Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
— Marcello Truzzi — (1935 - 2003)
While often attributed to the influential scientist Carl Sagan, this adage was penned by Danish-born skeptic, Marcello Truzzi, a respected debunker of protosciences and pseudosciences. It is a wholly appropriate truism with respect to Bob Gard's eBook in that nothing less than extraordinary evidence is required to substantiate his claim as to the unconstitutionality of Barack Obama's presidency.
Please do not expect a proverbial "smoking gun". It is unreasonable to think there would be one. There is none. Certainly, none has been brought to light over the past few centuries. Time and tides too often ravage even the finest old libraries or collections of personal papers. It is improbable that what was easily a single sheet of hand-inked parchment in the private folio of some colonial framer has survived undiscovered till now.
Instead—as is so often the case with detailed forensic investigations—a host of circumstantial evidence, coupled with existing bodies of fact must be knit together in order to form a fabric whose warp and weft provide some measure of historical continuity. The author has taken great pains to create an etymological "chain of evidence" which traces the historic roots of how American citizenship is legally defined, though still under illogical dispute.
In a time when revisionist spin doctors truncate documents, cite quotes out of context, or simply rewrite history as they see fit, Bob Gard's dedication to truthfulness is commendable. Compelled by an imperative desire for readers to draw their own conclusions, the author has risked alienating many who would be put off by such a lengthy work. Those who read this eBook will rapidly understand why so many links were required in the progression of evidence that ultimately validates the author's findings.
Along with such issues must come some means of logically answering questions that have seen this fiercely debated topic plunged into a morass of doubt and confusion. The answers are exactly what a reader may expect of Bob Gard's eBook, ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
It is unlikely that you will find a more thorough analysis and parsing of existing evidence regarding historic origins of the critical term "natural born Citizen." The author's private library of original editions—identical publications from early printers which graced the desks of colonial luminaries like Washington and Jefferson—stretching back some five hundred years, are used to establish the claims in this amazing eBook. While there may not be a "smoking gun", Mr. Gard certainly presents an abundance of clear documentation with respect to the deep concern expressed by America's constitutional framers—some of whom were immigrants themselves—regarding any possibility of foreign influence or intrigue seeping into the decisions of a natural-born, much less a non-natural-born, president.
Over the span of this necessarily lengthy eBook, brick by brick, stone by stone, the foundations are laid for a solid argument—one which only a refutation in John Jay's own handwriting might contradict—that Barack Obama's presidency is both unconstitutional and illegitimate. Too often, many of our nation's so-called conservatives, and liberals alike, conflate British subjectship with American citizenship.
Just as often, many ostensibly conservative celebrities have individually stood to form a blockade against this return to constitutional thinking. It is a root cause of much confusion on this topic and Gard's essay at this site, "A Conservative Blockade", addresses these matters. For a more detailed description of Mr. Gard's eBook, please refer to my "Editor's Comments" at this website. I will now turn over any further narrative at this page to the author himself in order that readers can gain greater insight about this amazing work.
October 19, 2012
Reply to a Review by Stephen E. Tonchen
Independent researcher Stephen E. Tonchen, has made some equally serious allegations regarding Obama's ineligibility for the presidency. While generally praising Bob Gard's work,
Tonchen asserts that, “In 18th century English writings, the term
‘natural-born’ had both a factual meaning and a legal meaning.” Gard has
dedicated many pages to demonstrating what natural-born meant for
Brits and what it meant for Americans and why there was no strongly
causal, political link between the two.
I was thirteen years old in 1960 when I sat through the thorough civics class in the eighth grade required for students to take the mandatory two-day civics test on American government that you needed to pass in order to graduate into the ninth grade of high school. This is when I fell in love with the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution was, without a doubt, the instrument that had made the lives of Americans free and prosperous. Freedom was the essence of life most worth dying for. People who believe this way have what I call the freedom gene. Not that many people have it. That’s why every free republic in history had gone the way of the bone yard before the 17th century.
The time I fell in love with the Constitution was also around the time I made up two adages. The first came out of my inner self without any knowledge of Ben Franklin’s similar adage from 1759 which was: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Mine was: “Those willing to give up freedoms for security neither will get the security they desire nor deserve the freedoms they have.” The second adage I devised was an alteration of Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death.” Disturbed by the inherent defeatism in Henry’s verbal outburst, I made my own version: “Give me liberty or one of us must die.” I have always felt that freedom must never be compromised and one must fight for it, be willing to give up one’s life.
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.
October 24, 2012
sample quote from page 1,659 of the eBook makes crystal clear why the
entire issue of a president being "natural born" is so important:
Was it simply coincidental that in the same year, 1797, that the new
edition of Vattel was published, Jay reaffirmed his distrust of foreign
influence in several letters to people like John Vaughan? To be honest,
it wasn’t coincidental or linked to the book because Jay was always
publicly relating his biggest fear in life: foreign manipulation of
“To me it appears important that the American government
be preserved as it is, until mature experience shall plainly point out
very useful amendments to our Constitution; that we steadily repel all
foreign influence and interference, and with good faith and liberality
treat all nations as friends in peace, and as enemies in war; neither
meddling with their affairs, nor permitting them to meddle with
The obsession was all the more reason to believe that
John Jay had adopted the meaning for natural born Citizen from Vattel’s §
212. Indeed, when one fully realizes the depth of his obsession, what
other conclusion could one come to? (For a Letter to S. Tonchen: Read More)