Sunday

Lift Up America




>> See the update at Original Birther Document <<





The U.S. Constitution:
The ORIGINAL 'Birther' Document Of The United States

What did the ORIGINAL 'Birther' document words
'natural born Citizen' and 'Citizen' in
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5
mean to the Founders?


Maybe a conversation ‘prairie fire’ can be lit to motivate BIG TALKER and BIG BLOGGER 'thought leaders' to

WAKE UP – Look UP – Sit UP – Stand UP – Speak UP

Talk Talk Talk
Write Write Write

PROTECT & DEFEND

the

ORIGINAL INTENT

of the

ORIGINAL WORDS

of the

ORIGINAL 'Birther' DOCUMENT

of the

UNITED STATES

the

U.S. CONSTITUTION

specifically

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5


~ ~ ~ 


The Conversation
This is a conversation about 

The U.S. Constitution: The ORIGINAL “Birther” Document Of The United States

This quick study was written by a “normal person” for “we the people” with common sense.

I am NOT a lawyer.

I have normal person questions such as “what does THAT mean?”
I have normal person conclusions that are so obvious to this non-lawyer. 

As a quick preface, let us consider 11 easy questions, no tricks. Well, except, for the uninformed, maybe #10 and #11, the two questions for extra credit.

1-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. "Citizen" parents?

Yes?
No?

2-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. "Citizen" parent and ONE non-U.S. "Citizen" parent?

Yes?
No?

… what if the papa is NOT known as the result of rape?

… what if the papa is NOT known as the result of rape and the child is adopted?
… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are heterosexual male and female?
… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual female and female?
… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual male and male?

… what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and unknown donor citizenship documents are not available?
… what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and the surrogate mother is not a U.S. “Citizen?”

3-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. "Citizen" parents?

Yes?
No?

2… 1… 0… bingo. 

Some people have written to me in various forums that the answer is ‘yes’ to questions 1, 2 and 3.

If that is your ‘anti-birther’ conclusion, well, you definitely have another think coming.

So, if the answer is not obvious with the first 3 questions, here’s more. 

4-
Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

5-
Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1868 14th Amendment "Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

6-
Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1868 14th Amendment “Citizen?”

Yes?
No?
 

7-
Does a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. "Citizen" parents qualify to be POTUS?

Yes?
No?

8-
Does a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. "Citizen" parent and ONE non-U.S. "Citizen" parent qualify to be POTUS?

Yes?
No?

9-
Does a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. “Citizen” parents qualify to be POTUS?

Yes?
No?

2 more questions for extra credit -

10-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

11-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1795 Naturalization Act "Citizen?"

Yes?
No? 

Scroll down to read The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 with yellow highlight on the clarifying words. 

~ ~ ~ 

I started this quick study March 2, 2012 with the understanding that the Founders wrote the U.S. Constitution to be understood by ‘we the people’, specifically the words "natural born Citizen" and “Citizen” in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ with original intent, in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

The Founders did NOT write "natural born Citizen" for “birther” lawyers of 1787 in the 18th century.
The Founders definitely did NOT write "natural born Citizen" for “anti-birther” lawyers of 2012 in the 21st century

The Founders, who knew the meanings of words, wrote the U.S. Constitution so that “we the people” would ALWAYS know what a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” is and to whom it applies, from generation to generation, from election to election, from POTUS to POTUS.

Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” was written to protect the United States from illegal or legal aliens who would try to “OCCUPY” the Oval Office as POTUS.

To maintain our freedom as an individualist Constitutional Republic and NOT a serfs paradise, aka an collectivist Commune Democracy, aka a progressive Marxistworkers of the world, UNITE and throw off your chains of inequality” paradise… and lose your individual freedom in the commune, an Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” MUST be a child of two “Citizen” parents with perpetual relevance, to

protect and defend the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic,
whether or not they are a “Citizen” who may try to illegally “OCCUPY” the Oval Office as POTUS.

This quick study was not written for lawyers with case law references but for very busy common sense “normal” people who ask “what does THAT mean” and simply want to know what the "birther" issue is and how to understand what a "birther" is so they can clearly and easily share it with other busy common sense conservative “normal” people.

For that reason, some historical writings, law terms and SCOTUS decisions referenced by lawyers when discussing citizenship and naturalization will not be used in this quick study, and will only be mentioned in this intro section. These include the two law terms that distinguish birth parents and birth place, the two major SCOTUS decisions, and history books favored by the Founders concerning what a “natural born Citizen” is. 

This is written in a table-talk conversational style, not in a text book style with tons of "truth proof" references and foot notes, and things of that sort that must be in a text book.

~ ~ ~

For those that want the lawyer talk with references, foot notes and current events info, here are five sources.

(1) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

A lawyer’s happy hunting ground about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” definition as it pertains to putative President BHObama today so that in future vetting of candidates for POTUS, ONLY a child born on U.S. soil with 2 U.S. “Citizen” parents will be recognized as an 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and legally “… eligible to the Office of President…” as stated in Clause 5.

September 8, 2009 –

April 25, 2012 –  


Part 1 –
In Part I, I will discuss the rules of constitutional interpretation and construction.

Part 2 –
In Part II, I will analyze the text of the Constitution and specifically the “natural born Citizen” clause.

Part 3 –
In Part III, we will explore the Founders’ and Framers’ purpose for requiring that future presidents be “natural born Citizens.”

Part 4 –
Part IV will include a discussion of both English and American “common-law,” with a presentation on the critical differences between the two as they relate to how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” under the law of nations which was incorporated into the laws of the United States as national American common law.

Part 5 –
In Part V, I will discuss the early naturalization acts and how they reveal how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.”

Part 6 –
I will discuss the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in Part VI

Part 7 –
and the Fourteenth Amendment in Part VII, showing how the amendment does not define a “natural born Citizen,” but rather a “citizen of the United States.”

Part 8 –
In Part VIII, I will explain the importance of Minor v. Happersett and show how it confirmed the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of the country when the child was born.

Part 9 –
In Part IX, I will show how U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark only defined a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and that it did not change the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Part 10 –
In Part X, I will show why two U.S. “citizen” parents are needed to have a “natural born Citizen.”

Part 11 –
Finally, I will present my conclusion in Part XI which is that the plain text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 shows that the only person that is eligible to be President is a “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”

This means that today a "citizen of the United States" is not eligible to be President and only a "natural born Citizen" is.

If Obama were born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, being born to a non-U.S. “citizen” father, he would not be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but he would be a "citizen of the United States" as of 1961 under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Since Obama is neither a “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” his is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. 

(2) BirtherReport.com
(http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/ ) Current events and videos posted daily.

(3) TheObamaFile.com

(4) Obama-Nation.com

-providing insights into Presidential eligibility and verification~

an amalgam of original essays and comments by a.r. nash and others, from many web sources, covering the Constitution, history, philosophy, the law, and the birth certificates.

(5) Stephen Tonchen
(http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm ) The Tonchen Primer appeared on the Internet in June 2009. 

~ ~ ~

Two reasons why "natural born Citizen" has eternal relevance. 

(1) BOTH verifiable original genesis heterosexual parents, male and female, must be a verifiable “Citizen” prior to the birth of the child on U.S. soil.

(2) BOTH verifiable original genesis heterosexual parents, male and female, must be a verifiable “Citizen” prior to the birth of the child on U.S. soil, even if homosexual parents raise the child. 

In future court litigation about “natural born Citizen,” the issue will include ‘equal justice’ exclusively by nature, aka birth, aka ‘original genesis’ heterosexual propagation of the species by a male and a female, and the putsch to include ‘social justice’ inclusively by law, aka, choice, homosexual adoption for the homosexual 3%.

Nature and Nurture

An additional implication, if not obvious yet, concerns nature and nurture.

Nature refers to heterosexual original genesis of a child, natural or in vitro.

Nurture refers to the day-to-day raising of the child, whether by adoption by a heterosexual male/female couple, or by adoption by a homosexual male/male couple or female/female couple.

The child will still need to be recognized as an 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and be “… eligible to the Office of President …” because the child was born on U.S. soil with TWO ‘original genesis’, aka ‘nature’, U.S. “Citizen” parents…

… whether or not the nature original genesis parents are an in vitro donor male ‘parent’ or an in vitro female surrogate ‘parent’ for either the ‘nurture’ heterosexual adoptive parents or the ‘nurture’ homosexual adoptive parents.

 whether or not the day-to-day parents are the original genesis parents or adoptive parents
… whether or not the day-to-day adoptive parents are heterosexual or homosexual 

In 1787, the Founders and writers of the words“natural born Citizen” in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 were definitely NOT referring to heterosexual parentage and homosexual parentage, which, by the ‘original genesis’ law of nature, is not possible for the homosexual.

However, homosexual adoption is possible by the law of men, who sometimes legislate against the law of nature, i.e., pass laws contrary to ‘original genesis’ law, aka ‘nature’.
 

This is a conversation about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our American Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

This is a conversation to inform putative President BHObama "anti-birthers," who do NOT CARE what the U.S. Constitution says, that the U.S. Constitution does NOT CARE that they do not care.

This is a conversation to ALSO inform the anybody-BUT-Obama "I-don-wanna-talk-about-the-birth-certificate" national BIG Talker and BIG Blogger "thought leaders," Conservative OR Progressive, who seem to be in ridicule free “stay-away-from-the-birther-issue” deep-sleep silence and will NOT even TALK, just TALK... about the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

Why don’t they just TALK about the U.S. Constitution which expects them to DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

If not you, who?
If not now, when" 

~ ~ ~

The “prairie fire” reference is to the Weather Underground manifesto of Bill Ayers and his fellow Marxist “transformers” in the 1960s, “Prairie Fire: the Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism,” about a national insurrection against the United States, capitalism and the U.S. Constitution.

Scroll down to PrairieFire.org or click here (http://www.prairiefire.org/about.shtml?History ) for a quick look on the “About” page and their intent for their struggle, their jihad, and what “we the people” are up against.

~ ~ ~

Questions for the "thought leaders" who are our "we the people" friends.

If the "thought leaders" on Radio - TV - Print - Online do not want to talk about the "birther" issue, well then, this conversation can start right now with our "we the people "thought leader" friends with these two questions. 

(1) WHY don't they just get the “birther issue” out of the way, if it is possible, and just TALK about WHY they do NOT want to TALK about "IT"... the "birther" issue?

Why?

So we, their "we the people" friends, will know WHY they are SILENT and will NOT even TALK about the concomitant Constitutional implications of ignoring the 1787 Clause 5 words (a) "natural born Citizen," (b) "... or … time ... Adoption ..." and (c) "Citizen." 

Why not just simply TALK about the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic in the context of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 if they “don’t-wanna-talk-about-the-birth-certificate” and BHObama, who has managed to “OCCUPY” the Oval Office without a valid birth certificate?

Staying deep-sleep SILENT is what MOST of “we the people” are doing.

This includes MOST, can we say 99%?, of the “thought leaders” on Radio – TV – Print – Online, including the common sense conservative news blogs and the GOPe online and print news blogs.

Do you hear the birds chirp, chirp, chirp?

The common sense conservative "thought leaders" are ALSO ignoring an important legal issue by NOT even ONE TIME giving a short comment... NOT even a SHORT comment...  about the probable cause legal implications of the March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse news conference by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Why? 

(2) WHY not, then, JUST simply TALK TALK TALK about the U.S. Constitution itself, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, in context, to inform and educate the progressive and conservative “anti-birthers” who may have graduated from Harvard, and educate them the way that Hillsdale College does with the entire Constitution in it's free online course, Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution.

Why?
~ ~ ~

Parent and Place

These are the two law terms that refer to "parent–by blood (sanguinis)" and to "place–by soil (soli)"

(1) jus sanguinis for birth parents – the child is a born citizen with the reference to blood, aka parent.
(2) jus soli for birth place – the child is born with citizenship acquired from the soil on which one is born, aka place.

These are the two major SCOTUS decisions.

(1) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
(2) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). 

One of the books used by the Founders was Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).

These are the three founding historical writings that will be part of this quick study:

(1) The 1787 U.S. Constitution
(2) The 1795 Naturalization Act
(3) The 1868 14th Amendment

(1) The 1787 U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787 and ratified by the states in 1788, specifically Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5, with a focus on the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words (a)natural born Citizen,” and how the ORIGINAL words (b) “... or ... time ... Adoption...” are relevant ONLY to the ORIGINAL word (c) Citizen.”

(2) The 1795 Naturalization Act

The 1795 Naturalization Act of the President George Washington administration limited “natural born Citizen” ONLY to children born on the soil of our American Republic AFTER the 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed because it DID designate children born on foreign soil as a "natural born Citizen" of the American Republic.

The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 confirm that being a “Citizen” does not mean the same thing as a “natural born Citizen.”

Scroll down to The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 for a brief description of the 1790 Naturalization Act and 1795 Naturalization Act that repealed it. It is located after the Sheriff Joe Arpaio March 31, 2012 Press Conference transcript.

(3) The 1868 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment, adopted and ratified in 1868,  limited a born “Citizen” and a naturalized "Citizen" to the soil of the American Republic. 

Born In The USA?
Rethinking Birthright Citizenship In The Wake Of 911
By John C. Eastman

Scribd.com – the quote is on page 12

“The notion that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, when seeking to guarantee the right of citizenship to the former slaves, also sought to guarantee citizenship to the children of enemies of the United States who were in our territory illegally, is simply too absurd to be a credible interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.”

John C. Eastman, Ph.D., is Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. This memorandum stems from an amicus brief filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of respondents in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
By John C. Eastman March 30, 2006

Heritage.org

“It is today routinely believed that under the Citi­zenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain U.S. citizen­ship. However strong this commonly believed inter­pretation might appear, it is incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause (particularly as informed by the debate surrounding its adoption), but also with the political theory of the American Founding.” 

Repeat… Repeat… Repeat.

Since repetition works, you will find a “whole lotta” repetition of certain words and phrases until the words and phrases become so familiar that they roll off the tongue fluidly until the eternal relevance of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 sinks into the subconscious.

When THAT happens, those who DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of America, UNITE, throw off your chains, STOP feeling intimidated by putative President BHObama “birthers”, aka “anti-birthers” who do NOT care what Clause 5 says OR means, either to the Founders or “original intent” common sense conservative thinkers today. 

The phrase "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!" has been updated by putative President BHObama "anti-birthers" to "Birth certificate? We don't need no stinkin' birth certificate!"

Respond to the “anti-birthers” with confidence and informed firm conviction that the Founders were RIGHT.

The Founders were RIGHT.

The Founders of 1787 in the 18th century who wrote the ORIGINAL “birther” document were RIGHT… and so are “we the people” RIGHT in 2012 in the 21st century when we DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

(1) In 1787, the Founders were RIGHT when they wrote Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
to protect OUR Republic, NOT aliens, illegal OR legal.
(2) In 1795, President George Washington was RIGHT when the 1795 Naturalization Act repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act
to protect OUR Republic, NOT aliens, illegal OR legal.
(3) In 1868, the 14th Amendment was RIGHT
to protect OUR Republic, NOT aliens, illegal OR legal.

Yes!

From my Christian friends, as they say from the pulpit, “Can I get a witness?”

Yes… Yes… Yes…

~ ~ ~

For Those Who Want To Know What The Difference Is Between
A “Natural Born Citizen” and A “Citizen”
At The “Time” Of The “Adoption” Of The U.S. Constitution In 1787

>> Clause 5: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen … .”<<

Consider this.

Both “natural born Citizen” AND “Citizen” are contrasted in the SAME Clause 5 and in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word "or" with original intent meaning.

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.

Exactly What Is A Natural Born Citizen? (8 minutes - http://youtu.be/QEnaAZrYqQI )

To be eligible to the office of POTUS at the time of “Adoption” in 1787 –

Part 1 –
… a “natural born Citizen
… a “Citizen
… time of adoption of the Constitution

Part 2 –
… 35 years of age
… 14 year resident
… within the United States

“No person except
a “natural born Citizen,”

or… or… OR…

a “Citizen” of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
shall be eligible to the Office of President; … .”

So.

What did "OR" and "Adoption" mean to the founders in the 18th century in the year 1787, “... or … at the time of the Adoption… .?”

What did "OR" and "Adoption" mean later in the 19th century in 1841, when John Tyler, President #10, became the FIRST 1787 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" to be elected POTUS?

What did "OR" and "Adoption" mean later in the 19th century in 1849 when Zachary Taylor, President #12, became the LAST 1787 Clause 5 "Citizen" to be elected POTUS?

What did “OR” and “Adoption” mean for another 19 years after 1849, until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted and ratified?

THAT is what “OR” and “Adoption” mean today in 2012 and the 21st century.

Hint… President #12, Zachary Taylor, was the LAST “… time of adoption…” of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 “Citizen” to occupy the office of POUTS.

It’s obvious.

Both “OR” and “Adoption” mean the SAME thing today as they did then.

When?

When was the “Adoption” of the Constitution?

The new Constitution was "adopted" in 1787 by the Constitutional Convention BEFORE it was "ratified" in 1788 by the States BEFORE the new government began in 1789. 

Constitutional Convention 

1. The United States of America began as an independent nation with the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, governed until March 4, 1789 under the Articles of Confederation, without an executive branch.

2.  On February 21, 1787, the Articles Congress called a convention of state delegates at Philadelphia to propose a plan of government to strengthen the Articles of Confederation.

3. The Constitutional Convention began deliberations on May 25, 1787. After debate, a new constitution was proposed, adopted and sent to the states to be ratified.

4. The Convention met on Monday, September 17, 1787, for its final session.

5. Transmitted to the Articles Congress then sitting in New York City, the Constitution was forwarded to the states by Congress recommending the ratification process outlined in the new Constitution.

6. Each state legislature was to call elections for a “Federal Convention” to ratify the Constitution.

7. Eleven of the thirteen ratified to begin. Ratification by the thirteen original 1776 states began with Delaware on December 7, 1787 and ended with Rhode Island on May 29, 1790.

8. The Articles Congress certified eleven states beginning the new government, and called the states to hold elections to begin operation.

9. Article Seven of the constitution of the United States describes the process by which the entire document was to become effective.

10. It required that conventions of nine of the thirteen original States ratify the constitution.

11. Once word was received that the ninth state had ratified the constitution, New Hampshire, June 21, 1788, a timetable was set for the start of operations under the Constitution.

12. The Articles Congress dissolved itself without incident on the day the first session of the First Congress began on March 4, 1789 when the new Constitution became the basis for the United States federal government with an executive branch.

13. George Washington was inaugurated as President almost two months later on April 30, 1789. 

~ ~ ~

What Clause 5 Does NOT Mean

Part 1 –
What Clause 5 does NOT mean.

It is obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that ONLY those who were a “natural born Citizen” at the TIME of the 1787 ADOPTION of the Constitution will FOR EVER be the ONLY ones eligible to occupy the office of POTUS.

Why?

No one who was a “natural born Citizen” alive in 1787 is still alive now.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that ONLY those who were a “Citizen” at the TIME of the 1787 ADOPTION of the Constitution will FOR EVER be the ONLY ones eligible to occupy the office of POTUS.

Why?

No one who was a “Citizen” alive in 1787 is still alive now.

It is obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that a “natural born Citizen” will CEASE to be a FUTURE requirement for eligibility to be POTUS after the “adoption” of the Constitution in 1787.

Why?

Because people were being born in 1787, even as the Constitution was being "adopted" by the Constitutional Convention in September of 1787.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that a 1787 “Citizen” can BE a future requirement for eligibility to be POTUS after the “adoption” of the Constitution in 1787.

Why?

Because all who were called a “Citizen” in 1787 are not alive now.

It is obvious.

An Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” was an 1787 “… time of adoption…” requirement AND a CONTINUOUS requirement for future citizens who would want to occupy the office of POTUS.

Why?

People were born at the time of "adoption" of the Constitution in 1787 AND they continue to be born now in 2012.

An Clause 5 “Citizen” was an 1787 “… time of adoption…”  requirement ONLY… NOT as people were born AFTER the “… time of adoption…” in 1787.

Why? 

A person can NOT “BE” a "Citizen" AT the "… TIME of adoption…" of the Constitution in 1787 and “BECOME” a "Citizen" AT the “… TIME of adoption…” AFTER the "adoption" of the Constitution in 1787. 

THAT previous sentence is spelled out intentionally for the benefit of the pro-Obama “anti-birther” lawyers AND the any-one-but-Obama “anti-birther” lawyers who tend to obfuscate with many multi-syllable words.

It is obvious.

What is the “OR” there for in “…a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen … at the time of Adoption… ” in 1787?

What is being distinguished by “OR”?

It is obvious.

The distinction was between a perpetual eligibility requirement and an eligibility requirement that could ONLY be fulfilled in 1787.

1 - A “… time of adoption…”  in 1787 “natural born Citizen” that was perpetual because people were being born in 1787 and since then

OR 

2 - A “… time of adoption…” in 1787 “Citizen” that was NOT perpetual because they would not live forever.

It is obvious.

It was ONLY a one time “… time of adoption...” in 1787 contrast between a "natural born Citizen" OR a "Citizen" and not a perpetual contrast.

Why?

1 - The Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement would continue beyond 1787... forever.

2 - The Clause 5 "Citizen" eligibility requirement would cease after ALL of the people who were a Clause 5 "... time of adoption…" in 1787 "Citizen" would no longer be alive.

It is obvious.

If... "IF"... an Clause 5 “… time of adoption...” in 1787 “Citizen” was perpetual as is a Clause 5 “… time of adoption..." in 1787 “natural born Citizen” and those people born in the future, the 14th Amendment would not have been needed to clarify what a “Citizen” is, THEN, at the time that the 14th Amendment was ratified, or NOW.

Why?

An Clause 5 "... time of adoption..." in 1787 “Citizen” would have been referenced as the source definition of a “Citizen” in contrast to a "natural born Citizen."

However.

A Clause 5 "... time of adoption..." in 1787 "Citizen" has NOT been referenced as a PERPETUAL definition of a "Citizen" by SCOTUS for those seeking the office of POTUS at any time BEFORE the 14th Amendment.

A Clause 5 "... time of adoption..." in 1787 "Citizen" has NEVER been considered superior to the 1868 ratification of the 4th Amendment definition of a “Citizen” by SCOTUS in court decisions AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified by the States.

Why?

Because NO Clause 5 "... time of adoption..." in 1787 "Citizen" is still alive.

It is obvious.

Part 2 –
What Clause 5 does NOT mean.

It is obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that in 2012 a “natural born Citizen” who is a 14 year resident but is only 34 years of age IS eligible to hold the office of POTUS.

Clause 5 does NOT meant that in 2012 a “Citizen” who is a 14 year resident but is only 34 years of age IS eligible to hold the office of POTUS.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that in 2012 a “natural born Citizen” who is 35 years of age but is only a 13 year resident IS eligible.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that a “Citizen” in 2012 who is 35 years of age but is only a 13 year resident IS eligible.

Part 1 and Part 2 –

They do NOT mean the same thing and they are NOT in conflict with each other because they do NOT restrict each other.

It is obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that the eligibility requirement of being 35 years of age is the SAME as being a 14 year resident “within” the United States… they are different…
… some things are just SO obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that 35 years of age and 14 year residency are in CONFLICT with each other and they do NOT contradict each other…
… some things are just SO obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen” mean the SAME thing… they are different…
… some things are just SO obvious.

Clause 5 does NOT mean that a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen” CONFLICT with each other or RESTRICT each other since they are INDEPENDENT of each other… as people continuing to be born proves…
… some things are just SO obvious. 

It is obvious.

THAT is what Clause 5 does NOT mean.

~ ~ ~

What Clause 5 DOES Mean

So.

What does Clause 5 mean?

Clause 5 means that in 1789, the first President of the NEW Republic, that was called the United States in Clause 5, George Washington, was simply a “Citizen” of the United States and NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States when the U.S. Constitution was “adopted” in 1787. 

Clause 5 means that Presidents #1 - #9 and #12 were ALL “Citizens” and NOT “natural born Citizens” of the NEW Republic, the United States.

1.      George Washington – born 1732 – President April, 30 1789 to March 3, 1797
Mother, Mary Ball Washington, born in Lively, Virginia (Lancaster County) in 1708
Father, Augustine Washington, born in Westmoreland, Virginia, in 1694
    2. John Adams – born 1735 – President 1797 to 1801
    3. Thomas Jefferson – born 1743 – President 1801 to 1809
    4. James Madison– born 1751 – President 1809 to 1817
    5. James Monroe – born 1758 – President 1817 to 1825
    6. John Quincy Adams – born 1767 – President 1825 to 1829
    7. Andrew Jackson – born 1767 – President 1829 to 1837
    8. Martin Van Buren – born 1782 – President 1837 to 1841
    9. William Henry Harrison – born 1773 – President 1841 (died)
    10. John Tyler – born 1790 – President 1841 to 1845
    11. James K. Polk – born 1795 – President 1845 to 1849
    12. Zachary Taylor – born 1784 – President 1849 to 1850 

Clause 5 means that in 1841 John Tyler, President #10, was the FIRST Clause 5 at the "... time of adoption..." of the Constitution in 1787 "natural born Citizen” to be elected President.

Clause 5 means that in 1849 Zachary Taylor, President #12, was the LAST Clause 5 “Citizen” at the "... time of the adoption...” of the Constitution in 1787 to occupy the office of POTUS… because NO Clause 5 “Citizen” is still alive.

Clause 5 means that after #12, Zachary Taylor, ALL Presidents must… MUST… be a "natural born Citizen" and not simply a Clause 5 "Citizen" at the "... time of the adoption...” of the Constitution in 1787... because NO Clause 5 "Citizen" at the "... time of the adoption..." of the Constitution in 1787 CAN be born today.

Clause 5 means ONLY a Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" can be eligible to occupy the office of President ... because ONLY people who are being born can fulfill the eligibility requirement of being a "natural born Citizen" today and tomorrow and as long as the Republic exists as a Constitutional Republic.

Clause 5 means since #12, President Zachary Taylor in 1849, only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be POTUS… if they are born to two parents who are each a “Citizen” by birth or by naturalization, or if one parent is a “Citizen” by birth and one parent is a “Citizen” by naturalization.

Clause 5 means a 14th Amendment “Citizen” is NOT superior to a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement for the SAME reason that an Clause 5 “Citizen” at the "... time of the adoption..." of the Constitution in 1787 was NOT superior then to the Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement which continues today... because children continue to be born to two parents who are (1) each ALREADY and BEFORE a child is born, a "Citizen" by birth, or (2) who are each a "Citizen" by naturalization, or (3a) one parent is a "Citizen" by birth and (3b) one parent is a "Citizen" by naturalization.

Clause 5 means since there is no Clause 5 “Citizen” alive today who was alive “… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” ONLY a “natural born Citizen” is now and will continue to be eligible to be POTUS.

Clause 5 means that John Tyler, born in the NEW Republic of the United States in the State of Virginia in 1790, became the tenth President in 1841 as the first “natural born Citizen” to become President of the United States.

Clause 5 means BOTH of John Tyler’s parents were each a “Citizen” of the NEW Republic, the United States, at the date the Constitution was “adopted” in 1787, BEFORE John Tyler was born in 1790 as a “natural born Citizen” with the Constitutional right to be POTUS.

Repeat and Repeat and Repeat and Repeat… until it sinks in.

Clause 5 means that John Tyler, who was born AFTER the Constitution was “adopted” in 1787, was a “natural born Citizen” BECAUSE both of his parents… yes, BOTH of his parents… were ALREADY “Citizens” in 1787 according to Clause 5… before… before… yes, say it again… BEFORE… John Tyler was born in 1790.

What about putative President BHObama?

Well, let’s consider (1) 1787, (2) 1795, (3) 1868.

Clause 5 means that Putative President BHObama is NOT a 1787 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" and so is NOT eligible to be POTUS… because BOTH of his parents were NOT “Citizens” of the Republic BEFORE he was born… somewhere… anywhere... or when... it also does NOT matter when in the 20th century.

Clause 5 means (1) that putative President BHObama is NOT a 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" with two "Citizen" parents who were each a “Citizen” BEFORE his birth.

Clause 5 means (2) that putative President BHObama could ONLY be a 1795 Naturalization Act “Citizen” of the American Republic “IF” he was born on the soil of another country and ONLY if BOTH of his parents were each simply a “Citizen” requiring that BOTH of his parents be either a “Citzen” by birth OR a “Citizen” by naturalization, or a combination of the two. Barach Obama, Sr. was neither, and there is doubt about his putative mother Stanley Ann Dunham.

Clause 5 means (3) that putative President BHObama, “IF” he truly is a 14th Amendment “Citizen,” NOT by naturalization, which has never been adduced as a possibility, but by birth on American soil with ONLY one parent, could NOT be a “Citizen” as stated in Clause 5, “… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution …” because he was NOT born before 1787 and neither were his parents... whoever they are or were or turn out to be.

What does THAT mean?

Ok, here is a hypothetical, aka based on nuthin’ but a what if… so don’t go conspiratorial with this… unless it turns out that it really happened. With BHObama, only the Shadow knows, whoever that is.

What IF.

What if putative President BHObama had the same mama and a different papa?

Scroll down to What If… What Does THAT Mean to read more.

~ ~ ~

Who else is not eligible to occupy the Office of POTUS?

Clause 5 means there is ALSO a question about the Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" and the 14th Amendment "Citizen" eligibility status to be POTUS of some Republican Senators and Governors.

Current Senator Marco Rubio of Florida

Clause 5 means that Florida Senator Marco Rubio, whose parents were naturalized AFTER their son Marco was born, is NOT an Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” but he definitely IS an 14th Amendment “Citizen” of the Republic and so is not eligible to the office of President.

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if Senator Rubio were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther document of our Republic, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania

Clause 5 means that former Pennsylvania Senator and 2012 candidate for POTUS Rick Santorum, because it is not clear if his parents were naturalized BEFORE his birth, so it is possible that Senator Santorum is NOT an Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” but he definitely IS an 14th Amendment “Citizen” of the Republic.

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if Senator Santorum were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther document of our Republic, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

While Senator Santorum does not think that the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement applies to him since it is obvious that he is a “Citizen” of the Republic, at least according to the 14th Amendment,  or he could NOT have been elected Senator of Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum continues to insist that it is not necessary to reply to inquiries about the naturalization status of his grandparents and whether or not his parents were naturalized BEFORE he, Rick, was born.

UPDATE: April, 10, 2012

Rick Santorum has officially suspended his campaign for President.

The "natural born Citizen" eligibility to legally occupy the office of President still stands.

Current Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana

Clause 5 means that Louisana Governor Bobby Jindal is not a “natural born Citizens” because his parents were NOT naturalized BEFORE he was born, so Gov. Jindal is not eligible to occupy the office of President.

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if Governor Jindal were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther document of our Republic, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Future Aspirants to the Office of President of the United States

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if ALL “Future Aspirants” to the office of POTUS were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther documentof our Republic, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

It is obvious.

THAT is what Clause 5 DOES mean.

~ ~ ~

Three “Change the Conversation” Questions for “Thought Leaders”

Ok, here are three clarifying question for ALL of the anybody-but-Obama  BIG Talker and BIG Blogger and BIG Writer “thought leaders” who “comment” for pay on TV –  Radio – Internet –  Print – and the rest of us who listen to the “thought leaders”and share our thoughts while simply talking with neighbors over the backyard fence or in the office at work.

(1) Do you KNOW what Clause 5 of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic is?
(2) Do you UNDERSTAND (a) why “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen” are in the same Clause 5 sentence of the ORIGINAL “birther” document and (b) what that means?
(3) Do you DEFEND Clause 5 of the ORIGINAL “birther” document against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic?

If you do know… understand… defend… Clause 5, do you get UP and speak about Clause 5 when current events call for comment?

Why?

If you do know… understand… defend… Clause 5, do you NOT get UP and speak about Clause 5 when current events call for a comment?

Why not?

Even IF the BHObama eligibility issue was bogus, which it is not, why do BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers and BIG Writer not simply Talk Talk Talk and Write Write Write about what "natural born Citizen" means to them to at least educate their “we the people” listeners, viewers and readers, and do double duty and ALSO protect AND defend the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Why not?

For non-lawyers, here are two short Youtube videos to watch.

1- Natural Born Citizen For Dummies (11 minutes - http://youtu.be/EGJdN2KPf0g ) is a quick look at the essence of the difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen” according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and the 14th Amendment definition of a citizen of the United States.

2- What Is A Natural Born Citizen? (6 minutes - http://youtu.be/bp2kKNTjH70 ) has a succinct and clear explanation of WHY the 1790 Washington administration Naturalization Act, which DID designate as a “natural born Citizen” a child born on the soil of another country, was emended by the 1795 Washington administration Naturalization Act to NOT designate as a “natural born Citizen” a child born on the soil of another country, even IF the child was born to TWO U.S. citizens, BUT the child WOULD be designated a “Citizen” of the Republic, the United States.

Why?

So the child would NOT qualify to be eligible to the office of POTUS… period… done deal.

Why?

To prevent a dual citizen child, with divided loyalty to another country, from being eligible to the office of POTUS.

This means that a child, born on the soil of another country, who would have dual citizenship loyalty, would STILL have the rights of a “citizen” of the United States, but NOT the Clause 5 right of a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President of the United States, EVEN if BOTH parents were each a “Citizen” of the United States BEFORE the child was born. 

For those who are not up to speed on the nuances of “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen” as well as the 1795 Naturalization Act of the Washington administration that repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act, here are two sources to consider.

1-
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ) is the highly recommended place to start to become informed about Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and relevant SCOTUS decisions.

2-
Stephen Tonchen (http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm ) The Tonchen Primer appeared on the Internet in June 2009. 

Without mentioning the name of putative President BHObama, why do some “thought leaders” listed below NOT simply… yes, SIMPLY… define and defend the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Why NOT just TALK about the obvious meaning of Clause 5 EVERY time the opportunity arises in the news, WITHOUT mentioning ANY name… JUST the MEANING of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document?

Hey, even Roger Ailes at FOX would give the green light to talk about the U.S. Constitution and Clause 5, right?

Right?

Why NOT take the opportunity to define and defend and educate your radio listeners and TV viewers with online videos and with Facebook posts and with books?

Why NOT just TALK about the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic and NOT a person… at least… JUST talk about the WORDS of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic and not a party or an agenda other than the truth?

Where are you "thought leaders" of America?
Why are you silent?
Where are you?
Where?

Hey, this “normal person” is just askin’ ‘cause if another “Citizen” ignores the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement AGAIN and tries to “OCCUPY” (isn’t THAT an appropriate word, huh?) the office of POTUS again, well, it IS important to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, isn’t it?

Isn’t it”

WHY is it important?

It COULD happen AGAIN, couldn’t it?

So, why NOT, “thought leaders,”…

… why NOT just get UP and just TALK TALK TALK and WRITE WRITE WRITE and start to educate the people… ‘cause the ORIGINAL “Birther” document is important to you too… isn’t it?

Isn’t it?

- Diana West – yes, it is

"Born in Kenya": The Media Doth Protest Too Much, Pt. 2 – May 18, 2012

“Given that the "born in Kenya" bio …
Breitbart isn't just "inferring" …
Breitbart is choosing.
It is choosing a narrative into which to plug this new fact.
This isn't journalism.
It's politics.”

Forgery-Gate – WND.com April 19, 2012

- Ann Barnhardt – yes, it is

- Sarah Palin – no comment, yet

- columnists on Conservatives4Palin/.com – yes some – why not all

- Rush Limbaugh – no comment, yet 

- Mark Levin – no comment, yet. Well, no substantive comment, other than saying that Marco Rubio is a “natural born United States citizen,” so Mark doesn’t want ‘Birther crap’ posted on his social sites. 

- Sean Hannity – no comment, yet. However, Hannity did say on Fox that the birther eligibility issue about Senator Marco Rubio is “dumb”

- Jerome Corsi – yes, it is

Scroll down to Jerome Corsi for more speeches and interviews

- Sheriff Joe Arpaio – yes, it is

Scroll down to Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a description of the discovery by the State of Arizonas' Maricopa County Sheriffs Office Cold Case Posse of fraud and forgery.

- Joseph Farah – yes, it is

- columnists on WND/.com – yes some – why not all 

- Alan Keyes – yes, it is

- Pat Buchanan – no comment, yet

- Bay Buchanan – no comment, yet 

- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. – yes, it is

Scroll down to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. to read more.

- Leo Donofrio – yes, it is

- CDR Kerchner – yes, it is

- BirtherReport/.com – yes, it is

- Article II Super PAC – yes, it is 

From the Article II Super PAC link above, here is Alexander Hamilton’s 1787 Constitutional Convention presidential eligibility clause suggestion while it was still being debated, which includes the Founder's grandfather-in words "be now": 

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.

TheObamaFile.com
(http://www.theobamafile.com/LibraryOfCongress.html ) Scroll down to TheObamaFile.com, or use the link to read the Library of Congress letter requesting permission “… for inclusion in its historic collections of Internet materials related to the Presidential Transition during a Time of Crises.”

- Mark Steyn – no comment, yet

- Glenn Beck – March 2, 2012 on the radio, shallow ridicule and mockery without substance about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse investigation news conference

- columnists on TheBlaze/.com – yes some – why not all

- Pat Gray – March 2, 2012 on the radio, shallow ridicule and mockery without substance about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse investigation news conference

- Stu Burguiere – March 2, 2012 on the radio, shallow ridicule and mockery without substance about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse investigation news conference

- Scott Baker – no comment, yet

- Amy Holmes – no comment, yet

- SE Cupp – no comment, yet

- Will Cain – no comment, yet

- Buck Sexton – no comment, yet

- David Barton – no comment, yet

- Pamela Geller – yes, it is
Atlas Exclusive: Final Report on Obama Birth Certificate Forgery
Change You Can Believe In

Saturday, April 30, 2011
An Illegitimate Child, An Illegitimate President:
Despite Multiple Attempts, "No Comment" from the White House

May 17, 2012
Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet:
'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/05/obamas-literary-agent-in-1991-booklet-born-in-kenya-and-raised-in-indonesia-and-hawaii.html  ) 

- Robert Spencer – no comment, yet  

- Erick Erickson – no comment, yet

- columnists on RetState/.com – yes some – why not all

- Ed Morrisey – no comment, yet

- columnists on HotAir/.com – yes some – why not all

- columnists on Townhall/.com – yes some – why not all

- columnists on Newsbusters/.org – yes some – why not all

- columnists on FrontPageMag.com – yes some – why not all

- columnists on Forbes/.com – yes some – why not all

Sunday, March 25, 2012

- NationalReview.com – no comment – yet… about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

Scroll down to NationalReview.com read the March 7, 2012 “By The Editors” editorial, “Conspiracy Again,” about what they call the “birthers’ flim-flam.”

- columnists on NatrionalReview/.com – yes some (but they are hiding for now) – why not all

- Ben Shapiro – no comment, yet

- columnists on Breitbart/.com – yes some – why not all

- HumanEvents.com – no comment, yet

Scroll down to HumanEvents.com to read about a "human event" NOT reported.

- columnists on HumanEvents/.com – yes some – why not all

- Michelle Malkin – no comment, yet

- Ann Coulter – one… only 1 … "that's all she wrote" comment in only 1 article on August 5, 2009

“Inasmuch as the "birther" movement was hatched in the station wagon of MSNBC's favorite left-wing fantasist, Larry Johnson, maybe the mainstream media can stop acting as if it's a creation of the Republican National Committee.”

Even IF the BHObama eligibility issue was bogus, which it is not, why does BIG Writer Ann, who has writefully earned her national attention and recognition, not simply Write Write Write about what "natural born Citizen" means to her to at least educate her “we the people” readers, and also to protect AND defend the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Why not?

- Laura Ingraham – no comment, yet

- Newt Gingrich – no comment, yet

- Herman Cain – no comment, yet

- Rick Santorum – no comment, yet

- Ron Paul – no comment, yet

- Mitt Romney – no comment, yet

- Marco Rubio – no comment, yet

- Bobby Jindal – no comment, yet

- Allen West – no comment, yet

AmericanThinker.com – yes, it is

Scroll down to AmericanThinker.com to read three recent, April 2012, articles on AmericanThinker that hit the bullseye about the fraud and forgery of the birth certificate and the SSN card.

- colmunists on AmericanThinker/.com – yes some , why not all

- Matt Drudge – no comment, yet… well, sorta, kinda, almost

Remember, the Cold Case Posse news conference was on March 1, 2012.

Scroll down to Matt Drudge to see the April 13, 2012 “Search Drudge” results… THAT is a blackout.

- Penbrook Johansson (Editor, The Daily Pen) – yes, it is
Obama’s Ineligibility Makes Policies Irrelevant…Not Evidence of Forgery

Eligibility and Justice are Blind Regarding Obama….and Rubio

- Dan Crosby (from The Daily Pen) – yes, it is
I.N.S. Doc Found: U.S. Certificate Issued to onw East African Born Child of U.S. Citizen in 1961!

Legal Eagles say Anchor Babies are Natural Born Citizens Too

“… eight attempts were made by congress to alter or abolish the Natural Born Citizen clause prior to the election of Barack Hussein Obama … .”

Evidence Broadens Obama Natural Born Conspiracy

“… in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record.”

Library of Congress
(http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=natural%20born%20citizen&fa=digitized:true ) 

~ ~ ~

How about the articulate Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 anti-birthers? 

Here are three voluble “anti-birther” misunderstanders of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, and specifically the eternal relevance of ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

- Obama Birth Book - John Woodman

Scroll down to John Woodman to read the OTHER side, aka the “anti-birther” flim-flam point of view to counter the ORIGINAL “birther” document point of view which is viewed by the NationalReview.com editors as the “birthers’ flim-flam.”

- Obama Conspiracy - Dr. Conspiracy - Obama Conspiracy Theories

The Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories – Dr. Conspiracy

- The Birther Think Tank – Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

The Do It Yourself Birther Involuntary Civil Commitment Form

“Have YOU ever wished that YOU could get rid of that annoying Birther in YOUR life in a safe and humane fashion???

“Or at least shut him or her up from their incessant babbling???

“Well, WISH NO MORE!!!

“Now, with our handy Do It Yourself Birther Involuntary Civil Commitment Form, you can have your annoying Birther(s) whisked away to a local Mental Hospital!!!

“Regain your own Sanity, and once again enjoy quiet and rational evenings at home, or other location, free from the Birther rant and cant.”

The Do It Yourself gag form by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter is very clever. See my brief comment here

Scroll down to Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter – Do It Yourself for an html version ready to transform from the PDF ‘Birther’ gag form to an ‘Anti-Birther’ gag form.

Change the words from ‘Birther’ to ‘Anti-Birther’ and tweak it for originality and then post your own public domain gag form about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’document titled Do It Yourself ‘Anti-Birther’ Involuntary Civil Commitment Form.

Thanks Squeeky, you are very talented and creative. And, as the man said to Jodi Foster in the movie Contact, ‘clever girl’. 

~ ~ ~

So, here is the question again to the "thought leaders" on Radio - TV - Print - Online.

ALL forum commentators and columnists anywhere not listed here with the “anybody-but-Obama” common sense conservative point of view, OR even the GOP Establishment, the GOPe, point of view…

… do you DEFEND Clause 5 of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the American Republic?

If you ARE an ORIGINAL “birther” document birther, do you speak UP?
If you are NOT an ORIGINAL “birther” document birther, why not?

Why?

The "birther" appellation and the concomitant “I am a birther” appellation is a reference to the honorable, yes, HONORABLE response to the uninformed “anti-birther” to PROTECT and DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, the ONLY place in ALL of the founding documents where the contrast is made between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen" in the SAME clause and in the SAME sentence.

- Maybe you are intimidated by the “birther” appellation.
- Maybe you do not know what the "birther" appellation means and so you might not know what a "birther" is.
- Maybe you do not even think about how to best DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Adapted from my post on WND.com … 04-18-2012

Dittos - "It's time..."

In the last sentence –

"It’s time to recognize the real distractions from the real issues."

Yes, Mr. Farah, it's time...

... to begin the national education process about the ONLY location in all of the founding documents where "natural born Citizen" is mentioned, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

How about billboards across America which ask the simple question, 

The U.S. Constitution
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
A “natural born Citizen”
What is it?
What does it mean?
www.a2s1c5 [.] com

Maybe a “prairie fire” can be lit that will get the thoughtful attention of the national "thought leader" BIG Talkers on Radio and TV and BIG Writers in Print and BIG Bloggers Online.

We MUST try with a very vigorous nudge on the supine shoulder and with a truthful shout of, speaking politically, “to arms, to arms, the Republic is in danger," to get the thoughtful attention of the “thought leaders” who are in deep sleep to

WAKE UP…
Look UP…
Sit UP…
Stand UP…
Speak UP…

and just TALK TALK TALK... about

the ORIGINAL intent of
the ORIGINAL words of
the ORIGINAL "birther" document of

our Republic, the U.S. Constitution,
and specifically about the eternal relevance of
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

When the BIG Talker "thought leaders" on radio or tv talk about the Constitution and the meaning of an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" in a generic sense, without reference to the OCCUPIER-in-Chief BHObama, that is an opportunity to cause a fumble and pick up the ball and run with it.

So, here goes, one small step for "we the people" and a common sense foundational understanding about

- the 1787 Constitutional Convention "adoption" of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and "natural born Citizen...

- BEFORE it was "ratified" in 1788...

- BEFORE the new U.S. Government "began" in 1789

- and General George Washington was elected President two months later... in compliance with the Constitution "adopted" in 1787.

Just 9 easy questions, no tricks (well, except, for the uninformed, maybe #10 and #11, the two questions for extra credit), for BIG TalkerBIG WriterBIG Blogger… "thought leaders" on radio and tv, print and on the web -

1-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. "Citizen" parents?

Yes?
No?

2-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. "Citizen" parent and ONE non-U.S. "Citizen" parent?

Yes?
No?

… what if the papa is NOT known as the result of rape?

… what if the papa is NOT known as the result of rape and the child is adopted?
… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are heterosexual male and female?
… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual female and female?
… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual male and male?

… what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and unknown donor citizenship documents are not available?
… what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and the surrogate mother is not a U.S. “Citizen?”

3-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. "Citizen" parents?

Yes?
No?

2… 1… 0… bingo. 

If the answer is not obvious with the first 3 questions, here’s more.

4-
Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

5-
Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1868 14th Amendment "Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

6-
Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1868 14th Amendment “Citizen?”

Yes?
No?
 

7-
Does a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. "Citizen" parents qualify to be POTUS?

Yes?
No?

8-
Does a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. "Citizen" parent and ONE non-U.S. "Citizen" parent qualify to be POTUS?

Yes?
No?

9-
Does a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. “Citizen” parents qualify to be POTUS?

Yes?
No?

2 more questions for extra credit -

10-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

11-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1795 Naturalization Act "Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

~ ~ ~  

Read it for yourself –

The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 are at Indiana.edu

Here is an edited portion of both the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts.

The reference to "... any alien, being a free, white person... ." was a reference to the prevailing view of that day that had to deal in the real world on a daily basis with institutional slavery imported from Europe and the supplying of black slaves by black and non-black Islamist slave traders who supplied the black slaves to the white European slave traders who sold the black slaves to the white American slave traders who imported them to America. 

The ‘… free, white person” words were not a reference to inherent racism by the founders of America at the time that the distinction between ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ was debated, understood and accepted by the Founders.

After debate, the words ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ were included in the SAME Clause 5, in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ with original intent.

The words of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, were adopted in the new U.S.Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ratified by the states in 1788 and were the supreme law on day one of the new American government in 1789 regarding POTUS eligibility.

The words of 1787, “… or … Citizen … adoption …,” were understood by the Founders as the sensible and legal words needed to grandfather General George Washington into eligibility to be POTUS and two months later to be elected as the first POTUS according to the words of the new U.S. Constitution.

ALL the Founders understood that General and then President George Washington was definitely a ‘Citizen’ of the new Republic since 1776 under the Articles of Confederation and not a ‘natural born Citizen’ at any time between 1776 and 1787. It was not until 1787 that the new Republic was called for the first time the United States in the SAME Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795

The 1795 Naturalization Act of the President George Washington administration limited ‘natural born Citizen’ ONLY to children born on the soil of our American Republic AFTER the 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed because it DID designate children born on foreign soil as a ‘natural born Citizen’ of the American Republic.

The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 confirm that being a ‘Citizen’ does not mean the same thing as a ‘natural born Citizen’.

Naturalization Act of 1790

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).…

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  ... ."

[Notice the mention of ‘natural born Citizens’]

Naturalization Act of 1795

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

[notice ‘to repeal’]

…SEC. 3. 

"... and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: ... ."

[notice ‘citizens’]

The distinction is obvious.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 words “shall be considered as natural born Citizens” were emended by the Naturalization Act of 1795 Section 3 words “shall be considered as citizens.”

The emending of the words in 1795 confirms that, to the Founders, to President George Washington and to the Washington administration, “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen” did NOT mean the same thing.

Naturalization Act of 1790

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled ...

... And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: ...

[notice ‘natural born Citizens’]

Naturalization Act of 1795

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

...SEC. 3. 

... and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:   ...

[notice "citizens"] 

~ ~ ~ 

Of course, there are many focused questions to ask misunderstanders of

the ORIGINAL intent of
the ORIGINAL words of
the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic,

the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5,

but apparently the educatin' is still in progress with the

- BIG Talker "thought leaders" on radio and tv, and the
- BIG Writer "thought leaders" in print, and the
- BIG Blogger "thought leaders" on the web.


Let the educatin' begin. What is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and what does Clause 5 mean to you?

- Rush Limbaugh
- Governor Sarah Palin
- Marco Rubio
- Senator Rick Santorum
- Speaker Newt Gingrich
- Congressman Ron Paul
- Governor Bobby Jindal
- Mark Levin
- Glenn Beck
- David Barton
- Sean Hannity
- Ben Shapiro
- Rich Lowry
- Jonah Goldberg

- et al., you know who you are.


What does Clause 5 mean to you?

A simple question for the long term educatin' of "we the people" who simply want to DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL "Birther" document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section, 1, Clause 5.

This is what Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 means to me.  

The complete answer to the Clause 5 question should NOT include the name of putative President BHObama, but the Clause 5 answer can include clarification in context about these two points.

(1) How an Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” would NOT want to seal ALL personal records because there would NOT be anything to hide.

(2) How ANY Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” could NOT be a foreign exchange student.

One way to clarify point #2 is by adducing the 1795 Naturalization Act and the single word “Citizen” which replaced the 1790 Naturalization Act and the three words “natural born Citizen.”

To me, this means confirmation.

It confirms to us in 2012 of the 21st century that, from 1787 to 1795…

1787 (adoption of the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention), and
1788 (ratification of the Constitution), and
1789 (start of the U.S. Government, followed two months later by the election of President Washington), and
1790 (Naturalization Act with the three words “natural born Citizen”), and
1795 (Naturalization Act which changed "natural born Citizen" to the single word "Citizen")

… General and later President George Washington, of the 18th century, who had veto power if he did not agree with emending the three words “natural born Citizen” to the single word “Citizen,” the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, referred ONLY to the child born on the soil of the United States with two “Citizen” parents.

1868 (14th Amendment)

In 1868, 73 years AFTER the 1795 Naturalization Act, “natural born Citizen” was known and understood by the Federal legislators as applying ONLY to a child born on U.S. soil to two “Citizen” parents.

If, from 1795 to 1868, the Federal legislatures and the SCOTUS did NOT know in 1868 what “natural born Citizen” meant to the Founders in 1787, WHEN did the Federal legislators and the SCOTUS forget what “natural born Citizen” meant to the Founders?

We know.
They knew.
We know they knew.

We did NOT forget.
They did NOT forget.

Here are two questions to answer

(1) From 1795 to 1868, is it either ONLY the U.S. soil, OR is it BOTH our U.S. soil AND their foreign soil?

The answer is that the 1795 Naturalization Act single word “Citizen” correctly emended the 1790 Naturalization act three words “natural born Citizen” to protect the United States, not illegal or legal aliens.

(2) From 1795 to 1868, is it either ONLY two U.S. “Citizen” parents, OR is it ONLY one U.S. “Citizen” parent?

In 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790, 1795, the Founders and Federal legislators either KNEW what an 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” was and what an 1795 Naturalization Act “Citizen” was, OR they were confused and did NOT know the difference.

To me it is obvious that the 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” is being confirmed by the 1795 Naturalization Act single word “Citizen” emendation of the 1790 Naturalization three words “natural born Citizen.”

With two “Citizen” parents, the child born on the soil of the United States WOULD be a “natural born Citizen” with full Constitutional authority to be “… eligible to the Office of President… .”

So.

BIG Talkers... BIG Writers… BIG Bloggers… ALL of YOU know who you are.

Talk Talk Talk… and Write Write Write
… until “we the people” KNOW what Clause 5 is and to whom “natural born Citizen” applies, and what Clause 5 means.

Get informed so you can help with the educatin' of "we the people" and defend the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic.

The Republic is watin' for ALL of you BIG Talkers… BIG Writers… BIG Bloggers… to, hey…

WAKE UP!!!
The insurgents are not coming, they are here.

WAKE UP!!!
protect and defend the

ORIGINAL intent of the
ORIGINAL words of the
ORIGINAL “birther” document

of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5

It is time to

WAKE UP… Look UP… Sit UP… Stand UP… Speak UP…

Yes… it IS time.
You betcha.

Scroll down to read The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 with yellow highlight on the clarifying words.

This list of some BHObama records that are ‘missing” or not “available” will put us all on the same page about how to answer the simple Clause 5 question.

1. Occidental College records -- not released
2. Columbia College records -- not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- not available
4. Harvard College records -- not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- not released
6. Medical records -- not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- not available
8. Law practice client list -- not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- none
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- none

This quote by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is relevant to the Clause 5 question.

“When you’re running for president, everything should be public – including your full medical records.
I believe in a right to privacy.
But when you’re running for president, which is such an important job, the need of the public to know supersedes it.”

~ ~ ~

Inquiring Minds Want To Know

Inquiring minds want to know what YOU “thought leaders” think about the ORIGINAL “birther” document, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

1 – Rush Limbaugh

What do you think, Rush?

Hi Rush, I have been listening to your EIB radio program since your 2nd Pentax Camera ad in 1988 when you expressed surprise on the air that Pentax had paid for a 2nd ad on your radio program; this was before your EIB logo and your golden mike; I also remember when you used to contribute articles to Joseph Farah’s Sacramento Union newspaper.

Rush, that is stated simply for context about my daily listener informed opinion that follows.

Why?

Rush, why do you NOT mention Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 news conference about BHObama and his fraud and forgery?

Rush, instead, you stick with the “easy” and politically “safe” topic of a threat on the life of Sheriff Arpaio, very appropriate, but you do NOT comment, even tangentially, about the March 1, 2012 “cold case posse” news conference itself and NOT the content of the news conference.

Why?

Rush, please study Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and become informed. After you study and become informed, please get UP and speak UP and talk about Article 5 and the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement to be POTUS with informed authority.

Rush, until you speak UP… your silence is curious.

Rush, could something else other than a lack of intellectual curiosity be prohibiting your entering THIS arena of ideas?

The "birther" appellation and the concomitant “I am a birther” appellation is a reference to the honorable, yes, HONORABLE response to the uninformed “anti-birther” to PROTECT and DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, the ONLY place in ALL of the founding documents where the contrast is made between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen" in the SAME clause and in the SAME sentence.

2 – Glenn Beck

What do you think, Glenn?

Hi Glenn, I’ve been a GBTV.com subscriber from the start and will continue to stand with you as you continue to stand with and defend the interests of “… first they came for …” the Jewish people… the Roman Catholics… the Latter-day Saints… and et al., including the rest of us Christians who do not carry the portfolio of any denomination, and will never again do so because when Jesus returns and descends from heaven in the clouds as he ascended into heaven, then it won't be necessary because the risen Jesus will be here.

Yes, I do pick up on the denominational references that you utter from time to time, such as the LDS understanding of the pre-existence of the soul and the conclusion that "… you were sent here for a reason." And that's ok, too, Glenn, because that is your belief, and, when it is expressed honestly during conversation, just as I am expressing my understanding here, well, you are entitled to express your inner witness belief, just as our friends, and many of my relatives, the Roman Catholic's, are also entitled to their unique beliefs, such as the immaculate conception of Mary and the "real presence" of Jesus in the eucharist.

Glenn, the preceding is stated simply for context about my daily radio listener and daily GBTV viewer informed opinion that follows.

Glenn, the day after Sheriff Joe Arpaio held his “Cold Case Passe” news conference on March 1, 2012, you and Pat and Stu mocked and ridiculed Sheriff Arpaio and his fellow defenders of your freedom, and you guys did it without substance, without context, without thought. Your lack of informed substance was obvious to this listener of your radio program that morning of March 2.

Why.

Glenn, why the lack of informed substance on the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement to be POTUS?

Glenn, why the lack of informed substance about the evidence that is accumulating that suggests that putative President BHObama may NOT be an 1868 14th Amendment "Citizen" because he has NOT been naturalized, and so, if he is an 1868 14th Amendment "Citizen," he can NOT be an 1787 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" at the same time, and if he is NOT an 1787 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" OR an 1868 14th Amendment “Citizen” or naturalized “Citizen” OR an 1795 Naturalization Act “Citizen”… then WHAT is he… WHO is he…?

Glenn, did you even know this?

Glenn, your often stated opposition to looking into the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement of BHObama to be POTUS is because you and Pat and Stu think that Bill and Hillary Clinton initiated the eligibility mantra during her primary run in 2008 and since then BHObama is simply using the issue as a shallow thinker topic to ridicule what the BHObama “anti-birthers,” yes, they are anti-birth in more ways than one, derisively call “birthers” and political fools.

Glenn, someone should enlighten the “anti-birthers,” why not you, Glenn, Pat, Stu, that whoever is against the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, is the political “fool” without a Constitution to stand on.

Glenn, the history of progressivism and communism is important.

However.

Glenn, the history, development and current activity inspired by the Marxist ideology, aka the “idiotology,” is NOT as important as the history and purpose of Clause 5 and the contrast between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen” at the time of the “adoption” of the Constitution in 1787 and future eligibility to the office of POTUS.

Glenn, who is more important, POTUS  or Marx?

Glenn, what is more important, POTUS, the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 or Marx and the 10 Points of the Communist Manifesto?

Yes, only an idiot would write the idiotology that Marx wrote in the 10 Points of the "Communist Manifesto" and “Das Kapital” and think that BIG Gov control of the means of production and ALSO eliminating inheritance AND private property was good for society.

Glenn, many people have been coming out of darkness and into the light ever since you started speaking and coherently exposing the coming insurrection.

Glenn, continue talking and informing the people about the transition from pretty-face progressivism to the idiocy of communism.

Glenn, please study Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, to show yourself, as the bible says, approved… and informed. After you study and become informed, please get UP and speak UP and talk about Article 5 and the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement to be POTUS with informed authority.

Glenn, until you speak UP… your silence is curious.

Glenn, could something else other than a lack of intellectual curiosity be prohibiting your entering THIS arena of ideas to become informed and to speak with informed authority about the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic?

Why not become informed and stop the ridicule without informed substance?

The "birther" appellation and the concomitant “I am a birther” appellation is a reference to the honorable, yes, HONORABLE response to the uninformed “anti-birther” to PROTECT and DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, the ONLY place in ALL of the founding documents where the contrast is made between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen" in the SAME clause and in the SAME sentence.

3 – Mark Levin

What do you think Mark?

Hi Mark, I have been listening to your topical commentary since the local radio station started carrying your daily 2 hour program, which has been 3 hours for a long time now.

Mark, when you speak, I listen.
Mark, when you write, I read.

Mark, when your listeners and readers speak, do YOU listen? 

Mark, that is stated simply for context about my daily radio listener informed opinion and my “Liberty and Tyranny” and “Ameritopia” reader informed opinion that follows.

Mark, do you still defend these words floating around the internet, from September 28, 2011?

“I want you to listen to me on my social sites.
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida.
He is a natural born United States citizen.

And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . .this is a warning, and I don’t care who you are, you’re going to be banned.

Okay?

This is a site I put up for rational people.

Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971.
He’s 40.
There’s no debate.

So take that Birther crap somewhere else.

Just a warning. . .got it?
I’m not into all that crap.
You can go somewhere else for that. ”

Mark Levin - Sept. 28, 2011

Mark, you said that Rubio  is a “… natural born United States citizen.”

Mark, here is a Constituion 101 basic question.

Is Rubio ‘natural born’ on U.S. soil with

2 U.S. ‘Citizen’ parents?
1 U.S. ‘Citizen’ parent?
0 U.S. ‘Citizen’ parents? 

Mark, what if a future aspirant to the office of POTUS has a papa who is NOT known as the result of rape and the child is adopted by 2 U.S. ‘Citizen’ parents, or 1 U.S. ‘Citizen’ parent or 0 U.S. ‘Citizen’ parents?

… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are heterosexual male and female?
… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual female and female?
… what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual male and male?

… what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and unknown donor citizenship documents are not available?
… what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and the surrogate mother is not a U.S. “Citizen?”

Mark, what if you dealt with substantive questions such as these instead of using ‘Birther crap’ verbiage that does NOT define what YOU think is NOT 'crap'?

Mark, you NEVER constitutionalize your responses to teach your listeners what is the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL 'Birther' document, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

Mark, why do you NEVER talk substance about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and instead talk about what you say is 'birther crap'?

Mark, that suggests that you don't really have a Constitution to stand on regarding the POTUS eligibility of Senator Marco Rubio.

Mark, here is an Naturalization Act basic question.

Do the three words ‘natural born Citizen’ in the 1790 Naturalization Act mean the same thing as the single word ‘Citizen’ in the 1795 Naturalization Act?

I’m not a Constitutional lawyer, or any kind of lawyer, but I easily discovered and understood the answer to the question by reading the 1790 Naturalization Act that uses the three words ‘natural born Citizen’ and the 1795 Naturalization Act that repealed the three words ‘natural born Citizen’ and emended it with the single word ‘Citizen’ for U.S. sovereignty and national security purposes.

Mark, you said that your site is for “rational people”…

Mark, what is ‘rational’ about the ‘Birther crap’ verbiage?

Such language does not define and defend the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “Birther” document of our Republic, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. 

Mark, why have you NOT spoken about the Sheriff Joe Arpaio Cold Case Posse news conference on March 1, 2012?

Is there no legal there there?
Is that a legal “utopia” so there is NO merit?

Does the law of the Republic, the U.S Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 NOT warrant comments as relative to the “insurrection” and concomitant flaunting of law that you talk about daily?

Mark, does it NOT matter to you that it appears that the “insurrection” seems to have been premeditated and then perpetrated by BHObama and whomever is pulling his puppet strings, and that it is related to his heritage, and now there is probable cause to pursue a criminal investigation that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has said is the conclusion of his Cold Case Posse when they investigated for six months and found that fraud and forgery has absolutely… ABSOLUTELY… been committed concerning BHObama’s birth certificate and Selective Service Card?

Mark, are you NOT even curious about this legal aspect of this eligibility issue and it’s relationship to the “insurgency” that appears to have been perpetrated by the Marxist Saul Alinsky acolyte when he managed to successfully OCCUPY the Oval Office as a major player in what appears to be a premeditated putsch?

And for our friends who might not know what the German word "putsch" means, here is the American Heritage Dictionary quick and easy definition.

- putsch, also Putsch (pooch) n. A sudden attempt by a group to overthrow a government.
- putschist n.

Mark, is the OCCUPIER-in-Chief a "putschist" or not?
Mark, is the OCCUPIER-in-Chief attempting to overthrow the government or not?

Mark, did the OCCUPATION begin when BHObama took the oath of office or when he decided to skirt the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Mark, I am not even a lawyer, and it appears that I am, and there are so many more, I’m sure, who seem to be more informed than you, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, David Barton and, that wonderful Lady with the “servant’s heart,” our friend Sarah Palin, about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

Why do I say that?

Because you guys and gals NEVER talk about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, that’s why,.

You do NOT relate currents events, such Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse investigation, either tangentially or specifically, to the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

Why is that?

Are you guys not informed about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, the ONLY place in the founding documents where the words, “natural born Citizen” are mentioned?

Mark, until you speak UP… your silence is curious.

Mark, could something else other than a lack of intellectual curiosity be prohibiting your entering THIS arena of ideas?

Mark, continue talking and informing the people about the legal events as they arise in the news.

Mark, please study Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and become informed. Your lawyer’s heart may find an affinity with Mario Apuzzo (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ) also listed above.

After you study and become informed, please, Mark, get UP and speak UP and talk about Article 5 and the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement to be POTUS with informed authority… for the benefit of your future listeners and future voters.

The "birther" appellation and the concomitant “I am a birther” appellation is a reference to the honorable, yes, HONORABLE response to the uninformed “anti-birther” to PROTECT and DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, the ONLY place in ALL of the founding documents where the contrast is made between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen" in the SAME clause and in the SAME sentence.

4 – David Baraton

What do you think David?

Hi David, “Original Intent” is in my library, and other materiel, as well as your American history videos. They are EXCELLENT.

David, that is stated simply for context about my video and reader informed opinion that follows.

David, recently I went to your Wallbuilders.com site and did a site search for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, no results… Joe Arpaio, no results… Cold Case Posse, no results. I also did an archive search for you daily radio programs… no results.

Stand up comedian Brad Stine was on your radio list on March 2… but NO Joe Arpaio references in the daily info the whole month of March.

Why?

(PS. Brad Stine is recommended. He is topical, current and not obscene. His passing gas comedy segment where he talks to a young lady in the audience near the front row and she admits that she also does it, she also passes gas, is hilarious, and not obscene. He also uses the “iditiology” designation in his comedy, and I thought I had coined it a couple of years ago. Oh well. Whoever it was that used the “idiotology” term first, since 2010 I have not seen anybody else apply it to Marx and his 1860s social justice ideological idiocy... swoosh... the “idiotology” arrow is in my ideological quiver and it hits the bullseye every time.)

David, the text on every Friday segment says what it said on Friday, March 02, 2012, “Hear Good News from Around the Nation the Media Doesn't Report!”

David, isn’t it good news that the honorable Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his “Cold Case Posse” has discovered evidence that implicates the person who has successfully, so far, perpetrated an “(il)legal insurrection” right in front of “thought leaders” on TV, Radio, Internet, Print such as you, David Barton, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and the news blogs?

David, isn’t that good news that your listeners would like to know about, today and for future history books?

David, the Sheriff Joe Arpaio “Cold Case Posse” is current history, and will be in the history books of tomorrow and the future.

David, are you collecting current history too about the pros and cons of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic?

If you are, why don’t you talk about it?
If you are not, why not?

David, until you speak UP… your silence is curious.

David, could something else other than a lack of intellectual curiosity be prohibiting your entering THIS arena of ideas?

David, please study Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and become informed.

After you study and become informed, please, David, get UP and speak UP and talk about Article 5 and the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement to be POTUS with informed authority… for the benefit of your future “Original Intent” readers and your current radio listeners.

The "birther" appellation and the concomitant “I am a birther” appellation is a reference to the honorable, yes, HONORABLE response to the uninformed “anti-birther” to PROTECT and DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, the ONLY place in ALL of the founding documents where the contrast is made between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen" in the SAME clause and in the SAME sentence.

~ ~ ~

Protecting And Defending What Is MOST Important

Eventually our friends, the “anybody-but-Obama” common sense conservative “thought leaders,” will realize that DEFENDING the freedom of speech first Amendment and the right to bear arms second Amendment is just as important, but, NOT more important than DEFENDING the ONLY place in the WHOLE U.S. Constitution, the ORIGINAL “birther” document, where the eligibility of POTUS is articulated in the SAME Clause 5 and in the SAME sentence where "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen" are contrasted for a reason and a purpose.

What is that reason?
What is that purpose?

The answers are found in the section where "What Clause 5 Does NOT Mean" and "What Clause 5 DOES Mean" are briefly, VERY briefly, explained. 

So much more could be added to the answers by ANY of the "thought leaders" listed above, and most definitely by "thought leaders" such as Mark Levin and David Barton, I'm sure.

Right, Mark?
Right, David?

I'm just one guy writing on one site.

You, Mark and David, have access to a national audience and you know respected and powerful AND articulate people who have worldwide name recognition with radio and video "golden mikes" and internet networks.

When?

Our friends on TV, Radio, Internet, Print on the anybody-but-Obama common sense conservative side, WHEN will you... ALL of you... WAKE UP from your ridicule safe deep-sleep silence and simply DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

So.

Sarah, Rush, Glenn, David, Mark, Sean, Michelle, Ann, Laura, Ed, Ben, Newt, Herman, Rick, Ron, Mitt, Marco, Bobby, Pat and et al. …
… are you a birther, aka a defender of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic?

If you are a birther, why?
If you are not a birther, why?

Which part of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Clause 5, do you NOT agree with?

Just askin'...
... 'cause our Republic, the united United States is being attacked by enemies... foreign AND domestic.

Are you DEFENDING the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, specifically Clause 5?

Why?

Why do some of the “anybody-but-Obama” common sense conservatives NOT even mention Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 news conference?

Why?

Your “group think” SILENCE is disappointing and suggests shallow thinking about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document… specifically Clause 5.

However.

I could be wrong… you may not even care.

If you do NOT care… why?

Why?

If the TV, Radio, Internet, Print “thought leaders” listed above, and ALL other common sense conservative thought leaders and GOPe thought leaders, do NOT CARE whether or not BHObama is a “natural born Citizen” and think that an 14th Amendment “Citizen” is sufficient to be eligible to be POTUS, the question is, why?

Why?
Why Not?

What gets me “thought leaders” is that you do NOT TALK about it… just TALK about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic.

You do NOT even TALK about it.

WHY?

~ ~ ~

Before It Happens Again

Why Not?

Why not, BEFORE it happens again, the LEAST you “thought leaders” can do is SIMPLY and honorably stand UP and speak UP every day and with a clear and certain sound articulate the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic with our internet version of the Liberty Bell, text and videos, and simply SPEAK and TEACH and DEFEND Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, now and educate the American people about Clause 5, BEFORE it happens again?

Why not speak now before another “Citizen” obfuscator manages to rise through the “progressive” political and religious ranks.

What if?

Three “What if…” scenarios of a possible NEXT attempt by a “true believer” of a “new world order” ummah without Jews… again, and ruled by Islam and shariah, or a “new world order” and a “Rules For Radicals” Marxist acolyte who tries again to "fundamentally transform" America without Jews… again, or a “new world order” Hitler wanna-be who thinks that a world without Jews is an idea whose time has come… again?

1- Islam: political and theist/religious socialism -

What if…  he or she is a Muslim Islamic jihadist advancing shariah in Dar al-Harb (House of War - the non-Muslim world), with the arm stretched out palm down, promoting Allah and Shariah, for the good of the people, of course?

What if…  he or she wants to continue the WW2 ideological association of the supremacist Nazi and the supremacist Muslim, and continue promoting Islam and shariah by printing and promoting "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) by Adolph Hitler, and thinks that the Jews are expendable in a “final solution”… again?

2- Neo-Marxism: political and atheist/religious socialism -

What if…  he or she is a neo-Marxist, with arm stretched up above the head with fist clenched and singing the Internationale, who wants to implement the 10 Points of the Communist Manifesto, for the good of the people, of course, and, by uniting with the political and religious Muslim Islamist shariah jihadists, thinks that Jews are expendable in a "final solution"... again?

3- Neo-Nazism: political and atheist/theist/religious socialism -

What if…  he or she is a neo-Nazi, with the arm stretched out palm down, promoting Aryan racial purity, for the good of the people, of course, and thinks that the Jews are expendable in a “final solution”… again?

What if…  he or she is a conglomeration of the three totalitarian ideologies, a political and atheist/theist religious monster from the ideological hell pit?

What if… he or she is a 14th Amendment“Citizen” who thinks that BECAUSE BHObama got away with it and was NOT challenged by SOME “common sense conservative” and GOPE “thought leaders,” see the list of the “thought leaders” above, so he or she tries AGAIN to ignore the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document… specifically Clause 5?

~ ~ ~

It COULD Happen Again

Do you see now, common sense conservative "thought leaders," by the use of repetition, why the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution… specifically Clause 5 and the “natural born Citizen” eligibility of POTUS, matters in the incessant discussion about the economic policies of BHObama, the person and the BHObama regime?

It COULD happen again!

Hey, "thought leaders" of the Republic, if it happened ONCE, it could happen AGAIN... right?

What if?

What if an Muslim Islamic jihadist male who wants to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” succeeds and transforms America into an shariah compliant ummah "commune" where ALL are equal and submit to Allah?

That would be similar to the way BHObama has attempted to “transform” America into a marxist “commune” where all are equal and submit to Marx and the 10 Points of the Communist Manifesto.

What if an Muslim Islamic jihadist male who ALSO was NOT an Article 5 “natural born Citizen” but WAS an 14th Amendment “Citizen,” succeeds in becoming POTUS the SAME way BHObama did and ALSO does NOT reveal HIS heritage and lineage?

What will Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you THEN, “thought leaders,” if it does NOT mean anything to you NOW?

When do “we the people” stand UP and put a STOP to present AND future “transformer” usurpers?

Now?
Never?

When?

Do you SEE it… now… yet?

~ ~ ~

Wake UP… Look UP… Sit UP… Stand UP… Speak UP…

Please

Repeat… Repeat… Repeat…One More Time

Is this “quick study” an article, an open letter appeal or what?

It is an appeal to ALL common sense conservative “thought leaders” and defenders of our Constitutional Republic.

In this quick study about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Constitutional Republic, I have not used “truth proof” from authority figures about the IDEA of the CONTINUOUS relevance of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the United States, the U.S. Constitution.

The “truth” under discussion here has no agenda other than to protect and defend the innocent from the tyranny of those who do NOT CARE what the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic is.

Those who do NOT CARE include

-- neo-Marxist “anti-birthers”
-- neo-Nazi “anti-birthers”
-- 1400 year Muslim shariah jihad “anti-birthers”
-- progressive “anti-birthers”
-- socialist “anti-birthers”
-- conservative “anti-birthers”
-- Republican conservative/progressive “anti-birthers”
-- Democrat progressive/conservative “anti-birthers”
-- ALL “anti-birthers” who do NOT CARE what the truth is about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

So, this ORIGINAL “Birther” Document quick study is NOT for them; it is for all "thought leaders" on Radio, TV, Online, Print, and most definitely for those who have previously raised their right hand and swore in public ceremonies, and in the case of BHObama a second time in private with Chief Justice Roberts, to “Protect and Defend” the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, with the help of God. 

Those who raised the right hand and swore "so help me God" includes ALL former and present state Governors and state office holders, ALL former and present US Senators, ALL former and present US House of Representatives, ALL former and present Justices of SCOTUS and ALL former and present occupiers of the Office of POTUS. 

Why is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "truth" being discussed by some of “we the people” and not all?

Because some of “we the people” think that there is presently an "OCCUPIER" (… that term is appropriate with new meaning, isn’t it?) now in the Office of POTUS and there could possibly be future "OCCUPIERS" of the Office of POTUS if "we the people" do NOT respond with informed definiteness of purposel NOW and DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL "birther" document of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution.

So.

How does one convincingly produce “truth proof” for an idea that is from the 1787 18th century Founders who knew what “OR” meant and which is historically by itself the very “truth proof” of the Founders themselves that rebuts a contrary idea offered by 2012 21st century “anti-birthers” who do NOT CARE what “OR” meant to the Founders in 1787 in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Repeat… Repeat… Repeat… One More Time

It is obvious.

The Founders said “… or … time … adoption…” .

“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; … .”

So, what did the Founding writers of the U.S. Constitution  mean by the word “OR” in 1787 of the 18th century and does “OR” mean the same thing in 2012 of the 21st century?

To state it simply and clearly.

The word “OR” does NOT mean that EITHER a 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” will continue to apply as children are born OR a 1787 Clause 5 “Citizen” will continue to apply as children are born, and so BOTH will FOREVER be eligible to occupy the Office of President.

No, the word “OR” means that EITHER a 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” OR a 1787 Clause 5 “Citizen” will be eligible to occupy the Office of President until… yes, UNTIL… the LAST 1787 Clause 5 “Citizen” is no longer alive.

Then, AFTER that LAST 1787 Clause 5 “Citizen” is no longer alive, then ONLY the 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement will apply ONLY to the future “Citizen” child of the Republic who is a “natural born Citizen” child of the Republic BECAUSE the child is born to two parent “Citizens” of the Republic, whether the two parent “Citizens” are citizens by birth or by naturalization, but the two parents MUST be either a “Citizen” by birth or naturalization BEFORE the child is born.

Period.
Case Closed.
NOT “OR” forever, but “OR” until.

The single word “OR” means ONLY one of three things.
NOT three and NOT two… ONLY one.

1- BOTH “natural born Citizen” AND “Citizen” applied ONLY in and to the year 1787… it’s obvious… nope.
2- BOTH “natural born Citizen” AND “Citizen” applied AFTER the year 1787… it’s obvious… nope.
3- BOTH “natural born Citizen” AND “Citizen” are distinct but NOT separate from the year1787 UNTIL the LAST Clause 5 “Citizen” was no longer alive… it’s obvious… yep.

When the Constitution was “adopted” in 1787 the former English citizen Founders “grandfathered” themselves and all other citizens of the NEW Republic into eligibility of POTUS.

As long as a “grandfathered” Clause 5 “Citizen” was alive, BOTH a “natural born Citizen” and a “grandfathered” Clause 5 “Citizen” were eligible to the office of President of the United States.

There was a union of the two for a limited time, NOT a fusion forever.

There was a distinction between the two, NOT a separation, and ONLY as long as a 1787 Clause 5 “Citizen” was alive.

What does “…distinction … NOT a separation … ONLY as long as …” mean?

The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments and was ratified on July 28, 1868. The amendment granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.

The 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause defined citizenship in a way that overruled the Dred Scott v. Sanford ruling by the Supreme Court  of 1857 that said blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

The 14th Amendment did NOT abrogate the requirement of the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 definition and ONLY reference in the entire U.S. Constitution of being a “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to the office of POTUS from 1787 and forever..

It is obvious.

The 14th Amendment did NOT replace Clause 5 and the Clause 5 “OR” distinction between those who were at the “… time of adoption…” in 1787 a “Citizen” and those who were at the “… time of adoption…” in 1787 a  “natural born Citizen” with future and continual eligibility to the office of POTUS.

BOTH a “natural born Citizen” AND a “Citizen” who was alive in 1787 would be eligible to the office of POTUS until ALL of those who were a “Citizen” alive at “… the time of Adoption…” were no longer alive.

AFTER a “Citizen” at the”… time of adoption…” was no longer alive, then ONLY those who were born at “… the time of Adoption…” in 1787 AND continuously AFTER 1787 as a “natural born Citizen” would continue to be “… eligible to the Office of President” if they were born to two parents who were each at least a “Citizen” of the Republic in 1787 BEFORE their children were born, OR, if AFTER 1787, the two parents would each become a “Citizen” either by birth, by naturalization or a combination of the two, BEFORE their children were born.

If after 1787 one parent was a “Citizen” by birth or became a “Citizen” by naturalization and the other parent also became a “Citizen” by naturalization, THEN and ONLY then would the child born be a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to occupy the office of President.

BEFORE the 14th Amendment definition of “Citizen” was adopted and ratified by the states in 1868, it was understood that from the time of the tenth President, John Tyler, the first “natural born Citizen” who was born in 1790 AFTER adoption of the Constitution in 1787, and became POTUS in 1841, AND after President #12, Zachary Taylor, who was born in 1784, BEFORE adoption of the Constitution in 1787, and the last 1787 “Citizen” to occupy the office of POTUS, it was understood from John Tyler in 1841 until the 1868 adoption and ratification of the 14th Amendment, that ONLY a “natural born Citizen,” who was born to two parents who were each a “Citizen” by either birth or naturalization, was eligible to occupy the office of POTUS.

Why?

After all of those who were a 1787 “Citizen” before AND at the TIME of the “adoption” of the Constitution were no longer alive, ONLY a “natural born Citizen” could fulfill the “… eligibility to the office of President” as “OR” reveals.

It is obvious.

The 1868 14th Amendment did NOT remove the eligibility requirement of being a “natural born Citizen” who was born to two “Citizen” parents to be “… eligible to the Office of President.”

The 1868 14th Amendment did NOT abrogate the 1795 Naturalization Act of the Washington administration which clearly says that a child born on the soil of another country, even if the child was born to TWO U.S. citizens, would be designated a “Citizen” of the United States but NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

Why?

To prevent a dual citizen child, with divided loyalty to another country, from being eligible to the office of POTUS.

This means that a child, born on the soil of another country, who would have dual citizenship loyalty, would STILL have the rights of a “citizen” of the United States, but NOT the Clause 5 right of a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President of the United States, EVEN if BOTH parents were each a “Citizen” of the United States BEFORE the child was born.

Yes, “OR” definitely DOES mean the same thing today as it did then.

Why?

Because “natural born Citizens” are still being born now AND the “… or … time …adoption…” in 1787 “Citizens” are no longer alive.

It is either obvious or it is not.

The ORIGINAL intent of “OR” in 1787 was obvious then and, yes, it is obvious today.

Is it obvious to you too?

Yes, it is?
No, it is not?

Why?

So, in place of “truth proof” from authority figures, repetition of the important words and phrases in context is used to emphasize the perpetual relevance of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document.

What has been attempted with repetition of simple words and phrases is to present the content in context to clarify the “obvious” conclusion that what is STILL relevant in 2012 of the 21st century is the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document.

The content and the context combined with clarity, if it has been achieved will, hopefully, light a “prairie fire” to, again, hopefully, motivate America’s “thought leaders” such as Sarah, Rush, Mark, Glenn, David etc., and et al. about the need to… they simply MUST… and do it now… please… WAKE UP… look UP… sit UP… get UP… speak UP… while they and ALL of “we the people” are still able to get UP… and… BEFORE it happens again.

~ ~ ~

IMAGINE:
 It Takes A “Citizen” Who Is NOT A Clause 5 “Natural Born Citizen” To 
WAKE UP America

As stated elsewhere above, Clause 5 means there is ALSO a question about the Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" eligibility status to be POTUS of some Republican Senators and Governors. This is so important, it is included here again to help “we the people” to… imagine.

Current Senator Marco Rubio of Florida

Clause 5 means that Florida Senator Marco Rubio, whose parents were naturalized AFTER their son Marco was born, is NOT a “natural born Citizen” but he definitely IS a 14th Amendment “Citizen” of the Republic and so is not eligible to the office of President.

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if Senator Rubio were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther document, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania

Clause 5 means that former Pennsylvania Senator and 2012 candidate for POTUS Rick Santorum, because it is not clear if his parents were naturalized BEFORE his birth, so it is possible that Senator Santorum is NOT a “natural born Citizen” but he definitely IS a 14th Amendment “Citizen” of the Republic.

While Senator Santorum does not think that the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement applies to him since it is obvious that he is a “Citizen” of the Republic, at least according to the 14th Amendment,  or he could NOT have been elected Senator of Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum continues to insist that it is not necessary to reply to inquiries about the naturalization status of his grandparents and whether or not his parents were naturalized BEFORE he, Rick, was born.

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if Senator Santorum were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther document, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

UPDATE: April, 10, 2012

Rick Santorum has officially suspended his campaign for president.
The "natural born Citizen" eligibility to legally occupy the office of President still stands.

Current Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana

Clause 5 means that Louisana Governor Bobby Jindal is not a “natural born Citizens” because his parents were NOT naturalized BEFORE he was born, so Gov. Jindal is not eligible to occupy the office of President.

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if Governor Jindal were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther document, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Future Aspirants to the Office of President of the United States

Clause 5 means that it would help the internal security of the Republic if ALL “Future Aspirants” to the office of POTUS were to become informed about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther document, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and the difference between a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen” born on American soil, and STAND UP… SPEAK UP… do the right thing to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Imagine

Imagine the world wide “Citizen” WAKE UP call if Senator Rubio, Senator Santorum, Governor Jindal or an unknown “Future Aspirant” to the Office of POTUS would, with the proper decorum, simply STAND UP and say something like this in a news conference for the major media of America and the world:

After studying Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
and the relevance of the Founder’s
ORIGINAL intent of the
ORIGINAL words of the
ORIGINAL “birther” document
of our Constitutional Republic,
I have decided that
I am a “Citizen” only
and not a “natural born Citizen” of the Republic,
so I am not eligible to occupy the office of President of the United States.”

Senator Rubio has been mentined as a possible V-POTUS in 2012 and Senator Rick Santorum is pursuing the office of POTUS in 2012, but, for an exercise in creative thinking and creative writing, let’s imagine a Senator Santorum hypothetical about a “… wouldn’t it be nice if SOMEONE did the RIGHT thing for a change BECAUSE it IS the RIGHT thing to do” news conference, let’s imagine… the future of Mr. Santourm… if.

Imagine...
... if Senator Rick Santorum were to stand up for the Constitution and speak out about the 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and say that as much as he’d like to occupy the office of POTUS, he is not Constitutionally eligible to BE either the POTUS or the V-POTUS.

Imagine...
… if Senator Santorum said that since he can NOT "occupy" the office of POTUS because he accepts (1) the Founder's 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "original intent" of the "original words" the SAME way the Founders understood them, (2) the 1795 Naturalization Act of the President George Washington administration, (3) the 1868 14th Amendment “original intent” of “Citizen” and the SCOTUS rulings about "natural born citizen" and the 14th Amendment, therefore, he does NOT want to, in effect, "OCCUPY America" so he does NOT want to "OCCUPY" the office of POTUS (…Senator Santorum does NOT need to add… as it appears President BHObama has done).

Imagine...
... if Senator Santorum decided to defend the U.S. Constitution instead of pursuing the Presidency under false pretense, what a huge shock wave WAKE UP call his words would have on the GOPE and RINOs, it would create world wide astonishment and respect that a "Citizen" admitted that he was NOT a "natural born Citizen" and so he will protect AND defend the U. S. Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Imagine...
... the national acclaim and elevation to the status of a world wide true Statesman, if Senator Santorum were to STAND UP for the U.S. Constitution, specifically (1) the 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, (2) the 1795 Naturalization Act and (3) the 1868 14th Amendment.

Imagine...
... who could "unite" the GOPE, and all of us “rogue” commonsense Conservatives who vote, behind a “natural born Citizen” in the 2012 primary, and the 2020 primary, and possibly for one generation… or two… or three… or.

Imagine…
... what national acclaim and approval would be offered to that man or woman who would willingly give up pursuit of the Presidency of the United Stated, when it REALLY cost something of value, such as the Presidency itself, and the opportunity presented itself to STAND UP to protect AND defended the U.S. Constitution… against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic?

Imagine… that.

A “Citizen” who is NOT a “natural born Citizen” really can WAKE UP America about the relevance of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Constitutional Republic, the U.S Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5, the ONLY location in the founding documents where ONLY a “natural born Citizen” is mentioned as the ONLY American “Citizen” who is eligible to occupy the office of President.

The question is simple and obvious.

Is Senator Rick Santorum THAT “Citizen”… or should “we the people” look for another "Citizen" Statesman leader?

Senator Marco Rubio?
Governor Bobby Jindal?

Who will be the “Citizen” Statesman, whether a "natural born Citizen" OR a “Citizen,” woman OR man, who will JUST simply STAND UP and SPEAK UP to WAKE UP America?

BEFORE it happens again, who?

So, to the “thought leaders” who are truly our “friends” whom we revere and respect, here is the question one more time.

Imagine.

Imagine we are sitting at the kitchen table and I ask you with emotion but without animus, will YOU step up to the plate and use your national stage outlet, Radio – TV – Print – Online (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and just simply TALK about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 every chance you get?

You can do what MOST of “we the people” can NOT do… TALK to millions, because when YOU talk, people listen.

I am reminded of a quote by Doug Brady on Conservatives4Palin.com from sometime in 2009 that I preserved.

“Sarah Palin's influence in perspective...
When she speaks,
People listen.
When she doesn't speak,
People wait for her to do so.
No other political leader has this power “

THAT is what I mean, “… when YOU talk, people listen.”

We are waiting.

We, your fellow "we the people" are waiting for comments from national “thought leaders,” plural, who are professional commentators, who have national audience influence, who get paid a "whole lotta" honorable free enterprise BIG bucks for commenting on their individual forums.

So, which “thought leader” will take the “recon” point man position and simply STAND UP… to SPEAK UP… to protect AND defend the U.S. Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, BEFORE another “Citizen” wannabe who is NOT an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen,” NOT an 1795 Naturalization Act “Citizen,” NOT an 1868 14th Amendment “Citizen” OR naturalized “Citizen,” and PRETENDS to be a Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and tries to “OCCUPY” and “fundamentally transform” America… again?

There’s that “OCCUPY” word again.

It’s appropriate if one wants to “OCCUPY” America and “OCCUPY” the Office of President of the United States.

Who is the “thought leader” or, it would be better if there were more than one, “we the people” need “thought leaders” who will STEP UP to the plate and, to mix metaphors, SPEAK into EXISTENCE the national debate about protecting AND defending the U.S. Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, and specifically DEFEND Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Who?

Sarah Palin?
Rush Limbaugh?
Mark Levin?
Sean Hannity?
David Barton?
Glenn Beck?
“et al.”

Who?

~ ~ ~

WAKE UP… America

When will you “thought leaders” WAKE UP… look UP… sit UP… stand UP… speak UP… ?

Sarah, Rush, Mark, Sean, Glenn, Rick, Marco, Bobby and et al.

Please… WAKE UP… Speak UP… please.

The battle ground of ideas needs your voice, your wit, your verve, your vigor, your conservative common sense and your articulation of Clause 5 importance to educate future voters about future POTUS eligibility… and WHY it is important NOW and FOREVER.

NOW is the time for "thought leaders" to WAKE UP… Look UP… Sit UP… Stand UP… Speak UP… while you can still Get UP.

To repeat.

NOW is the time to GET UP… while you can.

So.

Sarah, Rush, Glenn, David, Mark, Sean, Michelle, Ann, Laura, Ed, Ben, Newt, Herman, Rick, Ron, Mitt, Marco, Bobby, Pat, Bay and et al.

Are you a birther?

Are you a DEFENDER of the ORIGINAL “birther” document, the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5… with the focus specifically on Clause 5?

I am.

Art Telles (March 2012)

~ ~ ~

This is the edited transcript of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s 13 minute comments at Sun City, Arizona March 31, 2012 about the media blackout and irrational silence about the March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse investigation., posted on TheRightScoop after I transcribed the comments.

TheRightScoop.com … 04-04-2012



Sheriff Joe Arpaio is 79...

It would have been nice if Megyn had asked the Sheriff about something more important than the Feds monitoring an elected Sheriff. (- see the 4 minute segment on Fox at the TheRightScoop link above -)

As Sheriff Arpaio said Saturday, March 31, 2012, [the link is below] he gets invited on national tv to talk about pink underwear, but not about the "legal insurgency" [my term] being perpetrated by BHObama.

My question is, why do the "thought leaders" on TV - Radio - Print - Online NOT talk about the legal news that Sheriff Arpaio revelaled at his "Cold Case Posse" news conference on March 1, 2012?

Rush Limbaugh - no comment yet
Mark Levin - no comment yet
Sean Hannity - no comment yet
David Barton - no comment yet
Glenn Beck (on radio the next day - only shallow ridicule) - on GBTV - no comment yet
Sarah Palin - no comment yet

Hey, if our "thought leaders" do not, can not, will not comment, well, THAT definitely COMPELS a comment of some sort such as, well, WHY NOT.

It's legal AND political news, isn't it?

Sheriff Arpaio wants to know, “What, have I got the plague, or something?” 
 [… not in the original post, added here…]

~ ~ ~

Sheriff Joe Arpaio March 31, 2012 Press Conference
( http://youtu.be/uICO4l5PRcs )

This is the edited transcript of Sheriff Arpaio’s 13 minute comments in Sun City, Arizona March 31, 2012 about the media blackout and irrational silence about the March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse investigation.

Sheriff Arpaio starts by asking an obvious question, "What, have I got the plague, or something?
                                    
At 14min. 55sec. –

"What, have I got the plague, or something?
"I get on national TV with pink underwear.
"I can't even get on with this ... (not clear - audience applause).
"Never seen anything like it.
...
"I'm just doing what I took an oath of office to do.
"I know it's corny to say that, but I firmly believe it ... (unclear - audience applause).
"You need action.
"You can't just talk.
...
"A lot of you people know me.
"They call me the toughest sheriff in America.
"It's the world.
"It's not in America. (audience laughter)
"So, I'm just doing what I took an oath of office to do ... .
"Do you think I'd be taking on a President if I was appointed?
"I'm elected.
"What are they going to do to me?
"And you mention, I report to the people.
"250 people signed a petition ... and came and asked me to do something.
"I'm not accusing the President of any crime.
"When I took this on I said to Mike,
...
"I got a posse, why not give it to them?
"It doesn't cost a penny, so, they can't go after me by saying I'm using taxpayers money.
...
"I told Mike, Mike, I want to do everything to clear the President of the United States.
"I wanted to do it, really.
"... I'm a law enforcement guy.
"I wanted to be the guy to get up there, say that birth certificate is legitimate.
"Leave the President alone.
"But, it didn't work out that way. (audience laughter)
"... I don know.
"Some problems.

"Another thing we came up [with] was the Selective Service form.
"... see, the media won't print this.
"In all my press releases, I put a nice little p.s., and I said, I have registered 40,000 inmates to sign up for the Selective Service ... .
"Then I said, we have 10,000 from another country.
"When I started this, the U.S. Government Selective Service system didn't even know you have to sign up illegals, aliens.
"And I did.
"I got 40,000.

"So, I take this serious, the Selective Service.
"I didn't know this coming up, the Selective Service problem that we have with the President.
"This came up through our investigation.
"So, what do you do?
"Throw that in the waste basket?
"No.
"We're not going to throw it in a waste basket.

"And, once again, I'm not accusing the President of any crime, but we do have some probable cause on a couple of documents, government documents, and the last I heard, if you forge documents, I think that's a violation of law, somewhere.
"If you did it, you'd be in trouble, big time.
"I don't care who you are, [...with humor...] unless you're the President. [audience laughter]
"I don't care who you are.
"The President mentioned me 3 months ago at the White House.
"What an honor. [audience laughter]
"So, we're going to continue our job.
...
"Where is everybody?
"How come nobody's saying something about me?
"Not that I need the politicians to do so.
"But, they could at least you've got a nice shirt.
"Or, they could at least say, I don't know nothing about that, but, let's see what the Sheriff comes up with.
"All I hear is that he's here legitimately, that the birth certificate is ok, everything is ok.
"What is this?
"A ten year old can look at that birth certificate and know it's not real.
...
"So, I don know what's going on in this country.
"... when I'm in Sun City, I always give my age.
"When I'm in Scottsdale, I'm 39. [audience laughter]
"When I'm in Sun City, Sun City West, I'm 79, going on 80.
"I'll be 80 June 14, Flag Day.
"Do you know what I'm going to do? ...
"I'm going to take that 80, that phony 80 that was upside down on that Selective [Service], I'm going to flip it and that's going to be my birth day. ... .
"... I want every birthday card, a copy of that Selective Service form.

"Ok?

"Thank you ... .

- - - - - - - - - -

So.

As Sheriff Arpaio asked –

Where is everybody?
What is this?
What's going on in this country?

Just askin'.
'Cause it's important.

Yes?
No?

Did somebody say "I don't know" ... even with all the legal evidence?

So...

Where ARE the "thought leaders" on TV - Radio - Print - Online... hmm?

Art

This is a comment by Matt

He should have told Megyn Kelly, "They are going after me....and you know why. But unfortunately that subject is not allowed to be discussed on your network".

We all know the subject, RIGHT ?????

~ ~ ~

The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795

The 1795 Naturalization Act of the President George Washington administration limited “natural born Citizen” ONLY to children born on the soil of our American Republic AFTER the 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed because the 1790 Act DID designate children born on foreign soil as a "natural born Citizen" of the American Republic.

The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 confirm that being a “Citizen” does not mean the same thing as a “natural born Citizen.”

Indiana.edu

Naturalization Act of 1790

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).


"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  ... ."

Naturalization Act of 1795

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).


SEC. 3

"... and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: ... ."

The distinction is obvious.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 words “shall be considered as natural born Citizens” were emended by the Naturalization Act of 1795 Section 3 words “shall be considered as citizens.”

The emending of the words in 1795 confirms that, to the Founders, to President George Washington and to the Washington administration, “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen” did NOT mean the same thing.

Naturalization Act of 1790

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or 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:  Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

EarlyAmerica.com

The Naturalization Act of 1795

An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the Act heretofore passed on that Subject. For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States;

SECTION 1

BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise.

First

He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the Supreme, Superior, District, or Circuit Court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the Ohio River, or a Circuit or District Court of the United States, three years at least before his admission, that it was, bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.

Second

He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreigh prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

Third

The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years. It shall further appear to their satisfaction that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Fourth

In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.


SEC. 2

Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject. Moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court that, during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his, moreover, making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

SEC. 3

And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

SEC. 4

And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed. ?

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg
Speaker of the House of Representatives

John Adams
 Vice-President of the United States, And President of the Senate

George Washington
President of the United States 

Approved January 29th, 1795 
~ ~ ~ 

Jerome Corsi

(04-2012 – Morristown, NJ 2hrs - http://youtu.be/N6gZFF0mVGk )

Here is the interview with some people who heard former President Bill Clinton say that Democratic candidate Obama was NOT eligible to occupy the office of POTUS.


~ ~ ~

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

How to apply and join the Cold Case Posse (http://www.mcso.org/About/Posse.aspx )



(03-01-2012 - Cold Case Posse 2hrs – MSCO official site - http://youtu.be/XWmWO18GTc8 )
(03-01-2012 - Cold Case Posse 2hrs - http://youtu.be/vjzAH2DhydA )
(03-31-2012 - Cold Case Posse conference 2hrs- http://youtu.be/uICO4l5PRcs )

The Cold Case Posse

SOME “thought leaders” listed here and MOST, could we say 99%?, of the national media did NOT comment about Sheriff Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse news conference where it was revealed that there is probable cause to conclude that fraud and forgery was perpetrated by someone in the BHObama administration.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio should get the respect of having his legal criminal investigation news updates posted on ALL common sense conservative news blogs EVERY day, and definitely on the hard news blogs with paid reporters.

Because the national media did NOT comment about Sheriff Arpaio’s March 1, 2012 “Cold Case Posse” news conference, the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party had another conference on March 31, 2012.

A brief description about the fraud and forgery.

The two major legal issues are simple to understand.

(1) The fraudulent multi-layer birth certificate posted on the Federal Government White House web site.
(2) The fraudulent cut and paste date stamp on the Federal Government Selective Service Number card.

At the March 1, 2012 Cold Case Posse news conference, it was revealed that there is probable cause to conclude that fraud and forgery was perpetrated by someone in the BHObama administration, and yes, it must be said that it MUST have been by authority from a higher level, if NOT the HIGHEST level.

Two things have not been determined yet.

(1) Who crafted the birth certificate on Federal Government computers, plural, since the investigation revealed that it was NOT a scan from a paper original. It was assembled on a computer from start to finish and then uploaded to the White House web site.
(2) Who crafted the Federal Government Selective Service Number card date stamp, since the two number date of 80 without the # 19 preceding it is not authentic.

The Birth Certificate

The fraudulent birth certificate was crafted on a Federal Government computer, it was not scanned from a paper original.

The obvious conclusion by the investigators is that whoever the people, plural, are who crafted the birth certificate on Federal Government computers, plural, they did not have the authority to initiate the fraud and forgery on a Federal Government White House web site, so it MUST have been by a higher authority, if NOT the HIGHEST authority.

Whoever the higher authority is who suborned the silence (criminal intent) of the crafters of fraudulent documents that were designed to deceive voters, contrary to the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, subornation of silence of a crime is itself a crime.

If NOT the HIGHEST level authority, who would dare to authorize the posting of a fraudulent and forged birth certificate on the Federal Government White House web site and thus misrepresent the President and bring suspicion on his conduct in office since he said in public, AFTER it was posted on the Federal Government White House web site, that it was his birth certificate?

THAT suspicious conduct consists of two parts.

(1) Authorizing the posting of the birth certificate on the Federal Government White House web site after it was assembled.
(2) Affirming to the American people the authenticity of the birth certificate.

The two acts of suspicious conduct would be a multi-part impeachable offense, a "high crime and misdemeanor" if there ever was one.

THAT is fraud... on a Federal Government White House computer.
THAT is crime... period.
THAT is “high crime and misdemeanor”… and is definitely impeachable if fraud is authorized by the HIGHEST authority.

The Selective Service Number Card

The fraudulent Selective Service Number card was crafted when the date stamp was altered.

The fraud on the Federal SSN card is evident in the year of the date stamp. It shows the #80 without the #19 preceding it, as in 1980. This was the result of taking the #08 from a 2008 date stamp, and then inverting the #08 to the #80 after the #20 was cut off of the date stamp.

However, ALL authentic SSN date stamps have four numbers for the year such as 1980, but the fraudulent SSN card has ONLY two numbers, an 8 and a 0, the number 80.

Since the fraudulent Federal SSN card was obtained by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, it appears that the Federal Government provided a fraudulent and forged SSN card.

It has not been determined yet who forged the card and provided it to Mr. Obama in 1980 when he was only 19.

THAT is fraud... on a Federal document.
THAT is crime... period.
THAT is “high crime and misdemeanor” and is definitely impeachable if complicity in fabrication of the fraudulent SSN card is established.

~ ~ ~

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

For those who want the lawyer talk with references, here are two posts by Mr. Apuzzo.



 “… Dr. Conspiracy has asked me the following question:

"Mr. Apuzzo,

Do you really believe that the E. de Vattel actually intended
to say that his "natural born citizen" must be born in the country
and have TWO citizen parents?

The French grammar, once cast into the plural, must continue
in plural to the end of the sentence. Is it not clear from the context
of the following chapters that de Vattel clearly meant
ONE citizen parent, and specifically ONE CITIZEN FATHER?"

He then asked the following:

"If you would be so kind, please add this to my previous post for clarification:

What de Vattel clearly meant to say was that the indigenous people
are those who are born in the country to citizen parents [fathers].

Thanks."

“Dr. Conspiracy's question has inspired my writing this article.
Hence, this article is my answer to Dr. Conspiracy's question.”

The 14th Amendment and SCOTUS case law findings mentioned in the article.

- The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
- The Civil Rights Act (1866)
- The Fourteenth Amendment (1868)
- The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873)
- Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
- Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Mr. Apuzzo concludes with this final paragraph, which I have opened up into individual sentences for quick scanning.

“Obama’s current citizenship status is the same as that which
the Framers and Founders had during the Constitutional Convention.

If he was born in Hawaii (which he has yet to conclusively prove),
he is a “Citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment
just as they were under natural law and the law of nations. 

And he is not a “natural born Citizen” as they also were not.

Like a naturalized citizen who is not a “natural born Citizen”
and therefore not eligible to be President, the Framers and Founders
were born subject to a foreign power as was Obama.

Being born subject to a foreign power, both the original Founders
and Obama qualify as “citizens of the United States”
but not as “natural born Citizens.

But the difference between Obama and the original Founders is that
Obama cannot take advantage of Article II’s grandfather clause
to make him eligible to be President.

Obama is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.”

The titles of some other articles by Mr. Apuzzo.


~ ~ ~

TheObamaFile.com

Categories

Contents Site Map

Below is the link and the Library of Congress letter requesting permission “… for inclusion in its historic collections of Internet materials related to the Presidential Transition during a Time of Crises.”

The Library of Congress

Date Tue 2/3/2009 9:30 AM
From webcapture @ loc.gov
To Beckwith @ TheObamaFile.com
Subject Library of Congress Permission Request

To Whom It May Concern:

The United States Library of Congress has selected your Web site for inclusion in its historic collections of Internet materials related to the Presidential Transition during a Time of Crises.  The Library of Congress preserves the Nation's cultural artifacts and provides enduring access to them.  The Library's traditional functions, acquiring, cataloging, preserving and serving collection materials of historical importance to the Congress and the American people to foster education and scholarship, extend to digital materials, including Web sites.

The following URL has been selected:


The Library of Congress or its agent will engage in the collection of content from your Web site at regular intervals.  The Library will make this collection available to researchers onsite at Library facilities.

The Library also wishes to make the collection available to offsite researchers by hosting the collection on the Library's public access Web site.  The Library hopes that you share its vision of preserving materials about the Presidential Transition during a Time of Crises and permitting researchers from across the world to access them.

If you agree to permit offsite access to your materials through the Library's Web site please click here to signify your consent:

Note:  Consent link redacted

For several years, the Library of Congress has collected Web sites within certain themes or topics.  As our collections have grown, we have had to contact some Web site producers repeatedly.  To reduce this duplication and to save site owners from having to respond to multiple requests for information, we are now giving notice that the Library will collect, over time and in varying frequency, sites of research interest.  Your site has been identified as a Web site of interest related to the Presidential Transition during a Time of Crises.  If you grant permission to display offsite access to your materials through the Library’s Web site, we will take your permission as notice that we may include it in our future collections.  If in the future you no longer wish your materials to be displayed offsite or if you wish to be contacted for each new collection, please contact us.

Our Web Archives are important because they contribute to the historical record of the United States, capturing information that could otherwise be lost.  With the growing role of the Web as an influential medium, records of historic events could be considered incomplete without materials that were "born digital" and never printed on paper.  The Library has developed previous Web Archives some of which are available through the Library's Web site (http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/ ).  For more information about these Web Archive collections, please visit our Web site.

If you have questions, comments or recommendations concerning the Presidential Transition during a Time of Crises Web Archive project or future projects, please e-mail the Library's Web Capture team at webcapture @ loc.gov at your earliest convenience.

Thank You,

Web Capture Team
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C.
webcapture@loc.gov

------
LC Reference: PT-Crises 92773 D

~ ~ ~

NationalReview.com

This is the March 7, 2012 “By The Editors” editorial, “Conspiracy Again,” in which they use the dismissive words, “birthers’ flim-flam.”

It is itself representative of the “thought leaders” of the GOPE and their irrational group-think and acceptance of their own “anti-birther” flim-flam meme that is deep-sleep silent because they say in group-think speak,

“I-wanna-defeat-Obama-and-his-policies-and-nothing-else-so-just-go-away”
“I-don’t-wanna-talk-about-the-birth-certificate”
“I-don’t-wanna-talk-about-Article-2-Section-1-Clause-5”

Their theme music is the first movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony, “meme meme meme meme…” (http://youtu.be/_4IRMYuE1hI )

The short “anti-birther” flim-flam editorial by the NRO editors is itself representative of the GOPE irrational group-think of the “anti-birther” flim-flam that is deep-sleep silent.

Thanks NRO for the “flim-flam” term.

The flim-flam is coming from SOME of the “thought leaders” on Radio – TV – Print – Online and the fingers-in-the-ears GOPE while they say la la la la la la la… la.

The flim-flam term fits the common sense Conservative “thought leaders” and the conservatives with progressive tendencies in the GOPE, and their irrational “anti-birther” head in the sand where they take the prayer position and pray that the discussion of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause would JUST GO AWAY.

Nope.

We’re NOT going to abandon the honorable defense of the significance, meaning and eternal relevance of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

Remember, the Cold Case Posse news conference was on March 1, 2012.

This March 7, 2012 post by the NRO Editors, "Conspiracy Again" at NRO.com, with 420 comments by today, April 15, 2012, is taking what looks to be the head in the sand with the collective butt in the air position that since Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign adduced the “birther” issue against BHObama, then it MUST be bogus.

So, being bogus, it is best for the “thought leaders” of the GOPE and ALSO the “thought leaders” of the common sense Conservative BIG Talker radio universe and the BIG Writer print and online universe, to forget the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement of vetting the current OCCUPIER-in-chief of the Oval Office, and concomitantly simply forget about and do NOT defend the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 as it relates to vetting the ID of BHObama.

The way to win, according to the current NRO editors who represent the GOPE, is to stick with the bread and butter issues of ObamaCare, deficit growth, national security, and the liberal vs. conservative struggle to control SCOTUS.

The NRO editors then conclude in the last paragraph with their own version of "anti-birther" flim-flam against what they call the "birthers’ flim-flam."

Their conclusion is definitely without substance since they do not articulate the difference between their “anti-birther” truth from ORIGINAL “birther” document lies.

The NRO editors only emote without substance as they put a shame-on-you evil eye on those who are simply trying to WAKE UP America about the attack on the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic and so they accuse and say “…the birthers have done their party and their country a disservice.”

Their tacit implication is that only THEIR “anti-birther” flim-flam deserves to win and save the nation and that defenders of the ORIGINAL “birther” document “… will not win and do not deserve to.”

Here is the final paragraph, an example of the NRO editor’s emotion without thoughtful articulation response to the “probabale cause” thoughtful conclusion of the Cold Case Posse investigation headed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a true defender of the freedom to think, speak and write of the NRO editors.

“Republicans who have chosen to associate with the birthers
have done their party and their country a disservice.

“And as Sheriff Arpaio settles comfortably into that
political mental ward, the same must be said of those
Republicans who choose to associate themselves with him more broadly.

“Those who cannot distinguish between the birthers’ flim-flam
and the critical questions that face our nation in 2012
will not win and do not deserve to.”

Of course, in their "anti-birther" flim-flam knee-jerk ridicule of Sheriff Arpaio as being in a “political mental ward,” and in their hoity toity “we-know-better-than-you-birthers” how to win against Obama and his policies attitude, aka flim-flam, the NRO editors never… NEVER… adduce the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document” of our Republic, the Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, choosing instead to ignore the Founding Fathers and the 18th century 1787 “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement to be POTUS and how the Clause 5 words apply in 2012 in the 21st Century to the “I-don’t-care-what-the-Constitution-says-about-eligibility” current OCCUPIER-in-chief, putative President BHObama.

Why do they ignore Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Is it because the intellectual heirs of Bill Buckley and the NRO editors agree with Glenn Beck and others who also believe the "anti-birther" flim-flam of the progressive DINOs, the progressive RINOs and the conservatives with progressive tendencies of the GOPE "anti-birthers" that Bill and Hillary brought up the "birther" issue first in the 2008 campaign against BHObama and they abandoned it because it was bogus?

Intellectual heirs of Mr. Bill Buckley, RIP, is that lack of investigation shallow reasoning or after investigation deep reasoning from the NRO editors?

Have the NRO editors ever reported as hard or soft news that people who personally spoke with Bill Clinton in 2008 are speaking out today for the record that Bill Clinton was saying in 2008 that BHObama was NOT eligible, and they are also now saying for the record that Bill Clinton was silenced into submission, AND they know who silenced him?

Intellectual heirs of Mr. Bill Buckley, why do the NRO editors use ridicule against the evidence of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the experienced Cold Case Posse personnel who investigated the birth certificate and the SSN card, and impugn the common sense conservatives who want to defend the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic?

Intellectual heirs of Mr. Bill Buckley, why do the NRO editors ignore the consequences of their own “anti-birther” flim-flam that THEY are promoting and failing to understand how their "anti-birther" flim-flam is negatively affecting their intellectual curiosity which is also affecting their desire to address  “… the critical questions that face our nation in 2012 …” that are all... yes, ALL... related to the “… we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” words of putative President BHObama, the OCCUPIER-in-chief of the Oval Office?

Yes, NRO “anti-birther” editors, why NOT deal with both the economic and national security issues AND a vigorous and rigorous DEFENSE of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 in context as it applies to insurgent OCCUPIER-in-Chief BHObama?

Why not deal with both the Constitution and the bread and butter issues, "thought leaders" NRO editors and “thought leaders” BIG Talkers on radio and BIG Writers in print and online?

We’re just askin’, ‘cause, as you know, the ORIGINAL “birther” document of the Republic is under attack by the current iteration of the idiotology of neo-Marxism and the current iteration of the 1400 year jihad by supremacist Islam that believes that their Shariah is superior to our U.S. Constitution.

Do you NRO “thought leaders,” of ALL people, who knew William Buckley and are his intellectual heirs, do you NOT see the danger our Republic is in?

Until the NRO editors stand UP and DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, and put it in context with the national bread and butter issues that are being used to divide the Republic by the “anti-birther-in-chief” himself, THEY, the NRO editors, will be taking the GOPE road to mediocrity and irrelevance.

When and if that happens, THEY “… will not win and do not deserve to.”

Rather than ridiculing Sheriff Arpaio and the defenders of the ORIGINAL “birther” document “birthers,” the NRO editors could ALSO follow in the intellectual footsteps of NRO founder Bill Buckley and publish some hard news, such as that it appears that BHObama is the point man of a nascent insurrection in America as he tries to continue “… fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Before we continue, I want to give the American Heritage Dictionary very brief definition of the German word “putsch,” because it definitely describes putative President BHObams words and what “… fundamentally transforming the United States of America” is accomplishing.

- putsch also Putsch (pooch) n. A sudden attempt by a group to overthrow a government.
- putschist n.

As the point man of the insurrection, BHObama is definitely THE “putscher” MAN who has managed to OCCUPY the Oval Office as a sudden attempt is made by a, it is still nebulous, group to overthrow the government from within the chambers of power.

Just WHAT does “… fundamentally transforming the United States of America” mean to an insurgent point man of a nascent insurrection who does NOT care what the ORIGINAL intent is of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, if the words do NOT suggest a premeditated “putsch” to OCCUPY, as THE “putscher” MAN, the office of POTUS?

Instead of ridiculing an honorable Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, the NRO editors could inform the American people that the insurgent who has managed to OCCUPY the Oval Office as the OCCUPIER-in-Chief is leading what appears to be a putsch from within, aka an enemy within.

Until the intellectual heirs of Bill Buckley, and the NRO editors, and other putative “thought leader” BIG Talkers on Radio and BIG Writers in print and online, take seriously the “putsch” and the “putschist” in the Oval Office, THE “putscher” MAN BHObama, mediocrity and irrelevance is possibly the future of the GOPE.

The bread and butter money issues are important, but, what is more important, intellectual heirs of Bill Buckley, and NRO editors, your money or your life… of freedom?

If the “anti-birthers” continue to ignore and will NOT defend the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, it could be that the NRO editors will fulfill their own prophecy, and, we will find out if maybe THEY will be the ones who “… will not win and do not deserve to.”

~ ~ ~

HumanEvents

A "human event" NOT reported.

Put “sheriff joe arpaio cold case posse” in the HumanEvents“search our site” block at the top of their page – the news conference was on March 1, 2012 – today,  March 25, 2012, NOTHING registered – the most recent post was “Obama Supporter Arrested For Death Threats to Joe Arpaio, by Jim Hoft 01/27/12.

Or try this. 

Put "birther," with apostrophe marks and birther without apostrophe marks, in the HumanEvents "search our site" block. Remember, the Cold Case Posse news conference was on March 1, 2012 - today, April 10, 2012, NOTHING registered.

At the top of the page was this 2011 reference.

"Mitt's Son Matt Cracks Birther Joke at Campaign Stop
by Jim Hoft (12/30/11)"

"Mitt Romney's son Matt cracked a birther joke while campaigning for his father today in New Hampshire. CBS News reported: After Mitt Romney's son made a "birther" joke on the campaign trail, he quickly apologized and downplayed the …" 

Hey.

Human Events and ALL putative common sense conservative "thought leader" news blogs.

Isn’t fraud and forgery a, you know, a CRIME?

And, isn't fraud and forgery by ANY President, black OR White a, you know, a CRIME?

And, isn't a CRIME a “human event” that MUST be addressed and, you know, uh, reported? 

Well?
Isn’t it? 

~ ~ ~

AmericanThinker.com

Three recent, April 2012, articles on AmericanThinker hit the bullseye about the fraud and forgery of the birth certificate and the SSN card.

(1) Oblivious to the Obvious

How I Learned to Love Savannah Guthrie

Do-It-Yourself Proof of the Obama Birth Certificate Fraud

~ ~ ~

Matt Drudge

Today, April 13, 2012, the “Search Drudge” results below are indicative of what Sheriff Arpaio calls the media “blackout” about simply reporting hard news about fraud and forgery concerning BHObama’s birth certificate and other fraudulent documents.

The results indicate that, from the Cold Case Posse news conference on March 1, 2012 until today April 13, 2012, DrudgeReport has never typed the words “cold case posse” on the site, and has not linked to hard news stories about the Cold Case Posse investigation.

Put cold case posse in the “Search Drudge” window.

Search Results: 0 found.
cold case posse

Search Results: 0 found.
"cold case posse"

Put “joe arpaio” and joe arppaio in the “Search Drudge” window.

Search Results: 4 found.
"joe arpaio"

Search Results: 5 found.
joe arpaio

Here are the titles and the dates of the five results found today, April 13, 2012, using the “Search Drudge” feature.

PRAVDA chides U.S. media for ignoring Sherrif Joe Arpaio investigation... ^
From the
March 10, 2012 16:49:52 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

Joe Arpaio Fights Back: 'Don't use me as whipping boy'... ^
From the
December 16, 2011 01:48:00 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

'Sheriff Joe' Arpaio Leads in Arizona Poll for Senate Race... ^
From the
February 15, 2011 13:15:29 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

GET JOE: Justice Dept Gives Second Ultimatum in Sheriff Arpaio Investigation... ^
From the
August 27, 2010 12:55:49 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

Inside Joe Arpaio s All-Female Chain Gang... ^
From the
May 15, 2007 04:03:01 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

~ ~ ~

John Woodman

John Woodman, a computer guy, is the author of “Is Obama’s Birth Certificate A Fraud? – A Computer Guy Examines the Evidence for Forgery

Mario Arpuzzo, Esq. rebuts John Woodman, Monday, April 2, 2012.

Computer guy John Woodman, who is NOT an Esq., is from the OTHER side, aka the “anti-birther” flim-flam point of view to counter the ORIGINAL “birther” document point of view which is viewed by the NationalReview.com editors as the “birthers’ flim-flam.”

From the About page –

John Woodman has spent 20 years as a computer guy in varying capacities — including programming, consulting, designing and building software (both for the US government and for private industry), networking, etc.

Since 2003, he has been an independent, self-employed computer professional. His academic background is in mathematics, computer science, and physics.

A short forum debate with Mario Apuzzo, Esq, John Woodman, computer guy and not an Esq. and ehancock, occupation unknown, but he is probably also not an Esq.

Hey, the fact that Woodman and ehancock are not an Esq. does not disqualify them from commenting and correcting an Esq. like Mario Apuzzo.

I’m also not an Esq., but what is enlightening is when Goodman and ehancock respond to Mario Apuzzo, Esq., they respond to Apuzzo, Esq. about the SCOTUS findings AND they do so without references. They simply assert they are correct and Mario Apuzzo, Esq. does not know the Constitution or how to read the SCOTUS findings.

For example, here is the first paragraph of the first comment by ehanckock in point #5 in the forum debate linked to above.

“The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to US citizens who were citizens at birth, as opposed to naturalized citizens who were not citizens at birth.

“ALL US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens.”

Look closely and you will see that the conclusion “ALL” is NOT correct because the first sentence is not accurate.

Why?

ehancock leaves out the two citizen parents who MUST be each a “Citizen” BEFORE the children “… who were citizens at birth.”

It’s the little but VERY important missing words that can confuse if you do not know the “natural born Citizen” issue before reading their comments where thy attempt to correct Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. answers ehancock in point #7, in which you can see quickly the lack of informed comments by ehancock and later from John Goodman.

And, again, this is simply the observation by this non-lawyer, who agrees with the Esq. Apuzzo, whereas ehanckock and Goodman, also non-lawyers, disagree with the Esq. Apuzzo and attempt to scold the Esq. as not knowing the Constitution and also not knowing how to read SCOTUS findings.

Reading their point-counterpoint is an education, BUT, it is confusing if you do NOT know the issue BEFORE you read their back and forth.

Goodman and ehancock sound so articulate and erudite about the nuances of the SCOTUS findings and when they scold the Esq. Apuzzo, well, if you don’t know the “natural born Citizen” issue, how do you how to parse their conclusions to know they are wrong and the Esq. Apuzzo is right?

So, their point-counterpoint is important to read and understand the difference between the the ORIGINAL “birther” document defender and the defender of the “anti-birther” document, uh, I mean, point of view.

What is it that the “progressive / socialist” pro-Obama and the “conservative / progressive” anybody-BUT-Obama “anti-birthers” do NOT agree with in the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

If the common sense conservatives do not agree with the “conservative / progressive” appellation, well, let them define and defend themselves about Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and the “natural born Citizen” appellation.

Also, what is it that the progressives and conservatives do NOT agree with about these three points?

(1) The 1787 Article 2, Section 3, Clause 5 that grandfathered the Founders in as a “Citizen.”

(2) The 1795 Naturalization Act that retained the single word “Citizen” and removed the two words “natural born” that were in the 1790 Naturalization Act, confirming that to the Founders, including the President George Washington administration, that a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen” did NOT mean the same thing.

President Washington did NOT veto the emendation.

Why?

President Washington agreed with the difference between a 1787 “natural born Citizen” of the new Republic eligible to legally “occupy” the office of POTUS forever and a 1787 “Citizen" who was grandfathered into the new Republic and eligible to be POTUS as long as a 1787 “Citizen” was still alive.

After that and forever, ONLY the “natural born Citizen” child of two “Citizen” parents would be eligible to be POTUS.

President Washington also agreed that a born "Citizen" of the Republic with two “Citizen” parents BEFORE the birth of the child, would ALSO be a "natural born Citizen" of the Republic and thus eligible to legally "occupy" the office of POTUS.

(3) The 1868 14th Amendment that simply clarified what a “Citizen” is without abrogating the (#2) 1795 “Citizen” distinction from the ORIGINAL intent of the (#1) 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” eligibility to legally “occupy” the office of POTUS.

~ ~ ~

Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter – Do It Yourself

The Do It Yourself Birther Involuntary Civil Commitment Form

Tweak it for public domain originality and do an Obama.

What is an Obama?

Simply ‘transform’ the public domain and pro ‘Anti-Birther’ Do It Yourself gag form into an public domain pro ‘Birther’ Do It Yourself gag form.

In my version below, I have replaced ‘Crazy’ with ‘Insipid’, and include the word ‘insipience’. Both words require thought. Can we ‘think it through’? Yes we can.

Insipid Anti-Birther Involuntary Civil Commitment Form


In The Circuit or District, or ________________________ Court of

_____________________________County,

State of _______________________


Petition For INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER Involuntary Civil Commitment


COMES NOW one of ‘We the People’, the undersigned Petitioner, who hopes for change from this Honorable Court to PRETTY PLEASE lock up the Insipid Anti-Birther known as __________________________, and who states that:


LEGAL STANDING


1. The Petitioner’s name is ____________________________________ (This is YOU).

2. The INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER’S name and address is ______________________________. (This is the Insipid Anti-Birther)

3. I am the INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER’S __________________________________ (wife, husband, friend, next-door neighbor who has to listen to his/her insane rants, bartender, employer, unrelated concerned citizen who is afraid that INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER will go bonkers and as a result of his/her insipience will hurt the intelligence of all BIRTHERS everywhere. This is YOUR relationship to INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER.) and as such, I have Legal Standing to file this Petition.


FACTUAL RECITATION OF INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER BIZARRE BEHAVIOR


4. I have personally seen and/or heard the above-named INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER engage in the following crazy acts and speech including, but not limited to: (use all that apply)

a. Barking, and/or howling, at the moon;
b. Encouraging others to bark, and/or howl, at said moon, to call it down;
c. Hugging trees, telephone poles, and/or other inanimate objects;
d. Agreeing with ALL of the judges who have NOT decided eligibility lawsuits on merits but who simply assert that BHObama is eligible to be POTUS, resulting in repeated and so far unsuccessful Obama eligibility lawsuits;
e. Expressing paranoid and insipid delusions that President BHObama is NOT an illegal alien;
f. Expressing the delusional belief that he/she has been abducted and got tanked with BHObama and does not remember being “probed” by the President, illegal aliens, or aliens from outer space;
g. Expressing an unhealthy disinterest in NOT policing a crime scene and consequent “frog-marching”;
h . Repeating the words that BHObama is NOT an “Usurper” for hours on end, while rocking back and forth;
i. Perpetually refusing to believe that fraud has definitely been committed with mundane government issued documents such as birth certificates, Social Security numbers and Selective Service cards, and also NOT adducing ANY contradictory evidence to defend ANY BHObama document;
j. Rejecting the belief that the laws of the United States are unique to the intent of the Founders after the Founder considered British ‘subject’ verbiage and terminology and various French laws;
k. Expressing the grandiose belief that the lawyers and judges in America in 2012 of the 21st century know more about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, than did the Founders in 1787 in the 18th century, even though they, the ‘grandiose’ believers of 2012, personally have no legal training;
l. Obsessing about pixels and layers in online images as being NOT significant for discovery in court;
m. Talking non-stop with insipience about Obama is a “Citizen’ and so he is eligible to be POTUS and thus alienating friends and family members;

(The above 13 items will apply to most Anti-Birthers, but freely add to this list any other bizarre behavior expressed by your particular INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER.)

5. On information and belief, and based on the above mentioned acts, I believe the above named INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER is as insipid as dandruff and expresses his/her insipience deliberately to hurt the intelligence of ‘We the People’ Birthers, and also constitutes a danger to self or others who will vote on the first Tuesday of November, 2012 and who still do not know the difference and WHY there is a difference between an ‘natural born Citizen’ and a ‘Citizen’ of the Republic..


PRAYERS FOR RELIEF


WHEREFORE, based on the principles of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, that did not consider English common law relevant to a Republic of ‘We the Ppeople’ who are NOT ‘subjects’ but who are ‘Citizens’, I pray this Honorable Court to Grant this Petition, and for the following relief:

6. That the above named INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER be immediately admitted to custody for the purposes of psychiatric evaluation and treatment, said treatment to last until such time as the INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER be cured of his various delusions, obsessions, and psychotic manifestations.

7. And further that during the period of confinement, INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER be denied all unsupervised access to the Internet Anti-Birther websites, British and French law, and pdf image handbooks.

8. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, the Petitioner begs this Court to impose a Gag Order on the above named INSIPID ANTI-BIRTHER so that he/she will THINK IT THROUGH before denying the reality of the ORIGINAL intent of the Founders and CEASE AND DESIST from discussing Anti-Birther beliefs which manifestly disturbs the peace and intelligence of sane ‘Birthers’, and causes and/or promotes mental illness among the general population who are not aware how insipid insipience can be to thoughtful ‘We the People’ who know the difference between the words ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’, found ONLY in one founding document, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, and found in the SAME Clause 5, in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ that was included in the sentence with original intent..


Respectfully Submitted,



__________________________________________
(Sign YOUR ‘We the People’ name)

~ ~ ~ 

PrairieFire.org

The “prairie fire” reference is to the Weather Underground manifesto of Bill Ayers and his fellow Marxist “transformers” in the 1960s, “Prairie Fire: the Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism,” about a national insurrection against the United States, capitalism and the U.S. Constitution.

Here is the PrairieFire.org lik (http://www.prairiefire.org/about.shtml?History ) for a quick look on the “About” page and their intent for their struggle, their jihad, and what “we the people” are up against.

This is from the “About” page – Our History

“Prairie Fire Organizing Committee traces its roots to the student movement of the 1960s.
… .

“These experiences led us to see the importance of supporting oppressed peoples in their struggles against injustice.

“In 1974, the Weather Underground Organization published a book entitled "Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism."

“Discussion groups sprang up around the country to discuss the book.

“In response, Prairie Fire formed in cities across the U.S.

“These struggles encourage us to continue our work until U.S. imperialism is defeated.”

~ ~ ~

The Marxist true believers are as serious as a heart attack… and the heart of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, and, in context, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, are under attach by the insurrgents who see a final conclusion to therir 100+ year “putsch” to “transform” the United States of America.

For those who might not be clear as to what the German word “putsch” is and what a “putschist” means, here is a right on definition from the handy dandy American Heritage Dictionary.

putsch also Putsch (poosh)
n. A sudden attempt by a group to overthrow a government.
putschist n.

Now we know what BHObama meant when he said, "... we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America".

Without a properly vetted ID, BHObama has successfully managed to "OCCUPY" the Oval Office even though he is not "... eligible to the Office of President..." according to the words of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

For America to FINALLY fail, the 100+ year effort by the "we-know-better-than-the-Founders-who-knew-what-natural-born-Citizen-meant" progressively "social justice" Marxist putschists would need to reveal their political poker hand and "OCCUPY" the Oval Office.

The 100 year ideological putsch to fundamentally transform America from the land of the free and the brave, aka an individualist constitutional republic, to the land of the serf and the slave, aka an collectivist democracy (rule by the many) / oligarchy (rule by the few) commune, seems to have reached fruition with Putschist-in-Chief BHObama, aka THE "putscher" Man.

BHObama KNOWS that his is NOT a "natural born Citizen" but he does NOT care.

As the Occupier-in-Chief, BHObama can, by definition, be called the Putschist-in-Chief, aka THE "putscher" MAN.

Hey, it fits... like a needle in the arm.

And like a needle in the arm, it satisfies BHObama's "putschists" involved in the premeditated OCCUPY movement "putsch" into the Oval Office and across the Republic.

The "putschists" will DO and SAY anything to protect their "Putscher MAN.

~ ~ ~

Now you know what the “conversation” is about and the purpose of “The U.S. Constitution: The ORIGINAL “Birther” Document Of The United States.”

Now “we the people” MUST articulate, we MUST define and defend the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birhter” document of our wonderful Republic, the U.S. Constitution, and specifically the eternal relevance of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

This requires that we understand what Clause 5 is AND means… if we want to protect AND defend our FREE Republic against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic… and retain our FREE Republic.

The “conversation” is about you, “we the people,” who will Stand UP and Speak UP to DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, and specifically the eternal relevance of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

~ ~ ~

Our History

This is the “About” page link (http://www.prairiefire.org/about.shtml?History ).

Prairie Fire Organizing Committee traces its roots to the student movement of the 1960s. The struggles of Black people to end racism and achieve liberation and the struggle of the Vietnamese people to build a more just society inspired us to action. These experiences led us to see the importance of supporting oppressed peoples in their struggles against injustice.

In 1974, the Weather Underground Organization published a book entitled "Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism." Discussion groups sprang up around the country to discuss the book. In response, Prairie Fire formed in cities across the U.S.

During the 1970s, Prairie Fire believed that the struggles of colonized peoples around the world and in the U.S. were leading the fight against U.S. imperialism. As a result, we worked in solidarity with the peoples of Africa, particularly Zimbabwe and Namibia, and Latin America, especially Nicaragua and Puerto Rico, as they fought to free their nations from foreign domination and dictatorship and build a more equitable society. We were also active in various support committees that worked to end racism and the brutality of prison life and supported Black people's and women's liberation.


In the new millennium, we are inspired by the struggles of the Zapatistas in Mexico, worldwide opposition to the IMF and World Bank, the growing anti-sweatshop movement and the movements against the U.S. military in Vieques, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Here in Chicago, we work closely with the Puerto Rican community to oppose gentrification and to support self-determination for the Puerto Rican nation. These struggles encourage us to continue our work until U.S. imperialism is defeated.

~ ~ ~

What If… What Does THAT Mean?

Clause 5 means that putative President BHObama, “IF” he truly is a 14th Amendment “Citizen,” NOT by naturalization, which has never been adduced as a possibility, but by birth on American soil with ONLY one parent, could NOT be a “Citizen” as stated in Clause 5, “… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution …” because he was NOT born before 1787 and neither were his parents... whoever they are or were or turn out to be.

What does THAT mean?

Ok, here is a hypothetical, aka based on nuthin’ but a what if… so don’t go conspiratorial with this… unless it turns out that it really happened. With BHObama, only the Shadow knows, whoever that is.

What IF.

What if putative President BHObama had the same mama and a different papa?

Clause 5 means that BHObama COULD be a Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" ONLY if... and it’s a BIG what "IF"... his Marxist mother truly was Stanley Ann Dunham AND if... what "IF"... his Muslim father turned out to be Malcolm X, as some are suggesting for various Alice in Wonderland “curiouser and curiouser” reasons related to various SS numbers and residence addresses, including the physical resemblance in side by side pictures of BHObama and Malcolm X. BHObama definitely does NOT resemble BHObama Sr. but he definitely DOES resemble Malcolm X.

Why “IF”.

Clause 5 means that …“IF”… Marxist Stanley Ann Dunham AND Muslim Malcolm X were BOTH his "Citizen" parents at BHObama’s birth, BHObama would be a 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” without question. The 1795 Naturalization Act “Citizen” status would be irrelevant and the 1868 14th Amendment “Citizen” by birth status would also be irrelevant.

Well, how about THAT big what "IF", huh? 

Shucks.

What a missed opportunity to avoid the Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” eligibility question while building an identity with a specious Selective Service Number, a specious Social Security Card number and a specious Certificate Of Live Birth (COLB) with the help of Marxist terrorist Bill “I wanna destroy capitalism” Ayers and the writing of BHObama’s book, “Dreams From My Father.”

They were NOT dreams “OF” his Marxist father but dreams “FROM” his Marxist father.

Instead of a Marxist father BHOBama and Ayers could have written about a Muslim father and avoided the “natural born Citizen” eligibility question.

Oh, no, that could not be allowed, because, which is worse for the Illinois Senate election vetting process and also the national election vetting process, Marxist or Muslim?

Malcolm X – Muslim papa?

OR

BHObama, Sr. – Marxist papa?

Muslim or Marxist?
Muslim or Marxist?
Muslim or Marxist?

What to do?
What to do?
What to do?

Both?

Could putative President BHObama be BOTH… a secret raised arm with clenched fist singing the Internationale “true believer” Marxist and promoter of the 10 Points of the Communist Manifesto AND a reciting the Muslim call to prayer with accurate pronunciation “true believer” Muslim and promoter of the Qur’an and it’s heavenly directive to revert, not convert, non-submitters to “submit” to Islam and the shariah… or pay the jizya as a humbled dhimmi with eyes down and head bowed… or die?

Did someone say taqiyya?

Could putative President BHObama be BOTH… but put a Muslim identity in the closet, so to speak (did someone say taqiyya?), and simply lie about the Marxist identity… and obfuscate… and shuck and jive…and, as an Marxist Saul Alinsky “Rules For Radicals” acolyte and community organizer teacher, simply do as a cadre Marxist whatever it takes to get power and retain power?

Would we be having this national conniption fit "IF putative President BHObama identified with Marxist Stanley and Muslim Malcolm X instead of Marxist Stanley and Marxist Barack Sr.?"

NO.

We would be having a DIFFERENT conniption fit without the “natural born Citizen” eligibility question.

Ok, I’ll ask it for you.

What does THAT mean?

Well, the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, which protect the liberty of the individual in an individualist free society, are the chains on both the idiotology of Marxism and the collective, aka the commune, and the idiotology of Islam and the shariah, the law, of the Islamic umma in Dar al-Islam (the territory of Islam, aka the collective, aka the commune).

The shariah, the supreme law of Islam, is for those who “submit,” which is what Islam means, to living as a “submitter,” which is what Muslim means, within Dar al-Islam and pursuing the jihad against Dar al-Harb (the territory of war against opposition to the supremacy of Islam and the shariah) until the whole world “submits” to becoming a “submitter” within the world wide collective of the ummah of Dar al-Islam (the territory of the supremacy of Islam and the shariah).

The conniption fit would be about whether or not putative President BHObama agrees with the ORIGINAL intent of Islam, which means submit, and the supremacy of shariah law over ALL Muslims, which means submitter, and ALL non-submitters, or with the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, that protects the liberty and rights of the individual against the tyranny of the collective, the ummah, of Islam.

The idiotiolog of Marx will steal your individualist liberty, for the good of the collective, of course, and promises to provide collective security and peace… when opposition is finally… FINALLY… silenced and eradicated from the commune.

The idiotology of Islam will steal your individualist liberty, for the good of the Islamic collective, the umma of Dar al-Islam, of course, and promises to provide collective security and peace… when opposition is silenced and eradicated from the commune, the ummah of Dar al-Islam, and there is finally… FINALLY… collective security under the shariah.

To obtain and retain collectivist peace without opposition and provide collectivist security, the idiotology of Marx will simply enslave you… unless they have to kill you… for the good of the collective, of course.

To obtain and retain collectivist peace without opposition and collectivist security of the Islamic ummah of Dar al-Islam, the idiotology of Islam will simply enslave you… as a submitter… or as a dhimmi... feeling humbled… or kill you… for the good of the umma of Dar al-Islam, the collective, of course.

THAT is what “a DIFFERENT conniption fit” means.

Individualist vs. Collectivist

What is the difference between an “individualist” Constitutional Republic and an “collectivistDemocracy Oligarcy Commune?

See an 11 minute video at BasicsProject.org, “The American Form of Government

The video is from the John Birch Society, but, sometimes, since the truth does not have an agenda, it does not matter who speaks truth to power to inform “we the people” about how to speak truth to power. 

1 - Monarchy / dictatorship – ruled by one.
2 – Oligarchy – ruled by a few.
3 – Democracy – ruled by a majority.
4 – Republic – ruled by law.
6 – Anarchy – ruled by no one.

The United States is an individualist Constitutional Republic… NOT a collectivist Democracy… and definitely NOT a collectivist Oligarcy… a tyranny of the elite.

PS.

Don’t go conspiratorial with Malcolm X as the papa of BHObama, but for a coherent and “real people” conspiratorial proposition, consider these historical facts of BHObama’s life in Hawaii.

Frank Marshall Davis, a Hawaiian friend and “red diaper baby” communist mentor of “red diaper baby” BHObama’s in his formative years in Hawaii, who also was a friend of the communist parents of BHObama’s “red diaper baby” mama, Stanley Ann Dunham, ALSO took nude pictures of BHObama’s mama, Stanley Ann Dunham, BEFORE BHObama was born, which means that they were, uh, close.. and the possibility is very real that they were, uh, VERY close.

The possiblilty is being postulated that Frank Marshall Davis is really BHObama’s “real people” papa.

~ ~ ~

PS.

Whatever the issue is, liberty and tyranny, war and peace, “natural born Citizen” eligibility to be POTUS and “Citizen” eligibility to be POTUS, we must fight… for what is right… with weapons of war and strength against an advancing physical agressor or weapons of words and ideas against an advancing ideological “insurrection” that agrees with and promotes the sentiments of the statement of BHObama, “… we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” by design from within the chambers of power… aka an enemy within… aka an domestic enemy.

>> (BHObama 10sec –“… 5 days away - http://youtu.be/oKxDdxzX0kI )
>> (BHObama 2min – “closed” and “foreclosure” - http://youtu.be/4oikpbEiXMw )

The “closed” and “foreclosure” signs in the video are the legacy, NOT of an 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen”… NOT of an 1795 Naturalization Act “Citizen”… NOT of an 1868 14th Amendment “Citizen”… but the legacy of an illegal alien with a phony birth certificate, a phony Selective Service card number, a phony Social Security card number, who knows that, as an acolyte of Marxist Saul Alinsky, he is simply a community organizer on a national scale but still only a puppet on a string.

President Ronald Reagan
>> (We Must Fight - http://youtu.be/tpH5L8zCtSk )

One more time to our “thought leaders” on TV… Radio… Print… Onlilne…

Hey, how about changing the conversation, huh?

NOW is the time to
--WAKE UP
--Look UP
--Sit UP
--Stand UP
--Speak UP
while you can.

It is time for ALL “thought leader” BIG Talkers and BIG Writers of America to STAND UP to protect AND defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic

Change the conversation.

Just SPEAK UP about the ORIGINAL intent... of the ORIGINAL words... of the ORIGINAL “birther” document... of the Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

If not now, when?
If not you, who?

Art

~ ~ ~

The U.S. Constitution:
The ORIGINAL "Birther" Document Of The United States

is copyright 2012 and is not in the public domain

The original source is
LiftUpAmericablogspot.com and OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

Maybe a “prairie fire” can be lit to motivate the “thought leader” BIG Talkers and BIG Writers to

WAKE UP… Look UP… Sit UP… Stand UP… Speak UP…

PROTECT and DEFEND the

ORIGINAL intent

of the

ORIGINAL words

of the

ORIGINAL “birther” document

of our Constitutional Republic, called the United States in

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

~ ~ ~

For help in motivating “thought leaders” to, hey… WAKE UP… please…

See the Hebrew names for the heavenly “WAKE UP” helper at Hebrew4Christians
Comforter… Eternal Spirit… Holy Spirit… Revelation Spirit… Truth Spirit… Wisdom Spirit...
>>
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Holy_Spirit/holy_spirit.html

Art

~ ~ ~

To find this page again, google original birther document without or with quote marks

~ ~ ~



Chronological Order of Statehood of the 50 States

#
State
Ratification or Admission
Previously known as
1
Delaware
July 4th, 1776 - December 7th, 1787
Lower Counties on Delaware, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
2
Pennsylvania
July 4th, 1776 - December 12th, 1787
Province of Pennsylvania, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
3
New Jersey
July 4th, 1776 - December 18th, 1787
Province of New Jersey, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
4
Georgia
July 4th, 1776 - January 2nd, 1788
Province of Georgia, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
5
Connecticut
July 4th, 1776 - January 9th, 1788
Connecticut Colony, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
6
Massachusetts
July 4th, 1776 - February 6th, 1788
Province of Massachusetts Bay, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
7
Maryland
July 4th, 1776 -
April 28th, 1788
Province of Maryland, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
8
South Carolina
July 4th, 1776 - 
May 23rd, 1788
Province of South Carolina, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
9
New Hampshire
July 4th, 1776 -
June 21st, 1788
Province of New Hampshire, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
10
Virginia
July 4th, 1776 -
June 25th, 1788
Virginia Colony, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
11
New York
July 4th, 1776 -
July 26th, 1788
Province of New York, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
12
North Carolina
July 4th, 1776 - November 21st, 1789
Province of North Carolina, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
13
Rhode Island
July 4th, 1776 -
May 29th, 1790
Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, then sovereign state in Confederation (One of the original 13 colonies)
14
Vermont
March 4th, 1791
Province of New York, Vermont Republic
15
Kentucky
June 1st, 1792
Virginia
16
Tennessee
June 1st, 1796
North Carolina, then Southwest Territory
17
Ohio
March 1st, 1803
Northwest Territory
18
Louisiana
April 30th, 1812
Orleans Territory
19
Indiana
December 11th, 1816
Northwest Territory (Indiana Territory)
20
Mississippi
December 10th, 1817
Mississippi Territory
21
Illinois
December 3rd, 1818
Northwest Territory (Illinois Territory)
22
Alabama
December 14th, 1819
Alabama Territory
23
Maine
March 15th, 1820
Massachusetts
24
Missouri
August 10th, 1821
Missouri Territory
25
Arkansas
June 15th, 1836
Arkansas Territory
26
Michigan
January 26th, 1837
Northwest Territory (Michigan Territory)
27
Florida
March 3rd, 1845
Florida Territory
28
Texas
December 29th, 1845
Republic of Texas
29
Iowa
December 28th, 1846
Iowa Territory
30
Wisconsin
May 29th, 1848
Northwest Territory (Wisconsin Territory)
31
California
September 9th, 1850
Alta California
32
Minnesota
May 11th, 1858
Minnesota Territory
33
Oregon
February 14th, 1859
Oregon Territory
34
Kansas
January 29th, 1861
Kansas Territory
35
West Virginia
June 20th, 1863
Virginia
36
Nevada
October 31st, 1864
Nevada Territory
37
Nebraska
March 1st, 1867
Nebraska Territory
38
Colorado
August 1st, 1876
Colorado Territory
39
North Dakota
November 2nd, 1889
Dakota Territory
40
South Dakota
November 2nd, 1889
Dakota Territory
41
Montana
November 8th, 1889
Montana Territory
42
Washington
November 11th, 1889
Washington Territory
43
Idaho
July 3rd, 1890
Idaho Territory
44
Wyoming
July 10th, 1890
Wyoming Territory
45
Utah
January 4th, 1896
Utah Territory
46
Oklahoma
November 16th, 1907
Oklahoma Territory, Indian Territory
47
New Mexico
January 6th, 1912
New Mexico Territory
48
Arizona
February 14th, 1912
Arizona Territory
49
Alaska
January 3rd, 1959
Alaska Territory
50
Hawaii
August 21st, 1959
Kingdom of Hawaii, Hawaii Territory

~ ~ ~

_________________________________________________________________



Never Again Is Happening ... Again

 _________________________________________________________________

- Overview of America -

This is a John Birch Society freedom tutorial, aka an anti-communist tutorial, about 
America's heritage of "Liberty Under Law" and "Freedom vs. Security" for the individual.
Sure, William Buckley did not approve of them in National Review, but, sometimes you just gotta say, so what, the truth has no agenda.

This is STILL an EXCELLENT ideological DEFENSE of America as a
Constitutional Republic vs. Commune Democracy.

- Part 1... Part 2... Part 3... Part 4... -



_________________________________________________________________



Now, for the TRUE BELIEVER in THE open secret New World Order Conspiracy,
the Marxist, International Socialism leading to Communism, point of view.

Workers of the world, unite, throw off your chains... lift your arms, clench your fists, become mind numbed robots... for the good of the people, of course, before the Islamist ummah 'true believes' lift their arms, clench their fists, and demand that you convert... or else... for the good of the ummah, of course.


- Socialist International Declaration of Principles -

10 Points of the Communist Manifesto

The purpose is transition from capitalism through socialism to communism.

Marxists make a distinction between "socialism," a society ruled by workers, and "communism," a classless society. Engels wrote little and Marx wrote less on the specifics of the transition to communism, so the authenticity of this distinction remains a matter of dispute. Read more on Wikipedia.


You decide...
Where does a Single Payer System come from
if not from the U.S. Constitution?


Grin and Bear It 
Barack Obama
Andy Stern
"workers of the world, unite"
SEIU
Purple Tie
Purple Sweater
Purple Wrist Band

Judy Garland sings 
- The Purple People Eater -




10 Points For Transition

From Capitalism - Through Socialism - To Communism
  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
  3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. [... now also called the "death tax"]
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
  8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism through socialism to communism.

The Internationale

If you don't know the roots of the ideology promoting the international "commune" solution to freedom and individual achievement and personal excellence, you must know and understand the lyrics of the anthem of  The Internationale, the anthem of international socialism, the anthem of "equality" in the "commune" and the perfected human.

- The Internationale (Russian language) -



A PRESENTATION OF ZZAHIER TO THE YOUTUBE COMMUNITY

The Internationale (L'Internationale in French) is a famous socialist, anarchist, communist, and democratic anthem and one of the most widely recognized songs in the world.

The Internationale became the anthem of international socialism. Its original French refrain is
- C'est la lutte finale
- Groupons-nous et demain
- L'Internationale
- Sera le genre humain
Freely translated:
- This is the final struggle
- Let us join together and tomorrow
- The Internationale
- Will be the human race
The Internationale has been translated into most of the world's languages. Traditionally it is sung with the hand raised in a clenched fist salute. The Internationale is sung not only by communists but also (in many countries) by socialists or social democrats.

 - The Internationale (clenched fist salute) -


The Russian version was initially translated by Aron Kots (Arkady Yakovlevich Kots) in 1902 and printed in London in Zhizn, a Russian émigré magazine. The first Russian version consisted of three stanzas (as opposed to six stanzas in the original French lyrics) and the refrain. Later it was expanded and reworded.

In 1944 the Soviet Union adopted the Hymn of the Soviet Union as its national anthem. Prior to that time, the Internationale served as the principal musical expression of allegiance to the ideals of the October Revolution and the Soviet Union. (The Internationale continued to be recognized as the official song of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.)

- The Internationale -

-
(English lyrics) - 


Stand up, all victims of oppression,
For the tyrants fear your might!
Don't cling so hard to your possessions,
For you have nothing if you have no rights!
Let racist ignorance be ended,
For respect makes the empires fall!
Freedom is merely privilege extended,
Unless enjoyed by one and all.
So come brothers and sisters,
For the struggle carries on.
The Internationale,
Unites the world in song.
So comrades, come rally,
For this is the time and place!
The international ideal,
Unites the human race.

Let no one build walls to divide us,
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone.
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us,
We'll live together or we'll die alone.
In our world poisoned by exploitation,
Those who have taken, now they must give!
And end the vanity of nations,
We've but one Earth on which to live.
So come brothers and sisters,
For the struggle carries on.
The Internationale,
Unites the world in song.
So comrades, come rally,
For this is the time and place!
The international ideal,
Unites the human race.

And so begins the final drama,
In the streets and in the fields.
We stand unbowed before their armour,
We defy their guns and shields!
When we fight, provoked by their aggression,
Let us be inspired by life and love.
For though they offer us concessions,
Change will not come from above!
So come brothers and sisters,
For the struggle carries on.
The Internationale,
Unites the world in song.
So comrades, come rally,
For this is the time and place!
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.

- Multi-Language Internationale -
-(Scenes from "REDS" Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton -

 


_________________________________________________________________


- A Cartoon from 50 Years Ago Is Relevant Today



- Muslim Population Growth -



_________________________________________________________________