Re: President Barack H. Obama’s Eligibility To Be Our President

Nowhere in history is Natural Born Citizen defined in such a way that would allow a person with divided loyalties to become President! It is a fact that Obama was born a subject of the British Crown. He openly admits his father is a British Subject at the time of his birth.

Here are several references to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. I implore you, URGENTLY, to investigate on your own:

Our Nation is at grave risk. This issue MUST be addressed. Citizens across this nation, to include myself, are asking this question: Is Obama qualified to be our President and Commander in Chief. The public protests are beginning.

There is a significant movement and it is spreading like an impassioned grassfire. To assume it will go away is foolhardy. Furthermore, the usurpation of our Constitution threatens the very survival of our Union!

Our military is in jeopardy of becoming divided over this issue. With these lawsuits; one solider today, another tomorrow, and now our loyal service men and woman are in personal jeopardy!

 The survival of our nation is at stake. This issue will not go away.

For whatever political and historical reasons we have come to this dire situation, you are the person empowered by Congress to file a Quo Warranto on behalf of the United States. As an American Citizen and a retired military Veteran, I implore you to please Issue a Quo Warranto to provide The USA citizenry an answer to this constitutionally vital question.

Federal statute (Chapter 35§ 16-3501) for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto:

1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion - which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.

2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as "third persons" and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then "interested persons" may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be - according to SCOTUS in Newman - restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, i.e. POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

For your information, I have also taken the liberty to include the following web sites, which will hopefully provide you with other evidence relating to this issue, that I believe support my concerns.. This evidence was meticulously put together by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., 26302 La Paz ste 211, Mission Viejo Ca 92691, ph-949-683-5411 fax 949-586-2082 and some were shared with Mr. Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, Main 202-514-2000, Attorney General 202-353-1555,http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/ on or about February 27, 2009 and hand delivered to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John J. Roberts on or about March 12, 2009:

Open Letter From Brigadier General Charles Jones: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On February 4, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/05/open-letter-from-brigadier-general-charles-jone.aspx

Col. Riley-Former Division Chief National Security Agency Joins Our Action: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On February 23, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/23/col-riley-former-division-chief-national-security-agency-joins-our-action-2.aspx

Major General-Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit : Posted By Dr. Taitz-On February 24, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/24/major-general-commanding-general-carroll-d-childers-joins-military-suit.aspx

Motion to Reconsider Lightfoot V Bowen:Hand Delivered To U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John J. Roberts: Hand Delivered and Posted By Dr. Taitz-On March 12, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.org/motiontoreconsiderLightfootvBowen.htm

Dossiers and Getting The Word Out: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On March 19, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/19/dossiers-and-getting-the-word-out.aspx

Dr. Orly Taitz's Interview By Rollye James: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On March 19, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/19/orly-taitzs-interview-by-rollye-james.aspx

This is a Chalice Radio Talk Show interview with Mr. Leo Donofrio, which I also took the liberty of sharing with you, as a means of providing you with more background information relating to this issue:

The Chalice Show - Leo Donofrio Live: On March 18, 2009:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/PatriotsHeartNetwork/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/03/19/The-Chalice-Show-Leo-Donofrio-Live

I have also attached a copy of my resume for your review.

Please let me know if you have any questions on this time sensitive and urgent issue.

Disclaimer: Although I share numerous resources with you, as a means of supporting my concerns, it does not necessarily mean that I support and/or agree with the contents of all of them, word-by-word, but find them thought provoking because, they provide me with other views besides my own and, thereby, help me make my case.

As a retired Marine Corps Veteran Officer (Mustang), I pride myself with loving my God, family, friends and my country. Those Military and/or Veteran Comrades, that I am honored to call friends, know that I would never intentionally say or do anything that would hurt or demean anyone, to include my God and Country.

I have always preached to my own family and follow the rule of "filtering everything that comes from my brain through my heart before it comes out of my mouth" and this rule has done me well for almost 62 years of my life and would highly recommend it to anyone that dares to share their own views with others, knowing that they may not have the same views, but are able and willing to accept that and not take it personal.

I also consider the sharing of these concerns to be given me under our "FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS", which I consider as one of the corner stones of our "Constitution’s 1st Amendment," and, as an American Citizen, I believe that it is my "God Given Duty" to stand up for and defend this or any other rights given me under our Constitution, as other God and Country loving Americans in uniform have done in the past and continue to this date.

I seek your immediate response to my grave concern.

See the townhall blog by Capt. Martinez

This is the key to challenging Obama’s eligibility. It answers, specifically, the court’s reasoning for dismissing all other cases.

The US Attorney for D.C., Jeffery Taylor, needs to be convinced that the We the People of America are truly concerned about Obama’s eligibility. If he sees that there is a substantial number of citizens who are truly concerned about the nation’s well being, he might decide to file the suit on our behalf. If he does, it can not be dismissed, it must go to trial.

Let Jeffery Taylor hear from you. Let’s give this one more BIG effort for the sake of our country. This is the procedure I’ve been searching for. This is why all other cases failed.

Dear Mr. Taylor:
As a citizen of the United States of America I have grave concerns for the security and overall well being of our great nation. These concerns arise from the fact that Barack Obama has stated in public and in his autobiography that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British subject under British law at the time of Barack Jr’s. birth, which precludes Barack Obama from being eligible for the office of president as required.

It is a fact that Obama has openly admitted that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and that that extended the father’s citizenship to him.

There have been numerous suits filed addressing this, only to be dismissed because of lack of standing. The public has become outraged from being told that they have no right to file a suit, or that the Constitution doesn’t apply anymore. Many protests have taken place and more will.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then "interested persons" may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be - according to SCOTUS in Newman - restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

Dear Mr. Taylor:
As a citizen of the United States of America I have grave concerns for the security and overall well being of our great nation. These concerns arise from the fact that Barack Obama has stated in public and in his autobiography that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British subject under British law at the time of Barack Jr’s. birth, which precludes Barack Obama from being eligible for the office of president as required, (Section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States) calling for the President to retain a special status of natural born citizen in order to qualify for eligibility to that office.

I have researched the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" as written in the Federal Papers by Justice John Jay. It defines "Natural Born" as being born of two US citizens who are under no other jurisdiction or allegiance. Nowhere in history is Natural Born Citizen defined in such a way that would allow a person with divided loyalties to become President!

This definition of citizenship has a long history in British Common Law and the framers were very familiar with the concept. In 1677 a law was passed intended to insure that a child born to a British couple would be a British subject, even if born aboard a ship or on foreign territory. This was to be citizenship by blood, not by soil. The framers drew upon this definition to establish a super class of citizen, applicable only to the eligibility for the office of president. They foresaw the possibility that a person NOT born and raised by US citizens, or by only one citizen, might not have the zeal and love for and dedication to this country and would act against the best interests of the People and the nation. Barack Obama has shown that he is a model of what the founders did NOT want to become president.

It is a fact that Obama has openly admitted that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and that that extended the father’s citizenship to him.

Our military is in jeopardy of becoming divided over this issue. With these lawsuits; one solider today, another tomorrow, questions whther or not he has a Commander in Chief.

For whatever political and historical reasons we have come to this dire situation, you alone are the person empowered by Congress to file a Quo Warranto on behalf of the People of the United States. As an American citizen and a military veteran, I implore you to please address this Constitutional dilemma and issue and a Quo Warranto and provide the People of the USA a lawful answer to this constitutional question.

Federal statute (Chapter 35§ 16-3501) for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto:

1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion - which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.

2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as "third persons" and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then "interested persons" may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be - according to SCOTUS in Newman - restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, i.e. POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

If I can be of any assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me.

There has been much debate over what constitutes a natural born citizen. Much of the debate has been misinformed calling the concept of natural born an obscure technicality or an overight by the writers of the Constitution. Neither of these characterizations are true.

Many times the true meaning of consitutional wording must be determined by looking at the era and the circumstances, and, in some cases, terminology in other sections of the constitution, the inclusion or exclusion of supporting verbage, and even writings other than the Constitution.

Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United Satates."

The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.

When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14^th ammendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, "Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority." The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared "And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US." Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents' citizenship.

This concept of citizenship by blood as opposed to citizenship by geography is a concept with a long history in British common law. A law passed in 1677 says that natural born citizens are those persons born to British citizens, including those born overseas. Alexander Porter wrote an article over 100 years ago in which he declares that the framers drew upon this difference in the law of heredity and territorial allegiance to define a third class of citizen applicable only to the eligibility to hold the office of president. According to Morse, "the framers thought it wise to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance only to the US at the time of birth." He goes on to say that the the eligibility of the president "was scarcely intended to bar the children of American citizens, whether born at sea or in foreign territory."

The concept of citizenship by blood also precludes the equation of natural born with native born as the latter strictly demands geographical requirements.

Many argue that Barack Obama was eligible to be a state senator and a US senator and could not suddenly be ineligible to be president, but that is exactly the case. If this premise were true, Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, would also be eligible to be president, and it is established that he is not.