SITREP Obama Citizenship Nov 12 ‘08 -- Obama Cannot Be President

By DemocracyRules

Please welcome this guest posting.

The author studies human reasoning and logic. 

Obama is Disqualified by the Known Unknowns

(1)   At the time of the November 4 election, Obama' eligibility was unknown to the majority of the American electorate.  That is, the vast majority of the American electorate did not know whether Obama was eligible to become the President of the United States (POTUS).

Furthermore Obama's eligibility remains unknown, even to Americans who are very interested in this question, and have inquired deeply into it.  When asked in court to produce evidence of his eligibility, Obama has declined to do so, even in the face of the considerable time, expense and trouble that is needed to avoid providing this evidence.  Thus, the US citizenry did not know on November 4 if Obama was eligible, and they still do not know.

(2) Among the US citizenry are the following:
The current POTUS
The current VPOTUS & President of the Senate
The US Supreme Court
The US Congress
The Senior Staff of the Pentagon
The Senior Staff of the Federal Elections Commission
The Members of the Electoral College

To best of my knowledge, none of these individuals have officially and publicly declared Obama to be eligible to be POTUS.  They have not produced or provided sufficient evidence to prove this eligibility.

(3)  The news media, television, radio, and the Internet transmit huge amounts of information each day.  However, to the best of my knowledge the eligibility of Obama to be POTUS is not known by the general public (See Note 1).

(4) Until and if that dissemination occurs, there is a method of formal logic that can be applied to this situation.  It is called the Categorical Syllogism, and was described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18–20).  Ordinarily, a categorical syllogism is simply called a syllogism, as I shall do here.  We begin with the major premise, which is from the US constitution, Article II, Section 1, which 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 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.”

(5) From this we can construct the following syllogism:

Major Premise: To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be publicly known.
Minor Premise: Obama's eligibility is not publicly known.
Conclusion: Therefore Obama is not POTUS.

(6) How Categorical Syllogisms work

When we learn logic in school the categorical syllogism is often taught like this.  It begins with a Major Premise, like this:
All humans are mortal.
Then one introduces a second, or Minor Premise, like this:
Socrates is human.
Then we combine the major and minor premises to get this Conclusion:
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This method of deductive logic is more than 2000 years old and is taught in almost every introductory logic course in the world. According to these rules of deductive logic, as described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18–20) if both premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

Logic is a branch of mathematics, and these rules are like those of arithmetic, where 2+2=4. The result is not negotiable.  It is not subject to debate.  These rules are universal, they apply everywhere in the known universe.  At any time or place one can imagine, 2+2 will equal 4.

Just like arithmetic, the rules of deductive logic are not time-dependent and can be articulated at any time and place in the Universe.  If we were to stand on the surface of Mars, then 2+2 would equal 4, and the syllogism above would also be true.  If we were traveling at nearly the speed of light, these rules would be true.  If all humans disappeared from existence, and only one computer remained, then it could calculate that 2+2=4, and it would be correct.  If the computer disappeared, and there were no sentient beings left, and no computational devices, then still, 2+2=4.  The syllogism would also be true.  These rules are not the inventions of man, they are the rules of nature, and of the Universe.

The simple rules of arithmetic and deductive logic transcend space, time, matter, and energy.  There is no point in trying to refute a categorical syllogism in which both premises are true.  The conclusion must be true.

The conclusion of this syllogism is self-evident, because it merely requires the combination of two correct premises to produce a correct conclusion.

As I write this, both premises are true, and therefore, Obama is not POTUS.  Right now, this is not a constitutional issue because Obama only the president-elect. The syllogism is written in the present tense, so as time moves forward, the status of the syllogism also moves forward.  As time reaches January 20, 2009, if the premises remain true, then the conclusion will remain true:  Obama is not POTUS.  At that point the syllogism has significant constitutional impact, because Obama will sit as if he is POTUS, but he will not be POTUS.

Obama has ample time to act.  If at any time Obama becomes publicly known to be eligible, then this syllogism would be invalid.  That is, Obama might be POTUS, because he would be eligible.  The conclusion of the syllogism would be invalid, because the minor premise would be invalid.  The minor premise states “Obama's eligibility is not publicly known”.  If his eligibility becomes known, then the conclusion is invalid, and Obama might be eligible.  But until his eligibility is publicly known, Obama is not POTUS, either before or after January 20.  

If Obama took office without his eligibility being publicly known, then he is not POTUS.  If Obama pretended to be POTUS, and other humans believed that he was POTUS, he would still not be POTUS.  Even if 300 million Americans agreed to let Obama sit as if he were POTUS, and run the executive branch of the USA as if he were POTUS, he would not be POTUS. 

The syllogism is compelling, omnipresent, and transcendent in time.  So long as the premises remain true, the conclusion is true, and it’s form and meaning cannot be changed by human intervention.  

If Obama sat as President, and left office 8 years later, he never was POTUS.  If historians look back from 1,000 years hence, logic will dictate that he was not POTUS.  For those 8 years, the USA did not have a POTUS.  No element or feature of the past can be changed to make him POTUS.  It is not possible to change the past.  Obama never was POTUS.

None of the laws passed in the 8 years that Obama sat in the White House would be valid, because they must be signed into law by POTUS, and there would be no POTUS.  Executive orders, Supreme court appointments, and declarations of war would not be valid.  Nothing.

If the military took any action under the command of Obama, they would be in double jeopardy.  Because they have sworn to uphold the Constitution, it would be forbidden by law for them to obey Obama, since according to the Constitution, he is not POTUS.  POTUS is their commander in chief, not Obama.  If they obeyed Obama on any matter, they might be held accountable for war crimes, since they acted without authority from POTUS.  Because of the way military law works, there is no middle ground.  The military can only obey the POTUS and uphold the Constitution, from the highest general to the greenest private.

There are two implications of this reasoning which are debatable, and go beyond the strict implications of the syllogism.  They are (a) Because the military is charged to uphold the Constitution, by force if necessary, they may or may not be empowered (or required) to remove Obama from office, and  (b)  It may be correct and patriotic to refuse to follow any orders given by Obama.  This may apply to all American citizens.

If the US Constitution was changed before Jan 20 to make Obama eligible, then everything would change.  Then the syllogism would no longer be valid, because the major premise would be invalid.   Obama might be eligible to be POTUS.  But this would only apply if the Constitution was changed before January 20, 2009.  If an effort is made to change the Constitution after Januray 20, it will not succeed under law, because there is no POTUS.  Because Obama is not POTUS, he could not sign the Constitutional change into law.  

Obama could step aside in favor of the Vice President.  The Vice President would become POTUS, and he could sign the law if he chose to.  However, the new POTUS would not be required to sign the constitutional change into law.  It would be up to his discretion.  Furthermore, once Obama has stepped aside from acting as POTUS, there is no constitutional mechanism by which Obama would be empowered to re-assume the position of POTUS.

This syllogism is true, prima facie and does not have to be proven in any court.  The rules of deductive logic cannot be changed by any court or legislative assembly .  These are rules of nature and the Universe, not of man, and no court or legislature can change them.  No human can make a law that 2+2 equals 5, or make a law to change the structure of the syllogism.  Humans cannot legislate that oxygen shall be nitrogen, or declare that protons are illegal, or that the planets do not orbit the sun.

Although the arguments articulated here could readily be used in a court of law, the syllogism is true whether or not it is considered by a court, or any human authority.  These arguments can be made before various courts and authorities, but logic does not require this.  Lawyers are certainly entitled to use these arguments in court to convince a judge that Obama is not POTUS.  However, no matter what opinion the judges offer, Obama is not POTUS.

Therefore,  So long as the premises remain true, Obama is not POTUS.  If the premises remain true forever, then Obama will not ever be POTUS.  Humans have no jurisdiction over the rules of logic.  Logic is governed by the rules of nature, not of humanity.

SUMMARY

Major Premise:

To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be publicly known.

Minor Premise:

Obama's eligibility is not publicly known.

This syllogism responds only to rules of deductive logic and cannot be overturned by any human action.  If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must be true.  There is no law or statute that requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of law for them to be enforceable.  The laws of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be challenged by any law of man.

Therefore, the conclusion of this syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority.  No human is empowered to alter,  rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the universe.

Conclusion:

Therefore, Obama is not POTUS.

___________________________________________

Note 1.  The unknown status of Obama's eligibility is typified in a current case in New Jersey.

It is the case of lawyer Leo Donofrio versus New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.  In it, Donofrio claims that it is the duty of  Wells, as Secretary of State for the State of NewJersy, to independently verify the constitutional qualifications of the presidential candidates before placing them on the ballot in that state.

Specifically, Donofrio notes in the brief accompanying the Application for Emergency Stay filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Wells was required by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 to make a statement in which she certifies and signs off on the names of the candidates on the ballots. The statute, in relevant part with emphasis added:

“The Secretary of State, not later than eighty-six days before any election whereat any candidates nominated in any direct petition or primary certificate of nomination or State convention certificate filed with him are to be voted for, shall make and certify, under his hand and seal of office, and forward to the clerks of the several counties of the State a statement of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election.”

In other words Leo Donofrio suggests that the New Jersey Secretary of State was unaware of the eligibility of Obama to serve as POTUS.  If she was aware, of Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, she did not communicate this to the electorate.  

Comments

[W.Richards]

Gina in a conversation today the 20th amendment was mentioned, particularly section 3 .
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

It's something to look into. I'm not a lawyer , nor do I play one....

Obama's delay is still very unsettling to me as well.

________________________________
{From DR -- Thanks for this. I've posted this before also, and it may be good news. At least the Constitution planned for eventualities. It seems to say that if necessary, the feds can hold a new election.}

[Brian H]

The Constitution requires he be natural-born, not that it be publicly known. It may be that the public could never be satisfied he was unless all is revealed, and yet he be natural-born without any proof ever provided.

You need to establish a step or two to bring out the requirement that his status must be proved publicly. You kind of assume and imply it, but don't establish it.

________________________________
{From DR -- I'll check with Coambs and see what he says}

[rrobin]

Obama is not President - Elect unless and until the Electoral College votes for him. Each elector is currently being personally contacted and presented evidence regarding Obama's eligibility. All patriots nationwide that would like to help with this effort can go to http://www.democratic-disaster.com/index.php and help with this effort.
I also see that there is another strong lawsuit as of this morning being filed at http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/archives/186
This issue is definitely not done yet!
Thanks for all your help, Ms. Cobb.

[candace chonka]

Great article! Too many uninformed citizens...

[Kendee]

Wow, What a read! Thank You!
Much food for thought!

[Dave M]

I too am bothered Dr Coambs about the stretch you have made
in constructing the major premise. But whether that stretch is
valid or not, since "Obama" won't reveal his true records, there
is real doubt that he is eligible.
If he is not eligible, then every single bill passed under his
"presidency" is null and void.
Here's the big one: The budget.
No tax collected is valid. No federal appropriation is valid.
No federal salary may legally be paid. All government workers,
including the armed forces, have no right to keep their pay.
In two years the ramifications of having to legally unwind all
these false transactions would bankrupt the US government.
Following on from that, all bonds sold over all time would
be in default. The ripple effects would engulf and take down
most of the world.
A wicked and scheming media can conspire to elect an impostor
though I doubt they know what they have done. But around the
world, investors and savers will protect their money. Will
you sign a contract with a government about to go bankrupt?
Even the fear of this event coming to pass will force "Obama"
to reveal his truth, and then step down.
As the first poster points out, "Obama" may be president though
the truth about his eligibility would never be known.
I point out: Will you invest your life savings in a financial
vehicle that may repay you - or may not - and the outcome
is not known to you. Will you work for a company that may
pay you - or may not. The collapse of confidence is a
thousand foot tsunami that even the Obamabots cannot turn aside.
_____________________________________
{ From DR -- Yes, I see your point. I'll email Coambs and see what he says}

[RT]

He's not my POTUS!

[rrobin]

And now it looks like yet ANOTHER forgery may be showing up, regarding Obama's supposed Selective Service Registration.
Check out: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/

[AC]

The only way for this argument to be settled is for Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate; which he refuses to do.

Rather than simply providing a copy of his birth certificate, as other candidates have done, Obama has engaged his team of lawyers to have his birth records (and every other record for that matter) sealed. My question is... Why?

My past experience as an investigator in the US Army MP Corps tells me that people who do everything they can to hide things in their past are doing so to prevent you from finding things that will implicate them in illegal and/or very questionable activities. People who have nothing to hide are very forthright in providing very basic information that substantiates their claims or provides proof of their background - birth certificate, college/university records (that need to verified even for simple employment purposes), passport, etc.

Since Obama has not provided any of these documents and no one can verify any of these documents because they have all been sealed as a result of legal maneuvering on the part of Obama's legal team, we can only assume that the information contained in said documents and records, if made public, would be detrimental to Obama and quite possibly disqualify him from being POTUS. If this is not true, then why not open the books and let us know the truth instead of continually maneuvering to keep the facts from all of us?

_____________________________________

{From DR -- The reason I like the piece by Coambs is that it declares Obama ineligible from the very beginning, and he will remain ineligible until such time as the public knows otherwise.

Rather than making us go in circles, Coambs makes Obama go in circles, for at least the next 8 years, living in a house of mirrors and avoidance, in constant fear of discovery.}

[tj]

We also need to have the US Embassy/State Department check with Indonesia and Kenya to see if any passports have been issued to any of the Obama aliases.

_______________________________

{From DR -- volunteers?}

[Dotty Ann Brown]

One question:

Bill O'Riley on Fox News has a video out that states that Obama did show his birth certificate and that anyone who is trying to say he has not shown one is a hoax. Is he right or just very misinformed or biased?

Someone answer this, please.
__________________________________

{From DR -- These stories go round and round, but O'Riley is mistaken. Four "birth certificate sightings" are publicly known. (1) In one of his "memoirs", Obama mentions having his birth certificate in his hand. Since it is now known that Bill Ayers wrote large parts of these books, this may or may not be true. (2) Obama's own website shows a photo or a scan of a document that has been shown to be digitally altered, yielding a fake. (3) Daily Kos has published a document which has also been digitally altered, but in a different way than Obama's version. This is also a fake. (4) A website controlled by Bill Ayers has produced a photograph of a document which has a raised seal, but the document is too fuzzy to make out what it is.

Thus 4 versions exist in the public domain, but none are valid. Bill O'Reily is mistaken.}

[Dotty Ann Brown]

Bill O'Riley states that Obama's certificate is genuine and that those who say it isn't are just perpetrating a hoax.

Is he right, misguided, or biased?

Comment?

[Gina Cobb: See my response to your earlier comment. I don't think O'Reilly is necessarily biased, he's just often 100% certain of things that aren't 100% certain at all. In other words, he often shoots from the hip]

[Dotty Ann Brown]

Thanks, Gina! For your answer to O'Riley. I sure like your web site and your blog. I'll keep visiting!

[Dana Hites]

The reality is this - those who want Obama in office, regardless, are working an invalid logical argument and attempting to promote this as fact:

1. The elected US President must be a natural born US Citizen.

2. Obama was elected president.

Conclusion the AMERICANS are SUPPOSED to Make: Obama is a natural born US citizen because he was elected to the office of President.

And if we do not rise up and demand Obama be made accountable on the issue of his citizenship, the above model WILL be forced down our throats because those who want Obama in office are powerful and are pushing this false logic...

Trying to get him sworn in before anyone does anything to stop him - such as demanding he meet the Constitutional requirement of Article 2.
______________________________________
{From DR-- Yes you may be right, but I hope people keep fighting this before, during and after Obama's time in office. Obama may well do irremediable damage to the US.

To me, this is a serious Constitutional crisis. 8 years hence, I believe the world will be worse off. Salvaging a trashed Constitution is very difficult to do.

-- Pro Patria}

[Claudia]

So, can this stand up in a court of law? If so, can the author of this premise please get it into the hands of Andy Martin, Phil Berg, and Donofrio, so that their suits can be beefed up to include this premise and become victories so we won't have to endure a fiasco of a poseur in the office of POTUS, and also so that the laws of the Constitution and this Country are not made invalid or null by default of the Supreme Court not acting from the law and adjudicating from the bench in favor of allowing him to remain.....

They would then be the ones that act in violation of the Constitution and make the law to suit their needs. Which along with every other thing would also not be valid, according to the premise above.
_____________________________________
{From DR -- I'm trying to get the Coambs thing out there, but I'm just one person. Any help would be appreciated! I sent it to President Bush, but the response wasn't very, ah, "personalized".

Just cut it and paste it and send it to any blogger, news source, politician, or friend that you think might read it. -- Pro Patria}

[truthseeker]

This was on Mr. Leo Donofrio's website from this afternoon at 2:10 PM. regarding his lawsuit and to update Dr. Coambs comments:

UPDATED: 2:10 PM: Leo C. Donofrio was just contacted by Mr. Danny Bickell, Stay Clerk of the United States Supreme Court as a direct result of Mr. Bickell receiving phone calls from the public. THREE ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED:

1. He says he is now in the process of correcting the Docket to reflect that my case is before the US Supreme Court from a direct ruling of the NJ Supreme Court wherein a Constitutional issue had been raised.

2. Mr. Bickell informed me today that after he decided, improperly, not to pass on my Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd, that he did not owe me any special notification of such disposition of my case according to his interpretation of Supreme Court Rule 22(6) which states:

"6. The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application."

Mr. Bickell insisted that by "appropriately speedy means", the Court Rule only demands he use ordinary mail. I then asked him how is that different from the ordinary means by which you notify litigants as to the disposition of their cases? And he replied, "It's the same." And I said, then how is that by "speedy means"? And he said I wasn't entitled to a phone call or anything else. And I said, "Then it's your official position that Rule 22(6) calls for nothing more than the same notification as an ordinary case and that the words "appropriately speedy means" really have no special meaning at all. And to this he replied, "That's my official position."

He also stated that he sent me a letter informing me of the disposition of my case. I don't know what he means. On Thursday, Nov. 6th, by way of a phone conversation that I initiated, he informed me that he decided not to submit my Emergency Stay Application, which I filed four days earlier on November 3rd, to Justice Souter, which as I've said before was blatant Clerical misconduct since it's not his job to play Supreme Court Justice. Regardless, he never sent me a letter stating that he disposed of the case on his own. After speaking to him on Thursday, he agreed to finally Docket the case. But he did so erroneously as I have previously documented. On Friday morning, he somewhat corrected the Docket, but he also made it reflect that Justice Souter had already decided the case. And then he sent me a letter as to Justice Souter's denial dated November 6th.

Speaking to Mr. Bickell a few minutes ago, I asked him what happened to my letter informing me of the first disposition back on Monday Nov. 3rd when he decided not to pass the Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, "That wasn't a disposition so I didn't have to give you any notice." Incredible. He disposed of my case illegally and then said that since it wasn't a proper disposition I wasn't entitled to notice thereof, and certainly not by "appropriately speedy means". Sabotage.

This is truly unprecedented, my friends.

3. Mr Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on the day it is received. His word isn't worth much to me so I still need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay Application arrives.

Bickell also requested that people stop calling him, and I told him that these people are just citizens, I don't know who they are, and I can't command them to do anything but that they are watching the Supreme Court's actions and they want to see that Justice is done in this case, and that Justice pertains not just to the substantive case but to the procedural aspects as well under the Supreme Court Rules which have not been followed.

I don't think calling Mr. Bickell will do anymore good, although it certainly did influence him to get in touch with me. So Im asking people to concentrate on sending letters to the attention of Justice Clarence Thomas and the other Supreme Court Justices US Supreme Court instead of making phone calls. The phone calls were very helpful and served to alert Mr. Bickell and other interested parties at the US Supreme Court that the public is very interested in this case.

THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THIS CASE GET BEFORE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS TO WRITE TO HIM AND THE OTHER JUSTICES:

The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

United States Supreme Court

One First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20543.

--------------------------------

Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

[Gina Cobb]

Glad to have you here, Dotty.

[Kroft]

Thank you for deleting my earlier comment.
________________________________
{From DR -- You're welcome! If you post any more like that, Ill be glad to delete them too! -- Pro Patria}

[Skeptic]

Instead of demanding evidence, when the U.S. State Dept. has issued and re-issued passports (which state place of birth) and the state of Hawaii has issued a universally accepted document attesting to date and place of birth, why don't those of you who are so sure Obama is not "natural born" produce one shred of evidence yourselves? Conspiracy theories and straw man arguments do not count as evidence, no matter how elaborate they may be.
___________________________________

[Gina Cobb responds: Skeptic, Hawaii has not issued a birth certificate for Obama. No original or long-form birth certificate has been produced by Obama. Reporters have not seen a birth certificate. Nobody has seen the original that Obama claimed in his autobiography to have in his possession.

Nobody is pushing a conspiracy theory. Obama, however, clearly has something to hide or he would have produced the birth certificate long ago. Americans want proof that Obama is indeed qualified for the presidency. If you think such proof is unnecessary, then that's your choice, but natural born citizenship is an express requirement to hold the office of the presidency. As for passports, only after 9/11 were the requirements to obtain a passport tightened up even a little bit. Non-citizens have had no difficulty coming and going between America and other countries, as the 9/11 terrorists demonstrated. Assuming that a passport clerk did the job years ago of making sure that Obama was a natural born citizen is very questionable logic. That wasn't the passport agent's job and you are peddling a wild, unsupported theory by suggesting that issuance of a passport at some time in the past is an adequate substitute for an authentic birth certificate today. - Gina Cobb]

[Dr. Conspiracy]

I have a Master's Degree in Mathematics that included two courses in logic, one Aristotelian and one on the Predicate Calculus. You know what I learned? If the premises are false, you can formally prove anything. But in the end, the proof means nothing.

The argument in the main article overlooks the fact that an independent fact checking organization examined Obama birth certificate (which says "Location of birth: Honolulu") and published close up photos of it. The Hawaiian Department of Health took the unprecedented step of saying Obama's birth was registered in Hawaii,

{This is false and you know it. If you do not know it, you are an irresponsible fool, parroting the garbage that others spew out, without bothering to check your facts}

and there is a birth announcement in not one but two Hawaiian newspapers.

{Which anyone could have called into the newspapers, even from Kenya}.

Saying that no one knows Obama's eligibility is a false premise. Therefore, the argument falls.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{From DR -- Dear "Doctor".

I am sorry to hear that such an illogical, emotional fool would be citing mathematical clap-trap in an effort to prove Aristotle wrong.

If I was your Dean, I would revoke your degree. You are incompetent. You are an embarrassment to science, and to rational thought.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. I learned that in grade seven, but apparently you did not. Of course if you falsify the premises, you can invalidate the conclusion. But can you read?

Read the logic piece again, you incorrigible skimmer. The first premise requires that Obama's eligibility must be made public. It is not public.

If you are willing to believe that an internet picture of a forged birth certificate is public evidence of presidential eligibility, then several species of bacteria are more intelligent than you.

Obama is not eligible. Are you dumb enough to believe that the Framers of the Constitution would accept a scenario in which secret eligibility is sufficient to qualify a Presidential candidate? Of course it must be public!

Obama clearly thinks the American people are dumb, but we would have to be dumber than you to believe that secret eligibility is sufficient grounds to become President.

Pro Patria}

[michelle]

thank you for an amazing analysis. however, i am wondering how you ultimately feel this will end...hopefully with BOGUS POTUS removed from office....but when?? how? do you have faith we will see the day when truth wins out?