Obama’s ineligibility: Choosing political expediency over defending the Constitution

[Sandra]

As the Constitution goes, so goes our country

Obama’s ineligibility: Choosing political expediency over defending the Constitution

 
 - Lawrence Sellin  Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Note to the Republican leadership – if you continue to shield Barack Hussein Obama, knowing that he is ineligible for the Presidency and has possibly committed fraud and felony conspiracy, then, you are welcome to him for a second term. I will not stand with you.

In my opinion, many Republicans have violated their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution. Because of their cowardice or complicity in hiding the truth from the American people, there was a major failure to uphold the law. For that reason, they have forfeited their privilege to represent me.

Compared to Obama, other government officials have been called to account for far lesser presumed infractions of the law.

As Thomas Paine wrote:

“Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.”

According to the Constitution, the narrative of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett (1874), other legal opinions and precedence, Obama has never been eligible for the presidency because he does not meet the requirements of natural born citizenship i.e. someone born in the US of citizen parents at the time of birth.

It is the simplest and most irrefutable argument to make regarding Obama’s ineligibility for the Presidency.

Republican elected officials: how much evidence do you need before you take the appropriate action?

In addition to Obama’s clear Constitutional ineligibility, there are an ample number of apparent inconsistencies in Obama’s personal history to warrant a Congressional investigation.

First, if Obama was born in Hawaii, there is no evidence indicating in which hospital he was born. I doubt that there are many living Americans, who do not know the hospital of their birth and who cannot prove it.

Second, Obama has been using a Social Security Number issued in Connecticut, a state in which he never lived or even had a mailing address.

Third, it has been claimed, but never proven, that Obama was born in Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. The Nordyke twins were also born in Kapiolani hospital, the day after Obama was born. ( Source).

Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given birth certificate number 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given birth certificatenumber 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

The online certification of live birth provided by FactCheck.org,  and purported to be the evidence for Obama’s Hawaiian birth, shows the certificate number 151 – 1961 – 10641.

If Obama was born in the same hospital one day earlier than the Nordyke twins and his birth was registered three days earlier on Aug. 8, 1961, then why does he have a higher certificate number? And why does his certificate number have two extra digits?

Even a cub reporter would conclude that there is something wrong with that picture. And it is only the tip of the iceberg. As all Americans know very well, however, the deluded main stream media are protecting Obama at the expense of their journalistic integrity.

Likewise, unless for reasons of political expediency based on fear or complicity, I have no other explanation for the silence of the Republican leadership.

Paine also wrote:

“The American constitutions were to liberty, what a grammar is to language: they define its parts of speech, and practically construct them into syntax.”

As they slowly dismantle our Constitution, the political elite will bequeath to our children a legal system based on gobbledygook.

As the Constitution goes, so goes our country.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/35640

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]