Daddy Says No! - Articles Assessing the Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" Clause, Barack Hussien Obama I, and BHO II

What are those criteria again, for a United States president? "Natural born Citizen?" Whatever does that mean, how can we tell, and why should it matter?

These are articles on the Web, most of which have been circulating among those in the know, about the challenges to the candidacies of both Barack Obama and John McCain. Regarding Obama, this is due to his foreign father, Barack Sr., who by natural law (and British code) passed along his U.K. citizenship, thus bequeathing a foreign jurisdiction to the little tyke, in the eyes of America. Well, at least in any open American eyes. In the case of McCain, the problem was his birth in the Republic of Panama, even though his parents were both true blue Americans.

How could this happen? That is for another article. But here is Barack Obama's "Daddy says no!" list, in chronological order. On January 2 or 3, I.O. intends to draw the Top Five Natural Born Citizen Articles from this list and feature them in a new posting.

"From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship," John C. Eastman, Ph.D., Mar. 30, 2006, The Heritage Foundation, heritage.org

"Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law," P.A. Madison, Dec. 10, 2006, updated Dec. 1, 2008, The Federalist Blog

"John Jay Did Not Want the Top Offices to be Open to Foreigners," John S. Bolton, June 29, 2008, Open City and its Natural Enemies

"Dual Citizenship Makes Obama Ineligible Under Article II," Judah Benjamin, Sept. 25, 2008, TD Blog

"The Betrayal of Mystery Babylon," Sidney Allen Johnson, Nov. 23, 2008, The Prophet of Wrath

"Natural Born Citizens: Or How to Beat a Subject to Death with a Stick," Judah Benjamin, Nov. 28, 2008, TD Blog

"Leo Donofrio Comments on Judah Benjamin Article Concerning Natural Born Citizen and the Common Law," Leo Donofrio, Dec. 1, 2008, Natural Born Citizen (Web log)

"Letters to Military Associations - CALL TO ACTION - File in US Federal Court Regarding Obama's Citizenship Status," Robert Reece, Dec. 3, 2008, Article 2, Sect 1, Clause 5 (Natural Born Citizen) (Web log)

"Defining Natural-Born Citizen," P.A. Madison, Nov. 18, 2008, updated Dec. 4, 2008, The Federalist Blog

"Stand by Me..." user: "DrKate," Dec. 5, 2008, TD Blog

"The Donofrio 'Natural Born Citizen' Challenge," Dec. 5, 2008, Investigating Obama (Web log)

"The Law -- Perkins v. ELG," user: "CalperniaUSA," Dec. 8, 2008, NYC Bedroom Communities (Web log)

"Obama and the Natural Born Citizen Clause," Randall Hoven, Dec. 9, 2008, American Thinker (Web log)

"Constituting A Natural Born Citizen," David Mivshek, Dec. 11, 2008, PolitiCode (Web log)

“'Natural Born Citizen': Defined by 14th Amendment Framers and in Treatise Relied on by Scalia," Leo Donofrio, Dec. 13, 2008, Natural Born Citizen (Web log)

"The Definition of Natural Born Citizen," by "Ken-in-AR," Dec. 24, 2008, The Liberty Pole (Web Social Network)

Shortly, I.O. will give each article a very brief characterization and... announce The Top-5 "Daddy Says No!" Articles Awards. It might have been a more traditional "Top-10," if I had been able to find that many really, specifically pertinent and illustrative ones, amid the dark, Mordorian mists of the Marxstream Media.

In the mean time, have a search for the truth, yourself, whatever Congress and the SCOTUS does.

Know of any other articles?
Hint: don't bother with cbsnews.com, newyorktimes.com, and their comrades.
If you have a link, please leave it in a comment.

'Natural Born Citizen for Dummies' v. Dummy v. the United States of America

Constitutionalist activist, Dean Haskins provides a lesson instructing that a "natural born Citizen," according to the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, is an individual born in United States territory, to parents who are both U.S. Citizens.

Further, he introduces the viewer to the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, which recognized this and thus established binding precedent, the adjudicated recognition of the meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution.

Video, "Natural Born Citizen for Dummies," June 28, 2011

Of course this means that Barack Hussein Obama II is our U.S. President illegally and spuriously, if Barack Hussein Obama I is indeed his father. And it shows how displaced from legitimacy and reality is our entire United States government at this moment.

"Never before, in the history of the America, have our leaders been so afraid of the rule of law, but the rule of law is what has made this country. If we allow them to shirk their duties in this matter, then the rule of law will be rendered of no effect and our country will soon go the way of every other country that succumbed to fear," observes Mr. Haskins. Fear of what, though? Of being found out?

To bring us up to date, eligibility attorney Leo Donofrio has written of the significance of the Minor v. Happersett decision in his blog, Natural Born Citizen:

"US Supreme Court Precedent States that Obama is not Eligible to be President," June 21, 2011

"Minor v. Happersett is Binding Precedent as to the Constitutional Definition of a Natural Born Citizen," June 24, 2011

"The Express Lane to Natural Born Clarity," June 30, 2011

States Mr. Donofrio in that third entry:

The Supreme Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a US citizen. Instead, the Court looked no further than the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1. The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural-born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens. (For more detailed analysis of this issue, see my two previous reports, here and here.)

The Court also noted that the “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt. Since Virginia Minor was in the class of natural-born citizens, that doubt didn’t need to be resolved. The Court exercised judicial restraint and thereby avoided construction of the 14th Amendment as to the citizenship issue.

In the first of these entries, Donofrio quotes the dicta of the Minor v. Happersett ruling and this is the passage that establishes the precedent as to the meaning, understood at the time of the Constitution's framing, of "natural born Citizen," emphasis added.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“

Another attorney who has been very active in this matter, Mario Apuzzo, also elucidates the matter at his blog, Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers, where among other things, he takes the tainted site Snopes to task for its inaccuracy and seeming bias.

Prior to these, the most comprehensive research and analysis displayed in any pertinent article I have seen has come to us via "The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen," (September 6, 2009). That is the work of a collection of activists and law students calling their site Undead Revolution, referring to the continuous presence of our founders' specifications of our government -- truth which haunts those who would deny this reality. And there are more nuggets there, besides Minor v. Happersett.

But just lately, as if on cue, the U.S. Senator from Illinois Richard "Dick" Durbin has issued an oral report of the absurdity of the progressives' stance on the matter of eligibility for the presidency. He speculates that an illegal alien granted amnesty may one day become our president.

Video, "Democrat Senator: Illegal Alien Could Be Our Future President," June 29, 2011

Even RealClearPolitics, with their history of editing out information on the matter, achieved clarity on that apparent gaffe. But was it a gaffe? Not for the progressive, who by definition, wishes to "fundamentally transform" America, by "progressing" beyond the established charter of our Declaration of Independence and compelling governmental design of our Constitution.

We now live in an America with not only an anti-American president by his behavior, but by his autobiography, a fictitious one. Our Congress is complicit, by its failure to abide by the Constitution, or to even seek to do so, at the time of his confirmation. There were no challenges as constitutionally provided. Do we have a Supreme Court which has the integrity to correct this, or in its failure to do so, or thus far to even observe the constitutional standing of the Sovereign U.S. Citizens who have brought this crisis to their attention, does it also invalidate itself?

Three strikes and America's entire federal government is out.

Letter to George Washington from John Jay regarding the insertion of the "natural born Citizen" clause
into the U.S. Constitution, "Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide
a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government,
and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to,
nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

---

Arlen Williams coordinates publishing of the new Webzine, Gulag Bound and has administrated the blog, Investigating Obama. Prior to this, he was an organizer of electoral action in Illinois and Wisconsin, while maintaining a career in technology sales. Arlen addresses the Marxofascist soft war for global empire, against authentic America and freedom and sovereignty worldwide, suggesting overwhelming First Amendment warfare in return.

He asks you to communicate with your neighbors, and to confront politicians and candidates with “The Three SOVEREIGNTY NOW Questions.”

Contact him at ArlenWilliams@GulagBound.com.

The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge

12/17 I.O. update:

1. The essence of the Donofrio v. Wells case (NJ) is contained in the Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz case (CT). In both cases, injunctions were denied, but this may be due to a jurisdictional issue [edit: or an issue of standing]. In September, a federal court ruled against a somewhat similar challenge (to John McCain) based, oddly, upon both its particular merits and an overall, jurisdictional observation. Mysteriously, the Donofrio case has remained listed as "pending," somehow, which may or may not have to do with the jurisdictional matter.

2. A research work in process, this article failed to address the most central document besides the Constitution itself, to the understanding of the original intent and thereby meaning of the "natural born Citizen" criteria, the letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 25, 1787. In it, Jay cites the reason for the criteria being one of national security, that is to guard against a "Commander in Chief of the American army" having foreign allegiance in the way anyone might, who is not a natural born Citizen. This lends essential merit to the dual natural born Citizen criteria pointed out in this article, as a strategist in matters of defense and security would naturally know. Metaphorically, in a neighborhood where crime is high, one does not lock the front door (born in U.S. territory) and leave the back door wide open (commonly and "naturally" understood national allegiance by hereditary right). When security is the concern, one thoroughly guards all of one's vulnerabilities which are pertinent and feasible to be made secure.

12/5/2008

The Donofrio Case: "Natural Born Citizen" -- not about Obama's birth certificate, but the one that goes, "We the People...."

Today, before the United States Supreme Court lies Leo Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State. This suit was received by Justice Thomas and by the determination of the entire court, it is scheduled for conference on Friday December 5. This conference is held to decide what, if any, further steps should be taken. Only two of these steps would be to intervene in the process of selecting the president, or to hear oral arguments.

Essence of the case

By this case Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero (of the Socialist Workers Party, on the New Jersey ballot) do not qualify as “natural born Citizens” under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which states the following:

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.

Standing

Other cases against Obama's candidacy have been rejected by various courts, due to a private citizen's apparent lack of standing to sue a candidate. However, this case is an action against the Secretary of State of New Jersey and as such, has precedent, as Donofrio relates. He originally sought to motivate the Secretary to qualify or disqualify these three candidates on the New Jersey ballot. Donofrio also cites 2000's famous Florida case, Bush v. Gore, as precedent for a state case regarding a presidential election to be brought to the Supreme Court for emergency action.

Merit: reasoning behind Donofrio v. Wells

To interpret the U.S. Constitution with intellectual honesty, one must maintain the integrity of the meaning of the Constitution. That means interpreting the letter of the law: its words and phrases, based upon the immediate context of the Constitution itself, any explanations of the framers, traditional meaning inherited by the framers, and the generally accepted, legal meanings of words and phrases in use at the time of its drafting. Further, attention is to be paid to the spirit of the law, by understanding the purposes of the framers and the results they sought or sought to avoid, as they drafted each element of the Constitution.

In view of these considerations, being a “natural born Citizen,” here requires meeting both of these two criteria: 1. citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one’s father’s citizenship and, 2. citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution's framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward. To cite Donofrio's own words from his blog:

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. [I.O. ed., letter by John Jay] The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

According to this case, Barack H. Obama II is not qualified, because his father, Barack H. Obama I, was a citizen of the United Kingdom as a Kenyan. Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama II’s birth in 1961. This citizenship was conferred to Obama II by U.K. law. Further to this case is the apparent fact that Obama II became a citizen of Indonesia, when he lived there as a child with his mother and adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro. This would mean Obama's U.S. Citizenship status was revoked, since Indonesia had no dual-citizenship provision with the U.S.A.

According to this case, John McCain is not qualified, because he was born in Panama or the Panama Canal Zone, which was a protectorate of the United States and has never been a territory of the Untied States, even though his parents were U.S. Citizens.

According to this case, Roger Calero is not qualified, because he was born a citizen of Nicaragua, to foreign parents, on foreign soil. The mere fact that Roger Calero was on the ballot in five states indicates to the Supreme Court and the nation, that the process of qualifying a presidential candidate is broken and intervention is necessary.

Merit: context, corroboration, and case law

Corroborative to this case, the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 states that a power of Congress is to "define and punish... offenses against the law of nations." The Law of Nations has been international law, which as documented by Emmerich de Vatel (1758) states, in Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Vatel follows with paragraph 215, in which he asserts, "It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say 'of itself,' for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise."

The chief framer of the related 14th Amendment of the Constitution, John A. Bingham corroborated this dual criteria stating, "every 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." An extensive analysis citing this is "Defining Natural-Born Citizen," by P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog.

Since then, the case of Perkins v. ELG, U.S. 325 (1939) provides precedent for requiring these two criteria, for one to be called a "native born citizen" (see, "The Law -- Perkins v. ELG," blog, The Betrayal).

St. George Tucker, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virgina, wrote a version of the authoritative Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution... which became a recognized resource for determining the framers' original intent. In his Volume 1 -- Appendix; Note D, he explained that the Article 2 "natural born Citizen" requirement was purposed to avoid competing allegiances:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, whereever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.

If anyone knows of an applicable contemporaneous definition of "hereditary right" which does not include patrilineal descent, he is welcome to inform this writer. Certainly, this applied to sons of subjects of the United Kingdom (and the fact that one subject would travel abroad to declare himself a "Citizen of the World" before hundreds of thousands might also have provided relevant warning).

Intended result of this case

The Donofrio suit calls for a stay of the Dec. 15 Electoral College vote, until a constitutionally acceptable means is attained, of presenting the Electors a set of qualified candidates.

During or after their Dec. 5 conference, the Supreme Court could decide upon a number of directions. Their next step may be revealed this very day, or on Monday, Dec. 8, or at some other time. A book could be written of the many potential outcomes -- and historians will write libraries about one set of results, in their hindsight.

"Post Script" in HTML

Leo Donofrio reports that numerous obstacles have been intentionally placed in the way of his petitioning the courts, in both New Jersey and at the Supreme Court. He also names public officials who have at times attempted to mislead him and by their treatment of his case, have obstructed his path to the Supreme Court. That is another story and not an undramatic one.

Donofrio has had three blogs -- and Internet harassment, as follows:

1. http://blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen -- used through November 21, until its blog service was hit by a denial of service attack, bringing it down (servers have been repaired)
   
2. http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com -- used through November 27, until it became clear that Google has not been at all swift to remove a "flag page," inappropriately citing that blog for "possible Blogger Terms of Service violations"
3. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com -- hopefully, unmolested as of your reading
   

This report may be updated as progress is made. For information about the operations of the Supreme Court in such matters, see "A Reporter's Guide to Applications Pending Before the Supreme Court of the United States."

h/t: numerous bloggers and forum posters including FReepers: BP2, joygrace, andMamaTexan

Wish to spread the news of this case? Just click the envelope, below...

The True Natural Born Citizenship Criteria; Time to Refocus

Though the work of "birthers" has continued to focus largely upon the question of Barack Obama's place of birth, the damning issue remains his Kenyan/British citizenship, passed to him by natural succession, from his father. That is, if it is true that Barack Obama I is actually his father, something that seems evident, though he also seems to look more like Frank Marshall Davis with every change of season.

I.O. followed the attempts of Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski, to get the Supreme Court to pay attention to the actual natural born Cittizen standard, before Obama was certified and inaugurated. However, they were not granted an injunction, likely based upon those justice's opinions of the plaintiffs' standing. Thus, to this date, Barack Obama's apparent ineligibility to serve as United States President and Commander in Chief of our military forces has never been adjudicated upon its throbbing sore thumb merits. Constitutional justice remains to be served.

John Jay's request of the "natural born Citizen" requirement,
to the Constitutional Congress
click image to enlarge

By the common understanding of the phrase, natural born Citizen -- by the explanation of that phrase before the fact, the communications about it, at the time of the Constitution's framing, and the relevant analysis and case law, after it, this continues to be evident: that, to hold this qualification, two criteria must be met:

1. born of parents who were both United States citizens at the time of one's birth
2. born within United States territory
   

See the articles:

• The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge
• Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz "Natural Born Citizen" Case...
• Daddy Says No! - Articles Assessing the Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" Clause, Barack Hussien Obama I, and BHO II

Mr. Donofrio, who appears to be a man of volatile temperament, has nevertheless resumed some of the tasks of explaining why this sore thumb continues to stick out. One way, has been to show how, according to the most up-to-date historical research, we have already had one fictitious U.S. president, in Mr. Chester A. Arthur. Like Obama, it was rumored that he was not born in America, but, by research Donofrio has brought to light, Arthur was actually engaged in a cover-up of the fact that his father was a British citizen at the time of little Chester's birth. Visit these recent Donofrio articles, to see for yourself.

• President Chester Arthur, et. al. Why they aren't Precedent for Obamma's Eligibility (12/4/2008)
• President Chester Arthur, et. al. Why they aren't Precedent for Obamma's Eligibility (12/5/2008)
• Historical Breakthrough - Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed he was a British Subject at Birth (12/6/2008)
• A Little More on Chester Arthur, from the Library of Congress (12/10/2008)

And, more recently:

• AP Issues Chester Arthur Propaganda To Protect Obama (8/17/2009)
• POTUS Usurper Chester Arthur Forced Military to Salute British Flag (8/19/2009)

Further, Donofrio has done excellent work in explaining why the case of Wong Kim Ark, often cited by Obama protectors, is actually further corroboration of the two criteria (parental lineage and place of birth) for being a natural born Citizen.

There is more to add to the mound of evidence of the true, constitutional definition of natural born Citizen, but that is for others to do and they will do it very soon. And, I.O. will continue to report it.

Constitutional justice must be served, if the term, United States of America is to maintain any integrity.

Zapem: 'Obama Knew He Wasn't Eligible for POTUS'

In this article, originally posted in the blog of the same name, "Zapem" breaks a report of the history of sidestepping, skirting, and attempted Constitutional tinkering on behalf of unnatural born Citizen, John McCain -- thereby, an attempt to pave the way for Barack Obama.

If one were to look at the activity on Capital Hill during the campaign, there would be no question in their minds that both McCain and Obama were sweating the “natural born citizen” issue.

How do we arrive at that conclusion? We take McCain’s ingrained, glib advice and “Look at the record, my friends“.

Doing just that, we find that back on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find.

Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II, section 1 and requires clarification. But does it? According to the framers and such drafters as John Bingham, we find the definition to be quite clear:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every 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… . . - John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866

From the days of James Madison to the present, the courts have held that the amendment process be justiciable in accordance with its constitutionality and not self-serving or political. But is that what happened here? Again, we must go to the record.

Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

ABCNews.com reported:

“With questions - however serious - about whether Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is eligible to run for president since he was born outside U.S. borders on an American Naval base, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. today introduced a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that McCain qualifies as a “natural born Citizen,” as specified in the Constitution and eligible for the highest office in the land.

Co-sponsors include Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois; Leahy said he anticipates it will pass unanimously.”

One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?

One answer is that looking at John McCain’s long-form birth certificate reveals he was not a natural born citizen and Barack Obama hasn’t submitted his long-form at all. John McCain was born in an “unincorporated territory”, held by the courts to be not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Barack Obama has submitted only a Certification of Live Birth, but Hawaii law will certify a live birth using that document for births that occurred even outside of the country. Furthermore, Barack Obama’s father was Kenyan and never an American citizen. Since the status of citizenship occurs at birth, this makes Barack Obama a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen. One must have two citizen parents, at the time of birth, and be born on U.S. soil, to be deemed a natural born citizen and be declared eligible for the presidency. The Senate, for all their trouble, cannot legislate a person’s born status. It happens at birth, according to the law.

While Senate Bill 2678 fell to the wayside, Senate Resolution 511 was passed on April 30, 2008 as a non-binding resolution. However, S.R. 511 is not a law, but rather, a unanimous opinion. Technically, it means absolutely nothing what they’ve written as it’s not a law, nor did the matter reach the House for review. It’s a stepping-stone in the larger scheme of things that haven’t happened yet; the push to change our Constitution.

World Net Daily reported on November 13, 2008:

More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.

An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded.

“All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,” she said. “There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed.”

Perhaps someone should have informed Obama’s spokeswoman that many of these cases have not been dismissed at all, rather they are mounting, and her statements are in fact, pure “garbage”.

Then perhaps someone may prompt an answer from the Obama spokespeople as to why they were entertaining the thought of fiddling with the United States Constitution back in February and April of THIS YEAR? Perhaps because it was in the best interest of Sen. Obama.

Then what of Sen. Claire McCaskill? What possible interest could she have had in these proceedings and leading the charge with her proposals? Was it a bonafide Constitutional issue of judicial importance, or rather a political one?

Digging further into the record we find that according to Wikki and subsequent footnotes therein:

“In January 2008, Claire McCaskill decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidential elections of 2008, making her one of the first senators to do so. She has been one of the most visible faces for his campaign.[14] McCaskill’s support was crucial to Obama’s narrow victory in the Missouri primary in February, 2008. She had been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice of Senator Obama in the 2008 run for the White House…”

So what we see is a definite political motive being dragged into the Senate for the purposes of legitimizing the 2008 candidates. But if these candidates were legitimate already, there would obviously be no reason for these proceedings.

So political was the motive of McCaskill, even Missouri’s Governor, Matt Blunt revealed that Sen. McCaskill was involved in the “abusive use of Missouri Law Enforcement“. This was dubbed as the “Truth Squad” during the election campaign by the media. The Truth Squad was comprised of Missouri officials and attorneys who set up shop on the streets of Missouri and threatened the public with criminal penalties and lawsuits if they engaged in critical speech against Sen. Obama. The Obama campaign also issued cease and desist letters to media station managers who carried advertisers who were unfriendly towards Barack Obama, namely, the NRA. Citizen outrage prompted this response from Governor Blunt:

“Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.”

Considering these facts and the judicial record, there is every reason to believe that Sen. McCaskill had no interest in resolving Sen. McCain’s eligibility, but Sen. Obama’s long-term. She manipulated the Senate and then threatened the media and the public thereafter, politically motivated at the prospect of becoming Obama’s Vice-Presidential pick. But it didn’t stop there.

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy entered into the Senate record a legal analysis of two high-powered attorneys hired by Sen. McCain - Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe - both of whom are extremely politically active and biased, and attached that opinion to S.R. 511.

So controversial was that legal opinion, that it prompted a rebuttal by Professor Gabriel J. Chin of The University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, in a discussion paper #08-14 entitled, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President. Professor Chin points out clearly where Tribe-Olson sought to draw out implied theories in the law, which in reality, are simply not there and in fact have been decided by the courts already, in opposition to the suggestions offered by Tribe-Olson. Simply put, the attorneys hired by Sen. McCain attempt to fit the law into their agenda with contrived implications. Professor Chin brings the law back into focus, requiring no implied theories.

Legalities aside, in anticipation of the feared “Fairness Doctrine”, the whole of the main stream media has since acquiesced to the intimidation tactics of the Obama campaign and paraded the non-binding resolution known as S.R. 511 to the public with unfactual foolishness. S.R. 511 is neither a constitutional amendment nor legally binding in any way. Yet the media caved to political pressure and reported it to the public as Chairman Leahy dictated, giving the illusion to the pubic that said resolution was binding to the 2008 election. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The public responded, initially by way of lawsuits contesting the eligiblity of not only John McCain, but Barack Obama and Roger Calero as well, citing them all, with equal disqualifying merit, as being constitutionally ineligible to run for President of the United States. Later, netizens of the internet caught wind of the court actions and responded with their own explosion of blogs, forums, websites, chatrooms, emails, etc. In an attempt to quell the discord, the main stream media offered personalities such as Thomas Goldstein which only served to infuriate the public further. The public saw such maneuvers as deceitful and an attempt to embarrass the now educated public.

However, the greater proof is in the activity which originated in the Senate in early 2008 which was hidden from the public, that sought to change what our representatives knew to be unconstitutional from the start. The public really needs to look no further than this activity, for it speaks to the heart of the deals that went on beyond the Senate doors. Rather than trust the preservation model our founding forefathers wrote into our Constitution, these respresentatives, beholden of the public trust, saw fit to manipulate the clauses contained therein, for the sole benefit of their own political self-interests.

Perhaps our representatives, the United States Supreme Court and the main stream media would be interested in reflecting on these records and then start answering truthfully the questions which have so far been ignored. The public has been promised transparency, but to date has only been dealt scoffing, deceitful rhetoric, if they choose to address it at all.

While the public has been patient and eduring, the questions remain and refuse to be dismissed. We expect them to be answered, preferrably prior to January 20, 2009.

We the people, deserve an answer!

____________________________________________________

Listing of 9 articles from the 110th Congress as entered.

1 . SENATE RESOLUTION 511–RECOGNIZING THAT JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III, IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN — Senate - April 10, 2008
2 . REPORTS OF COMMITTEES — Senate - April 24, 2008
3 . SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS — Senate - April 10, 2008
4 . JOHN S. McCAIN, III CITIZENSHIP — Senate - April 30, 2008
5 . MEETINGS SCHEDULED — Extensions of Remarks - April 21, 2008
6 . Daily Digest - Friday, April 18, 2008
7 . Daily Digest - Thursday, April 24, 2008
8 . Daily Digest - Wednesday, April 30, 2008
9 . Daily Digest - Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Sources:

http://thomas.loc.gov
(r:110)

←→Calendar No. 715
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 511
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-simple-resolution.htm

© "Zapem," of Zapem's Blog

The views and statements expressed by Investigating Obama contributors, and in quotations and citations, are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Investigating Obama and Arlen Williams

Plains Radio Webcast, Listener's Notes: Wrotnowski, Donofrio, Pidgeon

Live updating through the evening -- my notes from tonight's Plains Radio Webcast. (Parenthetical comments are by I.O., AW.) After Jill Stanek, on the state of the pro-life movement in an American culture steeped in death are featured Natural Born Citizen Challengers, Cort Wrotnowski (CT), Steve Pidgeon (WA) and Leo Donofrio (NJ) and... Chester A. Arthur.

Interview of Cort Wrotnowski...

• Donofrio's research on President Chester A. Arthur's covered-up U.K. citizenship brings new implications that will be included in the filing before the SCOTUS.
• If a SCOTUS hearing is held, Wrotnowski plans for Donofrio to present his case.
  
• Press is avoiding Wrotnowski, while it plays up the denial of Donofrio's hearing.
• Adam Liptak of the New York Times is inqiring, also Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune (obdurate leftist propagandist I've had experience with - AW).
• Joe Thunder reporting on the liveliness of the National Press Club press conference today, by others bringing suit (on the birth certificate). Thunder videotaped it. Pastor Manning was there (oh, oh) in addition to Orly Taitz. Thunder will post on his site, tomorrow afternoon, freedommarch.org. [I.O. Ed., audiotape, here]
  
• At one point, one of our objective-as-Goebbels journalists told Ms. Taitz, "...just go home...."
  

During the break, I see on I.O's sidebar that Leo Donofrio has updated his blog about the Wrotnowski progress at the SCOTUS.

• Adulterated allegiances are very dangerous for a nation's Commander in Chief to have.
• After December 15, charge of the process of determining the presidency is passed from the Electoral College (provided they vote, that day) to Congress and the chances of effectiveness of law suits are diminished.
• Ed Hale pass along from Leo Donofrio that he believes Wrotnowski's case is very strong, with advantages over Donofrio vs. Wells. "Layman" Ed says he thinks this is indicative of positive results.
• A caller wonders if and when Obama's side will be called in and will weigh in.
• Cort has to beg off -- claims he's busy. ;-`
• The Political Pastor program is signing off; TPP announces his chat room at Plains Radio.
  
• Ed Hale will have Steve Pidgeon on, who is bringing suit before the Washington Supreme Court.

Break -- if they need to keep beating the SCOTUS over the head with 2x4's so be it, until they gain constitutional sense.

Now, Karen and Ed Hale's Lions' Den program - it's a long, rich, historical evening at Plains Radio, interviewing Steve Pidgeon...

• Pidgeon's case has standing.
• Discussion of the 1790 statute, setting forth a "natural born citizen" (BTW, this phrase was specifically stricken from the stature in 1795.) requiring both parents to be citizens and the father, a resident of the USA. This disqualifies Obama.
  
• The 14th Amendment calls anyone born in the USA a "citizen." (However, see the declaration of the framer of the 14th amendment, about being a "natural born citizen!"). And this requires Obama's mother to have been 19 (longer story made short) when Barack-II was born. She was 18.
• Suit says Obama, a. not a natural born citizen, b. not a citizen, and c. arrrghhh!! the program winked out on me and it isn't coming back up!

If/when I can regain the broadcast, I'll be back to it. Coffee... want... coffee.... // OK, it's back for me.

• I'm guessing that point "c." above is that his Indonesian citizenship revokes his American citizenship (or perhaps he point "c." has to do with the birth certificate).
• Pidgeon's suit may bring the first case with standing having to do with the birth certificate before the SCOTUS.
• Caller from New Zealand brings up the writing of John A. Bingham (framer of the 14th Amendment) regarding allegiance, to be a natural born citizen.
• Obama became a Kenyan citizen officially in 1963, then an Indonesian citizen. He was apparently adopted, from the Lolo Soetoro / Ann divorce records, by an Indonesian citizen. If he is an American citizen after these facts, this means Obama is a naturalized citizen, and utterly not a natural born citizen by anyone's construct.

The one and only Leo Donofrio, Esq. is now on the program...

• Talking about how lame and inexperienced the states are, at even considering how to verify the citizenship qualifications of candidates. (How can one certify without verifying?)
• About the history of Chester A. Arthur's huge cover-up campaign to hide his U.K. citizenship. He appointed Justice Gray, who is the very one who wrote the opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case which liberalized American citizenship requirements! (That sounds eerily familiar, if you have read what friends of BHO are opining about citizenship.)

Break. I'm getting angrier, now. Blood pressure rising. "History repeats itself." -- history of corruption of the sacred trust we place in elected officials. God, if you are judging America, please spare the most innocent and punish most, those who most deserve it.

• Donofrio's point seems to be that allowing a fictitious president allows a great deal of dishonesty -- it allows a corrupt U.S. President. Justice Gray may have been writing "that opinion to sanitize Arthur's citizenship." Quid pro quo dealing is implied.
  
• All of Arthur's decisions and actions are tainted for history.
• Per Arthur's example, "You can't have a precedent if it is a fraud."
• Donofrio being Donofrio -- warns Pidgeon to investigate how Roger Calero was not allowed ballot access, for the sake of precedent. (Whatever one says about his NJ style, Donofrio is an excellent tactician and strategist.) Says that someone from the SoS had Calero removed and who did that should provide sworn testimony, to build the case. (Selective investigation and disqualification.) There could be a cover-up in WA.
  
• Donofrio believes Wrotnowski's application is much better drafted.
• Donofrio explains how the judge in NJ misapplied his suit: action in lieu of a prerogative writ became forced by the court into a writ of lesser application. Then, they refused his motion by a hoodwink excuse, based upon the procedural error the court itself created. (I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV, so pardon my terminology.)
  
• (BTW, I'm wondering, since Wrotnowski is not a lawyer and Donforio says he was/is pleased at how much better his case is drafted -- it would seem, before Donofrio got to it -- did they get help from another attorney, in cognito? I did take Latin and I played a lawyer in a couple 5th grade vignettes.)
• The goofball idea that the SCOTUS should turn down the challenges, to avoid unrest and "overturning the will of the people." (David Horowitz is haranguing at conservatives challengers on this, for one.) Donofrio: "I'm sorry, it's not a real election if it's two fraudulent candidates."
• Pidgeon tells Donofrio that if the SCOTUS weren't interested in the case, it would have been rejected without going to conference. (My point: depends on the Justice.)
• Donofrio: even though he blogged about the idea that the SCOTUS might have preferred the strength of the Wrotnowski case, he was (stunned) when blog commentators told him Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz was referred to conference, a few minutes later!
• A stay of the Electors before Dec. 15 would be in order, because otherwise there would be a conflict of laws.
• Allowing not a strictly "natural born Citizen," could allow an orchestrated agent provocateur to become U.S. President. (What about someone of the kind who, during his campaign, would hold a rally in Germany, before hundreds of thousands, claiming himself a "Citizen of the World?")
  
• Caller commends those bringing these cases, affirming that the United States Constitution is worth sacrifice.
  
• Ed Hale asks someone for a pack of cigarettes and to his credit says "please."
• Discussion shifts (degrades? I hope not) into some contention of the likely success of the quest for the original certificate of live birth (COLB) but rises back to the point that this is the responsibility of the states' Secretaries of State, to which Pidgeon and Donofrio agree.
• Ed Hale requests that Donofrio and Pidgeon come back Friday night.
• Leo has to work all night on the new Chester A. Arthur brief and Cort Wrotnowski will drop it off in SCOTUSville tomorrow.

End of broadcast.
Prayers are in order.

• End note, 12/9, 2:10am: Despite the media gates, some do pay attention, but just who? Well, among others, I.O. just got a view from Hanoi -- via a Google search: "Wrotnowski obama."
  

Hey, here's an idea -- pick some of the media gatekeepers you most wish to bother and...
SEND it to the psy-ops jocks!! -- email envelope, below
(And they've called President Bush "incurious." -- Try, ostrich-headed.)

PS: my apologies, but not inclined to do much proof reading of the above.

A Guide to the Legal Challenges of Barack Obama’s Candidacy - Continually Updated - See Below & Sidebar

Update, 1/9/2009: This post is now slipping down the I.O. blog files.

Please contact your senators and representative in Congress (and others you believe may care about the Consititution) by phone call, fax, and/or telegraph. Let them know they have an overriding duty to perform, of being faithful to and defending the Constitution. And the Constitution requires that both parents of a president must be American citizens at that person's birth. They have no place to hide. Congress is due to vote on certifying the Electoral College vote, this coming Thursday, 1/8. And Justices on the Supreme Court are waiting for their application/petition against a malfeasant Obama certification.

Meanwhile, only half the states have submitted their votes? Demand that a count of submitted votes be done (so they know what they must refuse by constitutional law).

Senators' and representatives' addressses, telephone and fax numbers, and email addresses
Additional contact information, including staff of Senate & House leaders' staff
Protocol for a letter to United States senator

Congressional Oath of Office

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Question:

Please make a list of what the SCOTUS Justice, Scalia, would need to show to his colleagues in order to get three more to agree to cert or to remand back to lower court with stipulation that Berg now has standing. Telegrams [I.O.: and faxes and calls -- also, call senators and representatives before or even through Thursday, 1/8] to the judges can still get to them before the 1/9/09 conference meeting. What are the 'bullet points' to raise?

I.O's Answer:

1. Barack Obama is manifestly not a natural born Citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, due to his citizenship in the United Kingdom at birth, by hereditary right from his father, as conferred by British law and recognized by American law (and international law). The purpose of this clause is clearly to preclude from the Presidency as Commander in Chief, any person with, from birth, any competing national allegiance -- an intention of national security as outlined to George Washington by letter of John Jay. (And an allegiance to the U.K. was their chief concern, as it was clearly the nation which posed America's greatest threat.)

Further, the meaning of natural born Citizen at the time of the framing is clear, from Vatel and Tucker, whose writings were held at the highest educational authority by the framers and were uncontradicted at the framing of the Constitution; also subsequently, by Bingham and the case, Perkins v. ELG. The criteria: both, a. born in U.S. territory and, b. each parent being U.S. citizens, hence no other national jurisdiction.

Further, if Barack Obama's father was not married to his mother at the time of his birth, his mother was not old enough to bestow natural born Citizenship upon her son.

2. Barack Obama became an Indonesian citizen as a child, while the United States had no arrangement for dual-citizenship with Indonesia. Thereby, if he was before that time a United States Citizen, that Citizenship was revoked.

3. Barack Obama has shown no valid, legal proof of United States Citizenship, nor United States birth, to any agency of government whatsoever that is or must be charged with the supervision of any process of the election of a president, or the certification of its candidates.

See this article regarding issue number 1. // ht: MHGinTN

Update 12/30, PM - Obama's online "Birth Certificate" is not evidentiary, according to a professional document examiner. See the report, along with an riff about how "evidence" may or may not be evidence -- plus one idea of why Barack Obama might not want his actual Hawaiian Birth Certificate revealed, even if it does show he was born in America.

Update 12/24, AM - See today's posting, "Oklahoma St. Rep. Mike Ritze Requesting Congress to Challenge Obama's Eligibility" for some of the latest news in the efforts to get U.S. senators and representatives to challenge the Congressional certification of Obama's election, January 8 -- and to prepare to take it to court.

Get a snapshot of each natural born Citizen case on the "Eligibility Lawsuits" page at The Right Side of Life -- like checking the "Standings, Scores, and Schedule" page of the sports section, if you will. The Right Side and others are countering the media black-out and spin by chronicling developments in these cases. See their section on the I.O. Sidebar.

You may also wish to check out: "Save our Rights" -- a wiki, documenting all the attempts to avoid America's fictitious presidency.

Please, let us demand that a few honest patriots in Congress, on behalf of our constitutional cohesiveness as a nation, move to avert the national disaster of an unchecked and illegitimate, "Citizen of the World," presidency.

This can be an update-intensive entry. You can use ChangeDetection.com to be emailed with updates, or use the newsfeed of your choice.

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

Does America have one honest, courageous senator?
If God gives us one senator to take this to the Supreme Court, representatives will also be found.

This remains a critical time at the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and courts below. One lower court ruled in September that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear challenges to presidential candidates' eligibility until after Congress certifies Monday's Electoral College vote (mandated for January 8). This is now being tested by petitions to the SCOTUS seeking injunctions against that very certification.

Is the SCOTUS holding review of any of its earlier natural born Citizen cases as "pending," though the Donofrio and Wrotnowski petitions for injunction against the popular and Electoral College votes have been denied? Are they keeping them on file as it were, for potential reference or formal review, when further challenges to Obama's candidacy (in addition to the Berg case) occur, immediately after January 8?

On January 8, if at least one U.S. senator and at least one representative object to the certification of the Electoral College vote, they must confer and caucus. Then, if the Congress still certifies the vote for Obama, these objecting congressmen would theoretically have the greatest standing before the Supreme Court. Are there such members of Congress who will take this before the Court?

If not, who will the SCOTUS deem worthy of being granted a writ of certiorari -- to have their case given a formal review and decision? Upon what grounds? Who will come forward and whose case(s) will be allowed into the chamber?

These are questions I.O. is attempting to answer where possible, or at least provide a reasonable "weather report."

Some of these cases are based in large part, upon Barack Obama's foreign citizenship at birth, by inheritance from his father; others, chiefly about his withholding of his actual and presumed original, Hawaiian Birth Certificate.

Since Barack Obama's father (BHO I) was apparently an U.K. citizen when BHO II was born, by the original intent and understanding of the Constitution, he was never a natural born Citizen as that term was meant and therefore unable to serve as United States President. That, by the careful interpretation of the Constitution's framers, based upon authoritative sources, corroborated by pertinent contemporaneous commentary, and unhindered by case law. See I.O's "Daddy Says No! - Articles Assessing the Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" Clause, Barack Hussien Obama I, and BHO II" among the articles below.

Then, there is the original, authoritative birth certificate. Why has Obama spent nearly $1M to keep it unseen? If it disqualifies him, Obama may be guilty of criminal fraud -- major criminal fraud.

Numerous of the civil cases also point out that due to his apparent Indonesian citizenship as a child, Obama has since become a naturalized citizen, or else he is an illegal alien.

Whatever Obama's particulars are (and America does deserve to see his actual birth certificate) there is no apparent "out" here -- no sound explanation in sight but that Barack Obama is constitutionally disqualified from being sworn in, on January 20. That being the case, his candidacy has been legally fictitious from the Iowa Caucuses, onward and each presidential ballot including his name was an injury and insult to the Sovereign American Voter.

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

.EQUAL . JUSTICE . UNDER . LAW...

From December 4 onward, Investigating Obama will publish a guide to on-line information about the legal challenges of the status of Barack Obama as a candidate for United States president. Links will be provided to pertinent information. Analysis will be included, for the sake of cutting through clutter and to provide rationale.

Purpose: to clarify what has been underreported and obfuscated in the media, and to allow U.S Citizens to spread the news on their own, taking comfort in documented verifiability where that is found.

Why should the Supreme Court decide upon these matters before the voting taken by the Electoral College, scheduled for December 15, the subsequent congressional recognition, and the Oath of Office on January 20?

1. Because our nation's integrity and social order are based upon the firm and definite meaning of the Constitution, or we become a nation of increasing tyrannies, where breakdown and elitist domination, or outright authoritarianism historically ensue.

2. Because we risk having a fictitious, usurping presidency, which would mean, sooner or later, any of our false president's decisions, including executive orders and signed legislation, would be subject to court challenge, or international challenge, to be considered null and void. This could well bring both national and international chaos.

3. Because the People of the United States of America are simply owed a legitimate president and to be presented with constitutional candidates only.

See below, see the I.O. sidebar:

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

I.O. will also continue to refer to top links covering the Fitzgerald investigations, branching out from the prosecution of Obama's financier middle-man and slumlord, the Arab oil-moneyed Tony Rezko (his sentencing delayed again as he sings) and now extending to the charges against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and beyond.

For instance, have you heard from the "mainstream" media that Fitzgerald "interviewed" (interrogated?) Obama, on December 18?