Patrick,  (or Hello Central)

It's time to set the record straight about Obama's eligibility and I can't believe this controversy still exists. Let's end this silly matter right now. I have a background in Constitutional Law research and I know the truth on this issue. His eligibility to be President has absolutely nothing to do with where he was born so people should stop wasting their time looking for his real birth certificate. Everyone claiming to have proof that he was born in Kenya doesn't realize that it doesn't matter where he was born. No, I'm not an Obama fan and I didn't vote for him, but I am 100% sure about the legal issues involved.

Yes, the Constitution mentions he must be a natural born citizen but which of the two different existing Constitutions applies to Obama? The answer is obvious. The original Constitution signed by our founding fathers is not the one the present administration is using. Everyone reading your site should know by now that a PRIVATE CORPORATION was formed in 1871 in Washington D.C. for the purpose of carrying out the business functions of the government. This private corporation (hereinafter corp. US) adopted the original Constitution and its thirteen amendments as a working framework but immediately started passing amendments that were totally unconstitutional. The hijacking of our government was underway when corp. US was formed.

The trademarked name of this new corporation formed in 1871 was, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. So how do people know what Constitution they are reading? Just see how many amendments it has. The organic original one (that we must return to - the REPUBLIC for which it stands...) only has thirteen whereby the one the private corp. US is using has something like twenty-seven amendments. Obama was elected under the private corp.US Constitution. Up until 1944 members of congress actually wore two hats when they voted on new legislation, one hat was for our country as a REPUBLIC and one hat for the private corp.US that only had jurisdiction over a ten mile square area know as Washington D.C.

 However, something happened in 1944 which drastically changed how congress voted on new legislation and elected a President. Under the Bretton Woods Agreement Act, USC Title 22 sec. 286 et seq., one hundred percent of the stock in that private corp.US was essentially quit claim deeded or transferred to the IMF, a foreign consortium of international bankers. Corp.US was delinquent in their debts and was basically foreclosed upon. Congress now had a huge conflict in interest with their REPUBLIC constituents as corp.US was now totally foreign owned. This transfer of that private corporation named THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT formed in 1871, now made it almost impossible for congress to act in favor of our country as a REPUBLIC, as our Sovereignty as a nation had been lost to foreign bankers. From 1944 on, all elected Presidents of our country have been Presidents of that private corp.US. and certainly not the USA as a REPUBLIC under the original Constitution.  As G.W.Bush said, "the Constitution is just a god damned piece of paper". Based on how our original Constitution is not being used, unfortunately, he's right.

 Everyone must understand that in bankruptcy, which our country is in, the laws of Commerce (UCC - Admiralty) prevail and become the SUPREME law of the land. The US citizens have all been pledged as DEBTORS with virtually no rights at all. Given the fact that our bankrupt country is being governed and controlled by a private foreign corporation and who everyone in congress works for, who do you think has the legal control and right to elect a President? The people as DEBTORS with no rights or the CREDITORS who have legal title to everything? A private corporation doesn't have to abide by the original Constitution related to being a "natural born" person. If they want a Japanese born person to be their president, it would be legal. Does this end all the silliness related to Obama's eligibility?

J. B.

(Response)