Obama is a ‘natural born’ citizen. He is not.

For all we know, the birth certificate attested to by Hawaiian official Dr. Fukino is from a Hawaiian hospital. But, there is also a certificate that can be issued solely on the testimony of ‘one parent’:

Hawaiian Rev. Stat. §338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.

The ‘Certificate’ of Live Birth that the ‘Certification’ of Live Birth references is the only proof whether Obama was born on the Hawaiian mainland, or just to a resident of Hawaii. This is key to determining whether Obama is a ‘native’ born American, or foreign born.

To date, we have been blocked by the Obama organization from seeing the original document.

On January 8, 2009, Congress has the Obligatory and Unenviable task of distinguishing Obama’s prima facie ‘native born’ status from that of Constitutionally required ‘natural born.’

In the 2000 Presidential election, the Democrats used every legal tactic to hold the executive office. Al Gore went to the Florida Supreme Court to delay certification of the vote in order to scrutinize and interpret rejected ballots. G.W. Bush appealed the delay in Bush vs. Gore.

When Ohio went to George W. Bush, the Democrats tried to block the Ohio Electoral votes during the congressional certification process.

New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 [2000] – “Congress officially ratified President Bush’s election victory on Thursday, but not before Democrats lodged a formal challenge to the electoral votes from Ohio, forcing an extraordinary two-hour debate that began the 109th Congress on a sharp note of partisan acrimony . . . a single senator – Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who was sworn in Tuesday for a third term – joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Democrat of Ohio, in objecting to Ohio’s 20 electoral votes for Mr. Bush, citing voting irregularities in the state.”

Here is the law the Democrats relied on to block the Ohio votes.

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors . . . and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer . . . Upon such reading of [the electoral votes], the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received . . . No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of. 3 U.S.C. § 15 Counting electoral votes in Congress.

It is an unimpeachable fact that Barack Hussein Obama is not a ‘natural born’ citizen.

As a British Colonial, Obama, Sr. created a dual nationality at his son’s birth. While Obama derived U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1409(c)’s out of wedlock provision (the Obama-Dunham marriage was void ab initio due to bigamy) or the 14th Amendment, the 1948 British Nationality Act claimed jurisdiction through the father.

To make matters more complicated, at age 6, Obama became a naturalized Indonesian. However, he maintained his right of election from birth establishing his U.S. citizenship through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, § 301(a)(7) and 301(b)’s five-year continuous residency requirement to become a U.S. citizen.

Compounding Obama’s multi-national heritage even further, his own mother, albeit de facto, renounced her U.S. citizenship permanently when Obama was six years old. Finally, Obama carried an Indonesian passport up to age 21 years old, traveling to Pakistan to visit his mother until her death in 1992.

James Madison, John Jay and others promoted the Article II ‘natural born’ eligibility clause to prevent the installation of a President with dual allegiances.

In one month, we risk swearing into office a constitutionally ineligible candidate of questionable allegiances.

In 2007 and 2008, Obama spent a good deal of his senatorial career and treasury supporting Raila Odinga, the Luo candidate for President of Kenya. The Luo’s are the tribe of Obama’s father, and are Marxists and Muslim sympathizers. Obama’s interference fomented Luo rioters who killed over a thousand people and burned dozens of churches . . . one reported full of Christians hiding from the massacre outside.

Condaleeza Rice reprimanded Barack Obama, telling him support of Odinga was contrary to U.S. policy and interests.

Obama’s radical alliances substantiate the wisdom of our founding fathers’ constitutional requirement that the president be a ‘natural born’ citizen of only one allegiance.

Conclusion:

In 2000, the Democrats exercised 3 U.S.C. § 15 under questionable circumstances. Now, in the election of 2009, the Republicans have a mandatory responsibility to address this issue, or be forever diminished in the eyes of their party and history. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress has the power to police its own legislation. The Democrats investigated the McCain candidacy, and now must do the same for Barack Obama’s.

We can not anticipate the potential damage to treaties, legislation, budgets, executive orders, and war powers when the president is constitutionally ineligible to hold office.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

13 Responses to “John McCain and Congressional Republicans Notified Obama Ineligible”

  1. yo Says:

    really good fact finding you did, but wrong conclusion.

    the congress and media are our enemies on this issue. hoping they will help is a pipe dream.

    we need to get the documents from the haw doh, some way or other, and when we do, enough of the public will be outraged that we can force this issue to a conclusion.

    congress and the media will never help as long as the bc is kept secret. never.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      John McCain was duly notified of a potential problem with Obama’s Article II eligibility.
      His failure to at least notify the President of the Senate under 3 U.S.C. § 15 was negligence, and a breach of contract to all Republicans . . . especially those who contributed time and money to his campaign.

      Thaddeus McCotter and C.W. Young were the only congressmen to reply to my 77 faxes, faxed before the election, and then prior to the Certification of Electoral Votes.

      The lawyers in congress should know better . . . that is for sure. But, they lack leadership . . . which McCain was chosen to provide.

      McCain should be sued for negligence and breach of contract . . . any monies left in his Treasury should be distributed to Republican contributors who join the law suit.

      There is another by-product of the suit. The truth about Obama’s lack of Article II eligibility would be established without any Political Questions Doctrine problems.

  2. smrstrauss Says:

    Re: “we need to get the documents from the haw doh, some way or other,”

    Very simple, all you have to do is to convince the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle. to change the rules or the law so as to release the original. This could be just for the president, or the new rule could be that the birth documents of the president will become public documents.

    [edited to save the poster embarrassment]

  3. paralegalnm Says:

    The rule is H.R.S. § 338-18. That is why you need a law suit, unless you are the president, or someone with a valid, legal interest, e.g., executor of an estate, or a licensed biographer.

  4. smrstrauss Says:

    Hawaii can change the law and the rules to make the birth records of a president an exception to the privacy laws. That is what to press for. If the records of a president are made public documents, then anyone can see them.

    Obama does not have a copy of his original birth certificate, and Hawaii will not send it to him because it doesn’t send out copies of the original to anyone anymore.

  5. Greg Goss Says:

    Why am I just finding this site today? Have you blogged about your faxes when you sent them? You are correct as it concerns the Executive order Zero signed. It has nothing to do with documents held by any state or institution of higher learning…

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Thank you, Greg.

      Yes, I blogged about the faxes. I’ve been involved with the ‘birther’ movement since reading Phil Berg’s pleadings prior to the Surrick dismissal.

      Only two congressmen responded to my 150 faxes . . . Thaddeus McCotter wrote a long e-mail relying on Judge Surrick’s dismissal. C.W. Young’s assistant e-mailed asking for more information.

      Frustrating, that just two positive responses would have stopped this Obama fiasco on January 9, 2009.

  6. smrstrauss Says:

    http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
    That means that Obama cannot show a copy of the original birth certificate because he does not have it.

  7. Greg Goss Says:

    Well Google has not treated you too well. I have had an automated alert Google search, that is how I found you today, setup for over a year now and have seen you site. I have been also actively working, mostly behind the scenes, since about October of last year. In fact my wife tells me I have certified letter that was returned, go figure. Do you comment anywhere else? PS, everyone else has lost patience with commenter …you know who…

    • paralegalnm Says:

      This is WordPress. I see you are with Blogspot.

      My blog on Blogspot only includes Defining Marriage and Unraveling Roe. They got very few hits.

      The Defining Marriage blog is an almost word-for-word transcription of the essay on Gay Marriage I wrote for a Family Law class. I was viciously attacked, my grade demoted, and I quit only two classes from my B.A. in pre-law. I am still paying off the $10,000 student loan.

      Four years later, my essay on Gay Marriage and the Gay Agenda now seems prophetic. The Obama administration has been promoting the Gay Lesbian Educational Alliance material in our public schools.

  8. My Reponse to the Kerchner Dismissal « Paralegalnm’s Blog Says:

    […] 2) Vice Pres. Dick Cheney is NOT a viable co-defendant. Rather, Senator John McCain is. I accused John McCain of ignoring his responsibility to win the 2008 presidential election negligently, by refusing to exercise his right of challenge under 3 USC § 15. See http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/john-mccain-and-congressional-republicans-notified-obama… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: