The Constitutionist Updated: Obama is not a natural born citizen

For all those who served, Our Constitution.


This post will be updated soon. Stayed tuned and keep your powder dry! PatriotUSA


This is a must read and please be sure to read this all the way through. This work is becoming more relevant with each passing day. 

Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen!


 'Obama is a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States'

A lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s presence on the 2012 presidential election ballot because of questions over his constitutional eligibility that was thrown out by a judge who earlier determined it wasn’t timely has returned to haunt election officials in the state with a request that the Obama victory results be quashed.

“Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States, and its Constitution, which plaintiff must protect and defend by oath,” according to the complaint, which was delivered to Secretary of State Ken Detzner today.

The case earlier this year was dismissed by Circuit Judge Terry Lewis, who said Obama’s eligibility could not be challenged at that time because under Florida election law, technically, Obama hadn’t been nominated to the position.

As WND reported, Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” had challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the “natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.

In his decision then, Lewis noted that the United States Supreme Court has concluded that “every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”

However, attorney Larry Klayman, who is representing Voeltz, said, “The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same. He quotes other state’s cases, where judges reached that conclusion, but that’s not precedent for him. What other courts said in lower cases means nothing to him.”

Klayman also had been concerned that the judge determined the burden of proof that Obama is ineligible fell on Voeltz – but then refused to authorize discovery in the case which could have confirmed that eligibility status.

“How can you say we have the burden of proof, then not allow discovery?” Klayman asked. “He says we have burden, but doesn’t allow us to meet it.”

And he said Voeltz has standing to bring the case, under Florida law.
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue

The original case sought to exclude Obama from the 2012 ballot. Klayman and Voeltz claimed that Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, because he was born a British subject.

The case cited the evidence produced by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s special investigative unit, which has asserted that the birth documentation from Hawaii that Obama claimed was “proof positive” of his Hawaiian birth is not real.

And Florida law provides that anyone qualified to vote in an election may challenge a candidate based on ‘ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”
Now the new complaint explains the challenge to Obama’s eligibility is “within the proper time frame and venue established by the ‘contest of election’ statutes of Florida.”

“Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States because he was born a British subject of a British subject father, Barack Obama Sr., who was married to the mother of Barack H. Obama at the time…,” it explains.

“Barack Obama Sr., a citizen of the British colony of Kenya, and his children, were subject to the operation of the British Nationality Act of 1948. By the operation of Part 1 Section 1 of that Act, Barack Hussein Obama became a British subject, upon birth to a British subject father. It is not known whether he has lost that birth allegiance to the British crown.”

And, according to the complaint, the natural born citizen clause specifically was inserted to address the possibility of foreign influence at the highest levels of the U.S. government, in the White House. “Law of Nations defines the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ as one born in the country [to] parents who are that country’s citizens.

“Plaintiff Michael C. Voeltz has standing, as a Florida voter, and taxpayer, to challenge the ‘nomination or election of any person to office’ based on the winning candidates’ eligibility for the office sought. … The state of Florida has chosen, by popular election, the electors for Defendant Barack Hussein Obama to be president … Plaintiff has fulfilled all aspects of the Florida election statutes for this challenge of eligibility, as to timing, venue, and indispensable parties.”

The case notes that the complaint is being filed before the Florida electors meet to cast their vote in the Electoral College, a procedure that affirms the popular vote choice made Nov. 6.
The case asks the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission to decertify the Florida General Election upon a “judicial determination of the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as president … and to certify the electors for Mitt Romney as the winner.”

Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.

Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.

Update ends here


This is a work I believe in or I would not be doing this.

If you are needing a great gift, please consider The-Constitutionist!
This ebook is the best bang for your hard earned U.S. dollars, which will be rapidly be losing  more value now the Obama has stolen and bribed himself into a second term as President. I normally do not push for folks to buy things... Well, ceegars, beer, whiskey and guns are always great things to buy.  Bob Gard's ebook is an exception and worthy of your consideration for purchase.This well researched volume is deeply relevant to our Republic's history and the current President, who is NOT a natural born citizen. 

Let me remind all of you that Obama is not, and will NEVER be my President.
This next post will remain at the top for quite some time. I have been working on this for way too long and since we are now post election, the relevancy of this next feed will be of paramount importance. Obama's re-election has assured the importance of this work for now and very far into the future. It also has importance to the past history of the United States going back to the earliest, tumultuous days of our country's birth.

In the run up to the 2012 Presidential election much was made over whether Obama was born in the United States and more importantly whether he is a legally, natural born citizen,  therefore legally qualified to be POTUS. While much was made about the first point, it is the second point that I feel requires much more investigation, research and exposure based upon the truth from said research and the facts. Natural born citizen goes way beyond the 'birther controversy' and there is nothing wrong with the birther story but it lacked substance and traction. Now we been blessed with both, thanks to Bob Gard and his ebook The Constitutionist.

I was fortunate enough to receive one of the first copies of this outstanding ebook a few months back. It would have been better if the release could have come about eight months BEFORE the election but it did not. I have read the entire ebook and it is a massive work. The Reviewers Guide is very important. It will guide you to and and through critical entries, chapters and terminology that will be encountered throughout this work. As an ebook it can be a bit of a challenge to read but once you start the ebook, it becomes a fascinating story of the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention. It does not matter if you are a scholar of American history or a concerned patriot. This ebook will open your mind and eyes as to how illegal Barack Obama is and how he is not a natural born citizen. It will also show how most past President's have trampled over and under our Constitution.

The nature of this work was disclosed to me over a year and half ago. I knew nothing about the author and just a small amount of information about the depth of research was shared with me. I was sworn to absolute secrecy and confidentiality. I was told that the author had copies of books that were read by Jefferson, Washington and others of this foundational generation. Books that are known to be over four hundred years old. I have read many books on the Birth of our nation and so much that was lost to me, came roaring back, to the point that I had tears in my eyes. Why, you might asked could I be so historically and emotionally moved? For love of country, the gift of wisdom and warning that the Founding Fathers gave us with our Constitution. I do know and happen to be friends with the editor.

Remember, I knew virtually nothing about this book before I received my copy. It was not until AFTER I had read most of the ebook when I was approached to help with the distribution of this book over the summer and let me clear, the hour was very late for the ebook's release. When you read through the Conservative Blockade Section at The-Constitutionist.com much of the why and who's will become painfully clear.

Two books that I had previously read come to mind and I beg Mr.Gard's forgiveness in mentioning them. Not to distract from his excellent work but to weave a common path of others warning us about what we could lose, our FREEDOM, if we did not guard the Constitution up to the point of giving our very lives for this most sacred document.

The two books are: The Rewriting of America's History by Catherine Millard, published in 1991. This is not a perfect book but is very memorable for describing how much our history is being rewritten in attempts to make us more international and not uniquely American. The next book is Founding Brothers by Joseph J.Ellis. This book is much more researched and goes into some excellent detail on those who were part of the "Revolutionary Generation" and those who influenced these wise men, and women

The term natural born citizen evokes many images, quite a few definitions and please understand that much of what you are about to read is the culmination of two plus years of research encompassing a lifetime of love for our beloved Founding Fathers, our Constitution and Republic by the author, Bob Gard

Here is just a hint from the prologue in The-Constitutionist.com:
" Back then our schools were flush with liberals. One of my initial attacks on liberal revisionist history was directed at my eighth grade civics teacher when he taught that John Jay’s “natural born Citizen,” which found its way into the presidential eligibility clause by the powerful influence of his best friend George Washington, meant native born Citizen. I lectured my teacher that common sense should have indicated that natural-born and native-born were not equivalents because the framers obviously considered them different by carefully choosing natural-born over native-born for the presidency. I told the teacher that anyone who employed common sense, logic and reason should come to the conclusion that natural-born meant a person born on American soil of two American citizen parents. That did not go over so well.

We argued for days. He won through the power of his position. I lost through the weakness of mine. I never forgot the argument. I dreamed of proving my position someday. That day has come. I did not discover a note in John Jay’s handwriting that revealed his specific definition for the term he used in his famous July 25, 1787 letter to Washington urging the inclusion of the term in the presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution. I did the next best thing. I amassed so much corroborative, correlative, and circumstantial information pointing to the true meaning—a citizen born in an American state of two American citizens—that I am sure that the proof can only be described as beyond a reasonable doubt. Those with an agenda will deny its strength but I guarantee they will not fight with facts. Political correctness and name-calling will be their shield and sword."

Native born citizen usually evokes the same definitions, standards and images as Natural born citizen. They should not and they are not the same. The two terms are as different as night and day, as if it were so simple. I do not see myself as a great scholar nor am I of supreme intellect. What I do have is an intense intellect of common sense and the gift of vision and being able to apply to the past, the present and future. My life was changed forever when I just happened to take one American History Revolutionary War class in college taught by one Dr.Nash. Then came American Military History from 1776-1855 taught by one Dr. Mann. The rest, as they, say is history. AMERICAN and CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.

The Constitutionist
This is an ebook that can and will make a difference in the direction and history of the United States.


Purchase a copy and the link is below. If you contact me through the comments and are truly interested but are unable to afford a copy I will see what might be done to get you one. NO promises and you must prove to me you SERIOUSLY want a copy to read. NO trolls or slaggards.

Welcome to The Constitutionist 

Tags: The Constitutionist, Barack Obama, not elegible, not natural born, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

56 Comments - Share Yours!:

Findalis said...

We can forget about this. We are 7 years too late.

Let's get on with the fight and win the battles we can. Otherwise we will lose everything.

PatriotUSA said...

NO, we cannot forget about this, Findalis.

The country may have seven years too late but those of us working to topple Obama and his agenda are not TOO late. Late, yes as I stated but there is enough negativity on the right at the moment and I refuse to be silenced nor will the fine people who worked long, tireless hours to bring this very good source to us.

This is part of the battle plan. You just cannot go on what I said and need to spend time inside the book.

I would ask that you might link this to MITM to try and help out but will leave that up to you.

We have to be in this together and Conservatives are divided enough as things stand.

I will be silenced when they silence my heart and soul. Not one second before.

Findalis said...

No matter what he will be sworn in. We cannot dislodge him with this, we have tried for 4 years. Anyone who brings this up is destroyed (Donald Trump).

We have to let it go and decide how to proceed against the usurper.

PatriotUSA said...

Yes he will be sworn in and I am sorry you do not see how important this is.

This will not take all of my time or all of anyone's else's time.

If you think we are not 'moving on' with concerned and alarmed conservatives then I am at a loss what to tell you.

Findalis said...

When the Congress goes to Impeach him this will be one issue among many. Why do you think the Patraeus scandal has come emerged just now? There is a bombshell about Benghazi about to explode.

christian soldier said...

Great piece - I skimmed it tonight- and will be back to read it in depth..
My motto for Thanksgiving and for the rest of my life-
Have a grand Thanksgiving- my friend..

PatriotUSA said...

Thank you so much Carol. You have no idea how much what you stated means to me, The author and editor.

Please be sure to go the website for the ebook as it an educational introduction to what this ebook brings to the forefront about being a natural born citizen and being qualified to be POTUS.

Simply put, Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore NOT qualified to POTUS.

Thanks again and may you and yours have a great and wonderful Thanksgiving!

Grog said...

Having compared pictures of obama, obama sr, and frank m.davis, I'm not convinced that obama isn't a non-citizen, but that's a secondary point right now. It will have more relevance down the road, but right now the focus needs to be on not giving in to the doom and gloom mentality, as you typed. It's too easy to focus on the short term and get discouraged, the long term focus is more important.

Stay Safe, as blue sez.

Nick said...


cmblake6 said...

Findalis, it is never too late. Even after it runs through it's second term, if Congress or SCOTUS should hear and decide on this case anything with it's signature on it is legally null and void. The longer it is in the WH, the more garbage we'll have to sort out.

Grog, despite what dna testing might prove, it has claimed the Kenyan father for oh these many years. It ran on that fact, it presented it's forged documentation to that fact. Again we fall into the "know or should have known" clause. And yes, it would undoubtedly fight the case using the bloodline not being of British extraction. Still fraud.

John said...

Someone wrote on PC: ". . .Let me remind all of you that Obama is not, and will NEVER be my President..."

To which I say:

"If you are an American Citizen residing within the boundaries of The United States of America . . . he is most definitely and undeniably YOUR president and everybody else's too.

John Liming

PatriotUSA said...

Hi John and welcome!

I am not sure PC can replace Steve's great site but you are most welcome here.

You might get mugged by other contributors or commentators but everyone is welcome here.

Obama is NOT my POTUS.

He is not even a natural born citizen as proven by Bob Gard's ebook, which I have read, all of it. I did not vote for him as he does not represent the Founding Fathers, Our Constitution and he is an American hating 'alinskyite' traitor. Obama hates American EXCEPTIONALISM and he is NOT my POTUS.

I am sure you will find a lot here to comment on.

Did Steve ever say why he stopped at Cry and Howl?

People have been banned from here but most behave and are polite and all get treated with respect.
The ones who have not were Muslims who came here, lied and spread taqiyya. This is a counter jihadist, No Islam, no islamic sharia law site, Constitutionally based, Founding Father's site.

Do not tell anyone John, I think you are all right. I am RIGHT minded and you are far leftarded. Many of my friends suffer from the same illness as you and we get along quite well.

Quite pleased you jumped in here.

You really should open your site up to comments all the time.

John said...

I am RIGHT minded and you are far leftarded.

Response: This is veery acceptable to me because it is proof positive that I dwell amongst the great majority of Americans these days.

The old argument from the Right that most Americans identify themselves as some kind of "Conservative" seems to have fallen off significantly since the 2012 Presidential elections and statistics are now calling us a "Left Of Center" nation and being a "Leftard" is alright with me - - -I hereby declare myself to be proudly Leftard which, in my view is far better than being conserva-turd.

By the way, Steve is back again.

PatriotUSA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick said...



Argumentum ad populum.



PatriotUSA said...

Oh John, what we are going to do with you?

You are such rascal and you try so hard to be witty.

Voter fraud gave the closet muslim in the White House the election and you know it. It is there in many articles and sources but YOU can find the truth yourself, but you won't. Most mentally ill from liberalism will not do their homework unless it is is huffy poo, daily kos or some other commie pinko site that people like you live at.

Yes, I know Steve is back and I see you are taking a beating as you should there.

Please drop on occasion to remind us of why we hate liberalism and all it's trappings.

Grog said...


dan-14 said...

Oh Lord....voter fraud? Obama won the popular vote by three million. Obama is not your POTUS?
Unless you are denouncing your citizenship, President Obama is your president. That's just a juvenile statement. I didn't even hear that from the Left when W was in office.

PatriotUSA said...

No, the left said much worse about Bush and you know it.

Do not come in here and trash the joint with such 'juvenile' garbage. Your profile is not even public or accessible, why is that you cowardly moron?

NO obama IS NOT my POTUS and I stand on this whether you get it or not. When a POTUS circumvents the Constitution, the law of the land and is a traitor, one who HATES the USA and AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM as he has and will do, he is not my POTUS. He did not win the election, he stole it and the proof is out there. I will let you find the truth and will NOT waste my time and do your research for you.

Get you head outta the ass of PMSNBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, Fox News and seek the truth. But that would be too easy so instead you troll here? Bawahaaa, good ,luck and please return and educate us ignorant, gun totting, Constitution loving evil conservatives.

You need to much better here and you are a perfect example of magical thinking from your comment.

dan-14 said...

Wow, quite the fanatic...wonder who the public would rather see carrying a gun, you or me.
Constitution-loving? Didn't hear much from you when W was trampling the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments.
Regarding my profile, I signed in with my Google acct. I don't see your name posted anywhere so perhaps a case of pot calling the kettle black? I also see under Occupation you listed: Disabled and Patient...quit bitching about the system you feed off of that I pay taxes into, and get a job.

dan-14 said...

Oh, and what do I "need to much better here" and what is "magical thinking" anyway?
Sorry, Obama is your President. Enjoy the new bill that was just passed and gun restrictions to follow! God Bless America!

dan-14 said...

Oh, and name-calling? Last resort of someone who has no argument.

PatriotUSA said...

Disabled and have WORKED my entire banged up life, two spinal fusions with TITANIUM PARTS HOLDING MY SPINE TOGETHER, EIGHT RIGHT SHOULDER surgeries,and how dare you assume anything about me or anyone else like this. I pay for most of my own insurance and you are not owed anything else.

Magical thinking: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22701

If you want more I can find it.

Profile worked fine for me. I will have my guns till the kick the door in and try to take them. I have been legal CCW for years. Gun bill is not passed or close. Want another revolution, keep being a brainwashed libtard.

Defend your positions if can you. Our posts defend ours to the letter.

dan-14 said...

"Libtard"...even your silly name-calling is unoriginal.

Nick said...

Some interesting comments on this thread. The question of whether a state's power is legitimate, always and for everyone within the borders of a nation, is an extremely interesting one.

As it happens I am currently reading Crispin Sartwell's book in which he examines this very issue.

People on the "left" or as G. Edward Griffin has called them, "collectivists" would perhaps, hesitate to question the authority of the state, regardless of the circumstances.

People who regard themselves as free moral agents, first and foremost, would take an entirely different view.

As "Professor Crispy" argues in his book, I would take the position that I am a free individual - that is the default position, if you like - and if the state wants to exert its power upon me in any way, shape or form then that must be justified.

If the state's power cannot be justified then it is by default, illegitimate.

Two entirely different worldview at play here, I suggest.

Interest though ...

PatriotUSA said...

Defend your positions if can you. Our posts defend ours to the letter.

The term stands and here is a another for you: TRAITOR!

Please go back up Obama's rear. The cleaner air might kill you.

Nick said...

Apologies for the typos, I'm doing two things at once here - trying to write a comment and playing hide and seek with my two nieces, LOL ...

Seriously though, the issue is an interesting one. I read a lot of Crispin Sartwell in my philosophy days, and noticed just last week that he had a book out discussing anarchism; more specifically whether the state's authority is legitimate.

He starts from the position that we are all free individuals; moral agents responsible for our own choices in life (in an ultimate, philosophical sense).

He examines some of the theories I remember studying in my political philosophy classes at university, and finds them wanting.

I'd be interested to know what authority dan-14 believes any politician has over himself and his family.

We appear to have stumbled into a discussion of a vitally important political issue here - maybe the most important one of all.

dan-14 said...

You're too funny. You probably believe in UFO's as well.

Nick said...

It is important to remember that all politicians are hired by us on a temporary contract to carry out the administrative duties involved in running the country, and that is all. The idea that a politician has some kind of moral standing above and beyond the citizens who employ him is ridiculous. Take Barack Obama: the man spent years listening to Jeremiah Wright, so who's going to take anything he says about religion seriously now? As for David Cameron, he's nothing but a jumped-up fairground attendant.

Each one of us is an individual, a moral agent capable of exercising their own free will. Any attempt by the state to prevent us from discovering the truth about Islamic doctrines and history, and subsequently passing judgement on them, is a betrayal of who we are as human beings. Politicians may develop grandiose ideas of belonging to an elite group who will control great swathes of the earth, but so far as I am concerned, politicians are about as morally significant as a bug on my car windscreen.

I am a free moral agent. I am more than capable of deciding for myself whether the so-called prophet of Islam really flew about the sky on a horse, whether the moon deity at the heart of Islam is deserving of worship, or whether the Islamic doctrines that take precedence after applying the principle of abrogation to the koran as a whole are deserving of contempt.

And there's not a man or woman alive on the earth today, politician or not, who can tell me otherwise.

From here.

Nick said...

dan-14 seems to be taking the position that there is no escaping the power of the state.

And not only that but the state's exercising such power is legitimate, always and under any circumstances.

So if an agent of the state were to severely curtail dan-14's liberty, in either a financially ruinous or even a fatal manner, he would have no problem with that?

He's be out sleeping beneath a bridge, thinking all was well with the world?

Perhaps he believes that the Nazis at Nuremberg had a legitimate defence, and they shouldn't have been hanged because they weren't doing anything wrong, after all they were only obeying the orders of the state ...

dan-14 said...

Interesting points Nick, and introduced respectfully. Thanks for that.
I agree that Obama listened to Wright - but there are so many others he listened/listens to as well. The same could be said for Bush, and I'm sure for most politicians.
To answer your question, a politician has his/her constituents as final authority. The politician ran on a platform and if they deviate from that they likely won't get re-elected. That's what makes our country great. If we don't like something we change it. Peacefully. Some would argue God would be the authority above a politician - and rightly so if they believe (which I do). If you decide to enter political life, you're working for your constituents, not you or your family. Not all are religious.

PatriotUSA said...

Yes, of course UFO's and that Obama is a legal natural born citizen, which he is NOT and the posted Ebook proves this beyond any doubts, any. I challenge you to read this!

I must go now, the mothership just contacted me telepathically and I need to get to the designated location ASAP for re indoctrination and then be dropped off in DC.

What I believe in is clearly stated here.

dan-14 said...

@Nick, "dan-14 seems to be taking the position that there is no escaping the power of the state."

Where do you read that? That's a stretch. I simply informed the OP that Obama is the President of the United States. If he is a citizen of the US, then Obama is his president, no matter how much he despises that. He can choose not to observe that, but it doesn't make it untrue.
And I questioned where his outrage was when Bush was in office. That's wrong?

And where do you get this beauty: "And not only that but the state's exercising such power is legitimate, always and under any circumstances." Did you not see my questioning about the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments?

And then comparing to the Nazi's? Nice touch. Quite the Straw Men you've created...

So, you're ok with madmen slaughtering children in schools?

PatriotUSA said...

Dan, you are the one who wandered in here.

Nick may be the most intelligent, clear thinking, well researched person I have ever met. There are few his equal especially from the flat earth side of liberal, social, communism.

Findalis said...

Is the state's authority is legitimate?

Yes if the State doesn't try to strip the rights from the people it serves. The minute it does that then it loses its authority.

And I do believe in UFO's. I just don't believe that they are aliens from another world. They are flying objects that one cannot identify as coming from the Earth. But they are not spaceships.

But this is another topic for another posting.

PatriotUSA said...

Perfect Findalis and Happy New Year!

Nick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick said...

(Apologies for deleting the previous comments, I'm just hacking around trying to get the formatting done properly.)

Well, this is interesting, isn't it. Let's look at a little logic. Back in my uni days I had to memorise & practice the traditional valid forms of argument, and the one which I think applies here is MP, or modus ponens. Here it is:

If P then Q
therefore Q

This is not to be confused with the fallacious form of argument known as "affirming the consequent" which would take the form:

If P then Q
therefore P

To illustrate the latter:

If you have no petrol in your tank, then your car's engine will stop.
Your car's engine has stopped.
Therefore you have no petrol in your tank.

You can see how this isn't a good form of argument at all, whereas:

If you have no petrol in your tank, then your car's engine will stop.
You have no petrol in your tank.
Therefore your engine has stopped.

... is much better.

So with that groundwork laid ...

If individual x is not eligible to hold political office y then individual x holding political office y is illegitimate.

Individual x is not eligible to run for political office y.

Therefore individual x holding political office y is illegitimate.

That is the form of the argument being presented by Bob Gard, I believe: MP. So the logic being employed here does appear to be good.

to be continued ...

Nick said...

Just for fun, here are a couple of fallacious arguments of the kind I referred to in my previous comment (affirming the consequent.)

If President Obama is a Christian, then he is not a Muslim.

He is not a Muslim.

So, President Obama is a Christian.

and ...

If President Obama was born in Hawaii, then he is an American citizen.

He is an American citizen.

So, President Obama was born in Hawaii.

Nick said...

So I think I would be right in saying that the argument being presented, using modus ponens, as outlined above, is:

If Barack Obama is not even eligible to run for the position of President, then Barack Obama is currently holding the position of President illegitimately.

Barack Obama is not eligible to run for the position of President.

Therefore Barack Obama is currently holding the position of President illegitimately.

Now I must admit I haven't spent much time on this, I'm pretty much flying by the seat of my pants here, but I think that would be an accurate "bare-bones" outline of the argument being presented.

Anyone see any problems with what I've said so far?

Nick said...

Maybe it's because I have just been reading Crispin Sartwell, but I took your position to be that any and all individuals within the reach of the state must accept the state as it is, and the defining mark of the state (here's Professor Crispy's voice in the back of my mind) is that it can and does exercise power over individuals.

In short: One must accept someone who holds the position of President, even if they hold that position illegitimately, simply because they hold the position of President, and (a state being what it is) you therefore have no choice (for choice read: freedom) in the matter.

So my reading of your initial response was that you were disregarding the possibility of Obama holding the position of President illegitimately, and were well, question begging: Obama is the President, therefore Obama is a legitimate President. Assuming what you're setting out to prove, and you know what assume did: made an ass out of u and me ...

My intent with those extreme examples was to show that there are certain circumstances where individuals can reject the authority of the state, and say NO!

They may be extreme examples, but I do believe that such circumstances could possibly arise.

And if you agree that there are exceptional circumstances in which the authority of the state can be correctly regarded as illegitimate by an individual ...

The question now is - would an individual holding the office of President illegitimately actually be such a set of circumstances?

That is to say: do you agree with the opening premise of the argument, in principle:

If individual x is not eligible to run for position y then individual x holding position y is illegitimate.

And if so, do you agree that it would apply to Barack Obama, as it would to any other individual?

If Barack Obama is not even eligible to run for President, then Barack Obama is holding the office of President illegitimately.

dan-14 said...

Yes Nick, I see problems with what you've said. Your basic premise is false. President Obama is an American citizen. You saying he isn't does not make it so. For heaven's sake, even Beck got off that horse after his birth certificate was shown:


But I'm sure some will scream it's a fake....

Nick said...

Might I add before continuing that in addition to question begging (it seemed to me) you also appeared to be relying on the state's ability to use force to restrict the freedoms of individuals - i.e. saying that you have to accept Barack Obama as President because as President, he has the power of the state behind him, and you as an individual have very little power, so there's nothing you can do. It all breaks down to a power equation: might makes right. This seems to me to be an unsatisfactory response to the argument put to you.

I suggest that if you agree with the form of the argument (that is to say, that the conclusion follows from the premises) and you agree with the opening premise (see previous comment) then you must then address the second premise: Barack Obama is not even eligible to run for President.

And the best way to refute that premise is to show that Barack Obama actually is eligible to run for President.

Should be easy enough, eh?

Good luck.

dan-14 said...

Ok, for argument's sake let's say you're right. It's like an umpire in baseball who made the wrong call. He can admit his mistake but they aren't going to replay the game.
Problem for you is, he's POTUS - you cannot deny this. You might not like it, and you can BELIEVE he is not eligible. But, he is currently the POTUS and, like it or not, he's your leader (assuming you're from the US). He was allowed to run for election. was put on the ballot in all fifty states. Only Arizona tried to remove him from the ballot (and the Conservative Gov. Jan Brewer even disagreed with that attempt). He has been required to provide evidence of his citizenship many times - and done so.

dan-14 said...

Nick, Nick , Nick...I simply stated that Obama is the POTUS. Anyone saying he isn't is delusional. Again, you don't have to like it, you can question his eligibility, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Fact: he provided documentation. Fact: he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania. Fact: a simple Google search of who won the 2012 US Presidential election will show Obama.
If he is not a US citizen, you should be able to come up with legal documentation of the country he was born in. Should be easy enough, eh?

I don't need luck, I just proved my point. Try to twist my words any way you want, but like it or not Obama is the President of the United States. And until you come up with evidence that he is ineligible, he will remain.

Nick said...

The remarks about Obama sitting in front of Jeremiah Wright for decades, so no morally sane person would take anything Obama says about religion seriously, was made in the context of a larger argument which questioned why any political figure would have authority to influence personal religious choices made by individuals.

If I am to have an opinion on Islam, for example, then I must first study it so that I can consider its teachings, judge whether they are good and wholesome, and so forth. I must consider the character of their prophet, who apparently is seen as an ideal man, a moral exemplar for all Muslims to follow at all times, etc.

If I can't inform myself about the doctrines and history of Islam, then how can I make an informed decision about whether to become a Muslim - or reject Islamic teachings as false and harmful?

Yet we have politicians throughout the West preventing certain truths about the doctrines and history of Islam from being accessed by individuals - which I would argue is not their job at all, and which restricts the negative freedom (to use Berlin's concept) in an unacceptable way.

One could argue against this in several ways, but one obvious one is to point out that Barack Obama, for example, is not in a position to say anything to anyone about religious matters, given where he sat on a pew for most of his adult life. If I may put this politely, and give Obama the benefit of the doubt: sitting listening to Jeremiah Wright for decades showed extremely bad judgment - so why should anyone listen to anything Obama says about religious matters now?

If you see where I was coming from there ...

As for saying oh well yes he sat and listened faithfully to Jeremiah Wright for decades, but he was listening to other people too ... well let's be polite again and say that's not a very convincing response, and leave it at that.

Nick said...

Apologies for the typos etc, I'm doing a few different things at once here ... never a good idea, haha ...

Nick said...

"To answer your question, a politician has his/her constituents as final authority. The politician ran on a platform and if they deviate from that they likely won't get re-elected. That's what makes our country great. If we don't like something we change it." - dan-14

Yes we still live in a so-called democracy where large numbers of people can vote and choose from a few different people (if they're lucky.) But that's not really what I was driving at. Let's say that voting still means something, and we can vote certain politicians out after a few years. Ok, that means we have the means to remove someone from office (thankfully that still holds true.)

But what gives someone I never voted for authority over me? Or someone you didn't vote for authority over you? - A different question, which requires a different answer.

It doesn't make sense to say that because you didn't vote for a particular politician, he (or she) has authority over you for a number of years.

To say that they have power over you, but on one day, years down the line, you will have power over them, is to describe a power equation, it's not really a good explanation of why the state has power over an individual.

dan-14 said...

"But what gives someone I never voted for authority over me? Or someone you didn't vote for authority over you? - A different question, which requires a different answer."

Nothing. Obama cannot come over and demand you do this or that. You can't break laws and use your reasoning as an excuse though.

I wasn't thrilled to call George W. Bush my president, but he was. I am a citizen of the US and he was the elected leader. Now, if I took your stance and said I would not recognize that - so be it - as long as I abide the law.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you inferring that if you don't like the President, or, you do not believe him to be eligible to be President, that anarchism would be your solution?

PatriotUSA said...

I suggest you go to the ebook's website and look at the preview and all else that is there.

Are you this dense? I have read every page of this ebook and much more and the POS POTUS is NOT a natural born citizen and is therefore NOT qualified to be POTUS.

This goes way beyond the birther issue but you must figure this out for yourself. No one here is going to wet nurse you. You are correct, I do not like the POTUS and it would make no diffrence who was in there. If he/she did the thing things this traitor did, I would dislike them equally.
Obama is not a NBC, period.

Anarchy, a second revolution? If that is what is needed to right the ship, so be it. I have NO hesitations in giving my life for freedom and liberty as established by the Founding Fathers and our Constitution.

Now do you get it?

PatriotUSA said...

My apologies, Nick. I had to jump in here as this is just too far fetched that Dan cannot get this or what you are saying.

dan-14 said...

Patriot, you obviously have no debating skills. It's your point and nothing else. Who's the sheep here? I wish I could say it's been interesting, and some of what Nick says is (wish he was a US citizen though to be making the comments he has), but you Patriot are just too foolish. You can't argue. You resort to name-calling. You are what makes the Right look so bad at times.
You state "I have NO hesitations in giving my life for freedom and liberty"...sure you don't. Then why are you alive? You've had plenty of opportunities to give your life.
You allow people with the ability to present their arguments in a civil manner to post on this site and all you can do is piggy-back off of them. Your contribution? Name-calling and insults...Well done patriot, well done. And you are no patriot. I served in the Marines, as did my father and grandfather. You are nothing but a coward. Don't bother responding, I won't be back to read it. I doubt you'll even post this.

PatriotUSA said...

I post every comment, dan unless they are foul and overtly offensive. I come from a family that has served in all of the military services. Father, Grand father, all my uncles. Myself, body too banged up from a very young age but that is personal and NOYB.

Thanks for your service!

A coward? That is so typical and i would even defend the likes of you.

I do not bother with people like you and you have impressed no one here. This is not a forum for pissing contests, find that elsewhere.

I could care less whether you see this or not or whether you return.

Please, spare us and maybe you need to hang out ay Huffy Poo or Daily Kos?

Nick said...

I've tried to lay out a few thoughts I had on the logic behind the illegitimacy argument here.

Nick said...

And might I add, old dan-14 has opened himself up to a charge of hypocrisy, following his ad hominem remarks aimed at the blog owner. Further, I happen to know the owner of the blog, and not only is he a man of great personal integrity and courage, he has done more for American veterans over the years than dan-14 will ever know about. Just thought I'd set the record straight there ... now getting back to the matter at hand, can I just say again that I have tried to outline some of the logic behind Bob Gard's book here.