_YokoOnoJohn Lennon_1969_frank Barratt

Yoko Ono & John Lennon, 1969, photo by Frank Barratt

WAR IS OVER! If you want it

by Rod Ciferri

That’s right; the war is over due to the courageous act of one Major Stefan Frederick Cook, United States Army Reserve, who recently challenged an Army order to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that they could not lawfully order him to deploy.

Since the Army has only that authority given to it by the President, and, since Obama himself must possess the authority of President in order to delegate it to the Army, Major Cook believes Obama must prove he has such authority before he may lawfully comply with an Army order to deploy.

Now, you may have heard of the controversy surrounding de facto President Obama’s eligibility to run for President.  It has been the basis for over a dozen lawsuits, all of which have been dismissed, mostly because the courts have found the suits to concern “political questions”, the usual cop-out they use when they have a case that poses a constitutional controversy they’d rather not deal with.  Perhaps you have just dismissed the claims that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” outright since the various lawsuits have not made it to first base.

Due to the actions of Cook, however, it’s becoming obvious that Obama is hiding something.

What he is hiding may contain the key that unlocks the door to peace for as long “President” Obama remains in “office”.  After Cook commenced his lawsuit, the U.S. Army revoked their order to deploy him.  Moreover, as of this date, Cook has not been discharged from the Army.

Why has the U.S. Army revoked his order to deploy? Why have they not just commenced court martial proceedings to send him to Leavenworth, as is their habit when a soldier refuses deployment?  The answer is the lawsuit.

The lawsuit would open up a can of worms in civilian court that would require looking into Obama’s eligibility for the office of U.S. President in order to resolve it.

Major Cook filed the suit with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. In the suit, he sought an injunction to stay the deployment order and declatory judgment stating he has conscientious objector status based on his belief that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and is therefore ineligible to serve as president, such declatory judgment to be effective until such time that Obama’s eligibility is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

After the revocation of the order to deploy, Judge Clay Land sided with the defense, finding Cook’s suit “moot” in that he already has been told he doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan, eliminating his need for relief from the court.  “Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies,” Judge Land said according to the Miami Herald. “The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Therefore, the U.S. government has signaled it would rather not take up the issue since their boss would have to finally come clean and present clear and convincing evidence of his status of “natural born citizen”. However, the actions of the U.S. government make it seem that he likely wasn’t, and they are willing to give an “out” to any soldier who follows the footsteps of Major Cook in order to not have to deal with such a troublesome fact.

Cook’s attorney, Orly Taitz, argues Obama not only must have been born in this country to be a natural born citizen, in addition, his father must also have been a citizen at the time of Obama’s birth, not owing allegiance to any foreign state. However, it appears that his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was, at the time of Obama’s birth, a Subject of the British Commonwealth via the then British colony, Kenya, having been born there. Therefore, Obama is ineligible for the office of President.

The key to the legal analysis is that the legal term of art, “natural born citizen”, could only have been defined by the Law of Nations, relied upon by the creators of the constitution in their intended meaning when they used the term in the eligibility requirements of article II, section 1 of the constitution, and which defined it as stated above.  It could only have such definition since, at the time of the creators of the constitution, the term “natural born citizen” was only defined in the “Law of Nations”, by the French jurist, Vattel, in 1758, at chapter XIX, sec. 212.

Since there exists no amendment to the constitution that has altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen”, or the requirement that a candidate for the office of President be one, Barack Obama was never eligible to hold such office.

According to Taitz, if a legitimate long form certificate of live birth was released by Obama it would lay to rest doubt about whether he was born in the United States, but, it may still kill his eligibility for the office of President, since it would also show that his father was not a citizen.

In the meantime, Obama’s status as a natural born citizen remains unclear. However, all the soldiers out there who thought they were in a “catch 22” and didn’t think there was a way to not fight an immoral and illegal war, here’s your chance to opt out legally, and maybe actually still get paid.  Hey, its got to be better scrubbing toilets all day then killing people to support Obama’s corporate bosses.

So, for any soldier who has the guts to do it, following Major Cook’s example may end the war for them.  War will never end until the soldiers refuse to fire their weapons.  Up until now, that has meant possible imprisonment and loss of a paycheck.

Major Cook’s heroic effort has changed that and simultaneously opened up the possibility of world peace, that’s likely to be regarded in history as even more instrumental to ending the Iraq/Afghanistan war than the tet offensive was to ending the Vietnam war.

For those who want to learn more about the Obama eligibility controversy, a good place to start is World Net Daily and the website of Major Cook’s lawyer, Orly Taitz.

Rod Ciferri is an American who has no politics.

Further Reading:

John McCain’s Natural Born Problem by Rod Ciferri, 8/2/09

The Holy Trinity of Ineligibility? by Rod Ciferri, 8/10/09

About rciferri

My favorite lawyers are Gonzalez & Leigh, L.L.P. - http://www.gonzalezleigh.com I am a member in good standing of the New York Bar, and am currently a candidate for admission in the California Bar. I currently facilitate the law firm of Gonzalez & Leigh in their relentless drive to secure justice for their clients.
This entry was posted in Rod Ciferri and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to WAR IS OVER!

  1. steve peter says:

    so glad to have access to mr ciferri’s insights once again

    • A. Rowland says:

      Are you purposely avoiding the things that discredit your pablum? Two birth announcements, in two different newspapers from that date back in the 60’s, on microfiche, announcing the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii, and still you blithering idiots continue with this garbage. Get a life.

      • J. Dub says:

        I don’t understand the fascination with the birth announcement in the newspaper thing, as if that’s some sort of magical incantation that makes the whole question go away.

        As a natural-born American citizen who has been living outside the US for close to two years, I can easily verify the fact that anybody, anywhere in the world can call up any newspaper anywhere in the US, and make an announcement of anything they wish – engagement, marriage, birth, death…

        I haven’t set foot on US soil since 2007, and yet somehow, my engagement, marriage, and the birth of my first son were all announced in my local newspaper.

        Ain’t that just the damndest thing?

      • Elizabeth says:

        I have never seen a copy of the birth notices, however they could have appeared for a week in every newspaper in the USA and not made a scrap of difference.
        Haven’t you realised they are a total red herring and irrelevant.
        If Barry Soetoro is the son of Obama senior he was a dual citizen at birth and not ‘natural born’. In fact he has held Indonesian citizenship as well just to complicate things.
        Soetoro is an impostor under the US constitution.
        Get used to it. Everything he has done in ‘office’ is illegal. It will almost collapse your country.
        He, and all those who knowingly imposed him on the American people, should be tried for treason. It is that serious.

      • rciferri says:

        Since you are posting here, you obviously have a life, so I won’t bother using the ad hominem personal attack “get a life” with you.

        If you check my blog article I did not allege he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

        Since being born in this country is only one of the two requirements for being a natural born citizen, his eligibility for president hangs on whether or not his father was a citizen of the us.

      • Jeanette says:

        Those two announcments were aquired in the same way as they are today by those two papers. That is the papers receive lists of births from Hawaii’s Dept. of Health. The very same Dept. of Health that requires NO PROOF that anyone was actually born in Hawaii other than some relative’s say so. The papers then print these UNSUBSTATIATED births in the paper. Full stop. There’s no proof barky was squirted out on US soil, and his handlers are spending huge amounts of cash rather that SIMPLY producing the long form cert. Why? I’ll tell you why. Thers is no long form cert. because it doesn’t exist, and no amount of name-calling or even holding your breath will change that a rowland.

  2. hah says:

    This is easily one of the craziest things I have read on the Internet. The Republican Governor of Hawaii has been very clear that Obama’s birth certificate is sitting there in the files. There are copies, there are photos. The proof is clear.

    This whole conspiracy theory requires such a lack of intelligence, I just refuse to believe that there are that many stupid people in the world who will buy it. The internet helps make you look like more people than you really are, but even the most uneducated or gullible person is going to see the holes in your conspiracy theory.

    It’s ok to be wrong about something…and you most definitely are wrong about this.

    • “There are copies, there are photo’s. the proof is clear”
      WELL,SHOW US!Only the original birth certificate is a proof.
      I know as a soldier you have to follow orders and obey. but don’t you want to know why you are in Afghanistan or in Iraq. Do you really don’t want to know what you are risking your live for? How more stupid can it be

      • BILL AMERICA says:

        There must be hoards of trolls who do nothing else all day but try to keep this from going viral.

        They have the same script they read from pretending the short birth form given out as an administrative courtesy by Hawaii to anyone who asked for it is the equivilant to a REAL Birth Certificate. And they pretend it’s legit to release docs over the internet! As if they didn’t know that any Nigerian scammer worth his goat milk can put together a “birthcert.jpg” to any country in less than 2 minutes flat.

        The people fooled are the hoards of people who only get their news from major sources and are completely in the dark because of the effort to silence this issue. But it won’t go away and more and more people are figuring it out.

        Face it, Barry won’t release it because he was born in Kenya. He is NOT really the president.

      • Apparently Peter was never a military man. You said it right “follow and obey”. And yes we know why we are there, because of the greed of the Bush-cheney NeoCon team to build their oil pipeline from the Caspian to the Arabian Sea. So how easily stupid that is. And you still believe those two who didnt join us in Vietnam, are Americans?

    • woody says:

      The question is, why won’t he release the birth certificate or other reords relating to his life? Is he hiding something so important thathe has to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars hiding it?

      The state of Hawaii states that they have his birth certificate, ok since when does anyone take a government official at his word?

      There are more questions than answers and as a citizen of his great country I and everyone else has a RIGHT to those answers!

    • Elizabeth says:

      Just how wrong can you get.
      Get up to date on the latest story.
      The birth certificate was destroyed eight years ago apparently, when the system was computerised or something.
      How did anyone see a birth certificate quite recently that had been, supposedly, destroyed eight years previously?
      Someone is being very economical with the truth and you are a sucker falling for it.
      When will the penny finally drop on this sort of American who is in complete denial or who is prepared to sacrifice the law and their own constitution rather than accept that they have an inposter in the highest office.
      Lies lies and yet more lies.

  3. rciferri says:

    The premise: No proof Obama is a “natural born citizen”
    The analysis: Can only be done pursuant to constitutional law.

    Calling the above analysis “crazy” and “conspiracy theory” is conclusory, logical fallacy and does nothing to support or deny the premise. Logical fallacy is what those who have no facts to support their argument use to not admit it. Ad hominem abusive attacks and regurgitating hypnotic triggers used by the media to discredit do not cut it as constitutional argument (you forgot to use the time tested “tin foil hat” hypnotic trigger).
    To recap: The constitutional argument is one must have been born in the country TO A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN to be a natural born citizen, and, thus eligible for president. If you have proof Obama’s father was a citizen, please be the first to divulge such information to the world for the first time.

      • Elizabeth says:

        This canard that somehow the fact the Republicans never challenged Soetoro’s credentials so he is kosher, is a joke.
        Do you think the last election was actually anything other than a ‘coronation’.
        The Republicans were not going to win. They were not going to win because the ‘real’ government decreed it so.
        How do you think they came up with a senile old loser like John McCain?
        They had some good candidates and they ended with – McCain!.
        The theory he would appeal to the ‘independents’ was covered when Sarah Palin was made VP candidate – no ‘independent was going to go down that route.
        And you think this wasn’t planned. Check out Devvy Kidd’s website. McCain/Palin were cosying up months before the ‘surprise’ announcement.
        Soetoro was the ‘chosen’ one. The political elite and the ‘whore’ media they control were never going to upset his boat.
        Thanks to people like Orly Tainz and Philip Berg this total treason is being uncovered and exposed despite the appalling sight of the US Supreme Court acting as political hacks and cowards.

      • obamaisfake says:

        You hit the nail on the head. Everything happens for a reason, and so goes the elections.

        There is no randomness of events in these days of deceit, corruption, greed and lust for power. Obama is a lackey who graciously excepts his role in the greatest and final fleecing of America.

        Obama will not complete his term. He will be revealed for what he is…a fake…a nobody. And when that day comes, many of the politicians and other leaders will place the blame for the state of affairs onto Obama. When actuality, CONgress is truly the one that holds more power than any other arm of government.

        The treasury (taxpayer receipts) are and have been wiped out. Trillions have been lent by the federal reserve (created from thin air). Remember, we must pay the federal reserve for interest on this money they created FROM NOTHING. The strong-arm mafia hitmen, or the IRS, will insure you pay the bill. Or you and others will be placed in detention camps and forced to work like slaves.

        All I ask the doubters to do is look at Obama’s decisions since being in office. Look at his economic advisory committee…all crooks. Look who was appointed to the Treasury….Geithner. Look at his position on health care. Look at how billions are given to pay off foreign countries, including Israel.

        You doubters do not want to know the truth. You want things to continue as they have. They will not. And they care not if you support Obama or not, you will feel the wrath of the criminals behind Obama.

        Wake up and smell the coffee. I do not want to fight my fellow man. I only ask that we unite to make more transparent the republics government, and to insure life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all.

    • BlackShaman says:

      This is a superbly written article.


      Straightforward; factually-based.

      —And undefeatable; a service to Citizens of the usA & the Planet.

      “hah” chose to launch a classic ad hom attack without engaging the data as you present them, point for point, indicates an agent provocateur , a Troll, lamely attempting to discredit you and disuade people from thinking on their own; looking into the matter more deeply … I’ll wager that “hah” never even READ your complete analysis.

      CLEARLY: “hah” had no clue who they are dealing with here.

      EYE do. ;>


      Thank you.

    • Dave J says:

      YOur actually wrong about the criteria of being natural born. you should really look it up. Nowhere does it say anything about the father exclusively. In fact, only one parent need be a us citizen. I don’t even think American soil proper is a requirement.

      also, why would someone plant the birth announcements in newspapers from 40+ years ago. Do you think they knew he would be president 40 +years ago and if they did, don’t you think your democracy has been gone for some time now?

      You birthers need to give your head a shake and look at the REAL reasons you have a problem with Obama being your president.

      Think about it and say it out loud, you don’t like Obama because:

      I mean come on, McCain wasn’t born in America.

      Most of your founding fathers weren’t born on American soil. I think your first 6 or so presidents were all born in England to english citizens.

      So, what’s your real issue here. Come on, have some real guts. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

      • rciferri says:

        Dave J, I did look it up, that’s why I wrote an article about it. It’s also the issue many try to not address. Since you are one of the few who actually are addressing it, I’ll make it easy for YOU to look it up:


        Scroll down to chapter XIX, section 212, and you will find this statement:

        “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

        If you are looking at any law to support your argument that was made after the constitution (i.e., naturalization laws) you are looking in the wrong place. Unless it’s a constitutional amendment, and there are no amendments which change the “natural born citizen” requirement for eligibility for president.

        As for the founding fathers, they gave themselves a “grandfather clause” immediately after the “natural born citizen” requirement in Article 2, Section 1:

        “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.”

        Why do you think they did that?

        Precisely because the knew they would not qualify, i.e., the were not natural born citizens, underscoring the validity of the legal argument.

  4. rciferri says:

    Thank you for the article, Matt.

    The article illustrates the pervasive confusion about whether eligibility for president requires citizenship or natural born citizenship.

    While the author of the article at least doesn’t ignore the issue of natural born citizenship, the article dismisses the issue based on an expert who comments not on what natural born citizenship meant at the time of the constitution, but rather, on what effect the 14th amendment had on citizenship, a totally different issue.

    The 14th amendment allowed slaves to be citizens, but those born of non citizens before the 14th amendment could not be natural born citizens.

    Those made citizens by the 14th amendment could then have children who, if born in the country, would be natural born citizens and eligible for president of the united states, regardless of their race.

    The 14th amendment did nothing to change the original requirement that a president be a natural born citizen.

    To recap: It is not sufficient that eligibility for president be based on us citizenship. It IS sufficient that eligibility for president be based on natural born citizenship. Consequently, one can be a us citizen who was born in the country and NOT be eligible for president, if one’s father was not a us citizen.

    It’s really much more simple than what advocates on both sides have made into a complicated issue.

    Natural born citizen = one born in the country whose father was a us citizen.

    Citizenship = more complicated, but irrelevant to issue of eligibility for president.

    • gregr says:

      Obama’s mother was American and her parents were American. I don’t know about his father, but doesn’t having an American mother make him American? He’s not half American either. American is not a race.

      Also, I don’t get this condition that people keep mentioning about having to be born in the country to be natural born. If a person has American parents, he could have been born on the Moon and still be American. It doesn’t matter where you get squeezed out on this planet. It’s who your parents are.

      That’s why Arnold can’t become President. Although he now has American citizenship, he has Austrian parents and he was born in Austria.

      In addition, it’s really a stupid idea that when illegal aliens who are pregnant come over the border to the U.S. and then deliver the child here, that child automatically becomes American. Huh? No it doesn’t. It’s parents were Mexican, the baby is Mexican, not American, even though it was born on this side of the border. Whoever came up with that idea should be fired.

      But if Obama’s mom is American, he’s American. So enough already. Sorry your candidate didn’t win/steal the 2008 election, and our candidate happens to be a black American.

      • rciferri says:

        gregr, you are confusing citizenship with natural born citizenship. If his father was not a citizen of the us, he’s not eligible.

        natural born citizen = born in the country + father was a us citizen

  5. JackieG says:

    In response to “Hah”, I wish it (Hah) to take note that the so called “copies” available have “no standing” in a court of law.
    Copies in legalese simply mean “forgeries” and are well suspect to such in this case.
    Only the “original blue ink signed instrument” is given full standing and any credence whatsoever in a legal arena.
    I’m glad I could offer some help in straightening that one out.

  6. watson says:

    If Obama cannot prove he is an American citizen by birth… he is not the President… there fore, he should be legally removed from office… but wait, that means Biden would be President…. nevermind!

    • Elizabeth says:

      No it does not make Biden President, although I imagine a certain lobby in the USA is looking at this tempting idea as we write.
      Biden is the biggest Zionist in the Washington establishment.
      If the candidacy of Soetoro was illegal so was his choice of VP and so was his entire act of candidacy.
      I guess it could be argued that the Democratic ticket was illegal and should therefore be disqualified leaving the runner up as President elect.
      Welcome President McCain. What an appalling prospect. God help the planet.
      Will he nuke Iran and start WW3.
      A certain lobby have all bases covered.

  7. Joe7000 says:


    It will be found that Obama is not only not a natural born citizen, he is not a citizen of the US at all.

    When he is finally arrested and dragged out of the Oval Office (an imposter can’t be impeached; only legitimate presidents can be impeached) there will be rioting in the streets of many major cities across the US and we may see the advent of martial law.

    These are not happy times…

  8. Al says:

    rciferri, I learned a long time ago not to bother to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. This “ha said” moron is not only unarmed, his single digit IQ comes out loud and clear. Just ignore the poor wretched imbecile.

    Clearly we have no President and as such no commander in chief, end of argument. I kind of wish I would have invested in Kool Aid stock! As a Vietnam Vet I’m appalled at what’s happened to my country.

    • rciferri says:

      Al, thank you for reading the blog. You, and other vets, made a great sacrifice with noble intentions for the rest of us. Thank you. It hurts my heart to think of all those like you who made such a sacrifice. Please, no matter what, remember the noble intentions you had when you signed up for the military. None of what has been revealed, and continues to be revealed, can ever change that, and I am forever grateful for your service.

      Also, personally attacking one who posts personal attacks here is no more constructive than they were.

      The ones who use speech to attack are many. The ones who use speech to debate facts are few.

      Regardless, since there are those like you who are willing to fight for those who wish to speak, it can only benefit all of us. Thank you.

  9. Charles says:

    That Obama does not reveal his long-form birth certificate certainly is cause for suspicion but I doubt that if he is removed, peace will follow, since the president who follows him who is a natural born citizen can and most probably will continue with the war and this time, soldiers cannot refuse as easily without prosecution.

    The bigger question is the powers behind the scenes who put presidents there as frontmen.

  10. Shlomo says:

    Mr. Soetero will also hsve to be charged with mass murder, for all the Afghans, Iraqis, and others who have been killed by U.S. soldiers under his absolutely illegitimate “command”. Then he must be charged with the greatest theft in history in giving away trillions of dollars to the bankers and Wall Street hustlers, several of whom he has taken on as titled members of his Administration.

  11. arg says:

    Conspiracy? Geez guys. If Obama doesn’t want to release his records he doesn’t have to. You’re lucky he’s even bothered to give us what we have. Where do you think you live? A free country? That ended in 2000.

  12. Josh says:

    But you son of a bitches consider George W. Bush a “commander in chief?”

    Get the hell out of here with such blatant ignorance. “Obamas not a natural born citizen!” the morons cry. You absurd shitheads should listen to yourselves, how utterly inconsequential you sound. Try reading the shit that spews from your fat fingers before you click post.

    • yourduped says:

      this statement reeks of desperation. josh, if you wish to engage in a debate, please refrain from the ad hominem attacks.
      please, present arguments based on reason with evidence and do not devolve into name calling.
      if one was to actually look at the argument, the argument is not stating that obama is not a natural born citizen. the argument states that the proof released does not meet the standards of acceptable evidence in a court of law to prove obama’s eligibility.
      the major did not state that obama was not a natural born citizen, but yet the major sought an injunction against his deployment until obama released the necessary documentation to prove his eligibility.
      somehow, suddenly the major was relieved of his obligation.
      i will repeat what i have said:

      1)newspaper announcements do not meet the standards of acceptable evidence in a court of law.
      2)the birth certificate released by obama does not meet the necessary standards to prove his eligibility as a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

      if you read the opinions of the court regarding the suits that have been dismissed, they do not state that obama’s evidence is the reason for the dismissal. the courts state that they do not feel it is necessary for the court to overturn “the will of the people”. constitutional or not.
      these rulings mock the concept of constitutionality.
      i was a supporter of obama. i voted for him and i pressed others to vote for him, but i am confused as to why he refuses to release the necessary documents. EVERY other president in the history of the US of A has done so. why not obama?
      seems like george w. bush all over again if you ask me…

  13. Marty says:

    If we the people have the authority to abolish our civil government when it continually fails to uphold the principles upon which our nation was founded, then we also have standing, regardless of what the court says, to challenge the Constitutional legitimacy of a sitting President or presidential candidate.

    For our Civil Courts to deny our standing is to overthrow that law upon which our nation was founded.

    And that nation whose rulers and courts legislate, rule and judge arbitrarily apart from the Laws and principles upon which it was founded has descended into tyranny.

  14. Bobby says:

    folks, whether you are a democrat or a republican or anything in between doesn’t matter. The Constitution should matter if you’re an AMERICAN. I have nothing against Obama, personally, but this is serious stuff and cannot and should not be taken lightly. We Americans are in the trouble we’re in precisely because the laws in the U.S. are breaking down. Without the law, WE HAVE NOTHING, WE ARE NOTHING–BUT ANOTHER TINPOT THIRD WORLD NATION WITH DICTATORS, CRIME, AND LAWLESSNESS. If Mr. Obama doesn’t qualify under the rules of the Constitution he doesn’t qualify. It’s that simple. If people insist that another qualified minority or black man be substituted in his place, I doubt most people would mind. This stuff is too important to ignore. Isn’t it?


    You people are full of crap!! Where were your shouts of protest against BushII in 2001? He was NEVER a legitimate President to begin with since he was SELECTED by all of the Republican SCOTUS appointees!

    Your campaign against Obama is a FRAUD and all of you are nothing but a bunch of natural born losers!

  16. Wake News says:

    that means every US – soldier who is ordered to any duty abroad like being deployed to Irak or Afghanistan may choose not to be deployed simply by filing a lawsuit? His deployment then will be revoked? That is just amazing! What do they do when nobody wants to go to Afghanistan anymore? Just imagine. The end of that senseless war! Well, then lets go…

  17. Otis says:

    Would be nice if soldiers refused to deploy on more solid grounds — that the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are illegal wars of aggression based on fabrications & that Congress never, as with Vietnam, declared war on those 2 nations.

  18. Dave says:

    Those that refuse to acknowledge Obama’s obvious foreign born status need not worry at all.
    There isn’t a single judge who would even discuss this case much less open it up to investigation without incurring the risk of being lynched by infuriated mobs.
    If Obama was removed from office,every city would burn to the ground and every person other than black would be at risk of sudden violent death from one of our “normally peaceful darker compatriots”(heavy sarcasm).

  19. Wolfgang says:

    show us the birth certificate obama,what are you hiding
    and why are you hiding it from us… awww shucks … just as I thought ..you cant … so your a usurper right… right…oh and a marxist one at that… marxist kenyan usurper in cheif… LMFAO…

  20. Mal Barstrom says:

    I just love the negative replys to this article. It reminds me of Jay Leno’s skit “Jaywalking” on his late night show. He would ask college students questions concerning our U.S. Government and show pictures of those who govern our country. The majority had ridiculous answers for the questions and thought the pictures were of movie stars!
    It just demonstrates that the ones that replied in the negative have no idea about how this country was founded or what the “progressive movement”, over the past one hundred years, is doing to usurp the U.S. Conststution. Their teachers and professors didn’t include that in their curriculum and probably by design!

  21. Jon Carlson says:

    All ‘Obama’ documents and Dunham family photos have been proved to be fakes including the name ‘Obama’ taken from a dead man.

    9/11 And Hawaii Lies
    Made A President

  22. Di says:

    Do not overlook the original 13th amendment that states that lawyers may NOT serve as POTUS/VP or in Congress. This can be verified. Almost every POTUS since Kennedy has been a LAWYER and look where we are!! Kick them all out. Another assumption that needs to be examined is that we follow a constitution. We are a corporation and Obama is the CEO. The rest of us are assets/slaves. The CEO is appointed(by Illuminati) and needs no birth certificate,doesn’t need Congress.

  23. Dan says:

    Since so much of legal BS boils down to semantics, I should correct a common misconception. Centuries ago, when people got tired of killing over water, they would sit down at a “moot”. Sometimes a moot would go on for 25 years. It was an alternative to killing. The word “moot” means endlessly discussible. It DOES NOT mean unimportant.

    A party may have many interpretations, a moot is just one thing and it is very important. Dan

  24. Joe Gall says:

    I doubt that this legal maneuvering by the major will accomplish much.

    However, if it weakens the US imperial command, then it has my approval.

  25. Carol Eaves says:

    What’s right is right! The long term live certification of birth needs to be produced. Let the chips fall where they may. If more military commanders got involved in this dilemma, i.e., demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship, it would help a whole lot. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening. They are a bunch of brainwashed killers. Also, another major issue is the forced vaccination for “wine/avian flu”. Jane Burgemesiters et al have filed an injunction against Obama and WHO, to stop the insanity. We are barely hanging by a thread here. Starting tomorrow, of course, FEMA, is going to be performing “terrorism readiness” exercises for five days, in D.C., Arkansas, Californiia, Texas and other states. Sure looks like they’re getting ready to knock us off!!!

  26. Reality says:

    Time to wake up USA, as A. Rowland has so eloquently shown his sheep status in the flock of US flag waving deep throat patriots, his complete ignorance to the fact that if a REAL birth cert was shown, simple to do, the question would be moot. Instead of getting red in the face and not taking the red pill and waking up, he feels that if he treats others with the same disdain that has been the hallmark of how things are done in the US, that he is indeed right. When the reality of what is really happening in the US is brought to light, I wonder what A. Rowland will say then??? I often wish I didnt know the truth and could contentedly live a blissful ignorant life. Wake up people before you have no rights at all, and find yourselves in the streets running and screaming and wondering how it all happened, we tried to forewarn you sheep.

  27. Jay says:

    When Clinton was President, the liberals said, “We can’t investigate his financial dealings, because the Republicans are just as bad.” When Bush was president, the conservatives said, “We can’t investigate his lies, Clinton was just as bad”. Now that Obama is president, the liberals are saying, “We can’t investigate the constitutionality of his financial handouts, Bush was just as bad!”

    Wake up people, the only thing you are doing is undermining the chances of ever having a serious investigation into the erosion of our constitution and our liberties!

    It does not matter how bad Bush was because I did speak out against Bush. I have every right to speak out against Obama who is not doing anything significantly different from Bush. Is it possible liberals don’t mind murder and warfare as long as it’s one of their own getting credit for the killing? I hope not. I oppose every president who intervenes in the third world without a clearly defined exit strategy.

  28. ChillyDogg says:

    Check out what is going on with Lou Dobbs at CNN. Apparently the staff at CNN has been told by Hawaiian officials that in 2001 they DISCARDED ALL PAPER CERTIFICATES! All files are electronic now and seemingly only contain the information that was in the COLB released online. Now why this has just come out after all these months of people asking for the long form is still a mystery. BTW, I also believe he’s ineligible because of his father so his BC is really not important. The reason McCain didn’t challenge his status was because McCain knew he was also disqualified because he was born in Panama.

  29. David says:

    I am 64 years old and I have never seen such division in our country…I was not a witness but remember relatives talking about the War Between the States and it is my opinion that these two factions have again emerged. Pro-Federal government Eastern type establishment verse State decision making…a Russian Historian last year predicted that the United States will divide in to 4-5 regions or countries… Could this happen Again? ( Long live the free spirit of Texas the Southwest and Midwest )The Founding Fathers would be in shock at ALL CONGRESSMAN Republicans and Especially Democrats…

  30. John F says:

    Can someone clear up the rumors I heard about Obama receiving scholarships and financial aid as a foreign student? It may have been some random lie that was put out to debunk the birth issue but I’d definitely like to know what you guys think. This seems like the right group to ask.

  31. Ardvark says:

    A simple paperclip?
    Could this be done?


    What else has been presented so far?
    No one else except for another paperclip would understand your position with out even addressing you. One look is all and a knowing smile is all it would take. Engaging in conversation at the till is not necessary but it would bring a sense of comfort to start seeing people whom you know are informed to a certain degree in one way or another.

    We need immediate on the ground solutions to some of our fundamental problems regarding lack of knowledge, education, awareness and connectedness.

    Is this something we can do? Yes.
    Can it be infiltrated and subverted? Yes.
    However, if you’re out and about in your ordinary everyday life and you see someone with a paperclip?

    I’m sure one can imagine the significance of seeing it on someone you “do not” know.

    I wonder how startled you may be when all of a sudden you start to notice the paperclip and remember the site you’ve seen today?

    A simple paperclip.

    Ron Paul doesn’t play ball like the rest of the team.

    The people did have viable candidates yet unbelievably they were fogged in to believing there was only a choice between McCain and Obama.

    Was that not the fatal blow?
    Was that the window the people missed?

    If Ron Paul was your President it would be the first time in the history of the continent that there would be a complete Sea Change in the entire world. He would hose out the house of the Money Changers.

    Having said that, we know they would kill him before they would let him abolish the Federal Reserve.

    The ultimate Catch-22?

    Time really is up.

  32. Gary says:

    This will go nowhere, Mccain was African or Carribean. Where’s the outcry for his?
    Once again Bush was never president
    We are on a one way ticket.
    We had a white chimp, black chimp, next comes the desperate housewife Palin
    Reap it suckers

  33. John Normand says:

    I am like so many others. I don’t feel that he is egible.BUT///

    If an illegial Mexican mother arrives in America and has a birth, assuming father is a Mexican, why is the child an American.

    The claim is that oBAMA’s FATHER WAS a citizen of England there fore making Obamaaa ineligible to be an American. Well then, why is a Mexican born on American soil, with a Mexican father eligible?

  34. pete schnapp says:


    So what?? Doesn’t make a tinker’s damn difference if he’s elligible or not! Look around him, look at all the murderous Khazars he has put in sensitive posts in his admin. THEY rule the United States of Israel and you’re all too stupid and cowardly to demmand an answer to THAT while your Renfields in government not only allow them to usurp our sovereignty, they turn a blind eye to the genocide those swine are committing in Palestine.


    “Economic crises have been produced by us for the goyim by no other means than the withdrawal of money from circulation.” – Protocols of Zion

    “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” – Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001

  35. John says:

    I thought the article was very good. I do not think that Mr. Obama or whatever his name is, will produce the evidence to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the united States of America. The long form birth certificate for Mr. Obama if it exists at all, would give information about his parents and their place of birth. If he would provide this document then the requirements under the Constitution for POTUS could be evaluated finally.

    Why do we not ask the Department of Commerce for their copy of the original birth certificate since the originals of all birth certificates are sent to Commerce and stamped then sent back to the states.

    Of course since Mr. Obama is in the role of President he can prevent even this from being made public as he has all other documents relating to him.

    The birth certificate copies that we all obtain are copies of that copy certified by our birth state or territory and punched by the Department of Commerce. Take a look at your own birth certificates if you were born in America and look at the Department of Commerce notations on it.

  36. mpb says:


    Being aware of how screwed up America really is, I refuse to vote for either party anymore. SO I’m pretty much in the middle here but I HAVE A BRAIN and that’s getting in the way on this issue..

    Quick question…..

    Who spends Millions of dollars defending law suits instead of just showing a real copy of your birth certificate?

    REALLY WHO DOES THAT unless he’s hiding something??

  37. Ardvark says:

    pete schnapp,

    Yes, some of my favorite quotes to be sure.
    Collectively we’ve got them covered and the gems always surface at the most appropriate time.

    They leave no dispute. That’s where no one can twist the meaning or intention of what is was they were saying. Their quotes now belong to us.

    Americans are British subjects, therefore Obama is legitimate based on your eligibility criteria for the seat of a presidency. His father is a british subject.

    Could that be “one” of the major, minor, private components that “they” for generation have been hiding from the masses of the north american continent?

    Could it be and what if you woke up one morning and realized you were not an american but a full fledged british subject?

    Talk about heritage shock.

    The judicial system is charged with the mandate of keeping the Crown’s secret and lo and behold the lack of natural disclosure of Obama’s Long Birth Certificate has certainly put a fly in the ointment for them.

    Which lid are they desperately trying keep on?

    The rest of the devil is most certainly in the details.

  38. char says:

    some people–Obots on the POTUS payroll perhaps–keep trying to discourage us from removing the fraud by citing McCain’s Panamanian birth. It doesn’t work Obots. McCain did PUBLICLY address this. The Panama Canal Zone was an American possession at the time, his parents worked for the American government, both were of age, and both were American citizens. They also cited an Act from 1933 that clarified the citizenship of children born in such circumsances–they would be American citizens. This is light years from some British colony in Africa, an underage teenager, and an African born African.
    Any way, McCain addressed when it was brought up. If he’d been declared inegligible his followers would not have rioted or murdered the opposition. That’s the difference between U.S. democracy and 3rd world hell holes. Or used to be.
    I wouldn’t have cared if McCain had been dropped from the ticket for “foreign birth.” The word: it was PUBLICLY addressed because the QUESTIONS WERE PUBLICIZED. Just the fact that the media ignored the concerns of so many people, should arouse suspicion.

  39. Martin Truther says:

    Considering that GW Bush was submitted to a scorched earth background check by the “mainstream” media both before and after he was elected (including Dan Rather’s attempts to use forged documents in the process), why is it that the MSM have always blithely accepted, practically without question, Mr. Obama’s ghost-written accounts of his life story? That is to say, why have they not pressed for release of college records, medical records, passport records, etc. which might actually reveal something about Barack Hussein Obama, if that is his real name?

    If the news is really the first draft of history, why have they shown so little interest in the historical record? The only explanations that come to mind are that these so-called reporters are either very afraid of what will happen to them or that they are employed in a larger conspiracy to hide such facts. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers are just the tip of the iceberg, put out there to distract from the larger, awful, and unpalatable truth about this man.

    BTW, I believe you will find that Obama’s official position on the eligibility matter is that, now that the election/certification process is complete, this whole issue would be a matter for Congress ostensibly to “remedy”, not the courts. But of course, he has nothing to hide, he’s all on the up-and-up. Time will tell.

  40. Obamageddon says:

    The president of Kenya said that there will be a monument in the town, where Obama was born.
    In Kenya that is!

    A birthing certificate of Hawai is no proof.
    Everyone knows the fraudulent system of Hawai.

  41. Pingback: McCAIN’S NATURAL BORN PROBLEM « As It Ought To Be

  42. Heidi says:

    On the surface, I do think that this issue is about more than Obamas’ place of Birth nor do I believe that it can be reduced to some faux physicists search for TOE being redirected toward a false ‘National’ Ontological definition – hence all the blithering about ‘Fascism’ from the nay sayers. Balkanization, States Rights, Solipsistic Religious Definitions wrapped up in the words “Natural Born Citizen…” is a revolution of sorts. But is it ‘The’ revolution it appears to be?

  43. Naomi Onaga says:

    I’m not an Obama fan but to me this line of critique is a dangerous distraction – it will not lead to change and is certainly not serving progressive values. Political victories won on technicalities have little impact because they don’t foster debate on the real issues and consequently don’t fundamentally transform attitudes. Peace will not be won through removing Obama from office through such means, because the wars are happening through a whole machinery that is backed by most Americans.

    In addition, manipulating technicalities that arises from a law resting on flawed ideologies is counterproductive because it inevitably ends up strengthening those ideaologies. If there is an ambiguity in the Constitution on whether or not a presidential candidate must be natural born and/or have had a father who was a U.S. citizen at the time that he was born (and even if there is no ambiguity), we should not be advocating for that type of restriction, or manipulating it for political gain. Tightening eligibility for political participation is not the road to a democratic society and social change. If an individual lives and works in a society, he or she should have the right to participate in political life, and this should not depend on the status of the parent. Aren’t American values purportedly to judge an individual on his or her own merits? The U.S. probably would not have such a long history of wars and atrocities if it hadn’t worked so hard to exclude so many people from political participation.

    Grandfathering clauses requiring ancestral citizenship for eligibility of political participation have a long history of being used for discriminatory and exclusionary purposes – in the 19th century, they were constructed to ingeniously prevent blacks from being able to vote: in order to nullify the effects of the 14th Amendment, which extended citizenship and voting rights to blacks, southern states adopted laws that imposed varied requirements on the eligibility to vote; whites escaped these restrictions based on grandfathering clauses that exempted those that had ancestors who were citizens, while blacks were caught in those restrictions because their ancestors had not been considered citizens – blacks were not considered citizens until the passage of the 14th Amendment.

    Why would we continue to accept such exclusions? What the “ineligibility for President” line brings to the foreground now has more to do with underlying attitudes about immigrants and immigration rather anything else. Those who advocate using it as a strategy should be aware that they are most likely fueling underlying anti-immigrant sentiment without encouraging substantive analysis of Obama’s policies.

    • Wake News says:

      because if you expose him as fraud you will expose all of those criminals who backed him and we will also dig deeper into the shadow government who has control over all President since 1913 (more or less). Then the US can become that marvelous country it is supposed to be w/o eugenics policies, w/o murder and aggression and more…

    • Rod Ciferri says:

      Naomi, thank you for your thoughtful comment.

      First, this article serves the most basic of “progressive values” by demanding adherence to the foundational law of the government so that everyone knows what rules to play by and some are not awarded for breaking those rules while the many who follow them are not. Those rules, from which all other law made by the government can only derive, are established in the constitution. Arbitrary disregard for those rules to keep a de facto president looking like a de jure president, does not serve any progressive value and only reinforces arbitrary rule unbound by law.

      Second, far from being “technicalities”, government only exists at the mercy of those rules. Advocating disregard for those rules is advocating for a “technicality” for political expedience which doesn’t exist.

      Third, there is no ambiguity in Article 1, Section 2 of the constitution. Please see below for my reply to your second comment for why there is no ambiguity.

      Fourth, whether the road is “tight” for presidential eligibility or not, a “democratic society” cannot exist without adherence to the rules of its founding.

      Fifth, only the president must be a natural born citizen. For all other public offices in America, citizenship works just fine and is hardly an exclusion of “many people from political participation” since it is not a restriction on the vote and concerns an office that only one person every four years can hold.

      Sixth, any “grandfather clauses” you refer to, presumably passed by southern state legislatures, I know as the “Jim Crow laws” which were nullified due to the rules being changed by the 14th amendment and the insistence, persistence and patience of those who forced those governments to adhere to those rules of the constitution.

      Seventh, while I appreciate your concern that those rules may be socially unjust, the only way to change them is constitutional amendment. As I point out in my response to your second comment below, socially unjust parts of the constitution have been changed to remedy discrimination in the past. Perhaps it’s time for another amendment.

      Finally, no “substantive analysis” of “Obama’s Policies” is possible because he has not proven he has the authority to make any policy. Unless his father is proven to have been a US citizen any “laws” he has signed are merely guidelines which can be disregarded at will, likewise, any orders derived from the presidential power of commander in chief. That is the real reason why the Army rescinded Major Cook’s deployment order; legally, they didn’t have a choice.

  44. Naomi Onaga says:

    To “expose Obama as a fraud”, time would be better spent talking to people about the gap between his rhetoric and reality of his policies, rather than about the nationality of his father. There was never any secret that his father was from Kenya, and people voted for him with full knowledge of this. To remove him from office based on an obscure ambiguity in the Constitution that nobody cared about at the time would be undemocratic. And if nobody cared about the citizenship of the father then, we certainly should not be advocating for them to care about it now. A Constitutional interpretation that citizenship of the father is required to run for President is both discriminatory against immigrants and children of immigrants, as well as against women – under such interpretation, a U.S. citizen mother wouldn’t be able to confer the same right to run for President to her child. We should all seek to be vigilant in identifying institutional forms of discrimination that have been built into the laws and practices of this country from day one, so that we don’t unwittingly perpetuate them.

    • Rod Ciferri says:

      Naomi, thank you for your thoughtful comment.

      The conventional wisdom that “his father was from Kenya” is a real problem for Obama. Unless that conventional wisdom is turned on its head, and it is revealed his father was actually a US citizen, there’s no way he could have ever been eligible for president and he never will be.

      First, the “obscure ambiguity” you refer to is not only not ambiguous, it is a clear differentiation of the terms “natural born citizen” and “citizen” that was carefully drafted by America’s best lawyers.

      Article 2, Section 1 states:

      “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;”

      The phrase before the comma, “No person except a natural born citizen,” is an independent, unambiguous and absolute constitutional command.

      The phrase after the comma is the grandfather clause the founders used so that they, who may have been born in England or were born in America to a father born in England, and, thus, not natural born citizens, could nonetheless be eligible for president. Therefore, the grandfather clause indicates awareness of the lawyers drafting it that they were not natural born citizens and reveals their intent that no one but a natural born citizen could be eligible for president. Working together, both clauses also indicate the clear differentiation between the legal terms of art, “natural born citizen” and “citizen”.

      Second, “undemocratic” or not, there is a rule book by which the government is bound and the government can only exist because of it. That rule book is the constitution which can only be changed by amendment. I can’t think of anything more “undemocratic” than throwing out the rule book in the middle of the game.

      Third, it may be “discriminatory” but that doesn’t change the fact that it can only be changed by amendment. This is, in fact, what happened when the constitution was amended by the 14th amendment to reflect the change in status from non-citizen to citizen of the slaves freed by the 13th amendment.

      Fourth, “vigilance” will not change this law, only constitutional amendment can do that. Perhaps you should organize an amendment to the constitution to make it less discriminatory. Like the drafters of the 14th amendment did when they followed the first clause that granted citizenship to the freed slaves with the second clause which erased Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, that effectively had made a slave 3/5 of a person in the eyes of the government.

    • Wake News says:

      now, we don`t disagree on the subject of his policies (which are not his policies btw)he has to pursue using his abilities to deceive the people. But the issue of eligibility doesn`t have to do with whether we like Obama or not it has to do with the parameters of the US-Constitution which was set up to prevent an usurper (of the British Crown!) coming into office reversing the independence of the US from the British. I don`t think at that time that there were any racial ideas behind that specific clause – the founders just did neither want the British to destroy the new founded free nation nor been drawn back into British “slavery”. This was certainly wise to do. Now if you look at todays situation with all the efforts of the US-administration to abolish main parts of this founding constitution and link this to the knowledge that Obama`s father was British thus Obama jun. being Brirish, too according to British Law at the time doesn`t this make you wonder whether there is something going really wrong? This makes me and many others very suspicious about Obama and the shadow government of the City of London (Rothschild) behind his agenda. Again this has nothing to do with any racism or anti-immigrant issues, it is only a power-political issue!

  45. Naomi Onaga says:

    Hi Rod and Wake News,
    Thanks for your responses,
    I understand what you’re saying, but I still disagree

    There are many methods to legal and Constitutional interpretation, and they do not all agree that the intent of the drafters should be the exclusive basis for deriving legal meanings.

    But let’s assume that it’s true that the Constitution requires that presidential eligibility requires a U.S. citizen father at the time of birth of the child. From what I understand, you are arguing that it should be implemented because “it’s the law”, and at least Rod clearly advocates this even if the provision is discriminatory.

    I disagree – in the face of a discriminatory law, we all have choices on how we relate personally to it. As a knife can heal in the hands of a surgeon and mutilate in the hands of a torturer, so can law be wielded to protect, liberate and harmonize, or, to differentiate, oppress, and destroy. All of us, including lawyers, have the obligation of being fully aware of how we are using law and/or allowing it to operate by tolerating them or participating in their implementation.

    We should never forget that the vast majority of injustices committed throughout modern history have been legal acts. Slavery, U.S. genocidal wars against the numerous Native American tribes, Nazi extermination of Jews, and apartheid in South Africa are only a few examples. This is why political access for all is so critical – because such atrocities gain the blessing of national law through a mechanism laid down by oppressors that tightly controls political participation and law making and excludes the targeted victims. We should never be advocating for more restrictiveness in access to political participation.

    Throwing the rule book out in the middle of the game is undemocratic only if the rules had been democratically adopted in the first place. When discriminatory rules are adopted without allowing participation of all that would be put under its power, then democracy requires that they be thrown out and new rules be adopted.

    While I agree that amendment of the law is the ultimate solution, this is not the only method that people of conscience can, and should, take in the face of unjust laws. Civil disobedience is founded on the recognition that there is a moral imperative not to abide by such laws. It is also a strategy to push for the changing of those laws; it is sometimes the only method available, because the laws were crafted to exclude or disadvantage the affected group from access to legalized methods of reform in the first place. While we should all seek reform of unjust laws, our moral obligation in the meantime is also not to support them by following them, or at the very least, not advocating for their enforcement.

    Law is only given meaning and life when people accept it and require its implementation. Laws of all sorts are adopted all the time, and there are layers and upon layers of laws in the United States (not to mention in international law, to which the U.S. is subject). Many laws are not implemented because they contradict each other, their meanings become unclear, or they become clearly outdated subsequent evolution of societal values. Laws prohibiting consensual sodomy (anal and oral sex), for instance, existed in many jurisdictions for a long time, but many local authorities stopped enforcing it for many years prior to them being taken off the books because they became irrelevant to the values of the community (they were finally declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003). But it is not the job only of the police and the courts to enforce, or choose not to enforce, unjust laws. All of us carry that responsibility. Tolerating unjust laws triggers moral culpability for all free participants in the society, and, going the additional step of actively advocating for the enforcement of unjust laws makes us full blown oppressors.

    It is absolutely impossible for progressives to seek genuine social change if we allow our imaginations to be shackled by the confines of existing law. Unfortunately, while it’s probably true that the Constitution may have been drafted by the best legal minds in the U.S. at the time, they applied their faculties to crafting a brilliant structure safeguarding inequality and discrimination. But brilliant legal and non-legal minds have worked tirelessly in subsequent years to seek to make this country, and the Constitution, move closer to the spirit that they insisted was still contained within – one treasuring justice, liberty, equality, democracy. They could not have done this without critically analyzing existing law and removing support from those that are unjust. I assume that we are all engaged in this debate because we still hold those same values. We should keep our eyes on the prize and be sure that all our efforts and methods nurture those ideals.

    • Wake News says:

      there is a distinction between common laws and constitutional laws, I should say and we are talking about constitutional issues here which are having impacts not only for Americans but for the whole world. Even if one would want to make decisions on whether to enforce constitutional laws or not at least the issue should have been put on the table, i.e. Obama should have said that he does not meet the constitutional requirements and should have asked for an investigation and decision before he went to become a presidential candidate, don`t you think?

      • Naomi Onaga says:

        Hi Wake News,
        I don’t think it’s so clear that Obama knew that he might not meet constitutional requirements. And nobody else seemed to either. The entire election took place in the light of public scrutiny, before hundreds of thousands of voters, press, lawyers, constitutional scholars, political opponents, and others, and nobody seemed to care about this at the time. They either didn’t know about it, because it never occurred to them that the nationality of the father would matter at all, or, if they did have some awareness of it, they didn’t think it was important (or politically sustainable) enough to bring up – ancestral requirements for eligibility for office are outdated and goes against any notion of individual rights and equal treatment.

        • Wake News says:

          Excuse me! BHO was in law school (constitutional law) and he taught constitutional law as well, didn`t you know that? He surely knew there was a problem…Philip Berg a lawyer from Pennsylvania (Democrat) did send way before any decision was taken those eligibility questions to all parties, the election committees, Congress, Supreme Court etc., just check his site: obamacrimes.com
          Now everybody is very curious why BHO has sealed all his records, apart from his long form birth certificate, he has not allowed people to look into his documents from Kindergarden to university diploma, common this stinks! This is neither a racial nor an immigrant issue, it is a criminal issue with fraud involved, believe me. This could be settled so easily by him just showing us all his documents, what is the deal? You have to show your “real” birth certificate just for applying to a job or getting a lease or bank account what ever…why can`t he rather than spending millions of dollars for lawsuits to prevent anyone to look at his documents just show them and everything would be fine within hours. Even Bush showed his medical records I believe…

  46. rciferri says:


    Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

    I don’t fundamentally disagree with your views. In fact, I would support a constitutional amendment which reflects a less patriarchal eligibility requirement for president. However, I cannot accept that your view IS the constitution, for the reasons outlined below.

    If one is operating in a system in which one believes another has power over them (government) one must accept the rules of that system. I appreciate your zeal to not tolerate unjust law, however, I’m not sure you know the consequences of such action. Perhaps we should be talking about how we all can operate in cooperation with each other once we outgrow the “need” for government (but that’s the subject of another blog which is coming whether folks are ready for it or not).

    But even then, one cannot accept the benefits of such a system and not accept the burdens. Since the current system is trying with all its might to force arbitrary rule (but, from the posts of you and others, its seems it has gotten such support voluntarily), one in that system must also accept that which they don’t like.

    Perhaps one day the current governor of California will “win” the presidency. Those who don’t think it’s important to hold Obama to constitutional eligibility standards will have NO right to challenge such a presidency. They made their bed by blithely dismissing the very foundations of law to get what like (or think they should tolerate) and now, and in the future, they must lay in it.

    “Ya, you are my subjects now, little girly men!”.

    And, he will be right! Because in a system based upon arbitrary power, the only law is whatever the one with the most capacity for violence says it is. In addition, a system nominally based upon law, is instantly transformed into one based upon arbitrary power when those who are part of it, consent to disregarding those laws. This has been, and will be, the effect of what you and others are advocating by giving Obama a “pass” on complying with basic law.

    How does it make you feel to know you (as a subject of government) must bend over backwards proving who you are to enjoy even basic freedoms, while you have allowed the president of the US to slip into office without even showing a driver’s license or being subjected to an FBI background check?

    Hypothetically, what if the results of such a background check show what private investigators have already found — that the guy has used over a hundred social security numbers? Would that be ok with you? Is it alright with you that you would be prosecuted to the hilt for felony identity fraud for such actions, while the president of the US gets a pass because he is apparently better than you? How does it make you feel that the person who is supposed to be your public servant holds you to the law that he can thumb his nose to at will? How do you think native Hawaiians feel when they have to provide more proof to show they are natives than Obama has to for president?

    Are you liking the fact that he is better than you?

    Hopefully it makes you feel good because you have gotten exactly what you deserve.

  47. Naomi Onaga says:

    Hi Rod,

    I do think that we probably agree on the fundamental issues. I don’t disagree that impartial and fair rule of law is important, and selective enforcement and private disregard for laws run the risk of subverting democracy and allowing the powerful to exercise arbitrary power. I just think that the effort to combat rule by the powerful sometimes requires resistance to the laws that the very same few have created, especially those that continue social and political exclusion.

    Schwarzenneger is a travesty, but based purely on his own merits that has nothing to do with the nationality of this father. He should have the right to run for office, and if he gets elected, we should certainly complain, but we should be complaining about the people that voted for him and not the nationality of his father. This is the same with Obama. Limiting political access to those with an ancestral line of U.S. citizens isn’t going to prevent ridiculous embarrassments from getting into office – George Bush is a case in point.

    The same stroke that would make Obama and Schwarzenneger ineligible for not having a U.S. father would also exclude thousands of others that should have every right to run for Presidential office. And it won’t do anything to change the minds of those that voted for O & S, they will just vote in the next candidate with similar views. But it will most likely feed the anti-immigrant hysteria that has mushroomed since 9-11 through political manipulation working to characterize having foreign roots as immutable characteristics that mark permanent outsider status and proclivity to terrorism. This kind of xenophobia is an integral part of the psychological fabric that justified Iraq, as well as the attacks on civil liberties and human rights unleashed under the Bush administration, and it’s counterproductive to accept it or strengthen it within our own efforts for change.

  48. rciferri says:

    I think we just seem to disagree what is “impartial and fair rule of law” and what is not. I’ve got a problem with the fact that I, and all the other non-tyrants of the world, have to submit to just shy of an anal probe to get a driver’s license, while Obama doesn’t even have to show his driver’s license to be president of the US. That seems to me to be anything but impartial and fair.

    You say a lot about fairness and impartiality, but don’t seem to be bothered by the inequity Obama has thrown right in your face.

    I suppose if some nut job pulled Obama out of the White House by his ear and kicked him to the curb and declared himself to be president, you would only be interested in what “policies” that usurper had to offer you.

  49. Naomi Onaga says:

    I’m going to give a couple of quick comments and then bow out of this discussion

    Wake News –
    I agree that Obama has transparency problems at different levels, i will check out the site, thanks for sending it

    Rod –
    Would a bad law become good law because it’s equally applied? Nobody should have to be anally probed, neither to be president nor to get a driver’s license. If we don’t like being anally probed, isn’t it more effective to work to stop the practice of anal probing rather than to further spread it around to others
    (And note that much of the anal probing that is going on the US right now was put into place through manipulating a fear of immigrants)

    in any case, I will make sure to read any further comments or information that you both post, but I’m sorry I doubt I’m going to be able to respond after this, I’m about to go out of the country for a few months for a project and have to prepare alot of stuff, i also thikn i probably don’t have that much more to say that wouldn’t be repetitive anyway
    If you want to discuss further with me b/c you think i’m misunderstanding you or you want to try to correct the error of my ways, feel free to call me before i leave on sept 1, email me at n_onaga@hotmail.com and i’ll giv e you my number

  50. rciferri says:

    Thank you for all you contributed here. I’m taking your good example and “bowing out” myself. It seems like we’ve covered about all we felt about the subject. Thank you also for a positive blogging experience. There was not one personal attack. I’m proud of us!

  51. All in all I do not make comments on blogs, but I have to mention that this post really forced me to do so. Really terrific post

  52. Click my link. I post some things that your article does not touch upon that also prove that Obama is a usurper. Wong, Benny Vs. O’ Brien, Elk, and about DOMICILE.

    • rciferri says:

      While we seem to agree that, with Obama admitting that his father was Kenyan, and, therefore, a British subject, he cannot be a natural born citizen. The only thing that could possibly change that is if Obama’s father were also a US citizen. Although some may think that natural born citizenship precludes dual or multiple citizenship, Vattel didn’t discuss that possibility, and I’m unaware of any other legal authorities existing at the time the US Constitution was written that did.

      While I appreciate your your argument that Obama is at least a citizen due to his domicile, I think one’s domicile determines what jurisdiction one is under, not that person’s citizenship. That jurisdiction applies to both citizens and non-citizens. A non-citizen who decides they will permanently live in the US and having no intention of leaving, would be domiciled in the US, however, the only way that non-citizen would become a US citizen is through naturalization.

      The US Constitution’s powers that are enumerated to the national government include naturalization. That means the state has no say in who becomes US citizens, but the US Congress does. While being born in one of the states make one a citizen of the US, it does not make that person a natural born citizen, a status that is not determined by national law, but by the US Constitution. I believe Obama may be a US citizen under naturalization laws existing when he was a child, perhaps regardless of where he was born.

      Either way, unless he shows his father was a US citizen when he was born, he has given no proof that he is eligible to be president since he can’t prove he’s a natural born citizen. It is clear that those who authored the US Constitution used Vattel’s Law of Nations as authority, that no other legal authority used the legal term of art “natural born citizen” and that Law of Nations expressly states that the natural born citizen’s father HAS to be a citizen.

      One can be naturalized and not a natural born citizen himself, but for his son to be a natural born citizen he must have been a naturalized citizen prior to his son’s birth. Obama hasn’t shown that was the case.

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