The term "Natural Born" citizen is used only once in the US Constitution. It is used used as part of a 2 prong test protect from foreign influence of the POTUS (The other test is the residency requirement). Through the course of our legal history, the courts have errornously tried to equate "Natural Born" Citizen in terms of RIGHTS rather than its intended interpretation as a security check against foreign influence. No court has have examined "Natural Born" citizenship in the context of it's intended interpretation and purpose.
In the Wong Kim Ark case, SCOTUS never declared Wong Kim Ark a "Natural Born" citizen. The court merely stated that Wong Kim Ark (A Child of Aliens) has citizenship equivalent to as much as a "Natural Born" citizen in RIGHTS.
But, it is clear Wong Kim Ark was not a "Natural Born" citizen
From the Decision:
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]
Again, great compilation and explanation. More... Obama has said he is a "Citizen of the World" and native-born. Bill Richardson said Obama was an "immigrant". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo Earthfrisk asked if Obama's MAMA had been a patient at any Hawaiian hospital, since she's deceased HIPAA laws do not apply. She was not. http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135 (absent father? maybe. absent mama? hardly!)
So IF he were born in Hawaii..."what" is he? To the point, is there really such a thing as an official dual citizen in the United States?
Jackie Smith has left a new comment on your post "What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Ci...":
Great work Mario.....the FRAUD will never give up his documents.....someone will have to [editor's deletion]...it is becoming even more doubtful that the courts will do their job either. We already know how ignorant the Senators and Congressmen are on the issue!!! They all need to be fired so we can get some real representation in DC!
Please forgive my asking what might be a "stupid question" for you.
Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001). I haven't seen you using it.
On 9-28-2005, at a Harvard Question and Answer Session, http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/hls9-28-05.asp Justice Scalia expalined how he views his role as a Supreme Court Justice: "...in the case of my court is that we have this institution of certiorari. We don't really take a case in order to, quote-unquote, "do justice", to make sure the right person has won. In a number of cases that we decline to take, I suspect that the lower court may have got it wrong. But there has been at least one appeal, in most cases two, by the time it reaches us, and our job is not to correct mistakes. By reason of certiorari, our job is to resolve those issues of federal law on which there is disagreement below. Once you have that institution of certiorari, it really alters the nature of what the court is doing; it means that we're really not there to ensure that the good guy won and the bad guy lost."
In Contrast, at the same Q&A: Breyer described the Supreme Court’s role as “100 percent law interpretation” and “much more mechanical than you might think.”http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=508682
Strangely enough, in the majority opinion of 2001’s 533 US 53, NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS. http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/ , one of the criteria of proving one's birth location and birth citizenship is through the 100% mechanical means of hospital records and witnesses. 533 US 53, NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS. (2001) @ 54 :“The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.” And @62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”
So in light of challenging Obama's claim to citizenship, why aren't you utilizing Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 54,62 (2001) to persuade the Courts in giving you the sealed records such as the Long Form Birth Certificate to establish if or not there were witnesses to the birth and that it happened in the USA instead of elsewhere? I'd really like to see you get that Long Form B.C. and let us know what it says.
Sorry Mario....the comment you deleted wasn't meant literally...just an expression of frustration as we will probably never get to the truth....but hey....I'm not giving up!!! Thanks to you and Charles for pursuing this very important breach of our Constitution!! :)
Last week I came across this article about the media suing to have the private details of Jack Ryan's (Obama's opponent in the 2004 Senate race) divorce unsealed. http://www.slate.com/id/2102872/
They cited; “In keeping with prior rulings nationwide, the court concluded that the public's right of access outweighed whatever emotional distress the unsealing might cause.”
Why can't someone sue to have Blocks 18b and 19b (the name of the person who affirmed Obama's birth, and the name of the person who delivered Obama, respectively) of Obama's original birth record released? Those affirmations were public acts, and are the only pieces of information that can demonstrate the veracity of the birth record.
I think the Nguyen case you quote from is not definitive from the standpoint of what is stated in the case about citizenship (and keep in mind this case is about citizenship as opposed to natural born citizenshiop which is quite a different thing.
Having the mother present at birth in a given hospital does not per se offer proof of her citizenship at all. There are numerous anchor babies born in the US whose mother is definitely NOT a US citizen (and no inference should be taken that anchor babies are a good thing ... just that they are; largely due to the WKA fiasco).
Your point about using this as a lever to obtain some of the vital records is possibly a good one, though, and I imagine that Mr. Apuzzo has "thrown that into the mix" as it were.
What about bringing declarative policy utterances of Transparency by Obama along with Nguyen's need for witnesses along with hospital or birth records to verify a de facto birth location in arguing before the Court for the release of such records, etc.?
At Obama's National Archives Speech on May 21, 2009, he demanded 4 times that the Congress, the Courts, and "we the people" watch over him and hold him and His Administration accountable:
1) "I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.” @ 37:10-37:23 on the C-Span video link
2) “…whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.” @37:54-38:07
3) “…in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.” @38:28 – 38:39
4) “I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why." @ 40:44-41:01
Will the Courts allow you to use Obama's own words against him and take him to task on these repeated public and administration "policy" of "transparency" utterances that support a release of the transcripts and Long Form BC regardless of what his lawyers argue privately? It seems to me, that with Nguyen, this video data in chambers could persuade the Judge to unseal those records which would declare and witness as to Obama's citizen and birth location status: i.e., if Barack II (Jr., or whatever alias he has) was filed as a foreign national in any US school, college or university...or if any document of any kind has the name of the witness of the attending physician, nurse or mid-wife witness... or in the case of a clinic, a hospital administrator on a document with a foil seal or what have you.
Wouldn't this be enough to convince a judge to release, along with all the other data summarized? Again, please pardon my ignorance if I sound a bit backward or slow on the issue. Thank you kindly, in advance.
The problem is not that we have not framed enough questions to get at Obama's records. The problem is that the Courts are not willing to give plaintiffs standing to conduct discovery which would undoubtedly uncover all the Obama records.
equador: I do not capitulate to bots but time and again I'm met with made-up, contrived, ridiculous, off-the-wall, supercilious "arguments" that spell out the "I WON" mentality. THEY DO NOT CARE THAT THEY ARE SHREDDING THE CONSTITUTION.
After presenting the Senate rep. with SCOTUS precedents and pure logic, after being told a ridiculous line about how he did not choose to be British, and his Kenyan citizenship expired (truly, they believed that no citizenship from BHO Sr therefore remained) you know what else they had to say?
"He's president, so just get over it."
It's like talking to brick walls. Although by now I sense a tiny bit of crumbling. THEN there's the professional obotfuscators...we're always left wondering if certain approaches aren't meant to clog the process with a built in failure. For example Sen. Nathan Deal was supposed to be investigating Obama's eligibility, and wants to see his birth certificate---however he does not address Obama's British citizenship and when I called, apparently they dont' want to talk about it at all. Now what's going on with that? My feeling is that these people running this coup are at war with the American people, and their big artillery is the fake-PR front they give us. Their back-up armaments are the media censorship, judicial stonewalling, and congressional denial. Government any more is simply cronyism, corruption, criminality, bankrupting, backroom deals, and then they send their front-men/women down to the lobby to bullshit the American people. That's the game in a nutshell.
Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause is not discriminatory. Undoubtedly, one class of citizen is not “better” or “less” than any other class of citizen. Indeed, Article IV, Section 2, clause 1, the Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment make clear that a Fourteenth Amendment or statutory born “citizen of the United States,” and Fourteenth Amendment “naturalized citizen of the United States” are equal in the eyes of the law and enjoy the same privileges and immunities. There is nothing in these provisions which says that these “citizens of the United States” must have the same privileges and immunities as Article II “natural born Citizens.” Additionally, being allowed to be eligible to be President is not a fundamental constitutional right. The “natural born Citizen” clause is not a constitutional provision that is the source of any civil rights. The Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly guarantee to anyone the substantive right to be President of the United States nor are there any constitutional underpinnings to such an alleged right. The fact that someone might want to aspire to be President does not elevate eligibility to be President to be a constitutional fundamental right. On the contrary, being eligible to be President is a political privilege given by the Constitution to those who meet the qualifications of Article II to be President.
The “natural born Citizen” clause as I define it is no different from Article II’s requirements that a would-be President have a certain age (35) and a certain time of residency (14 years) and that a naturalized citizen cannot be President. My interpretation of the “natural born Citizen” is not discriminatory but rather based on respect for the rule of law, i.e. the Constitution. Indeed, the clause has no race, color, ethnicity, or religion test, for its requirements apply to all people regardless of those factors. Under the clause, we are not condemning any child for any misdeeds of his or her parents. These children are not being penalized or stigmatized for anything the parents did or did not do or for their birth status. Rather, these children’s status is being characterized pursuant to a constitutional mandate that applies to defining the eligibility requirements to be President. These children are being treated no differently from how Congress treats persons differently when it comes to doling out government benefits to a person depending on that person’s relationship to the United States, i.e., citizen, resident, or alien. They are no different from the persons who cannot be President because they have been naturalized. Additionally, the Equal Protection Clause is not designed to equalize all persons and eradicate every distinction that may exist between people and for which people are not responsible. Indeed, guilt or innocence of the target of legislation does not control equal protection analysis. Hence, there is nothing discriminatory about my wanting our Constitution respected. On the contrary, there is much wrong in allowing a majority of our legislatures or people to circumvent the Constitution for the sake of wanting for whatever reason any specific person to occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief.
One might ask why we even have the “natural born Citizen” clause. The "natural born Citizen" clause’s purpose is to protect the national security of the United States. The Founders wanted to make sure to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief. We know from studying our own and international legal precedents that citizenship produces allegiance. Preserving the national security, safety, and best interests of the United States is a compelling government interest. Making sure a would-be President has attachment and allegiance from birth solely to the United States is a means by which the nation can assure itself that the person to be President will, indeed, have the survival of the nation as currently constituted at heart. Requiring that a would-be President be born in the country to a U.S. citizen mother and father assures that from birth that person has sole and absolute allegiance to the United States. Making sure the person to be President has sole and absolute allegiance to the United States and is free of foreign influence to the greatest degree possible is a reasonable means of securing the safety and interests of the United States. Keeping foreign influence out of the Office of President also assures the American people that the President will not favor once foreign nation over another foreign one to the detriment of the best interests of the United States.
When the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the People made their choice regarding wanting only a “natural born Citizen’ to be President. The choice is not discriminatory under today’s standards. The requirements for Presidential eligibility emanate from the Constitution itself and neither the federal nor state legislatures nor voters themselves can avoid or change them unless done by a way prescribed the Constitution itself. Hence, the People’s choice must be respected unless changed by constitutional amendment.
Mr. Apuzzo: I believe you may say NBC has no more rights as a Citizen as does a statutory citizen in agreement w/WKA, however the eligibility requirements for POTUS are highly discriminatory as they exclude by age and domestic tenure.
I called the Supreme Court and asked if they had a FOIA Officer; they said SCOTUS is not subject to FOIA requests. My purpose is to access the transcript to the second unauguration oath, which was never published or video-taped, as testimony that this was the actual oath taken. I am directed to the White House, and I'll let you know what they said.
Well, I have exhausted all avenues trying to track down ANY transcript of the second inauguration oath.
SCOTUS does not abide FOIA requests, the White House directs to DOJ, and DOJ to USAG Pro Tem Corey Ferrara, who does not get back. The Federal Register does not show it as printed. There is no video tape. There is no written transcript. SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts office will not cooperate.
What the hell is going on with the second oath? Can you please let me know if any of your guys can uncover anything?
Based on tone and instinct, there's something highly fishy about it.
To follow up, I heard from DOJ AG Pro Tem and now I'm directed now to contact White House OMB/FOIA and National Archives. However nobody has ever seen the transcript of the second inauguration oath with whom I have spoken, including Dartmouth which did an extensive study on the first one. I don't want anyone to gratuitously indulge my conspiracy fantasies, just tell me why it's not public record when it's such a vitally important legally-binding verbal contract with the American people? It's obvious the first one was considered null or they would not have taken the second one.
Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER is still alive.”
In "evaluating" the Kenyan Ambassador's statement re B.O. Jr's birthplace and subsequent denials by a spokesperson that he was, indeed, referring to Jr.; I am surprised that you didn't highlight the most damning evidence that would tend to impugn the accuracy of the revised interpretation of Ogego's words: (B.O. Sr's) paternal grandmother? uh...I don't think so.
Great work Mario and Charles!This needs to be done for the historical record regardless of what the courts do. Note: The State Of New Columbia
In 1982, in the face of a preoccupied and oblivious nation, a new flag was hoisted over the District of Columbia. This strange looking flag has been flying ever since at the same level as the U.S. flag. The flag has three red stars and two red stripes on a white field. This same design also appears on license plates and arm bands of police officers. The new flag has also been seen flying over select military bases. Here let it be also noted that in 1982, when the State of New Columbia came into being, it brought with it a new constitution with almost no resemblance to the Constitution of the United States.The State of New Columbia operates on a new legal system known as lex fori, which is a tyrannical Roman "law of the forum." Furthermore, as if that is not bad enough, every state that flies the United States flag is subject to the constitution of the State of New Columbia.The way that people are hooked into this new government is revealed in the following words, "When you consent, in writing or otherwise, to reside or be employed in a federal "revenue district", electoral district, water conservation district or school district, you automatically include yourself in a "political subdivision" and "body politic" that you know by some local name, but it is also now known as New Columbia."I must also note that in 1990, when the "Federal Debt Collection Practices Act" was passed, the United States officially became the "United States, Inc." Thus, when we elect a President and other national officers, we are electing corporate officials, and the old system no longer applies. Thus, in legal structure our nation is a corporation like Chrysler, General Motors or any of the others. Sept.1996 http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/
Thankyou for responding. For me being nice and trying to break through is a waste of time. Although, I did think that would be best, given we are NBC's and have a responsibility, but the majority from the supposed 'neivte' was hateful rage. That action only comes from opponets of freedom. Please know I appreciate your comments and this blog has alot to offer. Do hope e see the flying monkey again! LOL But hey, your thinking is not theory when it is played out in front of you. Merry Christmas to you and all that read this. Glory be to God.
James, a frequent commentator here, wrote the following essay which I want to share with the readers here. James says that Obama is a "Native Born" citizen or citizen at birth." I would correct his statement to read "may" be . . . I am not saying that I agree with all of James' statements. In any event, I think James' essay deserves to be published.
ESSAY
Obama is NOT "Natural Born" citizen.
Obama is a "Native Born" citizen or citizen at birth but he is certainly NOT a "Natural Born" citizen.
To be a "Natural Born" citizen you must be born on US soil to 2 US Citizens.(Parents)
Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen and never a US citizen so Obama can never declared a "Natural Born" citizen.
We already know these facts. But how do we know what "Natural Born" citizen really means.
Incredibly, the courts have never litigated the meaning of a "Natural Born" citizen.
Yes, we have seen many cases that talked about "Natural Born" citizen such as Wong Kim Ark and others but incredibly, "Natural Born" citizen has never be defined by the courts. I will explain why.
It all begins with the letter John Jay had written to George Washington during the original drafting of the US Constitution. Below is the relevant portion of that letter:
"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."
Notice that John Jay encourages a STRONG check against foreign influence into the position of POTUS.
The founders took John Jay's advise and created that STRONG check.
In creating the US Consitution, the Founders instituted a 3 prong qualification check for persons to be in the position of the POTUS. This is outlined in Article II Section I below:
"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."
As one can see there is a 3 prong check in place:
1. You must be a "Natural Born" citizen.
2. You must be at least 35 years old
3. You be a resident in the US for 14 years.
Notice that these are the only requirements to qualify to be the POTUS. You don't need a college degree. You don't need to have military experience. You don't need to have leadership experience such as being a governor.
You need one and only 1 important qualification. You need to be free of FOREIGN INFLUENCE.
The term "Natural Born" citizen is used only once in our US Constitution. It is used in Article II Section I as part of the 3 prong security check to protect the POTUS from foreign influence.
In the context of our US Constitution, the term "Natural Born" citizen has one purpose only - the protect against foreign influence.
The meaning and interpretation of such a term is to be used in that context.
The problem we have seen in our courts over the course of legal history is that the court have incorrectly used the term "Natural Born" citizen in a way to convey citizenship RIGHTS rather than in a way to protect against foreign influence as it was intended to do so.
A good example of this mistake was in Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was child born of aliens. The court said the Wong Kim Ark was as much as "Natural Born" citizen in RIGHTS as a true "Natural Born" citizen. It is clear that the court said that Wong Kim Ark was NOT a "Natural Born" citizen.
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]"
The courts have consistently used the interpretation of RIGHTS rather than the protection from foreign influence in litigating the meaning of "Natural Born" citizen. In several of these cases, the courts have noted that such individuals would be eligible to be the POTUS but they have never supported that fact with any legal reasoning the context of the "Natural Born" citizen that we have discussed.
Ever wonder why the Founders decided that 35 was the minimum age to be eligible for the POTUS. This is a key requirement that fits right into the 3 prong test of Article II Section I. Remember the 14 year residency requirement. If you subtract 14 from 35, (35 -14 = 21) you get age 21. The Founders felt that was the minimum age for an adult. (Technically you are an adult at 18 but there are still limitations)
As part of the 3 prong test, the "Natural Born" citizen requirement was used to protect the person from age 0 to age 21. After 21, the 14 year residency requirement was used to protect against foreign influence from age 21 and above.
Going back to "Natural Born" citizen, lets create 2 hypothesizes on the meaning the term "Natural Born" citizen and see how they fit within the 3 prong test against foreign influence.
Hypothesis 1 - "Natural Born" citizen means only being born on US soil.
In this scenario, Anchor Babies (Children born of foreigners) can be the POTUS. This meaning fails because it violates the 3 prong test. Although the person may satisfy the 14 year residency requirement, the person in NOT immune from foreign influence from ages 0 through 21. These ages are considered the childhood of a person where parental influence is strong. Interpretation "Natural Born" citizen in this manner does not protect against foreign influence.
Hypothesis 2 - "Natural Born" citizen means being born on US Soil to 2 US Citizens.
In this scenario, protection against foreign influence is fully protected because the parents are US citizens. Further, when the person reaches 21, the "Natural Born" citizen prong ends and the 14 year residency prong begins. The founders felt that 14 years was good amount time to insure that the person to become the POTUS was free of foreign influence and to compensate for any situation where the person might move and live in a different country.
In the end, we see the following. "Natural Born" citizen is first part of the 3 prong test and lasts from age 0 to 21. The 14 year residency requirement is the second prong of the test and last from age 21 and above. The minimum age of 35 insures that the residency requirement is adhered to as soon the "Natural Born" citizen prong ends.
I think it is pretty clear that the founders came up with complicated security check to protect against foreign influence.
In deriving the meaning of "Natural Born" citizen you must always keep in mind that it was type of citizenship NOT used to give RIGHTS but a type of citizenship to protect against foreign influence.
This is the mistake that courts have consistently made.
While there could situations where US citizens could move to other countries with their children and the children could be exposed to foreign influence, the Founders could not compensate for every contingency.
The False REGISTRATION of Obama's Birth in the Hawaii Records System.
Obama's Birth In Hawaii Was Likely Falsely REGISTERED as Occurring There by Obama's Maternal Grandmother. But Obama Was Probably Physically Born Elsewhere. And Obama's Paternal Step-Grandmother Says Obama was Born in Kenya as Do News Accounts in Kenyan Newspapers.
Listen to this audio segment on how it could have been easily been done in Hawaii in 1961 just to gain the newborn child born out of the country U.S. Citizenship, a highly desirable status. No one ever thought this would be discovered. No one in 1961 ever thought this child would one day run for the Presidency. They only wanted to get Citizenship for the new born child which was born out of the country. And Hawaii's lax registration laws made it easy for anyone to commit birth location registration fraud.
9 minutes video clip at YouTube - Charles Kerchner chats with Bill Cunningham explaining this to Bill on the Bill Cunningham Radio Show.
We have someone in the White House who PROMISED "transparency", yet he has done everything possible to hide his background. Even though I really didn't have the extra cash, since April, I have been sending anonymous donations to various persons who have been working to expose the facts about Obama because I owe a solemn duty to my Country, my children and my grandchildren. My best friend (who was an attorney from Georgia) was extremely distraught over the "eligibility" issue and the refusal of the courts to properly address it, so much so that last Thursday, he took his own life. I had one asset (a collector automobile worth over $100,000) put away to sell to raise cash to move to Europe, plus $600 in cash left. Yesterday, I discovered the car was stolen from the storage facility, it was not insured. Now, I'm financially ruined. My retirement is less than $1,000 per month and, instead of moving to Europe to be with my new wife, next week I'll have no choice but to move into a homeless shelter. At my age and with my health problems, starting over is out of the question. Winning the legal battle against "the usurper" is a necessity, please keep up the fight. God bless you all and Merry Christmas.
Great essay Mario.Please see the Trading With The Enemies Act/War Powers Act and APA Act and then listen to Greg Evensen -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvUh5guvIvU
I am just an ordinary citizen in America, and not one who has had the benefit of exceptional training or extensive education; until the most recent two years, the extent of my formal education was the GED I obtained after dropping out of a public school having completed only the ninth grade. As such, I make no claim to possessing the wisdom I expect to see made manifest by those who hold positions that require levels of moral and judicial interpretation far beyond the reach of my limited intellectual base of reasoning. Still, for the love of my country and concern for my children and grandchildren's futures, I struggle to grasp the full scope of the consequences of these proceedings, and the ramifications of the courts' persistent disregard (?), denial (?), and/or failure to define or otherwise address (?) the interpretation of the language that our founding fathers used to codify the laws of our Constitution.
In my struggle, I have seen citations pointing to what I imagine must be other cases that are thought to be in some way or another relevant to this present situation, so I, in my ignorance and naiveté, thought it might be interesting to see if I could learn to do that myself. Wow (!) I have gained a whole new respect for lawyers, judges and anyone else whose responsibility or privilege, as the case may be, it is to wade through the masses of volumes within which those records are contained. My humble thanks to all of you!
Still, I want to share something I found online yesterday as I was exploring. It is from a memorandum that was presented in a case between David R. Myrland v. United States Department of Justice and others in 2005:
“The need to use the Court’s supervisory powers to suppress evidence obtained through governmental misconduct was perhaps best expressed by Mr. Justice Brandeis in his famous dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 471-485 (1928):”
Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.
Now, I don’t know whether or not the above quoted material is applicable in this case in the legal sense, but it sure spoke to me about the dangers we could face if we fail to adequately address issues like this that are not only so critical to our current national security, but so vital to the preservation of our very way of life; we can only hope to keep the freedoms we enjoy if we have the courage, compulsion, and conviction to preserve what so many gave their lives to provide for us. To that end also, this court should “resolutely set its face” and do that which it is uniquely qualified to do: interpret the language of the law.
I would respectfully disagree that such age limits would be pertaint as you have suggested, in such a way that 21 means adulthood as a legal definition. I would in return state that it most likely would have direct placement on statehood, law knowledge and the least amount of foreign influence.
Lets look at what James Madison said in the Federalist Paper #62 while addressing the concerns for age limits on Senators. We can also apply the same concern to the President, (which they did).
James Madison federalist paper #62: ………..”I. The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and tability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.”
James, In further ado, lets also review the concerns of legal knowledge, statehood and lest likely influence from foreign countries.
Here, James Madison also addresses issues with the House of Representatives. Notice that his main concern is not age per se’, but rather knowledge.
James Madison federalist paper #53: …..
“In regulating our own commerce he ought to be not only acquainted with the treaties between the United States and other nations, but also with the commercial policy and laws of other nations. He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the “law of nations”; for that, as far as it is a proper object of municipal legislation, is submitted to the federal government.”…..
It's amazing how people read hings into decisions that aren't there.
For example, James quotes from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in an attempt to prove a difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth:
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]"
Yet, clearly, the quote says nothing about natural born citizen. It says that a child, born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen. Based on the preceding discussion about the meaning in the language of the time of "natural born" in the context of citizenship, the court was clearly stating that simply being born in the country was enough to make one a natural born citizen.
This would appear to be backed up by William's quote from Federalist Paper #62: "A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter." And a President must be at least 35 years of age, and have been a citizen from birth.
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]"
Mr. Binney as quoted by Wong Kim Ark makes a comparison between a child born of aliens and a "natural-born child of a citizen." These are two distinct classes. If they were the same, there would be no need to make the comparison. This shows that to be a “natural born Citizen,” the child must be born to citizens. On the other hand, a child born in the United States to alien parents was considered a simple “Citizen.”
Has it been considered that going directly against BO might be the wrong approach? The situation goes back to a systemic failure in our State's election protocol. There is no assurance by utilizing these suits that the same or similar problem might not crop up again one day. If we concentrate our efforts on who did the vetting in each of the states, we will be able to rest assure that steps will be taken to correct this glitch in our system and guarantee it won't occur again. At the same time, BO's utter lack of credentials would be exposed. We wouldn't need to keep playing this game - is he or is he not a Natural Born Citizen - which will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide. We won't need to try to force him to show us his "real" birth certificate... he'll be out of office before that happens. Go to the states that REQUIRE the Presidential Candidates to be CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE for the job. (Did you know that only a handful of states actually HAVE this requirement? Is your state one of them?) Then find out who signed the forms that were submitted to the state election committee - in some cases Nancy Pelosi herself - and file a complaint with your state Attorney General as to HOW DID the person signing the form, swearing that BO was eligible to have his name put on the ballot in that state - HOW DID they know? WHAT PROOF did they have? An electronic copy of a "Certification of Live Birth" which almost anyone can get? Not only does this usurper need to be exposed before he does any more damage than he has already, but legal steps must be taken to insure this never occurs again.
In South Carolina, the Democratic Party’s Carol Fowler broad brushed that: “The South Carolina Democratic Party certifies that each candidate meets, OR WILL MEET BY THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he/she has filed.” (emphasis mine -- see page 2 of the pdf, dated August 14, 2008, and received 11:43 AM by the South Carolina Election Commission on August 15, 2008.) http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-south-carolina-sec-of-state-respons.pdf
Fowler, it seems to me, went on promises and lies from Democratic Party Leaders and top Obama Campaign handlers, instead of having before her a de facto legal documentation. The "we'll have it for you later" excuse. To me, that either equals fraud or the possible intent to defraud.
Connecticut’s Secretary of State, claimed they had NO right to even ask Obama for verification to prove he was eligible to run! http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-sec-of-state-connecticuit-fax-name-removed.pdf
For the Election of 2008, Barack never submitted any crucial proof citizen documents for review, even to the Courts, in order to run for President. Not one Secretary of Stae has every come forth in the Birth Certificate controversy and every said..."we have seen his Birth Certificate". Is the Media totally aslep on that? Barack should have submited his proof to run when he first announced that he would run in 2007, and before he received his Secret Service protection detail.
Never did Barack show proof that he was even qualified under Constitutional Article 2.1.5. as a child born on US soil to two US Citizen parents. He could not then, and he cannot ever do so; because his biological father was never a US Citizen, and he himself tells us this in his own auto-biographical book, published over a decade before his announcement to run for the US Presidency.
In 2008, Obama's Campaign chose to bypass taking Federal Tax Dollars and be non-accountable to the Federal Elections Commission in campaign laws governing the FEC's right of inquiry as to his qualifications to hold the office of the Presidency (in regards to his NBC status or the lack thereof). The FEC appears to have claimed to have NO AUTHORITY TO ASK, and passed the responsibility of vetting Obama’s “Citizen and Qualification Status” off to the State of Illinois, when it was governed by a Governor whom the State of Illinois itself called corrupt and later saw dismissed.
I personally think what is eventually needed is a Supreme Court order that subpoenas every 2008 Secretary of State and Democratic Party State Committee Chair in the Nation, as well as speaker Pelosi, and a drilling of them on the witness stand as to what (if any) document verification they had, and copies of the same to vet Obama to run in their respective state. Such is only my preference, and as yet unsubstantiated hope, however.
I'm sure your free advice is worth at least what it costs, but think about this:
Various of the SOS offices have been named in different suits along with other political elements of our society and NONE have ever received so much as a tap on the wrist since the courts are running scared like a bunch of rabbits and are refusing to do their job.
Even the MSM is complicit in helping to "elect the unelectible" a man who have never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies. Never before in US history has this same situation occurred since the man in question has umpteen good and sufficient reasons for any reasonable citizen to suspect his eligibility.
Even so, the courts have taken the political approach and said "who, me???" so far when asked to adjudicate the issue and the MSM who was greatly (if not universally) in favor of seeing this man seated in the Oval Office were totally silent - and still are - on the matter.
Could it be that, for example, the major investor in News Corp. (owner of Fox) has "put out the word" to the TV types on FoxNews to pretend like one of the three wise monkeys in the ad recently placed by Charles Kerchner in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition (IOW - SHUT UP!!)??? Could it perhaps be a coincidence that one of these major News Corp investors is a Saudi shiek who has as one of his main advisors a guy named Kajlid Mansour (as in the book about Obama "The Mansourian Candidate") who clearly exerted influence for his buddy Barry??
Yeah, could be ...
Then too, stop to think about the situation that Mario and Charles are left to finance this entire effort since many of those offering "free" advice seem quite unwilling to put even $20 where their mouth is. If this applies to either or both of you - or others reading this blog - I suggest you "get with the program" and offer whatever financial assistance you can to assist these two men rather that standing aside and cheering for them.
I suppose I'm saying "put up or shut up" and - if that applies - stop and consider YOUR part(s) in helping keep an ineligible man in office. That could prove even more helpful that kibbitzing from afar.
Jayjay writes: "I'm sure your free advice is worth at least what it costs...I suppose I'm saying "put up or shut up"...."
How much has Jayjay, without using his or her real name, donated to the cause? I would like to know if we are first dealing with a hypocrite or not.
Secondly, who is Jayjay to say my citing case law and asking questions or citing documents that could be used in a lawsuit are so worthless? I partially and legitimately answered a concern raised by Patrirock. All Jayjay can do is offer a snippy version of "you are worthless and good for nothing"? Jayjay should rethink his/her tact and be grateful that the Internet gives him/her courage to not have the same consequences he/she would potentially have had saying it face to face.
Third, Jayjay thinks too small in regard to the real behind the scenes opposition beyond the judges on the Courts and the obvious Mainstream media in regard to Obama's entrenchment by fraud.
Chief board members of The Council of Foreign Relations and the group that is above them, called the "Bilderburgers", sat both DNC Candidates Hillary and Barack down in the late Spring of 2008, and told them what was what. These included Henry Kissinger and unknown others...including the Council of 7 above them...who are the real behind the scenes powerhouses in the ineligibilty mess.
Who are the Council of 7? We don't know for sure yet...but we do know that Obama publicly low bowed to two people, and one (the sheik) he kissed or licked his hand. The Sheik represented the regional Middle East interests, including being the overseer of the "two holy mosques" of Shia and Sunni Islam; and the other, an alleged figurehead emperor, represented the Japanese (a G-7 member). Is all this mere coincidence? That is clearly questionable.
In the late 1980s, Armand Hammer (who also simultaneously sat on 80 Industrial Corporate Boards at the time) was the ambassador of the then Council of 7 to the Soviet Union, and used his pro-Soviet petro-chemical ties (that extended to the early 1970s) to purchase East Germany to the tune of 65 Billion dollars in equivalent currencies, with more payouts pushing the total past 80 billion after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Hammer died in 1990. But that same group with all that power -- who now rule in part through consensus via Bilderburger annual meetings -- they told Hillary (once a Walmart Board member, and who know where else) to stand down, and they (including its major media executives as members by extension) knowingly put Obama in, and propped up an illegal candidate McCain (illegal by being born outside a US Territory by about 1/4 mile or more). Bill Clinton is part of that lower eschelon or Congress.
Only 120 of these meet at a time, split into 6 councils of 20 hashing out the future, and then gather to offer general consensus like a de facto pragmatic and real UN governance; but the group likely has closer to 800 - 960 or more active and inactive members still living to it...including current and past US officials who have annually violated the Logan Act since 1954.
And the dirty secret of electronic voting is, there is no outside or neutral party oversight of the software and tallying...before, during, or after. So for all we know, the numbers may have been reverse, and as bogus as Al Franken's trunk load of fabricated and non-chain of custody votes that magically were accepted by the corrupt Courts which winked and wagged through the open fraud.
TWO ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS THAT MAY PRODUCE RESULTS BEFORE ANY INDIVIDUAL COURT ACTION
If you want to pursue the idea of getting State Attorney generals involved, consider what jbjd has proposed: petition State Attorney Generals to charge Ms. Pelosi with fraud. At jbjd.com there are downloadable form petitions addressed to each AG for the states that require that a presidential nominee be Constitutionally eligible.
Ms. Pelosi can be held personally accountable for certifying that Mr. Obama was Constitutionally eligible although she did not vet him. She signed the certificates of nomination for Mr. Obama as in her party capacity as Chairman of the Democratic Convention. Although she is Speaker of the House, and has immunity for her actions as a United States Government Official, she has NO official immunity for her actions on behalf of the Democratic Party.
All it would cost you to petition your state's AG is a few minutes, a postage stamp, some paper, and an envelope. If you are willing to press the matter further, combine forces with other petitioners and, as a group, confront the state AG in person to require on the status of the petitions.
To prevent a similar situation in the future, contact your state representatives and senators and pressure them to pass legislation prior to 2012 that requires supporting documents as an attachment to any application for candidacy. All that would be needed is one state with such a law effective prior to the 2012 election cycle.
A state law requiring supporting documents attached to any application for candidacy, would likely be challenged by at least one potential candidate. This could be a path to getting the Supreme Court to define NBC.
Will your state be the one to make the difference? You have two relatively easy paths defined here that could prevent this situation from happening again. Good luck.
As Mr. Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner could tell you, I am no hypocrite nor a fraud and have indeed contributed to their efforts with both money and other things, but I long ago stopped playing the game that little boys used to play behind Grandpa's barn where each one tried to put a "mark" higher on the barn than the other so I'll not pursue your invitation to do so.
I will say that I note in your response any mention of the fact that you have contributed any funds to the ProtectOurLiberty.org website ... or perhaps I missed your claim of such?
As for calling you worthless? No - what I said was your advice was perhaps worth what it cost. Onbama is worthless; not you (hopefully).
If obama is ousted because he was never eligible to even run for president and was elected illegally; then wouldn't everything be null and void; it does not seem like Biden would be pres. because that is only if something happened to the president; and there never was a "president" Obama...he simply did not exist. I think either McCain would be the 2nd elgible choice that was running; or have an emergency election.
do dictators ever step down? obama will never step down; he will have to be ousted from the White House.
I think McCain should be the president as he was the only other presidential candidate that came in second. and obama was NEVER the president so Biden could never take his place because was never a candidate and was never a president; he and his decisions are erased as they never were.
if any us citizen does not have standing then pray who does have standing on this issue;
the court are WRONG! the call is in their court to determine if he is or is not elgible; that is all they can determine.
January 8, 2010 at 3:52 AM
[Image]We have seen that Obama cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because when he was born, regardless of what place that may be, he was not born to a United States citizen father and mother. The "natural born Citizen" clause of our U.S. Constitution requires that both of the child’s parents be U.S. Citizens at the time of birth. Rather, if Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, then under the liberalized and questionable meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” he can be a born Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and a “citizen of the United States at birth” under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 (a). Again, that citizenship status does not make him an Article II “natural born Citizen.” But what would Obama's citizenship status be if he was not born in the United States? First, let us examine why there is still existing doubts as to whether Obama was born in Hawaii. Second, let us examine what law would apply to determine Obama’s citizenship status should he not be born in Hawaii or any other part of the United States and what his citizenship status would be under that law.
These are the reasons for the existing doubts regarding Obama's place of birth:
1. What Obama or some other unknown person posted on the internet is not a birth certificate (BC). Rather, he/she posted a digital image and picture of a questionable "certification of live birth" (COLB) which at best is only prima facie evidence of the place of his birth. The prima facie value of this document fails in light of numerous existing factual circumstances which contradict the COLB's validity and which have not been adequately explained by Obama.
2. According to Obama and his Press Secretary, Mr. Gibbs, this digital document alone is supposed to allow Obama to qualify to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military. According to them, this electronic image alone is sufficient to prove that Obama is a U.S. citizen and therefore qualified to have the full power of the executive vested in him. It is unbelievable that Obama would expect the American people to grant him such license over their lives based simply upon an electronic image on a computer screen. It is even more unbelievable that the Electoral College, our Congress, political institutions, security forces, and media would allow him to get away with it. This document, which in its paper form is undoubtedly a legal document, has no probative value given that it was posted by some unknown person on the internet as a digital image without following any prescribed electronic media security protocols. We know that digital images can be easily manipulated through computer technology. See http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/01102/010555.html for an explanation of the need to follow defined federal and state standards when it comes to electronic/digital information transmittal of legal documents. If Obama expects this digital image of a COLB to have such unprecedented value which allows him to be President of the United States, then he should at least show that the electronic image he posted meets electronic/digital security standards.
3. While not officially confirmed, the authenticity of the COLB computer image has been questioned by at least two digital image experts who have concluded that the COLB image is a forgery.
4. Obama says he was born in a hospital. A birth certificate provides the name of the hospital where the birth occurred and the name of the doctor delivering the baby. The COLB does not have this vital corroborating information.
5. The key point that Obama supporters are redirecting attention away from is that the underlying foundational information supporting his Certification of Live Birth is unknown. This unknown information may not matter much when it comes to an ordinary person. But for someone running for President of the United States and currently sitting in that Office it is of crucial importance.
6. When Obama was born in 1961, Hawaii had in effect the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program which it established in 1911 and which it terminated in 1972. Someone could under Act 96 get a certificate claiming a Hawaiian birth even if he was physically born in a foreign country by an adult or parent falsely claiming to the director of health that he was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born abroad. Hence, because of the contradictory evidence that exists such as statements made by relatives and newspaper reporters in Kenya and elsewhere regarding where he was born, plaintiffs are entitled to pierce the alleged COLB and examine the file that is in the possession of the Hawaiian Secretary of State which may contain a sworn application/petition in which some party set forth circumstantially all the facts upon which the application rested and supporting sworn affidavits of witnesses. The file could also contain the results of the Secretary or his designee examinations under oath of the applicant or other person who may have been cognizant of the alleged facts regarding the application/petition along with other documentary evidence that they may have obtained as a result of issuing subpoenas for books and other papers.
7. The DoD 5220.22-M, "National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual," 2/28/2006 (NISPOM) provides baseline standards for the protection of classified information released or disclosed to industry in connection with classified contracts under the “National Industrial Security Program (NISP). It prescribes the requirements, restrictions, and other safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of classified information. It also states at 2-209 that only U.S. citizens are eligible to receive a security clearance. The Manual requires a contractor to show proof of U.S. citizenship. It states at 2-208: “For individuals born in the United States, a birth certificate is the primary and preferred means of citizenship verification.” http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/522022mchaps.pdf. Surely, we should require such documentation of someone seeking to occupy the Office of President of the United States.
8. At the time that Obama was sworn in as President, not even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands accepted a certification of live birth (COLB) as conclusive evidence of being a native of Hawaii for its Homeland program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."
9. Since the controversy over Obama’s alleged birth certificate, Hawaii has changed its web page to read as follows:
"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth."http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl.
10. Despite the numerous law suits that have been filed against Obama, he continues to refuse to release his original birth certificate and has opted rather to spend large sums of money using lawyers to defend himself and to cause the courts and litigants to expend large amounts of time and resources pursuing litigation against him and other third parties. He relies on procedural and other threshold arguments such as jurisdiction, justiciability, standing, political question, separation of powers, mootness, and ripeness rather than simply produce his original birth certificate and make a motion for summary judgment with prejudice as to the merits so that no other future cases can be brought against him and others which would then put an end not only to the ongoing drain of money, time, and other resources but also to the great public outrage that continues to increase over time regarding his constitutional eligibility.
11. For some unknown reason and relying on federal and state privacy laws, Obama has refused to publicly release his original Certificate of Live Birth (BC) even though in his book, Dreams from My Father, he stated that he had it.
12. Obama and his half-sister, Maya, have each stated that he was born in different hospitals in Hawaii. In November 2004, in an interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters her half-brother, Sen. Barack Obama, was born on August 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. But Obama has said he was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children, also in Honolulu. Changing her story, in February 2008 Maya then told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children.
13. On February 5, 2008, Madelyn Dunham was still alive, but the Obama campaign did not make her available for interviews with the media. Obama's maternal grandmother surely would have known where her grandson was born but Obama refused the media access to her. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004164387_brodeur05m.html.
14. Neither of the two or any other hospital in Hawaii or anywhere in the world has been willing to come forward and claim its place in history as being the hospital where the first African-American U.S. President was born. There is no Hawaiian hospital that has confirmed that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu. Not a single person has come forward, not a doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, nor any one else to confirm Obama's birth in Hawaii. "We don't have plans to do anything," said Kapi’olani Medical Center spokeswoman, Claire Tong, when asked how the center plans to commemorate the soon-to-be 44th U.S. president, who, according to Obama's family and other sources, was born at that hospital on Aug. 4, 1961. "We can't confirm or deny it — even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. And that's because of the HIPA law." Tong acknowledged that the center has received daily inquiries from news agencies far and wide asking for confirmation of Obama's birthplace. Despite her wanting to do so, Tong said it is not possible. "Our hands are tied," she said. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08. I wonder why Tong said that “even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital.” He surely did not even slightly hint that any information in the hospital supported such a claim. One would think that Obama would do a simple thing and give the hospital permission to release the information to the news-thirsty public. After all, what harm to his privacy would he suffer from authorizing the hospital to simply confirm that the President of the United States was born there?
15. Attorney Philip Berg has served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned by Obama and his half sister as the place where Obama was born to obtain the medical records which would show the fact of Obama being born in either one of them but Obama has refused to sign the consent that the hospitals need to release the documents.
16. “Birthplaces and boyhood homes of U.S. presidents have been duly noted and honored for nearly as long as America has been a nation. In the case of such towering figures as Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, those early locations have been deemed national treasures and historic sites, visited annually by the multitudes.” http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08. But we have not seen any movement by any public charity or foundation, non-profit organization, or government agency to commemorate Obama's place of birth in Hawaii.
17. We have not seen any media events or news conferences at the hospital where Obama was born which I am sure is a place the location of which is highly news worthy not only to the American people but to the whole world. Hence, we do not even know in which hospital Obama was born.
18. Other than the COLB and the two newspaper announcements whose basis for information is the same single source, there does not exist one known corroborating medical or other document of any kind which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Honolulu Advertiser, on Sunday, August 13, 1961 contained the following short announcement: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4." The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, an unaffiliated, competing publication, carried the exact same notice the following day. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers. Advertiser columnist and former Star-Bulletin managing editor, Dave Shapiro, was not at either paper in 1961, but he remembers how the birth notices process worked years later when both papers were jointly operated by the Hawaii Newspaper Agency, which no longer exists. He states: "Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health . . . . They would send the same thing to both papers." http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08. Hence, we can see that the information for those birth notices comes straight from the state Health Department’s Vital Records Division. Hence, the birth announcements, not having their source of information in some other place, do not add any corroboration to the COLB. Other secondary evidence may include baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records, or affidavits of persons having personal knowledge about the facts of birth. Other documentary evidence can be early census, school, or family bible records, newspaper files, or insurance papers. No such documents have been produced for the American public. Furthermore, no one has been able to confirm that Obama’s mother and father in fact ever lived at 6085 Kalaniana’ole Highway, Honolulu.
19. Although Obama has had a first-class education that spanned 25 years, there is only a single document that has ever been released, the application for entrance to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School in Indonesia. That document was discovered by independent investigators. That documents shows that Obama was an Indonesian citizen. It is also reported that his Kindergarten records are missing. Needless to say how probative these kindergarten records would be since they would contain his legal name, parents’ names, date of birth, place of birth, and vaccination records.
20. No public official in Hawaii has publicly confirmed with any conclusive and credible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Whatever statements Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, has made are not conclusive on the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii. What is lacking is what information the Department is relying upon to make its statements. Just from her statement alone, we also do not know what evidence exists in the Department of Health file to corroborate what is stated in the “original birth certificate.”
21. We have not heard from one international, federal, state, or local police or security agency that Obama's birth place has been officially confirmed.
22. On June 27, 2004, the East African Newspaper, The Sunday Standard, in its article entitled, Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate, declared in its newspaper that Obama is Kenyan-Born. This long pre-dates Obama's decision to run for President when the truth about his birth location was not being hidden. This is not the only African paper that made such statements during a time that Obama’s birth place was not an issue.
23. An Investigator working for Philip Berg, Esq. learned the following which is contained in the investigator's affidavit dated October 30, 2008, that was filed with a Federal District Court in the case of Berg v. Obama, 08-cv-04083: Obama's step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama's success story, that she witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by "Kweli Shuhubia" and one of the grandmother's grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice, her grandson intervened, saying "No, No, No, He [sic] was born in the United States." During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she change her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she at first stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. I cannot imagine a grandmother not knowing whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson.
24. The investigator then personally went to the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. He spoke with the Provincial Civil Registrar and he learned that there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to "Barack Hussein Obama, III" in Mombassa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. The investigator then "spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. [sic] birth in Kenya is top secret. [H]e was further instructed to go to the Attorney General's Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if [he] wanted further information."
25. The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008, during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning," that "President-Elect Obama" was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a "well-known" attraction. The radio interview went as follows:
Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”
Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”
Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”
Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”
Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.” http://my.wrif.com/mim/index.php?s=Ogego
Later on, Ogego’s assistant, denying that Obama was born in Kenya, insisted Ogego was speaking about Barack Obama Sr., and not President-elect Obama.She said she could not say why Ogego responded the way he did. Listening to the radio interview in its entirety, it is very obvious the interviewers were all talking about President-elect Barack Obama and not his father. It is doubtful that Obama’s father’s paternal grandmother (Obama’s great-grandmother) was still alive. We would also expect that Ogego would have said that Obama was not born in Kenya, but there is an attraction there to honor his father. If it were true that Ogego was referring to Obama’s Sr. and not Obama Jr., we should have heard about and received credible evidence as to what preparatory steps had already been taken in Kenya to honor the birth place of Obama Sr. In evaluating Ogego’s statement, we have to also remember that Obama’s grandmother also said that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya. Hence, Ogego’s assistant’s claim that Ogego thought they were talking about Obama’s father does not appear credible.
26. It is alleged that the Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.
27. Obama has refused all effort to have him release the following documents, relying on sealing of records and/or privacy laws: Punahou High School records, Occidental College records, Columbia College records, Columbia Thesis paper, Harvard College records, Selective Service Registration, medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Illinois State Senate schedule, Law practice client list, Certified Copy of original Birth Certificate, Harvard Law Review articles that were published, University of Chicago scholarly articles, exit and entry immigration records covering all of Obama's travels out of the United States; passports; and record of baptism, if any.
28. Fightthesmears.com and factcheck.org have since maintained silence on the birth place issue after the questionable COLB was posted on the internet.
29. Other than a digital composite image representation on the internet of a questionable letter dated January 24, 2009 that he allegedly wrote to Kapi’olani Medical Center congratulating the hospital on its centennial celebration (it is reported that he refused to confirm that the letter was genuine, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103503), Obama has remained silent and has not declared publicly after his COLB and place of birth were questioned that he was born in Hawaii.
30. No member of the media, any political party, the Executive Branch of Government, Congress, any political institution, the Judiciary, or any law enforcement entity, has publicly stated that he or she has independently confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Nor has House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, publicly announced that she confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Given all this evidence, Obama should come forward with competent evidence to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. To date, he has failed to produce such evidence. Hence, under these circumstances, how can the American people in good faith conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii? How did Obama in good conscience twice take the oath to be President on January 20th when so many Americans have put forward all this contradictory evidence regarding where he was born and he refuses to come forward with any other convincing evidence (like a certified copy of his original birth certificate) showing that he was born in Hawaii?
If Obama was not born in the United States, then a completely different legal scenario would apply regarding his current citizenship status. There is much confusion regarding what role Obama’s mother plays in giving him United States citizenship. With his father not being a U.S. citizen, Obama would need his mother to make him a citizen only if he was not born in the U.S. If he was not born in the United States, his mother would, however, for the following reasons not be able to transmit United States citizenship to him because she was too young at the time Obama was born.
The law governing the citizenship of children born outside the U.S. to one or more Unites States-citizen parents may be found at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 to Sec. 1409. What could apply to Obama are Sec. 1401 (Nationals and citizens of United States at birth), 1405 (Persons Born in Hawaii), 1409 (Children born out of wedlock). Sec. 1405 would apply to make him a “citizen of the United States at birth” only if he was born in Hawaii in 1961. With proof of the place of his birth lacking, we cannot now say that this statute would be applicable. Obama has maintained that his parents were married when he was born. They even obtained a divorce. Hence, it does not appear that Sec. 1409 would apply to him. So the only statute which would apply to him to make his a “citizen of the United States at birth” would be Section 1401. But Obama, if not born in the United States, also cannot satisfy any part of Section 1401.
The only part of Sec. 1401 that could apply to Obama is subsection (g). A child born in wedlock and abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 1401(g) (Section 301(g) INA), provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child). http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html. Hence, the Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1401(g), Sec. 301 (g) [Effective November 14, 1986] does not apply to Obama because he was born in 1961. What does apply to Obama is the Nationality Act of 1940, as Revised June 1952, which was in effect when he was born. But under this older version of the statute, for birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. for the United States citizen parent to transmit United States citizenship to the child. United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Gomez-Orozco, 188 F.3d 422, 426-27 (7th Cir. 1999)) and Drozd v. INS, 155 F 3d 81, 85-88 (2d Circuit 1998).
Hence, this is the scenario that would apply if Obama was not born in the United States. Obama’s father was not a United States citizen. Obama can therefore only rely on his United States citizen mother to make him a “citizen of the United States at birth.” But as we can see from 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g) (the only applicable statute), a mother had to be at least 19 years old when she gave birth to the child born abroad in order to transmit her United States citizenship to him. Obama’s mother, born on November 29, 1942, was 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old. But she had to be at least 19 years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy the legal requirement of Sec. 1401(g) (INA Section 301(g)). Therefore, Obama cannot benefit from Sec. 1401(g).
Hence, if Obama was not born in the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment he is neither a United States citizen by birth on United States soil nor one by naturalization. (There is no existing evidence that Obama was ever naturalized.) Nor would he qualify to be a United States citizen by any act of Congress by being born abroad to a United States citizen parent. If this scenario were proven to be true (being neither a born nor a naturalized citizen), it can be reasonably argued that Obama is an undocumented alien. Obama has refused to release his identity documents to the public which causes such theories to exist. It is this reason which shows the importance of the American people being able to access Obama’s records (birth certificate, travel, education, and employment records) to intelligently learn his exact citizenship status. Surely, the United States cannot have a possible undocumented alien be its President. People must keep pressing Obama that he releases his personal documents so that they may at least learn that the President is at least a “citizen of the United States” which again still does not make him an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
December 6, 2009
posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. at 9:45 PM on Dec 6, 2009
"What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Citizenship Status?"
47 Comments -
Hi Mario,
Another superb essay.
Charles
December 6, 2009 at 10:39 PM
The term "Natural Born" citizen is used only once in the US Constitution. It is used used as part of a 2 prong test protect from foreign influence of the POTUS (The other test is the residency requirement). Through the course of our legal history, the courts have errornously tried to equate "Natural Born" Citizen in terms of RIGHTS rather than its intended interpretation as a security check against foreign influence. No court has have examined "Natural Born" citizenship in the context of it's intended interpretation and purpose.
December 6, 2009 at 11:38 PM
In the Wong Kim Ark case, SCOTUS never declared Wong Kim Ark a "Natural Born" citizen. The court merely stated that Wong Kim Ark (A Child of Aliens) has citizenship equivalent to as much as a "Natural Born" citizen in RIGHTS.
But, it is clear Wong Kim Ark was not a "Natural Born" citizen
From the Decision:
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]
December 6, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Again, great compilation and explanation.
More...
Obama has said he is a "Citizen of the World" and native-born.
Bill Richardson said Obama was an "immigrant".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo
Earthfrisk asked if Obama's MAMA had been a patient at any Hawaiian hospital, since she's deceased HIPAA laws do not apply. She was not.
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135
(absent father? maybe. absent mama? hardly!)
So IF he were born in Hawaii..."what" is he? To the point, is there really such a thing as an official dual citizen in the United States?
December 7, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Jackie Smith has left a new comment on your post "What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Ci...":
Great work Mario.....the FRAUD will never give up his documents.....someone will have to [editor's deletion]...it is becoming even more doubtful that the courts will do their job either. We already know how ignorant the Senators and Congressmen are on the issue!!! They all need to be fired so we can get some real representation in DC!
December 7, 2009 at 1:51 AM
Please forgive my asking what might be a "stupid question" for you.
Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001). I haven't seen you using it.
On 9-28-2005, at a Harvard Question and Answer Session,
http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/hls9-28-05.asp
Justice Scalia expalined how he views his role as a Supreme Court Justice:
"...in the case of my court is that we have this institution of certiorari. We don't really take a case in order to, quote-unquote, "do justice", to make sure the right person has won. In a number of cases that we decline to take, I suspect that the lower court may have got it wrong. But there has been at least one appeal, in most cases two, by the time it reaches us, and our job is not to correct mistakes. By reason of certiorari, our job is to resolve those issues of federal law on which there is disagreement below. Once you have that institution of certiorari, it really alters the nature of what the court is doing; it means that we're really not there to ensure that the good guy won and the bad guy lost."
In Contrast, at the same Q&A: Breyer described the Supreme Court’s role as “100 percent law interpretation” and “much more mechanical than you might think.”http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=508682
Strangely enough, in the majority opinion of 2001’s 533 US 53, NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS. http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/ , one of the criteria of proving one's birth location and birth citizenship is through the 100% mechanical means of hospital records and witnesses. 533 US 53, NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS. (2001) @ 54 :“The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.” And @62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”
So in light of challenging Obama's claim to citizenship, why aren't you utilizing Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 54,62 (2001) to persuade the Courts in giving you the sealed records such as the Long Form Birth Certificate to establish if or not there were witnesses to the birth and that it happened in the USA instead of elsewhere? I'd really like to see you get that Long Form B.C. and let us know what it says.
December 7, 2009 at 2:49 AM
Sorry Mario....the comment you deleted wasn't meant literally...just an expression of frustration as we will probably never get to the truth....but hey....I'm not giving up!!! Thanks to you and Charles for pursuing this very important breach of our Constitution!! :)
December 7, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Mario,
Last week I came across this article about the media suing to have the private details of Jack Ryan's (Obama's opponent in the 2004 Senate race) divorce unsealed.
http://www.slate.com/id/2102872/
They cited; “In keeping with prior rulings nationwide, the court concluded that the public's right of access outweighed whatever emotional distress the unsealing might cause.”
Why can't someone sue to have Blocks 18b and 19b (the name of the person who affirmed Obama's birth, and the name of the person who delivered Obama, respectively) of Obama's original birth record released? Those affirmations were public acts, and are the only pieces of information that can demonstrate the veracity of the birth record.
December 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Brianroy:
I think the Nguyen case you quote from is not definitive from the standpoint of what is stated in the case about citizenship (and keep in mind this case is about citizenship as opposed to natural born citizenshiop which is quite a different thing.
Having the mother present at birth in a given hospital does not per se offer proof of her citizenship at all. There are numerous anchor babies born in the US whose mother is definitely NOT a US citizen (and no inference should be taken that anchor babies are a good thing ... just that they are; largely due to the WKA fiasco).
Your point about using this as a lever to obtain some of the vital records is possibly a good one, though, and I imagine that Mr. Apuzzo has "thrown that into the mix" as it were.
December 7, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Re: jayjay and Mr. Apuzzo,
What about bringing declarative policy utterances of Transparency by Obama along with Nguyen's need for witnesses along with hospital or birth records to verify a de facto birth location in arguing before the Court for the release of such records, etc.?
At Obama's National Archives Speech on May 21, 2009, he demanded 4 times that the Congress, the Courts, and "we the people" watch over him and hold him and His Administration accountable:
http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/21/HP/A/18855/Pres+Obama+Speech+on+National+Security.aspx
The quotes on C-Span are found at:
1) "I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.” @ 37:10-37:23 on the C-Span video link
2) “…whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.” @37:54-38:07
3) “…in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.” @38:28 – 38:39
4) “I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why." @ 40:44-41:01
Will the Courts allow you to use Obama's own words against him and take him to task on these repeated public and administration "policy" of "transparency" utterances that support a release of the transcripts and Long Form BC regardless of what his lawyers argue privately? It seems to me, that with Nguyen, this video data in chambers could persuade the Judge to unseal those records which would declare and witness as to Obama's citizen and birth location status: i.e., if Barack II (Jr., or whatever alias he has) was filed as a foreign national in any US school, college or university...or if any document of any kind has the name of the witness of the attending physician, nurse or mid-wife witness... or in the case of a clinic, a hospital administrator on a document with a foil seal or what have you.
Wouldn't this be enough to convince a judge to release, along with all the other data summarized? Again, please pardon my ignorance if I sound a bit backward or slow on the issue. Thank you kindly, in advance.
December 7, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Brianroy,
The problem is not that we have not framed enough questions to get at Obama's records. The problem is that the Courts are not willing to give plaintiffs standing to conduct discovery which would undoubtedly uncover all the Obama records.
December 7, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Thanks Mario and Charles...
December 7, 2009 at 8:29 PM
To cajapie,
said, "But his mother was American, and he did not CHOOSE to be British, so he is just American."
These United States of America are law's of the land not of man! Tell that to the bots and judges and red fruitcake lawyers.
why do you let them sway your confidence? why feed the animals their gruel?
December 8, 2009 at 10:56 AM
equador: I do not capitulate to bots but time and again I'm met with made-up, contrived, ridiculous, off-the-wall, supercilious "arguments" that spell out the "I WON" mentality.
THEY DO NOT CARE THAT THEY ARE SHREDDING THE CONSTITUTION.
After presenting the Senate rep. with SCOTUS precedents and pure logic, after being told a ridiculous line about how he did not choose to be British, and his Kenyan citizenship expired (truly, they believed that no citizenship from BHO Sr therefore remained) you know what else they had to say?
"He's president, so just get over it."
It's like talking to brick walls. Although by now I sense a tiny bit of crumbling.
THEN there's the professional obotfuscators...we're always left wondering if certain approaches aren't meant to clog the process with a built in failure. For example Sen. Nathan Deal was supposed to be investigating Obama's eligibility, and wants to see his birth certificate---however he does not address Obama's British citizenship and when I called, apparently they dont' want to talk about it at all. Now what's going on with that?
My feeling is that these people running this coup are at war with the American people, and their big artillery is the fake-PR front they give us. Their back-up armaments are the media censorship, judicial stonewalling, and congressional denial.
Government any more is simply cronyism, corruption, criminality, bankrupting, backroom deals, and then they send their front-men/women down to the lobby to bullshit the American people. That's the game in a nutshell.
December 8, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Part I of II
Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause is not discriminatory. Undoubtedly, one class of citizen is not “better” or “less” than any other class of citizen. Indeed, Article IV, Section 2, clause 1, the Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment make clear that a Fourteenth Amendment or statutory born “citizen of the United States,” and Fourteenth Amendment “naturalized citizen of the United States” are equal in the eyes of the law and enjoy the same privileges and immunities. There is nothing in these provisions which says that these “citizens of the United States” must have the same privileges and immunities as Article II “natural born Citizens.” Additionally, being allowed to be eligible to be President is not a fundamental constitutional right. The “natural born Citizen” clause is not a constitutional provision that is the source of any civil rights. The Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly guarantee to anyone the substantive right to be President of the United States nor are there any constitutional underpinnings to such an alleged right. The fact that someone might want to aspire to be President does not elevate eligibility to be President to be a constitutional fundamental right. On the contrary, being eligible to be President is a political privilege given by the Constitution to those who meet the qualifications of Article II to be President.
The “natural born Citizen” clause as I define it is no different from Article II’s requirements that a would-be President have a certain age (35) and a certain time of residency (14 years) and that a naturalized citizen cannot be President. My interpretation of the “natural born Citizen” is not discriminatory but rather based on respect for the rule of law, i.e. the Constitution. Indeed, the clause has no race, color, ethnicity, or religion test, for its requirements apply to all people regardless of those factors. Under the clause, we are not condemning any child for any misdeeds of his or her parents. These children are not being penalized or stigmatized for anything the parents did or did not do or for their birth status. Rather, these children’s status is being characterized pursuant to a constitutional mandate that applies to defining the eligibility requirements to be President. These children are being treated no differently from how Congress treats persons differently when it comes to doling out government benefits to a person depending on that person’s relationship to the United States, i.e., citizen, resident, or alien. They are no different from the persons who cannot be President because they have been naturalized. Additionally, the Equal Protection Clause is not designed to equalize all persons and eradicate every distinction that may exist between people and for which people are not responsible. Indeed, guilt or innocence of the target of legislation does not control equal protection analysis. Hence, there is nothing discriminatory about my wanting our Constitution respected. On the contrary, there is much wrong in allowing a majority of our legislatures or people to circumvent the Constitution for the sake of wanting for whatever reason any specific person to occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief.
Continued . . .
December 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Part II of II
One might ask why we even have the “natural born Citizen” clause. The "natural born Citizen" clause’s purpose is to protect the national security of the United States. The Founders wanted to make sure to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief. We know from studying our own and international legal precedents that citizenship produces allegiance. Preserving the national security, safety, and best interests of the United States is a compelling government interest. Making sure a would-be President has attachment and allegiance from birth solely to the United States is a means by which the nation can assure itself that the person to be President will, indeed, have the survival of the nation as currently constituted at heart. Requiring that a would-be President be born in the country to a U.S. citizen mother and father assures that from birth that person has sole and absolute allegiance to the United States. Making sure the person to be President has sole and absolute allegiance to the United States and is free of foreign influence to the greatest degree possible is a reasonable means of securing the safety and interests of the United States. Keeping foreign influence out of the Office of President also assures the American people that the President will not favor once foreign nation over another foreign one to the detriment of the best interests of the United States.
When the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the People made their choice regarding wanting only a “natural born Citizen’ to be President. The choice is not discriminatory under today’s standards. The requirements for Presidential eligibility emanate from the Constitution itself and neither the federal nor state legislatures nor voters themselves can avoid or change them unless done by a way prescribed the Constitution itself. Hence, the People’s choice must be respected unless changed by constitutional amendment.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 8, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Mr. Apuzzo:
I believe you may say NBC has no more rights as a Citizen as does a statutory citizen in agreement w/WKA, however the eligibility requirements for POTUS are highly discriminatory as they exclude by age and domestic tenure.
I called the Supreme Court and asked if they had a FOIA Officer; they said SCOTUS is not subject to FOIA requests. My purpose is to access the transcript to the second unauguration oath, which was never published or video-taped, as testimony that this was the actual oath taken. I am directed to the White House, and I'll let you know what they said.
December 8, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Well, I have exhausted all avenues trying to track down ANY transcript of the second inauguration oath.
SCOTUS does not abide FOIA requests, the White House directs to DOJ, and DOJ to USAG Pro Tem Corey Ferrara, who does not get back. The Federal Register does not show it as printed. There is no video tape. There is no written transcript. SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts office will not cooperate.
What the hell is going on with the second oath? Can you please let me know if any of your guys can uncover anything?
Based on tone and instinct, there's something highly fishy about it.
December 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM
To follow up, I heard from DOJ AG Pro Tem and now I'm directed now to contact White House OMB/FOIA and National Archives. However nobody has ever seen the transcript of the second inauguration oath with whom I have spoken, including Dartmouth which did an extensive study on the first one.
I don't want anyone to gratuitously indulge my conspiracy fantasies, just tell me why it's not public record when it's such a vitally important legally-binding verbal contract with the American people? It's obvious the first one was considered null or they would not have taken the second one.
December 8, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER is still alive.”
In "evaluating" the Kenyan Ambassador's statement re B.O. Jr's birthplace and subsequent
denials by a spokesperson that he was, indeed, referring to Jr.; I am surprised that you didn't highlight the most damning evidence that would tend to impugn the accuracy of the revised interpretation of Ogego's words:
(B.O. Sr's) paternal grandmother? uh...I don't think so.
December 9, 2009 at 2:03 AM
Great work Mario and Charles!This needs to be done for the historical record regardless of what the courts do. Note: The State Of New Columbia
In 1982, in the face of a preoccupied and oblivious nation, a new flag was hoisted over the District of Columbia. This strange looking flag has been flying ever since at the same level as the U.S. flag. The flag has three red stars and two red stripes on a white field. This same design also appears on license plates and arm bands of police officers. The new flag has also been seen flying over select military bases. Here let it be also noted that in 1982, when the State of New Columbia came into being, it brought with it a new constitution with almost no resemblance to the Constitution of the United States.The State of New Columbia operates on a new legal system known as lex fori, which is a tyrannical Roman "law of the forum." Furthermore, as if that is not bad enough, every state that flies the United States flag is subject to the constitution of the State of New Columbia.The way that people are hooked into this new government is revealed in the following words, "When you consent, in writing or otherwise, to reside or be employed in a federal "revenue district", electoral district, water conservation district or school district, you automatically include yourself in a "political subdivision" and "body politic" that you know by some local name, but it is also now known as New Columbia."I must also note that in 1990, when the "Federal Debt Collection Practices Act" was passed, the United States officially became the "United States, Inc." Thus, when we elect a President and other national officers, we are electing corporate officials, and the old system no longer applies. Thus, in legal structure our nation is a corporation like Chrysler, General Motors or any of the others. Sept.1996 http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/
December 9, 2009 at 3:44 AM
to cajapie,
Thankyou for responding. For me being nice and trying to break through is a waste of time. Although, I did think that would be best, given we are NBC's and have a responsibility, but the majority from the supposed 'neivte' was hateful rage. That action only comes from opponets of freedom.
Please know I appreciate your comments and this blog has alot to offer. Do hope e see the flying monkey again! LOL
But hey, your thinking is not theory when it is played out in front of you.
Merry Christmas to you and all that read this. Glory be to God.
December 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM
avodlp,
Thank you for your insight. I have added your point to my article. Take a look and let me know what you think.
December 9, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Part I of II
James, a frequent commentator here, wrote the following essay which I want to share with the readers here. James says that Obama is a "Native Born" citizen or citizen at birth." I would correct his statement to read "may" be . . . I am not saying that I agree with all of James' statements. In any event, I think James' essay deserves to be published.
ESSAY
Obama is NOT "Natural Born" citizen.
Obama is a "Native Born" citizen or citizen at birth but he is certainly NOT a "Natural Born" citizen.
To be a "Natural Born" citizen you must be born on US soil to 2 US Citizens.(Parents)
Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen and never a US citizen so Obama can never declared a "Natural Born" citizen.
We already know these facts. But how do we know what "Natural Born" citizen really means.
Incredibly, the courts have never litigated the meaning of a "Natural Born" citizen.
Yes, we have seen many cases that talked about "Natural Born" citizen such as Wong Kim Ark and others but incredibly, "Natural Born" citizen has never be defined by the courts. I will explain why.
It all begins with the letter John Jay had written to George Washington during the original drafting of the US Constitution. Below is the relevant portion of that letter:
"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."
Notice that John Jay encourages a STRONG check against foreign influence into the position of POTUS.
The founders took John Jay's advise and created that STRONG check.
In creating the US Consitution, the Founders instituted a 3 prong qualification check for persons to be in the position of the POTUS. This is outlined in Article II Section I below:
"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."
As one can see there is a 3 prong check in place:
1. You must be a "Natural Born" citizen.
2. You must be at least 35 years old
3. You be a resident in the US for 14 years.
Notice that these are the only requirements to qualify to be the POTUS. You don't need a college degree. You don't need to have military experience. You don't need to have leadership experience such as being a governor.
You need one and only 1 important qualification. You need to be free of FOREIGN INFLUENCE.
The term "Natural Born" citizen is used only once in our US Constitution. It is used in Article II Section I as part of the 3 prong security check to protect the POTUS from foreign influence.
In the context of our US Constitution, the term "Natural Born" citizen has one purpose only - the protect against foreign influence.
The meaning and interpretation of such a term is to be used in that context.
The problem we have seen in our courts over the course of legal history is that the court have incorrectly used the term "Natural Born" citizen in a way to convey citizenship RIGHTS rather than in a way to protect against foreign influence as it was intended to do so.
A good example of this mistake was in Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was child born of aliens. The court said the Wong Kim Ark was as much as "Natural Born" citizen in RIGHTS as a true "Natural Born" citizen. It is clear that the court said that Wong Kim Ark was NOT a "Natural Born" citizen.
Continued . . .
December 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Part II of II
From the decision:
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]"
The courts have consistently used the interpretation of RIGHTS rather than the protection from foreign influence in litigating the meaning of "Natural Born" citizen. In several of these cases, the courts have noted that such individuals would be eligible to be the POTUS but they have never supported that fact with any legal reasoning the context of the "Natural Born" citizen that we have discussed.
Ever wonder why the Founders decided that 35 was the minimum age to be eligible for the POTUS. This is a key requirement that fits right into the 3 prong test of Article II Section I. Remember the 14 year residency requirement. If you subtract 14 from 35, (35 -14 = 21) you get age 21. The Founders felt that was the minimum age for an adult. (Technically you are an adult at 18 but there are still limitations)
As part of the 3 prong test, the "Natural Born" citizen requirement was used to protect the person from age 0 to age 21. After 21, the 14 year residency requirement was used to protect against foreign influence from age 21 and above.
Going back to "Natural Born" citizen, lets create 2 hypothesizes on the meaning the term "Natural Born" citizen and see how they fit within the 3 prong test against foreign influence.
Hypothesis 1 - "Natural Born" citizen means only being born on US soil.
In this scenario, Anchor Babies (Children born of foreigners) can be the POTUS. This meaning fails because it violates the 3 prong test. Although the person may satisfy the 14 year residency requirement, the person in NOT immune from foreign influence from ages 0 through 21. These ages are considered the childhood of a person where parental influence is strong. Interpretation "Natural Born" citizen in this manner does not protect against foreign influence.
Hypothesis 2 - "Natural Born" citizen means being born on US Soil to 2 US Citizens.
In this scenario, protection against foreign influence is fully protected because the parents are US citizens. Further, when the person reaches 21, the "Natural Born" citizen prong ends and the 14 year residency prong begins. The founders felt that 14 years was good amount time to insure that the person to become the POTUS was free of foreign influence and to compensate for any situation where the person might move and live in a different country.
In the end, we see the following. "Natural Born" citizen is first part of the 3 prong test and lasts from age 0 to 21. The 14 year residency requirement is the second prong of the test and last from age 21 and above. The minimum age of 35 insures that the residency requirement is adhered to as soon the "Natural Born" citizen prong ends.
I think it is pretty clear that the founders came up with complicated security check to protect against foreign influence.
In deriving the meaning of "Natural Born" citizen you must always keep in mind that it was type of citizenship NOT used to give RIGHTS but a type of citizenship to protect against foreign influence.
This is the mistake that courts have consistently made.
While there could situations where US citizens could move to other countries with their children and the children could be exposed to foreign influence, the Founders could not compensate for every contingency.
James in Florida 12/09/2009
December 9, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Why does "President" Obama sign his signature with a
Russian
alphabet letter O with a vertical slash through it?
Is there any other alphabet in the world that uses that letter like that?
Is the alphabet of Kenya the same as the alphabet of Russia?
Cris Ericson
http://crisericson2010.blogspot.com
December 9, 2009 at 10:26 PM
The False REGISTRATION of Obama's Birth in the Hawaii Records System.
Obama's Birth In Hawaii Was Likely Falsely REGISTERED as Occurring There by Obama's Maternal Grandmother. But Obama Was Probably Physically Born Elsewhere. And Obama's Paternal Step-Grandmother Says Obama was Born in Kenya as Do News Accounts in Kenyan Newspapers.
Listen to this audio segment on how it could have been easily been done in Hawaii in 1961 just to gain the newborn child born out of the country U.S. Citizenship, a highly desirable status. No one ever thought this would be discovered. No one in 1961 ever thought this child would one day run for the Presidency. They only wanted to get Citizenship for the new born child which was born out of the country. And Hawaii's lax registration laws made it easy for anyone to commit birth location registration fraud.
9 minutes video clip at YouTube - Charles Kerchner chats with Bill Cunningham explaining this to Bill on the Bill Cunningham Radio Show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ
Charles
December 10, 2009 at 7:08 PM
We have someone in the White House who PROMISED "transparency", yet he has done everything possible to hide his background. Even though I really didn't have the extra cash, since April, I have been sending anonymous donations to various persons who have been working to expose the facts about Obama because I owe a solemn duty to my Country, my children and my grandchildren. My best friend (who was an attorney from Georgia) was extremely distraught over the "eligibility" issue and the refusal of the courts to properly address it, so much so that last Thursday, he took his own life. I had one asset (a collector automobile worth over $100,000) put away to sell to raise cash to move to Europe, plus $600 in cash left. Yesterday, I discovered the car was stolen from the storage facility, it was not insured. Now, I'm financially ruined. My retirement is less than $1,000 per month and, instead of moving to Europe to be with my new wife, next week I'll have no choice but to move into a homeless shelter. At my age and with my health problems, starting over is out of the question. Winning the legal battle against "the usurper" is a necessity, please keep up the fight. God bless you all and Merry Christmas.
December 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Great essay Mario.Please see the Trading With The Enemies Act/War Powers Act and APA Act and then listen to Greg Evensen -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvUh5guvIvU
December 11, 2009 at 3:18 AM
Lee has left a new comment on your post "What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Ci...":
Mario.wondeful job working at what once was a Republic. [editor's deletion] The Ads are superb by the way [editor's deletion]
The unwritten Maxim of Law: Always argue procedure !
[editor's deletion]
December 11, 2009 at 9:18 AM
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/11/oathgate-revisited/#comments
December 11, 2009 at 8:41 PM
I am just an ordinary citizen in America, and not one who has had the benefit of exceptional training or extensive education; until the most recent two years, the extent of my formal education was the GED I obtained after dropping out of a public school having completed only the ninth grade. As such, I make no claim to possessing the wisdom I expect to see made manifest by those who hold positions that require levels of moral and judicial interpretation far beyond the reach of my limited intellectual base of reasoning. Still, for the love of my country and concern for my children and grandchildren's futures, I struggle to grasp the full scope of the consequences of these proceedings, and the ramifications of the courts' persistent disregard (?), denial (?), and/or failure to define or otherwise address (?) the interpretation of the language that our founding fathers used to codify the laws of our Constitution.
In my struggle, I have seen citations pointing to what I imagine must be other cases that are thought to be in some way or another relevant to this present situation, so I, in my ignorance and naiveté, thought it might be interesting to see if I could learn to do that myself. Wow (!) I have gained a whole new respect for lawyers, judges and anyone else whose responsibility or privilege, as the case may be, it is to wade through the masses of volumes within which those records are contained. My humble thanks to all of you!
Still, I want to share something I found online yesterday as I was exploring. It is from a memorandum that was presented in a case between David R. Myrland v. United States Department of Justice and others in 2005:
“The need to use the Court’s supervisory powers to suppress evidence obtained through governmental misconduct was perhaps best expressed by Mr. Justice Brandeis in his famous dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 471-485 (1928):”
Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.
http://www.jurisinformatics.com/RICO/docs/COMPLAINT/TAB5_MEMO.pdf. Page 49, lines 4-13.
Now, I don’t know whether or not the above quoted material is applicable in this case in the legal sense, but it sure spoke to me about the dangers we could face if we fail to adequately address issues like this that are not only so critical to our current national security, but so vital to the preservation of our very way of life; we can only hope to keep the freedoms we enjoy if we have the courage, compulsion, and conviction to preserve what so many gave their lives to provide for us. To that end also, this court should “resolutely set its face” and do that which it is uniquely qualified to do: interpret the language of the law.
December 15, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Toni:
Your Brandeis quote from the Olmstead action was right on point and should receive more notice by all!!!
December 17, 2009 at 9:21 AM
James,
I would respectfully disagree that such age limits would be pertaint as you have suggested, in such a way that 21 means adulthood as a legal definition. I would in return state that it most likely would have direct placement on statehood, law knowledge and the least amount of foreign influence.
Lets look at what James Madison said in the Federalist Paper #62 while addressing the concerns for age limits on Senators. We can also apply the same concern to the President, (which they did).
James Madison federalist paper #62:
………..”I. The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and tability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.”
December 17, 2009 at 12:45 PM
James,
In further ado, lets also review the concerns of legal knowledge, statehood and lest likely influence from foreign countries.
Here, James Madison also addresses issues with the House of Representatives. Notice that his main concern is not age per se’, but rather knowledge.
James Madison federalist paper #53:
…..
“In regulating our own commerce he ought to be not only acquainted with the treaties between the United States and other nations, but also with the commercial policy and laws of other nations. He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the “law of nations”; for that, as far as it is a proper object of municipal legislation, is submitted to the federal government.”…..
December 17, 2009 at 1:18 PM
It's amazing how people read hings into decisions that aren't there.
For example, James quotes from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in an attempt to prove a difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth:
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]"
Yet, clearly, the quote says nothing about natural born citizen. It says that a child, born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen. Based on the preceding discussion about the meaning in the language of the time of "natural born" in the context of citizenship, the court was clearly stating that simply being born in the country was enough to make one a natural born citizen.
This would appear to be backed up by William's quote from Federalist Paper #62: "A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter." And a President must be at least 35 years of age, and have been a citizen from birth.
December 21, 2009 at 2:17 AM
Roger,
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]"
Mr. Binney as quoted by Wong Kim Ark makes a comparison between a child born of aliens and a "natural-born child of a citizen." These are two distinct classes. If they were the same, there would be no need to make the comparison. This shows that to be a “natural born Citizen,” the child must be born to citizens. On the other hand, a child born in the United States to alien parents was considered a simple “Citizen.”
December 21, 2009 at 3:48 AM
Has it been considered that going directly against BO might be the wrong approach?
The situation goes back to a systemic failure in our State's election protocol. There is no assurance by utilizing these suits that the same or similar problem might not crop up again one day. If we concentrate our efforts on who did the vetting in each of the states, we will be able to rest assure that steps will be taken to correct this glitch in our system and guarantee it won't occur again. At the same time, BO's utter lack of credentials would be exposed. We wouldn't need to keep playing this game - is he or is he not a Natural Born Citizen - which will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide. We won't need to try to force him to show us his "real" birth certificate... he'll be out of office before that happens. Go to the states that REQUIRE the Presidential Candidates to be CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE for the job. (Did you know that only a handful of states actually HAVE this requirement? Is your state one of them?) Then find out who signed the forms that were submitted to the state election committee - in some cases Nancy Pelosi herself - and file a complaint with your state Attorney General as to HOW DID the person signing the form, swearing that BO was eligible to have his name put on the ballot in that state - HOW DID they know? WHAT PROOF did they have? An electronic copy of a "Certification of Live Birth" which almost anyone can get? Not only does this usurper need to be exposed before he does any more damage than he has already, but legal steps must be taken to insure this never occurs again.
January 1, 2010 at 11:49 AM
In reply to Patrirock,
In South Carolina, the Democratic Party’s Carol Fowler broad brushed that: “The South Carolina Democratic Party certifies that each candidate meets, OR WILL MEET BY THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he/she has filed.” (emphasis mine -- see page 2 of the pdf, dated August 14, 2008, and received 11:43 AM by the South Carolina Election Commission on August 15, 2008.)
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-south-carolina-sec-of-state-respons.pdf
Fowler, it seems to me, went on promises and lies from Democratic Party Leaders and top Obama Campaign handlers, instead of having before her a de facto legal documentation. The "we'll have it for you later" excuse. To me, that either equals fraud or the possible intent to defraud.
Connecticut’s Secretary of State, claimed they had NO right to even ask Obama for verification to prove he was eligible to run!
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-sec-of-state-connecticuit-fax-name-removed.pdf
For the Election of 2008, Barack never submitted any crucial proof citizen documents for review, even to the Courts, in order to run for President. Not one Secretary of Stae has every come forth in the Birth Certificate controversy and every said..."we have seen his Birth Certificate". Is the Media totally aslep on that? Barack should have submited his proof to run when he first announced that he would run in 2007, and before he received his Secret Service protection detail.
Never did Barack show proof that he was even qualified under Constitutional Article 2.1.5. as a child born on US soil to two US Citizen parents. He could not then, and he cannot ever do so; because his biological father was never a US Citizen, and he himself tells us this in his own auto-biographical book, published over a decade before his announcement to run for the US Presidency.
In 2008, Obama's Campaign chose to bypass taking Federal Tax Dollars and be non-accountable to the Federal Elections Commission in campaign laws governing the FEC's right of inquiry as to his qualifications to hold the office of the Presidency (in regards to his NBC status or the lack thereof). The FEC appears to have claimed to have NO AUTHORITY TO ASK, and passed the responsibility of vetting Obama’s “Citizen and Qualification Status” off to the State of Illinois, when it was governed by a Governor whom the State of Illinois itself called corrupt and later saw dismissed.
I personally think what is eventually needed is a Supreme Court order that subpoenas every 2008 Secretary of State and Democratic Party State Committee Chair in the Nation, as well as speaker Pelosi, and a drilling of them on the witness stand as to what (if any) document verification they had, and copies of the same to vet Obama to run in their respective state. Such is only my preference, and as yet unsubstantiated hope, however.
January 1, 2010 at 9:09 PM
Patrirock and Brianroy:
I'm sure your free advice is worth at least what it costs, but think about this:
Various of the SOS offices have been named in different suits along with other political elements of our society and NONE have ever received so much as a tap on the wrist since the courts are running scared like a bunch of rabbits and are refusing to do their job.
Even the MSM is complicit in helping to "elect the unelectible" a man who have never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies. Never before in US history has this same situation occurred since the man in question has umpteen good and sufficient reasons for any reasonable citizen to suspect his eligibility.
Even so, the courts have taken the political approach and said "who, me???" so far when asked to adjudicate the issue and the MSM who was greatly (if not universally) in favor of seeing this man seated in the Oval Office were totally silent - and still are - on the matter.
Could it be that, for example, the major investor in News Corp. (owner of Fox) has "put out the word" to the TV types on FoxNews to pretend like one of the three wise monkeys in the ad recently placed by Charles Kerchner in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition (IOW - SHUT UP!!)??? Could it perhaps be a coincidence that one of these major News Corp investors is a Saudi shiek who has as one of his main advisors a guy named Kajlid Mansour (as in the book about Obama "The Mansourian Candidate") who clearly exerted influence for his buddy Barry??
Yeah, could be ...
Then too, stop to think about the situation that Mario and Charles are left to finance this entire effort since many of those offering "free" advice seem quite unwilling to put even $20 where their mouth is. If this applies to either or both of you - or others reading this blog - I suggest you "get with the program" and offer whatever financial assistance you can to assist these two men rather that standing aside and cheering for them.
I suppose I'm saying "put up or shut up" and - if that applies - stop and consider YOUR part(s) in helping keep an ineligible man in office. That could prove even more helpful that kibbitzing from afar.
January 2, 2010 at 9:25 PM
Jayjay writes:
"I'm sure your free advice is worth at least what it costs...I suppose I'm saying "put up or shut up"...."
How much has Jayjay, without using his or her real name, donated to the cause? I would like to know if we are first dealing with a hypocrite or not.
Secondly, who is Jayjay to say my citing case law and asking questions or citing documents that could be used in a lawsuit are so worthless? I partially and legitimately answered a concern raised by Patrirock. All Jayjay can do is offer a snippy version of "you are worthless and good for nothing"? Jayjay should rethink his/her tact and be grateful that the Internet gives him/her courage to not have the same consequences he/she would potentially have had saying it face to face.
Third, Jayjay thinks too small in regard to the real behind the scenes opposition beyond the judges on the Courts and the obvious Mainstream media in regard to Obama's entrenchment by fraud.
Chief board members of The Council of Foreign Relations and the group that is above them, called the "Bilderburgers", sat both DNC Candidates Hillary and Barack down in the late Spring of 2008, and told them what was what. These included Henry Kissinger and unknown others...including the Council of 7 above them...who are the real behind the scenes powerhouses in the ineligibilty mess.
Who are the Council of 7? We don't know for sure yet...but we do know that Obama publicly low bowed to two people, and one (the sheik) he kissed or licked his hand. The Sheik represented the regional Middle East interests, including being the overseer of the "two holy mosques" of Shia and Sunni Islam; and the other, an alleged figurehead emperor, represented the Japanese (a G-7 member). Is all this mere coincidence? That is clearly questionable.
In the late 1980s, Armand Hammer (who also simultaneously sat on 80 Industrial Corporate Boards at the time) was the ambassador of the then Council of 7 to the Soviet Union, and used his pro-Soviet petro-chemical ties (that extended to the early 1970s) to purchase East Germany to the tune of 65 Billion dollars in equivalent currencies, with more payouts pushing the total past 80 billion after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Hammer died in 1990. But that same group with all that power -- who now rule in part through consensus via Bilderburger annual meetings -- they told Hillary (once a Walmart Board member, and who know where else) to stand down, and they (including its major media executives as members by extension) knowingly put Obama in, and propped up an illegal candidate McCain (illegal by being born outside a US Territory by about 1/4 mile or more). Bill Clinton is part of that lower eschelon or Congress.
Only 120 of these meet at a time, split into 6 councils of 20 hashing out the future, and then gather to offer general consensus like a de facto pragmatic and real UN governance; but the group likely has closer to 800 - 960 or more active and inactive members still living to it...including current and past US officials who have annually violated the Logan Act since 1954.
And the dirty secret of electronic voting is, there is no outside or neutral party oversight of the software and tallying...before, during, or after. So for all we know, the numbers may have been reverse, and as bogus as Al Franken's trunk load of fabricated and non-chain of custody votes that magically were accepted by the corrupt Courts which winked and wagged through the open fraud.
January 2, 2010 at 10:14 PM
TWO ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS THAT MAY PRODUCE RESULTS BEFORE ANY INDIVIDUAL COURT ACTION
If you want to pursue the idea of getting State Attorney generals involved, consider what jbjd has proposed: petition State Attorney Generals to charge Ms. Pelosi with fraud. At jbjd.com there are downloadable form petitions addressed to each AG for the states that require that a presidential nominee be Constitutionally eligible.
Ms. Pelosi can be held personally accountable for certifying that Mr. Obama was Constitutionally eligible although she did not vet him. She signed the certificates of nomination for Mr. Obama as in her party capacity as Chairman of the Democratic Convention. Although she is Speaker of the House, and has immunity for her actions as a United States Government Official, she has NO official immunity for her actions on behalf of the Democratic Party.
All it would cost you to petition your state's AG is a few minutes, a postage stamp, some paper, and an envelope. If you are willing to press the matter further, combine forces with other petitioners and, as a group, confront the state AG in person to require on the status of the petitions.
To prevent a similar situation in the future, contact your state representatives and senators and pressure them to pass legislation prior to 2012 that requires supporting documents as an attachment to any application for candidacy. All that would be needed is one state with such a law effective prior to the 2012 election cycle.
A state law requiring supporting documents attached to any application for candidacy, would likely be challenged by at least one potential candidate. This could be a path to getting the Supreme Court to define NBC.
Will your state be the one to make the difference? You have two relatively easy paths defined here that could prevent this situation from happening again. Good luck.
January 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Brianroy:
As Mr. Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner could tell you, I am no hypocrite nor a fraud and have indeed contributed to their efforts with both money and other things, but I long ago stopped playing the game that little boys used to play behind Grandpa's barn where each one tried to put a "mark" higher on the barn than the other so I'll not pursue your invitation to do so.
I will say that I note in your response any mention of the fact that you have contributed any funds to the ProtectOurLiberty.org website ... or perhaps I missed your claim of such?
As for calling you worthless? No - what I said was your advice was perhaps worth what it cost. Onbama is worthless; not you (hopefully).
January 3, 2010 at 5:17 PM
Brianroy:
Just to clarify - "any mention" should be "no mention". m My apologies for the misstatement.
January 3, 2010 at 9:26 PM
If obama is ousted because he was never eligible to even run for president and was elected illegally; then wouldn't everything be null and void; it does not seem like Biden would be pres. because that is only if something happened to the president; and there never was a "president" Obama...he simply did not exist. I think either McCain would be the 2nd elgible choice that was running; or have an emergency election.
January 8, 2010 at 3:47 AM
do dictators ever step down? obama will never step down; he will have to be ousted from the White House.
I think McCain should be the president as he was the only other presidential candidate that came in second.
and obama was NEVER the president so Biden could never take his place because was never a candidate and was never a president; he and his decisions are erased as they never were.
January 8, 2010 at 3:50 AM
if any us citizen does not have standing then pray who does have standing on this issue;
the court are WRONG!
the call is in their court to determine if he is or is not elgible; that is all they can determine.
January 8, 2010 at 3:52 AM