Saturday, April 9, 2011

'We don't NEED no Stinkin' Birth Certificate' We Got Section 1 of Article Two

Rumormill News

'We don't NEED no Stinkin' Birth Certificate' We Got Section 1 of Article Two

Posted By: Rayelan [Send E-Mail]
Date: Saturday, 9-Apr-2011 11:23:29

I have come to believe that the birth certificate thing is just a ruse to keep everyone running in circles hoping to find the REAL birth certificate. It reminds me of a snipe hunt with the Obama administration handing out the bags and leaving the entire world holding the bag.

Everyone knows that Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. does NOT qualify to be president under Section 1 Article Two of our Constitution:

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.

Recently I read this:

Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment. Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.

This is crucial to understanding that Obama is not eligible to be President as it provides the strongest Supreme Court statement – post Wong Kim Ark – indicating that the current occupant of the White House is not in legal possession of the office of President.

Here is the relevant statement by Justice Black:

“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)

read more: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/justice-hugo-black-in-duncan-v-louisiana-indicates-obama-would-not-be-eligible-ineligibility-echoed-by-former-attorney-general-jeremiah-black/

If no further cases have been brought to set a new precedent… then Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. was NEVER eligible to be President. He is NOT the child of two natural born citizens. His father was a citizen of Kenya which was a colony of the UK at the time. The “natural born citizen” clause was put in our Constitution to make sure that no President would have divided loyalties.

What country, what religion, what form of law and what ideology is Barak Obama loyal to? Who knows?

In my mind, all those who conspired to make him a candidate, helped him run for election, and who are complicit in keeping him in office should all be charged with treason and shot!

Would someone please forward this to Donald Trump… and apologies to Humphrey Bogart and Sierra Madre.

If I'm wrong... someone correct me.

Raye

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is evidence that he was officially adopted by his stepfather, Lolo Sotoero, who was an Indonesian citizen. This would also disqualify him. The Catholic school in Indonesia that he attended shows on the enrollment record that his citizenship is Indonesian. As for the birth certificate being relevant or irrelevant, without it we really can't ascertain whether his father was Obama Sr. or Communist and mentor Frank Marshall Davis or Malcolm X.

Anonymous said...

Raye,
you ask to be corrected if you are wrong. Your article, as well as the first comment, show that neither of you have even the slightest clue of reality.

You say:
"Everyone knows that Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. does NOT qualify to be president under Section 1 Article Two of our Constitution"

This is wrong because it makes an assumption that Obama is the constitutional President of the Republic of the united states of America. He is NOT. Obama is President of the White House Corporation, founded in 1787.

You say:
"This is crucial to understanding that Obama is not eligible to be President as it [snip]"

The word President MUST ALWAYS be modified by adjectives, otherwise the sentence is nonsense.

You say:
"[snip] indicating that the current occupant of the White House is not in legal possession of the office of President"

The current occupant of the White House Corporation is legally the President of the White House Corporation, which also does business as Executive Office Of The United States Government. This occupant is NOT legally President of the constitutional Republic of the united states of America.

You say:
"[snip] then Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. was NEVER eligible to be President."

Again, you fail to modify the noun "President" with any adjectives. Without adjectives it is impossible to know whether you are talking about President of the Republic, or President of the White House Corporation, or President of ACME Peanut Butter.

You say:
"In my mind, all those who conspired to make him a candidate, helped him run for election, and who are complicit in keeping him in office should all be charged with treason and shot!"

Treason is a very serious offense, especially when committed against freedom fighters who marched barefoot in Winter and had their frozen toes and gangrene limbs amputated without any anesthetic. The treason most likely started no later than around 1786 to 1787 due to Shays's Rebellion in central and western Massachusetts. It appears that rich, large land-holders such as Samual Adams and George Washington decided after Shays's Rebellion to defraud the people out of their Republic. George Washington whispered his oath of office at noon on April 30, 1789 on Wall Street in New York City and became President of the White House Corporation, founded 2 years earlier in 1787. Banksters and traitors have been in control ever since.

It has taken over 200 years for a few people to see through the clever fraud; when will the rest finally wake up from their life-long brain-washing and realize that there has NEVER been a President of the Republic of the united states of America, but only Presidents of the White House Corporation of 1787, a corporation that pretends to be the constitutional government ?

Anonymous said...

"when will the rest finally wake up from their life-long brain-washing..."

History shows us that they simply will never have that light-bulb moment, as a group. Get over it.

Let's keep right on making educational progress on a one-on-one basis, but don't ever expect a group to suddenly change their stripes. It's just not in their genes to do so. You're asking too much.