Pixel Patriot

On the one hand it would appear as though Barack Hussein Obama was swept to victory in the 2008 presidential election carried by the optimistic auspices of change with 365 electoral votes, a margin of 52.9%; while on the other hand the apparent victory is illusory.

For even though he is occupying the White House and performing the duties of the President of the United States, he can never erase the fact that he was ineligible for the position to begin with.

Take for example….


H2O and gravity are not concepts; they exist within the “Laws of Nature”. H2O exists in nature as 3 common states of matter; water, ice and vapor. You might find yourself parched with thirst and desiring a drink of water; yet the “Laws of Nature” say NO, because it is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit / O degrees Celsius and the glass frozen to your hand is full of ice. Therefore, the fulfillment of your desire is predicated on the fundamental properties as they exist, which are existential, defined…LAW.

The universal constructs governing gravity where every particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them is not a fanciful concept; it is a “Law of Nature”. You can’t see gravity, but you know it exists because its effects can be quantified, measured and observed. And gravity existed before mathematicians created the symbols for the equations used to express the nature of its law.

The “Laws of Nature” were in effect before their definitions were constituted. Just as the planets have always orbited the sun, mankind previously believed our solar system orbited the earth until we were enlightened with the knowledge of the TRUTH which is empirical.

The bedrock of our society is that the Founding Fathers codified the precept of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (LONANG) into our nation’s founding documents. It is in the very first paragraph of THE Declaration of Independence:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Just as the Founding Fathers declared certain rights endowed by the Creator to be unalienable, so too they also proclaimed and set forth as self-evident the “Laws of Nature” are immutable.

It is therefore of no consequence that the Founding Fathers would draw upon Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)”

At the time of their writing the Constitution in 1787, the founders were not so quick to forget the bloody revolution this nation endured so as to sever the bonds of a tyrannical government that they would not institute a safeguard to prevent a subject of England from once again enslaving them. It is with great foresight that the Framers affixed a three-tiered security measure to thwart such an occurrence. They looked to Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” when they set forth the limitations reserved for the sole position of the leader of the nation and commander in chief of the military forces. In Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President of the United States:

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 not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

This precaution precluded dual allegiance. It is not a discretionary right.


And lest you dismiss Vattel as just some ol’ Swiss philosopher:

Article 1, section 8 defines the powers of Congress…

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"

Barack Hussein Obama by his own admission was a British subject at birth.


When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

Patrimonial lineage was not a quaint notion at the time the founders wrote into law the protections of the nation. It was well established, and evidence for such discourse can also be found as early as 1640 in Thomas Hobbes’ “The Elements of Law Natural and Politic” where Hobbes states:

. . . every man by the law of nature, hath right or propriety to his own body, the child ought rather to be the propriety of the mother (of whose body it is part, till the time of separation)than of the father . . ."

 Vattel unequivocally defines “natural born Citizen” as:

{those born in the country, of parents who are citizens}

Book 1, Chapter XIX
§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


John Jay, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States so poignantly acknowledges the singular point which lies at the heart of this issue in his letter to George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention on July 25, 1787.
Jay wrote:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

In the writings of another great jurist, Chief Justice John Marshall, we find the nexus of the natural born Citizen issue incontrovertibly answered. As Chief Justice for 34 years, John Marshall had a profound impact on the Supreme Court and its balance of power with the other two branches of government whereby judicial review was a recognized instrument used to strike down laws that violate the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall writes:

Naturalization, under the laws of the United States, confers upon the subject of it all the rights and privileges of a native citizen, excepting that of becoming president of the United States.
- The Frances 12 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1814)
A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is [*828] distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.
- Osborn v. President, Directors & Co. of Bank, 22 U.S. 738, 828 (U.S. 1824)

The significance of the fact that Marshall issues the warning that {the constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights} cannot be understated. Secondly, the opinion lays the foundation for subsequent cases addressing “natural born Citizen” status including United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) where the 14th Amendment confers “citizenship” status while never granting “natural born Citizen” status. And thirdly, the opinion is important because it reminds Congress that they must not breach the explicit boundaries set forth in the Tenth Amendment.


On Thursday April 15th, 2010; U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president, the high court is "evading" the issue.

Let us take JUDICIAL NOTICE on how Chief Justice Marshall weighs in on this one:

"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be TREASON to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."
- Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)


It looks as though there is plenty of blame to go around. While it appears that no one wants to address the issue of Obama’s ineligibility, Congress actually already has. Numerous attempts have been made to redefine the term natural born Citizen with a flurry in just the last few years, as outlined here.


Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat

Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses no one", which is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

When Nancy Pelosi signed the OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION’s for the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, she became party to conspiracy to commit fraud. In the state of Hawaii the certification explicitly proclaims that the candidates were “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” yet simultaneously on the same day before the same signed witnesses, Pelosi signed certifications for the other states that merely say the candidates were “duly nominated”. Which is it Nancy? Either they are…or they‘re not.

A copy of the certification issued from the office of the Federal Election Commission in the State of Georgia can be viewed here.

Therefore, Nancy either knows Barack Obama was not eligible and had the wording “eligible” removed from the certifications in states where it legally wasn’t required in order to mitigate her liability (fraud), or she intended all along to swear under oath if necessary that she “can’t recall” ceremoniously signing the candidates were actually vetted. You be the judge.

OBOTS & JINO (Journalists In Name Only)

For Anderson Cooper, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and all of you OBOTS, the musings of Thomas Hobbes eloquently illustrates your syndrome:

There is a fault of the mind called by the Greeks Amathia, which is INDOCIBILITY, or difficulty of being taught; the which must needs arise from a false opinion that they know already the truth of that which is called in question. For certainly men are not otherwise so unequal in capacity as the evidence is unequal of what is taught by the mathematicians, and what is commonly discoursed of in other books: and therefore if the minds of men were all of white paper, they would almost equally be disposed to acknowledge whatsoever should be in right method, and right ratiocination delivered unto them. But when men have once acquiesced in untrue opinions, and registered them as authentical records in their minds; it is no less impossible to speak intelligibly to such men, than to write legibly upon a paper already scribbled over. The immediate cause therefore of indocibility, is prejudice; and of prejudice, false opinion of our own knowledge.


It takes uncommon valor to disobey unlawful orders originating at the very top of the chain of command…the Commander-in-Chief.

These are true American heroes not soon to be forgotten:
Cmdr. Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., USNR (Ret.)
Lt. Cmdr.Walt Fitzpatrick III USN (Ret.)
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin
Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook
Capt. Connie Rhodes
1st Lt. Scott Easterling

They swore a solemn oath:

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
(DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

These patriots have remained true to their loyalty.


Because Barack Hussein Obama has refused to validate his authority to hold the office of the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, all laws he has signed will one day be overturned and become null and void. The epic saga comprising the period of Obama’s presidency will forever be overshadowed by the unprecedented legal struggles he beset upon this country.


On April 23, 1775 King George III of Great Britain declared, "The die is now cast. The colonies must either submit or triumph". A defining moment seen as a turning point for the fate of a nation because the King would refuse to negotiate compromises that might have averted, or at least forestalled, the American Revolution.

Lo the die has been cast … either the Constitution is the law of the land, or it is not.
As more and more Patriots hear the words "All Rise" and then do so only to be told we have no standing, a reckoning will assuredly occur. The citizens beholden to this "unchecked power known as tyranny" will one day Rise Up en masse and the courts will see that "We The People" truly do have "Standing".