Name, left out, author has authorized use of this document by any and all citizens to pass

on to their US Senators & Congressmen/Congresswomen

Address
City, state
Phone
fax
email

December 30, 2008

RE: Confirmation of 2008 Presidential Electoral College Votes

Dear

I can not begin to say how Senator Johnson’s response to my previous letter
pertaining to this year’s election has me even more concerned and I now know personally
why the general public for the 1st time in American History has given our elected officials
in Congress the lowest approval rating ever. It is because of the lack of respect for the
following oath that all of you have taken that leads us to begin work to explore our
options under the Constitution to turn this country around and get it back to a truly Free
Constitutional Republic and away from the Socialist Democracy path you all have been
taking us.

“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.”

Obviously, this oath is just words, as according to Senator Johnson’s letter &
others I have received in the past from all of you, you really have not read the
Constitution for a very long time and thus have forgotten what responsibilities &
restrictions it places on you to protect and defend the Constitution and We the People
whom you are obligated to serve honorably, responsibly and lawfully without reservation.
Please allow me a bit of your time to reply to Senator Johnson’s letter and correct some
most important Constitutional Laws that seem to have mistakenly been brushed off as
internet rumors as most Elected Officials have done nationwide to their constituents this
election year.

The 1st thing I will take issue with is your perception of the role of the internet. I
do agree that it can be a vast source of misinformation, but if used properly &
responsibly as I did and verified sources beyond the internet for credibility, the internet
can be a vast source of good. Obviously Sen. Johnson or his staff just read my letter and
saw the references and neither he nor his staff took the time to verify as I did. If they had,
they would not have had the audacity to spurn my use of the internet, yet they themselves
have relied on 2 internet sources for their facts instead of the Constitution, US laws and
legal government documents as I have. Also, their reference to reputable sources is in
itself an oxymoron when you consider that fact that those sources have deep ties to the
candidates, especially Barack Obama.

1995 Ayers makes Obama Chairman of Annenberg Challenge

 Factcheck.org is run by Annenberg…this a common well known fact and is listed
at their site and Ayers is no source of reputable information either. All I had to do was
follow the money to realize that those were paid sources and should not be trusted. But I
do trust official government documents which most of them have been barred from being
seen for some reason. It has been reported that Obama has spent in excess of $500,000
fighting lawsuits and keeping his information sealed. I ask you: why would a person who
campaigned on transparency & who claims to be qualified pay hundreds of thousands of
dollars to keep a $20 copy of an official original vault long form copy of a government
document if they had nothing to hide? Please give me a responsible non-bureaucratic
answer to that question. And please do not come back with the old line all the other
Senators & Congressmen/Congresswomen have used that states that Hawaiian officials
have stated publically they have seen it and have stated that he was born in Hawaii.“They
only verified that an original vault copy existed in the file.” The End.

Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State
Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures." http://www.factcheck.org/elections-
2008/born_in_the_usa.html

So what is the big deal about seeing the original as McCain was forced to do
when the Democrats screamed for his because he was born in Panama. You could help
me quiet those who claim Obama was born elsewhere, but it still will not escape the fact
that he is not “natural born” due to the fact that Obama’s father was a British subject
under British jurisdiction at the time of Obama’s birth. The reason for all those claims is
the Hawaiian law that allowed US citizens who gave birth overseas to obtain an official
Hawaiian birth certificate if they applied for it within a year of the child’s birth and the
Women’s Center that has been reported as being his place of birth have denied having any
records of him being born there or his mother ever being a patient there. The long form
here is from 1963, but the only difference from that one to a 1961 long form vault copy is
that in 1961 they were black & white, not green & black. $20 could fix this and shut
those who claim he was born elsewhere up so why not do it? Now, back to the real issue
at hand…the Constitution.

A. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage:

“Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department
 of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a
birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a
foreign country“ (applies to adopted children).
B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of
birth under HRS 338-5.
C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under
HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the
American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be
reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.
D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to
error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.
E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a
birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.
F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy
of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From
its web site: “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information
that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either
black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the
Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the
original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the
computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

Further more from Obama’s own site: http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya 
was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling 
empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject 
whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act 
of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

2. I never claimed in my letter that Barack Obama was born

anywhere other than Hawaii and I am insulted that a Senator would put
words in my mouth and make assumptions based on what is obviously
their opinion, not mine. The Constitution is very clear as to the qualifications for
POTUS, and there is no birth certificate of Barack Obama that would make any
difference. The fact that he had dual citizenship at birth proves he was not a
“Natural Born” citizen. He is a citizen under the 14th amendment which defines
citizens born to parents when one parent is not a US citizen.

To the issue of John McCain; if he was a “natural born” citizen, why did it take a
statute to give him citizenship( see box checked on his birth certificate & papers his
parents filed after he was born) also and why did the Senate deem it necessary to pass a
Senate Resolution proclaiming him a “natural Born” citizen? This resolution has no
weight, is not legal or binding and mostly it is unconstitutional. There is nothing natural
about having to have ones birth be defined by a statute or an Amendment due to a parent
not being a US citizen. The only conclusion I can come up with is that both parties knew
of the dilemma they had as so they created a very good smoke screen to keep most of us
in the dark until it was far too late to get anything done prior to Nov 4th election. I offer
you the following references from our history & official government documents located
in the Library of Congress(NOT the internet) that pertain to the ineligibility of both major
party candidates that were shoved down the voters throats this election. The Constitution
Article II, Section I, Clause V 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”

Federalist Papers & Framers Letters:

John Jay (1st Chief Justice of the NY Supreme Court 1777 & President of
Continental Congress from 1778-1779). The origin of the natural-born citizen
clause can be traced to a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay to George
Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote:

"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 Commander in Chief of
the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born
Citizen."

There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was
Introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without
discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations was key in framing the United
States as the world's first Constitutional Republic;
http://www.uslaw.com/library/Obama_Citizenship/Law_Nations_Principles_Law
_Nature_Applies_Conduct_Affairs_Nations_Sove.php?item=321579

Book 1, Chapter 19
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things that Relate to it

212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the society, bound to this society by certain
duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents
who are citizens. (Emphasis “parents” is plural)As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the childhood of children of the citizens,
those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each
citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming
members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and
these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see
whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their
right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in
order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born to 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.

Rep Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment:

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Defining Natural-Born Citizen By P.A. Madison on November 18, 2008

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

UPDATED 12/24/08

What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the
U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any
single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of
citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant
following the Declaration of Independence, and following the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work,
eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly
solving a case.

What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean

Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?

Unlikely because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born
citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether
anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born
citizens of the United States (they were referred to as “inhabitants” instead.)
National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within
the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the
several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of
affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the
internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was part of the
“ordinary course of affairs” of the States that only local laws could affect.
Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the
only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. Framer James
Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least
some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together
through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of
Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the
United States.
Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown
was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance to the crown in
this country. After independence, this maxim was only recognized as far as
individual States were willing to recognize it. The State of Virginia in 1777
moved to recognize parentage (citizenship of father) in determining allegiance
and citizenship. States that were slow in enacting laws controlling birth and
citizenship forced the courts to adjudicate citizenship disputes under common
law rules.

Congress was vested only with the power to make uniform rules of
naturalization in order to remove alienage from those who were already born
abroad (outside of the States) who had immigrated to any one of the individual
States. The best Congress could do is declare children born abroad to fathers
who were already a citizen of some State to be a citizen themselves. In other
words, naturalization only provides for the removal of alienage and not for the
creation of citizens within individual States.

Additionally, if the framers merely intended for birth alone on U.S. soil then all
would had been necessary was to say the President shall be “native born.”

Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term

“natural-born subject”?

It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English
doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double
allegiances, something the founders considered improper.

Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a
person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or
naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The
reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double
allegiance.”

The powers of the general government were limited and defined, preventing
Congress from exercising the same kind of sovereignty that Britain had over its
claimed dominions within established States of the Union.

Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself
was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded
allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as
enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or
altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual
allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often
referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to
war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of
1812.

Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the
crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens
of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under
the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by
soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who
were found to be British natural-born subjects were impressed into military
service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.

Fourteenth Amendment

The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously affects how we view

natural-born citizens because for the first time there is a national rule of who
may by birth be a citizen of the United States. Who may be born citizens of the
States is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United
States. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was
defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under

common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born
with more than one allegiance.

The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the
“word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full
and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all
respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised
by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the
same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United
States now.”

United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator
aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth
Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the
Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete
jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption
of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties” do not
pertain to anyone else.

Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same

jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of
the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States
do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United
States. This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great
deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances. In fact,
Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the
“United States have not recognized a double allegiance.”

Additionally, how did persons become both citizens and “subject to the
jurisdiction” of the United States through naturalization? By renouncing all
prior allegiances to other nations and by declaring their allegiance to this one
in advance of course. Why would “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be any
different with persons born under the Fourteenth Amendment since this
jurisdiction applies equally to all who are either born or naturalized?

Because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires not owing allegiance to

any other nation, and because the nation does not recognize double allegiances
that can be created at common law, narrows the possibilities to what “natural-
born citizen” can mean.
Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen
must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their
citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be
considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen
under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish
the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as
his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also
recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the
Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The
first Naturalization Act passed by Congress recognized “natural-born citizens”
to be those born beyond the States to resident fathers who were already
established citizens of the United States.

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are

avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of
other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due
to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In
the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law
under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the
United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not
taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time
that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within
the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the
allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must
not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S.
abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains
why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in
1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father
at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser
could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father
was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth
Amendment.

The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a

natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

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, wherever 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. … 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.

Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause

was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the
President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American
father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the
country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks
would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing
with him foreign influences and intrigues.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United
States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an
established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of
the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance
cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such
status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American
mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by
some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen

So yes, John McCain was born to 2 citizen parents, but we will get to the
ineligible part of his citizenship in a bit. Barack Obama however, only had 1 citizen
parent, his mother, therefore he does not qualify as a “natural born” citizen. Barack also
spent a major part of his youth as an Indonesian citizen. Did he renounce that citizenship
and if so when? In 1981 when US citizens were banned from traveling to Pakistan,
Barack Obama (age 20) spent 3 wks there with a college roommate’s family. The only
way he could have done this was with a passport from either Indonesia or Kenya. But I
must remind you that this in no way has to do with his “Dual” not “natural Born”
citizenship at birth, but it does give pause to which country he gives allegiance to. We can
not have a President who continued to hold dual allegiances well into his adulthood and
used that other allegiance to get around US Laws under times of war which I will return
to later also, but for now let us go back to citizenship and McCain’s ineligibility.

Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual at 7FAM1116.1-4(c) states;

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/c22712.htm

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military

installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not
part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th
Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a
 facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not
acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

It is well established by precedent that children born abroad of United States citizens are
not granted citizenship by the Constitution, but rather by statute. The 14th Amendment
states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United

States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States

John McCain was neither born on United States soil, nor was he naturalized.
He is a citizen at birth by statute. This is discussed in the Foreign Affairs Manual:

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (formerly

section 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is

"the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person

after birth."

Clearly, then, Americans who acquired their citizenship

by birth abroad to U.S. citizens are not considered
naturalized citizens under either act. (Emphasis added.)

The Constitution confers three types of citizen status:

- "natural born citizen", but only with regard to eligibility to hold the office
of President

- "citizen" to those born in the United States via the 14th Amendment

- "citizen" to those naturalized in the United States via the 14th

Amendment

McCain is none of the above. He wasn't born on United States

soil and he wasn't naturalized in the United States. Instead,
McCain may claim citizenship from 8 USC 1403(a):

“Any person born in the Canal Zone on or

after February 26, 1904, and whether
before or after the effective date of this
chapter, whose father or mother or both
at the time of the birth of such person
was or is a citizen of the United States, is
declared to be a citizen of the United
States.”

McCain is in the class of citizens who obtain their citizenship at birth,

but not from the Constitution, but rather federal statute.

In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1971). The Supreme

Court stated:

...[C]children born abroad of Americans

are not citizens within the citizenship
clause of the 14th Amendment.”… “To
this day, the Constitution makes no
provision for jus sanguinis, or citizenship
by descent... “Our law in this area follows
English concepts with an acceptance of
the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth
governs citizenship status except as
modified by statute.” Id. at 828.

So, not being born on US soil, McCain cannot be a "natural born

citizen".

The Foreign Affairs Manual further weighs in on the issue as

follows:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a. It has never been determined

definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth
abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born
citizen within the meaning of Article II of
the Constitution and, therefore, eligible
for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution

states, in relevant part that “No Person
except a natural born Citizen...shall be
eligible for the Office of President,"

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born".

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of

Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790,
(1 Stat.103,104) provided that, “...the
children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of
the United States, shall be considered as
natural born citizens: Provided that the
right of citizenship shall not descend to
persons whose fathers have never been
resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative,

 however, and its formula is not included
in modern nationality statutes. In any
event, the fact that someone is a natural
born citizen pursuant to a statute does
not necessarily imply that he or she is
such a citizen for Constitutional
purposes. (Emphasis added.)

http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.ph
p?f=12&t=145

Thus, this concludes the proof that McCain is not a “natural born” citizen and that
S. Res. 511 is deemed unconstitutional and unlawful and in no way bestows “natural
born” citizenship on John Sidney McCain and further action will be forthcoming to
reverse this illegal action of Congress. How convenient it was that Obama co-sponsored a
bill to help cover-up this discrepancy and that will be addressed also in forthcoming
action of the citizens under our Constitutional Right for Redress.

But lest you still not be convinced I know what I am talking about, how about
referring back to this a bit of Congressional activity from 2000 addressing this very issue
pertaining to Obama & McCain and that pesky “Natural Born” definition that never made
it out of Congressional Committee.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.htm#0

It begins like this:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN

CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT

MONDAY, JULY 24, 2000

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:45 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn
House Office Building, Hon. Charles T. Canady [chairman of the subcommittee]
presiding.

Present: Representatives Charles T. Canady, Spencer Bachus, Bob Barr, Melvin L.

Watt and Barney Frank.

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for
the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for twenty years.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That
the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years
after the date of its submission for ratification:
''Article —
''A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for twenty years a
citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is
not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United
States.''

It stands plain as day that Congress knows full well what “Natural Born” means
otherwise they would not have tried to remove it and replace it with just “Citizen”.

Now, let us journey back to Barack Obama and his further disqualification issues.
On July, 2, 1980 Pres. Carter re-activated the required Selective Service Registration
requiring all males born on or after Jan 1, 1960 to appear and register at their local Post
Offices nationwide.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/proclamations/04771.html

Proclamation 4771--Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act

Source: The provisions of Proclamation 4771 of July 2, 1980, appear at 45 FR

45247, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 82, unless otherwise noted.

Section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. App.
453), provides that male citizens of the United States and other male persons
residing in the United States who are between the ages of 18 and 26, except
those exempted by Sections 3 and 6(a) of the Military Selective Service Act,
must present themselves for registration at such time or times and place or
places, and in such manner as determined by the President. Section 6(k)
provides that such exceptions shall not continue after the cause for the
exemption ceases to exist.

The Congress of the United States has made available the funds (H.J. Res. 521,
approved by me on June 27, 1980), which are needed to initiate this
registration, beginning with those born on or after January 1, 1960.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JIMMY CARTER, President of the United States of

America, by the authority vested in me by the Military Selective Service Act, as
amended (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), do hereby proclaim as follows:

1-1. Persons to be Registered and Days of Registration.

1-101. Male citizens of the United States and other males residing in the United
States, unless exempted by the Military Selective Service Act, as amended, who
 were born on or after January 1, 1960, and who have attained their eighteenth
birthday, shall present themselves for registration in the manner and at the time
and places as hereinafter provided.

1-102. Persons born in calendar year 1960 shall present themselves for
registration on any of the six days beginning Monday, July 21, 1980.

1-103. Persons born in calendar year 1961 shall present themselves for
registration on any of the six days beginning Monday, July 28, 1980.

1. Citizens including retired military and govt officials in their efforts to find out
more about this candidate well before he became the democratic nominee were
continually met with road blocks by their requests for information that should be
available under FOIA. One such person was retired Federal Agent Stephen Coffman. His
efforts we thwarted for almost a year and released at the last minute with no time to go
public with the information and since we are in a critical war time, this information is
vital to a future Presidents integrity & character as to how he would command our armed
forces.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html

The release of Obama's draft registration and an accompanying document, posted

below, raises more questions than it answers. And it shows many signs of fraud, not to
mention putting the lie to Obama's claim that he registered for the draft in June 1979,
before it was required by law.

Barack Obama's Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents

show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the
document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal
crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then
it's proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the
Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally
able to do so until the age of 26.
But the Selective Service System registration ("SSS Form 1") and accompanying
computer print-out ("SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the
following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in
2008 and backdated:

* Document Location Number Indicates Obama Selective Service Form was Created
in 2008

First, there is the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form. In the upper right
hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-
stamped DLN, in this case "0897080632," which I've labeled as "A" on both the SSS
Form and the computer printout document. On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation,
but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look
like it is from 1980, when it was actually created in 2008.

As the retired federal agent notes:

Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the
standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of
issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008. The DLN on the computer
screen printout is the exact same number, except an 8 has been added to make it look
like it is from 1980 and give it a 1980 DLN number. And 1980 is the year
Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered. So, why does the
machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which
was manually input) reflect a "corrected" DLN year of 1980? Were all the DLNs
issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service
use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS
Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?

It's quite a "coincidence" . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this
case.

Far more likely is that someone made up a fake Selective Service registration to cover
Obama's lack of having done so, and that the person stamping the form forgot (or was
unable to) change the year to "80" instead of the current "08". They either forgot to
fake the DLN number or couldn't do so.

And guess where the Selective Service registrations are marked and recorded? Lucky
for Obama, it's his native Chicago. From an article entitled, "Post Office Registration
Process", on the Selective Service website:

When a young man reaches 18 he can go to any of the 35,000 post offices nationwide
to register with Selective Service. There he completes a simple registration card and
mails it to the Selective Service System. This begins a multi-step process which results
in the man's registration.

Each week approximately 6,000 completed registration cards are sent to the Selective
Service System's Data Management System (DMC) near Chicago, Ill. At the DMC
these cards are grouped into manageable quantities. Each card is then microfilmed
and stamped with a sequential document locator number. The processed microfilm is
reviewed to account for all documents and to ensure that the film quality is within
strict standards. After microfilming, the cards are keyed and then verified by a
different data transcriber.

The Document Locator Number (DLN) is an automatic function (Selective Service

record-keeping, specifically the DLN is described on pages 7-8 of this Federal Register
document), with the first two digits comprising the year, and it was not changed to
"08" in error. So if the form was filed and processed in 1980, how did it get a 2008
DLN?!

* Obama's Selective Service Registration Form is Apparently 1990 Form Altered to

Appear Like 1980 Form
On the SSS Form 1, in the lower left hand corner is the form number (SSS Form 1)
and the month and year version of the form, labeled as "B". On this particular Form
1, it clearly shows the month as "FEB" (February), and the year is either "80" or
"90". The retired federal agent investigated further:

Magnification of the form both physically (with a 10x glass) or with different image
software does not reflect a clear cut result of either a "80" or a "90".

But, checking the history of SSS Form 1 (see

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=198002-3240-001#), it's
apparent that in February 1980, the Selective Service agency withdrew a "Request for
a new OMB control number" for SSS Form 1 (see also, here)--meaning the agency
canceled its previous request for a new form, and one was never issued in "FEB
1980".

Since under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812
(Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 a federal
agency can not use a form not approved by OMB (Office of Management and Budget),
it's nearly impossible for Senator/President-Elect Obama's SSS Form 1 to be dated
"Feb 1980." And since that makes it almost certainly dated "Feb 1990," then how
could Barack Obama sign it and the postal clerk stamp it almost ten (10) years before
its issue?! Simply not possible.

The lower right hand corner reflects that the Obama SSS form 1 was approved by
OMB with an approval number of 19??0002, labeled as "C". The double question
marks (??) reflect digits that are not completely clear.

* Barack Obama's Signature is Dated After Postal Stamp Certifying His Signature

Barack H. Obama signed the SSS Form 1's "Today's date" as July 30, 1980, labeled
"D". But the Postal Stamp reflects the PREVIOUS day's date of July 29, 1980, labeled
"E". Yes, Obama could have mistakenly written the wrong date, but it is rare and
much more unlikely for someone to put a future date than a past date. (Also note how
Barry made such a "cute" peace sign with the "b" inside the "O" of his signature.
Touching.)

* Postal Stamp is Incorrect, Discontinued in 1970

Then, there is the question as to whether the Postal Stamp is real. The "postmark"
stamp--labeled "E"--is hard to read, but it is clear that at the bottom is "USPO" which
stands typically for United States Post Office. However, current "postmark" validator,
registry, or round dater stamps (item 570 per the Postal Operations Manual) shows
"USPS" for United States Postal Service. The change from Post Office to Postal
Service occurred on August 12, 1970, when President Nixon signed into law the most
comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic--Public Law 91-
375. The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971.

Why was an old, obsolete postmark round dater stamp used almost ten (10) years after
the fact to validate a legal document . . . that just happened to be Barack Obama's
suspicious Selective Service registration form?

* Form Shows Barack Obama didn't have ID

The SSS Form 1 states "NO ID", labeled "F". Since that's the case, then how did the
Hawaiian postal clerk know that the submitter was really Barack H. Obama, who may
have been on summer break from attending Occidental College in California. How
would they determine whether the registrant was truly registering and not a relative,
friend, or other imposter?

* The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama
Registration, Until Right Before the Election.

The retired federal agent who FOIA'd Barack Obama's Selective Service Registration
Form notes:

Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:
Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration
cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management
Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance
with Federal law.

Sincerely,

Janice L. Hughes/SSS

Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008 (prior to my October 13,
2008 request), and stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Did they
temporarily change the date on the computer database?

On the previous FOIA response, they stated that it was filed on September 4, 1980. In
my second request I mentioned that Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on
September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of
which commenced August 24, 1980.

* Other Questions: Missing Selective Service Number, FOIA Response Dated Prior to
FOIA Request, Missing Printout Page

Where is Obama's Selective Service number (61-1125539-1) on the card?

And the retired federal agent notes that the Selective Service Data Management Center
prepared its response to his FOIA request prior to the request having been made:

The last transaction date is 09/04/80 [DS: labeled "G"], but the date of the printout is
09/09/08 [DS: labeled "H"]. My FOIA was dated October 13 so why did they prepare
the printout BEFORE I submitted my FOIA? I gave them no "heads up" that I was
sending it. In fact it was not mailed until late October--around the 25th.

Also, notice the printout was page 1 of 2 [DS: labeled "I"].

Hmmm . . . where is the other page, and what's on it?

A lot of questions here. And a lot of huge hints that this government-released, official
Barack Obama Selective Service registration was faked. Either he signed the fake
backdated document, or someone else faked his signature and he never registered for
the draft (and lied about it).

Which is it?

It's incredible that our impending Commander-in-Chief either didn't register for the
draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently.

The documents indicate it's one or the other.

*** UPDATE: Here's another irregularity that points to fraud, as spotted by reader
Joyce:

My husband printed the information provided on your web site regarding Barack
Obama's Selective Service registration discrepancies. I noticed that the DLN number
in upper right corner (labeled "A") has only ten (10) digits with the first two being 08 ,
but the DLN number shown on the computer screen printout has eleven (11) digits
with the first two being 80. It clearly indicates that the "8" was added at the beginning
of the DLN number, in order to appear that it was issued in 1980 and wasn't simply a
reversal of the first two digits as the retired federal agent noted. This in itself appears
questionable. I would think there is a standard number of digits in all DLN numbers.

**** UPDATE #2, 11/14/08: Retired Federal Agent Source Reveals Himself:

The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there
is no question as to the source of the information.

His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident
Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Galveston, Texas
office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher
security clearance for the majority of those years.

He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the
attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the
questions.

He can be reached via email at retirediceagent@sbcglobal.net.

 2. Then in 2006 while traveling as a US Senator abroad, Barack Obama
spent taxpayer dollars and time campaigning for his cousin PM Odinga. This is an
act of treason under the Constitution as, at no time is a US Citizen, but especially
an elected official of the government to partake in foreign elections as to influence
that foreign counties government. While there, he also turned over a campaign
donation under the name of “Friends of Barack Obama”. Thus, it only goes to
further show his influences on and of foreign governments and his influences in
their policies that he should have no say in and that fact that his time spent under
the influence as a citizen of foreign countries has adversely affected his allegiance
to this country. If you had verified the sources I gave you in my last letter, this
would have been plainly clear.

3. Another fact to further cause pause for Barack Obama’s character,

integrity and honesty, as well as his allegiance and respect for US laws is the fact
that when he filed for his law license in the state of IL upon his passing of the bar
exam, Barack Obama lied on his application. When asked if he went by any other
aliases/names he checked no. It is documented in official government documents
of both the US & Indonesia that Barack Obama had gone by other names. Now
some say that the name Barry is short for Barack, but if that is the case then
previous records have been falsified by using a nickname instead of his given
name when registering for school, etc. Also, Barack was adopted by his step
father, Lolo Soetoro and until the time he changed his name, he was known as
Barry Soetoro. This is another document that has been refused under the FOIA,
when did he legally change his name and did he ever legally change it when he
came of age or will it show he is still legally Barry Soetoro? These are questions
that must be answered, but more importantly they are questions that should have
been answered long ago before he even became a US Senator, let alone a state
Senator. The following documents support my facts that Barack Obama falsified
his IL law application by not listing at least one of his aliases. The following is
from a reporter of “The Boston Globe”

By David Abel, Globe Staff | March 8, 2007

Obama received 17 parking tickets in Cambridge between 1988 and 1991, according to
the city's Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department.

Of those tickets, he paid only two while he was a student and paid them late, said
Susan Clippinger, the office's director.

In January, about when the Globe began asking local officials about Obama's time at
Harvard, including any violations of local laws, someone representing the senator
called the parking office to inquire about the decades-old tickets.

On Jan. 26, the remaining $375 in fines and fees were paid by credit card using the
city's website, Clippinger said. She said she didn't know who paid them.
The article quotes a city spokesman for Somerville (where Obama lived while attending
Harvard) saying that the paid the city $73 in excise taxes and $45 in late penalties for
parking in a bus stop in 1990 and in a street-sweeping zone in 1991, and the city
spokesman says Obama "had no idea he had outstanding charges."

All in all, there are much worse sins for a presidential candidate than having a pile of
unpaid parking tickets. And the candidate can point out that by putting him in the
White House, he'll no longer be menacing Cambridge bus stops, street sweepers, and
resident-only zones.

But here's the thing: Barack Obama is a member of the state bar of Illinois, and was
admitted in December 1991. The application to the bar requires aspiring lawyers to
disclose just about any run-in with the law on both the "Character and Fitness
Questionnaire" and the "Illinois State Police Form."

For example, Question 33 of the State Police Form is, "Do you have outstanding
parking violations?"

And then there's Question 35: "Do you understand that after this Additional
Questionnaire is filed, you will have a continuing reporting obligation to notify the
Board of Admissions of any changes or additions to the information provided in your
application? This includes, but is not limited to, address changes, employment
changes, disciplinary actions (professional, educational, employment or other), arrests,
criminal charges, becoming a party to litigation, overdue and defaulted credit and loan
accounts, filing for relief under federal bankruptcy laws, failure to comply with state
or federal tax laws, and traffic violations, including any parking tickets that are not
paid upon receipt."

(Questions 51 and 55 on the Character and Fitness Questionnaire are essentially the
same. It is theoretically possible that the forms Obama filled out back in the early
1990s didn't have these questions, although I'm not sure why the question wouldn't
appear on earlier forms... UPDATE: A reader who applied to the Illinois Bar in 1986
says the question was on the application then, too.)

Presumably, asked whether he had outstanding parking violations, Obama said no;
you figure if he knew about them, he would have paid them. (Although are we to
believe Obama forgot about 17 tickets stuck under his windshield wiper over three
years? The wind blew them all away before he returned to his car?) Whether that's
worth worrying about is up to the Illinois State Bar Association. But a more interesting
question would be whether Obama (or someone on his staff) updated the State Bar
about the parking tickets once they were paid in 2007. After all, there is that
"continuing reporting obligation to notify the Board of Admissions of any changes or
additions to the information provided in your application." Or does the lawyer's
reporting obligation cease if the law license becomes inactive, as Obama's did in 2002?

Inevitably, some fan of Obama out there will look at this post and ask, "why is that
stupid Jim trying to distract us from the important issues by asking about Obama's
answer on the state bar association's application about parking tickets?" I would note
 that the Illinois State Bar Association feels that an individual's diligence with even
minor violations of the law like parking tickets is significant enough to ask a separate
question about it. Take it up with them.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/03/08/obama_paid_late_parking_ticke
ts/

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2ExMGI1YzRhZjg5NDcxYjY2Y2V
hZGFiZmE1MDRlM2E=

The state police form has now also been made “no longer available” when this should be
available under FOIA which goes to show yet another cover-up and discredit to his
character, honesty and integrity and as you now see, this quest to know who this
candidate is goes back well before he even became the nominee.

4. What name did Barack Obama use in college and where did the funds for his
college come from? This is also information that should have been released under the
FOIA application, but the records have been sealed. I ask WHY? Could it be that he
registered under another name? Since he didn’t sign up for the selective service under
law, he could not apply for student loans because then it would have been known that he
didn’t register and thus his loan applications would have been denied and thus, who
funded him? He claims that he was straddled with a large amount of debt when he
graduated, so we must know who he owed this money to or did he not owe anything and
was put through college with scholarships from foreign donors such as Khalid Al –
Mansour. Here is a transcript of an interview from late March, when former Manhattan
Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business
partner who was “raising money” for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama
get into Harvard Law School. Unfortunately the video available in the internet has been
removed as most interviews have that can be damaging to Obama and our case against
him.

In the interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years
ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist
who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the
time the party was founded in the early 1960s.

Sutton described al-Mansour as advisor to “one of the world’s richest

men,” Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Prince Alwaleed catapulted to fame in the United States after the

September 11 attacks, when New York mayor Rudy Guiliani refused his
$10 million check to help rebuild Manhattan, because the Saudi prince
hinted publicly that America’s pro-Israel policies were to blame for the
attacks.

Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business
partners and served on several corporate boards together.

As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama’s

education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law
 School.

“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for

him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. “The friend’s
name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas.”

5.
 Under Article I, Section 20, Clause 2 & 3 of the Constitution it is your duty to be
sure a President Elect is fully qualified before confirming the Electoral votes.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting
shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a
different day.
 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the
President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a
President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect
shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by
law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which
one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a
President or Vice President shall have qualified.

I have laid out your duties as written in the Constitution so there is no mistake
what they actually are. It is your duty under that oath of office that you took to make sure
WE THE PEOPLE have a fully qualified President & Vice President and our military
have a qualified Commander in Chief.

I have presented you with irrefutable evidence based on reputable sources and
US & State Government documents & laws. I have given you more than enough credible
evidence that should leave you with great pause to stand firm and order that a
Congressional Committee be formed to investigate Barack Obama, John McCain and the
Democratic & Republican Committee Chairman for their crimes they have committed in
causing this election to fall into such an unconstitutional state that it could forever do
irreparable harm to our country and it’s people faith in their elected officials. The election
needs to be returned to a Constitutional State and returned to the People for justice to be
done and we will not rest until it is done and those responsible are held accountable for
their crimes against the Constitution.

It is a sad day when “We the People” whom you have sworn to serve honorably
have such little trust that we have to go to such lengths to help you do your duties which
you should know. It should be the duty of each elected official to know the Constitution
and their responsibilities and restrictions are under it. I will save the restrictions for
another time, but rest assured, it will not be long before you here from me in great length
again, as I now know I have to spell everything out in detail as not to leave it for you to
assume my requests. Nor will I ever assume you are doing your job and verifying my
reputable resources that confirm the facts I present to you in my letters.

Respectfully,

This 30th day of December, 2008