Guten Tag!

Dear Upright, Honest, Moral, and Constitutionally Firm Citizens Who Read This Long Commentary:

Perhaps some of you have the resolve to tackle my questions. Perhaps you have better connections, resources, and experience than I have. I have written to 100 US constitutional law professors in the United States of America and legal organizations. I have not received an answer from them, except for one constitutional law professor. I shall tell you what he summarily said at the end of this commentary. I shall keep their names a secret, for the present at least. in order to protect the guilty. I have followed your quest and the quest of other internet commentators to rectify the deplorable breaking of the Supreme Law of the Land by Barack Hussein Obama, The Usurper of Republican Democracy – the acronym is valid – and other elected officials who took oaths of office to protect the United States Constitution from all dangers domestic and foreign. I wish you all the greatest of success in your undertakings.

I live in Germany. But I am not German. I am an American citizen. I have no background in US constitutional law other than an undergraduate course that I took over twenty-five years ago. I understand enough legalistic English and logic to know that a Certification of Live Birth and a real Birth Certificate are not the same document. I know that both documents, indeed, all documents including Selective Service Registrations and university degrees can be forged. (When money is involved, there is a way! Barack Hussein Obama has the money behind him. It is not his money, but that of those who seek to destroy the United States of America.) I also know the difference between a native born citizen, a naturalized citizen, and a natural born citizen. They are not the same. Consequently, I have some questions concerning the breaking of the law of the Constitution of the United States of America. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The questions are:

1. Is the breaking of the law of the US Constitution a crime?

2. If so, what kind of crime is it? Would it fall under misdemeanor?, criminal statute? civil statute? Are the breakings of the laws in the different Articles of the Constitution different types of crimes? Is it not treason?

3. Can the Supreme Court of the United States take the initiative on its own and investigate and find someone guilty of breaking the law of the US Constitution and impose a penalty, perhaps for perjury and/or treason?

4. If a penalty is imposed, what authority is there to make sure that the penalty is executed?

5. If a person intentionally breaks the law of the US Constitution but is never accused of doing so, is that person still a non-criminal. My reasoning of logic tells me NO. That person is and will always be a criminal ad infinitum. We can devise an example of the logic as follows:

Our major premise is: All X are Y. This being can never be undone.
Our minor premise is: All Z are X. This being can never be undone.
Our conclusion is: All Z are Y. This being can never be undone.

The relationships of these beings cannot be changed. Never! Not now! Not in the future! Not retroactively!

It is a law of Nature that is just as true as the sum of one plus one is two.
This will always be the case into infinity.
There is no law that can break this rule of logic.
It is the law of Nature (God).

According to the philosophy of logic the person is and will always be guilty.

Now for a practical application:

As an example that pertains to the eligibility status of the President of the United States, I reiterate Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the American Constitution states that

“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 have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

The Constitution of the United States of America is a public document. It is not a secret document. The power comes from “We the people.” Therefore, the requirements of the Articles of the US Constitution are public and not secret.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 thus states that along with the age and resident requirements, the other absolutely necessary requirement to become President of the United States of America is that the candidate must be a natural born citizen. In every law book and all theories of law that I have researched, natural born means those born in the country, of parents who are both citizens of the country. In the case of the United States of America, the child’s parents must both be American citizens when the child is born in order that the child can meet the qualifications to candidate as a future President of the United States of America. My information is that Barack Hussein Obama’s mother was not of legal age to possess United States of America citizenship when she gave birth to her son, and we know for a fact that Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a Kenyan/British citizen at the time of the son’s birth. Therefore, the place of birth is not relevant, only the natural born qualification is relevant.

My logic and the logic of the Law of Nature and the Supreme Law of the Land, tells me:

- THE MAJOR PREMISE IS: a person must be eligible to be President of the United States.
- THE MINOR PREMISE IS: Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States is not identified (established, shown to be true, demonstrated, manifested, evinced, documented, backed up, supported, upheld, sustained, affirmed, confirmed or any other synonym).

- THE CONCLUSION IS: The only conclusion is that Barack Hussein Obama cannot be President of the United States of America.

6. How can Barack Hussein Obama be President of the United States of America when the logic of the situation says otherwise and the Supreme Law of the Land says otherwise? Barack Hussein Obama evidently and I maintain intentionally broke the Supreme Law of the Land.

Surely this cannot be a matter of Constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Law of the Land is explicit and in this matter leaves no leeway for interpretation. A candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America is either natural born or not. If the candidate is not a natural born citizen, that person cannot candidate for the office. If he does he is criminal and all of those who backed him up in being a candidate for office are accomplices in the crime.

7. What are the legal situations concerning all laws, appointments, presidential decrees that Barack Hussein Obama has signed? If he is not President of the United States of America because both the logic of the situation and the Supreme Law of the Land say otherwise, how can they be legal? It seems to me that they cannot be legal.

8. Furthermore, why should any of the following government officials who took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America: elected representatives, senators, law officials, governors, state representatives, and state senators, accept the laws, nominees, and decrees as signed by Barack Hussein Obama as being official? There is no legality involved in his signature.

9. The logic above and the logic of the Supreme Law of the Land tell me that Barack Hussein Obama has committed a criminal offense. If Barack Hussein Obama remains the unconstitutional President of the United States of America, does this not mean that regardless of what time in the future, indeed, at any time in the future, Barack Hussein Obama is still a criminal? Ergo: Once a criminal always a criminal?

10. Moreover, since Barack Hussein Obama does not meet the natural born citizen requirement, and he knows it, the violation of the Constitution was intended. When he swore the presidential oath that is dictated by the Constitution, he swore to uphold the Constitution. Was he swearing to uphold his own violation of the Supreme Law of the Land or was he swearing to uphold the legality of the Constitution? He was swearing to uphold the legality of the Constitution and he knew that he had committed a crime by breaking this reality. Because Barack Hussein Obama is not indicting himself for breaking the law of the Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama is placing himself above the Supreme Law of the Land. This in itself is against the law of the Constitution. Is this action not considered a high crime – treason – against the United States of America?

This alone is ground enough for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama and the legal, constitutional process of removing him from office. I see no reason why Barack Hussein Obama cannot be impeached, other than the fact that the Republican Representatives and Senators do not have a majority in Congress. Impeachment would not be admitting that Barack Hussein Obama is an American citizen. If one considers the situation seriously, Barack Hussein Obama’s being an unconstitutional resident could result in the United States military resolving the unconstitutional status. There is nothing in the US Constitution, as far as I can see, that would prohibit the process. In fact, it would be a process similar to that which the Supreme Court of Honduras legally implemented according to the rules of the Honduras’ Constitution to oust their life-time-seeking-president Manuel Zelaya on 28 June 2009. The procedure was totally legal!

11. If one article of the Constitution of the United States can be broken and go non-punishable, why cannot all articles be broken and thus make the whole Constitution null and void?

12. If the breaking of the law of the US Constitution is not a crime and non-punishable, and one places oneself above the Supreme Law of the Land, as if to say the end justifies the means and the document means nothing, then what is the sense of having a Constitution?

Now to return to the statement that I received from a professor of United States Constitutional Law. His summary conclusion is: “But I don’t see how anyone can say Obama committed a crime by accepting the office certified to him by the electors.”
By electors he means both the electoral college and the American electorate.

I am flabbergasted at this answer coming from a professor of United States Constitutional Law and a Harvard University graduate. It reminds me of the statement that is attributed to the American author James Barnes (1866-1936) that says: “You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much.” I state it with respect to the said professor, regardless of the fact that any reader of this commentary might have graduated from Harvard University.

What is/are your opinion(s)?

Perhaps you will have the fortitude to take my questions seriously and take the time to search for some answers and support all endeavors to unseat Barack Hussein Obama and his Fascist Appointees Representing Tyrannical Socialism. This acronym is also valid. Socialism stinks and it is full of hot air!

I have written all of you readers in blogger land a personal commentary. Herewith I state that I am a three-time post-graduate academic and I have the paper trail to prove my legal existence and academic status.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

Salve

What bothers a number of us though is why “Mr. Transparent” refuses to divulge this kind of information about himself like every other office holder does. It isn’t just that won’t show is birth certificate, it’s the fact that he is hiding all of his history, his school records, etc. Much of the story he has told about his past is just made up.

This all suggests that he is either hiding something, or he is paranoid. If he is hiding something, we need to find out what it is. If he is paranoid, he is of a state of mind that makes him poorly suited to be President.

My question to all the birthers is: Why are you spending so much time and effort on this, when its obvious he should be impeached for the reasons I’ve given in The Big List? It is a fact that he should be impeached. The fact is well documented on my Big List page. The problem is getting the members of the House of Representatives to fulfill their oaths. They are not fulfilling their own oaths which requires them to impeach the guy.