From Conception...To Election

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..." Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Monday, April 16, 2012


NO HYPOCRISY: Until corrupt power brokers within the U.S. government are forced by the American people to engage the presidential eligibility question with maturity and responsibility to their sworn oath to protect the Constitution, more and more highly regarded candidates, like Marco Rubio, are going to find themselves embattled and undermined by doubts about their Constitutional legitimacy.

Commentary by Pen Johannson
Editor, The DAILY PEN

NEW YORK, NY - Marco Rubio, like Barack Obama, has been declared ineligible to hold the office of the U.S. Presidency or Vice President by the U.S. Constitution...and Senate Resolution 511.

In 2008, congress put itself in a no-win situation by inadequately defining "natural born" eligibility, for mere political expediency when, in an effort to distract attention away from Barack Obama's lack of eligibility, they haphazardly passed an eligibility resolution (SR 511) on behalf of John McCain, after reviewing historical documentation submitted by McCain, which declared him eligible for the 2008 Presidential election, despite his birth in Panama.

The resolution endowed McCain with non-legally binding, congressionally recognized, eligibility by virtue of his birth to two citizen parents while his father was serving in the U.S. military. A qualification which neither Rubio, nor Obama, currently meet.

Congress and the Judiciary have refused to address Obama's ineligibility in any way whatsoever.

Moreover, even more significant is that nearly 10 percent of the American people have said they will refuse to vote for any vice presidential candidate, and thus the presidential candidate, if that individual is not eligible by their definition of a natural born citizen. Fortunately for America, these constitutionalists are mostly conservative. Unfortunately for Republican politicians, this extrapolates to about 20% of the Republican party which will need those votes to oust the usurper Obama by an election process.

Without those critical votes, a Romney/Rubio GOP ticket will most certainly bring ALL republicans, not just the courageous, to suddenly care about the so-called "birther" movement and the legal process they have pursued in seeking a definitive declaration to the meaning of the term "natural born citizen". The risk of losing an election by default suddenly makes Obama's eligibility a matter for legal resolution, not political resolution.

Then again, the restoration of honor and truth begins with the honorable.

It's ironic how the threat of removing political power from politicians suddenly makes them scurry to the courts for a remedy. On the positive side, there will be millions of eligibility seekers ready to welcome them on the courthouse steps. Welcome to the party!

Republicans must understand that eligibility-conscious voters simply will not support Marco Rubio as a running mate, regardless of his popularity, unless change is made to the Constitution by a legal process. They will abstain from the next election as a matter of honor and principle to uphold the blood ransom paid for the Constitution. End of discussion.

Ergo, Barack Obama, already the unconstitutional incumbent, will be fraudulently elected again by default because his constituency has no honor for the Constitution anyway, causing what many political analysts have called an apocalyptic rebellion.

Regardless, those who have sworn to uphold the eligibility mandate for ALL presidential candidates will not participate in a fraudulent election wrought with deceivers, liars and ineligible candidates. They would rather take their chances in revolution than be served by an illegitimate government and shamed party affiliation.

Unable to endow Barack Obama with unanimous legitimacy over this same issue, the political species, and their American media letches, are being forced to understand that leadership eligibility, qualified by advanced human citizenship, can only be achieved when political candidates are measured equally by the same laws which apply to everyone under the Constitution.

Refusal to acknowledge this moral and legal deficit is breeding a contemptuous, but potently righteous, generation of extremely powerful and highly adept anti-governmental citizens. History has proven, time after time, that even the most powerful governments in the world have been defeated under the revolutionary power of vintage American heritage when they have strayed from the rule of law by the people, for the people.

As our current government continues to stray from its requisite purpose to uphold and protect the Constitution, it is drawing dangerously close to incitement of a meted resistance.

Whereas political interests and power lust will always push against the morality of our esteemed bureaucratic slew, forcing many of the inferior slag into criminality, the Constitution was brilliantly and purposely composed with divinely inspired language to be the inescapable silent authority which convicts their lawlessness.

The Constitution is forever correct...but amendable.

That being said, its time for someone to submit a multipartisan bill to amend the Constitution so exceptional leaders like Marco Rubio can run for president.

In the same unconstitutional posture by which Barack Obama was lauded by his misguided Democratic constituency, the willfully ignorant Republicans have their popularity contestant in Rubio. Rubio is one of the most well regarded members of Congress while Obama has served his liberal consensus as one of its most beloved radical change agents in American history.

Unfortunately, however, both men are currently constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the president or vice president under Article II of the eligibility mandate.

Unfortunately for Obama, the Constitution was not revised on his behalf prior to his fraudulent election in 2008 rendering him America’s first unconstitutional president.

As reported by WND this week, the Florida Senator Rubio has been heavily favored as a potential Republican vice presidential candidate. However, a document recently found in the National Archives indicates that Rubio is actually constitutionally ineligible to serve as president or vice president.

It appears that Rubio’s father, Mario Rubio filed a Petition for Naturalization in September of 1975, confirming that Marco Rubio was around four years old when his parents became U.S. citizens.

Since Marco Rubio was born in Florida in 1971, four years prior to the filing of the Petition, this would mean that he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents as required under the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” to be eligible for the nation’s highest executive office.


In passing SR 511 for such despicable reasons as providing political cover for Obama, the Senate undermined the American electoral system and attempted to disregard the Constitution's requirement that a candidate must be born in the U.S. while acknowledging that it required birth to two U.S. citizen parents, a declaration which astonishingly and hypocritically disqualifies Barack Obama.

Therefore, declaring Rubio eligible by a similar resolution, like SR 511, would require Congress to undo its previous definition of eligibility by U.S. citizen parentage, as it applied for McCain, in order to endow place of birth on U.S. soil as the only eligibility requirement for Rubio, since his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

Such a despicable and blatently political hypocrisy would be the end game for an already highly unfavored congress whose disapproval rating is around 80 percent!

This same issue has undermined Barack Obama since before the 2008 election when his credentials and identity were first questioned by staunch Hillary Clinton PUMA supporters. Soon thereafter, multiple court challenges to Obama’s claims to presidential eligibility have ensued. Most have been unlawfully dismissed by a cowardice judicial system without consideration of the evidence because it is easier for foul purveyors in our legal system to ignore the greivances of the people than the violent usurpation of Constitutional power by the politically ambitious.

Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii in 1961, but the image of his alleged original Certificate of Live Birth which was posted on the White House in April 2011 has been determined by multiple document experts as well as a six-month law enforcement investigation to be a digitally fabricated counterfeit. The document shows multiple inconsistencies and anomalies, including extraneous graphic artifacts and misspellings which do not appear on any other Hawaiian vital record. Digital forensic analysis reveals a cut-and-paste composition from other document sources, as well.

Despite the forgery, however, if Obama could even document a Hawaii birth, he still would not qualify as a “natural born citizen” of the United States since he was not born of two U.S. citizen parents. Obama’s alleged father, as stated on the fake Certificate as well as documented worldwide in the press, was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

Compounding the controversy over modern interpretations over presidential eligibility is the fact that modern American society lacks the intellectual acuity to assign accurate meaning to the Constitutional term "natural born citizen" because most lack an understanding of our vintage American heritage and the blood ransom paid to obtain it.

The term "natural-born citizen" was such a common part of social and legal language of the 1700s it renders today's Americans ignorant to the fact that a clarification within the Constitution was seen by the more intellectually adept framers as unnecessary. For them, such a remedial explanation of the meaning of "natural born" would have been on par with demonstrating basic arithmetic to a mathematical genius.

A "naturally born" eligible presidential candidate is one who is born in a geographic location (U.S. soil) under the protection of the U.S. Constitution to TWO U.S. citizen parents without any interruption of their natural-born citizenship status occurring between birth and election.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. SR511 is garbage. The Congress has NO interpretive power; they have no constitutional authorization to deem anything in the Constitution constitutional. At this point, the only arbiter of who is eligible and who is not lies with the SCOTUS. Period.

    Moreover, I am stunned that a you find it unfortunate that Rubio and Obama are ineligible. There is nothing to apologize for in that provision. To suggest otherwise calls your credibility into serious question.

    1. 57th,

      I believe you might be misinterpreting the message of the post.

      It is meant to indict congress for its rank hypocrisy in covering for Obama's ineligibility while putting itself in a position which agrees with what you have said above...they have no interpretive power and, thus, SR511 was a sham. Only the judicial system has jurisdiction, not Congress. We are in agreement.

      Of course congress has no authority to define the Constitutional eligibility mandate, but that it attempted to assume jurisdiction fraudulently with the resolution should show everyone what a bunch of power lusting, politically blinded degenerates we have serving there.

      Secondly, you certainly misinterpreted my point on Rubio's and Obama's ineligibility. AN INELIGIBLE CANDIDATE IS NOT HARMED BY BEING DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO RUN FOR OFFICE! The unfortunate thing about Obama is that he was actually allowed to be placed on a ballot, let alone have actual votes cast for him.

      My intented point is that if Rubio is to be allowed on any presidential ballot, the Constitution must first be amended, by the accepted legal process, in order to permit it. No apologies! If that does not happen prior to the 2012 election, he is as ineligible as Obama.

      My apologies if the explanation was not as clear as intended. I am comfortable with our credibility on this highly volatile issue following endorsements throughout the past five years.

      Thanks for checking in.

    2. I suppose your irony escaped me. I appreciate your clarification. I'm glad to know that the earth is still round, because when I read your article I was having a hard time believing what I was reading.

      Keep up the strong work!

    3. The Constitution says NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Not "born to U.S. citizens" you goofs! No amendment has to be passed. That's the most retarded interpretation I have heard! The whole 2 US parents thing goes to whether you were born ABROAD on a US military base. Get a freakin clue!

    4. It's true that Congress has no interpretive power, only the power to pass laws based on already established SCOTUS precedents? (Correct me if I'm wrong here.) Perhaps that's what they were doing, indirectly evoking Minor v Happersett (, which clearly set (at least a judicial) precedent on what 'natural born citizen' meant. Perhaps the few folks that framed SR511 aren't as stupid as you think they are.

      For reference, Minor v. Happersett states:

      “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168. (Source: Cornell UniversityCornell Law School, Legal Information Institute,

    5. Oh and for the record, I'd love to see Rubio run with Romney .. the Obama camp and all his 'bots' could not say a WORD about the two-parent citizenship eligibility without also including Obama himself in the mix. It would be 'poetic justice' seeing Romney and Rubio in the WH. Rubio carries great weight with FL and as a Hispanic.

  3. You do realize that none of this applies to people born in the United States, right. For example, Rubio and Obama. Which part of the constitution needs to be amended? McCain was born to 2 American citizens on a U.S. military base. The fact the he was born OUTSIDE of the country is why is eligibility cane up.

    You've already admitted in your article that Rubio was born in Florida. Do you think someone faked the birth announcement for Obama in Hawaii newspapers?

    Do better.

    1. Obama INELIGIBLE!!
      A crushing situation is emerging for, not only Barack Obama, but also for the American people
      as a landmark statement has been made by the Obama administration that is going to turn the
      entire 2012 Presidential race and potentially much more on its head.
      Lawyers representing the current sitting President of the United States of America have been
      forced, under penalty of perjury, to admit that the long-form birth certificate presented by the
      White House in April of 2011 is a total forgery. (Also a FELONY, as he claimed it as his
      Birth Certificate... I had a copy of his Kenyan TRUE Birth Certificate!!))

    2. You are absolutely correct, and I have replies from Senators stating the same with regard to this issue. Currently, as interpreted by our Legislative Branch, the ONLY requirement that matters in Obama and Rubio's case is that they were born on U.S. soil. That's it. If their parents were Micky and Minnie Mouse it would make no difference.

      Until the SCOTUS should take this up and clarify, there is nothing to see here.

  4. Pen, the 800 lb gorilla your article fails to recognize is Romney's ineligibility. His father was a citizen of Mexico, not America. Romney does not meet the criteria for "natural born". To me, this is the best explanation for why the Republicans have been silent on Obama's eligibility. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

    1. ummmm... Are you on crack? His father was NOT a citizen of Mexico. Romney was born to American parents living in the Mormon colonies in Mexico; events during the Mexican Revolution forced his family to flee back to the United States when he was a child. This in NO WAY makes George W. Romney, former governor of Michigan a "citizen of Mexico", mostly because Mexico wasn't even an independent nation at the time. Romney was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1968. While initially a front-runner, he proved an ineffective campaigner, and fell behind Richard Nixon in polls. Mitt Romney's grandparents, Gaskell Romney (1871–1955) and Anna Amelia Pratt (1876–1926), were American citizens and natives of Utah. While his FATHER may have been ineligible to run for president (not being born on US soil), He's been dead for 17 years. Mitt was born in the US to 2 US citizens.


    2. The Constitution says NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Not "born to U.S. citizens" you goof! That's the most retarded interpretation I have heard! The whole 2 US parents thing goes to whether you were born ABROAD on a US military base. Get a freakin clue!
      It scares me that THESE are the people in the voting booth determining our fate!

    3. Being on a US military base abroad while serving under US official orders is most certainly "US territory". A child born to 2 US citizen parents stationed there on orders is as "geographically correct" as any child born in the 50 States. But... the child must not be given to foreigners to adopt, or elect to become a citizen of a different country before being elected to a position in the POTUS succession.

      BHO was wrong on 2 of the 3 counts: 1. one parent was not a Citizen of the USA at the time of his birth (BO, Sr was Kenyan national legally present on a student visa), and 2. BHO was adopted and assumed required Indonesian citizenship.
      He was legally a Senator from the State of IL, and they deserve him.

      OT: Mrs. BHO IS a US "naturally born US person" who does seem to have political aspirations, like Mrs. Clinton does. She is qualified, and old enough to hold the office. God help us.


  5. I cannot believe that 4 years later people have not educated themselves. CAdamP, If your claim is true, then ANY anchor baby could be POTUS? I think not. A Islamic terrorist and one of his wives could come here for their kid's birth, take the kid back to Muslimland, then 14 years prior to an election this "US Citizen" could move here, reside for 14 years, and run for POTUS? Nope, I think not. Wasn't this the issue with Arnold? And as far as the "newspaper birth announcements" - YOU do better. There are no such announcements. They only live in cyberspace. Do your homework. Yes Rubio was born in Fla & BO was born who knows where, but neither of them had two citizen parents at the time of their birth.
    And Lori, yes, you have a point - I will leave it at - we are not SURE about Romney? Unless he can show me that his father was a US Citizen at the time he (Mitt) was born, Romney has a problem too.
    Why is this so difficult? Meaning why is it so difficult to get a clearly legal candidate??

    1. We have a clearly legal candidate who is also an honest, incorruptable man- Dr. Ron Paul and he is winning delegates right and left, so we will only have to deal with Obama being the illegal and no one else when Dr. Paul faces off against the imposter Barry Santoro.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Dawn, the reason why it is so difficult is that the establishment power-brokers only care about retaining power, and don't give a rat's @$$ about honor, integrity or the Constitution. I disagree with the author that we need to amend the Constitution so Rubio, wonderful as he is, can run for the office. This Country has many wonderful, patriotic men and women that are currently eligible, and would run for high office if the stink would be cleared out first. I have many friends that try to talk me into running regularly, but I would not put my family through a compaign for high office. The Constitution is fine, and a few amendments should be repealed to restore the founders' vision rather than continue to move further away.

  8. George Romney's parents were U.S. citizens. He did not need to be naturalized because of this. Being born to two U.S. citizens although abroad, gave him U.S. citizenship.

  9. The Constitution spells out clearly eligibility requirements, should those requisites not be met in any capacity, the nominee should be disqualified, END OF STORY!! Therefore, for congress to simply assume they had the power to amend the Constitution with SR 511, was a complete sham and was abusive of the powers as set forth within the Consitution.

    Our Government was created to protect the rights of the individual, not to promulgate laws to restrain or otherwise control its citizens. For instance, Government wishes to and MANDATES contract with the people by the requirement and issuance of licenses to all those wishing to "drive" when reality of if is that as long as you[the people} are NOT engaging in commerce, ie beng paid, you have the RIGHT to TRAVEL FREELY within the the US unrestrained. The fact that licensure is required, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that you UNWILLINGLY gave up your right to travel freely by being force to apply for and receive licensure and registrations. "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by AUTOMOBILE, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

    "Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

    "Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.

    As you can see, courts have upheld the notion that every citizen has the right to travel and licensure is not required so long as they are not conducting business for personal gain. This also demonstrates how the Government has completely overstepped its powers as granted within the Constitution.

  10. You hit the nail on the head. I have been bothered by this for a long time and each and everytime it is mentioned in the media. Thanks for being the trigger that caused me to finally write to Senator Rubio. Here is my letter to him via his today and in tomorrow's snail mail.

    April 20, 2012
    FL Senator Marco Rubio
    317 Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510
    Phone: 202-224-3041

    Dear Senator Rubio,

    Something has been bothering me for awhile and when I heard you flub the answer to the VP question I decided to write you. No, I am not one of your constituents. I am unfortunately cursed with the representation of Senators Boxer and Feinstein and Representative Waxman. As with any elected official it is anticipated that they would represent all of us, however I have found very deaf ears.

    Are you aware of the objective of the MSM as aligned with the DNC and possibly the GOP to use you to destroy this great country, I have heard you say, you love? Or is it on purpose that you allow them to speculate on your candidacy for VP? Jeb Bush, today, offered you up as Mitt Romney’s running mate. Many of us love our country as you do but are without voice to stop the progressives from stealing one of the greatest gifts God gave us beyond his son Jesus Christ. Also it seems the Tea Party phenomenon has not been as successful as we had hoped.

    You may ask, how are you being used? From the point of view of many, there is an ineligible office holder in the White House. Constitutionally it can be confirmed, it takes two citizen parents when one is born to be a “natural born citizen” the main qualification. It is my understanding that your parents were not American citizens when you were born. All the obfuscation and ignoring this will not change the fact that either you or Obama is not qualified for the office of POTUS. Your name is constantly brought up as the VP candidate for whoever is chosen for the GOP. You seem, to many, to be extremely articulate and well educated which makes you really likable to the masses. What I find disturbing is that you do not address the issue of eligibility head on. The more your name is brought up or thrown into the ring the less anyone pays attention to what the Constitution says, just like 2008. A simple statement from you of “I’m not qualified under Article II, Section I, Clause V to be President or Vice President” would change the discourse and put an end to the candidacy of Barak Obama as he has yet to present any evidence that isn’t forged of his citizenship.

    You will be used to destroy this country if you succumb to the pressure or the attraction of the fame & fortune of the office of Vice President by accepting the nomination. Twenty percent of the conservative voting bloc, in my estimation, will abstain from voting for another unqualified candidate. Do you think a Romney/Rubio ticket can win without that 20% of the vote? That 20% Sir will definitely insure the re-election of the current office holder, an unacceptable outcome for the 2012 election.

    You Sir will have been used because you and others like you refuse to address the eligibility issue against the best interests of America. My hope for you and our country is that you stay in the Senate and become a force for change that takes that institution back to the stature it once had, one that truly honors the Constitution as written. We need people like you to bring the freedoms we have lost in my lifetime back for future generations to enjoy.


    Lloyd Carter
    Westlake Village, CA
    (818) 206-8232

    1. The Constitution says NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Not "born to U.S. citizens" you goof! That's the most retarded interpretation I have heard! The whole 2 US parents thing is only relevent when you were born ABROAD on a US military base. Get a freakin clue!

    2. Your problem is that YOU don't have the intelligence to interpret NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The U.S. Supreme Court DID interpret the term in 1875 in the Supreme Court Case Minor v. Happersett. This is THEIR interpretation of a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (Not just some random poster saying, "not 'born to U.S. citizens' you goof!"

      Once again this is the interpretation of the U.S Supreme Court in 1875: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of PARENTS who were its CITIZENS became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

      According to this SUPREME COURT interpretation a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is someone born in the U.S. to TWO CITIZENS! If you have a problem with this then you need have it out with the Supreme Court. They have already decided this argument a long time ago!

    3. I see skacinom not only cannot think, they also cannot read and they continue to post the exact same thing over and over and over...

  11. I don't care which party the President is a member of, if s/he is there illegally and under false pretenses, s/he should be removed. Period.

  12. Why has this not hit the major news media? I have searched in vain for it, even on FOX and have come up with nothing.

  13. Here is something none of has recognized but which was pointed out to me 3 years ago by an associate professor at Notre Dame (a life-long registered Democrat). According to the Professor, if BHO is unqualified for the office he holds and he and the people who nominated him for/helped him to win the office knew it, then he and all who assisted him have effected nothing less than a coup d'etat! That's right, a coup d'etat. You know, those things which happen elsewhere but can't possibly happen HERE because WE have a constitution. Yup! Can't happen here. BUT IT DID!!!

    Please also note that people who successfully effect coups d'etat don't, as a rule, give up their ill gotten power voluntarily.

  14. uuuh, excuse me, that obama lawyer in the NJ hearing DID NOT state or imply that the BS obama released was fraudulent or not. her point relating to it was that the BS did not apply to the case they were arguing about in court, which was whether obama is eligible to get onto the NJ primary ballot. anyone here, please post the transcript or the part of it, or some proof positive, that obama's lawyer states that the BS obama released is "fraudulent", in so many words.
    someone on the internet SAYING that the obama lawyer said the BS was fraudulent is not proof of anything! wake up

    1. Mike,

      According to those present in the court room and Ms. Hill's own arguments, her statement agreeing that the plaintiffs that the image of the Obama's BC is not authentic and that they "are great arguments" impies nothing less than she understands the evidence proving it was forged. This implications also explains why attorneys representing Obama are desperately seeking to prevent testimony about the BC's authenticity and from it actually being entered into the record as evidence.

      Please listen carefully to the hearing and you will hear Ms. Hill concede this in her reply.

      Thank you for checking in.


    2. The fact of the matter is still so simple it's stupid. Should the President have an authentic signed, sealed and stamped verifiable copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate, his lawyer in this case would simply produce it at this, or any other hearing and it would be over. There would be NO FURTHER DISCUSSION on the matter. It would be a much simpler resolution to the matter than the alternative, which is to argue that the document is irrelevant.

      He cannot prove he was born in Hawaii. There is no birth certificate on record in either the hospital, nor the offices of the Hawaiian government. If there were, we would ALL have seen them and not some bogus digital image any high school senior can prove a fake.

  15. Graet detail news.I like its so much.Islam in panama