Fred Stephens/Texas Assistant State Coordinator's Page

In an Associated Press article, Obama made this statement:

Thursday, May 28, 2009:

"A democratic government must be as transparent as possible and must not withhold information for self-serving reasons or simply to avoid embarrassment."

For what reasons does Obama withhold information about his past? No one has seen his "Certificate of Live Birth" or his college records from Occidental College, Columbia University or Harvard University.

Would Obama's actions in the matter be classified as "self serving".

Would the revelation that Obama is not even a citizen of the United States be embarrassing not only to him but to the Democrat Party and the officials that signed along with him that he met all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States?

Amendment XIV of the Constitution states in Section 1:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Many discussions of Amendment XIV conveniently leave out:

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"

because those words, by statements of the framers of the amendment, state that it means "complete" jurisdiction, unlimited by a claim of citizenship by any other power than then the United States.

As stated in Amendment XIV, and confirmed by the framers, Obama was not a citizen of the United States at the time he was born due to limited jurisdiction of the United States as a result of his father being a subject of the United Kingdom. Obama's has never taken legal action to renounce his subjugation to the United Kingdom which would occur during a process of naturalization to become a United States citizen.

Obama committed fraud by signing official documents that he was a natural born citizen of the United States and met all the provisions of the constitution.

Every single member of congress knew at the time Obama filed notices of his intent to run for President that no matter where Obama was born he was not a citizen, and therefore could not be a "natural born" citizen as required by the Constitution. Their actions could be construed as "misprision" because, although not deliberately concealing the fraudulent action, their action of "willful blindness" led to the same result.

The words by Obama that appear in the AP article of May 28, 2009 must be introduced in any court of law where Obama seeks to repress release of any or all documents that he has suppressed.

Whose rights are more important? One individual, who may have something to hide, or the rights of millions of Americans who have the absolute right to know if an elected official is eligible to serve?

We the People have the right to know!

If Obama was born in Hawaii, he was either a citizen, or he was not. I do not believe he was a citizen of the United States “at birth”.

Obama’s Citizenship Status

Amendment XIV of the Constitution states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

US Law States:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401.

Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
1 (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

US law § 1401 1(a) is simply a restatement of the Constitution!

What do the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” mean?

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.”

Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone.

Both Sen. Lyman Trumbull and Sen. Jacob Howard, key figures in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responding to questions of the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States declared it to mean “complete” jurisdiction.

Senator Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the
United States now”.

Senator Trumbull, declared:
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’

“Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Obama was born in the United States under limited jurisdiction and therefore not a citizen at birth!

The opinion rendered by Chief Justice John Marshal in the landmark case, Marbury v. Madison stated:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible…”

Chief Justice Marshall's opinion means that the words of Section 1 of Amendment XIV have effect and any construction that changes the intention of those words is inadmissible!

The interpretation in TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 >1 (a) of the meaning of ” and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” may not override the effect or eliminate the words in the Constitution. It would be inadmissible!

Not only are the words clearly stated in Amendment XIV, but the meaning of those words is clearly defined by the framers.

Neither Congress NOR ANY court has the power to change the meaning of those words! Only We The People can by an Amendment to the Constitution.

Posted on Obama’s website is this admission:

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.

By Obama’s own statement, his citizenship was subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom “at birth”. That is limited, not
complete, US jurisdiction.

By definitions of the requirement, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” supplied by Senators Trumbull and Howard of the
word “jurisdiction”:

OBAMA WAS NOT A US CITIZEN AT BIRTH!

Obama was a citizen of the UK at birth!

Total jurisdiction at birth precludes dual citizenship and based on the 14th Amendment dual citizenship is unconstitutional. A naturalized citizen takes an oath of allegiance to the US and renounces any foreign citizenship.

Bottom line:
Obama was not a citizen of the US at birth (Nor is he a “National”)
Obama was a citizen of the UK at birth (not a dual citizen)
Obama remained in the US with his mother until she married Soetoro.
Soetoro adopts Obama and takes him to Indonesia. (Kenyan or some other passport?)
Obama returns to US ~9 years old. Traveling with citizen mother.

How did he get in?

Obama never becomes a naturalized citizen, Obama is an illegal alien.

If (and there is no record of it) Obama returned and was naturalized, then he would be a naturalized citizen, ineligible to be President of the United States.

I have finally received a letter from Senator Cornyn. I classify it as the typical "bed bug letter".

Since December 29, 2008 I have sent nine (9) letters each to Senators Cornyn, Hutchinson and Rep. John Carter.

It is the only response I have received to the 27 (all 1-3 page letters, with signature) faxed letters sent to their office in Washington, DC.

I would like for every person in the State of Texas that has written our two Senators and their Representative to comment back and let me know how many emails, faxes, US Mail, etc. that they have sent and how many responses they have received and if any response related directly to the question they asked.

I intend to make a record of their responses and let you know the results.

There is strength in numbers. For some reason, each has violated their oath of office. What is that reason? Sooner or later they are going to request us to re-elect them. If the results are as I suspect, I want to ask them why they should be re-elected when they were totally non-responsive to their constituents and violated the oath of office they took when we sent them there to represent us, We The People.