Court: Obama Appointments Are Unconstitutional

Friday, 25 Jan 2013 08:05 PM

 

• 10
  inShare

President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

The ruling also throws into question Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.
Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called "pro forma" sessions
.
GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats have in the past as well — to specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power. GOP lawmakers contend the labor board has been too pro-union in its decisions. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.

The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

On Jan. 4, 2012, Obama appointed Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the NLRB, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.
Obama also appointed Cordray on the same day.
The court's decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation's labor unions to organize new members.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

!

"There Comes A Time When You Must Face The Threat!"

from - The Parallax Prophecies -

By Ron Ewart, President

National Association of Rural Landowners

and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues.

We are helping to spread freedom and liberty around the globe.

© Copyright Sunday, January 27, 2013 - All Rights Reserved

 

Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of Ron EWART.

 

 

This article is also available at: http://www.narlo.org/articles/012713.html

 

 

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, [will] plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

---

Life is good!  He has a loving family, a nice home, a good job, money in the bank, two cars in the garage, all the recreational toys the family could ever want, good health, vacations from time to time and everything is great.  Life couldn't be better, could it?  But fate and a life-threatening event have other plans for this father. 

 

One night, you are sitting at the dinner table with your wife and two daughters when a lone, masked gunman crashes through the front door and threatens you with a gun, right at your own dinner table.   If you don't turn over all your valuables, cash, check books, your keys, your two young girls and your car, he will shoot the whole family dead. 

 

Paralyzing fear grips you.  Your mind is racing, adrenalin surges through your body, sweat breaks out on your forehead and your heartbeat accelerates to a dangerous level.   You can't think clearly.  In a halting voice you try to talk the gunman out of what he is demanding you to do, but he is adamant and becomes even more threatening and irrational.  You search desperately in your mind for other actions you could take against this real threat, but you come up empty.  You sit there, drained of your ability to act in any meaningful manner.  You have no way to defend yourself, much less your family.  What choice do you have but to capitulate to the demands of the gunman, or bring certain death to you and your loved ones.  As your car races away with the gunman at the wheel, you watch as your valuables, your check books, your cash and your two young, innocent girls disappear into the night.  All you can do is to call the authorities and hope they can retrieve the most precious things in your life, your two beautiful daughters.  The rest that the gunman stole doesn't matter.  You shudder at the thought of what might happen to them, given that this masked gunman was dressed as an Arab.

 

Despair overwhelms you.  Your "good" life has just been shattered and depending on the outcome, your life may be permanently torn to pieces.  You fight with your wife and she blames you for not doing anything, when in fact there was nothing you could do.  She cries uncontrollably and you try to console her.  However, she blames you because there is no one else to blame in the high emotional, irrational state in which she finds herself.  

 

The authorities search for the gunman but he is never found and your girls are lost in the shadowy world of swarthy men and white slavery.  You beat yourself up in your mind, asking over and over and over again, "what could I have done?"   No answer echoes back to take away your guilt and that sinking feeling of utter helplessness.

 

Finally, anger and guilt consume you and you drift in an out of sanity.  Your wife leaves you because the glue that bound you together was your two lovely girls.  You lose your job and your friends abandon you.   A serious threat suddenly entered your life and you were totally unprepared and had no way to defend against it.  

 

This fictitious scenario we just posed was an open an notorious threat and given the circumstances, there was nothing this father could have done to save his daughters, or maybe even his marriage.  But there is a slow insidious kind of threat that you can't see that reaches out and "touches" you so imperceptibly that you don't even know the threat is there.

 

Let's take this same fictitious family with the good life, living in the home they bought several years ago.  But inside that home is a hidden threat they can't see.  The threat comes in the form of a toxic chemical that is embedded in the sheetrock on the walls and ceiling.  The sheetrock manufacturing process accidentally injected a lethal toxin into the material, a toxin that very slowly releases itself into the atmosphere of the home, catalyzed by the home's residual heat.  After several years one of your young daughters gets sick.  You take her to the doctor and after a battery of tests they can't find the cause of the illness.  She lies in a hospital bed.  The prognosis is terminal. 

 

Next, your wife gets sick.  Her skin turns a deathly gray color.  She has no energy and lies in bed most of the time.  The doctors don't know what is wrong with her either.   You begin to notice blotches on your skin that weren't there before.  You reach a point where you can't work.   Your second daughter gets sick and grows weaker, almost by the day.  The whole family is sickened and no one suspects something in the environment of the home that is the cause, because the deadly toxin is undetectable in the air, or in the body.  You lose your job because you can't work any more and your home goes into foreclosure, while all this time a hidden threat lies buried in the walls and ceilings in the place you call home.  Finally, the whole family dies and the cause of death is listed as unknown because no one thought or believed that the structure that protected the family from the elements, was their hidden enemy.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the "home" that is the sovereign land that provides a sanctuary for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and protects you from all enemies, foreign and domestic, depends on the honor and capability of your government, which you elect.  The blue print for governing the American government and the people is the U. S. Constitution.  If somehow, over time, say like 100 years, a life or freedom-threatening "toxin" (Progressivism) is injected into that Constitution by the operation or corruption of government, if you are not cognizant of what is going on inside that operation, that insidious, slow releasing toxin will reach out and "touch" you while you were engaged in your "good" life and did nothing to meet the unseen threat.  Since millions of Americans weren't paying attention, there was no way they could know that their freedom and even their lives were in peril.

 

All three of the scenarios we have presented here have happened in the past, are happening now and will happen in the future, if the people refuse to be aware of the "home" they live in and the potential threat that lies in wait to put them in chains, or take away their very lives.  "The Parallax Prophecies" predicts that if the American people refuse to acknowledge all threats and prepare themselves to defend against them, they will become the victims of history repeating itself once again and future generations will chastise them for having not met the threats, notorious or hidden, with whatever weapons it takes to preserve freedom and life.  With the past experience of the almost negligible impact of our articles, we also predict that this powerful message about confronting threats will mostly fall on deaf ears, that's if the reader even gets this far before dismissing the message.

 

Thomas Jefferson's admonition from over 200 years ago appearing at the beginning of this article, should have warned us to take the threat of government oppression seriously every day of our adult lives and prepare and act accordingly.  Being the greedy, self-absorbed weaklings that way too many of us are and always succumbing to the siren call of "free stuff" from government in exchange for our votes, we did not heed and have ultimately ignored Jefferson's warning.  Now we are faced either with slavery, or death unless we are prepared right now to meet this threat of oppression head-on with courage, conviction, commitment and force if necessary.  To delay is to capitulate and to give in to the inevitable.  As in the title to this article, there comes a time when you must face the threat to life and liberty.  That time was several yesterday's ago.

 

If you do not believe that the threat of Jefferson's government oppression is upon us, you do not know history and you are living in an Alice in Wonderland, make believe, upside down world.  One day, one of the three threats we have presented here will land on your doorstep, probably sooner than you think and you will have no means of defense to protect you, or your family, just like our story of the father that faced a masked gunman in his own home at the dinner table, with his lovely, adorable family and lost them all.  If Americans do nothing, we could very well have our children taken away at gun point.  Some already have.

 

Further, for Americans to willingly give up their guns in the face of rising government oppression just because government passed a law, borders on self-induced national, individual and sovereign suicide and removes the people's last remaining defense against a government who has lost all allegiance to the rule of law, the enumerated powers of the U. S. Constitution and the unalienable, individual, God-given rights of every American. 

 

To get a broader Liberal and Conservative perspective on the entire issue of the 2nd Amendment, we encourage each of you who care about preserving the most important Amendment in the Bill of Rights, to read the article by Matt Bracken at the following link:  http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/bracken-dear-mr-security-agent/.  Mr. Bracken provides a powerful message (warning) to law enforcement that the government is lighting a match to a fire they won't be able to contain, if they continue on the path to repeal, or drastically curtail the 2nd Amendment.

The Obama Hustle

The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

BREAKING NEWS – OBAMA CAUGHT USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

with 6 comments

13 Votes

The problem of using the social security number as an identifier is the fact that a social security card contains no biometric identifiers of any sort, making it essentially impossible to tell whether a person using a certain SSN is truly the person to whom it was issued without relying on some other means of documentation (which may itself have been falsely procured through use of a fraudulent SSN).
SSN-042-68-4425 is the number that Obama has been using since 1979 when he was 18 yrs old.  A number that he acquired from CT while living in HI?  Below is the stolen SSN number that Obama is using and it has been broken down so we can understand how a social security number derived.
As a result of the June 1936 decision, the current SSN is composed of three parts:

• The first three digits are the area number  (042)
• The next two digits are the group number  (68)
• The final four digits are the serial number  (4425)

At the inception of the program, all SSNs were assigned and cards issued based solely on information provided by the applicant. However, in the 1970s, SSA began requiring proof of age, identity, and citizenship.

May 1978

All applicants are required to provide evidence of: Age, identity, and U.S. citizenship or lawful alien status for original SSNs; and Identity for replacement cards. In-person interviews are required for individuals aged 18 or older applying for original or new SSNs. An individual signing the SS-5 on behalf of another (for example, a parent for his or her child) must establish his or her own identity.

In 1979 when Obama was 18 yrs old and supposedly ran off to college for the first time, well he needed an identifier for his supposed identity.  It is now a known fact that Obama has never had a legitimate long form birth certificate to prove his identity.  Now let us reason this, if one does not have a valid birth certificate of any kind then there is one document that is virtually impossible to acquire with out a valid birth certificate and that is a social security card that is used as an identifier in our country.  Well, without a birth certificate to get a social security number he had to get one somehow.

Now the social security number that Obama was supposedly issued was 042-68-4425 which as stated by the prefix of (042) which were only issued in CT.  Since 1973 social security numbers have been issued by the SSA’s Central Office.  The first three numbers are based on the zip code for the applicants mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.  (040-049 Connecticut)

It is obvious that Obama had to have a SSN by the time he entered Occidental College in 1979 because he sure did not have any other form of legal documentation that he would have had to produce to enroll at Occidental College, or Columbia University, or Harvard Law School.
So in keeping with the above information now let us look at what has been discovered as it pertains to  Harry Bounel’s and Barack H Obama’s social security number.
Evidentiary finding #1:
In May of 2011 I completed my first database pull for SSN 042-68-4425 and here was the result.  Note the name at the top.  In this pull for SSN  shows the last name of Bounel listed first and Obama’s is listed below.  The same number was used to pull both names indicating that one SSN was being used by both individual identities.

Evidentiary finding #2:
In June of 2011 Susan Daniels sent me this PDF file:

New_Obama_documents[1]

When the above PDF file is opened, pay close attention to the first page for it is the most important.  The first image displays the date of 1890 which is the anomaly that opened the first investigation into the social security number that Obama stole in 1979 more than likely with the assistance of his loving family no doubt.
Evidentiary finding #3:
This was a SSN verification that was completed in 2008 using Obama’s name associated with the stolen 042-68-4425 with his name listed as the owner.  The result came back as a failure because naturally his name was never legally associated with that number.

Evidentiary finding #4:
My friend Linda Jordan completed an E-Verify form and the results were as expected.  What was searched was Obama’s name again associated with the stolen 042-68-4425 SSN and the results were labelled a Mismatch as shown below.

Evidentiary finding #5
This next image shows Michele Obama as Harrison J Bounel’s spouse.  WHY?  What was she doing that because she had to list herself as the spouse of Harrison J Bounel?  Could she have been needing to access certain files that Obama was trying to conceal nad/or delete and so she had to list herself as his spouse because she was using his stolen SSN to obtain access to a particular file so it could be deleted or altered?  The image below will describe what was just listed above.

Evidentiary finding #6
The following Image is the 1940 Census document discovered by Leslie Bishop a genealogy expert with over 25 years of experience showing the individual, Harry Bounel residing in  Bronx, NY.  At the time of this Census he was 50 yrs old making his birth year 1890 (get it?)  Refer to evidentiary finding #1 for the 1890 DOB anomaly.
The following image will prove that Harry Bounel did in fact exist and that he was in fact born in 1890, the same year as associated with the SSN that Obama stole.  This image details Harry Bounel with his DOB of 1890 as stated in the PDF that Susan Daniels sent me in June of 2011.  Harry Bounel’s listing is on line (48).  Refer to evidentiary finding #1

The above image does in fact prove that Obama’s alter ego Harry Bounel did in fact exist and was a resident of the Bronx in 1940 when this US Census was taken.  This discovery was in fact accomplished with the expertise of Leslie Bishop who has well over 25 years of geneology experience.  This discovery led Leslie to inquire about having a FOIA discovery of SSA records with Harry Bounel and the SSN of 042-68-4425 just to verify that the record could in fact exist and that the proof that Obama has been using a stolen social security number could in fact and finally be proven.
In September of 2012 Leslie did in fact complete her FOIA request from the Social Security Administration on the search for Harry Bounel’s social security number.  She completed the FOIA request.  Leslie specifically requested information for, Harry Bounel with the SSN 042-68-4425 and this is what she received:
Evidentiary finding #7
The following image is of the letter that Leslie received back from the SSA pertaining to her specific FOIA request for Harry Bounel’s SSN verification for the SSN of 042-68-4425.  Now, bear in mind that if he were still alive Harry Bounel would be well over 120 years old.

There is one Numident record for each SSN ever assigned.  A numident is the social security number itself.  It, the number is only assigned once and is never used again unless it is stolen.
Leslie received this letter in response to her specific search of Harry Bounel’s record using the SSN 042-64-4425 and the letter which she received was a letter protecting the information for a 120 year old man who is long since dead.
“They acknowledged my request for THAT numident and denied my request. In other words, that record exists and since there is only one Numident per SS# and that Numident for Harry Bounel with SS# 042-68-4425 apparently exists, then its not possible that O is using that number legally and it is apparent that Bounel is the original holder of that number.”  As stated by Leslie Bishop.
Based on the evidence provided in this article and by the individuals listed in this article that have supplied the evidentiary findings for this article, The Obama Hustle has determined that Barack H Obama has committed several counts of  social security fraud and should be brought to justice for his high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people.
The Obama Hustle also defies anyone to disprove these findings as stated within this article

BLOGGERS BLOW FACTCHECK.ORG OUT OF THE WATER!

by WTPOTUS, ©2011

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.

How many lies have been told and policies changed to cover for Obama's lack of eligibility?

(Apr. 13, 2011) — This is in response to an article from FactCheck Blog, “Donald, You’re Fired!”, posted on April 9, 2011. Excerpts from their article are included for ease of rebuttal–an educational effort.

If FactCheck staffers worked for us, we’d have to say: “FactCheck, You’re fired–for incompetence, blatant obfuscation, and use of Alinsky tactics!” When it comes to getting facts straight, FactCheck fails miserably, again, and again, and again.

Point by Point Rebuttal

FactCheck said:

Trump claims the president’s grandmother says Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, the recording to which he refers shows Sarah Obama repeatedly saying through a translator: “He was born in America.”

TRUTH: She said this only after a “long pause” during which a conversation in a Kenyan tongue took place in the background, between several men and Sarah Obama, right after she very clearly stated that she was present in Kenya at his birth. Did these men intimidate her into changing her story? You be the judge. Many benefits subsequently flowed to the Obama family, such as a paved road, electricity, and piped-in water after they supported Obama in his endeavors. Early on, Kenyans did not realize the importance of a US birth for any presidential candidate.

FactCheck produced a supposed transcript of the conversation between Mr. McRae and Sarah Obama. But there’s no translation of the conversation in a Kenyan dialect that can be heard in the background, between what sounds like several men and Sarah Obama.

FactCheck transcribed another part of the conversation thusly:

Translator: Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii.

McRae: OK.

Translator: Yeah, in 1960 this was Hawaii, where his father, his father was also marrying there. This was Hawaii.

Obama claims that he was born in 1961. But Sarah said 1960.

FactCheck said:

Trump claims that no hospital in Hawaii has a record of Obama’s birth. Hospital records are confidential under federal law, but Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Medical Center has published a letter from Obama calling it “the place of my birth,” thus publicly confirming it as his birthplace.

TRUTH: The hospital promptly removed that letter from its website, where it had been used for fundraising, after its provenance was questioned and after persons who know stated that if the letter is fraudulent, the hospital would be in violation of the law. The letter is now hidden from view.

Senator Slom of Hawaii has repeatedly asked to see it but has not been allowed to see it. He is told, but does not know for certain, that the letter is on display in a private office for safekeeping.

The White House will NOT confirm that the letter was written by, signed by, or sent by the POTUS. Numerous articles preceding the revelation of this letter, which named Kapiolani as his birth place, said that he was born at Queen’s Medical–another hospital altogether.

FactCheck said:

Trump insists that the official “Certification of Live Birth” that Obama produced in 2008 is “not a birth certificate.” That’s wrong. The U.S. Department of State uses “birth certificate” as a generic term to include the official Hawaii document, which satisfies legal requirements for proving citizenship and obtaining a passport.

TRUTH: The “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB) that was posted as a digital image on partisan blogs (Daily Kos and FactCheck) and in a campaign ad (Fight the Smears) is NOT an “official Certification of Live Birth” nor is it a “birth certificate.” Obama did not produce it; it was released by his campaign, not by Obama. It’s a digital image.

When originally released, that digital image was modified, because the identification number on it was redacted. It says at the bottom of the image, “Any alterations invalidate this certificate.” It was altered; therefore, it is invalid.

It matters not what the State Dept. calls such documents, when they’re in three-dimensional form. The state of Hawaii did not, in 2007, consider a “certification of live birth” to be the same as a “birth certificate” or a “certificate of birth.”

It also matters not whether the State Dept. would accept a COLB (in 3-D form) to satisfy “legal requirements for proving citizenship and obtaining a passport.” Natural born citizenship differs from simple citizenship, which is sufficient to receive a passport.

No doubt, Arnold Schwarzenegger has a US passport. No doubt, today he is a US citizen. However, he is not and never can be eligible for the presidency, short of a Constitutional amendment.

Schwarzenegger is a citizen; he is NOT a “natural born” citizen, which is the standard for POTUS eligibility. As such, he has the same status as Obama: Ineligible, not a NATURAL BORN citizen.

The president has NEVER released any officially certified document that proves that he was born in Hawaii, to the parents he claims, at the time and on the date he claims, at Kapiolani or at Queen’s Medical. He has never produced a “birth certificate”, a “certification of live birth”, a “certificate of live birth”, a “certificate of birth”, or even a “hospital birth certificate”.

FactCheck said:

Trump claims that there’s no signature or certification number on the document released by Obama. Wrong again. Photos of the document, which we posted in 2008, clearly show those details.

TRUTH: The “document” released by the Obama campaign is a digital image that has no certification number and no signature. Who would accept as a “document” a digital image released to partisan blogs and posted on a DNC-affiliated Obama campaign website? Trump refers to the image released by Obama’s campaign, not to photos on a partisan blog, which have no PROVENance. Has Obama or his campaign ever referenced those photographs on FactCheck blog or given them the nod as being authentic? If so, kindly, someone, supply a link.

In fact, no photograph that FactCheck produced of the document, which they claim is the source for the digital image posted on blogs and Obama’s campaign website, shows a certifying signature. They do not show a photograph of the entire back side of the document. Therefore, nobody can say with certainty what that cropped image of a signature block represents.

There is a certification number on photos of the front of the alleged document, which FactCheck blog posted weeks after they posted the original digital image, and only after others (mostly bloggers) questioned the missing certification number.

When bloggers questioned other details, FactCheck blog reduced the size and resolution of the photos and removed all embedded identifying properties. [See their story and note the difference between the claimed resolution and the actual resolution.] Is this how a nonpartisan factchecking organization should behave? Shouldn’t they be more than happy to answer questions? Shouldn’t they welcome examination of their claims? What about transparency? Why have no other members of the media been allowed to see and examine the document that FactCheck blog claims to have photographed?

Why hasn’t Obama presented this “certified document” to judges in any of the court cases addressing his ineligibility? Why have his lawyers fought discovery, if that COLB is a truthful representation of what’s on file in Hawaii?

FactCheck said:

Trump says newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth that appeared in Hawaii newspapers in 1961 ‘probably’ were placed there fraudulently by his now-deceased American grandparents. Actually, a state health department official and a former managing editor of one of the newspapers said the information came straight from the state health department.

TRUTH: Nobody knows with CERTAINTY that those announcements actually ran in newspapers in Hawaii in 1961. But even if they did, FactCheck blog, please NAME the “state health department official” and the “former managing editor” [Shapiro? See below.] who said that these announcements came only from the Hawaiian Department of Health (HDOH) and tell us upon what they base their knowledge about how things worked in 1961.

Nobody has ever seen these newspaper announcements in reality. That is, nobody has seen any newspaper. They have seen (again) digital images that are SAID to have come from microfilms at the State Library and at the Honolulu Advertiser.

A factchecker would investigate and then NAME the librarian who copied the images from microfilm at the State Library and sent them to a NAMED individual who sent them to the BLOGS where they first appeared.

A factchecker would locate and publish the underlying evidence that supports the provenance of the images, such as the letter or email making the request, the letter or email accompanying the images, and the receipt of payment for the copies.

A factchecker would investigate and then NAME the person at the Honolulu Advertiser who copied the images from microfilm at the newspaper and sent them to a NAMED person, who released them to BLOGS where they first appeared.

Why haven’t these birth announcement images been presented to any of the judges in any of the ineligibility lawsuits, if they are real? In fact, as blogger jbjd pointed out, the closest these images came to being entered into any court filing by Obama’s lawyers was in a footnote, which has no evidentiary value.

Nobody has stated with certainty that the only way a birth could be listed in those announcements in 1961 was if the HDOH sent the name to the newspaper.

Finally–there’s no PROOF whatsoever that the “son” announced in those newspapers (even if the images are authentic) is the person who is now president.

There’s no PROOF who the mother was. Barack Hussein Obama (BHO Sr.) had three if not four or more wives. Any of them could have been the “Mrs.” referred to in the announcements. BHO Sr. had many sons. Any of them could have been the son referred to in those announcements. BHO Sr. never lived at the address listed in the announcements. No place of birth is identified in those announcements.

So even if legitimate (which is in doubt until someone shows a contemporaneous, 3-D newspaper) the announcements do NOT prove that the POTUS was born in Hawaii.

But if BHO Sr. is his father, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen; so it doesn’t matter where he was born.

FactCheck said:

Trump claims “nobody knew” Obama when he was growing up and “nobody ever comes forward” who knew him as a child. “If I ever decide to run, you may go back and interview people from my kindergarten,” Trump said. Well, two retired kindergarten teachers in a 2009 news story fondly recall teaching a young Barack Obama.

TRUTH: While the usual set of “friends” and “teachers” put themselves forward, repeatedly, to claim that they knew him as a child, numerous discrepancies in their various reports raise suspicions. For example, he attended third grade in two countries, on opposite sides of the world.

Strangely enough, the Dept. of Education in Hawaii cannot locate Obama’s kindergarten records. A picture was produced supposedly showing Obama in kindergarten. The story (click link, above) says the caption identifying a certain child as Obama was written on the back of the photo. However, the back of the photo with the caption is conveniently not shown.

The two retired teachers were actually student teachers who said that they did not teach Obama at the same time. One says she assisted his kindergarten teacher during the first part of that school year, while the other says she assisted his kindergarten teacher during the second part of the school year. Of course, the records are missing.

One student teacher described him as “heavy build”, which certainly does not sound like the POTUS. (Look at the photo: He looks thin, not “heavy build”, and his head looks pasted on. A tropical climate, but he alone wears long sleeves.) These women did not know each other at the time but met later, became good friends, compared notes (according to the 2009 story), and were Obama supporters. His actual kindergarten teacher, if the story is true, was Alice Sakai, who died in 2006, and so conveniently cannot be interviewed.

These two student teachers, Obama supporters and good friends, had the same photograph that was already published in the 2008 story. They claimed that Alice Sakai sent the photo to one of them; but of course, she cannot confirm that as true, being sadly deceased.

FactCheck said:

The evidence that Obama was born in the U.S.A. is so overwhelming that we haven’t had much to say lately about the sort of bogus claims that Trump repeats. Hawaii’s top official in charge of vital records stated long ago, for example, that the confidential records underlying Obama’s official birth certificate show that he was born in Hawaii and is “a natural born American citizen.”

TRUTH: There is NO EVIDENCE that Obama was born in the U.S.A. None. If there were, he would have presented it to the courts. If EVIDENCE existed, a MORAL INDIVIDUAL would present it instead of hiding it.

A MORAL INDIVIDUAL would not have allowed a patriot like LTC. LAKIN to be sent to PRISON.

Obama is not a “natural born American citizen.” He may be a US citizen now; but he never was a “natural born” citizen of the USA, unless he’s not telling the truth about the identity of his father.

The father that Obama claims, BHO Sr., was never a US citizen, never an aspiring immigrant, never a permanent resident. Thus, Obama was (as his website indicated) born a British subject, later a Kenyan citizen, and later still an Indonesian citizen (as AP evidence shows). Obama’s site also referred to him as a “native” (not natural born) citizen of the USA.

If he was born outside the USA, he was not even a US citizen at birth. He may now be a naturalized citizen; but if so, he is ineligible for the presidency. No documentation has been found to verify that he ever changed his status: his foreign citizenships may remain active.

FactCheck said:

But when a leading prospect for the Republican presidential nomination embraces and repeats these spurious claims and groundless conspiracy theories on national television, we are forced to wade into this swamp once again. For details of where Trump goes wrong, and full documentation of the facts, please read on to our Analysis section.

TRUTH: No truly nonpartisan, factchecking organization would use terms such as “spurious”, “groundless conspiracy theories” or “swamp” when describing one side of an argument to be analyzed with an open mind and resolved via the presentation of facts. By using such terms, they prove their partisan BIAS.

FactCheck said:

Trump echoed claims that are often repeated by those who wish to believe Obama is not a natural-born American citizen.

TRUTH: We don’t “wish to believe” that Obama is not a natural born citizen; we know that he’s not, unless he’s lying about his father’s identity. Blood AND Soil. The two requirements: Birth on US soil to two US citizen parents. No allegiance to any other country or sovereign, ever, as documented in a detailed analysis by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

FactCheck said:

The proof of Obama’s citizenship has long been apparent to us and, we think, to any reasonable person with a mind open to evidence.

TRUTH: “Citizenship” is not the issue; natural born citizenship is the issue. FactCheck blog has provided no admissible ”evidence” of Obama’s natural born citizenship, to the people or to the courts. What’s apparent to FactCheck is not apparent to REASONABLE persons with open minds who wish only to see PROOF of Obama’s eligibility, which any serious employer would require.

FactCheck said:

The proof is not just the official birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii and made public by the Obama campaign in 2008.

TRUTH: There is no such document. No such document has EVER been presented. It’s a digital image on a partisan blog and in a campaign advertisement. No official birth certificate has ever been presented to any court of law. Nor has any such document been shown to We the People or to our elected representatives or to journalists in the mainstream media.

FactCheck said:

As we wrote when we published detailed photographs of that document in our “Born in the U.S.A.” article, that document constitutes legal proof of citizenship sufficient to meet all U.S. Department of State requirements for issuance of a passport.

TRUTH: The photographs are hardly detailed, especially after being downsized. Notice the conveniently placed shadows and the flares of light that obscure pertinent information. Is this how a reasonable person would photograph a document?

Requirements for obtaining a passport are not the same as requirements for the presidency, as FactCheck well knows. A passport is available to any “citizen”, including naturalized citizens, who are ineligible for the presidency. They are comparing apples and oranges in a transparent and deliberate attempt to reframe the issue. The issue is NATURAL BORN citizenship. See how cleverly they mislead, these so-called, self-proclaimed, “nonpartisan” factcheckers?

FactCheck said:

There also were public announcements of Obama’s birth published in Hawaii newspapers shortly after his birth in 1961.

TRUTH: Nobody has ever produced a newspaper from 1961 that contains that announcement.

FactCheck said:

And the state’s top vital records official, Dr. Chiyome Leinaala Fukino, director of the Hawaii Department of Health, issued a statement in 2009 stating that she had “seen the original vital records maintained on file” and that those records, which are confidential under state law, verify that “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

TRUTH: The vital records, plural, themselves purport to verify that he was born in Hawaii. An affidavit “verifies” a claim, when “to verify” is used in the legal sense of the word. Fukino claimed to have consulted the Hawaiian Attorney General prior to releasing her statement. It was a carefully parsed press release that does not DESCRIBE the contents of those vital records. Obama can release these records. All he has to do is make the request. But he does not.

That these records, whatever they are, “verify” that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen” is Fukino’s interpretation, which is certainly open to argument. What does she mean by “natural-born American citizen” as compared to the requirement of the US Constitution, which is “natural born citizen of the United States?” Is Mexico, arguably, America? Yes, it is. Is Canada? Yes, it is. Is Argentina? Yes, it is.

FactCheck said:

A reporter for an Indianapolis television station filed this story shortly after Obama was elected in November, 2008. And in it Sarah Obama tells (again, through translators) of her grandson’s first visit to Kenya — when he was 25 years old.

TRUTH: That would have been 1986 or 1987, if this is correct. 1983, according to Sarah Obama in another story. 1985, according to Kezia. 1988, according to Obama and one of his biographers. Stories vary, as usual. See our timeline for more details.

FactCheck said:

It’s true that the rather poor image that the Obama campaign at first made public showed only one side of the document (the official signature was on the reverse) and the campaign unaccountably obliterated the number, for reasons never fully explained. But when we pressed the campaign for a better image, we were allowed to come to campaign headquarters and photograph it for ourselves, which we did.

TRUTH: The “rather poor” FactCheck photos show only one side of that purported document. Who exactly are “we?” Will those persons sign affidavits attesting, under oath, that what FactCheck wrote about visiting that document is absolutely true? Will FactCheck provide evidence that the persons who examined the document have the expertise to determine its authenticity? Did FactCheck ever ask the HDOH if they produced and certified that document? Did the HDOH ever state that they produced and certified that document? NO, they did not!

FactCheck said:

Had Trump looked at our 2008 article, he would see the signature stamp of Alvin Onaka, certifying that the document is “a true copy or abstract of the record on file,” issued to Obama June 7, 2007 as he was preparing to run for president.

TRUTH: Trump would have seen no such thing because FactCheck did not photograph the entire back side of the supposed document, making it impossible to validate their claims. There’s no context for the signature stamp and the date shown in their article. Why didn’t they photograph the entire back side?

FactCheck said:

Furthermore, the serial number (actually a “certificate” number) shows quite clearly in our photos. The number is 151 1961 – 010641, for whatever that’s worth.

TRUTH: It’s not worth much. Can they explain why the number is out of sequence with the numbers of the Nordyke twins? Did they even try to explain this discrepancy, as real factcheckers would?

FactCheck said:

We were amused to see Trump make a show recently of producing what he said was his own “birth certificate,” which wasn’t an official document and wouldn’t qualify him for a passport [a non sequitur]. “It took me one hour to get my birth certificate,” he told the conservative-leaning news site Newsmax [Newsmax is conservative? Who knew?]. “It’s inconceivable that, after four years of questioning, the president still hasn’t produced his birth certificate.”

TRUTH: FactCheck shouldn’t be amused; they were punked. Trump did this to demonstrate bias in the mainstream media, many of whom immediately jumped on Trump for presenting a non-official document. Ironic, considering they’ve never vetted Obama’s “document”, never asked to examine forensically that so-called document.

They might have asked Obama to request another COLB from Hawaii, to be certified and delivered directly to a media source that’s unimpeachable, although who that might be in the age of Obama, is hard to say.

They might have asked him, very simply, why he didn’t produce that document to any court of law. Can there be any explanation other than that it’s “embarrassing” or that it’s not legitimate so, therefore, it’s a crime to present it in court?

FactCheck said:

Trump’s “birth certificate” was actually an unofficial “Certificate of Birth” generated by Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (in Queens, N.Y. — not the island nation) stating that Trump was born there June 14, 1946. But because it was not “issued by the city, county or state” as required by the State Department, it does not constitute legal proof of citizenship sufficient to obtain a passport. When confronted with these facts, Trump later coughed up what he said was his official birth record issued by New York City’s Bureau of Records and Statistics. It is a certified photocopy of a “Certificate of Birth” signed by a physician. This one does appear to meet State Department requirements. And so does Obama’s.

TRUTH:

Trump showed the media an actual 3-D document, and so his evidence is very different from Obama’s lack of evidence. FactCheck and others in the media went for Trump’s bait…hook, line, and sinker.

Obama’s COLB is actually an unofficial digital image that would be accepted by NOBODY as proof of identity or birth. Try getting a passport by showing a digital image on a blog. A photoshopped image at that.
FactCheck said:

It’s also true that at least one news story (which was later corrected) incorrectly reported a different hospital as the birthplace, allowing Obama’s foes to engage in unfounded speculation that family members disagreed.

TRUTH: Multiple sources stated that Obama was born at Queen’s Medical. A student journalist interviewed Maya Soetoro. He reported that Queen’s Medical Center was the site of Obama’s birth. He has never, so far as we know, “corrected” that article. (FactCheck refers to another story.) It’s insulting to this student journalist to assume that he was lax in his research and reporting, simply because he was a student. There are (or were, prior to Internet scrubbing) MANY citations of Queen’s Medical as Obama’s place of birth.

FactCheck said:

It is also true that Kapi’olani can’t legally release individually identifiable health information without that person’s permission because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

TRUTH: Kapiolani hospital posted a letter claiming that Obama was born there on a fundraising website, so they already released the information. Illegally? Why doesn’t FactCheck ask Obama to give Kapiolani permission to release the information, again?

FactCheck said:

It’s also very simple to make a false claim.

TRUTH: They should know.

FactCheck said:

Advertiser, Nov. 9, 2008: 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. “Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health,” he said. ‘”They would send the same thing to both papers.”

TRUTH: Mr. Shapiro is a FORMER employee of the newspaper and he admits that he did not know how the process worked in 1961. He spoke only about how it “worked years later.” While he says that some listings were sent from the Dept. of Health, he did not say that there could be no other source for these listings.

FactCheck said:

Our job is simply to assess evidence and call out falsehoods and factual mistakes when we find them.

TRUTH: Physician, heal thyself.

FactCheck said:

Nov. 1, 2008: Of all the nutty rumors, baseless conspiracy theories and sheer disinformation that we’ve dealt with at FactCheck.org during campaign 2008, perhaps the goofiest is the claim that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” and therefore not eligible to be president under the constitution.

TRUTH: If the “facts” that Obama himself has presented regarding his parentage are true, the FACT is that he is NOT a natural born citizen of the US and, therefore, is NOT eligible to be president under the Constitution.

FactCheck (a project of the Annenberg Foundation, for which Obama worked) and others are free to continue to ridicule, in Alinsky fashion, Donald Trump and all “birthers” who seek only to verify that every candidate for the presidency is eligible. Eligible to SERVE us, We the People. TRUTH will out.

We close with wisdom from Barack Hussein Obama II himself:

The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide.



© 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

CERTIFIGATE
Abracadabra! 'Obama's alias' vanishing quickly from Web

Analyst confirms 'Harrison J. Bounel' identity getting scrubbed from databases

---

Posted: August 22, 2011
9:54 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WND

WASHINGTON – "Harrison J. Bounel," an alias identified for Barack Obama by debt-collection and skip-trace expert Albert Hendershot, is currently being scrubbed from professional databases, the investigator reports.
"I believe Obama supporters are trying to eliminate any and all evidence of Obama's shady past from all public databases," Hendershot told WND. "It's the only explanation for why the alias 'Harrison J. Bounel' has dropped from sight in database searches on public records done for Obama's Social Security number and home address in Chicago."
Hendershot documented his analysis in a report written for WND that can be read in its entiretyhere.
Get the inside details on what could be the most serious constitutional crisis in the nation's history, in "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President," autographed by the author!
As seen in Exhibit 1, Hendershot has put together a chart that documents how he first found the Harrison J. Bounel name appearing in databases he was using to search properties in Chicago, and how he has worked with WND to make a series of previously unknown disclosures about the Obama home in Chicago's upscale Kenwood neighborhood at 5046 S. Greenwood Avenue.

Exhibit 1, Chart documenting discovery and disappearance of Obama alias from databases

As Exhibit 1 points out, following the discovery last March that the alias "Harrison J. Bounel" associated with Barack Obama's Social Security number and with his Hyde Park mansion, Hendershot published his research in May,on his Internet website.
(Story continues below)
Exhibit 2 documents that a Henderson database search from public records conducted on March 11, 2011, resulted in two different records for Barack Obama's Social Security number: one for a "Bounel Harrison J" and the other for Barack H. Obama, identified with several variations of "Barack H. Obama" that appeared in the database.

Exhibit 2, Two records, one for "Bounel Harrison J" and one for Barack H. Obama, result from public database search conducted March 11, 2011

Note also that Exhibit 2 lists the Obama mansion address at 5046 S. Greenwood Avenue as an address for both "Bounel Harrison J" and for Barack H. Obama.
Exhibit 2 also clearly shows that the Obama alias of Harrison J. Bounel was in use as of November 2009.
As seen in Exhibit 3, Hendershot was able to duplicate these results utilizing a second public database that again showed both Harrison J. Bounel and Barack H. Obama using the same Social Security number and living at the same address.

Exhibit 3, Second database shows Harrison J. Bounel and Barack H. Obama using the same Social Security number and living at the same address

Next, as seen in Exhibit 4, Hendershot did a "relatives" search on "Bounel Harrison J" and found that Michelle Obama came up as a result, again with an address history that included the Obama mansion at 5046 S. Greenwood Avenue.

Exhibit 4, Search for “relatives” on Harrison J. Bounel produces records for Michelle Obama, wife of Barack Obama, March 11, 2011

Again, a second database search, as seen in Exhibit 5, shows that Michelle Obama shows up as a relative of Harrison J. Bounel, further confirming that the "Bounel Harrison J." is an alias for Barack H. Obama.

Exhibit 5, Second database show Michelle Obama as a “relative of Harrison J. Bounel

Finally, as seen in Exhibit 6, a search completed on Aug. 19, 2011, of the same database seen above in Exhibit 2, shows no record of the Harrison J. Bounel alias.

Exhibit 6, Database search conducted Aug. 19, 2011, suggests Harrison J. Bounel alias has been scrubbed

Hendershot, who has been studying for the past six months the Obama mansion purchase, has assisted WND in two previous published reports:

1. WND has previously reportedthat at least three people are listed as current owners and taxpayerson the Obama mansion: (1) William Miceli, a Tony Rezko attorney and fundraiser who practices law at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, the firm that employed Obama when he did legal work for Rezko; (2) Chicago Probate Judge Jane L. Stuart; and (3) Obama accountant Harvey Wineberg.
2. WND reportedthe "buffer zone" parcel at the Obama family mansion at 5046 S. Greenwood Avenue,purchased by the wife of convicted felon Tony Rezko, was transferred to Barack and Michelle Obama without ever being assessed or taxed, in apparent violation of Illinois law.

WND has also reportedthat two private investigators working independentlyhave asked why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.
Hendershot is president and owner of Innovative Portfolio Recovery, Inc, a debt collection and skip tracing company based in Birmingham, Ala.


Read more:Abracadabra! 'Obama's alias' vanishing quickly from Webhttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=336889#ixzz1VrcVJ4xe

Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A "Natural Born Citizen"

Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A "Natural Born Citizen"

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

           Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-
              Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A “Natural Born Citizen”

                                         By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                               January 21, 2013




The U.S. Constitution

      


Barack Obama eligibility supporters maintain that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. But to do so, they have blended together, through ignorance or intent, “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen,” and denied that there is a critical constitutional distinction between these phrases. These supporters and enablers, who I call the citizen/born citizen/natural born citizen conflationists, in constitutionally supporting Barack Obama to be president, have allowed our Constitution, the rule of law, and our nation to be violated. Allow me to explain.

In order to understand the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” we have to understand the constitutional distinction between a “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen.” The first constitutional distinction is between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” In Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 the Framers provided in pertinent part: “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.” Here, we see the Framers distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” There is no other type of “citizen” mentioned. So, our Constitution, Acts of Congress, and treaties, call “citizens,” or members of the United States, either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.” As we shall see, the former are defined by American common law (the definition being based on natural law and the law of nations) and the latter by the Fourteenth Amendment (the definition being in part based on colonial English common law), Congressional Acts, or treaties. From this we can see that a “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” Because of the requirement of having to be born in the country to citizen parents, a “natural born Citizen” will necessarily also qualify under these sources as a “citizen of the United States.”

Article II refers to a “natural born Citizen,” but does not define it. In fact, the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not found anywhere in the original or amended Constitution or any Act of Congress. Rather, it is found in the common law upon which the Founders and Framers relied at the time of the adoption and ratification of the Constitution. Under this common law, the three constituent elements of being a “natural-born citizen” are time (at the moment of birth), birth place (in the country), and birth parents (U.S. citizen parents), what I will call birth time, birth country, and birth parents. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution and confirmed that “[a]t common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (the majority and dissent agreed on the Minor definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but they disagreed as to the definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth). Given this settled common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” these elements are both necessary and sufficient to make a “natural born Citizen.” In the definition, the parents have to have as a minimum the status of a “citizen” (“born citizen” or “natural born Citizen” is not necessary) in order to produce a “natural born Citizen.” Note that Minor said that at common law, if one was not a “natural-born citizen,” one was an alien or foreigner. This means that if these persons qualified, the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty could make them a “citizen of the United States.”

These historical and legal developments inform that at common law there is a critical distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” In fact, natural law and the law of nations have always recognized this distinction. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm ). At common law, if one was a “citizen” but not a “natural born citizen,” then, except for the original “citizens” who became such by the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution, one had to have been alien born and become a “citizen” by naturalization statute. Natural law and the law of nations, along with both English and American common law, have also always recognized that a child gains allegiance and citizenship by either being born on the soil of a country (jus soli) or by being born to parents of that country (jus sanguinis). The Founders and Framers accepted the distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” and understood that birth country and birth parents produce in the child allegiance from the moment of birth. Because they expected the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have absolute allegiance from birth only to the United States, they applied the distinction to the Office of President. In fact, they used it when they made the “natural born Citizen” clause a requirement of eligibility for the Office of President (the XII Amendment extends it to the Office of Vice-President) and for no other office, requiring, for those to born after the adoption of the Constitution and who would aspire to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, that they be not only a “citizen,” but a “natural born Citizen.” (The grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 allowed “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President, provided they had that status “at the time of Adoption of this Constitution.”) The English did not nor did they have to demand such allegiance from their would-be Kings, for their Kings did not have to qualify from among the people. Rather, they lay their claim to the throne by royal blood. Rejecting as a requisite to be President royal blood, the Founders and Framers instead settled with the natural elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, and made their distinction between a “citizen” who was also a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen” who was not. And it was the combination of these three elements at the time of birth which assured them that all means of inheriting allegiance and citizenship (birth country and birth parents) were united at the moment of birth to produce in the child absolute allegiance only to the United States.

The next constitutional distinction is between “born citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” These same Obama eligibility supporters add the word “born” to the word “citizen” and want us to accept that combination as the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” But those who assert that a “natural born Citizen” is just any “born citizen” commit two errors: a textual error of missing the point (or by refusing to see the point) that the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born citizen” and a definitional error of not understanding (or refusing to accept) that “born citizen” is neither a definition nor a description of the clause “natural born Citizen.”

First, regarding the textual error, as I have already explained in other articles such as Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html , we cannot define a clause by merely repeating parts of the clause itself. For example, if we wanted to know what the definition of a “natural born German Shepherd” is, we would not accept as a correct definition the answer that it is a “born German Shepherd.” To argue that a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born German Shepherd” is tautological, for it only repeats part of the form of the clause and does not define the clause. Such an argument does nothing more than to state the obvious that a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born German Shepherd.” Likewise, a “natural born Citizen,” is, of course, a “born citizen,” but saying so does not define the clause.

Second, in this “born German Shepherd” definition example, a rational person should also want to know what happened to the qualifier “natural” and its meaning. Does not that word tell us something about under what conditions the “born German shepherd” must come into existence? Likewise, those rational persons who want to know the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” should want to know what happened to the qualifier “natural,” and whether that qualifier also requires that certain conditions be met in order to have a “natural born Citizen.” Actually, these persons would be correct in raising such questions. Given the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” with its three constituent elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, we know that the word “natural” when combined with “born citizen” demands that all three elements be satisfied in order to have a “natural born Citizen.” We might be willing to include others as “born citizens” and Congress has the naturalization powers to do so and has done so throughout our history. But that we are willing to tolerate by the application of some law certain persons as “born citizens” does not, given the applicable common law definition of the clause and its requirements, make them “natural born Citizens”

Regarding the definitional error, the clauses “natural born Citizen” and “born Citizen” are conclusions, birth statuses that do not provide sufficient factual information as to how one arrives at the conclusions or statuses themselves. Rather, to know if one satisfies the status of being a “natural born Citizen,” one must start with the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” identifying its constituent elements. If one satisfies those elements, then one is a “natural born Citizen.” And to know if one satisfies the status of being a “born citizen,” one must also start with the available definitions, however many there are and whether provided by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Acts, of a “born citizen,” identifying their constituent elements. If one satisfies those elements, then one is a “born citizen.” But obviously, we are defining two different clauses which necessarily contain different definitions and requirements. The clause does not tell us how one arrives at being a “born citizen,” which process must be equivalent to the process by which one arrives at being a “natural born Citizen” if the two clauses are to mean the same thing. Hence, to simply use other legal mechanisms of citizenship which produce a “born citizen” and proclaim that they too produce a “natural born Citizen,” simply because they, like “natural born Citizens,” are “born citizens,” is to err. It is to err because being a “born citizen” is only a necessary consequent (a conclusion or status) of being a “natural born Citizen” and by itself, because it is based on a different definition, represents a different class of citizen, one produced by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act and not by American common law.

There is only one process or means by which one can be a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., by satisfying the necessary and sufficient conditions of birth time (at the moment of birth), birth country (born in the United States), and birth parents (born to U.S. citizen parents). Simply stated, any “born citizen” who does not satisfy these three conditions, while still being a “born citizen” under some legal mechanism (e.g., under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act), is not a “natural born Citizen” under American common law which is the natural law/law of nations-based law that provides the constitutional definition of the clause.

Minor v. Happersett confirms all this and United States v. Wong Kim Ark changes none of it.

Barack Obama maintains that he was born in Hawaii. With a dispute involving whether his birth certificate, social security number, and military draft registration are authentic still continuing and not having been definitively resolved through any legal process, we have yet to see conclusive legal proof of his place of birth. But even assuming for sake of argument that he was born in Hawaii, he is still not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that the three elements of being a “natural born Citizen” are birth time, birth country, and birth parents. Minor; Wong Kim Ark. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he satisfies the birth country requirement. But while Obama was born to a U.S. “citizen” mother, his father never became nor did he strive to become a U.S. “citizen.” Rather, his father was born in the English colony of Kenya, was born a British citizen, and remained such until his death. Hence, Obama was not born to a U.S. “citizen” father. He therefore fails to satisfy the elements of being born to citizen parents at the moment of birth. This means that he can be a “born citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act, which provide a more relaxed allegiance standard , but he cannot be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, which provides a more exacting allegiance standard for would-be Presidents and Commanders of the Military. This also means that because he is neither “a natural born Citizen” nor “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” he is not eligible to be President.

On January 20, 2013, Barack Obama was again sworn in as the President of the United States. But because he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he is at best a de facto President of the United States, not a constitutionally legitimate one.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 21, 2013
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2013
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved