$100,000 Reward for Proof of Obama's "natural born" Citizen Status Still Open After 2 Days.
(Why it will never be collected.)
Silver Stock Report
by Jason Hommel, July 30th, 2009
I'll let God have the first word:
Deuteronomy 17:15 "be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite."
Our Constitutional requirement may have come from the Bible! I was unaware of that before making my offer.
Part of the reason I made my offer was so I could further gather and share information, and I find controversy and debate and investigation to be fun. So, here's a brief on what I know after 300 emails in nearly two days, many from greedy and angry know-it-all's, and many from supportive and helpful researchers.
On who lies the burden of proof? Even for regular citizenship, it lies on Obama, so says the State Department. These are complex issues, because it involves not only the place where born, but also one's parent's nationality and/or citizenship, and as we know, people can have two parents of all different nationalities and citizenship, and even be born in a another place, creating complexity.
The State Department has a 103 page document on "ACQUISITION OF U.S.
CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT":
The State Department said, "The burden of proving a claim to U.S. citizenship, including blood relationship and legal relationship, where applicable, is on the person making such claim."
And that's merely for plain old US citizenship, not "natural born" citizenship, which could be even more complex.
The State Department also asserts that "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
Note that! Even "natural born" status given by statute may not work for Constitutional purposes!
How could that be? Let me guess. "Natural born" citizen status can be given by statute to a foreign born child if both of his parents are US citizens, but perhaps the State Department is recognizing that such a law would be superceded by the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, and those who interpret it, such as the Supreme Court.
Many have claimed that the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen."
But there are clear legal distinctions between a "natural born citizen", which is different from a naturalized "citizen". According to the 14th Amendment, anyone born or "naturalized" in the US becomes a citizen, but not necessarily a "natural born citizen" as that wording was not used in the 14th Amendment.
Confusing? Yes! This issue is what most people are confused about: A person born in the USA is a citizen, but is not necessarily a "natural born" citizen, because even regular citizenship also depends on your parents, as the State Department clearly acknowledges in their 103 page document, over and over again.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a clear famous case of being a US citizen, but not a natural born citizen. Arnold was naturalized, he became a US citizen after his birth, and most people know he is not eligible to be President.
Also, people can become US citizens at birth, by being born in the US to foreigners, via the 14th Amendment, but it would not necessarily make them a "natural born" citizen either. People forget that.
It is clear that if you have three things, such as both parents being citizens of the nation, and being born in the nation, you would be undoubtedly, a "natural born" citizen.
But if one of those three things is in doubt, then natural born status is in doubt, implied the Supreme Court.
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
Here's my understanding and explanation of why:
There are provisions for one or two US citizens bearing a child overseas, that child could still be a "natural born" US citizen, but that's only by statute, and might not be enough, for Constitutional purposes, according to the State Department, remember.
Therefore, a similar situation could be true. A child born to foreign parents, born not in the nation of his parents, such as in the USA, would have citizenship of his parent's nation, and also be a "14th Amendment US citizen", but not a "natural born" US citizen.
This appears to be the case with Obama.
Obama's father was Kenyan, and thus, his father could not give any "natural born citizen" status to Obama, except Kenyan citizenship, (or British).
Obama's mother was American, but 17 or 18, depending on the reports. She was too young to give US citizenship to Obama by blood only, which is crucial for the circumstance of being born overseas, for which she would have to be 19.
From the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act):
2) Born to one U.S. citizen and one alien parent
Born before or on November 13, 1986
Yes, that's for foreign born children.
It appears that if Obama was born overseas, and obviously Obama's mother didn't qualify to give him US citizenship, as she was too young, she may have found another simple way to get regular US citizenship for her son, which I speculate on a few paragraphs below.
Links for further research:
Many people have tried to claim my reward by sending this link:
But it does not remotely address the key questions, and says that you cannot obtain a "long form", when a picture of the long form for another child from one day after Obama was allegedly born, is here:
A Hawaii Long Form Certificate from 1961
An interesting "argument" or "evidence" is that there is a "birth announcement" in a Hawaiian newspaper. A birth announcement in a newspaper is not proof of being "natural born", nor even US born, as anyone can place a birth announcement.
Shockingly, it was apparently enough to convince Hillary Clinton's camp to give up the issue. Maybe because they didn't realize that being born in the USA, (which that implied, but did not prove) would only be enough, maybe, to become a 14th Amendment citizen, but not enough to become a natural born citizen.
That Hillary gave up the issue, was apparently enough to convince Ann Coulter that there is "nothing to this issue". Really? To trust Hillary's judgment? Based on a newspaper announcement is all that's needed? Right. Wow.
I suppose I should place a newspaper blurb that Obama is Santa Clause, willing to give everyone their every wish! Some people will believe anything! We "birthers" as they call us, are not the gullible ones here!
A newspaper announcement might have been necessary to create documentation for an "application for registration of birth abroad".
If Obama was born in Kenya, and if "no proof of birth" was available, his mother could apply for the "certification of live birth" by creating some kind of document like a baptismal certificate, or perhaps such as placing a newspaper birth announcement.
22cfr \ 22 CFR \ PART
50—NATIONALITY PROCEDURES \ § 50.5 Application for
registration of birth abroad.
- - - The applicant shall be required to submit proof of the child's birth, identity and citizenship meeting the evidence requirements of subpart C of part 51 of this subchapter and shall include:
(a) Proof of child's birth. Proof of child's birth usually consists of, but is not limited to, an authentic copy of the record of the birth filed with local authorities, a baptismal certificate, a military hospital certificate of birth, or an affidavit of the doctor or the person attending the birth. If no proof of birth is available, the person seeking to register the birth shall submit his affidavit explaining why such proof is not available and setting forth the facts relating to the birth.
(b) Proof of child's citizenship. Evidence of parent's citizenship and, if pertinent, evidence of parent's physical presence in the United States as required for transmittal of claim of citizenship by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 shall be submitted.
If you know how the law works, and how loopholes exist due to normal
uncertainty, you realize that you can just as easily have a birth at home
and write it in your Bible, or have a birth overseas and place a newspaper
announcement, and use any old statement of fact to get a birth
certificate, and thus, regular citizenship.
It has been said that the short form birth certificate from Hawaii was issued for such foreign births.
It appears that even a valid, Hawaiian short form is thus grossly insufficient to prove "natural born" status.
And it appears that the long form, even if it showed Obama born in the USA, would also be insufficient to prove "natural born" status, because Obama's father was Kenyan, and his mother was too young.
But the long form might also prove that Obama was not born in the USA, and could easily cause many to quickly and easily see that a foreign born person, born to a foreign parent and an underage US citizen, could not be construed as being fitting with the plain meaning of "natural born" for Constitutional purposes.
Or, there might not be any long form altogether. This is why I jumped into the fray. Asking "Where's the Birth Certificate", I think, is the wrong question. But it got me and many others asking questions, and so that campaign helped.
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the first thing Obama did when taking office is to block the release of such records via executive order, as reported here:
On Obama's first day in office, he sealed his birth and personal records through executive order. Here's the link to the executive order on the government website:
“Sec.2 -- Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records
When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.”
Why would Obama seal records if he had nothing to hide?
Also, remember, the burden of proof is on Obama, not us.
But if he refuses to prove that he can be the President, then he cannot issue any valid executive orders!
Thus, all of his executive orders, including, and especially the ones to block the release of important documents that might prove he cannot be the executive, are likely illegal orders.
I suppose any such people who are following such an illegal order could be guilty of being an enemy of the Constitution, or aiding and abetting an enemy of the Constitution, especially if they are guilty of "obstructing justice" by blocking the release of information that would call into question Obama's executive privilege.
I understand that all Marines have a sworn duty to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Where are all the Marines? Oh yes, fighting wars overseas that Obama said he would end, but has not ended. I suppose all Marines in battle overseas are following illegal orders from an ineligible President.
The important point here is that truth is not established by Obama or Congress or Hawaiian officials issuing "orders" or "proclamations".
Truth is established by the people, by two or three witnesses, by the Bible, by your conscience, by a rule of law, by tradition, by facts, by investigation, by debate, by cross examination, and can be established, but not necessarily, by courts. I think I got to the truth rather quickly by reviewing over 300 people's reviews of the subject. This is why I have provided links for everything.
Am I a racist? No. I have established that two Muslims, Africans, or Asians, or any other nationality, could come to the US tomorrow, become naturalized 14th Amendment citizens, have a child on US soil, who would then be a "natural born" citizen according to my understanding, and would thus qualify to be President.
This brings me to my last point. I have no faith in the court system in the US anymore, I lost my faith in that in 2001-2004 when the Federal Court, and "Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals" (Known as the 9th Circuit in California) lied about my claim, saying I was claiming the exact opposite of what I was claiming. They lied to deny me justice in my case, which was merely a meek and humble attempt to get a job without a social security number.
In my appeal, "specifically, I noted that I'm not demanding that my employer obtain any non-existent waiver from the IRS, I'm demanding that my employer file the affidavit with the IRS, as the law tells them to do in the event they are unable to obtain a social security number from an employee after asking for one." http://bibleprophesy.org/squaw.htm
No judge can be that lame brained to ignore that kind of statement on appeal, unless by purposeful, willful, and malicious deception, which I believe the Federal courts are engaged in to maintain our current fraudulent monetary and taxation system.
Specifically, the irony in today's world is that I note that the definition of a Judge in the Bible book of Judges is to help to end the paying of tribute, or taxes, and to restore freedom to the people.
Lies are the norm in this nation when it comes to unbacked paper money, fractional reserve banking, income taxes based on non existent laws that thus cannot be challenged, etc.
Many people claimed that my offer is invalid or bogus, because I'm the judge of it, rather than an independent panel or US court. But even bribed judges in a US court could declare Obama to be "natural born" for political purposes, and you can understand why I would remain unconvinced. Some have even threatened to sue me to win. But my offer is, "to the first person who can prove to my satisfaction".
And remember, it's up to Obama to prove it to your satisfaction as well.
Yes, I'm the judge of my offer. It's my money. It's my right. I suppose that upsets many people in this nation that other people have private money that they control themselves. And for others, it upsets them to merely encounter people who believe something they don't. But those are basic principles of freedom that some people seem to have forgotten.
And I hope you can see that I can never be pursuaded of Obama's "natural born" status, because his parents can't give it to him.
And yes, you are also a judge. So, tell me, what are you going to do with this information? There's really only one thing you can do with good information. Investigate it and share it.
I suppose my question is, "What will it take to get people to listen?" Clearly, when you can see that the Obama supporters who do nothing but ridicule and slander as "racist" those who know, and when they are clearly not listening, not even showing any knowledge of the issues, not even showing any desire to know the issues, you know that they are wrong. That's how I've learned to exercise my discernment to know right from wrong, by arguing Bible Prophecy.
1 Corinthians 11:19 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.
Thus, those who are in error on this, or anything, actually help bring the issues to light, if only we all will speak up, and correct them where they are wrong. We actually have to teach them and evangilise them on the issues, and I see people doing this in many ways today, which is a good sign.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
The key to ending the deceptions of paper money and Obama's reckless spending is very, very simple. You don't need to get the courts to rule on anything, you don't need congressional approval, no new law needs to be passed, you don't need to wait for the next election. God already provided the remedy. It's this: Buy silver. The law of supply and demand cannot be ignored, and it will destroy the dollar, topple the abusive government, and destroy the power of these thieves in power.
What I don't understand is why there are so few Christians who have
discernment and unity of true faith in this age of the end times.
After nearly 2000 years, why is the Church still acting like children,
being totally deceived by the false idols of paper money and and paying
taxes to abusive Kings? God? Can you answer that one? Is
it going to take another 1000 years? Can't you send just a little
bit more of the Holy Spirit to help direct people to truth?