{"id":1146,"date":"2011-04-22T21:51:55","date_gmt":"2011-04-23T03:51:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/?p=1146"},"modified":"2011-04-22T21:51:55","modified_gmt":"2011-04-23T03:51:55","slug":"the-obama-eligibility-question-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/?p=1146","title":{"rendered":"The Obama Eligibility Question"},"content":{"rendered":"

Author\u2019s Note<\/span> \u2013 When I published a legal analysis of Barack Obama’s eligibility in early May of 2010… ignoring what\u00a0his long-form birth certificate might tell us about him and evaluating only those things which we actually know about him… I tried as best I could to relay the importance of the words, “or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” <\/em>contained in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution,\u00a0<\/em>I received a great deal of positive response from around the globe, many saying, much to my delight, that it was the best thing they had ever read on the subject.<\/p>\n

However, several readers have commented that my explanation of the above-quoted phrase from Article II, Section 1, is still not sufficient to help the reader understand how the words of that phrase disqualify Barack Obama from ever serving as president or vice president of the United States.\u00a0 In order to rectify that shortcoming I have spent some time attempting to shed a bit more light on the subject.\u00a0 Accordingly, I have greatly expanded\u00a0my discussion of the section titled, “What is a ‘Natural Born’ citizen?”<\/p>\n

I hope that what I have added\u00a0helps to enlighten the reader.\u00a0 Now that Donald Trump is openly questioning who Obama is and what he is hiding from us, and since Dr. Jerome Corsi’s book on the subject is likely to hit the bookstores on May 17 already near the top of the NYT bestseller list,\u00a0I think it is more important than ever that the attached article be read by as many people as possible.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Obama Eligibility Question<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 by Paul R. Hollrah<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0May 5, 2010 (Rev. April 22, 2011)<\/p>\n

Never in American history has a national leader served under a darker cloud of suspicion than Barack Hussein Obama.\u00a0 Was he born in Hawaii or in Kenya?\u00a0 Did he become an Indonesian citizen in 1967?\u00a0 Where did he spend the summer of 1981?\u00a0 Did he actually attend classes at Columbia?\u00a0 Did he write Dreams from My Father<\/em>?\u00a0 These are all interesting questions, but not the most critical ones.\u00a0 By far the most critical question relates to his eligibility.\u00a0 Is he eligible to serve as president or is he a usurper?\u00a0 Let\u2019s analyze what we actually know to be true.\u00a0<\/p>\n

First, we have the absolute and unequivocal requirements of Article II. Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that, \u201cNo 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

We know that Obama was not a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, we know that he was at least thirty-five years of age when he took office in January 2009, and we know that he has been a U.S. resident for at least fourteen years.\u00a0 But is he a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen?\u00a0 What is a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen, and how do we prevent an individual who is not a natural born citizen from becoming president or vice president?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

To answer these questions we must examine how our political leaders, from the Founding Fathers through the present day, have defined the term \u201cnatural born;\u201d we must understand U.S. government policy on dual citizenship; we must examine the circumstances of Obama\u2019s birth and citizenship; and finally, we must examine the vetting process that was designed to prevent an ineligible person from ascending to the presidency or the vice presidency.<\/p>\n

What is a \u201cNatural Born\u201d Citizen?\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.\u00a0 So is it conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties \u2013 e.g. an individual with dual US-British citizenship \u2013 to serve as president or vice president of the United States?\u00a0 Not likely.<\/p>\n

That is precisely why the Framers found it necessary to include in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution the often overlooked and little understood words, \u201cor a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution\u2026\u201d\u00a0 <\/em>At the time the Constitution was adopted there were three types of U.S. citizens: The former British subjects who, having renounced all foreign allegiances and having pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, became citizens of a sovereign American nation on July 4, 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed; the children of those who became American citizens on July 4, 1776, all less than twelve years old at the time the Constitution was adopted, the first \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens of the United States; and finally, a separate class of citizens comprising those who were naturalized citizens by act of law, requiring a loyalty oath and renunciation of all foreign allegiances, and those who were dual citizens by automatic operation of foreign laws.<\/p>\n

To fully understand the importance of the words, \u201c<\/em>or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution\u2026\u201d<\/em> and how those words relate to Barack Obama\u2019s eligibility, it is necessary to recognize three significant dates.\u00a0\u00a0 Those dates are July 4, 1776, the date on which 54 delegates of the thirteen colonies signed the Declaration of Independence, making all citizens of the original thirteen colonies citizens of the United States; June 21, 1788, the date on which ratification by the State of New Hampshire made the Constitution the official law of the land; and July 4, 1811, the date on which the first \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens\u2026 those born immediately after the signing on July 4, 1776\u2026 attained the age of thirty five.\u00a0 It was not until the thirty-fifth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence that the first natural born<\/em> citizens became eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.<\/p>\n

Since the Founders intended that only \u201cnatural born\u201d U.S. citizens should ever serve as president or vice president\u2026 excluding naturalized citizens and those with dual nationality\u2026 it became necessary to provided an exemption of limited duration<\/em>\u2026 a \u201cgrandfather\u201d clause\u2026 covering those who were citizens during the thirty-five year period between Independence Day, July 4, 1776 and July 4, 1811, but who were not \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens.\u00a0 It was the simplest and easiest way of creating a body of potential presidents and vice presidents without holding fast to the requirement that they be \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens, at least thirty-five years of age.\u00a0 Therein lies the significance of the words, \u201cor a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution\u2026\u201d <\/em>the sixteen words which prohibit Barack Hussein Obama from ever being eligible to serve as President of the United States.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, and as an indicator of the fear of foreign influence that gripped the hearts of the Founders, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, \u201cThese most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.\u00a0 How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own (a \u201cManchurian candidate?\u201d) to the chief magistracy of the Union?\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows:\u00a0\u201cEvery human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty<\/em> (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.\u201d<\/p>\n

Clearly, those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments knew what it meant to be a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen, but what of our political leaders of today?\u00a0<\/p>\n

In the early months of 2008, at a time when Hillary Rodham Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and only those in the \u201ctin foil hat\u201d brigade of the party were taking Barack Obama seriously, a number of lawsuits were filed questioning whether Senator John McCain, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, was a natural born U.S. citizen.<\/p>\n

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, were assigned the task of researching the issue.\u00a0 In a March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, \u201cbased on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers\u2019 intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. McCain\u2019s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a \u2018natural born Citizen\u2019 within the meaning of the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008 statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, \u201cBased on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning,<\/em> it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world<\/em> they are natural born citizens.\u00a0 Because he was born to American citizens<\/em>, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen (emphasis added).\u201d<\/p>\n

This was followed by an April 30, 2008 Senate resolution, approved by a vote of 99-0.\u00a0 The resolution declared: \u201cWhereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a \u2018natural born citizen\u2019 under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.\u201d\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

It is important to note that all four references\u2026 the 1866 Bingham statement, the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution\u2026 all utilize the plural terms \u201cparents\u201d or \u201cAmerican citizens,\u201d strongly suggesting that the \u201cnatural born\u201d question rests, in large part, on the necessity of both<\/em> parents being U.S. citizens.<\/p>\n

U.S. Government Policy on Dual Citizenship <\/span><\/p>\n

The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe concept of dual nationality <\/em>means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time.<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.\u00a0 Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice\u2026<\/span> <\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cU.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another.\u00a0 Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.<\/span>\u00a0 However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship\u2026 <\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it\u2026 because of the problems it may cause.\u00a0 Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law\u2026<\/span>\u00a0 However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.\u00a0 They are required to obey the laws of both countries\u2026\u201d <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Barack Obama\u2019s Citizenship Status<\/span><\/p>\n

Barack Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a citizen of Kenya, a British colony.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, the controlling legal authority on who is British and who is not, reads, in part, as follows: \u201cSubject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Obama\u2019s father, a Kenyan, was a British subject at the time of his birth.\u00a0 Therefore, under British law, it is clear that Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship \u201cby descent\u201d from his Kenyan father and his American mother.\u00a0 However, following Kenya\u2019s independence from Great Britain on December 12, 1963, Kenya\u2019s newly-adopted Constitution went into effect.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the Kenyan Constitution provides as follows: \u201c(1)\u00a0 Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th<\/sup> December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies<\/em> (Barack Obama, Sr,)\u2026 shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th<\/sup> December 1963.\u00a0 Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.\u00a0 <\/em>(Both of Obama\u2019s paternal grandparents were born in Kenya.)<\/p>\n

\u201c(2)\u00a0 Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th<\/sup> December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies<\/em> (Barack Obama, Jr.)\u2026 shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th<\/sup> December, 1963.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In other words, on December 12, 1963, through automatic operation of Kenyan law, Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship, presumably giving him, at least temporarily, dual US-British and dual US-Kenyan citizenship.\u00a0 Obama did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenships; they were his by \u201cautomatic operation\u201d of British and Kenyan law and \u201cby descent\u201d from his father.\u00a0 And since there is no known evidence that Obama ever took steps to renounce his American citizenship, he automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship under provisions of Article VI, Section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution on August 4, 1984, his twenty-third birthday.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Vetting Process for President and Vice President<\/span><\/p>\n

The process established for the selection of a president and vice president provides three vetting opportunities.\u00a0 The first occurs immediately following the nominating conventions when the parties certify their candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed.\u00a0<\/p>\n

All of the documents provided to the fifty state election boards by the Republican National Committee in 2008 contained, verbatim, the following affirmation:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do hereby certify that <\/em>(at) a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the Unites States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The documents contained the names and home addresses of John McCain and Sarah Palin and were signed by John A. Boehner and Jean A. Inman, Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and notarized by Sheila A. Motzko.<\/p>\n

However, certifications provided to the state election boards by the Democratic National Committee were not uniform.\u00a0 The certification provided exclusively to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes \u00a711-113, contained the following affirmation:<\/p>\n

\u201cTHIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though <\/em>(sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.\u201d\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:<\/p>\n

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though <\/em>(sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.\u00a0 The document was signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The phrase, \u201c\u2026 and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution\u201d <\/em>was purposely omitted.\u00a0 Other than that, the two documents were identical\u2026 even to the misspelling of the word \u201cthrough\u201d in the second line of the certifications.<\/p>\n

This tragic anomaly of American political history was first reported by writer JB Williams in a September 10, 2009 article, titled, \u201cThe Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don\u2019t Lie.\u201d Immediately upon publication of Williams\u2019 article, Obama-doubters across the country began contacting their state election boards, requesting copies of the Democrat and Republican Party candidate certifications, and the full scale of the Democrats\u2019deception was uncovered.\u00a0<\/p>\n

So why would the Democrats eliminate the language certifying that Obama and Biden were both eligible to serve \u201cunder provisions of the U.S. Constitution?\u201d\u00a0 Is it not reasonable to assume that they knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve by virtue of the fact that he is not a \u201cnatural born\u201d U.S. citizen?\u00a0 So the question arises, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?\u00a0 And is it Pelosi\u2019s certification of Obama\u2019s eligibility that the State of Hawaii now relies upon in refusing to disclose details of his long form birth certificate?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The second vetting opportunity occurs on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December when the Electoral College meets to elect a president and vice president.\u00a0 Between November 4, the date of the General Election, and December 15, the date that the Electoral College met to cast their votes, most Democratic electors were made aware of serious questions relating to Obama\u2019s eligibility.\u00a0 None of the Democratic electors raised a serious question about Obama\u2019s eligibility prior to casting their electoral votes\u2026 a violation of their oath of office and a complete and total subversion of the very purpose of the Electoral College.<\/p>\n

The third and final vetting opportunity occurs on January 6 following each election when the Congress meets in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College.\u00a0 As the final failsafe step in the electoral process, the members of Congress have the duty to insure themselves of the qualifications of the candidates selected by the Electoral College.\u00a0<\/p>\n

So if, in fact, the Democratic National Committee knowingly certified a candidate for the November ballot who was ineligible to serve, and the Democrat members of the Electoral College failed to vet the men they elected, what are the possible alternatives?\u00a0 Is it possible, as some suggest, that we simply ignore the Constitutional requirements of Article II, Section 1?\u00a0<\/p>\n

In a December 8, 2008 discussion of the congressional certification process, Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues that, \u201c\u2026 the question of Obama\u2019s eligibility vel non<\/em> is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cEven by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be \u2018a natural born citizen,\u2019 by simply assuming<\/em> that he is such, or by accepting what lawyers refer to as the \u2018best available evidence,\u2019 (Obama\u2019s published certificate of live birth, versus a certified Hawaiian birth certificate).\u201d<\/p>\n

But what if the members of Congress fail in their responsibility?\u00a0 Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen\u2026 \u201cthe matter cannot be said to have been settled to a \u2018constitutional sufficiency\u2019<\/em>(emphasis added),\u201d<\/em> because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/span><\/p>\n

What Dr. Viera asserts, and what any sixth-grade student would understand, is that it is not within the power of the Congress to waive the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 by simply ignoring them\u2026 as they have attempted to do since January 6, 2009.\u00a0\u00a0 Nor is it within the power of the people, the states, or the courts to waive the eligibility requirements\u2026 short of a constitutional amendment.<\/p>\n

That being the case, and assuming that Obama could not be convinced to voluntarily evacuate the White House, what are the alternatives?\u00a0 Is it possible to impeach a usurper president or vice president when the impeachment process is designed to apply only to individuals who are fully qualified, legally elected, and officially inaugurated?<\/p>\n

The most likely answer lies in the Nixon model, in which leaders of his own party would go to the White House to demand his resignation.\u00a0 In Obama\u2019s case, that is unlikely to happen until a substantial majority of Americans become convinced that he is a usurper and his approval rating drops below 20%.\u00a0 Then, and only then, can we expect Democrats, in the interest of protecting their own careers, to demand that he leave.\u00a0 And that will occur only after some courageous American, such as Lt. Col. Terry Lakin or New York real estate developer Donald Trump, is able to force Obama to produce his bona fides.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

With each passing day, the damage that Obama does makes the future of our constitutional republic more and more problematic.\u00a0 Will the nation be able to survive six more months, let alone two and a half more years, of his social and economic tinkering?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

If consensus can be reached on the questions surrounding Obama\u2019s dual citizenships and the definition of the term \u201cnatural born,\u201d then all of the remaining questions about his origins and his true identity will become academic\u2026 mere fodder for the history books.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Author\u2019s Note \u2013 When I published a legal analysis of Barack Obama’s eligibility in early May of 2010… ignoring what\u00a0his long-form birth certificate might tell us about him and evaluating only those things which we actually know about him… I … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1146"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1146"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1146\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1147,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1146\/revisions\/1147"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}