The Betrayal

9 Responses to “Personal History of a Birther”

1. Tom // Jul 19, 2009 at 6:26 am

   Your also a good writer with a great site and been working alot, more then other people can keep up with. The grand juries are working in my opinion– they are much more then pr as we know it. Persistence wins.

2. Pieter Nosworthy // Jul 19, 2009 at 8:21 am

   Well, alrighty then….let’s here it for the very smart and accomplished Dr. Sewell. Thanks, Doc, and welcome to the small but growing club of true believers.

   There is a very (VERY) strong likelihood our president is not constitutionally qualified for his office. We’re just patiently waiting for the courts to catch up and decide the matter.

   -Noz

3. MoniQue // Jul 19, 2009 at 11:26 am

   Thanks for ;posting this. Very interesting about the kindergarten connection. That’s new info I had not know yet, will post on the Obama updates.

   Oh, in case anyone doesn’t know what I’m referring to, it’s the fact that Obama was not born on American soil, which means he is not qualified to be president which means anything Obama does “acting as president” is illegal, every speech he gives, every law and bill he signs, any order given to any soldier he calls to duty to give their life for this country is null and void.

   And the folks that play along for whatever reason, whether out of ignorance or in full knowledge of the facts, are simply perpetrating the sham. They are the same as the folks in that old classic story of the [emperor with no clothes on] from the creation of the lie to the implementation of it.

   FOLKS - KEEP THE FIRE BURNING!

   THANKS FOR ALL YOU DO.

4. Fed Up! // Jul 19, 2009 at 3:02 pm

   Although I’m very glad that the Dr has joined us in believing the facts about Obamas qualifications, I also think him making his statement makes a point that says if you believe in the facts of other cases - other incidences, or other acts of crimes, then you are too nuts to be considered creditable.

   I never read the Warren Report, but instead, listened to the eye witness reports that the Government never wanted to hear, and I don’t think Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman.

   I have never seen a flying saucer either, but I can’t rule out anything unless I’m a 100% sure it doesn’t exist, so I won’t say either way. I believe in God, and miracles, and Jesus Christ, who is just as much a mystery to some as a UFO, but still, I believe.

   I don’t believe in Big Foot either, and don’t care to know about big foot unless he’s out to make me pay higher taxes, control my freedoms, or poison my children with their drugs.

   I think 911 was an inside job somehow, and I also believe that the facts support this, the same as they support Obama not being qualified under the constitution.

   I don’t know for sure if FEMA is planing to round up people or not, or what their plans are at this point, but I ‘do’ believe these camps exist, have personal knowledge of these camps, and am wondering why they even exist if they aren’t there for a reason.

   The Lock Ness Monster is a fantasy to me too, but I do believe that someone is playing head games with the folks who say they’ve spotted this creature. Too many eye witnesses, too many people are seeing something, so at this point, to say they are nuts, is not only wrong, but against productive research.

   I am also certain that Apolo went to the moon, and unless this research is proven otherwise, I will remain steadfast in believing it.

   I too, agree that after reading the ‘real’ science, Global Warming is not only a myth, but a danger to society because it’s being used to promote higher taxes, substainable buildings, population control, and drain our resources.

   I have no PhD, am not a Dr, but instead am a ‘real’ citizen of the USA, born and raised here. My family has spent generations in service for this Country, and I’ve spent a generation working, and raising a family in this Country with pride. I don’t need to be a Dr, or a Scientist to know when someone is pulling the wool over my eyes, lying to me, or hiding facts. I can read, can think for myself, and can actually tell the difference between a Certificate of live birth, and a Birth Certificate that is given out to anyone who was born in any other Country.

   I’m not a member of mensa, but that doesn’t mean those who aren’t members, are stupid. We actually can read the principles of research, and do know the difference between logic, science, and false accuracy in all things. God is a science in my opinion, but a scientist will say he doesn’t exist without proof. Some things are unprovable - but we still know they exist out of logic, or faith.

   “The Birthers” is a title we recieved out of spite, but it’s also became a badge of honor in saying that we are the ones who are willing to explore the truth, the facts, and the Logic that others have purposely ignored. In history, anytime a group of people start saying, doing, or acting in ways that others don’t like, they recieve a name. Example : Right wingers, Christian fanatics, Obots, Bushies, 911 truthers, Liberals, and last but not least, “Birthers”.

   Like I said in the beginning, I am ‘very’ glad the great Dr has joined us, but I wanted to make a statement that we ‘all’ are qualified under the constitution to be considered experts at reading facts, and deciding who is, or isn’t qualified to serve our Country as President. For in America, ‘all men are created equal”, and will remain so as long as we continue to have people who are strong enough, smart enough, and brave enough to fight to keep it that way.

5. morgan ward // Jul 19, 2009 at 4:18 pm

   Fed Up

   What a great Narrative you have given to us. If this PHD is a member of the high IQ crowd, thank God I am left out. I believe you and I have forgot more than this PHD will ever know. You know Fed Up, a good amount of Common sense puts these fools to shame.

   I know another thing that the Good PHD doesn’t. I do know the Bible well enough to believe it is truth. In it The Bible tells us the qualifications of a Bishop. Both in Timothy and Titus we find; One qualification being He must be the Husband of one wife. I do know that the Good PHD claims his wife is a Minister. I don’t know how even his IQ can make a women into a man. They must have left the hard questions off of the IQ test he took.

   It blows my mind that this self professed Genius doesn’t understand that his wife can no more be a Minister than I can be a woman.Too bad he hasn’t educated her in Gods’ Divine word. In not doing so, I presume he is not unlike many New Age preachers today who believe in picking and choosing from the word of God. They do not believe The Bible is the Infallible word of God.

   They have absolutely no knowledge as for as I am concerned. I believe if one can’t understand that principle then he can’t sway me too much into believing his other self taught beliefs. He in the Words of our Lord , thru his own wisdom , has become a fool. I am no Minister, but I am a Born Again Believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord has told us how to discern false ministers of God. I have just disclosed to you one method. And I don’t even have a PHD. I just possess a BA degree, US Army Military Career and 59 yrs of the road of “Hard Knocks. It would appear to me my road beat his hands down.

   But as you stated, he is on the right side of this Obama issue. One out of 10 or how many he was wrong about isn’t bad. At least not in a PHD’s inverted world.

   I tend to take a stand with you Stand up as I have also lived in the reahas become a fool.

6. morgan ward // Jul 19, 2009 at 4:25 pm

   Correction:

   The last sentence should read:
   I tend to take a stand with you FED UP as I have also lived in the real world.

   That proves I am human and not a PHD. I make mistakes.

7. Fed Up! // Jul 19, 2009 at 10:17 pm

   Thanks Morgan.

   My intentions were not to slander his reasoning, because frankly, I realize everyone has to come to their own truths at their own time. ( Or Gods Truth you might say)

   We live in a very screwed up society right now where the truth is very hard to find these days, and just like the video Lynn placed on here pointed out, a lot of us have been reconditioned to believe the wrong thing, and it’s a cycle we must either break, or it’s going to end up breaking us, our children, or grandchildren.

   Keep the faith Morgan, and fight for the truth.

8. slcraig // Jul 20, 2009 at 1:37 am

   SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

   Statement of Facts and Assertions Relevant
   to Issues Presented for Review.

   On or about March 12th, 2009 Representative Bill Posey (FL-15) entered a Bill for congressional consideration designated as H.R. 1503 and Titled;

   “To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”

   It becomes immediately obvious to any who are familiar with the status of the ‘legal definition of natural born citizen’ that the proposed Bill does absolutely nothing to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitutional requirement of the ‘eligibility’ of a candidate for an executive office except as for age and length of residency of the candidate

   Although with numerous request have been made to Senate and Congressional Representatives, both State and Federal, as of yet not a single Representative has expressed their understanding of the ‘legal definition of natural born citizen’ for the record except as may be found expressed in S. Res. 511.

   Apparently, like pornography, one only knows one when one sees one?

   So the question must be asked, what then is H.R. 1503 seeking to verify with its requirements;

   “…birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.” (?)

   Is it only to verify the candidates age is at least 35 years old and that the candidate has been ‘fourteen years a resident within the United States’?

   It is clear from the text of the Bill H.R. 1503 that there is no effort is to identify the definition of a natural born citizen, in that there are no words that specifically say so. But then the Congressional Finding is clear in the understanding that being a natural born citizen is a significant requirement of eligibility;

   SECTION 1. FINDING.
   Congress finds that under section 5 of article II of the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.

   Many of the facts that H.R. 1503 seeks to verify are ascertainable from analyzing the birth certificates issued under the authority of and in compliance with the Federal Security Agency - U. S. Public Health Service, (”Reorganization Act of 1939″ (P.L. 19, 76th Cong., 1st sess.), and/or its successor agencies.

   These Birth Certificates provides for the birthplace of the parents, father and mother, as well as the child’s, providing citizenship status of each of them by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, under its current authority, at the minimum.

   However, when looking at historical records, the status of a child born within the jurisdiction of the United States to two citizen parents, father and mother, that child’s birth right citizenship has not been subject of dispute nor considered anything other than a natural born citizen [88 U.S. 162, 168], just as the Senate concluded in S.Res.511, although there is some lingering uncertainty regarding ‘Jurisdiction’ in Senator McCain’s birth circumstance.

   It appears, when reviewing the historical considerations of American citizenship found in the Legislation of Acts, Bills, Amendments and Judicial Opinions, that the uncertainties in defining of the nature of American citizenship, in general, and an American natural born citizen, specifically, turns on the interpretations of;

   “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”,
   and;

   “…allegiance…”

   But that uncertainty would be resolved when the full import of “The Preamble to the Constitution” is viewed with it’s apparent investment and assignment of both Jurisdiction and Allegiance into the Constitution its self and the derived Citizenship of “We, the People of the United States” from it;

   “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

   The poetic clarity is too plain to ignore and word by word parsing does nothing to diminish the obvious, that the Constitution IS the United States of America, that which, with It’s (the Constitutions) words, defines the extent of Jurisdictions of the United States of America, that being to We the People.

   In whatever measure we secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity, it is from It (the Constitution) and therefore we owe our Allegiance to It (the Constitution). From that Allegiance is found both the constraining and expansive limits of Jurisdiction to be determined by the contemplative Laws of the Constitutionally guaranteed Republican form of government guaranteed and provided to all accepted into It’s (the Constitution’s) Jurisdiction with, then, Allegiance to be owed to It (the Constitution).

   The Preamble is Positive Declaratory Statement of the collective, stating who they were and what was being set about for their selves and the generations which would spring from their endeavors with the binding propositions,

   “The Preamble explains the purposes of the Constitution, and defines the powers of the new government as originating from the people of the United States.”

   http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

   Although this short descriptive offers little more than a dictionary definition it contains all of the dispositive elements supporting the ‘investment and assignment of allegiance and jurisdiction’ to the Constitution in and of its-self with both the Land and the Peoples thereof being the beneficiaries of it’s adoption and establishment.

   Given that, after 222 years, the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ has not been codified it would be poetic Justice now for this Court, now, to rely on the Preamble to the Constitution to find the meaning and vision of the Framers when contemplating the nature and Constitutional Vision of the American Citizens. That New Nation was founded upon their ‘allegiance’ to a ‘new purpose of government’, mixed with their spilled ‘blood’ in the conflict to secure the soil, the foothold and beachhead, of the new form of Jurisdiction, the New Constitution, of the People, by the People and for the People, endeavoring to ‘establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the General Welfare by and amongst the People that would call this new notion and vision of self government so Ordained and Established, The United States of America by those of the Original States and by those, so accepted, thereafter.

   This view was, again poetically, expressed by Francis Bellamy when he wrote the “Pledge of Allegiance” in 1892;

   “I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

   And amended several times until The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on June 22, 1942 in its current form;

   “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”

   The Court, with indulgence, may agree that it is unnecessary to list the numerous instances of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and this Judicial Branch having extended their Jurisdiction into foreign lands supporting the proposition that ‘America is where the American Citizen is’, and simply state the obvious that even though that citizen may not, on their own, be able to secure their ‘rights and privileges’ where ever they may be outside the physical boundaries of the United States, still the United States reserves the right to ‘reach out’ and ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the rights and privileges of that citizen.

   Therefore an American citizens allegiance must be considered as “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” being of the Constitution and not to a piece of land, or a State, ( 83 U.S. 36 [p74]), whether within the physical boundaries of jurisdiction or without.

   When outside the physical boundaries, then Citizenship is carried as if the soil of America, being the fibers of the Constitution, is mixed within that citizens own blood so that where ever they are found, there too is found an honored piece of America, that space that an American Citizen occupies, [88 U.S. 162, 166] (83 U.S. 36 [p80]).

   But then there are instances when Allegiance is questioned noting that one can not read minds and hearts so as to allow determination of where that Allegiance resides. This then is where the definition of an American Citizen and the English Common Law definitions governing Citizenship and Subjects depart from one another and where the divide between an American citizen and an American natural born citizen is found. Where the English Law allows for alienation’s to be found in the hearts and minds of their Colonial subjects within the places and in the customs of their Colonial subjects forefathers, never the less, Allegiance to the Crown is imposed upon those Citizen Subjects by both imposed force and imposed Law.

   In contrast, the American naturalized citizen gives an Oath of Allegiance freely and without mental reservations when citizenship is granted;

   (8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008))
   “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

   When citizenship is obtained by the 14th Amendment to one traveling through (in transitu) or newly arrived (immigrant) or of parents not both citizens, the allegiance of one so born is assumed from the natural attachment to the soil, being the construct of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, yet still remains subject to the election of citizenship options which may be made by their, then, non-citizen parent(s).

   Although the result of the decision within United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 ‘imposed’ citizenship upon all persons born within the physical jurisdiction of America, the right of ‘affirmative renunciation’ remains.

   Then to the American natural born citizen, who possess no alienation of allegiance at birth, being of two American citizen parents, receives their citizenship as a natural birthright emanating from the jurisdictional allegiance of the citizen parents. Here, allegiance can be assumed to grow through the allegiance held by their fathers (parents). [88 U.S. 162, 166] (Vattel: Bk 1 Ch. 19 § 212.)

   This is not guaranteed, given the nature of life, but more often than not it is true, when that which has been honored by the fathers (parents) finds favor with the child when raised amongst the continued good governance and liberties under the terms of the societal (Constitutional) contract.

   This was the natural state understood and acknowledged by the Framers when considering the qualifications of the various Representatives and Executive Officers.

   Being that ‘all politics is local’ the Representatives sent to the Halls of the Federal Government were to be chosen by their local electorate, who could best know their hearts and minds, hence the lower threshold of qualification for eligibility.

   But when considering those whose hand would be at the tiller of the ‘Ship of State’ and upon whose voice the Military would rise to commands to take actions, no limits of qualification or scrutiny of character and allegiance are sufficient, but without additional alternatives or options, the most indispensable of qualifications was for the Executive Officers to be an unadulterated natural born citizen and this was seen to be wise and prudent measure;

   Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston, 1833. § 1473.

   [I]t is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct)……………………[B]ut the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections,…[e]xamples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source…”

   And as expressed by John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

   ”I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

   Regarding H.R. 133;

   “To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.”

   and H.R. 1490;

   “To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”

   Although both Bills seek to end the “Birth Right” citizenship grant assumed by the 14th Amendment that has been extended to illegal and/or undocumented aliens (169 U.S. 649) each of the Bills turn on the interpretation of;

   “… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”

   The proposition of the nature of citizenship being derived from the Preamble to the Constitution suggests that ‘Allegiance and Jurisdiction’ are indivisible.

   When there is divided and/or no allegiance assumed to the Jurisdiction (Constitution), then Citizenship is subject to Judicial interpretations and Legislative grants and by the election of citizenship options available to the parent(s), while in the alternative, when allegiance of the parents is unadulterated at birth the ‘rights and privileges’ of citizenship confers, naturally, to the natural born citizen, regardless of the jurisdiction (beyond the physical boundaries of the USA) subject only to the purpose of parents travel, either temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu or the intent of general inhabitancy abroad, animo manendi. . (S.Res.511) ( 88 U.S. 162 )

   Petitioner asserts that the nature, and therefore the definition, of a Natural Born Citizen is, and should be declared as;

   “A Natural Born Citizen of America is a person being born within the Natural Birth Right Privileges enjoyed by all American Citizens, that being of American Citizen Parents, being a Father and a Mother, however their citizenship was derived, with each being with Allegiance to the Constitution and without alienation of allegiance being owed to any other Jurisdiction, investing into their children, by natural laws and of the Constitution, the bound Citizenship of such Parents.”

   “Maintenance of the Birth Right Privilege is the obligation of the Parents in the circumstance of Birth within the Jurisdiction of Foreign Lands with and by the Laws of United States Citizenship promulgated to regulate such circumstances.”

9. slcraig // Jul 20, 2009 at 2:21 am

   “When I became aware during the 2008 Presidential Campaigns that there was no ‘legal of Constitutionally recognized definition for Natural Born Citizen I felt like my American Heritage had been stolen.” Mr. Craig said.

   A Citizen and Native born Oklahoman has sued the United States claiming Civil Rights damages for the lack of definition of the Constitutional term “Natural Born Citizen” found in Article II.

   It took him until April of 2009 to prepare the Civil Rights case, as he could not find an attorney or Legal Firm he could afford and set about preparing the case Pro Se In Forma Paperis, (Representing himself without ability to pay fee’s)

   Beginning the case in the local United States District Court of the Western District of Oklahoma, 03-0343, he said he knew it would be an uphill battle. “The legal system is set up much like a monopoly for Legal Professional’s and don’t take kindly to people off the street trying to take matters in their own hands, unless of course you a prison inmate or a favored minority victim.” Mr. Craig opined.

   The Judge of the Oklahoma District Court, 09-0343, took little time in dismissing the case Sua Sponte, (on his own discretion), expressing his judgement that the case as written lacked the recognizable elements of a ‘case or controversy’ and ‘claims and remedies’. The Judge allowed for the submission of an Amended Claim which Mr. Craig filed within weeks of the threatened Summary Judgement to which the Judge affirmed his previous Judgement to Dismiss adding it was now to be ‘with prejudice, (not allowed to resubmit at his court) The Judge added that he did not think that Mr. Craig could prevail against a ‘Motion for Dismissal’ he anticipated would be coming from the Defendant, the United States of America.

   Mr. Craig promptly filed an Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit in Colorado, 09-6082 with a Motion to allow a Second Amended Complaint and a Motion to invoke Rule 22 of the Appeals Court Rules, (Suspend the Rules and Hear the Merits).

   Mr. Craig, after determining that the Appeals case was properly Docketed and the period for the Defendant, the United States of America, to reply had begun, Mr. Craig prepared and filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the Supreme Court of the United States, 08-10817, under Rule 11, (Petition before Judgement at the Appeals Circuit Court level).

   “I feel honestly violated that the nature of my Citizenship has been so disregarded by 222 years of Legislative and Judicial actions that had I have been aware of this circumstance when I was a younger man I honestly feel I would have begun this crusade sooner. But the fact that I am nearly 60 years old will not deter me from reclaiming that Heritage of ‘Natural Born Status’ of American Citizenship. It was of enough importance for the Framers of the Constitution to put it in as a qualification for any that would quest to be the Political leader of the Nation, the Helmsman at the Tiller of the Ship of State, the Presidency of the United States of America, so I insist that it must be of consequence, import and of value.” Mr. Craig said, musing and explaining his motivation for the suing for a definition of Natural Born Citizen

   Asked about the strategy and purpose of filing for a Writ at the Supreme Court and the current status of the case Mr. Craig explained,

   “I’m not a legal strategist but it seemed to me since the Rule was there specifically for cases that presented ‘questions of National importance’ there was a chance the Court would hear the merits and advise the Appeals Court to compel the Defendant, the United States of America to respond and offer their definition of Natural Born Citizen and their justifications for it. I have no reason to doubt that the definition the United States presents and mine are the same since they appear that way in light of the Senate Resolution 511 defining Sen. John McCain a Natural Born Citizen by virtue of being born to two citizen parents in spite of uncertainty of the jurisdiction. If that is the case then the Court will be obliged to enter a Declaratory Judgement which will move the definition closer to codification in the Rules of Law of the United States and I will be able to say in jest that I am the First Legally recognized Natural Born Citizen in America.

   “As to the status of the case it is pending in the 10th Circuit subject to the Supreme Court Conference hearing on September 29th, ’09, when the Court returns from their summer vacations.”

   Mr. Craig has a ‘blogspot’ web page that he said he would keep updated through the summer for anyone who might have questions, wants more information or would like to know how they can help in getting the courts to hear the question and legally define ‘Natural Born Citizen’.