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

PRESIDENTIAL ILLEGITIMACY: OBAMA'S PERISHING DILEMMA

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

by Dan Crosby of the Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - It requires a truly reprobate mind that causes one to refuse the preeminent definition of natural-born citizenship as it was divinely understood by the framers. They declared the Constitutional eligibility mandate in the critical time which required it...and forever more, because, by moral convention, it was simply normal and common to them.

Willful ignorance and shame consumes the ideologue unwilling to accept that those, existing centuries before them, more favored by God, declared natural-born eligibility from a righteous perspective rooted in an eyewitness understanding of the need to disqualify tyranny born of foul parentage, primarily, not just geographic origin.

The founders saw firsthand that Monarchal inbreeding put sovereignty at risk, so they refused to allow that risk to take hold their new nation. War mongers abound, boundaries are indefensible, but blood-ransomed thrones are not. The founders foreknew borders could be created and changed and be violated, but parentage is eternally founded in the natural laws of God and, therefore, so is natural-born citizenship. Hence, Article II was born.

Only liars and reprobates remain dissonant to this universal truth because they can't let go of their fetish for a transient celebrity everyone else will soon forget.

Yet, the misguided belief that Obama's eligibility hinges only upon a geographic natal origin fails foolishly when mortally impaled by two facts: Obama, himself, voted to uphold SR 511 which declared his 2008 opponent, John McCain a Natural Born citizen explicitly because McCain was born to two citizen parents. There is simply no remedy available to Obots for this teeth-gnashing reality..

Why did Obama and so many of his esteemed degenerates not disqualify the Panamanian-born McCain? Because, the question of McCain's natural-born eligibility was resolved as a matter of natural law founded in PARENTAGE and natal identity, not his birth within transient geographic boundaries from which anyone may be removed or enter from anywhere at any time.

If the question of natural-born citizenship is merely endowed by the location upon earth one's mother is when she gives birth, where lies the contribution to the child's natural born citizenship by the father? What if the father is not present? Certainly we are all born of two parents insofar as the laws of nature dictate.

This is why it was declared that the father's citizenship defines the citizenship of his children, not the mother's. Natural law makes the absence of the mother at birth impossible but it does not prevent the absence of the father. Therefore, because God made them one flesh, this rendered her unable to pass natural-born citizenship to the child alone, based only on geographic birth place, when, in the event she gave birth in a foreign land. In such cases, the child could not be a natural born citizen, but could retain the citizenship and estate of the father.

Therefore, it was declared by the laws of man, as modeled after the laws of God, the father's citizenry is the citizenry of the child, regardless of the location of the mother at birth. But, even more importantly, full natural-born citizenship must be defined both by parentage and birth place.

Should we desire a lesser standard for our highest office of leadership? Should we decompensate the utmost expectations of our commander-in-chief? Who would dare say the President must be considered to a lesser measure? Who would dare say the blood ransom paid to fortify our sovereignty should be represented by a minimalist rendering of character in our highest office? When inferior men, though beloved by a bowing consensus, seek that office, shall we diminish the requirements to meet the man? Or should the man be made to meet the highest of the requirements for the sake of our place among nations...and God?

If Obama’s only claim to eligibility is that he was born in a geographic region under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution, then why did he vote in support of a resolution declaring the natural-born eligibility of man who was NOT born in a geographic region under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution?

Because, he is found to be inferior when measured against the natural born citizenship mark. The law will not be deceived. It can only be violated and upheld as justice. The law has an unrelenting grip upon Obama soul and mind. His only option is to lie about who he really is while casting his own dilemma onto others. He is a deceiver, through and through.

Second, the framers of the Constitution explicitly differentiated language with regard for natural-born citizenship from mere common citizenship as an exaction of two absolutes founded in the natural laws of God, not the laws of man. Having only recently established this new nation, they were at a disadvantage, militarily, to defend it’s borders from invasion, indefinitely. However, they could defend the sovereignty of their new government and, therefore, the strength of their constitutional resolve by declaring that the President be a natural born citizen in the common sense, by citizenship of their parentage. For no parents who were citizens of the U.S. in 1787 could conspicuously bear a foreign child to raised among the "brethren" and, later, betray the blood of patriots by becoming a tyrant unopposed. His parentage was an indicator of his loyalty and intentions.

Therefore, in these two precedents, it was never in doubt (Minor v. Happ.) that 1.) God made man and woman and that 2.) they shall become one flesh in bearing children…and in their identity, the child too could be called a naturally-born citizen as well. Thus sovereignty is upheld as much as possible in this manner.

This ancient law of natural born identity precedes any case law, by millenniums. From the moment God took a rib from Adam and created woman, Obama's fate as an illegitimate president was sealed. The founders simply defeated him 250 years before he had the chance to impose his vile deceptions. The time in which we are born is another unfortunate result of natural born identity. We don't chose who, when or where our parents are. They are a product of God's natural laws.

Natural Law was in effect from the beginning of time and was merely upheld by the framers through declaring the Constitutional requirements of eligibility to be president because they understood that sovereignty by geography was tenuous and morphological whereas birth to one's parents was immutable and unchangeable. God's law, as so upheld by our Constitution, disqualifies Obama from ever being legitimate as a president regardless of any random, corporal birth place because he was the "one flesh" of foreign parentage.

Upon the foul precipice that natural born citizenship is determined ONLY by geographic birth place , a foreign enemy may circumvent the standards endowed by generations of bloodshed and sacrifice, enter the nation illegally, bear a child on our soil, take the child back to their foreign land, raise him apart from decency under all manner of foul doctrine and hate, then return him to the nation to usurp power without any verification of intention as to his interest in our welfare or by loyalty to our sovereignty.

Did we learn nothing from the scourge of Austrian-born usurper in 1930’s Germany? Only atrocity and hate can result from Obama’s violations of natural law. His natal geography is ridiculous and shallow in providing any credible evidence of his natural-born citizenry because nations will rise and fall, but the natural laws of parentage remain forever! Blood sovereignty, familial heritage and the roots of natural-born identity are defined by generations of parental consummation, not momentary residence in a remote outpost way out in the Pacific Ocean.

This law is as preeminent as it is final. Upon the laws of God, all debate in this matter comes to a dark and empty apocalypse with the losers left alone in their defense of a lie which is now exposed by divine truth...and Hell is at hand.

It is imperative that America reject Obama and all case law citations in favor of geographic-based definitions of natural born citizenship, because they have no authority over the truth.

The Real Conspiracy is the one they won’t talk about
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

The Post & Email

THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AN AGREEMENT WAS MADE TO PUSH OBAMA AND IGNORE THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT
By Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. , Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff , Kerchner v Obama & Congress
© 2009/2010

I Believe The Fix Was In for the 2008 Election and The Cover Up is Still Going Strong!

Constitution(Jan. 24, 2010) — I believe that the RNC and DNC at the highest levels in 2008 were both complicit in shutting down all discussion of Obama’s eligibility issue in the Congress, Main Stream Media, Print Press, and in the leading conservative Talk Show radio stations. I believe that the RNC and the DNC were complicit in subverting Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our Constitution as to the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President, i.e., the person eligible for that office must be a “natural born Citizen“, i.e., one born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country such that the child born has singular and sole allegiance at birth to the USA and no citizenship at birth with any other country via his parents or due to the place or location of birth.

A natural born Citizen needs no law or resolution of Congress to give or clarify citizenship status. Natural born Citizenship status can only be obtained by the facts of nature at the child’s birth. This is natural law. This is what the founders and framers of our Constitution required for the singular and most powerful office of the President and Commander in Chief of the military.

John Jay and George Washington put that requirement into the Constitution for exactly the reason that the person serving in that office would have no foreign influences on him/her at birth due to the facts and circumstances of his/her citizenship at birth. Only “natural born Citizenship” in the USA per natural law guarantees no other allegiance or citizenship claims by an another country at birth. If you are born on the U.S. soil of parents who are both citizens, no other country can claim you as a Citizen of their country and you are only governed by the laws of the USA at your birth.

This is natural law as written by Vattel in 1758 in his legal book, “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law“. The 1775 edition of this legal book was used as a reference by Benjamin Franklin and other founders to set up our new nation in 1776 in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and also in drafting the new form of federal government in 1789 and the writing of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation. Obama was born British. How can a person be born a British Subject be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA, to constitutional standards? He cannot. Our founders must be rolling over in their graves witnessing what transpired in the 2008 election cycle.

Both parties put up questionable candidates in 2008 as to their birth citizenship, Obama was born as a British Subject and McCain was born in Panama, and then they proceeded to cover up for each other and helped shut down the media and talk radio totally via their respective high contacts in the media industry and elected officials within the sitting Bush administration and in Congress as well as within their own respective presidential campaign organizations. No one in either political party wanted a free and open debate in the media as to the true historical, constitutional, and Supreme Court common law cases mentioning Vattel and his words on the meaning of “natural born Citizen”. No one in either political party wanted a full Congressional hearing about the true meaning of Article II of the U.S. Constitution concerning and who is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the military, especially in the case of Obama whose father was not even an immigrant to this country, let alone a citizen.

We are a nation of immigrants. But Obama’s father was never one. The political parties and powers in DC wanted to hide this issue from the American people for the political ambition and power of both political parties to run the candidate of their choice irrespective of Constitutional issues. They did not want to hear from the People about this. So the cover up began to squelch all discussion of it to keep as many people in the dark as possible. “Thou shalt not talk about the presidential constitutional Article II eligibility issues ” was the word put out by all the powers to be in Washington DC and the USA media. It was reported that even outright threats were made to certain conservative talk show radio hosts in the last quarter of 2008.

And it continues to this day, imo, and is most obvious with the stone silence and “cone of silence” and occasional mocking comments made by the talk show hosts about the eligibility issue questions if mentioned briefly by a guest now and then on Fox News. The approach on Fox News is to ban the topic.

Other networks such as MSNBC simply mock the movement continually using Saul Alinsky’s tactics from Rules for Radicals rule number 5, ridicule, to stifle all open, serious, and public debate on the issue and to scare off any one in political power from broaching the subject. Anyone even just mentioning this issue is pounced on for the ridicule treatment by the press.

This shut down of a free and full “on air” debate of the Obama eligibility issue with serious scholars and legal experts representing each side (such as my attorney, Mario Apuzzo) being allowed on the air together with someone from the Obot side to debate this issue openly is being orchestrated at the highest levels of the RNC and DNC and their elected official type contacts in various powerful positions both today and back in Dec 2008 and early Jan 2009. Whispers in the hallways allude to grave consequences if one breaches this subject seriously on the air ways.

The RNC silenced opposition in the conservative talk show radio and elsewhere in late 2008 which has enabled Obama to take power virtually unopposed as to addressing his constitutional eligibility in any serious manner in public debate via the national media. The leadership of the RNC at the highest levels, imo, shut down members of their own political party in Congress and via using their contacts in the highest levels of government, they helped shut down conservative talk radio and TV hosts with innuendos and and whispers of the consequences if this subject surfaced for discussion in a major way on their shows. They were told to keep the eligibility issue and the so called “Birthers” banned on their callers list with special instructions to the call screeners to keep them off the air. The RNC powers to be and their political connections used their power to do this to cover up their own subverting of Article II of the Constitution via putting up a candidate of their own with questionable natural born Citizenship status as their candidate for President. The big liberal media anointed Obama (a hard core progressive and Socialist) and then anointed McCain (a progressive light) because they knew McCain had a citizenship issue of his own and thus would keep him silent about Obama’s. And it worked. A “cone of silence” was dropped on the eligibility issue in the DC media and Congress and elsewhere in American to cover up for what both parties were doing, subverting Article II of the U.S. Constitution in the 2008 election. Listen to this radio show interview for more details.

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Andrea Shea King Radio Show hosted by Andrea Shea King – Friday, 22 Jan 2010, 9 p.m. EST: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/askshow/2010/01/23/the-andrea-shea-king-show

Imo, when this subversion of our Constitution in the 2008 election cycle and the massive cover up by people in the highest levels of the RNC and DNC and their elected official contacts, and our government is exposed, this will be a far worse scandal than Watergate. It will be the worst scandal & political crisis and constitutional crisis in America since the Civil War. Who will win the Pulitzer Prize for exposing this travesty to the Constitution, liberty, and justice in America.

I believe this is what has happened in America and the reason for the cone of silence about Obama’s citizenship issues since the start of the 2008 election cycle and it continues to this day. It is a national disgrace and a threat to our freedom and liberty and the survival of our Constitution and Republic. We do not know Obama’s true legal identity. He has hidden and sealed all his early life records. What is he hiding? How can we trust this man usurping the Oval Office to protect America from foreign influence at the highest levels. He bows to Saudi Kings! He backs far-left dictators in Central America like Castro and Hugo Chavez in stifling freedom and Constitutional government in Honduras. Maybe he saw what could happen to him in the Constitutional crisis down there. Who is Obama loyal too? We do not know who he really is. The eligibility issue must be fully and openly discussed in the Main Stream Media, the Congress, and in our Courts. Our liberty and freedom is in the balance.

God bless and protect America in the coming test this year of our fundamental core constitutional rights and our very freedom as this cover up is further exposed.

Signed,

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. , Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff , Kerchner v Obama & Congress

For more information on the lawsuit: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
To help the cause, please visit: http://protectourliberty.org

© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.

Hawaii launches defense to Obama birth queries
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

wnd logo
Posts ‘vital records’ Web page saying responses ‘not’ required
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

It could be that the state of Hawaii is overwhelmed by – or is just annoyed at – the number of inquiries about the birth records of President Obama.

The state has launched a new Web page with the information it wants the public to know about its Obama records, including the fact that state law does not “require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency.”

After all, a new poll confirms just 51 percent of Americans believe Obama eligible for the office he now holds.

The recent WND/Wenzel Poll indicated 32.6 percent of Americans said they do not consider Obama a “legitimate” president and another 15.8 percent said they were unsure. The poll updated a survey six months ago in which most Americans said they were aware of the dispute.

The Hawaiian records make up the core of the issue over challenges to Obama’s eligibility, since an original long-form birth certificate including the name of the doctor, the hospital and other details, presumably could document whether he qualifies to occupy the Oval Office under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement the president be a “natural born citizen.”

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated over $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Hawaii’s new web page states state law requires government records to be open to public inspection “unless access is restricted or closed by law.”

“The [Uniform Information Practices Act] does not require an agency to provide access to government records that state law protects from disclosure … nor does it require to respond to all questions asked of the agency.”

The Web page also issues several warnings. “Unless a request for DOH records is specific enough to be understood, the request cannot be responded to by the DOH,” it states.

Further, “The DOH may not have a record which is responsive to a request. The UIPA does not require an agency to compile or create information to respond to a request,” it says.

State officials did not respond to WND questions about the information on the page.

But it appears unlikely a website statement will defuse the controversy.

At the time of the election, the state’s director of health, Chiyome Fukino, said:

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

Months later she added another comment:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

But even those statements have since been cited as a reason that state officials owe the public more information.

At one point, Leo Donofrio, who brought one of the first legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility to be president and unsuccessfully tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved at the time of the election, said Hawaii’s laws require disclosure of information “collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public.”

He and several other Obama critics raised the suggestion that if a birth certificate was used to support Fukino’s statements, the record itself should be public.

The Hawaiian web page primarily links to the rules and regulations the state is using in defense of its decision not to release definitive information.

Under the state’s law addressing records, exceptions are made for government records that would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Also exempted are various records regarding prosecutions and certain court papers.

But the page explains any disclosure “shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal private if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.”

Department spokesman Janice Okubo previously told WND the laws have been interpreted to leave birth documentation exempted from public disclosure. But she admitted the law allows a challenge to such decisions in the courts.

In fact, the law states, “A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure. … The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.”

WND also has reported suggestions from Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, that legislation could be adopted to release Obama’s birth records and satisfy critics.

Espero told WND at the time his idea would be aimed at “giving citizens access to birth records” under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records, including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii.

“My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama’s birth records and the lingering questions,” Espero said.

Espero told WND he believes President Obama was born in Hawaii.

“My motivation is strictly to promote transparency,” he said. “When I found out that Hawaii birth records were not available to the public my first thought was, ‘Why wouldn’t they be available to the public?’ As far as I am concerned, records regarding whether a person was born here or not should be in the public domain.”

Another major question remaining is why a birth location for the president hasn’t yet been celebrated.

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah has offered a $15,000 donation to the hospital listed on Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

“All he or the hospital or the state of Hawaii would have to do to claim the prize is show the American public the document that should have been produced long ago to claim the presidency as a natural born citizen,” he wrote earlier this month.

“Think about it. Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961. His entire constitutional claim to the presidency rests on this premise. Yet, he refuses to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate – the only document that could possibly corroborate his claim. Instead, he has released to select news organizations and posted on the Internet a document that could never serve as proof he was born in the United States – a so-called ‘certification of live birth,’ a digital document that could, can and has been obtained by people who were actually born outside the country. The American people can never be certain their president is legitimate constitutionally without proof,” he continued.

Continue reading at WND

obama: born out of wedlock?

www.BlueMassGroup.com
BMG Exclusive: Scott Brown thought maybe Obama was born out of wedlock
by: David
Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 13:11:20 PM EST

(Bumped. This is getting some attention. TPM, New Republic, Washington Monthly, Washington Independent, Digby, Americablog, MyDD, heck even the Herald, all have posted the video and/or linked here. UPDATE (Sunday morning): YouTube just informed me by email that "Your video 'Scott Brown wonders if Obama was born out of wedlock' has become popular on YouTube." - promoted by David)

Born out of wedlock? Really??

Well, yes. During (or maybe shortly after) the 2008 Republican convention, Brown was on a panel discussion (aired on the now-defunct CN8 cable news channel) about Sarah Palin. He defended her pretty strongly, as you'd expect. But then, in the course of discussing Bristol Palin, Scott comes up with this:

Wow. Just to reiterate, in case you can't see the video: in response to the statement that Obama's mother was married when she gave birth, Scott says, "well, I don't know about that." Then he chuckles. "Uh huh huh."

Here's hoping that someone who might actually get an answer out of him (I would not include BMG in that category, so I don't think we'll bother) will ask Scott what was in his mind when he wondered aloud whether President Obama might have been born out of wedlock. UPDATE: TPM: "When contacted by TPM, Brown spokesperson Felix Browne provided this response: 'This is a non-issue. Scott's comments are being distorted by supporters of Martha Coakley who are trying to tear him down.'" No Felix, Scott's comments are being reported, not distorted. There's a difference.

I mean, maybe Brown really didn't know, and was just expressing the fact that he was unsure whether Obama's mother was married. But why would that possibility even be in his head? I took a little tour of the wingnuttosphere to find out who'd been saying what on that topic. Join me on the flip.
David :: BMG Exclusive: Scott Brown thought maybe Obama was born out of wedlock
Turns out that a number of fringey folks, including one Andy Martin and prominent wingnut Jerome Corsi (of "Unfit for Command" fame) have been assiduously peddling the theory that Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. never actually got married. Said Martin, in July of 2008 (not long before Brown taped the interview posted above):

Barack Obama, Senior, and Anne Dunham never married. Obama knows this fact. This is also why he keeps his white grandmother a virtual prisoner; she knows too, and she won't lie.

Through the past several decades Obama has pretended he 'didn't know' the facts about his illegitimate birth. He thought he could get away with the big lie. And he almost did get away with it....

His mother was promiscuous and had a child out of wedlock, in 1961, when that was still scandalous behavior. Is this Obama's idea of 'family values?' Obviously, he has been deceiving the American people and hoping his advertising lies could overcome the truth. He has failed.

Corsi, for his part, has been keeping the faith even post-election. This post at World Net Daily, "Was Obama's birth out of wedlock?", is from September of 2009:

Was President Obama born out of wedlock in 1961? ... As WND has previously reported, the only documentation for Ann Dunham's marriage to Barack Obama, Sr., comes from their divorce documents that list the marriage date as Feb. 2, 1961.... No wedding certificate or photograph of a ceremony for Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. has ever been found or published.

Etc. etc. Oh, and one more thing about World Net Daily: there, the Brown campaign actually is running advertising. It's got the "Paid for by the Scott Brown for U.S. Senate Committee" logo on it, and it's not a Google ad (though those are present on the page as well). If you want WND's full birther rundown, with Scott's ad running alongside it, here ya go (screenshot here). I was wrong about the other one; I'm not wrong about this.

In addition, there were some very complicated (and, needless to say, quite peculiar) theories floating around back in 2008 to the effect that, even if Obama's parents did get married, the marriage might have been invalid. Here's one of them, from August 11, 2008, just a couple of weeks before Brown taped the above interview:

When he was 18, Barack Obama Sr. married a woman named Kezia and had four children with her. Two of them later returned to Kenya from the United States. He never divorced her. In the US, polygamy is illegal. If you are already married, regardless of where you got married, all subsequent marriages are invalid. This is the case with the marriage of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. in February 1961. Barak Obama Jr. was born out of wedlock.

One amusing irony of this particular "out of wedlock" theory is that its creator is actually using it to argue that Obama is eligible to serve as president. In a nutshell, the incredibly convoluted theory is that even if Obama was born in Kenya or somewhere else, the fact that his mother was not legally married when she gave birth to him means that, under U.S. law in effect at the time, Obama nonetheless acquired U.S. citizenship at birth by virtue of his mother's American citizenship. Whereas, if she had been legally married to Obama Sr. but gave birth out of the country, Obama Jr. wouldn't have been a "natural born citizen" because a different law would have applied. Whew.

Did Brown know about any of this stuff? Did he take it seriously? Is that why, when someone else says that Obama's mother was married when she gave birth to him, Brown says "I don't know about that"? And if not, then what?

Four Supreme Court Cases Define “Natural Born Citizen”
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

The Obama File

The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says,” “she says,” fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At 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.

I’d like to add to these, Perkins v. Elg, the importance of which is that it actually gives examples of what a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is; what a “citizen” of the U.S. is; and what a “native born citizen” of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.”

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully.

This chart clearly demonstrates the requirements for each class of American citizenship.

Constitutional
Term


Parents


Conjunction
(And, Or)


Location
of Birth


Conjunction
(And, Or)


Other


Legal Reference

Natural Born Citizen


Both are U. S. Citizens


AND


Born in the U.S. mainland






US Constitution
Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Perkins v. Elg,
307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Citizen


Born to at least 1 US Citizen Parent (under federal statute)


OR


Born in the U.S. mainland


OR


Naturalized


US Constitution
14th Amendment,
Sec. 1

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Perkins v. Elg,
307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Native Born Citizen






Born in the U.S. mainland






US Constitution
14th Amendment,
Sec. 1

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Perkins v. Elg,
307 U.S. 325 (1939)

America’s two unconstitutional Presidents

December 14, 6:53 AMPortland Civil Rights ExaminerDianna Cotter

Previous

121 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Portland Civil Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

(Updated in parenthesis. - Dianna Cotter 12-15-2009)

Students of history know that history repeats itself, and today we are reliving the past of 1880’s. Some of the similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.

President Chester A. Arthur was the son of an Irish immigrant, William Arthur, and Vermonter, Malvina Stone. Arthur would tragically assume the Presidency upon the assassination of President Garfield in 1881 and become the 21st President. President Arthur was successful in keeping the secret of his heritage, and he died shortly after leaving the White House November 18, 1886. He served honorably and well as President of the United States, but was not Constitutionally Qualified for the Office of either Vice President or President, and set a precedent by which it would happen again.

During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthur’s father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future President’s birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his son’s birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?

William Arthur Naturalization

Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, "Chester Alan Arthur Papers”. Microfiche Copy courtesy of Leo Donofrio Esq.

This document and its relevance have only recently been discovered. The President himself would not help matters any, he burned nearly all of his records and papers before he died in Nov. 1886, a year and a half after leaving office.

A lawyer and scholar by the name of George D. Collins Esq. wrote an article regarding citizenship during Arthur’s term, that had the President seen it, would have concerned him. “Are Persons born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens thereof?” was published in the American Law Review in Sept. /Oct. 1884. Collins thesis reverberates through history: “… are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of such birth were aliens, citizens there of?” Collins relies on two sources in particular for his answer.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” -14th Amendment

He also draws upon “The Law of Nations” by Emerich Vattel written in 1758, on which the U.S. Constitution was largely based. Collins states in his article, the term “jurisdiction thereof” means “not subject to any foreign power”, citing Section 1992 in Section 1 of the new 14th Amendment. He quotes Vattel:

The native or natural citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as a matter of course that each citizen on entering into society reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. -Vattel

Collins concludes:

Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – Collins

Had Collins known that President Arthur’s father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Arthur’s birth, he would have correctly concluded that the President was not a natural born citizen and not eligible for the office. It was considered a matter of National security; the Commander in Chief should not be subject to any foreign power, and for that reason the “natural born” distinction is made.

Today, a direct and startlingly similar situation exists between President Arthur and President Obama. The 44th President was also born to a British citizen, not a naturalized citizen of the United States. For the same reasons both Presidents were not eligible for the office, the only difference lay in Barack Obama’s public admission of his father’s status:

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

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982. -Fight the Smears

(Correction: The President's website has not been updated to include the information that his Kenyan Citizenship did not actually expire until 1984. The site misconstrued the Kenyan law, and FactCheck.org was forced to give credit for the correction to Leo Donofrio Esq. This has direct implications with regard to the British Nationality Act of 1981 which went into effect in 1983. Because his Kenyan Citizenship was still in effect in 1983, Obama may still be a Kenyan Citizen. Neither the President nor any of his surrogates have addressed this issue.)

This quote illustrates four things very clearly. First, the President is the son of a British Kenyan. Second, his citizenship in Kenya expired in 1982, meaning that another country had a claim on the President from birth to 23 and he could choose to keep it as an adult. The third is unstated; the President’s British citizenship can still be formalized. The fourth issue it states very clearly. At birth, Barack Obama was subject to the power of a foreign nation, “The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr. ‘s children.” and therefore was not at any time a natural born citizen due to his triple nationality status, and he knows it.

The President has spent a million dollars fighting various court cases across the country, not so much to keep his past hidden, but to keep people focused on what they think he is hiding. What is relevant is what he has admitted out in the open. The President at birth was an American citizen, a British citizen and a Kenyan citizen. At no time in his life has he ever been a natural born citizen of the United States. Barack Obama was a subject of two separate foreign powers in the instant of his birth.

Barack Obama has hidden the truth right in the open, it has never been an issue of where he was born, it was who he is the son of. A British, Kenyan National. In the instant when Citizenship is decided, birth, he was British, Kenyan, and American. By definition, a person cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America while at the instant of their birth also being the citizen of any other Nation. A citizen? Yes, but not one that is solely native, solely natural, to the United States, and the United States alone.

The "President" has fought attempts to reveal his birth and other records. He has done so for the singular reason to keep people focused on what he is hiding, rather than the relevance of what he has admitted in the open. This is the relevance of Barack Obama's Heritage.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President

<>

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?

A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born on US soil by TWO US Citizen Parents. By being born on the soil of the United States AND by two US Citizen parents, you are born owing SOLE loyalty to the United States ONLY!

NO other country could ever claim any citizenship over you.

If you are merely born on US soil and one or both parents are is a foreign citizen then you are born a DUAL CITIZEN of both, the US and a citizen of the country one or both of your parents are a citizen of. It is impossible to be both, a DUAL Citizen AND a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. You are one or the other.

At BEST, Obama can only be a 14th amendment citizen which made him a citizen by legal statue. A Natural Born Citizen is NOT a citizen that is made a citizen under any Federal or State statue. You are AUTOMATICALLY a citizen by natures common law.

ASSUMING, Obama was in fact born in HI (WHICH NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN) but ASSUMING he was, that only makes him a US Citizen under Federal statue through the 14th amendment because Obama’s father was not nor ever a US Citizen. Obama’s father never even had a permenant residence in the US. He was only here on a student visa to go the college here.

Obama’s father was a British Subject. That made Obama a DUAL Citizen at birth subject to the laws of both, the US AND Britain. To this day, Britain could claim Obama as their citizen. If Obama was to travel to Britain they COULD take him and hold him their as their own citizen and there would be nothing the US could do about it!

Now do you really think the founding fathers would have ever wanted to run that risk of having a President that owes allegiance to another country? Of course not.

The founding father were all DUAL citizens. In order for them to be able to become President AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS ESTABLISHED, they had to put a grandfather clause into the constitution to allow them to become President. BUT, from that day forward, anyone born from that day and after, anyone running for President had to be a Natural Born Citizen. Anyone that was born before the date the constitution was established was grandfathered in where they only had to be a US Citizen.

So unless Obama was born prior to the date of the constitution being established, he is not elegible because he is not a Natural Born Citizen and only a DUAL Citizen of the US AND Britian.

Some want to argue BS that because the constitution does not state two US Citizens then that is not true. It IS true! The question is, WHAT is a Natural Born Citizen? The constitution does not define the definition, but all the writings of our founders clearly show that a Natural Born Citizen is a person born on US Soil AND born of TWO US Citizen parents!

It is also a fact that the founders heavily relied on the Law of Nations when they wrote the constitution.

The founders specifically cite Law of Nations in the constitution which is proof in itself that they did in fact rely on the Law of Nations.

Article I - The Legislative Branch

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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

It’s right there plain as day! Now this reference to Law of Nations here does not define Natural Born Citizen. But what it does prove is the founders did in fact rely on Law of Nations when writing the constitution.

So what does Law of Nations say about Natural Born Citizen?

Law of Nations

CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.

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

There it is! Plain as day!

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Of parentS, which is plural, meaning TWO. BOTH parents must be citizens of the country!

It also states:

those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

So Obama’s citizenship and all rights follow his FATHERS which his father was a foreignor and a British Subject! Obama owes more loyalty and allegiance to Britain than he does to the US no matter where he was born and no matter where he was raised! He is more British than US under the Law of Nations!

So the question is, HOW can a person born with DUAL citizenship, AND, owing allegiance to a FOREIGN Country possibly be a Natural Born Citizen???? IMPOSSIBLE!

Some try to argue his British citizenship expired on his 21st birthday. Well that is not true, but even if it was true, that does not change what the status of his birth was. You are BORN a Natural Born Citizen at BIRTH or you are not! Obama was not! NOTHING that happens later in life that may change ones status of citizenship can never change what the status of your birth was!

The constitution does not say you must be a Natural Born Citizen unless your citizenship status changes somehow later in life! You are either BORN that way or you are not!

Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen no matter where he was born and nothing can ever change that fact! Therefore he is NOT constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States!

PERIOD! END OF STORY!

Obama is an Unconstitutional Illegal Putative President - 14 Dec 2009 Issue of the Washington Times National Weekly Edition - page 15

from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers published

New Ad - Obama is an Unconstitutional Illegal Putative President - 14 Dec 2009 Issue of the Washington Times National Weekly Edition - page 15

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24087943/Obama-an-Unconstitutional-Illegal-President-20091214-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-15

Obama is a usurper. Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. See this 14 Dec 2009 issue of the Washington Times National Weekly edition - pg 15. To be a “natural born Citizen” as is required in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the person must be born in the country to parents who both are Citizens of the country when the child was born. Obama’s father was a British Subject when Obama was born in 1961. Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen nor was he even an immigrant to the USA.

We are a nation of immigrants but Obama Sr. was not one. And under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and international law, Obama (Jr.) was also born a British Subject and thus is a dual-citizen Citizen to this day, if he was born in Hawaii as he claims. To date, he has not conclusively proved exactly where he was born to any investigative controlling legal authority. Photoshop’d digital images and pictures of computerized summary data put on the internet proffered by Obama proves nothing. Computerized records say his birth was “registered” in the Hawaii birth system. That computer data registration record could have been based on false birth location registration testimony by a family member using a simple mail-in form available in 1961. GIGO - false location of birth registration in yields false data out today on a computer print out. The original “ribbon copy” long-form birth records with the names and signatures of medical attendants and of witnesses, if any, to the alleged birth in Hawaii must be examined by experts as well as all his other hidden and sealed records of his early life. If he was born in Kenya as his relatives and news account there claim, then Obama could even be an illegal alien since his mother was not old enough under U.S. laws at that time to convey U.S. citizenship to her child born of a foreign father if the child is born in a foreign country. Obama had dual allegiance at birth if he was born in Hawaii - British via his father and U.S. via his mother. How can a person born a British Subject and a dual-citizen ever be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the USA with sole allegiance to the USA per the intent of our nation’s founders and framers, to Constitutional standards, for the office of the Presidency? He cannot. See the 3 enablers who have allowed this trampling of our Constitution and who will allow our Liberty to be destroyed if we do not put an end to this usurpation by Obama. Let others know about this. Pass this on to friends and family. Send it to your Congress person. Write letters to the editors of your newspapers. And if you personally know any federal Judge anywhere, use your 1st amendment freedom of speech while you still have it. Tell them what a disgrace the federal judicial system has become in this matter too. Show them the current new ad above and this quote by Chief Justice John Marshall ad too and other ads in our series. Synergy at work! If we all do a little, together we will accomplish a lot! The truth and our Constitution will win in the end if we all do our part. If not, the future of our nation is in great danger.

For more information as to why Obama is an illegal putative president, see:

~Natural born citizenship requires both your parents to be Citizens when you are born:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

~The 3 Enablers of Obama’s Usurpation of Office:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/11/obamas-lack-of-eligibility-three.html

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Please help the cause to fund more ads to educate the People about Obama’s usurpation of his office: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Citizenship Status?

from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers published

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. 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 conscious 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 (2002) and Drozd v. INS, 155F.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 identify 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