From Russia with Love: Barack Obama is an illegal president, period

Barack Obama is an illegal president, period. 47404.jpegAmerican politicians and the media are lying to the American people. They do so because they hope that their complicity in the greatest fraud in U.S. history will be overtaken by events, that is, the 2012 election. It is the Big Stall to cover up the Big Lie.

In the Russian language there is a term called “vranyo.” It is loosely defined as telling a white lie or a semi-truth. It may contain fantasy or involve the suppression of unpleasant parts of the truth.

In regard to Obama’s ineligibility and his alleged felonies, politicians and the media expect the American people to respond in this way:

“You know that you are lying, I know that you are lying, and you know that I know that you are lying, but we both smile and nod in agreement.”

Barack Obama, according to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution, is an illegal President. The law requires a candidate for the Presidency to be a “natural born citizen,” that is, a second generation American, a U.S. citizen, whose parents were also U.S. citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth.

Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya and a British subject at the time of his birth, which made him forever ineligible for the Presidency. For the same reason, Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio is ineligible for the Presidency and Vice Presidency because his parents were Cuban citizens, not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

There is no ambiguity, although those who wish to undermine the Constitution would like the American people to think otherwise.

The difference between “citizen,” that is, born in the U.S. and “natural born citizen” has been clear since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 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; 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.”

A first draft of what would become Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, submitted by Alexander Hamilton to the Constitutional Convention on June 18, 1787 stated:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

Fearing foreign influence on a future President and Commander-in-Chief of the American military, the future first U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, on July 25, 1787, asked the convention presiding officer George Washington to strengthen the requirements for the Presidency:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would 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.”

The term “or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” referred to loyal Americans who lived in the thirteen colonies at the time of the Revolutionary War, thus establishing the first generation of United States “citizens,” upon which future “natural born” citizens would be created. The Founders, under Article II, allowed these original U.S. citizens to be eligible for the Presidency.

As understood by the Founders and as applied to the U.S. Constitution, the term “natural born citizen” derived its meaning less from English common law, than from the codification of natural law described by Emerich de Vattel in his 1758 book “The Law of Nations.”

They knew from reading Vattel that a “natural born citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents (Vattel, Section 212 in original French and English translation).

That is the definition of a “natural born citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.

There are historical arguments too numerous to include in a short article, which explain why the definition of “natural born subject,” as found in the English common law, was not used as the basis of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution because Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a constitutional republic.

Legal precedent and interpretation leave no doubt regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

More from Pravda

Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial, Elections and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
9 years ago

Of course he’s an unqualified presiden according to his false birth certificate. Everyone that voted against him knows that and most of the world. The question is why hasn’t someone with power impeached him or found some other way to remove him? They’re all the same in the same club and “We the people” aren’t in the club.

9 years ago

The answer to your question is “because the birth certificate is not false.” To be sure, there are birther “experts” who claim that it is false, but they have not proved that they are really experts, and they certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial. That is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the National Review do not believe them, and that is why no one in Congress has called for an investigation.

The definition of Natural Born Citizen was spelled out in the Wong Kim Ark case, which ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and that it includes every person born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.

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

9 years ago
Reply to  ehancock

And, there are these points:

1. Barack Obama released his official short form Hawaiian birth certificate on June 12, 2008. (That is the one that thousands of people in Hawaii use every year to get their US passports.)

2. Obama’s parents lived in Hawaii (a short trip to Kapi’olani Hospital) and most of the time children are born where their parents live.

3. The Immigration files of Barack Obama Sr. categorically state that he did not leave the country in 1961. (Hence Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled alone, and how likely is that????)

4. The INS statistical report for July 1, 1961 – June 30 states that NO American citizens traveled to the US by air on a trip starting in Kenya that whole year! [And in fact only 21 people total came using sea and air, only 21]

5. Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Republican, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health personally inspected Obama’s original birth certificate in the files in Hawaii and said it was there and Obama was born in Hawaii. Her statement is on the Hawaii government web site, and she was interviewed on CNN confirming.

6. Dr. Alvin Onaka, Chief of Vital Records, has sent a signed and sealed verification of Obama’s birth in Hawaii to the Secretary of State of Arizona, and it now resides on the Arizona State web site.

7. Dr. Onaka has sent a signed and sealed verification filed with the Federal Court in Mississippi stating that he examined the long form PDF file on the White House web site and that it matches the original in the Department files in every respect.

8. Dr. Loretta Fuddy, Democrat, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, has stated on the Department web site that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is in the files, that she has personally inspected it, and that a copy was provided to the President (a couple of days before the White House released it).

9. The Long Form birth certificate original certified copy was presented to the Press at the White House news conference, and one correspondent, Savannah Guthrie, snapped a photo of it and stated that she “felt the raised seal.” It is irresponsible to say that the long form hasn’t been released.

10. An August 1961 hand-written memo from William Wood II in the State Department files for Obama Sr. state that Barack Obama II was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

11. Obama’s birth was reported in 1961 in two competing Honolulu newspapers, from a list provided by the Health Department. A long-time reporter interviewed by CNN stated that parents could not submit names to these columns. Obama’s name appears in the same order in both papers, proving that they came from the same list. (The birth notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers came only from the DOH, and the DOH only sent out the notices for births in Hawaii.)

12. A trip to Africa would have been prohibitively expensive in 1961, and would have been extremely arduous (3 days) for a pregnant woman. (And she would have had to have traveled alone.)

13. Barbara Nelson recalls a conversation with Dr. Rodney West who practiced at Kapi’olani who told her that “Stanley had a baby.” (And she recalls writing home about it to her father, also named Stanley.)

14. Jon Chessoni, first Secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, DC, said, speaking of inquiries the Embassy received about President Obama being born in Kenya: “When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.”

15. Hawaiian Law in 1961 did not allow issuance of a birth certificate except for persons born in Hawaii.

16. Barack Obama appears in the 1961 bound birth index available for inspection at the Department of Health in Hawaii. (

9 years ago

Because it is normal in PDF to have layers.

9 years ago

Actually, when an image is scanned into PDF or another software graphics program, layers are normal. That is how it works. It is not a photographic image. It is a software image of the document, and it is made by using layers for the different elements.

Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. … I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

9 years ago
Reply to  ehancock

Also this:

Tremblay told

That the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work – and nothing more.

“When you open it in Illustrator it looks like layers, but it doesn’t look like someone built it from scratch. If someone made a fake it wouldn’t look like this,” he said.“Some scanning software is trying to separate the background and the text and splitting element into layers and parts of layers.”

Tremblay also said that during the scanning process, instances where the software was unable to separate text fully from background led to the creation of a separate layer within the document. This could be places where a signature runs over the line of background, or typed characters touch the internal border of the document.

“I know that you can scan a document from a scanner most of the time it will appear as one piece, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no software that’s doing this kind of stuff,” he said, adding that it’s really quite common.

“I’d be more afraid it’d be fake if it was one in piece. It would be harder to check if it’s a good one if it’s a fake,” Tremblay said.

Read more:

9 years ago

Re: “10 High Tech High Students Expose Flaws in Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate, Rescind Invitation for President to Speak at Commencement..”

You are wrong and the high school students are wrong. Goulding and Tremblay are right, and no official in Hawaii (and they are the experts on whether or not Hawaii birth certificates are forged) has ever claimed that it is forged (and until January of last year a CONSERVATIVE Republican was the attorney general in Hawaii) . And, in repeated confirmations they have confirmed that the facts on Obama’s birth certificate are accurate. ALL the facts including the place of birth, the hospital, etc.