To representative Price
Posted on | May 16, 2009 | 11 Comments
Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:23 AM
From:
This sender is DomainKeys verified
“packrat1145@yahoo.com” <packrat1145@yahoo.com>
To:
tom@tomprice.com
Cc:
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
|
Representative Price,
Thanks so much for the update. I would like to take this opportunity to let you know how much I appreciate your participation in the Tea Party at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta last month and that you also have joined Rep. Ron Paul in trying to get H.R. 1207 passed.
However, with all due respect, Sir, what I am most interested in hearing about from any elected official right now is when you are going to initiate action to remedy the fact that America has no president. That’s right, no president!
The person calling himself president and residing in the White House now is not a natural born citizen. Therefore, according to the U.S. Constitution, he never was and never can be eligible for that office. If you read Article 2, Section 1 of our Constitution, you can see the document makes it perfectly clear. No one can legally become president without being a natural born citizen.
“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.”
Hopefully, you are aware that there is a difference between being a citizen and being a natural born citizen. That there is a difference is emphasized by the fact that even the writers of the Constitution themselves made a distinction between a natural born citizen and a citizen “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”
As there is no longer anyone still alive who was a citizen “at the time of the Adoption of [the] Constitution, that only leaves today’s natural born citizens who are eligible for the office of president; and, that does NOT include Mr. Obama!
While the alleged president MAY be a U.S. citizen, he is NOT a natural born citizen. Almost anyone has the potential to become a U.S. citizen by meeting certain qualifications at almost any time during that person’s life.
However, a person can only achieve the status of natural born citizenship by meeting certain criteria at the time of birth. In other words, if one is not a natural born citizen at birth, he/she can never attain that status!
1. One must have two parents who are U.S. citizens at the time one is born.
2. One must be born in the U.S. mainland.
The alleged president had only one parent who could possibly have been a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, his mother. Therefore, regardless of where he was born, he was not a natural born citizen at the time of his birth and never can be. All the hoopla about whether or not he has a birth certificate showing that he is a citizen is moot! It is not mere citizenship that makes one qualified to be president; it is natural born citizenship!
We know his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Mr. Obama’s birth because Mr. Obama has the following statement on his own website, fightthesmears.com:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Since the current occupant of the White House is not eligible for the office he claims, he is not legally president. Therefore, at this time, the United States of America has no president and Mr Obama must be removed from the White House ASAP! Until that happens, there is no greater issue facing this nation.
I hereby respectfully ask what you plan to do about this, the biggest crime that has ever been committed against the American people since the founding of this nation.
Sincerely,
JT Mims
LaGrange, GA.
PS: Please contact Dr. Orly Taitz right away to learn how she is doing everything possible to fight this cause for the citizens of America. If a naturalized citizen of the U.S. who immigrated to America from Russia can see the importance of this matter and put every effort into righting this wrong, and is willing to do so pro bono, surely a member Congress can at least take the time to talk to her. Hopefully, you will even understand the importance of joining in that effort with her and all the other millions of Americans who realize “All that evil needs to flourish is for good men to nothing.”
|
Category: Uncategorized
Comments
11 Responses to “To representative Price”
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
May 16th, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Dear JT,
Your letter is exemplary, I am impressed! One miniscule flaw. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
You wrote:
“There are two criteria which one has to meet in order to be a natural born citizen:
1. One must have two parents who are U.S. citizens at the time one is born.
2. One must be born in the U.S. mainland.”
Strike # 2. Yes, both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of birth, but one need not be born on U.S. soil. The essential element is owing sole allegiance to the United States, which is impossible if one parent is an alien. If one is born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, one is a “native” born citizen as well as a “natural” born citizen. The Obots want us to believe that “native” born equals “natural” born.
[Of course if it is proven that Obama is foreign born then he is toast. That’s why they use the Hawaiian birth certificate as a red herring]
May 16th, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
“1. One must have two parents who are U.S. citizens at the time one is born.”
Where did that come from? Specifically the word “two” … Is it a legal opinion/ruling/law/whatever? If it is… then just focus on that one. Isn’t it that simple?
It sounds solid, but if the statement is not “legal” definition, then it is no good.
May 16th, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
I wonder if Obama put the info on his website about his father and Kenyan citizenship to fool everyone. If he was telling the truth, then he was acknowledging that he was not a natural-born citizen. However, if his father is really someone else, we have no idea whether or not he qualifies.
I personally think his father is someone else, but that Barack Obama Sr. agreed to take responsibility for the child. And I also believe that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya. Both the grandmother, Mombasa Coastal Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, and several affidavits state that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961.
I have read Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen,” and it states that both parents must be citizens of the country, and the person in question must be born in the country. I remember one of the anchors on Fox News years ago, Kiran Chetry, saying that she could never be president because even though both her parents were citizens and her dad was in the military, she was born outside the country and therefore knew that she could never be president. It was a natural part of the discussion at the time, and she said it very matter-of-factly. There is no doubt that she is a U.S. citizen, but probably not natural-born. Just like McCain, who was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents.
May 17th, 2009 @ 6:05 am
Verite,
Thanks so much for your kind words per my letter to Rep. Price. Feel free to adapt and use it if you wish to send to your own elected officials.
To answer your question, if you click the link, “There are two criteria,” in my letter just above where the two criteria are listed, you can find the relevant case law. You may not have noticed that link since, for some reason, the whole sentence is blue and therefore the link is not apparent unless your pointer arrow happens to pass directly over it.
But both criteria can also be traced at least back to Emmerich de Vattel’s 1758 work titled The Law of Nations, paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS.
To quote:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
The use of the plural form, that is, “parents” in the phrase “of parents who are citizens” clearly indicates that two parents holding the status of citizenship is required, as you correctly stated in reference to criteria #1.
And, of course, criteria #2 comes from “natural-born citizens, are those born in the country” of their parents. Even if that part had been left out, the two places where “of their fathers” is used clearly indicates that the father’s origin was of more import than that of the mother. Therefore, Obama would still be considered ineligible; again, due to the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen.
Emmerich de Vattel, 1714 – 1767, a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, jurist, and legal expert, was a contempory of the writers of our Constitution. He and they were all learned men and most, if not all the authors of the Constitution were well versed in the laws of England and other countries. After all, it was the laws of England in particular that led them to migrate to America.
It would be very suprising if they were not familiar with Vattel’s work published in 1758; and indeed, there is ample evidence that his book was one of, if not the most primary reference book used by them in writing the Constitution
May 17th, 2009 @ 6:08 am
Roy, please see my answer to Verite above. I believe the information therein will answer your question, also.
May 17th, 2009 @ 6:29 am
NewEnglandPatriot,
I believe Obama leaves that information on his website because he now believes he is aboe the law and that he has no worry of being removed from the White House.
Sheer arrogance would also be the only logical reason for him to have https://barrysoetoro.com/ as a web address for the White House website.
Your comments about the two criteri are dead on.
May 17th, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
packrat, thanks for telling me about the “two criteria” link, it only works if you click the first four words!
I stubbornly maintain that one can be a natural born citizen even if born abroad *** IF AND ONLY IF *** BOTH PARENTS *** are U.S. citizens at the time of one’s birth. (BTW, Hawaii and Alaska are not considered U.S. mainland).
Would you exclude from eligibility a baby born to two U.S. citizens vacationing overseas? International travel was limited in the 18th-19th centuries. The litmus test is the demonstrable sole allegiance of the parents to the U.S.
May 17th, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
Verite,
Re: the ‘strange’ link. You’re quite welcome. The first four words was all that I included in the live link. I’m not sure how it turned out the way it did here with the whole sentence being the same color.
As for your question, “Would you exclude from eligibility a baby born to two U.S. citizens vacationing overseas?;” what either of us might do as individuals is not relative to the issue. It depends entirely on what the law is; and, I would not have it any other way.
Deciding as individuals whether or not to follow a law based on our own feeling about it is the same slippery slope that has us at the mercy of activist judges who decide cases on the basis of their personal feelings, or “empathy” with certain issues, as Obama might put it, instead of deciding on the basis of law.
If one believes a law is unfair or not right for any reason, the proper first course of action is to do everything possible to get that law changed, not to disobey or ignore it.
It may be splitting hairs; but, while it is certainly true that, “The litmus test is — sole allegiance — to the U.S.,” it’s actually the expected or perceived allegiance of the child that is most important here; although, the parents’ citizenship status is of utmost importance in helping to determining that.
I say “expected or perceived” because; unfortunately, there is no guarantee that even in the best of circumstances a child will grow up to be loyal to the United States. Three names that come to mind are William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn and Rev. Jerimiah Wright. All three can be presumed to be legal citizens, even natural born citizens; but, they have all proven themselves to have no true allegiance to the USA.
That is the reason I left out the word “demonstrable” in your comment above. There is no way to actually demonstrate, at the time of birth, how loyal a child will be. There can only be a perception and expectation of such.
So, the best that can be done is to set up certain criteria upon which to make a determination, basically an educated guess, as to whether a child will in fact have sole allegiance to the USA, or any at all. After much discussion on the part of the witers of the Constitution, they set the criteria that we now go by.
As for Hawaii and Alaska not being a part of the mainland, they are not be in a physical sense; but, they are in a legal sense within the scope of the natural born issue.
May 18th, 2009 @ 7:29 am
packrat,
You’re right, you can’t predict with certainty the future actions or intentions of a child, but the parents do have
a “track record” of allegiance. A child who is by chance
born abroad does not automatically have questionable allegiance. Conversely, a border baby born on U.S. soil may turn out to have 100% allegiance to the U.S. but the motives of the alien parents are questionable. I agree that we can’t second guess the Constitution.
What is the “original intent” of the Founders? Did they anticipate air travel, where it is possible to be anywhere in the world within a day?
Vattel’s Law of Nations: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Could he be saying: the natives, or those born in the country, are natural born citizens if the parents are citizens? Or is he equating native and natural born?
Now look at the Naturalization Act of 1795:
“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.”
As I’m sure you know, “natural born citizen” in the 1790 Act was changed to “citizen” in the 1795 Act, where it also states that foreign born children are U.S. citizens PROVIDED that the FATHER is a U.S. citizen.
The emphasis throughout seems to be about the parents loyalty to the United States. The loyalty of the child can only be inferred.
May 18th, 2009 @ 7:37 am
Dr. Taitz, may I beg your opinion on the definition of NBC as it pertains to children born abroad?
May 18th, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
Verite,
Re: “You’re right, you can’t predict with certainty the future actions or intentions of a child, but the parents do have
a “track record” of allegiance. A child who is by chance
born abroad does not automatically have questionable allegiance. Conversely, a border baby born on U.S. soil may turn out to have 100% allegiance to the U.S. but the motives of the alien parents are questionable. I agree that we can’t second guess the Constitution.
What is the “original intent” of the Founders? Did they anticipate air travel, where it is possible to be anywhere in the world within a day?”
You say you “agree that we can’t second guess the Constitution; however, it appears that is exactly what you are advocating by attempting to force a meaning from the Constitution based on what the framers of the Constitution may or may not have anticipated. If there is in fact a problem within that document resulting from some unanticipated event, the onus is on Congress to correct that problem via an amendment.
Personally, I doubt that will happen because I believe there is already sufficient case law and other relative facts for SCOTUS to make a decision.
While discussing the issue may be interesting and enjoyable, unless and until Congress takes action per an amendment, the bottom line is that we could debate back and forth forever about how this or that case law relates to the issue and it would not change anything. That is why it’s imperative that this case is heard and decided on its merits.
With that, I rest my case. Let the Court decide…